"Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are
the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy. You will NOT
comment here again until such time as you apologize to women for your
pathetic, misogynistic attacks on them and promise to never utter such
words again, at least here.
Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?"
So, apparently, to call a porn actress "a whore" is somehow misogynistic. To call women who, by their own admission, engaged in sex with a married man "sluts" makes me an enemy of women. Wow. I wonder what my disgust with the married man makes me? Is it OK to refer to them by words defined by their actions? Can I call them adulterers without having scorn heaped upon me?
Worse, these words I correctly apply to the women in question reflect a proven reality, while "rapist" is merely an accusation leveled by a fake against Donald Trump without any evidence whatsoever. That is, without proof, Dan Trabue accuses the president simply because Donald Trump won the election as a Republican and continues to do great things for the country. This is what really drives "progressives" like Danny-boy absolutely nuts. It's bad enough that the nation elected a rude, crude, socially unacceptable guy like Trump (after twice electing the racist, Marxist defender of abortion and sexual immorality who preceded him). It kills them that the dude is doing such a great job. Indeed, the more he succeeds, the more it infuriates them and thus, the more they inflate the egregious aspects of his character to levels satanic! Yeah, Danny-boy...we get it. He's a scumbag. But he's earned a second term and I intend to vote for him so that he gets it.
But I'm done defending my wise and righteous choice of Donny over Hillary and soon, Donny over whomever floats to the top of the Democratic cesspool of candidates. This post is about the idea that calling a whore a whore is somehow an attack on women...that it is somehow misogynistic to do so. And what is a whore? The word is a synonym of prostitute, though it is also used to describe any sexually promiscuous woman, as well as to simply disparage the character of a disliked female. I used it in reference to Stormy Daniels, who, after claiming to have had an affair with Trump while he was married, was paid a sum to shut up and go away rather than further disrupt Trump's campaign for president. Dan loves this woman. She provides him with another reason to blast Trump's character. He doesn't care about Daniels. He only cares about exploiting her story to further denigrate Trump, as if it matters now that he may have indeed had an affair with her, something he denies.
So why call her a whore? Simply because she is one. A whore takes money in exchange for sex, and that's how she made her living...by taking money to engage in sexual behavior in front of a camera to sell to those who love pornography. The same is true of Playboy model Karen McDougal, who by posing nude for money also earns the title.
"Slut" is also an appropriate word to apply to women like these two. Setting aside Daniels' career choice, which alone makes her a slut, these women, if we're to believe their allegations, admit they had sex with a married man. And here's the thing: there's no way to look at these situations and regard these women as anything other than whores and/or sluts. It's not misogyny or an attack on women to tell it like it is. They don't get to claim victim status after having chosen to engage in the affair. They don't get to play the damsel in distress after accepting big bucks to keep their mouths shut about their alleged affairs that were consensual, which also cements their reputations as whores, considering they took money later.
To pretend that these women are victims is a true attack on good women everywhere. To defend their actions as if they did not engage in immoral behavior is insulting to women of virtue. Again, these women were not "exploited" if they chose to engage in the affairs they insist took place. Indeed, if there was any exploiting going on, it seems it was at best a two-way street, and at worst, a case of these women seeing Trump as a potential payday...which it became, even if not what they may have had in mind. They knew that Trump left one wife to marry another. It's not so hard to imagine that they saw the potential that he'd do it again with them being the new Mrs. Trump. There's simply no way to regard these women as worthy of defense.
Frankly, being accused by someone like Dan, for whom "embrace grace" is just lip service, doesn't at all compel to me to reassess my position on these women. I have no intention for apologizing for speaking factually about the situation and Dan, like his troll, want to believe that these women are somehow more worthy of their support than Trump. That somehow, their word is more trustworthy. They're blatantly sexually immoral, they broke a contract into which they entered and received money and now we're to believe their accusations against Trump rather than his denials of those allegations. Dan supports the ongoing murder of unborn females, as well as the harm suffered by so many women who have and will abort, and he dares suggest I'm the one about whom women should worry because I call a spade a spade and a whore a whore? That's laughable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
360 comments:
1 – 200 of 360 Newer› Newest»Words mean things. Whore and slut mean things, and they are relevant terms to many women. They should be cautionary tales to other women. If you really love your neighbors, you'll warn women not to be whores and sluts. It doesn't end well for them.
Is there forgiveness in Christ for whores and sluts? Absolutely, provided they come on Jesus' wildly generous terms: Repent and believe.
Here's the real issue: My comments at Dan's blog was not a concern about whores and sluts. It was a concern about the presumption of feo, and also Dan now, that allegations by immoral women about a man these clowns regard as immoral can be believed. That is, a clear she said/he said in which feo and Dan choose sides according to who is accused. Would they give these women the time of day if they were accusing, say, Barack Obama? Of course not, but not because they have any reason to believe the women, but because they have a higher opinion of Obama than of the women. In the case of Trump, they clearly have a higher opinion of the women, or rather, they have such a low opinion of Trump that if his accuser was John Wayne Gacy, they'd absolutely throw in with Johnny because of how much they hate Trump. These are two who like to convince us of their Christianity...Dan embracing grace, feo guided by the Holy Spirit.
But the tactic of Dan is not new at all. It is a common arrow from his deceitful quiver. He's done this kind of thing before, where he'll attack you for the proper use of an appropriate term, even if the term might be crude, rather than focus on the actual point because his position is so tenuous (to say the least). It's a ploy that's been in use for years, as I recall a similar case where Geoffrey Kruse-Safford objected to my use of the term "bastard" when applied to an ancestor of his who was conceived out of wedlock...the very definition of the word "bastard"!! The point is to attack the user of the word to deflect from the inconvenient and uncomfortable point...in this case, throwing in with immoral women and believing them over the denial of Donald Trump. That's the real point. Trump is defended and anyone who defends Trump is to be attacked as well, never mind who accuses Trump or whether or not he might be innocent of the charges. All that matters is that Trump is accused and any accusation of Trump cannot be false in the hateful minds of feo and Dan. feo's doing it again in a previous thread with regard to an issue involving Julian Assange. It's what false Christians do.
I’m personally not sure I’d go there, but you’re not wrong.
Of course it’s amazing how often libs pull out the “c” word to refer to conservative women.
Is it ok if we refer to you that way from here on out?
LOL!
Is that a yes?
Not really.
You’re no fun.
I guess I can see why that would be a problem.
Again...LOL!
The facts are that a large percentage of women who end up in prostitution were sexually abused as children. There is a real world history of powerful perverted men abusing and misusing girls and women and using words like s*** and w**** to refer to women is part of that campaign of rape and oppression. You sick bastard. You are eating rapists and sexual predators. You need to stop it. Words like you used casually are part of the problem. Get help. Get educated. Do not be part of the problem you sick bastard and defender of rapists.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213481900508
Also, when were talking about the women whom Trump has sexually assaulted, at least 24 have come forward, we talkin about all sorts of women. I noticed you've never use the word s*** to refer to your pervert president. You sick bastard and coward and oppressor of women. No, you only use it to refer to women. You can't ignore the real world setting of The oppression of women by sick perverts like you and Trump.
Not only are you a “sick bastard”, but apparently a cannibal as well.
Maybe Trump could be excused if he’d just institute a reading and literacy program. That seems to be the magic that covers all sorts of things.
Evidently, to Dan I'm anything he needs me to be for him to feel morally superior. But as it turns out, my wife's preparing for me a sexual predator brisket as we speak.
That should have said supporting rapists... and you all should be ashamed about your language that attacks women and lends support to rapists and sexual predators like this slut-president you support. God have mercy on you.
This is one of those “Do you still beat your wife?” situations.
You’ve reluctantly supported a politician, who’s done things that you support, who’s been accused of sexual impropriety and it’s phrased to suggest that you support the sexual improprieties.
It’s an interesting contrast to Bernie. Apparently it’s OK to support one (misrepresented) thing that one despot did, without supporting the murder, imprisonments, suffering, and hell on earth that he engaged in.
But that kind of thing only works one way.
Rape and cannibalism, what will you be accused of next?
Nonsense, Dan. Your fervent desire to portray me in such negative terms suggests your own need to hope for God's mercy on you. As is so often the case, I do far less to support or defend Trump than I do exposing false and baseless attacks on Trump by people like you. Trump's great record as president speaks for itself to any honest person who cares to review it. His reputation for sexual immorality is not as easily affirmed. That's not to say there's nothing...his multiple marriages alone bear that out...but there is so much you choose to believe is proven fact that is no more than allegation and speculation. Rather than 24, there could be 240 women who accuse him and what would we have beyond 240 accusations? Just grist for fake Christian's like you to rationalize your very unchristian hatred for someone whose policies you oppose. Keep in mind, I opposed him in the primaries based in part on that very same reputation, but rightly and justly recognized the dangers to my country should Hillary have won. This horndog (which equates to "make slut", so you can drop this "you don't refer to men in those terms" crap) was unfortunately all that stood in the way of that danger.
More later...
"...his reputation for sexual immorality is not so easily affirmed.."
?! Do you all not recognize how awful these kinds of words make you look? It's as if you've buried your head way up your anus. Al Mohler fully recognizes how very perverted and degraded Trump is. It's not a secret. Anyone without their head up their ass can see it. But for you, women who have made accusations are these awful oppressive perverted names that you use but your present, for you, his "reputation" is "not so easily affirmed."
Good God in heaven! Open your eyes and look. Listen to his words.
He is a sexual predator. He is the epitome of the sort of abuse depicted by Sodom and Gomorrah. He is the epitome of the ultra-wealthy, ultra privileged men who gladly enslave, rape, attack, oppress, degrade, and toss aside like trash women and those who get in their way.
He is perverse in the most obvious way possible. It's not like he's hiding it. Not so easily affirmed?
Do you recognize how your blindness just goes to support privileged oppressive men who rape and destroy women and girls? Ask Al Mohler. Ask George Will. Ask Russell Moore. Conservative after conservative, there's plenty who have not blinded their eyes to Trump's obvious oppression and degradation.
So you’re now accusing a Trump of raping and destroying women and girls?
I could be wrong, but the existence of allegations doesn’t automatically equate to guilt. But if you’re comfortable making these sorts of allegations without proof....?
I’m pretty sure that’s what Jesus did.
It seems as if your saying that allegations or convictions of sexual abuse taint everything else in that person’s life.
I don't know how else to say it. IF a man is an upright, clearly decent man (think Jimmy Carter, Billy Graham, etc) whose life is clearly beautiful and moral, and then IF a woman - or two or three women! - make an accusation of rape/assault... one might reasonably question the accusation, if there were no evidence to support it.
However, IF the "man" is Donald Trump, a man who serially has cheated on his wives and girlfriends, whose very words drip contempt and abuse of women...
("grab them by the pussy and get away with it..." and
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass...” and
"Trump suddenly appeared in the dressing room and all the teenage models grabbed their robes. “OK now ladies, drop 'em,” he said as he threw his arms open." and
"Look at that face," he said, according to Rolling Stone. "Would anyone vote for that?" and
you know I can go on and on with his very vulgar, very misogynistic, very hateful words towards and about women), and
Trump called Kelly a "bimbo" and "highly overrated." and
"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever,"
...a man who doesn't have 2 or 3, but TWENTY-FOUR women who have accused him of sexual assault or harassment....
...a man who has laughed about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because "they let you" - the SAME arguments rapists use - and laughed ON RADIO about abusing his wealth and power to ogle half naked teen-aged girls...
...a man who associates with perverted and oppressive and predatory men...
If the man is the sort of scum, filth and overt predator whose own words betray him and his sense of entitlement and privilege that is the president that your sort of white conservative Christians have put into office...
YES, Craig, in that case, of course those allegations AND that life AND those words AND that lifestyle AND that open perversion AND that sense of abuse of women that his words convey DO taint everything in a person's life.
Good Lord. Do you truly think that a man can act like a pervert and sexual predator and then be treated as if he weren't? How naive and supportive of rapists and sexual predators can you be?
If you wouldn't trust your daughter in a room alone with this man and his friends, then that's a sign to use your common sense and sense of decency. Our actions and words DO have consequences.
Who was it who said...
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Trump's fruits speak for themselves. Get your heads out of the sand. As Al Mohler will tell you: You've destroyed your credibility by your naivete that serves to protect and defend sexual predators and rapists.
No he's not, Craig, because there are no convictions. But look at Dan's fake news:
--He pretends Al Moehler is saying the very same things about Trump that Dan is saying. This is an absolute lie.
--He regards all allegations, insinuations and accusations as convictions without trial...an unvarnished guilty until proven innocent.
--He regards the bragging of sexual experience...similar to the self-promotion of a typical 16 yr old boy...as reliable admissions, while regarding the man as a pathological liar.
--He takes apt descriptions if two specific accusers as if applied to the other 22 accusers.
--He presumes to know that two who engaged in pornography were victims somehow in their youth, because in his mind it couldn't possibly be they were as sexually immoral as he needs to believe Trump is.
--He presumes he can insist that while no one would dispute some rich and powerful men (and women) have abused their positions, there's absolutely no way any women would ever lie about having been exploited.
I could easily add more to this list and in doing so be far more correct about the low quality of Dan character than he is about Trump's...or mine.
More later...
He presumes to know that two who engaged in pornography were victims somehow in their youth
I presume NOTHING. I point out that the DATA shows that many women get dragged into sex industry and other exploitative "industries" do so because they were abused by the sorts of pervert that YOU put into office. I have no reason to assume that any of these women are not also victims of these perverts like your president that you continue to defend.
On the other hand, you DO presume to know that some of these women (who you don't know the first thing about, personally) are the sorts of words that rapists and sexual predators use to describe women.
I'm looking at data and embracing grace towards the traditionally oppressed.
You are making stupidly unsupported charges about people you don't know and you're using the sorts of language that rapists and sexual predators use, all in the defense of an actual slut and predator, a man we KNOW to be a slut and a predator because of his own words and public life.
The question is why you presume to cast death-dealing oppressive terms towards women and girls while defending an actual pervert and predator?
And I don't pretend to know that Mohler is saying the EXACT same things I'm saying, but he clearly recognizes the slutty nature and oppressive sexual nature of the pervert you continue to defend.
The question is why do you fight so hard to defend what even Al Mohler can condemn?
He regards all allegations, insinuations and accusations as convictions without trial...an unvarnished guilty until proven innocent.
I clearly literally am not as I clearly literally have said that we can't CONVICT someone based on a preponderance of evidence that, nonetheless, doesn't reach the level of conviction (or because the statute of limitations has expired, etc). We should not "lock him up" based on just allegations (contrary to what your pervert misogynistic president repeatedly had your conservative friends chant about a woman he publicly loathed with very vile words). But a tree SHALL be known by his fruit.
There may not be sufficient evidence to convict him, but there is sufficient data to recognize his fruit. Listen to Jesus if you're going to follow him.
Your president IS a pathological liar, the data is quite clear. Open your eyes.
Why do so many people who pretend to be lovers of morality continue to defend the most openly/overtly perverted, dishonest and corrupt president in our history?
If by “you two”, you mean yourself then you’re right that your just making stuff up and passing it off as fact.
I can’t keep up with the wokeness, one the one hand we’re told that porn is empowering for women, then we get Dansplained about how it’s bad.
If by asking about "you two" you're talking to me, I haven't said "you two."
Marshal... . This horndog (which equates to "make slut", so you can drop this "you don't refer to men in those terms" crap) was unfortunately all that stood in the way of that danger.
Horndog is something that perverts like Trump take as a compliment. I know your type of men. Horndog is not an insult and it's nowhere near as deadly as the terms you use to degrade women with, you pervert defender.
You see, part of what I don't think you all recognize is the deep depravity that has been the degradation and oppression of women throughout of all history. Call a man a "horndog" and he thinks it's funny and laughs it off. His type of friends look at it as a compliment. Not a single harm, not a single foul.
Call a woman a slut and it causes harm. In the past, it could lead a woman to being stoned to death by pharisees like you. It could lead a woman to lose her life, her children, her livelihood. It has caused real harm to real people. By you perpetuating "slut-shaming" with your vulgar words embraced by rapists, you continue the harm.
Is it possible you are unaware of the history of men (especially powerful, privileged dickweed sluts like your president) oppressing women and the great loss of life and dignity caused by your words?
My bad. I should have said “YOU”, my point still stands, your making stuff up.
Dan,
You continue to make my case. Your intent is to demonize any and all who support Trump's presidency to the extent that you'll straight up lie in a manner far more egregious than anything you've ever been able to provide from Trump...which thus far has been nothing of any consequence. Therein, once again, lies my point...that I do far less dismissing of Trump's sins than I expose your own irrational hatred of the man and his supporters. I can't help that the only two people likely to win the presidency back in 2016 were scumbags. I can't help that what separated them was a distinctly different platform, with Clinton's being the far more destructive to our nation. I don't and won't apologize for casting my vote for the lesser of two evils for the sake of my fellow Americans, including the jackasses that think it's no big deal if, oh well, Hillary won. I find it far more morally reprehensible on every level to pretend it's OK if the nation suffers under another 4-8 years of what Obama had already done to us, just so I can saddle up and ride that moral high horse because I didn't vote for the other scumbag. The stakes are easily higher now and that scumbag is still better for America. There's absolutely no moral dilemma here anymore than there was in 2016, Al Moehler be damned. I'm not the least bit morally compromised by giving him another four, especially given his great record as president and the fact that he's done absolutely nothing to promote his immoral past.
More definitely coming later...
Two things. First of all, it appears the problem is just as I have stated, that you all don't even know what you don't know. You don't even understand the harm caused by your use of such oppressive words about women and other oppressed groups. Or the harm caused by your support for sexual predators like Trump.
Secondly, if I truly thought that Clinton was, in your words, a scumbag like Trump, then I wouldn't have voted for either one of them. You don't vote for unfit, filthy, scumbags. Period. If Hillary Clinton was a sexual predator, if Hillary Clinton toad false claims every day multiple times a day, I just would not have voted for her. These would have made her unfit for office. And if my only option were Trump, then I wouldn't have voted for either one. I would have voted for a third party.
You don't vote for dangerously morally unfit people. The difference between us appears to be that you're willing to do so when it's your guy. Whereas I'm consistent and will refuse to vote for anyone who is unfit for office in the sense that they are sexual predators, they make false claims on such a regular rate as to be wholly untrustworthy, or that they cheat on their Charities, but they cheat students at a fake College they created, or they regularly attack the Free Press. All of these things, any one of these things, would make someone unfit for office. But they all get a pass from your type.
That's a sign of a deep sickness that I don't know what to do with. That over half the nation doesn't know what to do with. That experts in various fields don't know what to do with.
It’s interesting that I did exactly what you said you’d do for exactly the same reasons and you’ve been lying about it ever since.
The problem is that you mistake acknowledging Trumps successes, or pointing out unfair criticism as support. But not only do you call common fairness “support”, but you try to stretch that to “support” of every single wrong he’s ever done.
It’s disingenuous at best, repeating lies at worst. Either way your entire approach lacks honesty and grace. Two things you blather about often, but clearly don’t practice as often as you blather.
So, "Sure, he's dishonest, corrupt as hell and a sexual predator, but he's at least not yet messed up the economic improvements that Obama started..."? Like that?
Some of us DO get stuck at the sexual predator, corrupt and dishonest part... and you find THAT odd? Really?
No. Like I did EXACTLY what you said you’d do, yet you’ve lied about it for years.
Acknowledging the reality that the economy is vibrant and growing much more than people said was possible during the P-BO years, is simply acknowledging reality. Pointing out the the Mueller investigation was based on lies, is just pointing out reality.
Pointing out reality, and pointing out when people are treated unfairly isn’t the same thing as supporting them.
The is that you can’t acknowledge that I treat Trump the same way I’ve treated every other recent president. I acknowledge when they do positive things, and criticize them when they do negative things. You seem so blinded by your hatred that you’ve given up any pretense of being even handed.
The reality is that your hypothetical, is EXACTLY my reality in 2016, and is likely my reality in 2020. The fact that you live in a state of mind where anything less than vitriolic hatred equals universal support is your choice. I choose to live in a world where (once the election is over) I recognize reality and focus on supporting good policies and opposing bad. You’re welcome to visit that world anytime.
What I find odd is your need to lie about others, your lack of self control, and your “ends justify the means” approach to every administration you don’t like.
Dan,
One simple question. If scientists and academics spoke on the place of “sexual assault” in the greater scheme of life and civilization, would you accept their conclusion?
We should always look into the research about any topic, including sexual assault, as long as it's real science research, not pseudo-science or "research" with an agenda.
And there have been no lies from me about your defense of Trump. When you deny the harm done by his false claims, his attacks on the press, his sexual predatory nature, you ARE defending him and, by extension, all rapists and sexual predators. No lie.
So, you’re willing to accept legitimate academic research on sexual assault, I assume by your comments that the ultimate decision on “pseudo-science” will be made only by you.
And the lies continue. I have supported the actions he’s taken that I agree with, and criticize those I disagree with.
Since I’ve been critical of his lack of honesty, sexual behaviors, and numerous other things since the 2016 campaign. I’ve never denied the fact that false claims (including yours) cause some level of harm.
The fact that you misrepresent and continue to lie about my “support” of Trump, has been plain and demonstrable for years.
Seems like, telling the same lie for years after you’ve been corrected might be a large problem.
I assume by your comments that the ultimate decision on “pseudo-science” will be made only by you.
Science. Peer Review. Not any one person. That's the scientific method.
So, you’ll decide what you’ll accept. I’ve demonstrated that peer reviewed doesn’t really mean much.
Although everyone I’ll cite will agree that the underlying science is absolutely settled and beyond discussion.
I’ll post something soon. I don’t want to distract you from the one simple question you seem to be having a problem with.
Oh good, I'll let the scientists know that you have decided that peer review doesn't mean much. We can just now set that aside. Stupid scientific method.
Thanks for the great laugh. Do y'all know why y'all sound a little bit "out there" to the rest of the adult world?
1, Peer review isn’t the scientific method, it’s two different things.
