I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Besides, the President is a known serial adulterer and p**** grabber, whose disrespect for the institution of marriage is well-known.
The infuriated President files a suit with the Civil Rights Commission, claiming discrimination on the basis of marital status.
Reductio? No, the defender of religious freedom can just support the baker, not Trump.
68 comments:
I'd like to take the topic seriously, but the opening sentence is too ridiculous to get past. I'm beginning to believe leftists are literally incapable of not trashing Trump gratuitously in even the most unrelated or mundane of conversations. I thought the right was bad during Obama's term, sheesh.
Eh, the first sentence is ridiculous — very funny, in fact. But it isn't just phrased in such a way as to make the scenario amusing, it's deliberately playing on left-wing disparagement of Trump. (And the baker is named after Billy Graham (and maybe C.S. Lewis). And the cakes aren't just fabulous, they're intelligently designed!) Of course, it is a bit unfair, I suppose… Trump wouldn't really sue, would he? (Surely he'd buy all the surrounding property and erect Trump's Tower of Pastries so he could drive the poor guy out of business and claim he was making capitalism great again? Oh, well.)
Seriously, in a previous comment Ron claimed that Beckwith's scenario was not very challenging to someone on the left, so Prof. Reppert fashioned a story which no self-respecting left-winger could possibly support… could he? Is there a principle at stake here — even if it helps Donald Trump? Or is the only correct answer the politically correct one?
I don't understand what is so ridiculous about the first sentence.
Mr. Green, which is the side no self-respecting left-winger could support? Also, given that Trump has filed over a thousand lawsuits in his time, I find the notion that he would not sue in this case to be unsupportable.
As a left-winger, my position is that of tolerance. In this case, that means the baker is not allowed to impose his morality on Trump while operating in a public forum. That is a matter of simple politeness (which goes by the term political correctness in some circles).
Is it ridiculous to think that Trump might get another divorce? But he's divorced twice before. Why not again? Is it ridiculous that Trump would marry someone so young? But the previous times Trump has divorced, it was so he could marry someone younger than his previous wife. Why not again? Is it that it would be the daughter of Vladimir Putin? What is so outrageous about that? Trump has mentioned his admiration for Putin. Why would he abstain from marrying his daughter?
Perhaps what would be ridiculous is the idea that Putin would let someone of Trump's low moral character marry his daughter. I agree. I don't think Putin would be very happy with the idea.
Here's a list of demonstrating Trump's admiration of Putin.
Here's a list of the 19 women accusing Trump of sexual harassment or worse.
Are they all lying?
Concerns about Trump, and objections to his character, do not all come from the left, unless you count people like our two U. S. Senators, Jeff Flake and John McCain, as leftists. Conservatives hurt themselves over and over again when they click their heels three times and say "At least he's better than Hillary, at least he's better than Hillary, at least he's better than Hillary.
Here's my question, VR. What purpose did your scenario serve - which to me looks like nothing more than a cheap gratuitous shot at Trump - that could not be served in any other way?
I'm a conservative, so if I started some hypothetical off with Obama and references to illegal drug use, the Muslim Brotherhood, sending representatives to the funerals of criminals who attack police officers, and others of the many examples of Obama's...questionable...actions, no one would believe it was anything but a petty attack on Obama.
Are you able to demonstrate that this scenario of yours was anything but a petty attack on Trump? I ask because Trump supporters are becoming more entrenched as the left and their media buddies get more and more unhinged, and Trump provides enough material without petty nonsense that does nothing more than earn him support. Conservatives who don't support Trump are currently powerless, so when fully half the country acts like children, it does no one any good anywhere. Except Trump.
Hi Legion,
"Trump supporters are becoming more entrenched"? I didn't think that was possible.
For example, suppose Vic's scenario actually occurred. How many of Trump's supporters do you think would desert him?
Trump is such a moral disaster that whatever you might say about him, even as an hypothetical, it cannot approach the reality. He is verifiably the most evil person ever to ascend to the presidency. And by doing so, he has cheapened the office beyond measure for his next several successors. Our grandchildren may live to see our once great country restored to its former stature, but we are sadly doomed to see nothing but the tawdry results of his trashing the office.
