Search This Blog

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Amusing Contrast

Scott Adams (2017/04/20): Big Red Flag for Cognitive Dissonance

Scott Adams (2017/04/19): You Don’t Have Free Will – but You Might Get It Someday

There *is* no such thing as 'cognitive dissonance' were it really true that "You Don’t Have [as people say (*)] Free Will". Moreover, if "You Don’t Have Free Will" now, then you never will "get" it in the future.

(*) To say that we "have" free will is to use sloppy language, however common it is. The truth is that we *are* free wills; our "free will" is not something we can gain or lose, as though it were a cold or a foot.

Continue reading ...

Sunday, April 16, 2017

A New Kind of New

Douglas Wilson: A New Kind of New

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

The Illusion Delusion

I'd like to share with Gentle Reader a comment/explanation from Kristor at The Orthosphere --
winstonscrooge - "Perhaps consciousness is the universal and the you of waking is an egoic illusion."

Kristor - "It’s an interesting notion. But all the phenomenal evidence we have – that, by definition, we can possibly have – contradicts it, so …"

winstonscrooge - "What specifically?"

Kristor - "All the evidence we have, without exception, is evidence we are aware of. By definition, we can’t have awareness of evidence that we are not aware of. So we can’t have evidence that the only sort of evidence we can have – the sort we are aware of – is illusory. All the evidence we can possibly have points to the suggestion that our conscious awareness is not illusory."
The "interesting notion" (as Kristor put it), popular amongst God-deniers, in particular, and those who wish to do what they know to be immoral, in general, that our consciousness of ourselves is an illusion is an incoherent notion; it is self-refuting.

IF it were true -- if it even could be true -- that our consciousness of ourselves is an illusion, THEN we could never know it to be true; and we could never truly know it to be even a logical possibility.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Stupid Leftist Tricks, I

I have posted two "Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks" posts. I had started to compose others but never completed them; considering how many hits the two I did complete and post still get, I probably ought to have posted more.

This is a similar post, but it's the inaugural "Stupid Leftist Tricks" post.

Recently, Victor Reppert posted this -- Islamophobia
This is a description of Islamophobia. As I see it, terms like this have a proper use, but people who like to use such terms this develop them into a blanket criticism (and even marginalization) of any critics of Islam or Muslims.
That's bad enough -- for it is utterly not true that "Islamophobia" or the other such terms that leftists like to toss at people who disagree with their plans for destroying the West and America "have a proper use" (*) -- but that's not yet the "Stupid Leftist Trick" this post is about.

'Legion of Logic' responded --
It's no different than any other label the progressive - sorry, regressive - left throws at people who disagree with them. Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, "transphobic"...all have definitions and criteria, but the vast majority of accusations of such are baseless and therefore the terms are all but useless.

And, right on queue, here comes the "Stupid Leftist Trick". You can always count on the functionally illiterate, proudly ignorant, leftist anti-Christian Joe Hinman to shill today's leftist party line --
Do you know Muslims? Do you believe any given Muslim is secretly supporting the terrorists?tell me this if it is fair to call the kind of Terrorists we are afraid of frm middle east"Islamic radicals then why is not fair to call KKK "Christian radicals" Or speak of "radical Christian terrorism"?

Do you know how many lynchings of blacks for being black there were in the U.S.? Most of those people doing the lynching called themselves Christians and went to church.

will you make exceptions by saying"but they have doctrinal problems and aren't really christian." That what Muslims say about the Terrorists,.
Notice first that this shrill shilling has nothing whatsoever to do with what 'Legion of Logic' said ... well, other than precisely to illustrate his point. For, how does the lying leftist fool start out? He starts out by labeling 'Legion of Logic' an "Islamophobe"!

And while it *is* a "Stupid Leftist' Trick", and a very popular one with leftists at that (**), to "prove" that a person who speaks a truth which you (being a leftist) want to keep under wraps is "wrong" by personally illustrating that he is right, this is not yet the "Stupid Leftist Trick" to which I wish to direct Gentle Reader's attention.

Consider what 'radical' means --
1) (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
2) advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
3) relating to the root of something, in particular.
4) very good; excellent.
Definition #3 is *actually* the basic/root -- the 'radical' -- meaning of the word.

So, Billy Graham and Mother Teresa are/were contemporary 'radical' Christians. Martin Luther and even John Knox, wrong though he was on some key issues, were 'radical' Christians.

And, in the very same way, "radical Islamic extremists/terrorists" are 'radical' Moslems. They *are* the "Islamic Reformation" that willfully ignorant people hope will magically arise and tame Islam so as to enable Moslems to live in peace with the rest of humanity.

However, the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, aside from being now defunct, were not Christian in any sense. You know, just like the bloody-minded leftist shill, Joe Hinman, is not.

(*) Hmmmm ... well, other than to identify people who *use* those terms as being "the enemy".

(**) Similarly popular with leftists, as with 'atheists', is the Stupid Trick I initially mentioned in passing: "refuting" the heretic by spewing a word-salad which has nothing to do with what he said.

Continue reading ...

Doubling Down

As best I can tell, this is Victor Reppert's response to my previous eviseration of his "argument" for why it is that he is *owed* "free" health insurance --
Here is the problem. Not even conservatives want to say that people should be able to keep all they earn. Money for defense in necessary. It it taken from people in exactly the same way that money for Medicare or socialized medicine is taken, through taxation.