2. I’m not going to re fight this, but I’ve posted plenty of evidence that calls the PR process and Integrity into question.
As have I, and I believe if I haven't posted that evidence in comments at Dan's blog, I most certainly have in discussions in which Dan participated. Citing "peer review" as if it makes one's opinion more valid and credible is a cheap and intellectually lazy tactic used in lieu of a compelling argument.
Just as lazy and cheap is Dan's implication that "studues" he cites guarantees that the two women to whom I applied the appropriate (based on their own words and histories) terms "whore" and "slut" had not consciously, willingly and perhaps eagerly participated in pornography without having had anything but the happiest upbringings. How would Dan characterize the childhood of Steven Spielberg's daughter, for example. Dan's version of fake news utilizes every dirty trick to push the narrative that serves his agenda.
More later...
Finally getting a chance to weigh in again on some of Dan's preposterous emanations:
"The facts are that a large percentage of women who end up in prostitution were sexually abused as children."
The "facts" are that Dan get his "facts" from the link he provided. In it, it says only the following:
"A study of 200 juvenile and adult street prostitutes documented extremely high levels of sexual child abuse in their background. Sixty percent of the subjects were sexually exploited by an average of two people each, over an average period of 20 months. Two-thirds were sexually abused by father figures. The abuse had extremely negative emotional, physical, and attitudinal impacts. Seventy percent of the women reported that the sexual exploitation definitely affected their decision to become a prostitute. The others reflected the influence in their open-ended comments. Findings make a unique contribution to both the studies of the antecedents to prostitution, and the long-term impacts of sexual child abuse."
Let's break it down.
"A study of 200 juvenile and adult street prostitutes documented extremely high levels of sexual child abuse in their background."
Wow. 200. That's like a ton of women, isn't it? Like all polls, surveys and studies, we're to presume such a tiny sample size is typical of all who engage in every variant of the sex trades. To Dan, this is gospel, unimpeachable and totally beyond questioning...because otherwise it makes it harder to attack Trump and anyone who supports his presidency.
Also, this study deals with "street prostitutes". Stormy Daniels nor Karen McDougal have been stated to have engaged in street prostitution. But though Dan pretends he's not presuming anything about their youth, the truth is he indeed is making the connection and by doing so insisting that we consider it likely. Otherwise, why bring up this study?
It says these 200 women "documented" extremely high levels of sexual child abuse in their background. I wonder what form that documentation took. Affidavits? Video documentary? Court records? What? And what constitutes "extremely high levels"? Wouldn't there be some degree of subjectivity in that claim, both by the whores themselves as well as by the researchers?
"The abuse had extremely negative emotional, physical, and attitudinal impacts."
I don't doubt this for a minute! But is whoring the proper therapy for such personal impacts? I don't see how. (sidebar: What little Dan's link provides does not include whether or not any of these women were forced into street walking. I felt it was relevant to point this out.)
"Seventy percent of the women reported that the sexual exploitation definitely affected their decision to become a prostitute. The others reflected the influence in their open-ended comments."
The distinction between the 70% and the other 30% is inane. In essence, they all claim, directly or by implication, that their abuse affected their decision. That would be "THEIR DECISION", as in, they chose whoring over, say, working at Walmart. Now, we don't know what "juvenile" means exactly in this study. Are we talking middle school girls, or simply teens below the legal age of adulthood? It makes a difference.
"Findings make a unique contribution to both the studies of the antecedents to prostitution, and the long-term impacts of sexual child abuse."
The findings suggest one of possibly dozens of factors that led to their choice of whoring. Indeed, I don't think it meant to do anything else, but certainly NOT to suggest that sexual abuse results in a uncontrollable urge to prostitute themselves. Yet, Dan certainly is suggesting that by bringing it up...repeatedly...in defending Daniels and McDougal against the labeling of "whore" and "slut". What's more, no childhood trauma absolves them of those terms if they choose the behavior. Regardless of the sad experiences of their youth, they are still whores and sluts BECAUSE of their behavior.
And I don't see how using any other term is better. It's a "rose by any other name" kinda thing. "Prostitute", "street walker", "sex worker"...they're all different words for whores. "Promiscuous"? Just another word for "slut". And as they all mean the same thing, one is just as much an "attack" as any of the others, if one is so morally corrupt to dare suggest one is misogynistic, abusive and oppressive for using any of them, appropriately, to describe any woman who engages in such behavior.
more later...
I don't want to get hung up on semantics, but I'm not sure how using terms like "whore" help you make your point. I'm not arguing that it's an incorrect description. Hell, it's even Biblical, I just don't see the value in being provocative when it's not necessary.
I will point out that at least some of these relationships were consensual, and that it's likely that there have been some stories changed.
But, the point is that it's possible to support Trump in his policies and actions as president without supporting every single bad thing he's done.
Craig,
First of all, it's easier to type "whore" than "prostitute", and "slut" than "promiscuous".
Secondly, it's vastly important for driving home the point regarding feo's and Dan's choice of believing the word of these sexually immoral women over sexually immoral Trump.
Third is that I see no difference in using these easier-to-type words over the larger words, particularly given Dan getting the vapors over it. Heck, even were I to choose describing what they do over using any word defined by their behavior, it's all the same. They're every bit as immoral as Dan says Trump is, so why believe them over Trump except to market him as evil incarnate? The more accusers Dan has, the better for that purpose. Conversely, the fewer accusers, the more difficult it is to believe any of them, regardless of how unlikely, and Dan can't have that.
What's more, these two don't fit with the others on the list of those who were allegedly assaulted or abused by Trump, given their alleged affairs with him were consensual.
Hopefully, at this point it's clear to see I'm in no way supporting ANY bad thing Trump's done, including any of these allegations assuming any of them are even true, which none of them have yet proven to be. My purpose was solely to highlight feo's and Dan's blatantly unchristian, hateful and dishonest methods, not to mention their penchant for regarding every allegation as proven fact.
More concerning to me at the moment is your implication that any if it suggests I support any bad thing Trump may have done rather than solely support his presidency.
Quite the opposite, I’m saying that it’s reasonable to support Trumps actions and policies without being told that you must support everything he’s ever done.
Much the same as your other choices, I’m simply saying I wouldn’t go there, not criticizing you because you did.
I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
We're cool.
I assumed that we were. It's refreshing to be able to disagree without resorting to histrionics and vitriol.
More of Dan's weak attempts to portray himself as caring:
"There is a real world history of powerful perverted men abusing and misusing girls and women and using words like s*** and w**** to refer to women is part of that campaign of rape and oppression."
First of all, 40% of abuse victims are men. I wouldn't doubt that "real world history" would very likely present a smaller percentage were one to go back in time.
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/women-abuse-men-often-called-abuse-fiff/
http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/
I wonder what kind of names abusive women use for the men they abuse, and how much harm to the men suffer as a result. I would say that in cases of physical abuse, words don't matter quite so much.
Because of Dan's penchant for ginning up rhetoric to make whatever point into which he wants us to buy, I regretfully post the following to further present context:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5610533/Man-called-911-abused-kids-months-Calif-SUV-crash.html
https://www.yourtango.com/2017306840/details-oklahoma-lesbian-couple-child-abuse-son-jail-duct-tape
These horrific stories are posted to make the point that the narrative Dan wishes to highlight for the purpose of denigrating Trump are not unique to men in power. Naturally an adult versus a child is a power imbalance as well. The two stories are another demonstration that womanhood isn't without its monsters. Here's one more:
https://nypost.com/2019/02/16/inside-the-horrifying-unspoken-world-of-sexually-abusive-nuns/
And let us not forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships
Once again the point here is that despite Dan's pearl clutching, history tells us far more than Dan would prefer isn't considered as he strives to posture as champion of women who are called nasty names.
But let's get back to that. Again he says,
"There is a real world history of powerful perverted men abusing and misusing girls and women and using words like s*** and w**** to refer to women is part of that campaign of rape and oppression."
Note first how Dan is just too "Christian" to fully type out "slut" and "whore" after dropping f-bombs all over Craig's blog and mine in the past. Indeed, he's directed those words, and others, right at us! But here he's going to blur the words because, oh dear oh dear, it's just too distressing to type them out in full. What a fraud!
More to the point, contrary to what he'd like to pretend is the case here, I wasn't using the terms as a general statement of the typical woman. Personally, I don't know any whores. I've known a few sluts...likely more than a few. And these days there's a faction of women who wear the latter terms in much the same way Dan wants us to believe that all men wear terms like "horndog". As to whores, in my life I couldn't say with certainty that of all the women I've ever met, that none of them married for money...which makes them whores.
But again...and I can't stress this enough that a fraud like Dan would care...the two women about whom I used those terms are two women who definitionally fit those terms. To my way of thinking, there's no "good" alternative that doesn't...and certainly shouldn't...mitigate the immorality of the behavior which earned the women those unfortunate label. "Prostitute" and "promiscuous" aren't any better. I wouldn't want my daughters to ever be considered the former, and I certainly wouldn't want them to ever be the latter. No Christian father or mother would. Perhaps Dan, being fully supportive of sexual immorality, wouldn't mind if his daughter was either. I hope not. But to my mind, as I said before, a rose by any other name...
Here's another way of looking at it:
I agree with my Father in Heaven that homosexuality is an abomination...because He said it is. Despite this, homosexuals are damn near celebrated these days simply for being homosexual, as if they're courageous for being "out". This is because of people like Dan who reject the Will of God to be a part of the in crowd. They prefer the appropriated word "gay". They certainly don't approve of words like "fag", or "fruit" or "fairy", and depending on the weather, they don't like "queer". Oh my goodness! Those are hateful slurs equal to the dreaded "N" word that only black people can use in reference to each other!!
But because the behavior is indeed an abomination, in any context or scenario in which it might take place given no hint in Scripture that such a context or scenario exists in which it isn't, I find "homosexual" and "gay" to be every bit as profane or obscene an epithet if directed to me. That is, I don't care if you call me "homosexual", "homo", "mo", "gay" or "fag", "fairy", "fruit" or any other term that are really nasty and mean the same thing. There is no word that means homosexual that is any less insulting to me if one was to refer to me in that way. Call me an asshole and it ain't no thang. It's far more insulting to be called "gay" or "homosexual".
However, if you're one ("gay"), you're the other (any of the other terms listed). It's all the same, and it ain't the words used that causes harm, because if all that was done was to be called a nasty word, that's hardly damaging. Those who are totally disgusted with the sexually immoral aren't going to care about their feelings anymore than they'll care about the feelings of someone who takes property without consent of the owner being called a thief.
So I don't label people for the purpose of hurting their feelings, or to incite others to abuse them or any of that crap that Dan thinks is what makes me so bad for referring to a couple of whores as whores. It's merely a description of what they are, and what they are can be described in a number of ways. Dan's a liar, deceitful, dishonest, full of shit. All the same. One ain't any better than the other. All are different words for the same bad behavior in which he engages. Whore, prostitute, lady of the evening, street walker...all the same. All describe someone who sells her/his body for money.
If I use those terms as an epithet toward a woman who doesn't sell herself, who doesn't have affairs, THAT> is abusive. The other is speaking truthfully. Calling me a "sick bastard" and "a defender of rapists"? Also abusive, hateful, a lie and totally Dan's idea of one who embraces grace. I neither ask nor demand an apology for Dan calling me such things. But he shouldn't lie about people speaking truthfully about sexually immoral women.
Dan’s connection with accuracy is tenuous at best. He’s much better at spewing the first thing that pops into his brain without thinking very much. As I said, I personally wouldn’t use the terms you’ve chosen, but referring to a woman who has sex for money as a whore, or a woman who has a large number of sexual partners as a slut, isn’t necessarily inaccurate. For someone who slings expletives and lies as much as he does, he’s certainly easily offended. So easily that he gets offended by things that aren’t worth getting offended about.
Multiple documented instances of false claims at his blog, and he’s the one who acts wronged. I could probably come up with 10x as many had I looked through the entire thread.
As we’re seeing at my blog, he’s all about treating his presuppositions and opinions as if they’re facts, until he’s asked for proof, then he hides out behind the opinion shield.
To his credit, he made it through a lot of comments without an F-bomb, so that’s something.
Yes, he has been less abusive lately...except for the above comments directed at me for speaking the truth about women of low character.
Just wondering, however, how would you refer to such women? Do you truly think the words I used are truly that bad, or simply a matter of personal preference that doesn't have any significant motivation or reason behind the choice?
Also wondering how Dan would refer to them, or does he assume they are all victims who can't help their behavioral choices as a result of their unfortunate experiences? If the latter, how is that also not abusive in that is assumes they are weak and incapable of rising above their experiences? We are all shaped to some extent by our life experiences. We are not at all required or incapable of transcending the worst of them...except where Dan needs someone to be to rationalize his hatred of center-right figures.
In all honesty it would probably depend on where I was referring to them, I’d be more likely to say promiscuous or prostitute in a public setting. In private I’d probably say hooker and maybe slur.
I think it’s personal preference and context to some degree.
Part of the problem is that Dan is viewing the whole thing through his Trump is evil lens, therefore anything said “against” these brave virtuous women would probably offend him.
And that's been my point. I doubt he'd give the slightest thought to such women and their allegations if Trump wasn't president, nor would he much care about Trump's infidelities and sexual comments apart from the same distaste that either of us would have of anyone, celebrity or not. But Trump's not a Democrat/socialist/progressive (same things), so his reputations is custom made for someone like Dan and is perfect for stroking his pseudo-sanctimony, and desperate need to find that which he can inflate to minimize his own support for far worse transgressions, such as homosexuality and abortion.
That's true. You notice that Epstein or Weinstein didn't get this sort of treatment despite their intimate connections with leftist politics and massive donations to candidates he likes. Just like we rarely hear Soros talked about with the same level of vitriol as the Koch brothers. As much as we all won't like to admit it, we're more tolerant of people's faults when they're on "our side", it's natural. It's unnatural not to admit this and acknowledge it.
I just noticed a typo. I typed (or auto correct typed)slur instead of slut. I suspect you either didn't notice or figured it out.
The latter.
Marshal... Also wondering how Dan would refer to them, or does he assume they are all victims who can't help their behavioral choices as a result of their unfortunate experiences?
I dunno, how about like this?
“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
“No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
Who did JESUS side with and condemn? The powerful oppressors (men) or the oppressed (the accused woman)?
Yes, they WERE trying to trap him into joining in their (in their mind, justified) eager desire to stone the woman for her crimes.
Jesus didn't play the game of the powerful oppressors. He lovingly sided with the oppressed. That's how I respond.
Marshal...
that's been my point. I doubt he'd give the slightest thought to such women and their allegations if Trump wasn't president, nor would he much care about Trump's infidelities and sexual comments
When B Clinton was running, I wouldn't vote for him and suggested he was not a reliable person, given the accusations against him. And with him, there was nothing like the onslaught of evidence of actual oppression or sexual assaults that we have against Trump, including his own testimony (which people like you continue to defend and give a pass to and give him the benefit of the doubt, WHILE calling the accused women oppressive, disgusting names.
No, I don't say much about Hollywood or pop culture sexual exploits, I save my comments mostly for people in positions of power. Which is why I spoke out against Clinton and why I speak out much more against Trump and his more overt sexual predatory/oppressive nature. I'm consistent on that front. If Trump changed parties and ran as a Democrat this year, I'd be calling for him to be removed by the Democrats. True and certain fact. And he WOULD be removed. The Democrats are not perfect, but they would not abide by the level of perversion (by which I mean actually misogynistic/oppressive behavior) that Trump represents.
What does it say that the Democrats are now the party of morality and the GOP is the party of corruption and perversion?
What would Jesus do?
Not what you've done, I think that much is clear.
I'm always entertained by your self-serving corruptions of Scripture.
"Who did JESUS side with and condemn? The powerful oppressors (men) or the oppressed (the accused woman)?"
Neither. He confounded the plot to entrap Him and exposed their own sinfulness in abusing the Law. He also let the woman know He was aware of what she was. Thus, He didn't condemn or "side" with either the woman or those trying to entrap Him.
"Yes, they WERE trying to trap him into joining in their (in their mind, justified) eager desire to stone the woman for her crimes."
No. They thought they were clever by trying to get Him to either run afoul of Roman law or Jewish law. They couldn't care less about the woman and her adultery or they would have brought both her and her lover to the Jewish authorities, who would then seek Roman authorization to put them both to death. Their only concern was trying to "get" Jesus. This is all very much blatantly obvious by even a cursory reading.
"Jesus didn't play the game of the powerful oppressors. He lovingly sided with the oppressed. That's how I respond."
Then you are responding by making shit up instead of learning what's going on in the passage. Fortunately I explained in above...AGAIN, since you weren't paying attention the last time you tried to twist it.
But here's the more relevant part: He called the woman what she was. A sinner. He didn't need to spell out the category of sin, since it was quite obvious given what the ploy was. Christ didn't condemn her because he hadn't the civil authority to do so. He wasn't an official of the Jewish legal system, so He couldn't condemn anybody. But by telling her to sin no more, He acknowledged she was an adulteress...what some would call a slut, a fallen woman, or, as He did, a sinner. Is she any better off being called a sinner than a slut? If so, how so? You'd have a hard time trying to pretend that being called a sinner, she wouldn't have understood that as a reference to her adultery. And again, by saying, "Go and sin no more" He is expressing clearly that He is aware that she is a sinner. The sin in question being her sexual immorality.
To call someone what they are isn't a condemnation. What one does (to sin) condemns one's self. To call someone what they are is simply a statement of fact. If having one's sinfulness called out makes that person uncomfortable, it's the consequence of being what one's behavior makes one. But here's a great explanation of the passage you don't understand:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/34-current-perversion-of-john-8-1-11-the
Let me know if you need help with the big words.
"And with him, there was nothing like the onslaught of evidence of actual oppression or sexual assaults that we have against Trump, including his own testimony (which people like you continue to defend and give a pass to and give him the benefit of the doubt, WHILE calling the accused women oppressive, disgusting names."
Way to re-write history, Danny-boy.
https://www.yourtango.com/2017307907/bill-clinton-sexual-assault-rape-allegations-list-women-timeline
"...including his own testimony..."
You mean the "pathological liar's" own testimony? The guy you say can't be believed?
"which people like you continue to defend and give a pass to and give him the benefit of the doubt"
I don't defend anything he does wrong. Not a thing. Never have. Of course I don't know what he's actually done wrong. I only know what he's accused of doing.
"WHILE calling the accused women oppressive, disgusting names."
I referred to two specific women, who take money for sexual behavior, and have, by their own admission, had consensual sex with a married man. Such women are whores and sluts. If sinners feel "oppressed" by being called what what their behavior indicates they are, boo-freakin'-hoo. It's no different than calling you a liar, hypocrite and heretic, because your behavior affirms those words are true and applicable for you.
Here's a tip. If a woman doesn't want to be called what you regard as "disgusting" names, they shouldn't engage in the disgusting behavior that warrants the label. But then, you're only using the word "disgusting" because you don't want to in any way detract from how evil you want to paint Trump...because your own evil heart compels you to do so. As I said before, using another word that means the same thing doesn't mitigate the sin that makes the word appropriate. And refusing to acknowledge their sin just to focus the hatred on Trump you hope to provoke is deceitful. They weren't victims, Danny-boy, you black-hearted hater. They were willing dance partners in that sexual tango.
"The Democrats are not perfect, but they would not abide by the level of perversion (by which I mean actually misogynistic/oppressive behavior) that Trump represents."
Wow. That's quite a fantasy world in which you reside! They've been letting bad behavior of Dem comrades slide for decades and decades...as if they're getting paid (that's a joke...of course they get paid in one way or another).
"What does it say that the Democrats are now the party of morality and the GOP is the party of corruption and perversion?"
It says you're a total moron for even suggesting such a laughable notion. Trump isn't typical in any way of the GOP (hell, he's unique regardless). But so long as Dems continue to support the things they do, they'll always be the party of corruption and perversion. It's what you do. Nothing's changed in that regard except for how badly.
"What would Jesus do?"
Clearly, He did what I did. He called the adulteress what she was.
I’d argue that with the exception of Truman and Carter that the DFL has been accepting/hiding immoral behavior in presidents, congressmen, mayors and governors since FDR was elected.
This isn’t to say the GOP is perfect, or even better, just pointing out the reality.
"What does it say that the Democrats are now the party of morality and the GOP is the party of corruption and perversion?"
Art,
Remember when Dan said he wasn't going to judge groups by the behavior of a small number of people in the group?
The above is quite a biased opinion based solidly on preconceptions about both groups that probably don't withstand scrutiny.
I think it's safe to say that all political parties that are made up of fallen, sinful humans will likely have plenty corruption and perversion.
If humans are basically "good" how does one explain all the corruption and perversion.
RE: the Clintons. Bill just claimed that his sexual affair with Monica was simply "stress relief". As if lowering a human being to the level of something to be selfishly used to relieve stress makes the affair somehow more acceptable. As I see various lawsuits and criminal investigations involving the Clintons moving forward, I'm not sure we can close the book on the level of corruption that the Clintons were involved in. Certainly the close connection to Epstein, the influencing of elections and the post earthquake dealings in Haiti are all pretty well known, but I suspect there's more.
I also don't think that we even know the extent of the corruption Hunter Biden was involved in. Again, what we know is pretty bad. But the extent to which Joe was involved or the extent to which Hunter traded on his last name is still unknown. If the roles were reversed (Biden was GOP), we'd certainly be hearing cries for him to step aside and for intensive investigation.
Speaking of groups is speaking in generalities. I feel confident in my ability to determine when someone's speaking in generalities, and I have no problem with it. Dan's doing now with his Democratic Party is more moral bit. He's wrong based on pay platform alone.
I understand speaking in generalities, and I get it. What I’m talking about is Dan’s habit of impugning everyone in a group based on his perception of the behavior of the worst fraction of the group. He was quite clear that he wasn’t going to do this anymore, yet he’s continued to.
Except that I'm not impugning everyone in the group. I'm impugning those who support and defend Trump because THEY are supporting and defending an overtly corrupt sexual predator and dishonest conman.