Bilbo,
There are Trump supporters, and then there are Trump Supporters. Personally, despite living in a predominantly conservative/evangelical/Republican area, I only know a handful of Trump Supporters, the Sean Hannity's of the world who happily abandon principle in order to stand behind their guy.
The rest are a mix of Trump supporters and "what can we do" people, the latter category being the one I fall into. I and others like me don't like Trump and wish someone else had won the nomination, but since Trump is president we hope he manages to not screw things up and accomplishes some conservative goals - Supreme Court justices, etc. The not-die-hard Trump supporters are those who are happy with his political accomplishments for the most part but also recognize his failings as a human being, and would have no real reservations if Trump was to step down and be replaced with Pence.
I've been watching over the past year as the non-stop frenzy from the media and the left trashing Trump at every single possible moment, even in moments that have absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump-related, has been shifting Trump supporters into Trump Supporters, as their disgust and anger at the left is burgeoning into wanting to stick it to them, and how best to accomplish that than enthusiastically supporting Trump? Even I feel the allure of that strategy, and I can't stand Trump.
I was alarmed at Obama Derangement Syndrome. TDS is no healthier.
Starhopper,
That comes across as so dramatic as to have nothing tangible to even discuss. It's another example of the absolute failure of the left to be able to claim a high ground.
That said, yeah Trump is a piece of garbage. But if Trump is Hitler, Clinton was Ted Bundy (liar, adulterer, womanizer, accused of sexual assault, shady dealings beyond count) yet how many on the left say that Clinton cheapened the White House? How many?
I suspect that dialogue between disagreeing political sides is simply not possible in an anonymous setting. I despair that all the adults have vanished.
The problem I was posing is this, and I did bring in the worst of Trump to do it, which you can take or leave. What I was trying to get at is that homosexuality is for Christians, at worst, one form of sexual immorality. Why refuse service to Adam and Steve but not to Donald and Melania? Why does Trump get a pass for his Playboy attitudes, while at the same time standing up for traditional marriage?
I will never understand the Obama haters he was the fourth greatest president in history, the anyone but Cliton people baffle the hell out of me. they will accept this guy just goes and dismantles the entire edifice of progressive government since Teddy Roosevelt,-- I have quantified the deaths we know will result from his policies, so far it's at least 66,000/year--that's from reversing Obama era regulations,so Obama was actually saving those lives.
Here's the link for anyone who is interested.
@Victor,
I'm not sure I understand your scenario.
I think most traditional Christians would agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The disagreement may be over the divorced status of Trump if the baker were Catholic.
So is your argument that all Christians should reject divorce just as much as homosexual marriage? Or that Christian bakers should judge the sincerity of those entering marriage and decide who's marriage is going to work out?
But if Trump is Hitler, Clinton was Ted Bundy (liar, adulterer, womanizer, accused of sexual assault, shady dealings beyond count) yet how many on the left say that Clinton cheapened the White House? How many?
Clinton cheapened the White House slightly by his affair with an intern, but many Presidents have had affairs over the years (did Ike and JFK cheapen the White House?). As for shady dealings (outside of infidelity), Starr's report didn't produce very much in that vein, to my recollection.
However, I would not say Trump cheapened the White House by his lying, nor due to his sexual escapades. Those are typical in a Presidency. Rather, the cheapening comes from the self-aggrandizement, bragging, obviously incorrect exaggerations, need to engage in one-up-manship, lack of diplomacy, dis-function in filling various government positions, threats to his political enemies, positive response to obsequious behaviors, etc.
