It appears that for B.Prokop, the proverbial straw prompting him to try to de-leftify himself has been the epiphany that even though Catholicism, Inc. has faithfully acted the good little bitch to Progressivism (i.e. American Leftism) for well over a century, in their present seeming cultural triumph, this batch of leftists have as little use for, or respect of, The One True Bureaucracy, or of Roman Catholic persons who happen to be Christians (in contrast to the Kennedys and Pelosis and Bidens and such-what), as any other batch of leftists has ever had.
First, let's examine an example of intellectual dishonesty involving someone who is not B.Prokop, so that one may more easily recognize for what it is the example that does involve him --
Over at Victor Reppert's blog, in the Marriage legal and moral thread, B.Prokop had posted this:
"making a judgement of the moral character of the wedding participants ... is the issue that I have been saying matters most"In response, concerning lesbians' subsequent progressive-mob attack on the the Christian jeweler, I wrote:
I think this is what frightens me the most about this whole debate. People like Doug seem perfectly ready (and even eager) to employ the full weight of state power to compel others to not only act in certain ways, but also to think in proscribed fashions. The above quote is crystal clear. The pro same sex marriage side wishes to make disagreeing with them a thought crime, punishable by the loss of one's job, business, livelihood, whatever it takes.
And you think this is improbable? That "it can't happen here"? Well. Over on Ilion's website, he links to a news story about a Canadian jeweler who cheerfully and professionally did everything his lesbian customers wanted. Yet they still threatened action against his business solely because he did not approve of what his customers were doing. So Doug is right. This has nothing to do with cakes, etc. Read the quote at the top of this posting again. It's all about thought crime.
I suspect that the sexual pervert fascists did this on purpose: that they intentionally ordered custom-made "engagement" rings from this jeweler, intending all along to raise the progressive mob against him to demand a refund ... after he had gone to the expense of buying the materials and doing the labor to make the rings.And, as sure as night follows day, some lying leftist "social justice warrior" needed to pipe up
What's next - jet fuel can't melt steel beams? There was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?Which is rather amusing, when you think about it: the fool's examples of "crazy conspiracy theories" to which he wants to liken what I said are the sort that leftists love to love, and to spread.
Now, anyone who has *read* just a couple of the public news items about the particular case -- to say nothing of all the other cases in which sexual perversion fascists and other "social justice warrior" fascists conspire to ruin the livelihoods, and lives, of persons who will not agree to pretend that two dudes butt-fucking equals a marriage -- understands that there is no "crazy conspiracy theory" involved in what I wrote. And, moreover, those who have read a couple of public news items about the Canadian sexual perverts attempting to ruin the livelihhod of the Christian jeweler understand that my use of "I suspect" was just me using understatement, as I do from time to time.
So, if Gentle Reader has grasped the essential dishonesty of the fool, 'John Doe', trying to liken what I'd written to some "crazy conspiracy theory", let us move on to B.Prokop attempting a similar move (in his case, in two parts).
Victor Reppert has another recent post, called An ethicist's nightmare
There are ethical problems with some research. Let's take, for example, selective breeding of human beings. The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race. But, if we started breeding superior human beings, then there would be a superior race in reality. Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare.I made two comments to Mr Reppert's OP --
But a certain famous scientist keeps playing around with the idea.
comment #1 " The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race."Admittedly, my comment could have been clearer had I quoted Reppert's next sentence. In the sentence I quoted, he says that there is presently no such thing as a "superior race". In the next (and unquoted) sentence, he says that in the future, there could be such a thing as a "superior race", were eugenicists (and 'Science!' worshipers in general) to have their way. My response is to point out that, no, there is no difference at all between now and this imagined future with respect to the existence of a "superior race".
Oh, silly! There are any number of "superior race(s)" ... it all depends upon the metrics one is using to define or delineate "superior".
comment #2 "Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare."Ah-ha! B.Prokop -- who is still a leftist at heart, and who is really fighting to hold onto his leftism -- apparently imagined he had found -- or could manufacture -- a "Gotcha" moment
It would [NOT] be "an ethicist's nightmare" nightmare because "ethics" is about coming up with rationales to "explain" how it is that immoral behavior is really moral, after all.
Races don't have moral duties to races. Individuals have moral duties to individuals, and those don't change just because one's race is superior according to this metric, rather than that.
What are your metrics, Ilion, that would indicate the existence of a "superior" race in the Real World today? I don't know of any.Now, even if Gentle Reader doesn't yet fully understand that I do not play that game, B.Prokop surely knows it by now.
Superior cultures, yes. But races? Can't see it.
I replied --
Do you (singular and plural) practice at this? Is there some special class one takes to learn to un-read what another has written so clearly?See? In two different ways, I had told B.Prokop that he was barking up the wrong tree (and that I wasn't going to play that game).
Do you remember the last time you beat your wife, B.Prokop?
And, so, of course, being a not yet recovered leftist, B.Prokop had to play another popular leftist game: "I'm a Special Snowflake and It's All Always All About Me!" --
It would have been sometime before she died, literally in my arms, with our daughters weeping at the foot of her bed, from pancreatic cancer some 6 years ago. Care to apologize for that remark, Ilion?That ain't never gonns happen, and he knows it; for I apologize only if I have done something wrong. And someone else's decision to invent an insult where there is none is not *me* doing something wrong.
Shoot! Someone else even tried, round-about, to explain it to him --
Your wife may have been a poor topic for Ilíon's question, but I think the point he was trying to make was that your question about what metrics he would use to determine which race is superior is leading, and it misses his point. I wouldn't take it personally.And, of course, everyone knows that the question, "When did you quit beating your wife?", or variations on it, has nothing to do with making "your wife" the "topic for [the] question".
But, of course, B.Prokop is still a fool (and is resisting freeing himself of his long-cherished foolishness), and so he *cannot* admit his error, or even just let it drop quickly down the memory-hole --
I did [take it personally], and he needs to apologize - abjectly, and now.Ain't never gonna happen ... and everyone knows it ain't.