Mugged by reality ... learned nothing

Ed Driscoll: Student Mugged, Says He Deserved It Because of His ‘Privilege’ -- "To mash-up George Santayana and Irving Kristol, a leftist is someone who refuses to learn from history, and is thus doomed to get mugged by it, but refuses to press charges afterwards."

Senior Oliver Friedfeld and his roommate were held at gunpoint and mugged recently. However, the GU student isn’t upset. In fact he says he “can hardly blame [his muggers].”

“Not once did I consider our attackers to be ‘bad people.’ I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay,” wrote Friedfeld in an editorial featured in The Hoya, the university’s newspaper. “The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.”

Friedfeld claims it is the pronounced inequality gap in Washington, D.C. that has fueled these types of crimes. He also says that as a middle-class man, he does not have the right to judge his muggers.

“Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’” asks Friedfeld. “It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”

Actually, it's holier-than-Thou (*) damned fools like this who "fuel the problem" ... and have been deliberately doing so for a good 60 or 70 years.

Another thing about these rich white "liberals" and their mind-set to which I think normal people don't give enough consideration is that what they are saying is that if *they* weren't rich and/or "privileged", they'd consider themselves justified in mugging others (**).

(*) not only do they imagine themselves holier that you and me, but also than God

(**) that is, in person in contrast to their perferred method of mugging others through State violence

Self-opacity

Today's chuckle comes from Kathy Shaidle: "Here’s the thing: I have ... an almost psychopathological indifference to criticism."

Please excuse my eyes rolling across the floor.

Someone has to

Someone has to ... do the jobs Americans won't do

Never saw that coming

Wintery Knight: Human Rights Campaign co-founder Terry Bean arrested for sex crime with 15-year-old

Look, America: "sex education" is about grooming your children to make them more susceptible to sex-predators. And the 'Human Rights Campaign' is about grooming you to make you more susceptible to the mainstreaming of NAMBLA.

'Even-handedness' vs 'moral equivalency' Is there a difference?

Answer: almost never.

Whether we're talking about alleged-President Obama reacting to the murder of Israelis by Arab terrorists by "counseling" both terrorists and Israelis to "be calm" (*), or whether we're talking about the police arresting and charging with disorderly conduct both the man who is attacked and the violent woman who attacked him (**), or whether we're talking about the school administrators who do nothing for weeks or months as you are daily physically bullied, but immediately implement their inane "zero-tolerance policy" the minute you defend yourself, it's all the same: the "authorities" almost never care about justice; they care about keeping things quiet, and if the cost of keeping things quiet happens to be your limb ... or your life ... they'll generally gladly pay it.



(*) as 'Wintery Knight' observes, this is like telling both the rapist and the victim of the rapist to refrain from raping one another in future.

(**) Fortunately for him, he is 'hispanic', and so the charges were eventually dropped

Trees ... and Flowers ... and 'Evolution'

'News' at Uncommon Descent recently made a post drawing attention to an evolutionist's statement that "... we don’t know much about how speciation happens in trees."

This prompted me to drop a note to Denyse O'Leary (who is frequently, though not always, 'News') mentioning a Darwinist conundrum about trees and flowers -- well, it would be a conundrum to DarwinDefenders were they not so highly skilled in ignoring everything that needs to be ignored so as to protect their metaphysical speculations disguised as 'Science!' from rational critical evaluation.

The initial note I sent Mrs O'Leary was:

Except for their mode of reproduction, flowering trees and non-flowering trees are more like than flowering trees are to flowering non-trees. However, by their mode of reproduction, oak trees are more like tulips than like pine trees.


It's a great mystery ... if your religion is evolutionism.

A follow-up note to explain in more detail was:

You may recall Darwin's "abominal mystery".

So far as I know, he, nor his followers, never even thought about it in these terms, though they should be doing so: but flowering plants are "abominable" from the DarwinDefender point of view not just in their origin, but also in the fact that flowering plants are so diverse in all ways but the flowers themselves. A tulip blossom and an apple blossom (*) are both "perfect flowers" (**) (see here, as mentioned at the bottom of that page, so is an oat blossom) and also "complete flowers" -- the flowers have the same structures, which, according to evolutionists, are always descended/modified from the same parts (***). But other than the flowers, apple trees and tulip plants have few, if any, similarities in their gross characteristics.

