The Language Thing

We should all live so long.

It’s (almost) an apology! I mean, wow! It’s like the president almost but not quite admitted that “things could have been done better” while still sounding like things are going peach-friggin’-keen! Who says our president is a dyslexic spoiled rich boy who doesn’t know how to speak! He’s speaking to us right now in an optimistic and upbeat language that communicates well with frat boys across the land! It’s brilliant, I tell you!

Sorry about the above. I’ve been undergoing a brain-drain.

Hmm. A shift in approach to the Muslim community from “Winning Hearts and Minds” to “Hate the Game, Not the Playas”?

Yo, why you be hatin’ on our troops like that, dawg? Alls we be doin’ is bustin’ out some democracy on yo’ ass, and you be all spreadin’ the hate, G. Whaddup?

The 8th Crusade is entertaining, I must say.

Ya know, dee, what really amazes me is that they give such mediocre head. And still get ‘em cumming back for more.

If so, I missed that. Thanks for the heads-up.

I should write sympathetically about all the sane mainstream religion folk I know and work with, really good, smart liberal people. But I won’t. I’m so pissed at the religious of all faiths.

Don’t get Me started on religion. Me has lots real life exposure. Me am atheist in town with big strict Bapist Semenary. Religion=ooga booga.

YAY! Voltaire! Yay!

OK, I’ve learned a new word: “Islamist.” Any idea where this came from? ‘Cause it seems to me such a subtle change from “Islamic” that it must have been coined to confound. Sorta like calling fundie Xians “Crusadists.” (Hmmm, actually, I like that!)

But back to the topic. Bush still reminds me of a four-year-old. He gave up on “The monster came in and broke it,” but got no further than, “The monster came in and made me break it!” Then he went on and said he didn’t know if what he said was a “mistake” or what, but it was ’cause he is “plain spoken.” Well let the SOB who should be called He-Who-Leads-from-Behind get out in front of the troops in, say, Fallujah or Mosul and yell, plainly, “nayner, nayner, bring it on!!”

This might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist

Leslie -

I really am not down on Christians, you know, those that actually adhere to the words of Christ, the Beatitudes, his mercy and love. It is these miserable hypocrits in the administration and the televanglelists that use his words to support a most un-Christian war and social agenda and thus gain the support of know-nothings that I loathe.

Thanks, adam, but that still seems to me just a definition that of people that want Islamic law applied by their governments. I don’t see that it covers the brutal, murderous al Queda followers, and others of their ilk.

I’m with Jerry and Sally. If you show me a genuine Christian, who turns the other cheek, loves his neighbor as himself, does unto others as he would that they should do unto him, gives to the poor - I have no problem with this person, and neither (probably) do most reasonable Muslims. I don’t agree with his theology but I respect his personal choices.

I just don’t perceive very many of these people in the company of the Religious Right, or what Jerry calls the “fundie Xians”. I recommend to your attention the “Letter to the Earth” in Mark Twain’s “Letters from the Earth”, where he draws a wonderful distinction between “professing” and “professional” Christians. (In fact, if you haven’t yet met Abner Scofield, Coal Dealer, Buffalo, NY - it’s time you did.) We aren’t dealing with Christians here, we’re dealing with theocrats or religious fascists, an entirely different breed which comes in both Christian and Muslim flavors, and whose primary impulse seems to be to kill all the people they can’t convert, on the grounds that they can’t really be human or they would agree with the theocrats…

As both a LIBERAL and a CHRISTIAN- & one who has both Twain and Voltaire on my bookshelf- I feel like I gotta chime in again. The lesson I learned from 9-11 is that Fundamentalism kills. People have every right to be put off by religion these days. Religion is used to justify the power structure and demonize whatever is perceived as a threat to the power structure. That said millions of frightened people are going to look to religion for hope and strength. As someone who grew up with the church, and thus speaks the language of Christianity fluently, I feel compelled to stay in the church and point people towards a concern for others. If those with a level head abandon religion to those who are fearful and those who exploit fear- religion will be an even more abusive force in the world. Bush doesn’t follow Jesus- he worships at the throne of Constantine.