The thing is, you all you have supported and defended Trump have done so KNOWING that he is overtly corrupt and a sexual predator and dishonest, and knowing that, you still support and defend him. Those are all things that should be lines that make reasonable people say, "no, I will not support this man in no way, nor will I defend them. He is not fit for office."
I'm not judging those conservatives who have spoken out clearly against Trump and spoken to his basic unfitness for office for a dozen reasons. But the GOP, the party itself, is now the party of Trump. They are the party that supports a sexual predator who is utterly corrupt and dishonest. This is what Al Mohler and George Will and other good conservatives, or at least consistent conservatives, have said. The GOP has blown their credibility on matters of morality. They just have.
Absolutely. Here, he would presume to say ALL of the Dem Party is more moral and ALL of the GOP is less. Somehow the entire Dem party is moral... based on what, who's actions, etc...thereby praising the entire party for the moral actions of a few. Of course, he couldn't possibly be trying to insist that the entirety (or even a small portion) of the Dem Party has somehow elevated their behavior to a more moral level that exceeds that of the entirety of the GOP based on (in his mind) the actions of a portion. No. He cannot be doing more than saying that the GOP, because of the actions of those who support Trump, is now less moral than the Dems, which is like saying Hitler became more moral when Mao exterminated more people.
Dan is committed to tying support for Trump's political promises and actions to support for his sexual immorality. That's how corrupt Dan is, particularly in a plank in the eye kind of way. He eagerly supports his preferred form of sexual immorality...and all the harm that goes with it...as well as abortion "rights" and somehow wants to pretend that supporting the candidate who is NOT among those who would also promote, enable and protect his preferred for of sexual immorality and the "right" to murder one's own offspring. The Dems can NEVER be the party of morality so long as immorality is their party platform.
Someday, he'll have to demonstrate how support for Trump's political actions has led to a promotion, tolerance or enabling of the behaviors Trump is alleged to perpetrated. When he can do that, then he can possibly make a case that anyone is down with Trump's personal sexual sins.
"What does it say that the Democrats are now the party of morality and the GOP is the party of corruption and perversion?"
This is your exact quote, please explain where you’re not referring to all of the “GOP” and all of the “Democrats”?
Of course your phrasing is misleading. It’s possible to support a person’s actions with supporting everything that person ever did.
It’s not hard.
The Demokratic Party IS the party of immorality. It is the Dems who promote homosexuality as a normative lifestyle, it is the Dems who fought to same-sex fake marriage, it is the Dems who promote sexual anarchy and teaching school children how to have sex (with themselves, with others in what ever fashion suits them, etc), it is the Dems who have invented and promote the perverse an biology-denying "transgender" and hundreds of gender types, it is Dems who continue to fight for the murder of the unborn, etc, etc, etc. And don't forget it was Dems who booed God at their convention.
Party of morality -- what a demented joke.
What does it say that the Democrats are now the party of morality and the GOP is the party of corruption and perversion?"
This is your exact quote, please explain where you’re not referring to all of the “GOP” and all of the “Democrats”?
The GOP is currently owned and operated by the Trump administration. Those who oppose Trump are either gone or emasculated by "conservatives," writ large.
ARE there still moral and rational GOP conservatives out there? Of course, but they are not in the party mainstream.
You can't throw your support behind or even abide an overtly corrupt, dishonest and sexually predatory deviant and not be owned by that corruption and perversion. THIS IS WHAT conservatives like Mohler and Will are telling you.
You have collectively lost your credibility because collectively, by and large, white evangelical conservatives have been supportive or submissive to Trump's corruption. Ask Mohler. Ask Will.
I don't know how else to explain it other than that.
Put another way, there is some 35-40-ish percent of the nation who defer/submit to Trump's dominion/authority. The rest of the nation - the majority - recognize the indecency that would allow white evangelicals (and other Trump supporters) to watch a man boast about sexual assaults, to make thousands of false claims in a few short years, to cheat his charities, to attack the free press and immigrants and liberals... to watch all this overt corruption and sexually predatory behavior and think, "I think he's qualified to be president."
The man is a corrupt deviant and history and the world will judge those who supported AND those who deferred to/defended him harshly. You've lost your credibility with the majority of the nation. And, if I'm not mistaken, God.
Actually there is 100% of the nation that acknowledges the constitutional authority of our legally elected president. It’s simply the reality of our system.
You have this strange obsession with insisting that people who support some of Trump’s policies with support of every aspect of Trump’s character.
It’s a character flaw.
I’ll agree with the notion that the Democratic Party/political and social left have championed and legitimized many behaviors that have traditionally been considered immoral.
The fact that you’ve supported many of those behaviors calls your ability to identify moral behavior into question.
The fact is that I would not vote for a Democrat who behave in a manner that Trump behaves. Aside from any policy agreements I have with him, if a president lied multiple times everyday, if a president boasted about sexually assaulting women, if a president was corrupt and cheated at his business and his Charities and his schools, all of that would be sufficient to stand opposed to that President and worked have him removed. Even if I agreed with all of his policies.
If a president is dangerously unfit for office, as Trump clearly is and this is recognized by people across the political Spectrum, then we must be opposed to that President. Even if I like his policies.
That's the difference between those who vaguely defend Trump because they like some of his policies, and those committed to not crossing certain lines of being fundamentally unfit.
That’s a fine opinion to hold, yet the reality is that Trump is the legally elected president of the US. Unfortunately for some of us, there is no better choice.
Of course the problem with “unfit” argument is that he’s proven himself at least reasonably fit over the course of his presidency. Not the best, probably not the worst. But fit.
Hell, apparently Biden can’t stand up for an entire debate. He doesn’t consistently remember what office he’s running for and his family seems to attract corruption. But he’s fit.
I don't believe your understanding my point, Craig. The man is unfit for office by virtue of his being a sexual predator, by being utterly corrupt, by being entirely dishonest. Period. Full stop.
It doesn't matter if he did everything right and the economy got better and people were dancing in the street, he was still be unfit for office that virtue of any one of those characteristics.
If a man is corrupt and utterly dishonest, for instance, how do we know he's not cheating somehow to give the illusion of things getting better? Or even if they are getting better in reality, the man would still remain corrupt and dishonest. A stain on the underwear of our history. I don't care how saintly or good a man is, if he is a sexual predator he is loathsome and should not be president.
And it is a fact that such a person would not get my vote, even if he was a Democrat or green party member changing things in a way that I thought was for the best. I would still stand against such a man. Because of integrity on our part, we would stand against such man. We would call for his removal. And we certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So, no. He has not proven himself reasonably fit. He has proven himself utterly corrupt, dishonest and unfit.
Our integrity and consistency cannot be bought.
Your use of the present tense “is” raises the obvious question. Are you suggesting that the sexual predation is something that is currently happening or is it something that happened years ago? The corollary is, is someone always defined solely by their worst behavior?
The last question raised is, “Are (to be strictly accurate) unproven allegations of sexual impropriety more serious than other types of impropriety?”
The corollary is, is someone always defined solely by their worst behavior?
When a person is an unrepentant rapist/sexual predator, YES, they are defined by that, they SHOULD be recognized as a sexual predator. This is an especially repugnant and harmful crime that has caused harm and oppression to countless billions of women over the centuries. We must fight to end the acceptance of sexual assault/harassment/rape. Outing people who are sexual predators at least until such time as they admit their wrong-doing and begin to pay for it is necessary.
If we just look at the jocks, the celebs, the actors, the politicians who have been in this virulent form of misogyny with a laugh and say, "Boys will be boys! It's just locker room talk!" then we are contributing to the rape culture. We must oppose it just as we must always oppose slavery or genocide.
As to "unproven allegations," if a person is saintly (think Jimmy Carter or Billy Graham) and has ONE unproven accusation against an otherwise unblemished record, then one may certainly be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the person. However, if we are talking about DOZENS of allegations by separate women about a man who has been publicly a serial womanizer and has boasted and laughed about sexual assault and getting away with it because he is in a position of power and because of his wealth, then one would be a fool to give THAT person the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that he should be arrested and jailed for unproven allegations, but just because it's not criminally prosecutable does not mean we give an obvious perverted deviant a pass on the harm he is laughing about. Especially if there is no repentance or signs of repentance.
My suspicion in Trump's case is that he is so damaged emotionally that he is probably suffering from some dangerous form of narcissism or sociopathy and doesn't even recognize or care about the harm he causes. I think that's what the evidence suggests, as multiple mental health experts have noted. We'd be a fool to think that such a person is fit for office, EVEN IF they try to enact policies we may personally approve of.
There are line that ought not be crossed and Trump crosses multiple lines regularly.
Every single Demokrat subscribes to the party platform. Anyone who supports homosexuality, same-sex fake marriage, the lies of "transgender', the faux science of "climate change", abortion, "social justice," socialism, etc are unfit for the office of the President.
And here we can see one of the differences between conservatives like Glenn and progressives and moderates like myself. Glenn is making the suggestion, or saying outright, that if you disagree with his opinions on certain policies, then that disagreement itself is reason to call a person, unfit for office. Whereas, I recognize people of good faith Cannon do disagree on all these issues you can have different ideas about policies. The disagreement is not reason to call someone unfit for office. And of course, by and large, I bet the Glen would be glad to firm that his positions on these issues he sides are his religious positions. Thus, for Glen, if you disagree with his religious opinions about these topics, you are unfit for office. That's practically a religious test for candidates, something that's unconstitutional.
Craig, here's your chance to demonstrate that you're an actual reasonable moderate conservative. Can you let Glen know that of course it's okay to disagree with his opinions on these topics and that doesn't make you unfit for office? Just a suggestion to try to build your
As it is, those who hold Glenn's positions on suggesting the climate change is fake science or who put social justice in quotation marks or who opposes basic human rights for homosexuals, such a person is entering dangerous and oppressive territory.
You see, it's not a religious test that makes someone unfit for office, but whether or not they are actively engaging in and encouraging harm or oppression. Trump's utter corruption is harmful. His dishonesty is harmful. His sexual predator nature is harmful. This is what makes one unfit for office, not disagreeing with Glenn's religious opinions.
Trabue,
Thanks for misrepresenting me. I never say you have to agree with me or you are unfit. But when you talk about morality being what make one fit or unfit for government, then you have to look at GOD's view of morality. If you call that a religious test, then it proves you are not a Christian (of course you proved that long ago)
The Demokrat party platform violates God's morality all over the place.
"Basic human rights" and "social justice" are faux claims to justify immorality and abuse. I am not for denying, or suggesting the denying, of any "basic human rights. Disapproving off and refusing the sanctioning of homosexual behavior is not denying any basic human right. God has said homosexual behavior is an abomination. Same-sex fake marriage is not a basic human right, it is and abomination; marriage is between one man and one woman and God instituted that and never changed that rule. Even if you throw out religion basic biology tells any rational person that homosexual behavior an abuse of the body.
Abortion is not a basic human right -- it is the murder of the unborn, and to deny that is to deny medical science.
"Social justice" is nothing but socialism and promoting socialist nonsense. No religious test there, bub.
The whole "climate change" brouhaha is anti-science and I have a whole blog article with links after links to article PROVING beyond the shadow of any doubt (by any rational person) that there is no such think as man-caused climate change and there is nothing mankind can do to affect climate change:
https://agotoblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/global-climate-change-nonsense.html
Again, no religious test there.
Trump is not "actively engaging in and encouraging harm or oppression." You keep claiming Trump is engaging in harmful corruption but don't give evidence. You claim he is engaging in dishonesty but don't give evidence. You have judged his mind to call him a sexual predator (is he really preying on women? is one who committed an adulterous relationship a predator?)
Seems to me it is only you self-righteous, virtue-signalling opinion that is being expressed and no objective rational thought. Trump isn't unfit just because you say so.
"When a person is an unrepentant rapist/sexual predator, YES, they are defined by that, they SHOULD be recognized as a sexual predator."
You are either assuming "unrepentant" or have proof. Which is it and if you have proof, let's see it.
"If we just look at the jocks, the celebs, the actors, the politicians who have been in this virulent form of misogyny with a laugh and say, "Boys will be boys! It's just locker room talk!""
In this case, that's not what's being done. I'm unaware of anyone (certainly no one in this conversation) who is excusing his behavior. While there may be some nuts out there, I'm not aware of anyone (certainly not here) who is arguing that his behavior should be ignored. But to be fair, there were and are plenty of people who were willing to give Clinton a pass, so it's definitely not a one sided phenomenon.
"However, if we are talking about DOZENS of allegations by separate women about a man who has been publicly a serial womanizer and has boasted and laughed about sexual assault and getting away with it"
This sentence describes Clinton as well. I realize that you claim (now) that you didn't support Clinton, I've never seen any contemporaneous evidence to prove that. Although, you have repeatedly tried to cast the Lewinsky affair as a "consensual" affair, despite Bill's recent admission that he was merely using Monica for "stress relief".
As to your biased, TDS influenced, untrained amateur attempt at psychoanalysis, it's worth absolutely zero.
As someone who regularly crosses lines of decorum, I'm not sure you have much room for self righteous criticism.
Dan, what makes you think that I'll do your bidding like a lackey? You and Glenn are two sides of the same coin. You are both deciding on issues of "fitness for office" on the basis of personal opinion. Now, I do agree with Glenn that unlimited, unregulated, abortion, up to and past birth is an abominable position to hold and is made worse when tax dollars are proposed to fund it. Yet, your top two candidates for president espouse just that. The VA house (among others) have passed legislation that allows for born, living, children to be killed. This is the party you support.
Of course it's OK to disagree with Glenn (or you) and that disagreement isn't cause for the type of vitriol you spew.
If my "credibility" rests on your opinion of me doing your dirty work, then I'm not worried about any credibility that rests on the opinion of someone like you.
As to the last bit of opinion, I think Glenn has it right that you can make claims all you want, but without proof, it's just wind.
FYI, Bernie doesn't think that the borders should be closed due to the Wuhan Virus pandemic. Is that because he doesn't believe science, or because he puts ideology over the safety of US citizens.
The problem that you have is that you have no coherent argument as to why either of these two clowns (plus the WOC who's being systematically excluded from everything) should be president. "Anybody but Trump", isn't a reasoned coherent argument, it's a slogan.
I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again. If Trump wins this year, it's on you specifically and the party you blindly support collectively. Y'all knew what you were up against, and you couldn't scrape up one worthy challenger.
What's interesting is that you criticize Glenn for holding certain views (some) based on his faith. Yet it's your party that tells the pro life voters, "We expect your vote in 2020, and in exchange for your vote you will absolutely not get a seat at the table and we expect you to ignore your strongly held convictions and vote for us anyway.".
The problem isn't that Trump is a horribly flawed human being who's done deplorable things. It's that the choice for millions of Americans is, support Trump and watch jobs, wages, and the economy grow or vote DFL and watch things go the opposite way. James Carville was right when he said, "It's the economy stupid.". Yet we see BB fans literally celebrating the temporary upheaval in the markets caused by the manufactured hysteria over the Wuhan Virus. If you think celebrating ordinary American's retirement savings taking a hit so y'all can win an election is a good look, I can't help you.
I think that Glenn has rightly pointed to a number of social ills that can be traced to liberal political movements, so please stop pretending that y'all are these paragons of morality.
Dan,
I've been clear that I did not vote for or support Trump in 2016 precisely because of his many failings of character. Further, I didn't vote for him in the 2020 primary. My inherent moral compass tells me not to vote for him in 2020.
But, IF I do decide to vote for Trump in 2020, I can tell you right now the specific reason why.
It's because of you, and people like you.
It''s that simple and direct.
It's because of you, the hatred and vitriol you spew, and your utter lack of acceptance, inclusion, and grace.
It's because of you, never forget that you are the reason why your vote might get cancelled out by mine.
Dan,
You claim that homosexuals are "oppressed". However, isn't this really only true if homosexuality is something that is "assigned" at birth and stays fixed throughout one's entire life?
It can't be repeated enough that Dan bases so much on Trump's own boasting, yet continues to whine that Trump lies all the time. This completely renders Dan's objections contradictory. For example, Dan has pinned much in Trump's comments on the Howard Stern show. Most who appear on that show say outrageous things because IT'S THE FREAKIN HOWARD STERN SHOW!! That is, it's not exactly a court of law. Such testimonies provide the grains of salt with which one must take them.
I insist that Dan's motivations are far more politically motivated than a concern for millions of oppressed women... not oppressed by Trump. And that's another thing... Dan's constant suggestion that somehow women are put in greater peril of further oppression due to Trump being president. What kind of mental/emotional disorder would provide anyone to believe sexual abuse is OK simply because someone like Trump has been elected... assuming he's indeed an abuser of the type Dan needs him to be?
Dan's hypocrisy it's clear given his support for the Democratic Party and their history if favoring every firm if immorality as a matter of past platform. Dan's own lies about Trump are far more egregious than any Trump has told, and certainly since Dan has yet to produce a Trump lie that actually matters in any significant way, that's especially telling. The lies of Dan and the Democratic Party are legion and distinctly detrimental to the nation and its culture. Trump's lies? Inconsequential bluster.
Dan’s political allies have brought us drag queens twerking in from of young children, young children in drag dancing in front of adults.
Yes, the party of morality.
First of all, I don't know how common it is for drag queens to twerk in front of children. The second lie, who does that harm? On the other hand, white evangelicals have brought us a man who boasted about sexually assaulting women. The party that normalizes sexual assault is the party to be worried about. And white Evangelical conservatives electing a sexual predator like Trump, THAT is normalizing rape and sexual assault and telling women that their vaginas and breasts and bodies are men's to abuse.
See the difference? Harm. The GOP has become the party of perversion because they are the party that has embraced harm. And not just harm but harm to women and to teenaged girls.
Again, we can see the difference. Democrats today would not vote for a man who has boasted about sexual assault like Trump. Even if he was a perfect liberal or democrat president policy-wise. The boasting about sexual assault is a line that we would not cross. Conservative white evangelicals, by and large, crossed that line. Much to your shame.
Dan,
The party which has embraced, panders to, promotes and forces sexual anarchy on our school children, let alone bakers and florists, employers, etc is the Demokrats. Drag queens reading in public elementary schools has become quite common.
It harm society as a whole, it is destroying our culture. How can you defend people being forced to sanction homosexual behavior or get fired, or lose their businesses, etc? You keep talking about morality but you defend some of the worst immorality in homosexuality! It is YOUR Demokrat party which denies science by saying people can change from one gender to another by mutilation, which is a medical impossibility!?!? How can you defend perverts (drag queens) performing in public schools across the nation?!?!?
Never has the GOP embraced harm. NEVER. Electing a person to the office of President does not embrace what the person has done in his past.
Yet that is all the Demokrats do -- sexual anarchy to the utmost. Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong in you.
And by the way, DAN,
You keep forgetting that Christians, REAL Christians don't promote or defend sexual anarchy. Nor do we vote for a President the way we'd elect a pastor. We elected a President, not a Pastor. Totally different qualification.
Perhaps you need to look in the mirror at all your past sins and see just how imperfect you are.
Dan again cites the word of a guy he calls a pathological liar and expects we all believe THOSE words of boasting, because evidently, Dan believes there6 no way Trump would be lying about his sexual history. No. On THAT score, Trump is a paragon of absolutely and complete honesty.
Here also continues to pretend supporting Trump is akin to supporting sexual assault as if the choice was between him and an apostle of Christ. We who voted for him in the general took a chance on a man of seriously questionable character who at these very least promised what would benefit the nation... which it has. His EQUALLY corrupt opponent, who attacked her husband's victims, promoted destructive policies. There choice was clear. Dan would have us believe allowing destructive policies of his preferred candidate was the morally superior choice. If Dan truly cared about women, he'd never vote again, because he certainly would never vote for the party that benefits them the most... the GOP.
Glenn... Drag queens reading in public elementary schools has become quite common.
SO, a GOOD HEARTED fella dressed as a woman and reading stories to children is, in your twisted mind, somehow a BAD thing? BUT, let a man boast and laugh about sexual assault and he's got your vote for the highest office of the land?
Do you see why your party has become the party of perverts and oppression?
It is a GOOD thing to read stories to children, NOT A BAD THING. And if it happens to be a drag queen doing the reading, who cares? Just because you have your panties in a bunch about guys wearing women's clothing doesn't mean that it's immoral or that God disapproves. God has not told you to ban drag queens from reading to children.
On the other hand, a deviant sexual predator who has two dozen women accusing him of sexual assault or worse who publicly laughs and boasts about sexually assaulting women IS A GREAT HARM AND OPPRESSION of women and girls.
Shame on you, Glenn, for lending support to such a pervert. You are part of the problem.
Dan is now defending drag queens twerking in front of children, because it’s good for the kiddies to be exposed to twerking drag queens as young as possible. It’s also good to dress prepubescent boys in drag and have them dance in front of audiences of gay men.
What a sick, depraved, human being. I guess sexualizing children isn’t enough to get him worked up.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where it’s possible to ignore the history of Democrat presidents and their sexual shenanigans. FDR was engaged in an affair for much of his presidency, Kennedy was a serial philanderer and likely drug addict, Clinton was credibly accused of rape before he was elected and continued his depredations in office. Culminated by using a low level employee for sexual “stress relief”. If sexual purity is the standard, then the GOP has some catching up to do. It’s just too bad that all we have to verify Dan’s attitude about Clinton is his word and his veneration of Hillary,
It’s honestly hard to understand the level of delusion that allows someone to ignore the failings of “their political side”, while being obsessive about one person. It’s like monomania,
Just remember, if I vote Trump, it’s all because of you Dan. It’s all because of you.
Because we can take it as an indisputable fact that any “fella” who wants to dress in a sexually provocative manner while reading propaganda to elementary age students is by definition “good hearted”. What other kind of “fella” dresses in a miniskirt and bustier to read to small children. No, that’s perfectly normal.
What we’re seeing is someone so obsessed with hatred for Trump, that he’s willing to embrace transsexuals being sexually provocative in front of children.
His silence on, the recent attempts to legalize infanticide, sexualization of elementary aged boys for gay men, the Democratic Party joined at the fundraising hip with Epstein and Weinstein, can only equal acceptance.