Think about it: for Darwinistic evolutionism to be consistent, the apple and the tulip *must* be more closely related by descent than the apple is to the pine, despite that both being trees, apples and pines grow/develop and maintain their health and lives in very similar ways. The "permanent" part of an apple or pine is the layer of actively growing cells just below the bark (including the roots). But the "permanent" part of a tulip is the little disk at the bottom of the bulb, from which disk (re)grows the roots (it's a yearly affair) and leaves and flower stems. This point is even more ovbious with daffodils and onions. A pine or an apple overwinters by storing food in its roots, which persist, and continuously grow similarly to the branches, year ro year. A tulip sheds its roots as part of its overwintering strategy and instead stores food in the bulb, which has no counterpart in the apple.


(*) I changed my tree example from oak to apple. I had initially picked oak because ‘mighty oaks’ are such exemplar trees in our language; but oak flowers are not “perfect” and are so inconspicuous that most people don’t realize they have flowers.

Perhaps, for the irony of it, I should have picked tulip trees to contrast with tulips.


(**) Apparently, botanists have changed the definition of "perfect flower", for I used to see the term used for what it seems is now called a "complete flower".

Also, it *used* to be that a "perfect flower" (now a "complete flower") had FIVE parts, not four. Goodness, I wish they'd make up their minds!

(***) Flower petals, for instance, are claimed to be modified leaves.

In which I learn that I am a 'mereological nihilist'

Doug Benscoter: Atomism and Its Irrelevance to Classical Theism -- "Peter van Inwagen, for instance, holds to mereological nihilism: that no composite material thing really exists. He does, nevertheless, make an exception for living things."

While I hadn't yet thought of it in terms of "composite material thing[s]", and of course (being just a normal non-academic person ... like you), I had never encountered the term 'mereological nihilism', I had years ago reached the conclusion that almost none of the (supposed) entities we speak of do actually exist, but that living entities do exist. That is, the sun and moon and stars, and the earth, do not really exist. But you really do exist, and the individual cells comprising your body really do exist.

I had come to these conclusions in considering the 'Perseus' Ship Paradox', which is the paradox of identity. I had concluded that only things inherently possessing identity really exist. And the only material entities possessing inherent identity of which I am aware are living things. Perhaps sub-atomic particles also possess some sort of inherent identity, though I can't see it including "selfness", which seems to me the key thing in identity.

Warm!

Last weekend, I discovered that the furnace wasn't working (again). It hadn't got really cold yet, so running a burner on the kitchen stove (coupled with flannel jammies) was enough to keep me comfortable.

On Saturday, I was able to get someone to come out to look at it. Anyway, while I had been hoping to get one more winter out of the old furnace, I decided to have him install a new one. Among other things, I'd noticed before he arrived that even though I had turned off the power to the unit the night before, gas was still flowing to the pilot; it was an electronic pilot, and the gas should have shut down with the power turned off.

It was pretty chilly when I got home last night (Friday). I turned on *two* burners on the stove, full blast, and carted an electric space heater into the bedroom, and piled comforters on the bed. It was still a chilly night.

But, WARMTH! The guy and his son installed a new, high-effiency furnace today, and an electric water heater (it was past time for the old gas water heater to be replaced) ... and I'm warm!

It's not Thanksgiving Day yet, but in case it wasn't obvious, I'm thankful for warmth ... and for capitalism (*) ... and that I had the money in the bank to pay for this work.

(*) I am thankful that other people have the freedom in America to "selfishly" pursue their own "selfish" interests ... and thereby make my life better, easier, more comfortable. Can you inagine what it would be like if I'd had to wait for some "selfless" government bureaucrat to do this work for me? For one thing, I'd still be waiting for the initial visit to check out the problem.

'to gruber'

Douglas Wilson:"To gruber someone is to dismiss the stupid peons out there with a supercilious arrogance, and with the critic blissfully unaware of the tiny bubble of self-congratulatory hubris he lives in."

Not fit for the Kids' Table

Victor Reppert: "It must be noted that there is no way, on the model I have presented, to show that everyone who denies the Resurrection is irrational, or engaged in bad faith."

How about showing that *almost* everyone -- and certainly the most vocal -- who denies the Resurrection is engaged in bad-faith hypocrisy?

[The point here is that most "skeptics" have no problem at all with Carl Sagan's scientistic assertions about things just happening for no reason nor cause nor meaning -- events that have never been observed to have happened and that would be considered by nearly everyone except "skeptics" to be miracles, or probable miracles, were they ever to be observed to actually have happened.]


There is another point it seems to me that you constantly overlook -- which is that even were Christianity false, that is, even if Christ did not rise from the dead [and his rising did not mean what Christianity says it means], that doesn't touch on the even more basic question: "Is God?"

The question of Christ's Resurrection is pointless unless there is a Creator-God who intentionally restored life and soul to that dead body as a promise to do likewise with those who love him. After all, one could acknowledge that Jesus really was dead and really did come back to life ... and then "explain" it as one of those (asserted by scientism) pointless [meaningless], astronomically improbable events that just happen from time to time all by themselves for no reason and with no cause [and no attendant meaning], as discussed in the above link.