I’m not a Christian (nor do I play one on TV) but I, too, feel my hackles rising when all Christians are lumped together as conservative, fundamentalist imbeciles. And if you’re looking for a group that truly exemplifies the teachings of Jesus, I suggest reading a few of the essays at the Sojourners site.

By their deeds shall you know them.

D’oh! make that, “…unlikely to work…”

“We still have footage of attack dogs, water cannons, and of course a picture of a balcony in Memphis to teach us who we really are.”

You might be right.

“We aren’t dealing with Christians here, we’re dealing with theocrats or religious fascists, an entirely different breed which comes in both Christian and Muslim flavors…”

Is the Declaration of Independence theocratic because it is theistic? How about the abolitionist movement or MLK? Yes, those abolitionists who actually believed in fighting! You are speaking from within the context of the feminization of Christianity, on the Left.

You don’t know what fascism is or was. Some of why the Nazi’s attitude towards religion was what it was.

“Jesus WAS a radical liberal.”

Ridiculous, let the dead bury their dead. If your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out. And so on.

Leftists would certainly understand the metaphor there, lest all be blind. That is unlike the turn the other cheek metaphor that they seem to want to have almost literal. Not that saying that something is a metaphor removes its pointedness, at all.

“…they would throw him in jail even faster than the Romans did… After all, he hung out with prostitutes and street people and POOR people.”

Leftists are the ones trying to discriminate against Christian charities and the like in favor of a more totalitarian State. Which is typical…

A couple of comments.

After my quote of Mark Twain, I went back and reread much of “Letters from the Earth”. Twain makes the point several times that religion leads people to kill, and he doesn’t restrict it to Christians, or to the (in his case) 19th century. The conviction that “God is on our side” has been killing people for centuries. That was J. Deighton’s point that “fundamentalism kills” - a fundamental point, if I may say so. J., more power to you, and you’re dead right about W. - he does worship at the throne of Constantine.

Mynym, the Declaration of Independence, which I just reread, refers to God as the source of general justice and right, but relies mainly on the arguments of fact about the English Crown’s actions to justify the painful decision to secede. Anything less theocratic I never saw; more like “God helps those who help themselves.”

Only some of the abolitionists believed in fighting - such as John Brown. Many more of them engaged in civil disobedience, such as running the Underground Railroad. And how you can mention fighting abolitionists and MLK in the same sentence just puzzles me; MLK’s entire theme was nonviolent civil disobedience. As was Gandhi’s, whom he studied.

I do know what fascism was. World War II history is a hobby of mine. Fascism is the notion that the state is more important than the people and the people exist to serve the state. American democracy was founded on the notion that the people constitute the state. I looked at the site you linked and it is an incoherent collection of quotes about Germany in the 30s, including a quote which claims “Jews were so hated” because they were decadent in the Weimar Republic. Any student of European history knows that Jews were hated in Europe long before the Weimar Republic, based on myths about their behavior which were fostered by the Church.

No one is trying to discriminate against Christian charities. Christian charities do great and necessary work. What I object to is the idea that the state should pay Christian charities to do this work - that comes much too close to making a law “respecting an establishment of religion”, forbidden in Article 1 of the Constitution. I’ve read interviews with a number of representatives of Christian charitable organizations who are as opposed to federal funding of faith-based institutions as I am, on the valid financial ground that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” They’re concerned that federal funding will come with strings - as it almost always does. Ask the family planning groups.

State funding of religious charities would only be constitutional if the state funded ALL religious charities, including Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist; but the administration seems to have decided that Muslim charities are terrorist fronts, and the only religious charities I see being considered are Christian.

Comments don’t have to be funny, do they? It’s great if they are since I love a good laugh, but heaven knows my posts aren’t very funny. Thankfully, we have pros like Adam to provide the wit to unravel the nonsense and illuminate the truth behind the news.

No, more than being a place to practice wit, I find FA a santuary of good discussion; a place where arguments rise above the level of name calling. So I enjoy everyone’s comments, humorous or serious.