There is too much he;s done, it's huge and immense amount like trying to catalog all the stupid things he;s said. But for me the most iconic mark of his inanity is the fact that he is this: If it was Nixon Henry Kissinger woudl be orchestrating a solution to North Korea, Kissinger, though a charming war criminal due to Vietnam, was to diplomacy what Hawking is to physics. If it was Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski who was equal to Kissinger i that area. If Clinton it would be Madeline Albright, who was a formidable secretary of state. Now Trump has a decently qualified secretary of state, indications are he was begging to make progress. Trump sweeps him aside ad ridicules him so he can take the opportunity to play nuclear chicken with N, Korea. He is willing to risk the survive of humanity and the destruction of civilization in thermonuclear war so that he can brag about the size of his "nuclear button,"
bmiller: I suppose one can make the argument that while, from a traditional Christian standpoint, gay marriages are obviously not marriages, in the case of a serial polygamist like Trump, all a baker would know is that the person had been previously divorced a couple of times, but this might be a sincere attempt to repent and have a true marriage in accordance with the teachings of Christianity. But so much has come out of Trump's mouth over the years, as well as his treatment of women both in marriage and outside of it, that make it seem to me that he expresses more contempt for the institution of marriage than a gay person who has fallen in love with someone of the same sex and wants to get as close as one can get to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage within a same-sex union. And there are gay couples like that. With Trump I am not just thinking of Access Hollywood, but the interviews on Howard Stern.
I remember a picture of Jerry Falwell Jr. shaking hands with Trump after endorsing him during the campaign. On the wall in Trump's office, proudly displayed, was a Playboy magazine in which Trump was interviewed. The funny thing is that Falwell's dad excoriated Jimmy Carter, for allowing such a salacious magazine as Playboy to interview him, even though Carter held true to the teachings of his Christian faith in that interview.
I have never seen a President have so much contempt come out of his mouth for such things as marital fidelity. Even Presidents known for philandering don't brag about it in public. It is one thing to do something wrong, it is another to spend your life bragging about it and calling it something good. Clinton, whatever else he might have done, never did that.
@Victor,
OK, sorry. I thought you were making a point about how Christianity should view marriage in general.
Starhopper is quite the drama queen.
"He is verifiably the most evil person ever to ascend to the presidency"
*eyeroll*
*eyeroll*
OK then Steve, who was worse?
If your eyes are rolling, it's because they're unwilling to stare truth in the face.
Here's a fun question.
Who was the most evil president of all time and why?
I have a bag of popcorn.
Follow up questions:
The most evil Congress of all time and the most evil Supreme Court of all time?
Regarding the most evil presidents.... here is the first hit on google for consideration:
6 most evil
I was taught that the government was equally divided among the 3 branches so that the general will of the people would prevail over the long term. So evil presidents would be prevented from doing long term damage and that the other branches of government would prevent that.
Were the founders of our nation mistaken? Or have we lost faith in our form of government?
Joe, why should conservatives like Obama and hold him up as a great president, considering that we disagreed with him on the majority of policy? Why would people who want A love someone who always chooses B?
I found Obama and his administration to be horrible, a conservative's nightmare at many points, and Hillary promising to be as bad if not worse. No thank you.
Do you truly not see how a conservative is as likely to praise Obama as a progressive would praise Clarence Thomas, David Clarke, Allen West, etc?
Bmiller,
I look forward to the explanations as to how Trump is more evil than the men on that list. This is what I hate about where our political discourse has gone - I don't like Trump, yet I'm constantly defending him from TDS.
I guess people care more about spewing venom than they do finding common ground with one another and walking with charity, so long as "our side" wins and we can keep blaming the other side for all the evils in the world.
Some of the names on that list are truly objectively evil, such as Andrew Johnson or James Buchanan. But the inclusion of presidents such as Truman or Polk is just plain stupid, or at the least it's a form of reverse chronological snobbery. Polk cannot be considered "evil" for doing what basically every Great Power leader in the mid-19th Century was doing (think Germany's Bismarck or France's Napoleon III. As as for Truman dropping The Bomb, I think the decision is quite understandable (if not defensible) in the context of August 1945. We had just been through the most savage battle of the entire Second World War as far as the US was concerned (Okinawa), and Truman dreaded the potential for hundreds of thousands of casualties that an invasion of Japan might entail.
"OK then Steve, who was worse?"
You said it was a verifiable fact. You're now hesitating and doubting your own statement. I guess you were wrong.