[To reiterate a point I've made many times -- it's not the (alleged) fact that Jesus really was dead and really did come back to life that gets the so-called skeptics' panties in a bunch, it's the (alleged) meaning of his coming back to life that they hate; for that meaning points to the reality of the Creator, and of moral duties ... and of moral judgment. If Jesus' coming back to life were just a strange historical footnote, to which no one ascribed any particular significance, then the "skeptics" wouldn't be at all skeptical that it really did occur.]

Now, as it happens, we human beings have many lines of argument and evidence that show:
1) belief in the Creator is rational;
2) disbelief in the Creator is irrational.

ERGO, anyone who denies the reality of the Creator is [willfully] irrational.

WHY do you continue to waste your time -- and encourage others to waste their time (to say nothing of sanity) -- in the logically impossible quest of rationally convincing irrational people to acknowledge that you are rational? Arguing Christ with Jews, or even with Hindus, may be a rational undertaking; arguing anything "religious" with God-deniers is the epitome of irrational behavior.

UNTIL a person acknowledges that there is a Creator, he has nothing to say: he "has no place at the table", as the saying goes. It's not that he "belongs at the Kids' Table" [as some God-haters like to say of Christians ... and even of persons who are not necessarily Christians], for even children are rational beings ... it's that, in willfully choosing irrationality, the God-denier belongs on the floor, fighting with the dogs for whatever scraps fall from the Kids' Table.

Two Moons for Shambilar

Further to Malcolm the Cynic's post about his stories and ideas for stories, and mashing it up with something Douglas Wilson recently posted:

“Hack writers do not sub-create a world; they simply rearrange furniture in a glibly assumed (and largely unexamined) prefab world. If necessary, they make it an ‘other world’ fantasy by having two moons in the sky or by naming their protagonist something like Shambilar. But this is just moving things around on the surface. There is no deep structure to it — the author is not exercising enough authority. He is being too timid. There is not enough deep structure because there is not enough deep imitation” (From The Romantic Rationalist, pp. 76-77).

I would like to offer an idea -- an annual content for otherworldly hack stories; the only stipulations being that 1) the protagonist must be named 'Shambilar', and 2) there must be two moons involved in some manner with the story's world.

Now, if only someone would volunteer to annually fund a prize for the competition.

I'm not Wolfgang Pauli

I'm not Wolfgang Pauli, yet I understood this point about Darwinism/evolutionism when I was still a teen --

'News' at Uncommon Descent From Wolfgang Pauli, on Darwinism

“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” (pp. 27-28)

'News' adds, "For the Darwinist (or Christian Darwinist) natural selection is, quite simply, magic. It is not and never could be anything else."

As Pauli put it, "the concept of ‘natural selection’ [is] more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’ " -- Exactly: what 'Science!' fetishists hate about miracles (or alleged miracles) is not they the supposedly "violate the laws of nature" -- they're quite willing to assert that there are no "laws of nature" in the first place -- but rather that, definitionally, a real miracle is intentionally caused and for a purpose. A (real) miracle is not a random and inherently meaningless event -- that is what they hate about suspected miracles, for their whole worldview requires that *everything* be utterly meaningless.

A note about 'an eye for an eye'

In Matthew 5:38ff, it is recorded that Christ says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also ..."

Many today incorrectly believe -- even as Marcion incorrectly taught 1900 years ago -- that this indicates some some sort of tension, in fact a conflict and contradiction, between "the God of the OT" and "the God of the NT". And from that error, unless they correct it, they eventually falsely conclude, as Marcion did, that "the God of the OT" and "the God of the NT" are not the same person and from there that "the God of the OT" is actually demonic -- despite that the NT many times explicity makes clear that Christ Jesus *is* Jehovah/Elohim.

Now, notice what Jesus said about this; notice *how* he said it: "You have heard that it was said ..."

But, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is not just *said*, it is *written* in the Law of Moses. So, what's going on, what does this mean?

Douglas Wilson explains: Scissors and Library Paste

First, look at how Boyd sets two portions of Scripture at odds with one another, and consider how unnecessary that capitulation is. In ancient times, private vengeance was mediated through the system of the blood avenger. The Mosaic code placed restrictions on this system by establishing cities of refuge. The old system was further restricted by the “eye for eye” code, by the lex talionis. When vengeance was in private hands, it frequently became a life for an eye, a life for a tooth. So the magistrate was required to execute strict justice in judgment himself, and this would remove a great deal of the emotional motivations for private vengeance. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11).