Mynym, I found your phrase, the “feminization of Christianity” interesting. It would be better called “re-feminization”. I know I’ve said something like this before on this forum, and this is a good time to restate it.

Christianity began with women playing leading roles in the action. While they weren’t given many lines to say, we all know that actions speak louder than words.

A woman found favor in the sight of God. God didn’t find favor with a Noah, or a David, or any other man at this time in history.

It was a woman who came and wept over Jesus and annointed him with perfume. As the story continues, at Calgary, by the time a rooster crowed three times, not a single male follower of Jesus was left to be found. They had all abandoned him. Only the women stayed behind.

They were women who risked the wrath of the government by going to Jesus’ grave to embalm his body. The men were all talk, but basically cowards.

Better questions to ask are when and why was Christianity DE-FEMINIZED? I’m not asking this solely of any person in particular in the thread. Mynym just got me thinking about it.

I do have an ulterior motive on this MLK eve. At one time, we excluded women. They were not our equals. At one time we excluded blacks. They were not our equals. At one time we excluded gays. They were not our…. oh, wait a minute.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we got rid of the word “exclude”? No, that’s silly. Getting rid of a word does not eliminate a thing nor change its properties. Actions do speak louder than words. Better yet, can we exclude the _act_ of excluding?

“At one time we excluded gays. They were not our…. oh, wait a minute.”

You just kind of tack a self definition by sexual desires right on the end of your lil’ list there. That’s pretty funny.

Wait, at one time we excluded fat people. But now….don’t disagree with me on that and illustrate hatred and intolerance. Besides, a fat kid may go kill themselves, or get beat up or something if you disagree with anything good said about that minority. So we’ll probably need some speech codes about it.

“Actions do speak louder than words. Better yet, can we exclude the _act_ of excluding?”

Yeah, as if you don’t discriminate against flatulent people?

And what about ugly people? I did read a law review about facial discrimination. I guess we’d better have the judiciary make all of our discriminations for us.

It’s not as if freedom of association is a constitutional right or anything.

“ Getting rid of a word does not eliminate a thing nor change its properties.”

Yeah, but as long as leftist kooks on campus are making up speech codes I think they’d better have some codes to protect the rights of flatulent people. For the diversity of that! Do you treat such minorities equally or are you one of those hateful and intolerant bigots?

“Better questions to ask are when and why was Christianity DE-FEMINIZED?”

As long as you’re thinking about that, think about how Wisdom can become Wicca.

You’re missing something. Something that must be sought and found, something that moves in mysterious ways.

I’ll leave you to it.

“I do have an ulterior motive on this MLK eve.”

Yeah, and it seemed like it was to undermine his basic philosophy that assumes Natural Law and civilization.

Racism is generally based on blurring together the categories of human and animal, to be able to act as if some humans are animals. Animal rights people argue that this just shows that humans treat animals bad, animals must be lifted up. In fact, one wrote a whole book about it comparing Auschwitz to the literal butchery. And so on.

Problem, the Nazis were pioneers for animal rights. http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html

Jews sacrificed animals, ancient subpagans worshipped them, as radical animal rights activists also seem to.

MLK supported the basic philosophy of the Declaration in admitting to self evident truths.

The Left, blurs and does away with them. As per your example, they will not admit to the Yin and the Yang as basic natural categories. They do so by self defining by sexual desires and claiming that they define morality, ethics and “living a lie” vs. living the truth. Etc.

Would MLK agree with a sort of religioius hedonism, decadence and the decline of civilization? Not if he believed the Bible that he often preached about, nor if he believed the basic elements of Natural Law that his philosophy assumes.

I think I just figured out what mynym is short for - mynymalist, as in insight mynymalist.
You have a way with words. Unfortunately it’s a pretty sad way. You do make an interesting contrast to the people who seem to actually have a grip (I do admit to speed reading the last several of your panels).

Mynym,

Sexual perversion/true version?

Literalists are often after getting at the true meaning?

Now I remember what in my speed read prompted my first panel.

