Friday, June 15, 2018

Separating families is not Christian. 2 + 2 is not 5. Any questions?

Here. 

211 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 211 of 211
bmiller said...

Just to cause the trip over to 201:-)

Hugo said...

Thank you StevenK and Legion, great food for thought!

Starhopper said...

Signing off for several days. Heading down to Atlanta to visit my younger daughter. See you all (virtually) next week!

(See? I have both children and grandchildren. So I am obviously "pro-life"!)

Hal said...

Why stop at 1990? What are the numbers after that year?
I looked and the numbers have been on a downward trend since 1990. The last four years data on that chart show an average of well less than 100,000 a year. That is lower than when the ban was in effect.

Screwtape Jenkins said...

"Progressives that lean heavily leftist/socialist/marxist/communist have values that are hostile to American democracy. Their goal is undo America as it was established and create a new system of government."

What is this slapdash word salad supposed to even mean?

What "new system of government" do people on the left want to establish? Be specific.

Do you even know the difference between marxism, socialism, and communism? Do you know what those words actually mean? Can you point to any major political figure on the left who is actually advocating for state-planned economies? Do you know any major political figure on the left proposing a maximum wage? Do you hear any major political figures on the left talking about surplus value?

Advocating for higher taxes on rich people and medicare for all IS NOT advocating for replacing our system of government.

"I'd rather just point you to people/groups. The group 'Antifa' comes to mind."

You'd "rather" try to avoid the fact that your claims are completely vacuous propagandist word-vomit. Trying to pretend that Antifa is representative of the left is like trying to pretend that the Charlotesville protesters who murdered a woman are representative of the right. It's something only unserious blowhards like yourself would ever attempt in a serious conversation, in a desperate attempt to rescue obviously overblown assertions.

"Groups/people that use thug tactics to control the lives of others. Groups/people that advocate taking away guns by force. Groups/people that advocate putting people in jail under subjective 'hate speech' laws that are rooted in feelings and political correctness. Groups/people that want America to be governed by some third-party global law without getting the consent of the people. Groups/people that want open borders."

NAME the groups and people who want these things. BE SPECIFIC, or admit you're pulling all of this from the deepest recesses of your rear end.

Who wants to take guns away by force? Who wants to put people in jail for hate speech? Who wants America to be subject to global law? Who wants open borders?

None of these things ARE EVEN CLOSE to the stated positions of the Democratic party as stated by their platform, their leaders, or their candidates.

Wanting the tax rate on the rich to go back to what they were under Reagan is not socialism. Wanting medicare for all is not communism. Wanting to extend public education from K through 12 to K through a bachelor's degree is not marxism. Yes, these views are pretty far to the left, but they are not simply by virtue of that fact undemocratic. The main way people are trying to achieve these ends is by voting for Bernie Sanders, not by taking to the streets with weapons.

Despite what you've been spoon-fed by Rush Limbaugh et al for a generation, there is SIGNIFICANT SPACE to the left of you before one gets to marxism/socialism/communism. Not everyone to the left of you is Leon Trotsky, you'll no doubt be stunned to discover.

"I define the term to include the people that agree with these examples. If you fit, you fit. If you don't, you don't."

No mainstream left-leaning politician, group, organization, or intellectual REMOTELY fits the examples you gave. (Though I don't count Antifa as a mainstream group, I don't even think the most ardent member of Antifa believes people should be put in JAIL for hate speech! Just an ABSURD claim!) I have good news for you: the boogeyman who motivates your every political impulse simply does not exist.

"As I said before, you may use the term differently."

Correctly. The word you're looking for is "correctly." We use the terms correctly. You might want to try it.








Screwtape Jenkins said...

"Huh?? We're not asking them about religion. We don't mention any religion during the interview. We're taking their stated values/principles and seeing if they are hostile to the secular values. Those secular values just so happen to align with many Christian values."

Isn't it pretty obviously possible to be very positive about secular values while being very negative about Christian values? Doesn't that in fact actually perfectly describe the progressives who have your proverbial panties in a perpetual bunch? A guy like Bill Maher, for example, would pass a test on secular values with flying colors, and he's openly hateful of Christianity. If your goal is to keep such people out, how do you do that by only asking them questions about secular values?

Can you give some examples of the kind of questions you would ask that would be able to differentiate people who are positive about Christianity from those who are hostile towards it, while not mentioning anything religious?

While you're failing to do that, also keep in mind that even if you were able to do that, if your STATED REASON for coming up with the questions you do is to weed out people who were hostile to Christianity, it would STILL BE a religious test for citizenship. Which is more clearly anti-American and unconstitutional than any of the imagined transgressions you attribute to progressives.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

(See? I have both children and grandchildren. So I am obviously "pro-life"!)

Nazi were pro-life for themselves and their families too. :-)

bmiller said...

@Hal,

Why stop at 1990?

Because this was Starhopper's claim:
"Nicolae Ceaușescu outlawed it in Romania, which resulted in the number of abortions skyrocketing for decades. The number did not come down (in fact, it collapsed to near zero) after the fall of the Ceaușescu regime when, ironically, abortion was again legalized.

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

Kevin said...

The Romanian increase in illegal abortions was largely driven by poor economic conditions. For the poor, abortion is a means of making ends meet.

The two greatest and non-controversial things we can do to help reduce abortion are free birth control and policies that are pro-family - adequate financial benefits that don't make a new baby a frightening situation.

Another thing I would reform is the focus of sex-ed. At work I perform maintenance on electrical equipment. As part of our electrical safety training, they don't simply tell us "Be careful or you can get hurt or killed." They show us videos of people getting killed or severely injured in electrical accidents - that pushes the point home far better than mere words. For sex-ed, I'd have videos of people with STDs show what it's like living with them. I'd show videos of young parents who lost opportunities due to a few minutes of fun. Basically, drive the point home that sex isn't just something to do for entertainment - it has very real consequences. If you can't control yourself and have to do it, use the freaking birth control!

It's nice to have an ideal, but politically the path toward the ideal has to be forged through the realities of human nature. Even if a total ban on abortion was achieved, during the next election cycle it would get tossed out. It's better, from a practical standpoint, to reduce those abortions that can be done without mass resentment from half the country.

bmiller said...

Of course I agree that EO is the wrong way to go.

As far as sex goes, it is a mistake to separate the progressive from the I unitive. This was not a controversy within Christendom until 1930.

bmiller said...

Oops, spell-check error. S/B "procreative from the unitive"

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 211 of 211   Newer› Newest»