OK, on economic issues I'm pretty liberal, that is, I don't think we can just accept the results of free market economics as the antidote to economic injustice. The wealth distribution in America is a disgrace and does not reflect merit in any way. So, things like Obamacare attempt to do what I think we need to do.
On social issues I am more conservative. I am concerned about things like religious liberty and the attempt on the part of "the left" to, for example, treat Christian qualms about homosexuality as bigotry to be dangerous. On abortion I'm hold to a foot-dragging pro-choice position, largely based on the problems abortion laws would cause, while also thinking that the typical convenience abortion is morally unacceptable. I am alarmed by too much pro-choice orthodoxy on the Democratic side and too much slouching toward the idea that abortions are good things.
On national defense, I do support defense, but I thought the Iraq war was conducted without justification, and I think we are endangered not only by ISIS and al-Qaeda, but also by Putin and Russia, who seek to weaken strong democracies by cyber-interference.
I grew up as a conservative Republican, and still admire real conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater, though I disagree with them. I can imagine myself being a lot more conservative than I now am, but if I were more conservative on all three of these general issues, I would still find Donald Trump to be a perversion of basic American values, a complete incompetent, and someone who is going to harm the conservative cause. The temporary political successes that conservatives have gotten from Trump will fade away soon, and they will wish they had voted write in candidates and retained their integrity as the minority party in 2016, instead of getting the destructive victory they got. Probably one result of the Trump affair is that America will end up with single-payer health care a lot sooner than it otherwise would have.
Liberals may want impeachment, conservatives need it.
Victor, that is one of the most intelligent and rational political statements I've read in a long time.
Legion of Logic said...
Joe, why should conservatives like Obama and hold him up as a great president, considering that we disagreed with him on the majority of policy? Why would people who want A love someone who always chooses B?
I found Obama and his administration to be horrible, a conservative's nightmare at many points, and Hillary promising to be as bad if not worse. No thank you.
Do you truly not see how a conservative is as likely to praise Obama as a progressive would praise Clarence Thomas, David Clarke, Allen West, etc?
right now I am trying to see how "conservatives" can rationalize violating every Christian value ever taught and so blind to what they have done.
we are about to make humanity extinct in a thermo-nuclear war and you are totally imperious to the fact that your rationalizations helped put the mad man power who will destroy us, you will still rationalize, the alternative is unthinkable humility just end because otherwise we woudl have taxes, welfare,and abortion.
The CDC is teaching duck and cover, that;the nonsense I came in on when I entered this stood world in 1956.It was a joke for idiots then and it is now. duck and kiss your ass goodbye.
Hillary is not running, it's no longer a choice between her and Trump. Stop rationalizing the choice you made and face the future. we must o posse the republican agenda because it's totally evil,it is based upon greed, on tyranny, upon oligarchy.How will you rationalize supporting Trump if he really has dimetia?
I documented that his policies will kill at least 63,000 people year why doesn't that mean any thug to you? Shouldn't our values as Christians be different than those of the world? the world thinks about business and puts dollars over people, us that opposed to what Jesus did?
Joe Hinman said...
Here is a shocker,I admire Goldwater too. He and Gorge McGovern were best friends.I have good friends who are conservative, it is possible. I actually used to work with a guy who knew Godlwater. He was apparently a really good guy. He said you could just go up to his house and talk to him.
Starhopper,
VR did indeed have a thoughtful post. You said Trump is verifiably the most evil president we've ever had. What has Trump done that is verifiable more evil than the guys on bmiller's list, for example Andrew Jackson?
Joe,
I didn't vote for Trump, as I found him and Hillary both to be unacceptable. There were several on the Republican ticket I might have voted for, and on the Democrat ticket I could have voted for Jim Webb, but Trump or Clinton? Hell. No.
Also, you said we must oppose the Republican agenda. Now, I don't know if you are referring to Trump or to congressional Republicans or to conservatives in general, but as a conservative, naturally I would disagree that conservative policies are bad and progressive ones are good. I find great harm in many progressive policies. Not all, of course. I recognize that progressives for the most part are good people who mean well (I wonder if conservatives are treated with the same charity?), but I simply disagree that their solutions are beneficial.
