Oops!

Bob Parks: Squawk Out On CNBC -- "If the civil rights movement for gays has been successful to the point anyone disagreeing with that movement can be targeted and punished, why would this be an awkward moment?"

Or, to put Mr Parks' question another way, "If homosexual behavior and/or being "gay" (*) really is just like being black, then why would this be an awkward moment?"


(*) Or, even more precisely, leftist identity politics premised on what one chooses to do with one's genitals

'That deceiver'

Douglas Wilson: Pour Us Another

Dead Broke

As we know (for has she not said?)Hillary Clinton is 'dead broke'

Perversion in SF/F

Vox Day has recently been on a tear concerning pederasts, and winking at pederasty, within the Science Fiction and Fantasy Establishment. Here is his most recent post on the matter

Now, I love sf and f, and have since I was a kid (I used to walk downtown to the public library and sit there for hours as I read books; I think I read most of them over the years). I figured out when I was still a kid that there was something not right about, say, MZB and Samuel Delany. What I mean is, I didn't even need to know that MZB had molested her own daughter (and other children, according to the daughter) to know that she was perverted. I didn't even need to know that Delany was a proponent of NAMBLA to know that he was perverted.

Refusing to get it

Here is Jordan Bassior, once again making moral arguments about current events ... and once again refusing to grasp the fact that if the God-denial he asserts is the truth about the nature of reality is indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then his whole argument-and-complaint is just so much farting in the wind.

Spreading the wealth

When I got into town Friday evening, I discovered that sometime afer Monday (Memorial Day) some people had taken it upon themselves to spread some of my wealth (slight though it is): my house has been burgled. They stole things (*) and thoroughly trashed the house. They didn't go out of their way to smash things up, and for that I am grateful. I still haven't repared the damage from the burst water pipe in January; now this.

Also, the local police don't (so far) seem all too concerned with solving the crime, even though the very individual officer who came out knows nearly as well as I do where the criminals live (**).

(*) including a 32' ladder and a 24' ladder ... and food out of the freezer and every can of pop in the house (and I was so thirsty when I got here)

(**) after he left, I found the recently-made beaten path through the woods to the house wherein lives the trog on whom I had called the cops last weekend after he set a vicious dog on me after I told his girlfriend I didn't want her parking on my property. He was one of the officers who had responded to that call.


edit 2014/08/16:
This morning, a neighbor (*) stoped by and told me that the fellow who broke into my house had recently brokrn into theirs and stole a couple of swords he had and then sold them to a woman down the street. I'm getting this second or third-hand (it was hos sister and girl-friend who dealt with the police, since he and his brother-in-law were out of town), but as he put it, the police are "watching" the fellow now.

And I'm thinking, watching him? Why aren't they watching him from behind bars? They now have witnesses that he was selling stolen goods. They now have not just the people from whom he stole the goods, but also those whom he defrauded of $200 in selling them stolen goods. Why isn't he already in jail and on his way back to prison?


(*) who is only the fourth person I've met in my entire life who has the same Christian name as I do; it's a bit disconcerting when he's talking to me and one of his relatives calls out his name.

Leftists' creative relationship with truth

Leftists are so damned dishonest: even when they''re saying something that's literally true, they're lying. Consider this --
Michael Egnor has a recent post, Gosnell's Banker, linking to a news report that Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups.

I commented:

"Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups."

It figures.

Well, at least we finally know what he will spend his own money on -- I'm referring to his politicing with the Dems and RINOs to force you and me to pay more in taxes, even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation.

One of the leftists-atheist trolls who infest Egnor's blog 'corrected' me:

Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax. He's on record as stating that it's intrinsically unfair that he pays a lower percentage in tax than many of his employees.

He's a major philanthropist, donating a lot of money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

He's also on record as advocating inheritance tax (I agree - I wonder if that's what senile old fart means when he refers to me as a 'trust fund socialist' as an insult - and neither of which are true).

So, let's deconstruct (as leftists like to do) this "correction":

Reported fact: Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups.

Me: ... I'm referring to his politicing with the Dems and RINOs to force you and me to pay more in taxes, even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation.

Lying Leftist: Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax.

So, does claiming that "Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax." contradict what I said, "... even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation"?

Of course not: it's another way to say the same thing! This is an example of a rhetorical trick much beloved by leftists (and atheists, and Darwinists), by which they "disprove" some truth one has stated by saying the same thing in a different way.

[more later]

That should work out nifty!