It’s like he’s in a race to out scumbag Trump.
Have you ever been to a reading done by a transexual for children? It's quite innocent and fun and funny. Perhaps y'all have imagined something dirtier in your mind than what it really is because you just haven't been there for them?
No need to imagine, there are plenty of videos.
You must be proud that you’re reduced to defending putting children in situations where they’re exposed to sexualized behavior that’s age inappropriate.
So, here's just the first video that I found when I googled drag queen read stories...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOFkVZQ8etE
What about that is in any way "sexualized behavior" that is inappropriate? What about any of that is comparable to the president of the US laughing about ogling teen-aged girls getting dressed and getting away with it because he had power and money?
The video is pristine and pure. Trump is deviant and evil.
Come on, tell me what it is that you find so awful about the video?
Dan ignores the fact that the real reason for parents and honest people to object to transvestites reading to small children has less to do with adults as it does indoctrination. As there left like Dan is wont to do, they believe parents aren't the best teachers of morality for their own kids. Well, that's certainly true if the parents are leftists like Dan, but not true for normal people. (Note Dan's outrage over the use of the word "whore" to describe a woman who is confirmed as one who earns her living by trading sex for money.) Dan's purpose here is to minimize the immorality of corrupting children... defended by his political allies... while hyping Trump's alleged sins to attack his policies which has improved the nation in ways his vaunted Obama never could and ways his current choices couldn't possibly.
And Dan keeps arguing that this sort of thing is healthy for elementary school children and younger. It’s strange to see this much consistency from him, but at least it’s something.
Of course he’s ignoring the little boy dressed up in girls clothes and dancing in front of an audience of gay fellas.
Identifying these things as pure, healthy, and pristine raise serious questions about his ability to identify moral behavior.
Art, of course you’re correct that Dan wants to normalize as much of these sorts of behavior as possible. It’s because all of these behaviors are an evolutionary dead end. Given that reality there is a realization that these lifestyles need to appear glamorous and exciting to younger and younger children (the term formative years does mean something after all).
Because librarians are much better judged of what’s appropriate for small children than their parents are.
I'm not trying to "normalize," anything. It IS normal, healthy, ok to be gay, lesbian or transgender. What I'm trying to do is help open your eyes to see how deeply abnormal and unhealthy and harmful the attitudes that people like you are advocating.
A boy wearing a dress? NOT abnormal or unhealthy. People suggesting it's somehow "dirty" or sexualized? NOT normal or healthy.
A drag queen reading books to kids? Lovely and healthy!
Finding something sick about that? Disturbing.
Again, look at the link I provided. You can't point to anything in that that's not healthy or normal.
Trabue,
What planet are you from?!?!?
It IS normal, healthy, ok to be gay, lesbian or transgender.
No, it is NOT normal and only 2-3% of the population is homosexual -- it is ABNORMAL, and a biological/medical harmful practice, especially for men. And if you were a true Christian you would know that God has soundly condemned homosexuality.
"Transgender" is a fraud, assisting those with mental problems to mutilated their bodies and take all sorts of hormone supplements, etc. IT is medically harmful. It is pretending to be what you aren't. With less than .6% of the population deceiving themselves into believing what they are not, that proves it is not normal.
You just continue to demonstrate what a perverted and evil ideology you hold.
One cherry picked link that causes you to conclude that all of these things are wonderful.
“I’m not trying to normalize”
“It is normal..,”
It’s not normal to contradict yourself.
Data suggests that it’s not healthy to be transgender, unless you consider higher than normal rates of suicide and mental health issues to be normal.
Just like putting a 8-9 year old dressed in revealing girls clothes on a stage to dance in front of gay fellas. Definitely healthy. It’s clearly healthy to demonstrate that approval and validation comes from dancing in a potentially sexual way in front of an audience.
Is there ever a situation where it’s ok to sexualize a prepubescent child?
Re: normal
Glenn, I believe the word you're looking for is that it's not normative. It is not in the norm to be homosexual, but it IS natural and normal, as opposed to abnormal. Abnormal implies faulty or immoral or wrong. There's nothing wrong or abnormal with being gay or lesbian or transgender. It's not normative but it is natural and normal.
Not that I expect you to understand or agree, but that's the difference and why your word choice is wrong or not apt.
Craig, you'll have to be more specific and give an example. Who is trying to sexualize a prepubescent child? In the video that I linked to, again just the first one I found it random, and in any times that I've attended such readings it was nothing sexy or sexualized about it. It was just an adult reading stories to children. That is a good thing. This adult happened to be a drag queen, but there was nothing sexual or sexualized about the drag queen.
You see, this is why people have problems with conservatives coming across as the party of perversion. Y'all find an adult reading stories to children to be wrong or perverted or sick, and yet you defend and support a president who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and using his power and wealth to sexualize teenage girls and you think is acceptable for this person to be a president. You don't think that that in and of itself rules him out. That is utter perversity.
Trabue,
No, "normal" is the correct word. Homosexuality is not normal, and it is not "natural." Natural is heterosexual behavior, because that is how God biologically designed us. Homosexuality IS abnormal because it is biologically faulty, as well as being immoral because GOD said it is wrong and immoral. The "pieces" don't fit together.
The word choices are apt. Continuing to prove you are not a Christian -- you thumb your nose at God.
I'll Craig take care of the rest of your perverted and evil comments.
No, I thumb my nose at people like you who defend actual perversion and oppression, like a President who boasts about sexual assault and sexually assaulting we're taking advantage of teenage girls.
That is harm. That is oppression. That is evil. That is immoral. That is unnatural. That is sick. And those who defend that sickness by saying it's okay for such a person to be president are defending the very worst of perversions.
Homosexuality, however, occurs in the natural world. It is, by definition, natural. It is normal there's nothing wrong with it in and of itself. It's not normative because it doesn't happen in the norm but it's not abnormal. What is abnormal is defending sexual predators. That is sick as hell. That is why the GOP is the party of perversion.
So, as always, that I thumb my nose at those who defend actual oppression and perversions is not the same as thumbing my nose at God. You see, I do not conflate your opinions with God's opinion. You are just literally actually mistaken at every turn.
"It's not normative but it is natural and normal."
Define natural and normal and support your claim.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/11-year-old-drag-kid-dances-in-popular-nyc-gay-club-as-patrons-toss-money-a
Look, if you want to go on record that an 11 year old boy dancing at a gay bar with gay fellas throwing money at him is "pristine" , "healthy", and "normal", go right ahead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDdckkn08VU
"You see, this is why people have problems with conservatives coming across as the party of perversion. Y'all find an adult reading stories to children to be wrong or perverted or sick, and yet you defend and support a president who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and using his power and wealth to sexualize teenage girls and you think is acceptable for this person to be a president."
Of course you're arguing for sexualizing 11 year old buys, but that's "normal" and "pristine".
No one is defending or supporting the behavior you mention. It's just not happening.
"That is harm." Prove universal harm? I can only note your silence of Epstein and Weinstein who were significant donors to candidates your support.
"That is oppression." Prove oppression. How do you know that there aren't consensual relationships or relationships where young women pursued Trump.
"That is evil." Only if you minimize true evil and start applying the term to those on your side.
"That is immoral." Except you can't offer a definition of morality that supports this kind of universal objective claim.
"That is unnatural." Except, I've given you multiple examples of science claiming that it is natural. I'll await your proof on this as well.
"Homosexuality, however, occurs in the natural world. It is, by definition, natural."
What's interesting is that you play ignorant when scientists offer data that supports that rape/sexual assault is "natural", but now use this to argue for homosexuality.
What's the line, "They didn't know about loving, committed, homosexual relationships in the 1st century.".
So, if you are going to define homosexuality in the context of "loving, committed," relationships, then you'll have to show that those relationships are normal in "nature".
The problem is that y'all want to use examples of male animals who mount other male animals as the proof of this claim. While ignoring that this behavior is not "loving, and committed" in any way. It's literally a way for one animal to exert dominance over another. It's literally oppression. It's literally sexual assault.
But if you want to hang your hat on "Well beasts do it." go ahead. I'm thinking that acting like beasts isn't healthy, but that's just me.
"That is why the GOP is the party of perversion."
1. You're broad brushing the majority because of the behavior of the minority, something you said you would stop doing.
2. You haven't proven that the DFL doesn't harbor it's fair share of perversion.
Finally. Your claim would be a whole lot more interesting, if y'all weren't attacking Pence for going to great lengths to avoid this sort of "perversion". If Pence was POTUS, y'all would be bitching about him too.
In case this wasn't clear. If you're going to make the "The beasts do it." argument, then you'll have to prove that the beast behavior is an exact analog to the human behavior and motivation. You'll also have to prove why "The beasts do it." works for behavior you condone, but not for behavior you find icky.
FYI, Beasts mate with close relatives, therefore your argument works for those who support incest.
Beasts mate with what we'd consider children, therefore your argument works for pedophiles. (Or whatever terms y'all are using to normalize the behavior.)
Beasts kill and eat their children. You've already got scientists and ethicists arguing that this behavior that beasts engage in justifies killing children up to age 2/3? So, obviously your argument supports infanticide.
So, go with "Beasts do it.", just understand what the whole breadth of what you're opening the door for.
Before you start bitching, remember that I've already provided you with plenty of data to support the thesis that rape and infanticide are "natural". However, here's one short quote to support the reasonableness of concluding that rape is "natural". You'll have to note that it specifically addresses the Trump problem you have.
"A better question is whether or not a rape adaptation in humans is conceivable. Here, I think the answer is clearly yes. That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict. Nature is rife with violent conflict--conflict between members of different species (such as predators and prey), conflict between members of the same species (such as males competing for females), and conflict between males and females (such as the killing of offspring by unrelated males during harem takeovers). Further, many organisms clearly possess adaptations to successfully engage in violent strategies (e.g., fangs and claws). There is no principled reason why animal nervous systems could not be specialized for coercive mating, including rape. In humans, the benefits of rape for males may have outweighed the costs during the EEA in the following circumstances:
High status males may be have been able to coerce matings with little fear of reprisal.
Low status women (e.g., orphans) may have been particularly vulnerable to being raped because males need not have feared reprisals from the woman's family.
During war, raping enemy women may have had few negative repercussions.
Men who were low status, who were likely to remain low status, and who had few opportunities to invest in kin may have realized reproductive benefits that outweighed the considerable costs (e.g., reprisal by the woman's family).
Whether human males possess psychological adaptations for rape will only be answered by careful studies seeking evidence for such cognitive specializations. To not seek such evidence is like failing to search a suspect for a concealed weapon. It is extremely likely that human males, like males of many other species, have both physiological as well as psychological adaptations for successfully engaging in violent strategies. Rape may well be one such strategy."
Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin
"Human evolutionary history was apparently one of polygyny. Polygyny favors the use of different reproductive options by human males with different competitive abilities. These options or alternatives collectively represent a single conditional strategy; which alternatives are employed depend on conditions encountered during a man's life history. It is hypothesized that human rape is an evolved facultative alternative that is primarily employed when men are unable to complete for resources and status necessary to attract and reproduce successfully with desirable mates. According to this hypothesis males that cannot effectively compete may employ rape as the only behavioral alternative, or depending on circumstances of relative status and family composition, they may incorporate rape into a repertoire of other behavioral patterns, including low commital pairbonding with one or more females and/or investing available resources toward sister's offspring. The evolutionary view of rape we propose is completely testable. The view provides predictions about the rapist's and victim's behavior and about rape laws and taboos, several of which we attempt to test. This study indicates that an evolutionary view promises considerable understanding of rape and related phenomena."
Randy and Nancy Thornhill
Craig... Define natural and normal and support your claim.
Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
One's orientation is not caused by humans, it's naturally occurring. You did not CHOOSE to be heterosexual, it was just natural to you and gay folk don't choose to be gay, it's just natural.
Normal: 1. conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern 2. occurring naturally
Homosexuality normally occurs in a certain segment of the population, some 2-10% of the time. It occurs naturally. It is normal in that sense, but NOT in the sense of being normative or "of the norm."
Homosexuality IS natural and normal, it happens without cause or human interference. Indeed, trying to FORCE someone away from their natural orientation, trying to force someone to exchange their natural passions for unnatural... THAT is abnormal and harmful and oppressive. All by definition. You'd recognize this if someone tried to force you to be gay, right? So, do you also recognize how very unnatural, abnormal and harmful it is to try to force a gay person to be straight?
But you know all this, Craig. We've had these discussions before, right? The question is, why would you ask?
Craig... if you want to go on record that an 11 year old boy dancing at a gay bar with gay fellas throwing money at him is "pristine" , "healthy", and "normal", go right ahead.
It's not what I would choose for my child, but there's nothing innately unhealthy about it. What is unhealthy about it? Was the child stripping? (No). Was the child forced into something the child didn't want to do or that caused the child harm? (No).
Here's an actual news report about the incident you cited...
"The report was determined to be 'unfounded,'" a letter from Sheila McBain, director of the statewide central register of the New York Office of Children and Family Services reads. "This means that Cps did not find believable proof (credible evidence) that a child was abused or maltreated...
The mother said that she and her family are victimized by “hate crimes and death threats” perpetrated by “concerned citizens.” Additionally, she said that the family has been stalked."
https://www.christianpost.com/news/cps-clears-mom-of-11-year-old-drag-kid-who-danced-in-gay-bar-for-tips.html
NO CREDIBLE PROOF THE CHILD WAS ABUSED OR MISTREATED.
So, what is your point? That a boy shouldn't dress as a girl? If you don't want to dress as a girl, no one is forcing you. But to say that others doing it are engaging in bad behavior, just by fact of dressing in drag... well, that's not really your call to make, is it?
You see, it SOUNDS like you all recognize how very harmful and evil and wrong it would be if others try to force you (as straight men who don't want to wear dresses) to be gay or to wear a dress... BUT, you think it's fine for you to try to pressure gay folk via threats of hell and God's punishment/displeasure to be straight or to wear clothes of YOUR choosing rather than theirs.
The thing is, there is harm in forcing others to behave in ways that you prefer. But there is no harm in a man (or boy) wearing "women's clothes" or gay folk being gay. What is wrong, then, is the harm of denying human rights and self determination, not disagreeing with others opinions.
So, what harm do you think is being done, when CPS finds no wrongdoing to have happened?
Here you have a case where the authorities in child protection found no harm done, but you appear to want to call this perverted or wrong. BUT you have a president who boasts about sexually assaulting women and laughs about using his power and wealth to ogle teenaged girls getting dressed, and YOU think he's fit for office. Do you not see the problem? Do you not see why Al Mohler says that you all have lost your credibility in your defense of Trump as a viable president?
can only note your silence of Epstein and Weinstein who were significant donors to candidates your support.
? There are MILLIONS of sexual predators out there and NEITHER ONE OF US have said anything about them specifically. Does that mean that you support sexual assault because you did not say you were opposed to them specifically?
NO, of course not. I have stated point blank across the board: I AM OPPOSED TO ALL SEXUAL PREDATORS. I have not been unclear about it. I have not tried to make excuses for some people because they were Democrats. I didn't vote for B Clinton for much less than what we have about Trump.
What do I think of Weinstein/Epstein? They were wrong and oppressive and deserve to go to jail and should be point blank disqualified for public office. Of course. How can one KNOW that this is my position about these two men? BECAUSE IT'S MY POSITION ON ALL SEXUAL PREDATORS.
If it turns out tomorrow that Franklin Graham or Jim Wallis were found to be credibly accused of sexual assault... if tomorrow a videotape turns up with Jimmy Carter saying the same things that Trump said, can you find it somewhere within your world of reason to make a reasonable guess as to my position on them? THEY'D BE WRONG. And how can you know this? Because I ALWAYS am opposed to sexual predators. Such a person would not ever get my vote for any public office.
Sadly, the same cannot be said for a wide swath of white conservative evangelicals and Christians.
. You're broad brushing the majority because of the behavior of the minority, something you said you would stop doing.
You are factually mistaken. Trump is in office because the majority of white conservative evangelicals voted for him, along with other conservatives. I hold THOSE WHO SUPPORT/DEFEND Trump as responsible for him being in office. It's not the minority, it's the majority. Am I mistaken? Is it not the case that the Marshals and Glenns (not totally sure about Glenn) and others of the conservative world are wildly supportive and defensive of Trump and they do not consider him unfit for office for his overt perversions and sexual predatory nature?
Do you understand where you're mistaken?
Craig... So, go with "Beasts do it.", just understand what the whole breadth of what you're opening the door for.
I've been quite clear that my measure for what is acceptable and moral is the Harm measure. We should do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. We should not take actions that cause harm because, harm is a blow against human rights and we believe that some things are self evident.
So, NATURAL is good up until the point that it causes harm. IF it causes harm to innocents, THEN it is not good.
I have not been unclear about this.
Thus, a mother feeding her young with her own milk? Natural. Good. A mother eating its young? HARM. Not Good.
Do you actually disagree? I don't think you do.
If you want to make the case for a morality based upon the survival of the fittest in the harsher realities of nature in the animal world, you can make that case and we can talk about it. BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT, so don't bring up arguments you don't believe in to attack my case which is reasonable and widely recognized as moral and rational.
Fair enough?
Trabue,
Craig covered my argument against your nonsense, but I’m going to rebut you anyway.
First, your claim of us defending “actual perversion and oppression” in regards to Trump is a red herring to distract from the abject perverted immorality of the Demokrat Party and you. IT is also a bald-faced lie. Supporting the President in his office has nothing to do with supporting his behavior previous to entering the Presidency.
God calls homosexual behavior and abomination, and in cleansing Israel from the pagans around them he said it was so abominable that it was worth the death penalty. In the N.T. it says homosexuality is not natural — yes GOD said it is against nature (Romans 1:26-27) and shameful. Paul in 1 Cor said those who practice homosexuality will not enter the Kingdoms of heaven.
Biology says homosexual behavior is an unnatural use of the body, especially with having sex organs pushed into one’s anus — the orifice of expulsion rather than insertion (and yes it is unnatural and perverse when heterosexuals do it.)
The medical field has long noted the diseases, the tearing of the anal cavity and damage to the colon from anal sex (yes even with heterosexual anal sex).
Those three things are HARMFUL!!!
And guess what, the fact that SOME animals hump others does not mean they penetrate one male to another, rather from I have witnessed in dogs they just rub against until the are “satisfied.” It would be harmful and painful for male animals to penetrate another male animal’s anus. It is not “natural” because it occurs in nature, rather it is UNNATURAL to the design God instituted.
Your defense of unnatural, unsafe, harmful sexual practices proves you thumb your nose at God.
It has been demonstrated over and over that studies around the world show that homosexual behavior is in not innate or inbred, rather it is chosen. IF one has an unnatural desire for homosexual behavior he doesn’t have to act on it. Are those who practice bestiality born that way? Or do they just give into perverse desires? If a homosexual is born that way, then why can’t a pedophile be born that way?
Oh, and studies all over the world consistently find that only 2-3% of the population is homosexual, not anywhere close to the 10% Kinsey claimed (all of Kinsey’s research was fraudulent).
I voted for Trump because he would make one helluva better President that any demokrat. He is much more fit for that office than any Demokrat will ever be.
By the way, Trump never raped any one, and none of the sexual assault claims have been found credible. Yes he had an affair while married, and did so many Demokrat Presidents, and he may have had many sexual relations with consenting adult women. How in the world does that affect his job NOW!?!?
You suffer badly from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Most like because your whole lack of rational thought sees perversion as normal!
Supporting the President in his office has nothing to do with supporting his behavior previous to entering the Presidency.
I don't think even you believe this. IF we had a man who you knew had raped a child before running for office (and say, for instance, it was proven but the statute of limitations had expired or it couldn't be proven in a court of law), do you HONESTLY think such a man is deserving of being elected? OR would you agree with the rest of the moral and rational thinking world that such behavior SHOULD DISQUALIFY a person from being elected to office (not by strength of law, necessarily, but just be force of decency and propriety)?
Tell me you would NOT think such a man is fit for office.
I bet you can't/won't.
God calls homosexual behavior and abomination
No. God literally has not. Or at least, not that you can prove. YOU THINK IN YOUR HUMAN OPINION that there are verses in the Bible that suggest TO YOU that there is a God and that God disapproves of all homosexual behavior, including within the bonds of a committed marriage relationship. But GOD HAS NOT SAID THAT. It is literally YOUR human opinion.
Now, I GET that you think it's a very reasonable opinion, but it remains YOUR opinion, not a statement of provable fact.
That's a fact.
IF you could prove it, you would. You can't.
Biology says homosexual behavior is an unnatural use of the body, especially with having sex organs pushed into one’s anus
Biology LITERALLY does not say that. This is another human opinion, NOT a biological fact or something that "biology tells us."
"The external anal sphincter is one of the most sensitive parts of the human body, with one of the densest concentrations of nerve endings. You can get a lot of pleasure out of external anal stimulation without ever going inside."
https://www.pleasuremechanics.com/anus/
You are just factually wrong. You are conflating your opinions with God's Word and with science, and you're just factually wrong, or at the least, making opinion claims that you cannot prove.
Again, if you COULD prove it, you would. You can't.
The medical field has long noted the diseases, the tearing of the anal cavity and damage to the colon from anal sex (yes even with heterosexual anal sex).
Those three things are HARMFUL!!!
Everything in moderation, they say. One can, no doubt, cause harm to one's body parts in using them improperly and I fully support each human sorting out what those lines are for themselves. But I'm not going to tell YOU what to do with your body and you don't get to tell anyone else what to do.
By the way, if that's your measure, then lesbians are cool for you as long as they avoid the anal play. Gay folk are cool for you as long as they avoid the anal play.
But that's not your measure, is it?
studies all over the world consistently find that only 2-3% of the population is homosexual, not anywhere close to the 10% Kinsey claimed (all of Kinsey’s research was fraudulent).
Studies all over the world have found a range of estimates. I tend to think that the best guess is closer to 2-3%, but I'm noting that there is not a complete consensus on the matter. What of it?