I'm all for keeping Trump in check, but I want it based in rationality and with superior solutions. The vast majority of what I see out of the left is mindless hate, and I will not cooperate with that any more than I tolerated Obama Derangement Syndrome from my side.
LL human doesn't mean shit to you does it? I can prove the Republican policies murder thousands of people you don't care. These are studies scientific studies Tahiti show liberal policies the liberal policies saved the lives the conservative policies kill them. Take air pollution due to coal fired plants. Obama's regs reduce the deaths from 20,000 t0 7,000. Trump eliminated the regs so now 13,000 will die every year.
I bet that even phase you, You hate liberal policy for old fashioned abstractions no one even cares about now and just the loss of human life means nothing.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you, just stupid advice from a weak liberal.
wealth and power is where its at, you need to earn God's respect b y being rich,
Joe, I can only conclude that you are an anti-conservative bigot, and that rational discussion with someone who has as much hate in his heart as you do is not possible. Your political views far, far outweigh your Christian beliefs, based upon your last post that was utterly devoid of all charity, which sadly is an illness that has afflicted most people these days - everyone is apparently infallible in their morals and understanding, based on how enthusiastically they attack and spew hatred at anyone who disagrees.
It should give you pause that agreeing with you politically seems to be your standard for whether someone is wicked. Because I know for a fact that my conservative leanings do not automatically put me at odds with God, I know for a fact that my conservative leanings do not automatically make me selfish (I make around $20-25,000 a year, not rich and never will be), and I know for a fact that many (not all) progressive policies directly lead to harm. Those are facts that no amount of blaming me or Trump or whoever can change. Progressive policies driven by Democrats often lead to harm. Simple fact, and simple reason for me to oppose them when they do.
But no, only PROGRESSIVES are good people, right? Only people who agree with YOU are good people. With a mindset like that, where honest disagreement is immoral, I wonder why the body of Christ can't find unity? Hmm.
You and Starhopper have put on a good display of the rationality and charity in the Christian left. I can't bear much more of it, so I'm going to go be an evil satanic conservative somewhere else. Good day.
Legion,
I am astonished that you class me amongst the "Christian Left". Christian yes, but leftist? The name Goldwater has come up in this conversation, but how many of you can claim to have actually voted for him? I did.
I, like Victor, think of myself as economically liberal and socially conservative.
Legion of Logic said...
Joe, I can only conclude that you are an anti-conservative bigot, and that rational discussion with someone who has as much hate in his heart as you do is not possible.
you are confusing passion with hatred. If this is not the time to climb the barricades and shout when is it? We are facing annihilation and the systematic disemboweling of the whole edifice of progress made since Teddy Roosevelt and you want me to treat it like just business as usual.Conform to the nitrites let the brain washed have their fantasy.
I don't hate you. in fact I like you. what I hate is the game I see many conservatives playing where they write it all off as boys will be boys and condone murder,rape, torture, and lies but if you call them on it (with proof) you are a liar and an extremist and full of hate. Many conservators appreciated atheist watch did not think my anti-atheist varododo was extreme but wont tolerate my political opinion.
My log piece tomorrow on Metacrock will be abouit hating or not hating your enemies a and Christians staying in the struggle,I hope you will read it because some of it will be written with you mind,
Your political views far, far outweigh your Christian beliefs, based upon your last post that was utterly devoid of all charity,
LL, first of all I apologize for assuming you voted for Trump. I know lots of Christians who did not but since 80% did it's hard start out assuming otherwise.
to everything there is a season this is the time to evoke as else of alarm. Human lives are being wasted to inflate Trump's ego ,this is the time to build the barricade. If my political views were more important than my following Jesus i would be posting here.If I did not know Jesus is real in a way I can't deny I sure as hell would not hang in based upon the evangelicals who for the most part are hypocritical morons who sold out all their principles for temporal power (present company excepted).