Ah, well, my first attempt at dealing with this cyber-conversation was interesting.

Reply to Mynym,

“You’re missing something. Something that must be sought and found, something that moves in mysterious ways.”

Please, spare trying to get the speck out of my eye. Rather than answer questions, you pose more arguments with false consequences so that if one disagrees with you then one “illustrate[s] hatred and intolerance”. You’ve a knack for running language around on a mobius. No beginning. No ending. No point. No nourishment.

These self-evident truths of which you say the Left disposes, I will say that we certainly don’t worship them! More in a moment. But first, let’s look at one.

Yin and Yang is per your example, not mine, and not a good one to your argument. What is the Yin and Yang of the ameoba or of a self-fertilizing plant? Should we hurl dispersions at the fish or amphibian that undergoes a self-induced sex change? No, because it appears that Natural Law promotes a continuum of sexual possibilities. Lest we jump to the argument that the above examples satisfy Natural Law because they involve procreation and are therefore not perversion, let us not forget the pods of adolescent male dolphins that hump each other silly nor the bonobos, male and female, that hump everything in sight! They are not perverting their version. If one considers all possible examples that Nature provides, it becomes clear that the concept of Yin and Yang is not concrete.

The problem with self-evident truths is that they are self-referential. They cannot be proven. Yes, the Declaration of Independence was founded on a slippery slope of non-absolutes.

The only way to make self-evident truths work is for everyone to agree on them which is what Jefferson was saying right off the bat. It was not enough to say, “It is self-evident that all men…..” He started out by saying “We hold these truths to be self-evident….” He could probably look around on his own farm and realize that the former wasn’t true and that the latter was a best-case scenario.

Man, he was a genius. I wonder if he saw the problem immediately? Regardless, I will accept without proof (the only way possible) that Jefferson was right; that all men are created equal and so on. Am I undermining King’s philosophy? No. Believing that all are created equal AND that all are worthy of self-esteem is not counter to King’s ideals nor the Bible he preached from. Like Jesus serving the Devil, a house divided cannot stand.

Do I need to keep looking for “something that must be sought and found”? Of course. To stop looking means the journey is over! I was feeling a little pretentious trying to stand in MLK’s shoes, but you beat me at that.

So getting back to the apostles, what a bunch of chickens, eh?!

As a part time substitute teacher I’m familiar with school kids speaking gibberish as if it were profound. Replying only gives it credibility.

“Rusty and J. Deighton, thank you for saying things worth reading.” -David

Hahahahaha! Could be a first for me!

“As a part time substitute teacher I’m familiar with school kids speaking gibberish as if it were profound. Replying only gives it credibility.” -Murray

What is really funny is I just came from this other site via cruel.com that postulates that when no one responds to your posts it could mean that you are correct and no follow-up is necessary or “the post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.”

There were other possibilities, but these were the funny ones juxtaposed as they were. Most of my posts go unanswered and I usually attribute that to them being complete and utter nonsense. Murray could be talking about me up there!

“No, because it appears that Natural Law promotes a continuum of sexual possibilities.”

That’s funny, I thought it was all gibberish? That you can’t read the easy symbols and signs. Oh, the words, these little minds just can’t understand! Then the lil’ minds think about it for a bit. Hmmm….. “I bet I can say somthin’, this…or that!” But wait, was it gibberish or not? Or does the MTVeee generation just need a hiding place because they are creatures of pop-culture? Or maybe they are just Lefists.

But anyway, sexual dimorphism is an ingrained pattern of Nature that cannot be denied, nor should it be denied. Why should we? I like Romance, most people do.

This might be too intellectual for some here:
“The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind.”
(American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No.
1, Feb., 1984. Gender and Parenthood.
Alice S. Rossi. :10)

“….you pose more arguments with false consequences so that if one disagrees with you then one “illustrate[s] hatred and intolerance”.”

Yes, why would I do that? Let’s see, who generally says that if you disagree with them, then you are being intolerant or hateful? And don’t you just hate that? Didn’t you see the public service announcement, hate, it’s a four letter word. And half-wit is four letter word plus a three letter word, but that doesn’t prevent the smarmy actor talking about hate from being one.