It's STILL natural. Homosexuality occurs naturally in the natural world thus making it, by definition, natural.
How is that mistaken? (Hint:It's not. You are simply factually wrong.)
Glenn... He is much more fit for that office than any Demokrat will ever be.
By the way, Trump never raped any one, and none of the sexual assault claims have been found credible.
? I'd be willing to bet that you think B Clinton raped/sexually assaulted someone. Am I right? I'd bet that you also thought this made him unfit for office and probably said so at the time. Am I right? Certainly many conservatives did and you seem like the sort of hypocrite who would say that about Clinton but give a pass to Trump.
The fact is, YOU VOTED for a many YOU KNEW boasted about sexually assaulting women and who boasted about using his power and money to allow him to ogle teenaged girls getting dressed. Aside from the DOZENS of women who've made accusations against Trump, you KNOW what Trump said and you STILL voted for him.
That makes you a supporter of perversions and men who are sexual predators. FOR YOU, Trump's perversions were not enough to say that he is not fit for office.
Finally, to say that he never raped anyone and that the claims against him are not credible, that is, itself a blindingly naive defense of a known sexual predator. You almost certainly would never give such a pass or extend that much benefit of doubt to a liberal person running for office.
But you did for Trump and history will judge your sort of "conservative" "Christian" as being utterly immoral and given over to a blinding,partisan hypocrisy. That's just the way it is. Your grandchildren will be embarrassed by your support of this pervert/deviant and the harm he has caused.
Trabue
Trump didn’t rape anyone, let alone a child. Your red herrings and straw men are all you’ve got for defense.
I can certainly prove from proper exegesis of Scripture exactly what God thinks about homosexuality. Funny how all the scholars and Christians in general for over 3000 years understood what the O.T. teachings were and 2000 years for N.T., but Dan and his apostate friends with their perverted minds somehow found the truth that no one else discovered until the mid 20th century.
You deny the facts of Scripture
You deny the facts of biology
You deny the facts of medicine.
Just because someone derives pleasure from something, that doesn’t make it right. After all you think it is wrong if Trump derived pleasure from illicit sex. What about women who derive pleasure by having horse’s penises inside of them, or that of a dog? What about a man who derives pleasure from sex with a sheep? When you start using pleasure as the measure of right what is right or wrong, then you’ve proven the depths of your perversion.
No, by my measure lesbians aren’t okay. Just because what they do is not as harmful doesn’t mean it is okay — God condemned homosexual behavior period, male and female. Women can still get sexual diseases, can still be harmed by sex toys, etc. But just keep defending perversions.
Biology says homosexual behavior is unnatural. Craig gave you a good slap with your appealing to the beasts.
We have 100% proof of Clinton’s sexual predation, but just unfounded claims against Trump. And again, that was long before he was a candidate. You on the other hand fully support the Demokrat party platform of child murder and sexual anarchy.
I’m finished with you; your are unteachable and with a very deviant and perverse sexual outlook.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine.
You have renounced the use of reason.
Glenn... "After all you think it is wrong if Trump derived pleasure from illicit sex."
No, I think it is wrong to cause harm to innocent people. I think it is wrong to grab women by the pussy. I think it is wrong to not even wait. I think it's wrong to move on them like a b****.
I think your man that you voted for and supported is a sexual predator with multiple sexual assault charges against him that you do not know are not factual. You're assuming the women are lying and bus, you are defending a sexual predator.
A man who, by his own testimony preys upon women. He doesn't even wait. You all are defending rapists and sexual predators and that is why you all come across as sexual perverts of the worst sort.
Yeah I get that you don't understand it, but that's the reality of it all. History will judge you all as defenders of perversions and dishonesty and corruption. Because that is what you all have done by your defense of Trump.
As Reverend Al Mohler rightly noted, you have surrendered your credibility.
Dan,
I’m not going to waste a lot of my time with your nonsense. Suffice it to say that you’ve been quite clear about the types of behavior you are prepared to endorse.
I have to note that your response to my pointing out the problems with your “Beasts do it.” argument wasn’t to demonstrate that I was wrong, it was to significantly modify your original argument.
Good tactic. Because we all know that “nature”, (which is red in tooth and claw), regulates its actions to avoid harm. Of course your problem remains, if “Beasts do it.” is your justification then you’re stuck with all of the ramifications of your reasoning.
As Glenn pointed out (as I’ve done before) anal sex is demonstrably more harmful that vaginal sex. That homosexuals suffer disproportionately from all sorts of physical and mental maladies, is also demonstrable.
Let’s r that the person claiming the self righteous moral high ground here is the one who referred to a fellow Christian as “Rapeboy”.
Because you all are the ones who are demonstrably factually using words that lend aid and support to rapists and sexual predators.
Trump is a sexual predator, by his own testimony. There's not really any doubt about this. The only question really is, is there enough evidence to convict him of any crimes or not. By y'all hearing the words that everyone else heard, and still either defending him as fit for office or actually voting for him, you all are indicating by that action that his sexual predatory nature is an acceptable behavior. It's not something that would automatically disqualify you.
For the majority of the nation, we recognize that sort of sexual assault / rape-y language for what it is. It is a line that should not be crossed and should not be allowed to be in the highest office of the land.
And just as Jesus and James and the prophets rebuked wealthy and powerful oppressors using strong language, so do we. It is prophetic language to speak out against the oppression of the poor and marginalized, of widows and Orphans, of women and children, of immigrants and minorities. Y'all have landed soundly on the side of rapists and sexual predators by your actions. That is why the GOP is recognized by and large as a party a perversion.
Craig .. "Of course your problem remains, if “Beasts do it.” is your justification then you’re stuck with all of the ramifications of your reasoning."
IF. That would be the key word. I've been quite clear always and forever, natural is good, and Do no harm is the standard by which we are able to say what things are bad. So if it's natural but it causes harm, then it's not good. It's really not hard to understand.
Do you understand my position now?
I have to think that none of y'all really disagree with my opinion that natural is good, by and large, with the caveat that Do no harm is a reasonable measure which people can largely agree upon to determine moral behavior.
Thus, natural water tends to be clean in healthy ecosystems. However, there are some places where the water is naturally salty, for instance. Drinking that water would you harm. So, natural tends to be good, but Do no harm is a measure for Morality. What is wrong in any of that? What do you disagree with in any of
Y'all continue to act as if this is irrational or that you have some better measure of morality. You don't. You just don't.
I forgot one item about Dan's claims: i.e. behavior must do no harm to be okay..
Of course it is his subjective opinion as to what is defined as "harm" -- no objective standard for Danny boy. Just his virtue-signaling say-so.
it is his subjective opinion as to what is defined as "harm" -- no objective standard for Danny boy.
Yes, it IS subjective. But it's not irrational or unreasonable, after all. Is it?
I mean, in broad stripes, people RECOGNIZE harm. It causes harm to rape, to sexually assault, to abuse children, to molest children, to harass women, to make false claims to scare people into going along with you, to steal things that aren't yours, to kill, to assault... We ALL recognize the harm in these behaviors and can agree that we don't want people to do this unto us, so we ought not do it unto others. It's not really THAT hard a measure.
The reality is, it's the best measure we have. If you could demonstrate some more reliable/more objective measure for morality, please do so. You'll be helping everyone out.
BUT, if you're merely going to say, "Use MY INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible and what people who agree with me THINK that God thinks and THAT is going to be more objective than harm..." just don't. YOUR opinions about what YOUR God may or may not think ARE BY DEFINITION subjective, not provably factual.
Do you recognize that?
(I know you don't, but it's just the reality. Maybe even Craig can agree with me this far to help you understand the problem you have.)
You see, the problem religious zealots have in wanting to say, "OUR personal human interpretations about what people who agree with me about MY personal sacred writings and what WE THINK they mean... are the best way to 'know' what is right and wrong" is that MANY different religions will say the same thing and people even within the SAME religion may have different human opinions and those who are areligious may have different opinions and none of them are demonstrably factual or demonstrably objectively true and it just comes down to the opinions of millions of different people about what their particular god may or may not think.
You don't have a better method, to be sure. The question is, do you really even disagree with MY (Jesus, the rational world, etc) method of "Do no Harm/Golden Rule" measure that is more consistently something more people can agree upon? Which is an appeal to something as rational (some may say Self Evident) as the recognition of human rights? What is WRONG with that method, other than it's not perfect? Especially when you have nothing better to replace it with?
There are no limits to which Dan will go to push his narrative and rationalize his own misbehaviors and counter-Christian positions. Along with my already wacky schedule that results in my falling behind in these and other discussions, I now have a plethora of appointments of varying kinds, as well as house hunting activities. But I don't need to get through all of the last dozen or more comments to see Dan engaging in his usual nonsense. Playing word games (norm/normal/normative/natural) in his malicious attempt to legitimize moral depravity (all things LGBT+). But one point, for now, that stands out is his claim that homosexuality is normal and/or natural because he thinks it happens at all (basically). But what could be more normal and natural than for a dude to try to bed any chick here finds attractive? As Craig's links more than simply imply, we're actually designed that way... an inherent function of our sex. Heightened sexual desire in men is about as natural an "orientation" as there can be. It's absolutely normal! And it's absolutely in lignorant with biological sexual design and function. Homosexuality absolutely is not.
Dan goes on with the trope that homosexual person is not chosen. There is nothing in science that proves that one way or three other, nor would it be be justifiable in any way if it was. It's still a behavior with moral implications... that it's, it's still immoral, just as rape is.
He then tries the "it's nature" crap. But there's all manner of dysfunction, mutation and the like that is "natural" in a world decaying since Adam's sin. "Natural" does not mitigate the immorality of a sinful desire... which is "natural" as most desires are.
So, Glenn, Marshal, Craig, What specifically do you all propose in place of the golden rule / Do no harm as a criteria for finding common ground on what is and isn't moral?
My guess is that for at least two out of the three of you all, your answer is going to be, "everyone should agree with me on what I think God thinks is immoral."
But how likely is that to happen? Why would a Buddhist agree to go along with your religious opinions? Why would an atheist? On what basis would we choose one subset of Christian rules as a criteria for what is and isn't moral?
It’s interesting that Dan can’t live with the standard he proposed without modifying it.
Now it’s “Beasts do it, except...”
The problem with the subjective harm is pointed out in the scientific explanations of why rape is necessary.
To use rape as an example. A rape involves 2 people. There is a varying degree of harm to one of the people, there is a (according to scientists) benefit to the other. On what basis does one make the objective claim that the harm to one party outweighs the benefit to the other. As with so much of Dan’s pronouncements, it’s based on his assumptions, which he conveniently placed beyond scrutiny.
There’s no objective reason that says the altruism is better than self-interest 100% of the time. The predominant narrative in biology is that self-interest trumps altruism. In fact the argument is that altruism is simply self-interest in disguise.
As as we see in the last comment, Dan has given up on demonstrating that the scientific approach is wrong, as well as on defending his tautology. Instead, appealing to us for our “better” options.
As for me, until he demonstrates that the three alternatives I’ve given him elsewhere are inferior to his, I see no reason to give him any more options.
"But how likely is that to happen?"
I don't know or care. I have absolutely no desire to impose my moral code on anyone. It's completely out of my control and I have no way to calculate the odds.
"Why would a Buddhist agree to go along with your religious opinions?"
Why wouldn't they? Again, it's not my place to impose my opinions on anyone.
"Why would an atheist?"
Same answer.
"On what basis would we choose one subset of Christian rules as a criteria for what is and isn't moral?"
Since you are proposing exactly this with your GR moral code, I'd love to hear your answer. Since I'm not proposing "one subset of Christian rules", I can't answer your question.
Craig, no modifications. I've ALWAYS believed that natural ways tend to be good AND I've always believed that Do No Harm/the Golden Rule is a relatively reasonable measure for morality. No modifications. I'm sorry if you have not understood this message from me has always been the same, but no modifications.
Now do you understand?
Do you disagree? Do you think that "natural" tends to be good and over and beyond that, DO NO Harm is a reasonable rule to decide what is and isn't moral in a diverse world?
Do you have anything BETTER than Do No Harm that you're suggesting we implement?
I think the answer is that YES, you DO agree with me that Do No Harm is a reasonable standard/criteria for understanding morality and that NO, you do not have a single better option to replace it with. But you tell me.
I'm glad that you don't want to impose your opinions on anyone. I think that Glenn and Marshal would like to create rules that align with THEIR particular religious opinions and thus, they WOULD like to impose their opinions on others (at least on certain matters like abortion, marriage, adoption, and other matters).
But it's so hard to tell for sure, since all of you all so rarely directly answer these sorts of reasonable questions.
Craig... "I don't know or care. I have absolutely no desire to impose my moral code on anyone. It's completely out of my control..."
I'd be willing to bet that you DO care. I know I do. We are a society where humans interact with each other. So we need to find some common ground on some basic moral issues. Do you disagree?
I mean, that's part of the basic responsibilities of a government... to help us come together to agree on some rules on how we can live in a common society.
It's not okay to harm someone by taking their stuff. it's not okay to harm someone by grabbing them by the crotch. It's not okay to use your wealth and power to get yourself into a position to ogle teenage girls while they're dressing. It's not okay to sexually harass or sexually assault someone.
There are rules that we, most of us, can agree to and need to agree to in order to prevent us from causing harm to one another... rules that strive to guarantee our basic human rights.
What I'm saying is that Do no harm to innocent people / the golden rule is perhaps our best way of finding common ground on these moral issues. It's not an appeal to the Koran. It's not an appeal to conservative opinion about the Bible. It's not an appeal to liberal opinion about the Bible.
Do you really not care about moral issues or what others think is and isn't moral? Do you think you have anything better than the Do no harm Golden Rule criteria for determining those moral rules?
Craig... "Since you are proposing exactly this with your GR moral code, I'd love to hear your answer..."
you are mistaken. I literally am not. It is an appeal to the reasonable Do no harm I did. This happens to coincide with a nearly Universal Embrace of the idea of the golden rule, which is just another way of saying Do no harm to innocent people.
Dan... Why would a Buddhist agree to go along with your religious opinions?"
Craig. .. "Why wouldn't they?"
Why wouldn't they? Well, if your religion or your particular subgroup of your religion is teaching that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that gay folk don't have rights in general it can be jailed, even, then reasonable people would be opposed to your attempts to impose you religious rules they're not harm based. Just a matter of personal religious opinion and doctrine.
We should not have laws that we passed because some religion says this is a good rule. We should pass laws to protect human rights, to protect from harm.
I'm relatively sure you can agree with this in the case of religious rules from a religion you don't agree with or with a rule you don't agree with. Right?
Dan,
You literally made your “Beasts do it” claim to trumpet the “normalcy” of homosexuality, yet when I pointed out the can of worms that ethic opened, you added your caveat.
Now, it’s possible that you just expressed yourself poorly and left something out. Or it’s possible that you just expect us to be able to guess at what you mean when you leave things out.
The problem with the rest of your blather (which still doesn’t address my objections and relies on you making assumptions and responding to your assumptions), is that it assumed that the test of morality is agreement. It also assumes that a Buddhist is going to share values and definitions with you.
You often bitch that I don’t answer your questions, maybe the fact that you make assumptions about my answers and the truth of my answers that are simply you imposing your prejudices on my responses.
This is quite the claim, phrased as if it’s a fact.
“We should not have laws that we passed because some religion says this is a good rule. We should pass laws to protect human rights, to protect from harm.”
I’m sure you’ll hide behind the “opinion” dodge because you don’t have the courage or ability to defend the claim as stated.
"Since you are proposing exactly this with your GR moral code, I'd love to hear your answer. Since I'm not proposing "one subset of Christian rules", I can't answer your question."
The reality is that your exposure to the GR comes from your christian background. The fact that you managed to dress this Christian doctrine in the "well a bunch of other religions believe it too." (logical fallacy of appealing to numbers) Unless you are arguing that all religions are equally true, the reality is that you've simple dressed up a teaching of Christ in a universalist robe.
According to your GR based code of morality, is it wrong to lie?
I literally did not make the "beasts do It" claim. Beasts was your word. I said that homosexuality is found naturally.
My words...
"Homosexuality occurs naturally in the natural world thus making it, by definition, natural."
And it is. In people and animals. But Beast was your word.
"Beasts" is part of the problem that conservatives have when they start speaking about homosexuality because it make it sound so awful. That's one way that conservatives have traditionally attacked and oppressed gay folk.
Regardless, do you recognize now that beasts was your word, not mine? That you were literally wrong to say I literally said it?
Yes, "beasts do it" was my paraphrase of your argument from nature. Part of your problem/attempt to distract is to insinuate that I was referring to homosexuals as "beasts". This is categorically a false claim. When I paraphrased you with the "beasts do it", I was literally referring to literal beasts. When you claim that it happens in nature (something else I've pointed out the problems with that you've ignored), you are referring to actions taken by animals. Beasts is synonym for animals. This is a very well played attempt to divert from the problems with your "nature" argument. It's making up falsehoods, but it's a pretty good attempt.
Are you really so stupid as to not understand paraphrasing for effect?
Of course, you're trying to equate "natural" with "moral" or at least with "normal", yet you've not actually provided data to back up your claim.
Again, I said natural and naturally occurring, as in it happens naturally with humans. We all have our orientations and that happens naturally. I said nothing about beasts or animals. I said nothing the suggested Beast or animals. I said naturally happening.
Do you recognize now why your attempt at a paraphrase was off from the intent of my words? In other words, I was not suggesting beasts do it so it's okay. That is not a paraphrase of my words.
Understand?
Y'all are making this way harder than it needs to be. Things that are natural and that do not cause harm are beautiful. A flower blooming in the Forest is natural and causes no harm, thus it is beautiful and not immoral. A wolf running through the woods is natural and not causing any harm, thus it is beautiful. A stream of clean water causes no harm and is natural and fuss, is beautiful. It is not immoral.
So, once again, do you actually disagree that things that are natural and do not cause harm are beautiful and not immoral and that this is a reasonable way to assess if something is moral or immoral?
Do you have some other criteria for assessing whether or not something is immoral? I think the answer is clear. No. You do not have anything that is a better option.
You’re simply ignoring all of the problems with your natural is good theology. As well as the three alternatives to your hunch.
You can keep repeating yourself, but right now it’s 3 alternatives to 1. Then you’ve got a lot of nature to explain away.
Don’t expect anyone to do what you won’t do. It’s almost like you just close your eyes and pretend that you didn’t see things, so you can maintain this childish petulance.
I don't know of anyone advocating the three other Alternatives has better options to the Do no harm rule. And so since I have nothing to argue against and you're not advocating for those other ways, as far as I know based on what you have said and what I've read and heard, the Do no harm approach is the best option we have.
If you don't offer something that you actually believe in and can defend, I'm going to assume that you agree as well because you have absolutely nothing else. We can tell by the way you've offered nothing else that you believe is a better alternative.
I’ve pointed out 3 options you’ve ignored, but you keep telling yourself that. Or add new stipulations to give you another excuse to continue to avoid the three rational, science based, and supported by data.
You’ve ignored the problems that have pointed out with your hunches in this thread, and you’ve avoided the three options I gave you in the thread at my blog. Intellectual honesty would seem to suggest that ignoring flaws in your hunches and what you’ve been asking for isn’t a good look.
I don’t expect you to deal with any of it. It’d be out of character.
You have pointed to three options, none of which you believe in. None of which you are an expert in. You were telling me what other people think. I don't trust your judgment on what other people think. Nothing personal, it's just that you. Do. Not. Believe. In. Those. Three. Options.
If you don't believe in them, why should I?
The fact remains... You can not offer any other better alternatives for deciding moral matters. We know you cannot because you have not. If you could, you would.
If you could, I'd be glad to hear it because I am concerned about morality. But the simple fact of the matter is you have nothing else better then the very rational Do no harm, Golden Rule approach advocated by Jesus, all the world's major religions, and most likely, by 90% of atheists.
How about showing some character and either admitting that you agree with me or offering a better alternative. That would be character. Or just admitting that you're not even trying to offer a better alternative. That would be a small bit of character.
Just by way of providing support for the notion that most atheists would also affirm the Golden Rule...
"“Non-believers” do, of course, have many beliefs, though not religious ones. For example, they typically hold that moral feelings are social in origin, based on treating others as they would wish to be treated (the ‘golden rule’ which antedates all the major world religions). "
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/non-religious-beliefs/
Other sources to support this...
https://testeverythingblog.com/making-the-case-for-an-atheist-morality-2350ec6acc62
https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/22794-an-atheist-view-of-the-golden-rule
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-did-the-atheist-go-to-mass-1.3311075
Now and then it's kinda fun to go back and read the actual post to see how far from that topic the thread has gone. In all that time, I don't believe Dan has offered a reason for why using ANY term that describes a clearly sinful behavior is worse than the rest of the terms used for the same purpose. In the real world, it's not "whore" that's wrong, it's being a whore and thus, to refer to such a person by any other term...prostitute, for example...doesn't make it better or less sinful/immoral.
It's also true that no childhood experience rationalizes engaging in sex for money for an adult, who presumably has the liberty to choose how to live one's life.
It's also true that despite the alleged "power" of a wealthy man, a woman who engages in consensual sex with that man...either while he's married or not while not being the man's wife...is also an immoral act and there is no word to describe such a woman that is "kinder" than any other...such as "slut".
It's also true that if one feels justified in labeling a sexually immoral man by any word or term believed appropriate, that same person has no claim to insist that any other person is wrong to refer to any immoral woman by terms appropriate for her behavior.
I also find that in all the above comments from Dan, he has yet to provide a basis for determining morality that isn't mere consensus opinion by which anyone outside that consensus would be compelled to regard as objective and true regardless of whether or not anyone actually agrees.
For example, regardless of whether or not a given person wants to believe it is true, fire burns. What's more, it burns regardless if anyone exists. That is, there could be no people and fire would still burn.
Such is the case with truth. What is true is true regardless of one's opinion. And in kind, the same is the case with morality. It is true regardless of anyone's opinion. God dictates what is moral because God is good and holy and what is moral is reflective of His goodness. It doesn't matter what non-believers, Hindus, muslims, "progressive" "Christians" or real Christians of differing opinions believe. There is only morality.