There are individuals I know who I will not break contact with because I know they love Jesus and they are not and people even though they voted for
Trump. Many of them are intelligent people who I have respected in the past I can't forget. Some are family and that outranks politics (I am from Dallas and live there now so obviously I have Republican relatives). Many in the Cadre are Trum supporters and I have not disbanded we still have the grou-,we just don't talk politics,
the difference in me and that right wing Iddion guy who used to post here he would say "you are not a Christian" I never told you that and I wont because I know you are, No I do not believe that agreement with my politics is prerequisite for salvation.
I never said you are not a good person nor not saved,I do think you are brain washed,
which sadly is an illness that has afflicted most people these days - everyone is apparently infallible in their morals and understanding, based on how enthusiastically they attack and spew hatred at anyone who disagrees.
which one of us has empirical studies? not you, if I was just being hot headed I wouldn't bother to research it.No one cares that I have scientific proof of my position,so it's time to create alarm.If loss of life doesn't make people take stock what will?
It should give you pause that agreeing with you politically seems to be your standard for whether someone is wicked. Because I know for a fact that my conservative leanings do not automatically put me at odds with God,
I never said that, at the same you don;t want t to know
I know for a fact that my conservative leanings do not automatically make me selfish (I make around $20-25,000 a year, not rich and never will be),
you are good little surf obeying your masters, good surf, pull your forelocks now,
and I know for a fact that many (not all) progressive policies directly lead to harm. Those are facts that no amount of blaming me or Trump or whoever can change. Progressive policies driven by Democrats often lead to harm. Simple fact, and simple reason for me to oppose them when they do.
let me see your methodological indictments of the studies on coal fired air pollution. I am betting you have no empirical evidence to back that up,if you do I'd like to see it,
But no, only PROGRESSIVES are good people, right? Only people who agree with YOU are good people. With a mindset like that, where honest disagreement is immoral, I wonder why the body of Christ can't find unity? Hmm.
I thought McCain was good until he voted for the tax scam and caused those 13 million to lose their benefits,he saved them in public and then dumps in private,
You and Starhopper have put on a good display of the rationality and charity in the Christian left. I can't bear much more of it, so I'm going to go be an evil satanic conservative somewhere else. Good day.
ok Paul Harvy-- goodday--that's a rationalization-- you stir up guilt so I'll label you as extreme so Im justified in turning you off, no facts no data, no studies, but hke sure he knows,
His complaint is actually putting us i a double bind, we reach out the olive branch we are being phony if we don;t we are hateful.
Starhopper you Christian commie, I bet you listen folk songs and eat lentil soup.
Looking back at the post i did about LL that started this I really can't blame him,it was too abrupt. I apologize but I am frustrated.
Jefferson Airplane is more my speed, but I do love me a good lentil stew.
Starhopper:
;-)
To Joe and Starhopper,
I'm more guilty of making assumptions and heated comments than you (except for that "I voted for Trump" comment grrr), so for that I apologize. Sitting around sick and cranky isn't the best time for me to engage with others, if my behavior here is an indicator.
Starhopper,
I was born in 1982, so I did not consider Goldwater as a serious candidate to be honest. Didn't care much for anyone else either.
Joe,
Yours requires a more lengthy response, so I will get to it later today. Maybe your blog post will be up beforehand, if so I'll include it.
As a preface, though, here is where I stand. I lean conservative in principle but not always in conventional practice - I'm pro-life, but unlike the majority of pro-life organizations I think birth control should be handed out like Skittles if it meant ending abortions. I'm "pro-gun" in that I believe law-abiding citizens should not be prevented from owning a firearm for self-defense, but I am skeptical that any semi-automatic weapon should be available for purchase. On issues of the environment, I believe financial incentive from the government to make healthy changes is superior to punitive regulatory power against offenders - foundational principle being, whenever possible, do not give the government more power, as they have proven poor stewards of that power.
So yes I'm a conservative, but I also suspect that the "best" course of action on most topics borrows elements from both sides. I don't think the Republican agenda is good, I don't think the Democrat agenda is good, but I think there is a good agenda that can be attained but requires cooperation between the sides.