The military protects me from ISIS. Medicine protects me from cancer. No conservative ever complains about a socialized military. They all complain about socialized medicine. Why? Protection is protection.
I'll blow this out of the water later; in the meantime, do bask in the Deep Thinks.

Continue reading ...

'House of Dumb'

Periodically, I like to see where the people (or browsers) who happen to arrive at my blog came from. I just noticed a reference to a "House of Dumb" blog (the content indicates Britain, the URL indicates France). I gamely popped over (just to see what it is). I said "gamely" because I expected it to be one of the trolls, with whom I am all too familiar, who like to misrepresent, that is, lie about, the arguments I make. But, it wasn't, and I have added it to my blog-roll.

Continue reading ...

Friday, March 31, 2017

Coming soon to a BLT near you

Jihad Watch: Sweden: Man charged with assault for eating bacon too close to Muslim Moslem women

Continue reading ...

Sad little echo chamber, II

Dalrock: An eyewitness account of WACF (note: WACF stands for the Victorian/Edwardian romanticized-and-sentimental "women and children first" ideal)

Dalrock *can* make sense ... but, ultimately, he is as bad as the majority of his commentors. And, after all, they behave *just like leftists do* because he encourages such unthinking hive-mind behavior.

Someone calling himself 'SkylerWurden' had tried to inject a bit of sanity into the thread, with a predictable result. I leave it to your own level of interest and patience to read further in the thread to see how the attempt was received.

Here is a comment I attempted to post, and which I doubt will be allowed to see the light of day there --
The majority of you people are no less inimical to the continuation of civilization than the open leftists are. This is because, under examination, we see that (so many of) you are operating on leftist false premises. That is, you *are* leftists, whether or not you yet admit it to yourselves.

If men are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their society, then that society dies.

If the *young* men are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their society because the older men have ordered them to do so, then that society dies.

If the women are not willing to sacrifice their narrow immediate interests/desires for the sake of their society because the men have ordered them to do so, then that society dies.

It is mutual trust between its members that makes a society; all three of the above refusals follow from a lack of or spurning of such a trust.

Like 'SkylerWurden', I am neither defending nor condemning WACF; I am rubbing your noses in your own hypocrisy ... and stupidity.

Whether or not WACF was a good idea and policy, that is what the men of that time and society had decided upon. The biggest reason its implimentation during the Titanic sinking upped the death count is because the women refused to obey the men.

One would think that you set, of all people, would have seen that right off.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, March 30, 2017

No man can serve two masters [modified]

For as long as I've known him, Victor Reppert has been a "soft" leftist (*). Recently, he has decided to climb down off the fence he had been stradling (working backward in time --
1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).

In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:
The following two positions are consistent with one another.

1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.

The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.
I blew that "reasoning" out of the water --
VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."

No, they aren't.

The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Murder can never be "constitutional"
And, of course (since he's off the fence), he totally ignored that I had shown his "reasoning" to be false, and instead made a new OP based on it.

(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.

So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.

Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).
To which I replied:
Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)
Ilion: Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

VR: Sure! So, let us say that you can afford to defend yourself against ISIS terrorists and dangerous foreign governments. You earned the money to do so, after all. But the bleeding-heart vote-buying politicians who run the government want to confiscate your money so that they can defend not only you, but all those welfare queens in the middle and lower classes, who, after all, only want to be defended against terrorism using other people's money. And why, in the name of Ayn Rand, should they be allowed to do such a thing?
Now that he's off the fence, look for continued (and amped-up) leftist irrationality from Mr Reppert, and also more intellectual dishonesty as displayed in the above "response".

Non-exhaustively --

1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);

2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;

3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;

4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?

Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).
What Chesterton is doing is illuminating the very Christian (and "conservative") principle that not all sins can safely be made crimes.

Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".

AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).

SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?

Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".

And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.

(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".

Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.

This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.

(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, March 28, 2017


Have you ever notice that the leftist "social justice warriors" (*) with their made-up "non-gender-binary" pronouns (**) -- which they insist that *you* must use (***) upon pain of condemnation -- never opt to simply apply the perfectly standard English neuter third person singlar pronoun to themselves? Why is that, I wonder?

(*) aka, "special juicebox wankers"

(**) People don't come in "genders", they come in sexes; and there are precisely two sexes.

On the other hand, depending on the language in question words may have gender, for 'gender' is a linguistic term, not a biological term. In many major world languages, *every* noun (and/or pronoun) has a gender.

On the other hand, and unlike many, or even most, languages in the world, English is essentially non-gendered -- in English, *only* the third person singlar pronouns, of which there are three, are gendered. With case declensions, these three pronouns are: masculine (he, him, his), feminine (she, her, hers), and neuter (it, it, its).

There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different first person pronoun, referring to oneself, depending upon one's sex. Not in English.

There may be a language in the world in which one uses a different second person pronoun, referring to the person to whom one is speaking, depending upon his (****) sex. Not in English.

There may be a language in the world in which one uses the same third person pronoun, referring to some person of whom one is speaking, irrespective of his (****) sex. Not in English.

The point here is that one uses the third person singlar pronouns to refer to a third person, not to address that person. To address an individual person, one uses the second person singlar pronoun: 'you', which is not gendered.

(***) Reportedly, some leftist jurisdictions, such as NYC, are working on legislation to make it illegal to use the correct English pronouns when referring to a third person.

(****) *GASP* I used the correct English pronoun 'his' to refer to a person of undetermined or irrelevant sex. How "sexist" of me!

Continue reading ...