It seems that my question wasn’t answered, none of them were. Do you exclude flatulent people? Flatulent people are Victims© of discrimination, you know. They just are not tolerated! Where is the tolerance? It must be an intolerant culture, and probably phobic of stench too. What about the intolerance towards flatulent kids? Those little stinkers, are they so stinky?

I guess I’ll have to wait until later tonight to write about the rights of Fat People and other minorities, just like Gay People.

In the meantime, how about:
The Twinkie People

“Feel free to think that your posts are profound.”

I didn’t say that my posts are “profound.” All they are is some basic philosophy, facts, logic and evidence, mixed in with some satire when I feel like it.

They might well be profound compared to some of the ignorance and stupidity illustrated with respect to history and the like here though, which seems typical on the blogs of the left. Example, putting “fundamentalism” all together regardless of what is held to be fundamental and the like.

“Why, oh Why did we run Kerry?”

There was that. So, why did you? I have been wondering about that. It was really dumb.

But I agree with one Democractic activist who said that Kerry’s wife and gay marriage ended his run. (It’s not really all just “gay marriage.” It is the democratic answer to the proto-Nazi tendency of some to create and abuse an elitist oligarchy to get what is wanted in anti-democratic ways.)

Given an uncertain war in Iraq, “miscalculations” and the Old Press working overtime on his behalf it is rather amazing that the Democrats could not beat Bush. Especially since he is so stupid, etc.

But like Zell Miller wrote, “A National Party No More.” Instead, it’s the party of Hollywood, effeminates, the Old Press, some decadent cities, etc.

Murray, your father said that and he was a liberal? Whoa. Interesting man, your father.

My priest gave an interesting sermon yesterday about the difference between spirituality and religion. She said that spirituality is about relationships (with God, others, self, and creation) and religion is about rules. She said we (Christians) get into trouble when we start putting religion ahead of spirituality - rules before relationships. I think this is where fundamentalists can get into trouble.

Leslie

“….rules before relationships. I think this is where fundamentalists can get into trouble.”

Are they in trouble because of some rule against that? That’s right, there’s a rule against rules. Hmmm, then maybe you should form a relationship with them and show them your feminine spirituality, in the hope that they get turned on to you.

Those naughty fundamentalists, violating the rules of relationship. But wait, shouldn’t they be nurtured back to health? Why….that would be down right tolerant!

So then, I guess you’d better form some relationships with them.

If someone says something worth philosophizing about instead of satirizing, then I’ll discuss it. Simply blurring together the Protestant or paleoconservative type of fundamentalism of America and Islamist fundamentalism is not a serious argument.

“Beyond that, it seems like you’re just clumsily trying to blur the line between reasonable human rights activities…..”

Not at all, if people can self define by sexual desires and claim that is somehow an issue of civil rights and a human right activity then there are no lines. In a decadent Republic, it is all the material of Krausian satire.

“ I respect her as a sociologist, but her grasp of genetics is cursory at best….”

Your personal opinion about an author has nothing to do with the validity of something they write.

“Do not presume that Rossi or her quotation support that view.”

That you can’t have a sex-blind society as if it is the moral or even the factual equivalent of a color-blind society? That quote supports that view and it is easily verified to be true.

“…expect people to point out that by similar reproductive, biological, and “genetic” arguments people can and have branded other things….”

That’s because those on the Left make associative arguments. I can give some examples. “The Nazis said some things were right and wrong. But they were wrong. So, saying that things are right and wrong, is wrong!”

And so on. Ironically, a Nazi would actually agree with the usual socialist attempt at the elimination of the “ethical code worship of the Jews.”

Let’s look at your argument. What is it, really? Once people said that things were unnatural and some of them were not. So now, no one should say that anything is unnatural!

Why? Pedophilia is unnatural because it breaks down the natural categories of child and adult. Zoophilia is unnatural because it breaks down the natural categories of human and animal. Necrophilia is unnatural because it breaks down the natural categories of life and death.