That's why I'm worked up these days over the level of hyper-partisan clashing both in government and amongst ourselves. It seems like every president since at least Reagan, probably earlier, has been treated like Satan himself by his opponents, and with social media allowing everyone the power to direct those sentiments at each other, it has got to stop. We collectively treat those who disagree with us as morally or intellectually flawed, rather than the more charitable (and often accurate) method of recognizing that we have different moral priorities that direct us and that are sometimes best served by one party or the other, but that this is not indicative of ignorance but rather different prioritization of values. And I guarantee that you and I could sit down and attempt to figure out which values SHOULD come first, and we would fail to reach consensus because it simply doesn't work that way.
At any rate, later today I'll respond to individual points and perhaps your blog post if it is up. And to you, Starhopper, and Victor, again apologies for getting out of hand.
thanks LL
On Politics hate and Christianity
I was born in 1982
Well, without going so far as to revealing the year, let's just say I was born while Truman was president, Stalin was ruler of Russia, my mother would encourage me to finish my dinner by saying "You know, there are starving children in Europe!" and leave it at that.
Joe,
I read the blog post. Would you prefer I respond here or there? Either is fine with me.
maybe both? I need the comments
I know for a fact that my conservative leanings do not automatically make me selfish (I make around $20-25,000 a year, not rich and never will be), and I know for a fact that many (not all) progressive policies directly lead to harm.
Having a low income doesn't mean you are not selfish, but I will take your word that you are not. :)
I am curious is you have any quantifiable data of unilateral harm from progressive policies (that is, policies where non-implementation does not result in a different harm). It's one thing to say policies are harmful, another to discuss which harms matter more.
@One Brow,
It's one thing to say policies are harmful, another to discuss which harms matter more.
But that's the rub isn't it? Conservatives consider the benefits of their policies to outweigh the costs and so do progressives.
Isn't it true that both sides believe they are doing good? Of course by that I mean the rank and file and not necessarily cynical leaders.
BTW. Have to ask. One Brow?
One of Leonid Brezhnev's nicknames (another was "the second Il'ich", but that's another story) was One Brow. In case you're wondering why, just take a look.
Perhaps our own One Brow is trying to tell us something...
bmiller said...
@One Brow,
It's one thing to say policies are harmful, another to discuss which harms matter more.
But that's the rub isn't it? Conservatives consider the benefits of their policies to outweigh the costs and so do progressives.
Isn't it true that both sides believe they are doing good? Of course by that I mean the rank and file and not necessarily cynical leaders.
y standard is human life,still the only one in this fight with studies backing him
Ha Ha.
That is serious One Brow.
It's just one more triumph of the West that we invented the tweezer. :-)
I am curious is you have any quantifiable data of unilateral harm from progressive policies (that is, policies where non-implementation does not result in a different harm). It's one thing to say policies are harmful, another to discuss which harms matter more.
now you are talking
@Joe,
y standard is human life,still the only one in this fight with studies backing him
I think you mean human life that exhibits brain function somehow right?
But that's the rub isn't it? Conservatives consider the benefits of their policies to outweigh the costs and so do progressives.
Isn't it true that both sides believe they are doing good? Of course by that I mean the rank and file and not necessarily cynical leaders.
Exactly. Hence, the lack of support for a statement like " Progressive policies driven by Democrats often lead to harm. Simple fact, and simple reason for me to oppose them when they do." It's not simple by any means.
Maybe Anthony Davis is my personal hero.:)
miller said...
@Joe,
y standard is human life,still the only one in this fight with studies backing him
I think you mean human life that exhibits brain function somehow right?
January 08, 2018 7:42 PM
I'm not sure we can establish that there's any other kid,
One Brow said...
But that's the rub isn't it? Conservatives consider the benefits of their policies to outweigh the costs and so do progressives.
Isn't it true that both sides believe they are doing good? Of course by that I mean the rank and file and not necessarily cynical leaders.
Exactly. Hence, the lack of support for a statement like " Progressive policies driven by Democrats often lead to harm. Simple fact, and simple reason for me to oppose them when they do." It's not simple by any means.