Morality, as revealed in Scripture, simply is and as such, I'm not concerned that, for example, some might disagree that sex outside of marriage is immoral. It still is regardless. What Scripture regards as moral/immoral is not debatable as it is not a mystery. It's perfectly clear and easy to understand. What's more, it's not something against which anyone could possibly argue as reasonable rules for living because there is no downside to it aside from the inconvenience for those who struggle with urges and desires that conflict with Biblical morality. Every one of those urges is "normal", "natural" in this fallen world and as such "normal" and "natural" have no bearing on the morality of those urges.
Dan wishes to ignore Scriptural teaching on certain behaviors by pretending no harm exists to warrant regarding them immoral. In doing so, as an alleged Christian, Dan must ignore spiritual harm even if there was no physical harm so obvious as stabbing a guy in the head. This makes Dan's "do no harm" standard totally subjective and self-serving. If Dan sees no harm, then none exists despite harm being documented by others, including medical professionals. Dan's basis for morality, then, is totally a matter of self-gratification supported by those who agree...not on some standard outside of human opinion. That is, when Dan dies, so does his morality. When I did, actual morality does not because it is not at all based on whether or not I or anyone else agrees. Fire still burns. Dan's not talking about fire. He's talking about something he made up because it pleases him personally and to that which pleases him personally, he labels such things "moral".
Art,
What an outstanding comment! You just blew Dan's rubber boat out of the water.
Dan,
The lengths you are going to in order to avoid dealing with three legitimate, science based, reasonable, rational options. As I’ve pointed out, what I believe or don’t believe is immaterial to this discussion or to the truth of any moral code. I will say that scientists would argue that these options are true, which you won’t even argue for your hunch. If your excuse for avoiding the three options I’ve presented is your assumption about what I believe, that’s a weak excuse and tells me that you know you can’t deal with the options presented. Either that or you’re simply denying the science without even trying.
Art,
Also, well said. My rationale for offering three other options for Dan to grapple with is twofold.
1. In this discussion at my blog, Dan made it clear that we can’t “know” that morality (or the Bible or God) are objectively provable and therefore he’s essentially excluded the possibility of an objectively true moral code. He’s also excluded the possibility that we can get an objective moral code from God through the Bible.
2. As someone who’s generally ready to defer to science on virtually any topic, I offered him three options grounded in science.
I totally agree that he’s basing the validity of his moral code on consensus.
Well done.
will say that scientists would argue that these options are true
And I would say that, so what? SOME scientist MIGHT argue this. How many? Ten? Twenty in the whole world?
If you think this is anything like a normative guess amongst scientists, I'd say you are factually mistaken. It's an outlier position, much like those scientists who might argue that racism is justified rationally. We just don't know because those scientists are not here.
Why will NONE of you all argue for YOUR OWN POSITION? Do you disagree that the Do No Harm/GR approach is the most reliable and reasonable method of determining morality we have consistently in culture?
Marshal, Glenn, I get that YOU would say that YOU and people like you think your interpretations of the Bible and your guesses about what God might think are the best way to determining morality, but so what? It's just your subjective, unprovable opinions. You all can NOT prove objectively that God opposes gay guys marrying, women having abortions, transgender folks transgendering, etc are factually, objectively wrong. Those guesses are YOUR OPINIONS, by definition, NOT provable fact.
Given that reality, do you recognize that people across the world who don't share your hunches about morality have NO reason to go along with your hunches? Can you admit that much?
Given that reality, how is "MY opinion is that God thinks this..." a valid method of determining morality for people who don't share your hunches?
Of course, I know you all will deny reality and say it's more than just your hunch... it's your "provably factual opinions" about what God thinks... BUT YOU CAN'T objectively prove it. Denying reality doesn't help you make your case.
IF any of you all had a better option for deciding moral questions, you'd have offered something by now. That you have not just shows that you can not.
Craig... The lengths you are going to in order to avoid dealing with three legitimate, science based, reasonable, rational options.
I don't know how much more plainly I can put this, Craig. THIS. IS. NOT. YOUR. POSITION.
It's a position that you are alleging some (many? ONE?) scientist has espoused, ACCORDING TO YOU. That one (ten?) scientists are not here for me to ask questions of or to seek clarifications from. I DO NOT KNOW what their position is. I know what YOU ALLEGE it to be. I'm not going to debate something with someone who's not here to clarify.
Why would I?
Answer one simple question, Craig: DO YOU AFFIRM THOSE OTHER THREE models that you allege exist as to how to determine morality as being the best, most apt models?
The answer to that question we already know. No. You don't.
I'm not going to argue with you a position that you don't hold and I don't know that you are familiar with or are in a position to espouse correctly.
IF IT IS THE CASE that there are, say, ten (100? We don't know because you have not said because you don't know) scientists in the world, throughout history who are arguing that whatever animals do IS moral because it's nature, then I'd suggest that the vast majority of scientists and philosophers and theologians would disagree with that model as it strikes blows against human rights (and, no doubt, for many other reasons). I'd suggest that this is an EXTREME outlier position, if it even exists.
I'm not going to debate anyone on the relative merits of slavery or of forced prostitution or that savage killing and raping is okay because it happens sometimes in nature because it is a dismissed opinion by reasonable moral people across the world and history, and especially in our modern context. No one takes such goofs seriously when it comes to moral philosophy. Nor should they.
Do you understand? Now, instead of offering up insane outlier theories that you don't really know or believe it yourself, why not make your own case for what YOU believe is the best option for deciding moral questions.
Craig... In this discussion at my blog, Dan made it clear that we can’t “know” that morality (or the Bible or God) are objectively provable and therefore he’s essentially excluded the possibility of an objectively true moral code. He’s also excluded the possibility that we can get an objective moral code from God through the Bible.
1. I have been abundantly clear that we can reasonably know a great deal about morality. It's not that difficult to recognize that causing harm to others that you wouldn't want done to you is wrong for reasons of humanity, of human rights. "The whole law (morality) is summed up in this" Jesus said and the world's great philosophers and theologians and thinkers (religious or not) - as well as most rational people - can agree to this in theory. It's just NOT that difficult, in broad strokes, to understand.
DO YOU THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND WHY DO NO HARM IS REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE?
DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS WRONG TO SUM UP ALL OF MORALITY IN THAT ONE SENTENCE?
2. What I HAVE done is state the obvious: That (outside of the Do No Harm philosophy PERHAPS) to objectively prove that our opinions about this moral action or that immoral action are factually immoral. We have no one authority WHO CAN ANSWER US to which we may appeal for a ruling. That is just a fact.
I believe there are some merits in the "self evident, do no harm" lines of thinking for making a case that IF we accept that notion, then we can objectively prove at least some morality. BUT, if you reject, out of hand, Jesus, et al's summation of morality in the GR as not a reasonable or objective measure, then we don't have anything provable to appeal to EXCEPT our opinions. What else will you appeal to?
The Bible? Whose interpretation? What of those who don't accept your hunch that the Bible is a reliable source for moral decision making? On what basis would they accept SOME HUMAN opinions as authoritative?
There is no reason. You all have nothing if you are only relying upon human interpretations of sacred text. JUST LIKE you would reject a Muslim's interpretation of their sacred text as a binding authoritative source.
What makes you and those who agree with you more authoritative than those who might appeal to the Koran? Because you all say so?
Please. Be reasonable. Be prepared to give a reasonable answer. There is NO authoritative reason to accept your (collective) human opinion as authoritative based only on your say so.
If you could prove your opinions were authoritative (or that you reliably spoke for God in an authoritative manner), then you would have. None of you all ever have because you just can't.
Can you recognize that reality?
3. That I say we can't demonstrably authoritatively objective prove our opinions about moral matters is NOT the same as saying there are no objective Truths about morality.
If a magical unicorn appeared to us and told us that there were indeed unicorns and we somehow KNEW that we weren't imagining it, then it could be theorized that there are factually animals called unicorns in the world (or were). But if we have no evidence to support that claim, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FACT CLAIM, the reality is that it's not a claim we could prove objectively and demonstrably as factual.
The same is true for morality and many philosophers and theologians have noted as much. We theorize that objective morality exists but, lacking a single authoritative, objective source to prove that morality, then it is not provable. It just isn't.
Do you understand?
If you can objectively PROVE morality, please do. Right here, right now. POINT to a source that "proves" morality as you see it.
You won't do so because you can't.
The ball will remain in your court until you provide some objectively (not human opinion) support for your hunches.
Marshal... Dan wishes to ignore Scriptural teaching on certain behaviors by pretending no harm exists to warrant regarding them immoral.
Fact one: I do not wish to ignore Scriptural teaching on ANY behavior.
Fact two: I BELIEVED THOROUGHLY that "scripture taught" that all gay behavior was wrong, including, of course, gay marriage.
Fact three: It was BECAUSE I wished to take Scripture seriously that I eventually had to abandon my previous position that all gay behavior is wrong because, quite literally, Scripture does not teach that. It just doesn't.
Now, you may disagree with my conclusions and opinions and interpretations, but you can't deny the real world facts. I did NOT seek out "gay Christian opinion" in an effort to force myself to give up my firmly held anti-gay-behavior position. It was really two things that changed my mind on the topic:
First and foremost, i just came to see that the Bible does not condemn all gay behavior and, indeed, it's reasonable to believe that God would endorse a good thing like a loving marriage, gay or straight. First and foremost, it was the BIBLE's WORDS that changed my position.
Secondly, it was what I came to see as MY bad arguments (i.e., the "conservatives' bad arguments") against gay folk that were faulty that led me to believe the traditional position, contrary to what the Bible says.
Disagree with my conclusions, but you can't deny the facts: I was raised conservatively, believed conservatively, was opposed to gay behavior, I changed my mind BECAUSE of the Bible. Those are just observable real world facts that can be confirmed.
Marshal... What Scripture regards as moral/immoral is not debatable as it is not a mystery. It's perfectly clear and easy to understand.
I agree that, by and large, Scriptural teaching on morals is clear and easy to understand. BUT, YOU THINK it is debatable (as do I) based on the reality that we debate it. I think you are clearly mistaken on what the Bible says on many points, and you think the same way about me. So, it literally IS debatable, LITERALLY a matter of human opinion. I take the Bible seriously AND YET, you debate me on it. YOU THINK it is debatable because YOUR OPINION differs from MY opinion.
And that's okay. It's just reality and you can't deny it since you think it is debatable, up to interpretation. IF you thought that "If you read the Bible and interpret it seriously, THEN your conclusion will be correct," then you'd agree with my positions. BUT you think my positions and understandings are debatable. Literally.
I think that the fact that Dan decided that 4 lengthy comments that don’t address the 3 options I’ve given him, and simply repeating his arbitrary insistence on imposing limits on what he’ll deal with based on his assumptions, says everything we need to know about his ability to respond to reasonable, rational, science based options.
I think that I DID respond to the three options you don't believe in that you alleged are other options. That you didn't like my reasonable response (that I don't trust Craig to have accurately reflected others' beliefs and that these are marginalized, not generally accepted theories akin to flat earth theories) doesn't mean that I didn't respond to something that you don't even believe in.
I think that Craig has continued to dodge the reasonable question of what he'd suggest in place of the reasoned Do No Harm/GR criteria tells us everything we need to know about his ability to give any rational answer.
It points to the reality that Craig has NO OTHER options better than mine that he believes in. I suspect that, at least at some level, Craig doesn't even disagree with me. But we don't know because Craig won't answer that reasonable question.
“DO YOU THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND WHY DO NO HARM IS REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE?”
As you’ve poorly articulated it, yes. As you’ve failed to explain the moral codes that counter your hunch, yes. As you can’t explain why doing no harm is objectively always the only moral option.
“DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS WRONG TO SUM UP ALL OF MORALITY IN THAT ONE SENTENCE?”
I would never suggest that Jesus is wrong. What I will suggest is that you’ve either misstated Jesus’ words (as Stan addressed), or taken this “one sentence” out of context. In either case, if there’s wrong, it’s you not Jesus.
Are you now arguing that you’re right because there is a line in a book attributed to Jesus.
I literally am not. This is the problem I'm having with trying to have a reasoned discussion with folks like you all. I'm pointing to reality and facts and I'm quite clear when I'm stating something that is an opinion. I ask for agreement to verify that we all agree on reality and you all don't answer to twist my questions or your own answers to say something else.
ONCE AGAIN: I am NOT saying that "I'm right because there's a line in a book." I'm NOT saying that "We should accept these actions as moral because there's a line in a book."
I literally am not saying that, as you can see with my literal words.
I'm literally noting that JESUS said what people around the world and throughout history have OBSERVED, that the GR/Do No Harm sums up morality. IF we can wrap our heads around DO NO HARM, then we have the grounds for understanding morality, EVEN if it's an imperfect understanding.
Here's a clear, reasonable question, Craig: Do you understand now that I'm literally NOT saying that I'm right because there's a line in a book... I'm noting that Jesus' words affirm what people around the world and throughout history have recognized as reasonable and understandable?
Do you understand the difference? It's okay, if not. I can explain it again (or try to). But I need to know that you understand where you're going wrong with your factually incorrect statement.
Tell me you and I can agree on reality.
“"Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 7:12)”
First, the Golden rule as stated by Jesus is not “do no harm”. Further, He’s quite adamant that this rule IS The Law and Prophets. So to affirm the GR but deny the value of The Law, seems contrary to the actual words of Jesus.
“36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In this version we again see that the commandment to love others, is inseparable from The Law. We see this based on the question asked and by Jesus’ answer. Further, we see that this commandment is predicated on love for God.
This raises the obvious question. I’d love for others flows out of love for God (specifically YHWH), isn’t it reasonable to conclude that love for others based in anything other than love for God isn’t really love for others? Jesus’ words seem to allow for that conclusion.
I think the problem is that when you paraphrase the GR, and base your entire ethic on that paraphrase rather than on the actual text, you end up with problems. When you then remove the context (the Law and love of God) in order to harmonize your paraphrase with other religions, to achieve a (possibly false) consensus that also seems problematic.
As with many of Jesus’ commands, this one raises the standard. It’s not just a passive “do no harm” (apathy does no harm), it’s an active “do to them”. Much like His commandment regarding adultery and murder raise the bar to “looking lustfully” and being “angry”.
It’s hard to make the case your making (that your do no harm moral code is the actual GR), by removing it from it’s context.
While pointing to reality. The reality is that you’ve been ignoring 3 alternative options for a moral code.
That’s the reality.
The fact that you’ve offered various excuses that keep you from engaging with the alternatives pointed out to you. Whether or not I can articulate or defend these options to your code is immaterial. In fact, I’ll f I can’t do so, it’s actually to your benefit. The reality is that I’ve identified three options without providing many details, intentionally because there are multiple options for you to research these things for yourself. I’ve given you enough, to point you in the right direction.
The fact that you are once again shrinking for the opportunity to demonstrate that I’m wrong. That you’ve not only not taken the opportunity to decisively demonstrate that I’m wrong, but have given such weak excuses for not taking the opportunity says all I need to know.
So, you're not going to directly answer ANY of the reasonable questions put to you?
Noted.
So you’re not going to address the three reasonable, rational, science based options I’ve presented you?
So you’re not going to address the reasonable, rational, problems that have been pointed out to you?
“Do you understand now that I'm literally NOT saying that I'm right because there's a line in a book... I'm noting that Jesus' words affirm what people around the world and throughout history have recognized as reasonable and understandable?”
Of course I do. Do you understand that I’m poking fun at you.
“Do you understand the difference?”
Of course.
"And I would say that, so what? SOME scientist MIGHT argue this. How many? Ten? Twenty in the whole world?"
I would say that as long as you choose to avoid looking into this, you'll never know. This is interesting, you seem to be suggesting that numbers and consensus are the deciding factors in what constitutes science. You continue to pretend like I hvane't goven you multiple quotes, names, links and other resources to do your own research. You've made it quite clear that you aren't going to believe what I tell you, so go do your own research.
"If you think this is anything like a normative guess amongst scientists, I'd say you are factually mistaken. It's an outlier position, much like those scientists who might argue that racism is justified rationally. We just don't know because those scientists are not here."
Then demonstrate that you are "factually" correct. Just because you say something has absolutely zero value to this discussion. Yet, I've provided you with quotes, names, links, etc. and you've ignored them. I can't say I'm not shocked that you've ignored what I've provided, and pretended that it doesn't exist.
"You all can NOT prove objectively that God opposes gay guys marrying, women having abortions, transgender folks transgendering, etc are factually, objectively wrong. Those guesses are YOUR OPINIONS, by definition, NOT provable fact."
That depends on what standard of proof you demand. Please show me the "definitions" that prove yoru claim.
"Given that reality, do you recognize that people across the world who don't share your hunches about morality have NO reason to go along with your hunches? Can you admit that much?"
Given that you've simply announced "reality" without proving your claim, I'll point out the obvious. I've never asked or demanded that anyone follow "my hunches'. Yes, I can admit that much, I readily admit that I'm not trying to impose my hunches on anyone.
"Given that reality, how is "MY opinion is that God thinks this..." a valid method of determining morality for people who don't share your hunches?"
I've never suggested that it is. Further, If I was going to try to convince a non believer that Christianity provided a complete and reasonable moral code, I wouldn't start by demanding that they obey my hunches. But if it makes you feel god to ask these questions based on your biased misrepresentations, that's fine. Just don't bitch when they get ignored.
I just can’t help myself exposing the irony of Dan’s latest:
I'm literally noting that JESUS said what people around the world and throughout history have OBSERVED, that the GR/Do No Harm sums up morality.
I stated that people and scholars around the world for over 3000 years have observed that God’s Word condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Trabue stated stated this was all personal interpretations and that no one really knows what the Bible says.
BUT he appeals to people around the world for his particular claim of what morality sums up as.
"It's a position that you are alleging some (many? ONE?) scientist has espoused, ACCORDING TO YOU. That one (ten?) scientists are not here for me to ask questions of or to seek clarifications from. I DO NOT KNOW what their position is. I know what YOU ALLEGE it to be. I'm not going to debate something with someone who's not here to clarify."
This paragraph simply ignores the reality that Ive given you plenty of places to start to investigate the options I've given you. The fact that you pretend that this isn't the case (or flat out lie about it), appears to indicate that you are unwilling to do your own investigation. I suspect that it's because you are concerned that I might be correct and you'd rather obfuscate than be wrong.
"Why would I?"
If for no other reason, because you have another perfect opportunity to demonstrate that I am completely wrong.
"Answer one simple question, Craig: DO YOU AFFIRM THOSE OTHER THREE models that you allege exist as to how to determine morality as being the best, most apt models?"
1. Since you haven't made that claim about your moral code, why would you expect me to adhere to a different standard that you do? However, I have (and do) assert that the three options you ignore are logical, rational, reasonable, coherent, and widely accepted, surely that should be enough to address them.
"If you don't believe in them, why should I?"
I haven't said that you should. I've asked that you demonstrate why your code is superior to the three I've pointed out. Maybe if you weren't lying about what I've asked...
"Do you understand? Now, instead of offering up insane outlier theories..."
Yes, I understand that by referring to commonly accepted explanations of morality as "insane outlier theories", you are trying to establish your false opinions as "reality" and to avoid even the merest attempt to determine the truth. Your attempt to blame me for your failure or fear is probably not an intellectually honest position.
"DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS WRONG TO SUM UP ALL OF MORALITY IN THAT ONE SENTENCE?
I think you are wrong to mischaracterize what Jesus said as summing up "morality". It's specifically NOT what He said.
"2. What I HAVE done is state the obvious: That (outside of the Do No Harm philosophy PERHAPS) to objectively prove that our opinions about this moral action or that immoral action are factually immoral."
Except you haven't even attempted to prove that your bastardization of the GR can (perhaps) be proven objectively. If you'd actually research the options I've provided to you, you'd see that those who espouse those position do argue that their positions are factually correct.
"I believe there are some merits in the "self evident, do no harm" lines of thinking for making a case that IF we accept that notion, then we can objectively prove at least some morality. BUT, if you reject, out of hand, Jesus, et al's summation of morality in the GR as not a reasonable or objective measure, then we don't have anything provable to appeal to EXCEPT our opinions."
I've pointed out repeatedly that your "self evident" argument is contradicted by the facts of history. I've specifically addressed the problems, you haven't addressed my responses.
"What else will you appeal to?"
Science, history, societal mores, the very things the options I've pointed out to you base their moral codes on.
"The Bible? Whose interpretation? What of those who don't accept your hunch that the Bible is a reliable source for moral decision making? On what basis would they accept SOME HUMAN opinions as authoritative?"
Sure, why not base a moral code on a plain reading of the clear text? It's certainly an option. As I've pointed out before, simply crafting a moral code from cherry picked Bible verses to impose that moral code on others isn't something that I would ever advocate. Again, I've no desire to impose my opinions on anyone. Rather, I would suggest that an open honest discussion of the entirety of the Christian worldview can be incredibly persuasive. Falsely casting Christian morality as a desire to impose someones opinions about morality on others is doomed to failure. It's the problem you have when you wrench the GR from it's context.
"There is no reason. You all have nothing if you are only relying upon human interpretations of sacred text. JUST LIKE you would reject a Muslim's interpretation of their sacred text as a binding authoritative source."
Please provide proof of this claim of fact.
"What makes you and those who agree with you more authoritative than those who might appeal to the Koran? Because you all say so?"
Absolutely nothing. I've never claimed to be "more authoritative" that anyone.
"If you could prove your opinions were authoritative (or that you reliably spoke for God in an authoritative manner), then you would have. None of you all ever have because you just can't. Can you recognize that reality?"
I recognize the reality that I've never claimed to be able to do any of that.
"3. That I say we can't demonstrably authoritatively objective prove our opinions about moral matters is NOT the same as saying there are no objective Truths about morality."
It's essentially/functionally the same thing. What good is asserting that "objective Truths" exist, yet are impossible to know with certainty. It's a distinction without a difference.