And so on.

Are we supposed to say that all those things are natural because, “Well, you know….once people said that interracial marriage was unnatural. So now it is clear, zoophilia is natural!” (As Peter Singer, a Harvard professor, would agree, so that sexual disorientation is there in some Universities.)

“….the natural/unnatural argument never really gets us anywhere.”

Oh, I think it has. Example, the natural rights people have by virtue of being human.

At the end of civilization, this will be broken down so that people can be treated as animals. As in Rwanda, where the propaganda was about the “cockroaches,” etc.etc. One way or another, it is broken. As American civilization declines more there will be more of a rebellion against Natural Law, the very thing that was once at its core.

Republics do not last forever, see the example of the decadent Weimar Republic and others, once they are decadent and declining they just need an external push of some sort.

As you might now, this is these are conservative decline of civilization notions. There are a lot of facts, logic and evidence behind them. In contrast, there is a lot of ignorance and stupidity of the MTVeee generation type pop-culture.

Mynym-

Did I say that real philosophy was generally being done elsewhere in the comments section? No, I did not. Please be careful about making unfounded assumptions regarding those to whom you are replying. None of us are psychic.

As for your points about natural categories, I’m not sure who is denying that natural categories exist (though perhaps some may). The main issue seems rather to be whether those natural categories, by themselves, provide sufficient grounds for making moral conclusions.

There are many facts about the biological world that we may discover, but without additional ethical principles, those facts do not entail any ethical conclusions. For your arguments to be more convincing, you may need a premise that is something like “it is always wrong to have things from different natural categories associating in certain ways.” And then you need to explain what sorts of ways those are and why those ways are immoral.

After doing that, it may turn out that the conclusions do not rely so much on the categories themselves, but instead on the ethical principles that say something about doing harm to others or respecting people’s rights, or things like that.

Perhaps your needed premises are in there somewhere. Please make them more explicit and separate them from the sarcasm so that we can see what your arguments really are.

Thanks.

Murray,

Your father wasn’t a Southern Baptist religious fundamentalist. Southern Baptist thinkers comparable to your father were systematically purged from the Southern Baptist seminaries beginning, I think, in the late 60s. And religious fundamentalism is now rabidly anti-intellectual in America.

Your father deserves every bit of the respect you indicated. But he seems to me to have had profound spiritual beliefs, which is not, as Leslie pointed out, synonymous with rigid adherence to a set of doctrinal prescriptions.

I hesitate to write this because I find mynym’s posts so angry and hostile that it bothers me to read them; and I’m drawing his (her?) fire. But it doesn’t seem to me the mynym is really trying to argue here. He’s merely sneering at those who disagree with him - just as he claims they are doing. But I get a very strong sense of “you’re all wrong and I’m right and you’re too dumb to know it”, which is very unpleasant in what should be - and usually is - a civil discourse.

Geez- what was I thinking? Stupid… stupid… stupid…

Leslie,

My Father wasn’t condemning his grandchildren to Hell, he was merely commenting on the hellish waste of time displayed on MTV. My grown children still get a kick out of his words.

David,

I am very familiar with the anti-science stance that is necessitated by a fundamentalist’s literal belief of the Bible (or Koran). They start with absolute “knowledge” of certain things and need to fit everything else into that viewpoint. So they end up having to deny what science shows. How can GOD be wrong?

This is a dichotomy that my father didn’t believe in. He saw no disconnect between the Bible and Science. The last book he wrote before cancer took him was on that topic.

Fundamentalists aren’t necessarily anti-education, but it’s easier for them to reject science than their beliefs.

Of course the problem with fundamentalists is when they think that God is telling them to destroy his enemies. Now their beliefs clash with human laws or international agreements. (and God always wins). So if they believe that God commands them to treat their enemies the way he commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites (kill every man, woman, child, and animal) they have no problem.

Murray,

Amen. You have correctly described, by way of gastrointestinal emissions, too many “true believers.”