Maybe Anthony Davis is my personal hero.
I have no evidence that Republicans in congress believe in anything other than their own financial gain,
I takeon the Jesus mythers on Metacrock
Answering the Philo Argument
@One Brow,
Exactly. Hence, the lack of support for a statement like " Progressive policies driven by Democrats often lead to harm. Simple fact, and simple reason for me to oppose them when they do." It's not simple by any means.
I think you read too much into Legion's point. He was complaining about the 2 sides demonizing each other and how he did not consider his side as being evil when they oppose policies of the opponents that his side considers harmful.
It used to be normal for the 2 sides to allow that the other had good intentions but were merely misguided. Now it appears that some on both sides see the other as pure evil.
Do you think Legion was stating that the progressive policies he considers harmful are totally evil without a shred of good or at least good intent? I didn't read it that way.
@Joe,
I'm not sure we can establish that there's any other kid,
I could be wrong, but I think you could have expressed your POV better. I don't recall hearing anyone claim that the unborn were either not alive or were not human. Did you mean that we can't establish that they are persons?
I'd like to ask you and Victor a question.
It seems from Victor's post that he considers abortion a necessary evil or at least the lesser of 2 evils. But if there is no human life/person being killed, then why would one consider it an evil at all?
I could be wrong, but I think you could have expressed your POV better. I don't recall hearing anyone claim that the unborn were either not alive or were not human. Did you mean that we can't establish that they are persons?
Yes that;/s right, They become so by the time they are ready to be born but we don't really know when that is; I am pro choice, and no abortion in final trimester,
I'd like to ask you and Victor a question.
It seems from Victor's post that he considers abortion a necessary evil or at least the lesser of 2 evils. But if there is no human life/person being killed, then why would one consider it an evil at all?
Abortion turns on the philosophical problem of being and becoming. There is a human like in process (in formation) woman's decision to make,except the closer we get to birth the less it is her decision. For example she will give birth but once born she has no right to terminate the process of becoming. Because we don't know the point at which the human consciousness swatches on I think sanctioning the third trimester as a whole is a safty margin,
OK. Let me see if I understand correctly.
If the unborn are not persons, what exactly are they?
Are the unborn merely part of a woman's body like any other so she can do with it as she will for a time. Then, at a particular point in time, it is no longer a part of her body and so she can no longer do with it as she will. Before that point there is simply no evil of any sort in destroying it?
It's interesting that you mention that a woman can not terminate the "process of becoming" after birth. Does that mean that the "process of becoming" never actually ends? Because I would have thought at birth one would speak of there actually being a human person present. What exactly would you call the newly born at that point?
The fetus has human DNA and the potential to develop into something with all the characteristic of human personhood. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, it lacks certain of the occurrent mental states that humans have. The Supreme Court decided that a woman had a knowable right to privacy with respect to her own reproductive medical decisions, and the fetus's right to life, as best they were able to ascertain, was not knowable. So, for legal purposes, the woman's right to privacy has to take precedence over the fetus's right to life, since we can be sure of the former but not the latter. Even the dissent in Roe, and the subsequent arguments of anti-Roe justices like Scalia, have not attempted to argue that the right of the fetus to life is knowable. Instead, they have tried to argue, and on my view not very plausibly, that the woman's right to privacy isn't really established, but is a product of judicial activism. People who vote Republican (and even vote for a Republican Presidential candidate whose pro-life convictions are highly suspect) in order to get Roe overturned are hoping for justices who will undercut the status of the right of privacy. But I think it's not judicial activism, I think there is a legitimate right of privacy.
Catholic politicians such as Joe Biden believe that, as a matter of reveal truth, we can know that fetuses are persons. However, he agrees with the Supreme Court that the personhood of the fetus isn't knowable by all citizens, and he agrees with the Supreme Court that a woman's right to privacy implies a right to an abortion unless a countervailing right of the fetus to life can be established as knowable by all citizens. Therefore he believes that the current status of the law is correct with respect to abortion even though he also believes, as a Catholic, that fetuses are persons.
Post a Comment