"The same is true for morality and many philosophers and theologians have noted as much. We theorize that objective morality exists but, lacking a single authoritative, objective source to prove that morality, then it is not provable. It just isn't. Do you understand?"
I understand that you are making a claim about the Truth, without proving your claim. I also understand that others are making claims that disagree with your hunch. Given your history of dishonesty, the chances of me agreeing with you, simply because you s=assert something, is pretty much zero.
"If you can objectively PROVE morality, please do. Right here, right now. POINT to a source that "proves" morality as you see it."
Again if you rip morality from the larger Christian worldview, and simply reduce the discussion to the imposition of a behavioral system, you both miss the point and exclude the possibility of proof from even being discussed.
"You won't do so because you can't."
No, I won't do it because there are plenty of people who are making intelligent, well reasoned, cases for exactly what you ask. I've comprehended some of them before and you haven't shown any interest in in an open minded look at what's being said.
"The ball will remain in your court until you provide some objectively (not human opinion) support for your hunches."
I understand that you have three reasonable, rational, scientifically supported options to consider, and you've shown absolutely zero interest in putting forth the tiniest bit of effort to dispute any of them.
The double standard strikes again
Oh, look. Lot's of answers to lots of question. Did I get them all, don't know, don't care. It's enough to prove Dan wrong.
Craig... "again if you rip morality from the larger Christian worldview, and simply reduce the discussion to the imposition of a behavioral system, you both miss the point and exclude the possibility of proof from even being discussed.."
I'm not ripping anything. Morality does not belong to Christianity. I'm asking you, do you or do you not have a better measure or set of criteria for questions about what is or isn't moral then the notion of Do no harm, the Golden Rule?
You appear to be wholly unsatisfied with mine. I'm asking if you have something better. Do you? I'm not asking you to rip anything from anything just do you or do you not have something better?
Craig... "It's essentially/functionally the same thing. What good is asserting that "objective Truths" exist, yet are impossible to know with certainty."
In the rational, data-driven world, there is certainly a difference. There are all kinds of questions that science and reason can't answer right away that we recognize, nonetheless, there is an answer. Right?
For instance, there definitively either is or is not intelligent life in other places in the universe. One of those is objectively factually true. But we can't answer which one is objectively true. Right now. And maybe never. But it does not change the reality that one of those claims is objectively true and another one is objectively false.
How am I mistaken?
First, you’re welcome, I appreciate you acknowledging the time and effort it took for me to answer your questions. I’m so glad to see you acknowledge that effort.
Unfortunately that’s exactly what you’re doing. You probably aren’t doing it intentionally, you may not even think that you’re doing it, but you are.
As long as you look at morality as simply a guide to behavior or a set of rules to be imposed on people whether they agree or not, that’s what your effectively doing.
Now, it’s possible to take a biblical moral code and argue for it on a utilitarian basis. Given the emphasis in the OT on living in community, it’s possible. Yet so much of the NT moral code is counterintuitive. When Jesus says that adultery is when you look at s woman with lust, That’s not behavior, that’s internal change.
A Biblically based morality, as a system, doesn’t completely make sense outside of a Christian worldview. So while no one is suggesting that Christianity has a monopoly on morality, what I am saying is that if you take a distinctly Christian moral code, and separate it from the rest of Christian theology and worldview, then you’ve ripped from the larger context.
As you’ve ignored, both versions of the GR don’t come in the context of behavior.
Look, I’ve answered scads of your questions and addresses things that aren’t. You can deal with the questions you’ve left unanswered, the problems with your hunches, and the three competing moral codes I’ve proposed, or not. I simply don’t care that much. I suspect that I’m validating your strategy, but it’s clear that your more interested in asserting your version of reality than in dealing with anything that might counter your assertions.
Thank you for your attempts to answer thus far. I'm still in the process of sorting through your responses to see if they rise to the level of actual answers, which is why I have not thanked you, yet. I appreciate attempts but I'm seeking communication where answers are given directly to the questions asked.
I responded with a couple of responses/follow ups while still sorting through the rest of your responses.
Craig... As long as you look at morality as simply a guide to behavior or a set of rules to be imposed on people whether they agree or not, that’s what your effectively doing.
Morality: (MW) a doctrine or system of moral conduct
"A system of moral conduct". A GUIDE to behavior. How are these different?
Are you saying morality is NOT a guide to behavior (or "simply a guide to behavior")?
While we're at it, here are Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's two definitions of morality:
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Are you saying that morality is NOT a guide to behavior, a code of conduct, a system of moral conduct?
If so, how are you defining it and do you think your definition is somehow more authoritative or objective than these?
As to "whether or not they agree..." that has more to do with laws. I propose it is responsible and moral and reasonable to create laws to prevent intentional harm to innocent people, whether or not people agree.
Do you disagree?
On other areas where harm is not present, I'm generally (maybe always? Usually, anyway) not concerned about forcing compliance with rules that aren't preventing harm or at least serving to make a society functional (i.e., someone driving 90mph on an expressway may not necessarily cause harm on a single incident, but if everyone was driving that fast on an expressway - or in a school zone! - the odds of causing harm increase exponentially.)
Craig... A Biblically based morality, as a system, doesn’t completely make sense outside of a Christian worldview.
So, to you, a "biblically based morality" may not make rational sense unless you're someone who agrees with a specific worldview? I don't know that this should be true. Can you cite an example to support/clarify your meaning.
If a system of morality ONLY makes sense to one subset of people, I'm not sure how useful it is. I guess a code of conduct to help a particular religion function in a way that is appealing to them because of some of their religious quirks (I don't mean that in a negative way) might make sense and be called a moral system, but that sounds more like preferences not morals. Please elaborate. Is your "looking at a woman with lust" an example? If so, why is that just appealing, rational, apt for Christians and not others?
Craig, about his three other theories that HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN and is not an expert in... This paragraph simply ignores the reality that Ive given you plenty of places to start to investigate the options I've given you.
I'm not going to investigate YOUR claims about positions that YOU DO NOT HOLD. If you have hard data that says "red in tooth and claw" IS a moral system and is the best system of determining morality, provide that. But I'm not going to investigate your claims for you... especially when YOU don't believe the positions you're suggesting that maybe others hold.
I don't know how to be more clear about it. If you want to bring someone here who is actually advocating those positions so that I could dialog with them to ascertain if they're really saying what you think/allege they're saying, feel free. But I'm not going to do your work for you, for a position that NEITHER of us believes in.
Dan... "If you could prove your opinions were authoritative (or that you reliably spoke for God in an authoritative manner), then you would have. None of you all ever have because you just can't. Can you recognize that reality?"
Craig... I recognize the reality that I've never claimed to be able to do any of that.
1. I suspect that Glenn and Marshal disagree with you, but they can say so if they want.
2. I've not said that you have claimed to believe it. I'm asking you IF you believe it.
3. So, your opinions about what God thinks is immoral are JUST your opinions (and those who agree with you) and as such, subjective, not authoritatively or objectively demonstrably factual, IS THAT CORRECT?
Craig... why not base a moral code on a plain reading of the clear text? It's certainly an option.
It IS an option. Which texts shall we base our moral codes upon? Whose understanding of those texts? WHOSE plain reading?
What of those who don't care about those texts and find any claims that THOSE particular interpretations of THOSE particular texts are what defines morality? You and I both love and highly value the texts of the bible and yet, we disagree on some fundamental points. If even within the same religion, there isn't consensus on what is and isn't the "plain meaning of the clear tests" then why would anyone else go along with one or the other of our opinions, based solely on our opinions of these texts?
If your interpretations of your texts appeals to only 1/10th of the world/society you live in, on what basis would the other 9/10ths agree... especially if the opinions did not coincide with Golden Rule/Do No Harm, which I'm saying is the most common understanding of morality?
Are you advocating for the 1/10th who agree with those interpretations should heed them but it's irrelevant to all others and thus, there is no moral compunction for them to heed those rules/morals? If so, I agree, but then, that's not any kind of universal/society-wide way of determining morals that ALL (most) of the society can agree upon, is it?
Craig... No, I won't do it because there are plenty of people who are making intelligent, well reasoned, cases for exactly what you ask.
You don't have to invent the wheel. IF you have some link to some super genius who's done something that no one in history has done and come up with a more objectively sound system of understanding morality, provide the link. It shouldn't be that hard... there must be TONS of people heading to read it.
It's just when I google it, I don't find it. So, IF you have a link, provide it. If not, well, we'll see that you have no links.
Craig... I would suggest that an open honest discussion of the entirety of the Christian worldview can be incredibly persuasive.
Me, too. I just think that the values and reasoning and morals that one gleans from the entirety of the Christian worldview is not always the same as what YOU think the values, etc are. What then?
Beyond that, Craig, it appears that you have NOT answered my questions. You responded to them with words that were not clear direct answers to them (or ANY answer to them). Again, thanks for the effort, but please actually answer the questions that were asked, if you want to make your case.
As it stands now, I'm even more convinced of the solid foundation that the GR/Do No Harm criteria is the closest thing we have to an objective standard that is more universally recognized as reasonable and moral and understandable. I've offered that and you all have offered nothing THAT YOU BELIEVE to be better.
That's just the reality of things so far.
Re: Plain reading... Let me give just one very simple, very easy to understand explanation of why the appeal to a "plain reading" of biblical text can be problematic.
You all believe (I used to believe) that the bible literally and clearly condemns all gay behavior. I no longer believe that simply because the Bible literally never does that.
You all appeal to a "plain reading" of ancient Hebrew laws found in Leviticus. I take MY plain reading and taking the text literally, I see that these passages are specifically giving rules TO THE ISRAELIS in that context, they literally are NOT specified as universal rules.
I take my plain reading of the text and realize that NO ONE takes these texts, in whole, as universal rules. Some of the rules are universal (they say) and some are specific to Israel. "It is wrong for ANY men to lay with ANY men sexually in ANY context ANYWHERE IN HISTORY," they say, "BUT, we should not stone them to death for doing so," they say.
So, conservatives are not taking it literally, either. Nor should they. Because a PLAIN READING of the text (to me and an increasing majority of the world) reads these rules to be specific to a people, not universal and that we are missing the full context of these rules... was God (in these stories) speaking of loving, respectful committed marriage relationships as being an abomination? A plain reading does not suggest that to us.
But for you all, a plain reading will suggest the opposite (well, except for the killing them part).
Two groups of believers. BOTH love the Bible. BOTH want to take it seriously, BOTH looking at a plain and sober reading of the text and context and both coming to different conclusions. This is, by definition, subjective, not an objectively provable moral standard. And we have no way of saying THIS interpretation or THAT interpretation is THE AUTHORITATIVE OPINION OF GOD ALMIGHTY.
And that's within groups who both share the same religion and love of the Bible.
Continuing...
So, an appeal to the Bible does not settle the moral questions of marriage for all in an effective, reliable manner. BUT, an appeal to Do No Harm/Golden Rule is much easier to understand and settle and agree upon.
Does the marriage cause harm to innocent parties? No, it just doesn't.
IF we wanted to marry person X and they wanted to marry us (and we're both consenting adults), would we want someone to tell us we could not? No, the Do Unto Others rule would mitigate against such a ruling. The Do No Harm corollary (I really think it's the same thing, just stated another way, but whatevs) would mitigate against blocking a marriage. People universally can understand that as a simple honoring of the Right to Self Determination, which right, the founders called Self Evident.
I agree.
Backed up a few days in order to catch up on some comments I've missed...
"The man is a corrupt deviant and history and the world will judge those who supported AND those who deferred to/defended him harshly. You've lost your credibility with the majority of the nation. And, if I'm not mistaken, God."
Only a portion of the world will judge those like me harshly. That portion will be largely made up of people like you who are far less concerned with Trump's personal sexual history than his unexpectedly great work as president. The immorality you champion belies your concern for Trump's immoral behaviors, and your support for policies that result in great harm to women belie your concerns for his alleged victims. Had you any credibility in the first place, honest people could see it no longer exists in you. In the meantime, God will only judge harshly those Trump supporters who found his sexual affairs approvingly. There are stark few of those, and far more like you who celebrate, enable and rationalize other forms of sexual morality.
"Except that I'm not impugning everyone in the group. I'm impugning those who support and defend Trump because THEY are supporting and defending an overtly corrupt sexual predator and dishonest conman."
But they're NOT supporting him because of his immorality. They're supporting him, first because of the fact that he wasn't a politician, and secondly because he promised that which those supporters saw as needed to improve the state of the nation. Again, no one supports or defends his past sexual behavior and as president, he's done nothing that suggests any con has ever taken place.
In the meantime, you defend and support leftist politicians promote sexual immorality and policies that are harmful to women...as well as the rest of the nation...not to mention those hoping to be born. Being well passed his prime, Trump couldn't possibly catch up to you in terms of harm to women given the politicians and policies you've supported. Hell...you've even chided me for daring to suggest that women dress modestly to reduce the change they'll attract scumbags!
"The thing is, you all you have supported and defended Trump have done so KNOWING that he is overtly corrupt and a sexual predator and dishonest, and knowing that, you still support and defend him."
The thing is, you support and defend sexual immorality and the politicians that promote and enable it. You just pretend otherwise. What's more, dishonesty is inherent in most of their policy proposals.
"The GOP has blown their credibility on matters of morality. They just have."
They just haven't. Not by continuing to support and effective president who loves America more than the Dem president before him or the Dems trying to unseat him. And again, he might not have been elected had he not run against a far worse individual in Hillary Clinton. So just as Craig said YOU'LL be the reason he votes for Trump in November, people like you are the reason most voted for Trump in 2016.
"The GOP is currently owned and operated by the Trump administration."
A Trump administration that does nothing to promote, celebrate, enable or minimize the immorality of the sexual behaviors of Trump's past, alleged or admitted.
"You can't throw your support behind or even abide an overtly corrupt, dishonest and sexually predatory deviant and not be owned by that corruption and perversion. THIS IS WHAT conservatives like Mohler and Will are telling you."
They, like you, are totally wrong. If they want to believe Hillary as president would have been worth the risk, that's they're problem. They get to be wrong. YOU certainly are, and you're far more corrupt, dishonest and deviant than either of them! What's more, your insistence that your argument is true indicts YOU yourself, BECAUSE you support a party that is overtly corrupt, dishonest and sexually deviant in what it supports, promotes and enables!! But you're more than merely "owned"...you're totally given over to it all!
"The fact is that I would not vote for a Democrat who behave in a manner that Trump behaves."
But you DO vote for Democrats that promote the murder of unborn infants, a form of sexual immorality the God you pretend to worship called detestable, abomination and the legitimizing of that behavior legally and to our children in public schools. And really, that's just two or three things that are easiest to point out. The party you support is so much worse than that, and you're right there for them every election! Then you laughingly mount your Shetland pony of a high horse proudly proclaiming you wouldn't vote for an adulterer!!
"That's the difference between those who vaguely defend Trump because they like some of his policies, and those committed to not crossing certain lines of being fundamentally unfit."
Well giddy-up! Remember: Democratic Party---party of abortion, sexual immorality, death, theft of property, abdication of American sovereignty, rejection of the US Constitution and so much more profound harm to Americans.
"I don't believe your understanding my point, Craig. The man is unfit for office by virtue of his being a sexual predator, by being utterly corrupt, by being entirely dishonest. Period. Full stop."
YOU don't understand, Dan. He's superior regardless of his past affairs to all those you would support because of the party to which they belong, and their platform of sin described above. Period. Full stop. ...if you will. He's not the guy we wanted. He's the guy that was far less troubling than the Wicked Witch of The West Wing to those of us with no other choice from which to choose, and remarkably, he's been, for the most part, the guy we actually needed. As much as I thought Cruz was the best choice, I don't know that he would have accomplished nearly as much as Trump. We'll see in 2024.
"If a man is corrupt and utterly dishonest, for instance, how do we know he's not cheating somehow to give the illusion of things getting better?"
HA! That's about as absurd a suggestion as you've ever put forth! That's about as much of a reply as it deserves. Jeez!
"I don't care how saintly or good a man is, if he is a sexual predator he is loathsome and should not be president. "
But he is president and doing a great job...great enough that he is deserving of another four years. More importantly, WE'RE deserving of another four years given the crap sandwich of the Obama years inflicted upon us by the likes of YOU! I will consider another conservative candidate if Trump announces he will step aside for one. How's that? Barring that unlikely scenario, he's head and shoulders and hands down the best running for the job. There is NO ONE better at this point in time. And YOUR party has no one who could carry his jockstrap.
"Our integrity and consistency cannot be bought."
But you totally lack the former of the two given your "consistency" in voting Democrat. "Democrat" and "integrity" are polar opposites. There's a decided lack of integrity in someone who claims a love of country who would reject an effective president in favor of a Democrat. There's a decided lack of integrity in someone who claims a love of country who would reject an effective president!
"We must fight to end the acceptance of sexual assault/harassment/rape."
I was unaware that there is some systemic or institutional acceptance of any of that, and there's only allegation and the word of a guy you say is a pathological liar. And of course, accepting his effectiveness as president and that he opposed a woman far more loathsome and egregious is not akin to accepting sexual assault/harassment/rape.
"Outing people who are sexual predators at least until such time as they admit their wrong-doing and begin to pay for it is necessary."
Totally unAmerican and unequivocally unChristian to "out" someone who hasn't been convicted or hasn't confessed of any crime. Who the f**k are you to make such a demand!!! You who supports so much worse.
"If we just look at the jocks, the celebs, the actors, the politicians who have been in this virulent form of misogyny with a laugh and say, "Boys will be boys! It's just locker room talk!" then we are contributing to the rape culture."
No one is doing anything like that with regard to Trump. Why bring up such a stupid thing?
"My suspicion in Trump's case is that he is so damaged emotionally that he is probably suffering from some dangerous form of narcissism or sociopathy and doesn't even recognize or care about the harm he causes. I think that's what the evidence suggests, as multiple mental health experts have noted. We'd be a fool to think that such a person is fit for office, EVEN IF they try to enact policies we may personally approve of."
Aside from you suspicion being worthless, and based on hypocrisy given the party you support and the behaviors you defend, only Trump-hating mental health "experts" have noted you arrogant analysis. Honest, reputable mental health professionals don't diagnose from afar. You're a fool for ignoring the policies he HAS enacted that have greatly improved life for millions of Americans in ways thought impossible by your political party. Your "experts" are totally suspect.
"Glenn is making the suggestion, or saying outright, that if you disagree with his opinions on certain policies, then that disagreement itself is reason to call a person, unfit for office."
You're doing the same thing, despite none of us pretending Trump's sexual immorality is acceptable, while you pretend all the sins Glenn mentioned are not immoral at all. It's not mere "policies" that Glenn is pointing out. It's behaviors you and your party supports, champions, enables and celebrates. THAT is the difference between conservatives and people like you. And those behaviors are promoted by party policy. Trump's behaviors are not in any way connected to any party policy he or we support or promote.
"That's practically a religious test for candidates, something that's unconstitutional."
Unfortunately for you, each of the behaviors and policies on Glenn's list do not require religious faith or belief in God to oppose. They just happen to align with proper understanding of God's clearly revealed Will as recorded in Scripture. (Except for maybe climate change...but I'd take a shot on that one, too.)
"You see, it's not a religious test that makes someone unfit for office, but whether or not they are actively engaging in and encouraging harm or oppression."
Such as abortion.
"Trump's utter corruption is harmful."
How? How has his past sexual immorality had any effect on anyone since he's become president and, to anyone's knowledge, not engaged in any of it? The corruption of the Democratic Party is far more harmful in far more tangible ways, as we can see in every Democrat run city in America alone.
"His dishonesty is harmful."
And yet to this day, you've still not provided one single example of a "lie" he's told that has resulted in any harm of any kind, much less to the degree that the many lies the Democratic Party promotes in its platform have caused and will continue to cause if allowed to be enacted.
"His sexual predator nature is harmful."
Again, how so if he doesn't indulge that nature while president? No one is promoting it as OK. No one is pretending his past history is OK. If it's harmful at all, it's that it's been hyped up by people like you to distract from his good works as president in order to lessen the burden Dems must exert to unseat him. That harms us all by interfering with our president trying to do his job.
"First of all, I don't know how common it is for drag queens to twerk in front of children. The second lie, who does that harm?"
You're a sick bastard to even ask such a question. Does it harm a grown woman to drop your pants and wiggle your junk in front of her? Talk about perversion and corruption!!
"On the other hand, white evangelicals have brought us a man who boasted about sexually assaulting women."
You continue to try to hang your pointy hat on that. First, there were far more than "white" evangelicals who supported Trump, you racist. And none of them "brought" the man that already existed. Who they brought was the guy they thought was far safer for the nation than Hillary would ever have been, the guy who promised so much that was known to be what the nation needed and the guy who eventually kept most of his promises while continuing to try and keep the rest.
And of course, his "boasting" is what you believe, while saying dozens of times by the time you posted the above that he's dishonest.
more later
Dan... "His sexual predator nature is harmful."
Marshal... Again, how so if he doesn't indulge that nature while president? No one is promoting it as OK.
??? WTF?
If a man was known to have raped a girl and yet didn't get charged for it, is it acceptable for him to be elected to the presidency? OR do you recognize that the image of a known rapist would so sully the office, be such an afront to women and decent people everywhere and would send such a message that "rape is okay, boys! have at it!" as to be a great atrocity?
Or would you be cool with a rapist being president, as long as he wasn't raping while he was in office (or at least, he promised not to, but he was a liar so how could you trust that?)?
Good Lord in heaven, TELL ME that you would not think that it's okay IN THE LEAST for a rapist to be president! TELL ME that you recognize the harm that would deal to children and decent people?
Tell me you are not so depraved as to not be able to recognize the great oppressive perversion that would be to a society.
No wonder you have no qualms about calling women you don't know and whose stories you don't know by the same words that rapists and sexual predators use. You have no sense of the indecency of rape and sexual oppression, do you?
Marshal... Does it harm a grown woman to drop your pants and wiggle your junk in front of her?