Got that? Eye for eye was required of the magistrate. In the Lord’s day, that phrase was being used to justify private vengenace - in much the same way that someone today might use it. “He hit me so I hit him, Eye for eye.” The Lord was plainly correcting an abusive interpretation of Moses. He was not correcting Moses himself.

As Wilson quippingly quotes (I suspect he's quoting CS Lewis), "He who says A may not have said B, but give him time." The point being, as Wilson titled that little post, "The logic will out". That is, human beings, even when they are willfully choosing to be irrational and illogical, are still rational beings, and ultimately will always arrive at and embrace the logical working-out of the premises they have chosen.

My point here is that those who refuse to be corrected on the matter of this (false) contradiction between "the God of the OT" and "the God of the NT", and likewise those who refuse to understand that Matthew 5:38ff is not about telling the magistrate to "forgive" the offender, must *always* end up perverting both Justice and Mercy.

The "Mercitarians", as we may call them, falsely imagine that there can be be Mercy without Justice -- much as the worshippers of self-esteem falsely image that "everyone is a winner" -- and so they have set themselves up as the dispensers of mercy-without-justice, preventing justice ever being done ... so long as the initial injustice was not against their own interests, of course. These days, they have so committed to the logic of their false premises, they are so far into this inversion of justice and mercy, that they freak out when someone has the temerity to mention that the wrong-doer is, in fact, a wrong-doer.

But here's the thing: only he against whom the injustice was done has the power to forgive the wrong-doer: only the *wronged* can give mercy to the *wrong-doer*, and mercy can but follow justice. That is, mercy cannot be extended unless there is first judgment and condemnation.

To put it another way: *I* do not have the moral standing to forgive John for mugging you. But, this is what "liberals" arrogate to themselves the power and right to do; and in doing so, prevent and pervert justice, to the ultimate undoing of civil society.

The Old Testament's commandment of lex talionis was given in a social environment in which there was no magistrate passing judgment and imposing condemnation, in which the only justice a wronged person could hope to get was that which he and his clan managed to impose upon the wrong-doer ... and his clan. Such an arrangement quickly leads to endless vendetta and blood-fued, in which the "penalty" for knocking out someone's tooth is to take his life ... or the life of his brother.

The Old Testament's commandment of lex talionis was given to *stop* this run-away perversion of Justice.

The "Mercitarians" are simply perverting Justice in the other direction -- and the end-result is, and must be, a social environment in which there is no magistrate passing judgment and imposing condemnation.

In setting their perverted "mercy" above real justice, preventing the victims of injustice getting justice -- and using the magistrate's sword to impose this perversion upon society -- the "Mercitarians" are merely working to undo the moral progress that the lex talionis is.

Unless our society rejects the false gospel of the "Mercitarians", and returns to passing just judgment and imposing just condemnation, we will, and *must*, become a dysfunctional society in which the horrible injustice of vendetta and blood-feud is the only means available for a wronged person to attempt to get justice.

Painting the town red

When I was growing up -- as a true-blue red-blooded American -- 'red' was the color of the left (*) (**), and 'blue' of the right. But, a few presidential elections ago, "the media" -- that is, leftists -- switched the color scheme.

OK, fine. So, let's paint the town red


(*) The leftists themselves chose red -- evocative of shed blood -- as their color. Mostly because they're always really into shedding blood.

(**) thus, we said, and meant, "better dead than red": better that the whole nation die, if it came to that, than submit to communism

The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

The Other McCain has a very good post analyzing the recent (and fundamentally dishonest) "street harassment" video (*) -- The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

Also, here is a previous post on the matter -- Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)

(*) you know, the one that was *supposed* to "prove" that I, being a white(ish) man, am a horrible, incorrigible "sexist" and that all the discontents of all women are *my* fault, but instead it sparked a big cannibalistic (and self-contradictory) feeding-frenzy amongst all The Right (which is to say, leftist) People out to "protect" their own favored protected class of "victims."

Here is a good comment by K T Cat -- -- "So there's a video of some chick walking past a bunch of minority dudes getting catcalls and wolf whistles. ... This has feminists in Full Freakout Mode, demanding, err, something. I'm not quite sure of what they want, probably because what they want is fundamentally contradictory with something else they want and so the whole thing is incoherent."


By the way, here's a video of a man experiencing "#StreetHarassment"

'The Burglar Across the Hall'

I've been meaning for some time to write a little post about "The Burglar Across the Hall" (a strange dream I had several weeks ago). Malcolm the Cynic has a post that prompted me to write a little post on *his* blog about it. So, rather than re-posting it here, I'll just link to the post there