I disagree on only one point. Fundamentalists are invariably anti-education, if by education one means the free, unrestrained quest for knowledge and understanding, and the willingness to go where facts and logic lead one. Fundamentalists are not necessarily militant or hostile, but as a dear friend from my youth said when I asked him why he was a Bible literalist (he was a very decent, intelligent man), he said that if you reject anything as not literally true, it all falls apart. Such is the world of fundamentalism, which is, as best I can tell, about power and a desire for certainty, not enlightenment.

The current political manifestation of this anti-education fundamentalism is this brain-fart driven administration and what it does/does not permit the mainstream press to say or citizens to know. And like good parishioners, they are mostly compliant. Well, 60 milllion are, which was enough to carry the day.

Luckily, Adam ain’t.

Here’s to the emancipation of sprirituality from codified religion.

So, with the whole education and religion issue, I’m left wondering what the Repuplicans’ motivation would be for promoting education. The academic vote tends to go against them in big numbers, and the under-educated vote goes in favor of them in even bigger numbers. Why would they want to disrput that political advantage by increasing the number of people with post-high school degrees?

Conspiracy theorists may feel free to run with that idea.

David,

I believe you are right. Many people have a need for absolutes, for clarity, and simplicity. Fundamentalism provides this by making the Bible (God’s infallible word) a final answer to all questions. Any thing that questions such simple, black and white assumptions is not only wrong but blasphemous. Higher education does a lot of questioning, seems to see things in shades of grey, and feels that much of human morality is relative. It’s much easier to say, “God said it, I believe it, end of discussion”.

There are lots of people who belong to the “God says I’m right about everything” Church. (Which is right beside the “God says that you must do everything I (insert your name here) tell you” Church).

Honestly I’ve never thought of farting as profound.

“Did I say that real philosophy was generally being done elsewhere in the comments section? No, I did not. Please be careful about making unfounded assumptions regarding those to whom you are replying. None of us are psychic.”

Did I say you said that? Do not make the assumption that I did, as I did not. For the next thing you know, you’ll be generalizing it.

Instead, I asked you a question. So you did not say it was taking place because serious philosophy was not taking place? Or was real philosophy taking place, but you question my question?

I wouldn’t want you to have to try to be all psychic as you try, try so hard to understand. So I’ll just keep questioning, just in case. If there is one thing that is not questionable for a certain type of mind, it is questioning.

“”It is better not to express what one means than to express what one does not mean.”
–Karl Kraus, Half-Truths and One and a Half Truths

“As for your points about natural categories, I’m not sure who is denying that natural categories exist (though perhaps some may). The main issue seems rather to be whether those natural categories, by themselves, provide sufficient grounds for making moral conclusions.”

They can and do. I refer you back to the list I already made of some natural categories and sound moral intuitions based on them.

“For your arguments to be more convincing, you may need a premise that is something like “it is always wrong to have things from different natural categories associating in certain ways.” And then you need to explain what sorts of ways those are and why those ways are immoral.”

No I don’t, as people already know.

“Perhaps your needed premises are in there somewhere.”

Natural categories are also moral categories, the most basic being Life and Death. These are self-evident truths, evident in the Self. You can pretend to reject them, as you like. But as you write, the right will creep in.

“Please make them more explicit and separate them from the sarcasm….”

Perhaps, if I feel like it. Maybe I have sarcastic orientation and was born this way. Are you intolerant of sarcastic people? Prejudiced? Well you know, I know some nice sarcastic people and the sarcastic community have their human rights, too.

“ I completely support the rights of the flatulent.”

Then perhaps you can get some Leftist judge to emit a penumbra for you. All emanating, some real stinkers there.

That way, every American’s discriminations can be made for them by the State on the issue of flatulence.

I must say though, ugly people are probably more discriminated against than flatulent people.

Hey Mike Z- I see that mynym is still not answering your question about sophistry, so I’ll just put my two cents in. When someone reads a claim that begins with, “I do not think…” and ends it with “I think…” and only quotes that first bit only to pat himself on the back for saying the other guy doesn’t think. Yeah, that’s sophistry. This is in no way intended to be offensive to the sophist community. I respect the rights of the sophiticated.