Um, I'm pretty sure that's not anything that happens in these story hours that have you all so panicky. No, I suspect during story hours, they mostly, you know, read stories.
Let's keep this to the realm of reality and what's really happening, and not your fevered imaginations about what "the gays" are up to.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
Marshal... Who they brought was the guy they thought was far safer for the nation than Hillary would ever have been
Look, I FULLY get that IF you truly believe that abortion is the exact same thing as murdering babies, you can't vote for a candidate who supports women having that choice. It's insane, because it's not the same (and I don't think you all really think it is or you'd be doing something insane to stop it), but I get that.
But if I had a choice between a person who supports women having the choice to make the medical decision to have an abortion (which you might view as "murder") AND a man who is a sexual predator, I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT VOTE FOR EITHER. It would not be enough - and should not be enough - for moral reasonable people to say, "Well, I guess baby "murder" is worse than sexual assault, so I'll vote for the sexual predator..." No. Hell no! We should not ever vote for sexual predators. That is a line that is too far depraved and does too much harm.
Have you ever helped support women/girls who've been sexually harassed, assaulted? Are you not aware of the harm deviants like Trump cause just by being accepted as a possible candidate?
Well, your thanks for all the time and effort is overwhelming. The fact that you’re going to pass judgment on the acceptability of my answers simply reaffirms my belief that your narcissism is significant. But I appreciate that you’ve provided hours of additional questions to answer. I suspect that you haven’t answered the questions I’ve asked, dealt with the problems I’ve raised, or with the three alternatives I’ve offered.
To start with, I’m going to address what I’m sure was my failure to adequately explain myself.
When I referred to morality as a set of rules to be imposed, I probably could have explained it better.
If you remove morality (specifically Christian)from the larger context or worldview then it’s simply an arbitrary set of rules imposed by others.
What you’ve done, intentional or not, is to take a teaching of Jesus out of its context and attempt to validate it based on consensus. Essentially saying that you’re willing to impose your moral code on people because there’s a consensus.
I’m not going to dig deeper into your mountains of, what I suspect will mostly be, obfuscation on my phone.
This means that I’m going to deal with your crap LATER. It does NOT mean that I can’t, won’t, or am scared to deal with your crap. It means that you’ll have to be patient and not bitch.
Craig... If you remove morality (specifically Christian)from the larger context or worldview then it’s simply an arbitrary set of rules imposed by others
Please explain why Do No Harm/GR is an "arbitrary set of rules..." in some way DIFFERENT than "Hi, I'm a fundamentalist Muslim and one of our rules that OUR set of humans believe is that Allah wants us to stone to death gay men because Allah finds homosexuality to be an aberration..." and how that's different than "Hi, I'm a conservative Christian and one of the rules of OUR set of human beliefs is that because God finds homosexuality to be an abomination, we should not allow gay people to marry or adopt children..."?
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
How is the personal choice that SOME religious people ascribe to for morality (based on their reasoning of their interpretations of the Bible or Koran, etc) less arbitrary than the personal choice for others to ascribe to a Do No Harm based upon their reasoning that doing harm is self-evidently wrong...?
I'm not seeing how Do No Harm is MORE arbitrary in any sense than "Follow what my tribe believes our god calls moral..." Perhaps you can explain the difference.
NOTE: I'd suggest that THIS question is perhaps one of the more fundamental ones in our conversations... perhaps THE most fundamental... If you can adequately answer THIS question/this line of questions, then perhaps we can get to the root of some of our disagreements. On the other hand, perhaps in trying to answer this question, you will see that you DON'T have a way of saying why "OUR interpretations of what WE THINK God wants" is a better option over and against Do No Harm.
Craig... What you’ve done, intentional or not, is to take a teaching of Jesus out of its context and attempt to validate it based on consensus. Essentially saying that you’re willing to impose your moral code on people because there’s a consensus.
First of all, no, that is NOT my intent or what my words have said. I'm saying that DO NO HARM is understandable by all, it is expressed by Jesus as the summation of morality (I disagree with your hunches that it's a summation of ONLY Jewish law, I think you're interpreting that too narrowly), AND it is expressed by all the world's religions AND it's supported by very likely the vast majority of the non-religious. I'm showing WHY Jesus supported DO NO HARM, not saying Jesus advocated DO NO HARM and it's validated by consensus. I'm saying the consensus recognizes Do No Harm because it's self evident.
See the difference?
Secondly, in a free republic/free society sense, that might be one way of looking at it. Why SHOULD we heed the fundamentalist viewpoint held by SOME people that gay folk should be stoned to death or that adulterers should be imprisoned? MOST of those who ascribe to the notion of human rights recognize this as an affront to human rights and, well, should we not heed the will of the people, in the context of a society? We shouldn't heed the will of the minority IF it supports causing harm to others. Why would we?
On the other hand, if it truly were the will of the majority of a people someplace to cause harm to some subset of oppressed people (and I'm dubious as to whether that's truly the case, by and large...), then of course, we would HAVE to stand opposed to it on principles of morality and justice. But if we were in that context (a group of people who truly believed in doing harm to some), then we'd need to find SOME WAY to appeal to why it shouldn't be done.
If the appeal is merely, "Look, I know YOU THINK that YOUR GOD wants this to be done, so that makes this harm 'moral,' MY people think that OUR GOD would disapprove..." then you'd just have two groups of people disagreeing about which human interpretations of the will of which god is the "right" one... and how will that resolve itself?
On the other hand, I believe that we can reason with people (again, because it's self evident) that, "Hey, YOU wouldn't want to be imprisoned for merely loving someone that others say you shouldn't love... YOU wouldn't want to be killed for disagreeing with what other people say about their god's opinion... don't you think that, as long as the activities aren't causing harm to you, that you can live and let live, and do no harm that you, yourself, wouldn't want to have inflicted upon you...?"
You see, the appeal to the Do No Harm criteria can be understood more universally, whereas the appeal to "MY people's opinion about OUR god's opinions should be the final arbiter on moral questions" is only going to generate a stone wall of disagreement that neither side can pass because both sides are dedicated to their opinions about their god's opinions.
I said... that is NOT my intent or what my words have said. I'm saying that DO NO HARM is understandable by all, it is expressed by Jesus as the summation of morality
Let me try this another way.
ONE way of looking at morality is that
Morality is a SET OF RULES that have
been established BY A POWER ON HIGH and
passed on to humans THROUGH A HOLY BOOK.
We humans have NO WAY of understanding what is and isn't moral WITHOUT THE UNDERSTANDING found in THE HOLY BOOK passed on by the POWER ON HIGH.
If you don't believe in that particular god or accept that holy book or even if you DO, but you don't agree with some believers' interpretation of the holy book, THEN you have no way of conceptualizing morality and it is a mystery to you. THE GOD made the rules out of their own whimsy or for reasons unknown and unknowable to us and thus, "natural humans" can't understand the GOD RULES.
That's ONE way of thinking about morality.
Another way of thinking about it is that morality is just what makes sense. It simply makes sense that we don't want others to harm us, so we shouldn't harm others. We don't want others to beat up our children, we should not beat up others' children. Beyond the prohibition (DO NO ACTIVE HARM), there is the sensible, We like it when others are kind and honest with us, we GET that this is a pleasant and good thing that happens... and so, it is reasonable that, when we can, why wouldn't we be kind and honest to others?
We can recognize that WE want human rights and thus, we who are reasonable and understanding and empathetic, we can get that OTHER people would also want human rights.
THIS view of morality is an appeal to reason and common sense and it is understandable to all, at least in theory (there ARE damaged and the mentally ill who may not understand it... and it's conceivable that some cultures MAY have been conditioned to not understand it, but by and large, throughout history and cultures, it has been understandable.
Thus, morality is not a mystery, it is not unattainable, it is not unknowable. It's just self evident and reasonable. To all.
Two ways of looking at it. I think the latter makes sense.
=====
And so, for CHRISTIANS who are considering the nature of morality, they could do one of at least two things... they could find the texts where God has given rules and they can say, "GOD is just making up rules... THOSE are the literal rules we should follow, God had no reason to give them but God's own will and THAT is what we should follow!" and then try to follow woodenly and literally those rules.
OR, they could say, "Jesus explained that the Golden Rule is just a summation of all morality... morality is self-evident in the nature of humanity as designed by God... thus, when God gave rules, they weren't arbitrary and whimsical, they were just a way of helping humanity to understand what is innate and rational and essential in living together with other humans in a God-like way."
Again, I think the latter makes more sense.
"I'm asking you, do you or do you not have a better measure or set of criteria for questions about what is or isn't moral then the notion of Do no harm, the Golden Rule?"
I've offered three, you haven't bothered to demonstrate where your code is superior. Until you do, I see no reason to indulge this idiocy. If
"I'm asking if you have something better. Do you?"
You keep asking the same stupid question and I keep answering it the same way. I've given you three options. You making up pretend reasons not to compare and contrast isn't my problem.
"There are all kinds of questions that science and reason can't answer right away that we recognize, nonetheless, there is an answer. Right?"
Not necessarily. You are asserting as an objective fact that there is some unknown objective moral code. Unfortunately, a scientific hypothesis isn't an assertion that X is objectively out there waiting to be proven. It's a statement of what they hope to prove. It's interesting that you have all of a sudden adopted this respect for science, when I've provided you scientific options that you've ignored. It sounds like you are backing away from your assertion that objective moral standards exist.
"How am I mistaken?"
1. Because your original assertion was that there is an "objective" moral Truth that does actually exist. You are not positing a choice, you are making a singular claim of fact.
2. Since you've removed morality from the realm of the provable, why would I simply accept you bringing it back in when you think it benefits you.
3. In the world where most of us function and live our daily lives, the distinction you draw doesn't change how people behave or relate.
I'm slowly working through your huge pile of self serving crap. I'm trying to go through methodically and in order to make sure I get as much as possible. But as I was copying your comments I realized that there is a significant mistake that you continue to make. It's nicely summed up in the following quote.
"I'm saying that DO NO HARM is understandable by all, it is expressed by Jesus as the summation of morality."
The problem is that you've misrepresented what Jesus actually said. I've posted toe actual scriptures earlier, and Stan posted on one as well.
As long as you're going to mis-state what Jesus said, what's to point of continuing this conversation.
If you want to argue that your watered down version of Jesus teaching, stripped from it's context has been appropriated by other religions, I guess that's fine. But Jesus is not advocating "DO NO HARM".
If you're this far off on the foundation of your argument, then it's safe to assume that anything that springs from this flawed foundation is likewise flawed.
Don't worry, I'll dig through the huge pile of steaming excrement you left. But know, that you ignoring actual options and simply repeating your flawed foundational assertions are a waste of everyone's time.
Craig... "You keep asking the same stupid question and I keep answering it the same way. I've given you three options."
You keep saying that and I keep repeating the same answer to your problem. YOU do not have an objectively demonstrable way to say this is objectively factually the best criteria for making moral decisions. I do not have an objectively measurable way to demonstrate that one system is better than the other. No one has an objectively factual way to demonstrate the best moral system as an objective moral fact.
Do you understand that that is what I'm saying?
Since I don't have and you don't have any way to objectively prove it, what are we left with? As I keep saying we can reasonably state that from a simply rational point of view Do no harm is a better option than survival of the fittest, if anyone actually believes that. I am relatively certain that you agree with this, but you can tell me if you ever want to.
I will not comment on this anymore because you can ask me 10,000 times to give you an answer to something that is not answerable and I will tell you again that is not answerable.
I'm asking you, given the reality that we can't prove objectively one system is better than the other, do you have a preference on what YOU THINK is a reasonable criteria for deciding moral questions? Do you?
Or let me put it one more way, just to seek clarification. I can't imagine you're not understanding what I'm actually saying that just to clarify..
IF you are asking, What is the objectively factual best way to measure morality, the Do no harm approach or these other three ways that Craig has listed..? If you are asking that, there is no objectively demonstrable way to prove one is objectively factually the best way. At least, I'm not aware of a way.
Do you understand that is what I'm saying?
If, on the other hand, you are asking can most reasonable people agree on one of these ways as being better than the others..? I think the answer is yes.
Do you suspect I'm wrong in what I'm actually saying?
"If a man was known to have raped a girl and yet didn't get charged for it, is it acceptable for him to be elected to the presidency?"
Known by whom? YOU??? What evidence or proof do you have that Trump actually raped anyone? Even his ex-wife took back her charges against him and said he'd make a great president. Ivanka is about the only woman who actually claimed a rape took place.
The fact is that you hope he raped someone so that your objection to his taking office has more substance. But to talk as if it's been proven or that he's been in any way convicted is to slander the man. You can believe what you like, but to insist that others believe the same is doing what you fear we do when we speak of Scriptural facts you reject and dismiss under the pretense that we interpret plain, simply and direct language differently than you.
So when you actually provide proof of a crime, then you can clutch your pearls more tightly and wonder what we would do. More likely than not we'd already have that proof and acted accordingly.
"Let's keep this to the realm of reality and what's really happening, and not your fevered imaginations about what "the gays" are up to."
...says the defender of depravity and perversion. And you hypocrisy is showing once again as you object to the same type of "what if" you employ with incredible frequency, but far less parallel.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/drag-queen-teaches-kids-to-twerk-at-library-story-hour
I haven't the time to search anymore for stories that list the types of books these perverts are reading to innocent children. But the following link gives some indication of what they hope to accomplish with the "innocent" story hours, you freak:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-drag-queen-admits-hes-grooming-children-at-story-hour-events
Marshal, it's a simple direct question to determine where your principles are. If a man, any man in the whole goddamned world, if a man is known to have raped a woman in the past, is he fit for office? It's a simple direct and I think easy to answer question. What is your answer to that question? Establish where your principles par for me, Marshal.
Then you can answer this question,... if a man, any man in the whole world, is known to have sexually assaulted, but not raped, a woman, is he fit for office, in your estimation?
Why not just answered the questions that are actually put to you? It's like pulling teeth trying to talk to y'all sometimes.
"I'm not ripping anything. Morality does not belong to Christianity.
You appear to be wholly unsatisfied with mine. I'm not asking you to rip anything from anything just do you or do you not have something better?"
Of course you are. I'm suggesting that a "Christian Morality" separated from a Christian Worldview, isn't truly a Christian Morality. I'm not suggesting that morality belongs to Christianity, but I am suggesting that the Christian Worldview supports an ethic of morality this is distinct from others. I've offered three options, you've ignored them. Stop asking this stupid question.
I'm not going to waste time on your cut/pasted definitions of morality except to point out that by saying that morality is "certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion)" that it supports my claim that you can't objectively refer to anyone else's behavior as immoral.
"Are you saying that morality is NOT a guide to behavior, a code of conduct, a system of moral conduct?"
No, I'm saying that morality in general and Christian Morality specifically don't make sense outside of the society or wordview that they come out of. I'm saying that applying a moral code (Sharia Law) to a society that doesn't accept the worldview if Islam is arbitrary.
"If so, how are you defining it and do you think your definition is somehow more authoritative or objective than these?"
Clearly you've not paid attention to my use of similar definitions in the past. Your either being obtuse, or the concept of worldview confuses you.
"As to "whether or not they agree..." that has more to do with laws. I propose it is responsible and moral and reasonable to create laws to prevent intentional harm to innocent people, whether or not people agree. Do you disagree?"
Yes, morals don't have to be codified into law to be imposed on other people. Sometimes they are, but not always.
it supports my claim that you can't objectively refer to anyone else's behavior as immoral.
WHAT??? HOLY SHIT!!! YOU have JUST PROVEN that I can't objectively demonstrably prove one action is objectively factually immoral... SORT OF LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.
Great detective work.
Do you really not understand that this is what I've been saying for years?
Do you recognize that YOU can't objectively prove someone's action is immoral, either?
If you can, please do. But you can't. THAT'S what I've been saying for years and sometimes you seem to agree and most of the time, you give vague suggestions to intimate that you CAN prove it, in theory... but you just aren't willing to prove it to me... or something. It's hard to say because you'll never answer these sorts of questions directly.
I'm telling you fellas, we're approaching 200 comments. I'm not dedicating much more time to repeating the same points and having you all ignore the same questions because, what's the point?
I'm saying that applying a moral code (Sharia Law) to a society that doesn't accept the worldview if Islam is arbitrary.
And I'm telling you that a moral code that begins with "do no harm, Golden Rule, human rights" IS a moral code that is largely applicable to all people everywhere, in general terms. THAT is the advantage to this reason-based moral code as opposed to a moral code based upon an arbitrary group of people's arbitrary interpretations of and dedication to their holy texts IF those codes are not DO NO HARM based.
A supposed Christian is now taking the Lord's name in vain. Must have him on the run.
"So, to you, a "biblically based morality" may not make rational sense unless you're someone who agrees with a specific worldview?"
Yes, if you try to take the moral guidance we find in the Bible and expect it to make sense outside of the Biblical meta narrative, (rip it from it's proper context) then it isn't going to make sense. In the same way that taking the moral code outlined in the Quran and expecting it to make sense to Mormons would be foolish. It's exactly as it says in the definition you provided, "codes of conduct put forward by a society or group" are founded in the worldview and social mores of that particular "society or group", to arbitrarily apply those codes outside the "society or group" isn't going to make sense.
"I don't know that this should be true. Can you cite an example to support/clarify your meaning."
Jesus said,
"21 “You have heard that it was said to those [a]of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother [b]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’[c] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, [d]‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of [e]hell fire."
In any context other than a Christian Worldview does this make any moral sense.
If we apply your "Do no harm." moral code, then bow is being angry causing harm? If no harm is caused then why would there be judgement. This concept doesn't make sense outside of a Christian worldview.
"If a system of morality ONLY makes sense to one subset of people, I'm not sure how useful it is."
If there is no universal, objective moral code, then what would you expect? It's just like your definition said "societies or groups".
"I guess a code of conduct to help a particular religion function in a way that is appealing to them because of some of their religious quirks (I don't mean that in a negative way) might make sense and be called a moral system, but that sounds more like preferences not morals."
That's great, but it's totally based on your assumptions about what morals are. Absent an objective, universal morality, and given the definition that morals are "put forward by a society or group", what are morals except preferences agreed to by a "society or a group". You're assuming some inherent power of morality that your own definition doesn't support.
"Please elaborate. Is your "looking at a woman with lust" an example? If so, why is that just appealing, rational, apt for Christians and not others?"
I'm pointing out the reality that under your "do no harm" ethic there is no harm done by looking at a woman lustfully. In the Christian worldview, looking at a woman lustfully devalues her inherent, intrinsic, transcendent value as an image bearer of YHWH the God who created humanity in His/Their image. By looking at a woman (or man) and reducing her to simply an object to be lusted over, your reduce her to one very small part of her whole being. This is why so many Christians find porn wrong. In a society that views women as men's possessions (Islam for example) this teaching makes absolutely no sense.
"I'm not going to investigate YOUR claims about positions that YOU DO NOT HOLD. If you have hard data that says "red in tooth and claw" IS a moral system and is the best system of determining morality, provide that. But I'm not going to investigate your claims for you... especially when YOU don't believe the positions you're suggesting that maybe others hold."
If you are going to choose not to investigate the information I've provided you, that's clearly your choice. However, the fact that you've made the choice you've made doesn't diminish the reality that the three options I've provided for you to consider are not widely held. The fact that you are incapable of acknowledging anything beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and experience as having any value, is your narcissism. Your narcissism, isn't a failure on my part.
"Nature is red in tooth an claw." is from a poem by Tennyson. The entire stanza is;
"Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed"
"On into the 20th century, the enthusiastic Darwinist Richard Dawkins used 'red in tooth and claw' in The Selfish Gene, to summarize the behaviour of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine."
I understand that sometimes your ignorance causes you problems, maybe this is one of those times. So, your suggesting that "red in tooth and claw" was a moral code can be dismissed as ignorance and laziness.
However, Survival of the fittest is (in essence) a moral code. It's a little more complex than that, but essentially the materialist/naturalist/Darwinist would argue (as I've provided you evidence of), that anything that furthers the survival on the individual genetic heritage is "necessary". The question is, can something defined by scientists as "necessary" be judged as immoral? It's like saying it's immoral to eat.
One of Dawkins books is titled "The Selfish Gene", he is claiming that "The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit". Further, he claims that altruism is solely a function of the genetic imperative to further itself.
"In July 2017 a poll to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Royal Society science book prize listed The Selfish Gene as the most influential science book of all time."
"Richard Dawkins, FRS FRSL (born Clinton Richard Dawkins)[24] (born 26 March 1941) is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
Dawkins first came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. With his book The Extended Phenotype (1982), he introduced into evolutionary biology the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment. In 2006, he founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science"
So if you want to argue that the view expressed in "the most influential science book of all time", is a} A "fringe" viewpoint, and b) Not science, feel free. In the same way, if you want to characterize Dawkins as "fringe", that's fine, but it doesn't align with demonstrable reality.
Maybe now you are wishing that you'd simply done the research that would have avoided you looking uninformed.
"I don't know how to be more clear about it. If you want to bring someone here who is actually advocating those positions so that I could dialog with them to ascertain if they're really saying what you think/allege they're saying, feel free."
Yet, the links to books, articles, names, and other information that would answer your questions just isn't quite enough. You demand that I "bring you" someone so that you can "dialog" with them. How freaking lazy are you anyway. The irony is that I intentionally only gave you enough information to lead you to find out for yourself, for this very reason. I knew that you would (predictably) accuse me of misrepresenting the views I was bringing up. So, I tried to remove myself as the middleman and allow you to find things out for yourself. We've ended up in a place where you refuse to follow the trail I gave you, and then you blame me because I didn't personally introduce you to these people. This might be confusing, but one of the reasons why people write books and articles is so that their viewpoints can be communicated to large numbers of people without them having to have a "dialog" with each individual person.
"So, your opinions about what God thinks is immoral are JUST your opinions (and those who agree with you) and as such, subjective, not authoritatively or objectively demonstrably factual, IS THAT CORRECT?"
Yes, my opinions are not factual, I've never claimed otherwise and you continuing to ask this stupid question just makes you look obsessive and monomaniacal.
Post a Comment