K T Cat Drafting Frauleins Into The Wehrmacht

This *is* socialized medicine

Laura Rosen Cohen: Welcome to Socialized Medicine: Disabled Boy Denied Life Changing Operation to Stop Debilitating Pain, Boob Job Approved (the "boob job" was actually two: an enlargement ... followed by a reduction)

Here (again) is a comment by the blogger 'Wintery Knight' explaining *why* socialized medicine does and must produce such monstrous results -- Wintery Knight: Doctor shortage: how Obamacare makes Americans lose their doctors

The problem is that when government controls health care, they spend the money on things that will buy them more votes. People who need expensive care like this definitely do not get treated. In government-run health care, government takes control of the money being spent by individuals on actual health care in the private sector. They then redirect that money into public sector spending on “health-related” services. Instead of helping people who are really sick, government-run systems cut lose those sick people and concentrate on buying perfectly healthy people things like condoms, abortions, IVF and sex changes. They spread the money around to more people in order to buy more votes. The main goal is to get the majority of people dependent on government so that they continue to vote for bigger government. The few people who need expensive health care? They can just go die in a ditch.

It's a trap ...

Some willfully ignorant anonymouse said:

You say:
"...if the consequences of not believing in that worldview are everlasting and unchangeable, then you have very powerful pragmatic reasons to believe in that particular supernatural worldview rather than not."

- All arguments along that line rely on the premise that beliefs can be freely chosen. They cannot. If you believe that the resurrection of Jesus is true beyond any reasonable doubt given the evidence that you are aware of, then you cannot choose out of the blue to believe that it is much more likely that Jesus was not resurrected. The consequences of such a belief are completely irrelevant, if it could be demonstrated that not believing in the resurrection of Jesus would have desirable consequences, you still couldn´t choose to believe the opposite of what you actually believe. What could change your beliefs is becoming aware of new evidence, new arguments etc. This is how beliefs are formed, they are not chosen based on the consequences they entail.

And I responded:

But, of course, not only *can* one freely choose one's beliefs, but one does. Always.

Can you see the trap I set him? ...

The "trap" is that he can convince others of the truth of his claim ("All arguments along that line rely on the premise that beliefs can be freely chosen. They cannot.") only if the claim itself is false; and secondarily, that even in the act of trying to convince others of the truth of his claim, he's going to have to retreat into self-contradiction and incoherency.

[this is a marker that I hope to find the time to expand upon that]

As others who commented after me have noted, he's denying the freedom (and effacacy) of the will. And, when you get right down to it, denying the reality/existence of the will itself: he's denying that we are persons. His argument, such as it is, is that the evidence (that one is aware of) related to some issue forces one to believe this or that regarding it. The argument is that "belief" is just something that happens to a person (*), that one is a passive non-agent acted upon, rather than an actor who actively evaluates and chooses.

Part of what makes his claim seem plausible until one looks closely is that it ignores that people can and do lie, not only to others, but also to themselves.

Victor Reppert has a recent post that has bearing on this issue: What happened to C. S. Lewis. Could it happen to you? -- Being that we are persons (rather than, say, robots) -- being that we *are* free wills -- we are always free to discount, ignore, or lie to ourselves about whatever evidence there is, or that we are aware of, concerning some issue.

Though I didn't watch the Jerry Seinfeld show, I could not escape some exposure to it. One of the scenes I do recall seeing involves George Costanza telling Jerry, "Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it" For me, this has always seemed a perfect encapsulation of what I'm talking about: people can and do choose to believe this or that without good reason to do so, and then carefully avoid learning knowledge/evidence that may show the belief to be false, and consciously disregard such contrary evidence as they fail to avoid.

Now, if one wishes to say something like, "Well, ok, but what you're talking about is intellectual dishonesty", I would reply, "Welcome to my world" Why do you think I'm always banging on that drum? I do so precisely because so many people *do* use various intellectually dishonest strategies as tools to protect their chosen beliefs from critical scrutiny.

Perhaps one wishes to say something like, "Well, ok, but what you're talking about is not *real* beliefs". I would reply, "And?" Why do you think human languages have so many ways of denoting the subtle differences in the epistemic status of beliefs? It's because the absolutizing language Mr Anonymouse wishes to use doesn't really work.

============
(*) This, by the way, is an echo of the false belief that people (especially women) love to love with regard to love: people love to deny that love is a choice, that one chooses to love and chooses to not love. People especially love this denial when they have chosen to love (or "love") inappropriately.