Mynym -

You continue to make various assertions and ask rhetorical questions that are designed to make you appear superior, but you still have not presented any actual arguments. In other words (as J. Deighton has noted), you are engaging in sophistry.

So I’ll try again:
Mynym writes, “Natural categories are also moral categories, the most basic being Life and Death. These are self-evident truths, evident in the Self.”

What does it mean to be a “moral category”? Does it mean that we are ethically required to interact with the objects in the categories in certain ways? or in certain separate, different ways? If so, what are the ways? Does this hold true for all natural categories, like Mass vs. Energy, Bacteria vs. Fungi, and Quartz vs. Jade? or is it true only for certain specific categories?

Perhaps you mean that we are ethically obligated to keep the categories separate. If so, why? And what counts as “separated?” Further, if these really are natural categories, then it would actually be impossible for us to combine them, so it seems there would be no danger.

Please feel free to engage in a real discourse. But only if you feel like it.

Sarcasm and word play are great, but sometimes they are used only to mask the fact that the speaker doesn’t really have anything substantial to say. I hope that’s not the case with you.

“Let me make you a present of song
as the wise man breaks wind and is gone,
and the fool with the hour glass is cooking his goose,
while the nursery rhyme winds along”.

Ian Anderson “Thick as a Brick”

Nicely put, Mike [and mynym, thank you for finally laying your cards on the table]. But I think we’re pretty much stuck at this point.

Unless I’m misreading, mynym is committed to the view that there are natural, polar categories, the “blurring” of which is immoral. To me, this seems unlikely to convince anyone, despite his repeated insistence that these essential truths are things that we ALL know but aren’t enlightened enough to realize that we know.

mynym, simply: I don’t agree. As a moralistic or theological argument, your approach is cold. As a logical argument, you leave gaps that you seem unaware of.

One example comes to mind:

“Another example, homophiles will sometimes say, “You are secretly just like me!”
You can discuss or debate things with all sorts of people. Yet, there are very few people who will make such an argument or insult against you. It seems that homophiles do because they know their perversion. Therefore, they must know the true version dealing with basic natural categories. In that case, male and female.

That’s just poor logic in the form of a logical argument. So a gay guy told you (or someone you know) that you’re secretly gay? This does not imply that “they know their perversion.” THAT is one of many possibilities. I know several gay people that would delight in saying this to you because it’s NOT an insult to them but they know it IS one to you. And they know that you feel that their orientation is a “perversion” and probably aren’t happy about that. [Or maybe it’s just your haircut, or your tendency to pun, or the dress you were wearing at the time. ]

That’s vastly different from your conclusion, logically just as sound (neither version constitutes a logical proof), and - given my real-world knowledge - quite a bit more likely.

A lot of people here - liberals, moderates, atheists, devout - are trained in formal logic. After stripping away your anger and fey wordplay, I’d hazard to guess that you aren’t, or at least you choose not to demonstrate it. In either case, the connections you draw between “natural categories” and morality, and what precisely constitutes a violation of those categories, are neither well-explained nor (as you keep insisting) “self evident.”

In any case, I’m not trying to be insulting. Argue away all you like. I just ask that you remain civil and perhaps stop making so many assumptions about the beliefs of the people here. You seem to think that you’re amongst a group of uniformly relativistic atheists. You’re not.

Yeah, in journalistic circles today, begging the question runs along the lines of “PLEEEEEASE just give me a straight answer, Mister President!”

“My philosophy professor pointed out that “Self-evident truths” was a classic example of “Begging the question” a statement or question that presupposes the answer.”

Ask him why he supposes that the Founders admitted to self-evident truths. Is a circle, circular? Can we, or can we not, admit to the existence of circles?

I wonder if he would presuppose his answer. Or just suppose it. Some people are just on a quest for questions. So they are always seeking, never finding.

“You seem to think that you’re amongst a group of uniformly relativistic atheists.”

If you didn’t write exactly like them, then maybe I would not think it.