This is a case for the election fraud claims, made by someone getting a degree in apologetics from Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary. I think very poorly of it, and I think Christians who pursue the MyPillow Delusion are bound to hurt the credibility of both Christianity and the Republican Party.
I'd rather talk about C. S. Lewis and Bertrand Russell. But this is so harmful.
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Martin,
This is just the kind of a response a consequentialist would make.
The first response is non-responsive.
The second response is just what a consequentialist would say. Why should I believe a consequentialist?
Third. Whether you consciously realize admit it or not, leftism is founded on consequentialism and therefore to be a leftist is just to be a consequentialist. Maybe you just haven't been exposed to people who tell the truth regardless of the consequences and so don't know that that looks like.
Fourth. It's deceitful to say that a given specific example of a leftist acting as a leftist is the core philosophy rather than an example of the core philosophy in action. But the response is a good example of consequentialist thinking. Distort what the orginal claim was and attack the distorted claim. Just what I would expect from a leftist.
It's not an argument to just say "that's just what a consequentialist would say" over and over again. Tell me how my support of poor and working class folk over the wealthy elite leads logically to consequentialism.
Consequentialists think they are doing good. They just don't care that they do evil to achieve their ends. That's what you are missing.
bmiller,
Consequentialists think they are doing good. They just don't care that they do evil to achieve their ends. That's what you are missing.
Sounds a lot like any other sort of ethicist. In real life, we need to choose between evils on a regular basis, and choose based upon our ethics. It's evil to steal from wealthy people and it's evil to let children starve, but we wind up choosing one or the other.
Don McIntosh,
I’ve decided to continue my part in this dialogue, for a couple of reasons. First, given the explosively divided state of our society at the moment, I think it’s important that we present our arguments as clearly and patiently as possible in the interest of mutual understanding. Second, even if you are a well-spoken advocate for your position, as I believe you are, I think my position is still stronger than yours. :-)
I do appreciate this exchange of ideas, and I will try to make myself more clear on what I mean.
That’s fair. But before tossing practically everyone remotely associated with the riot in prison for years, maybe we should first find out how many of the rioters were found with zip ties on their person, and whether there is any other possible explanation for their having them. Zip ties are not illegal weapons, let alone illegal weapons, and to my knowledge walking into a building with some of them on hand is not a criminal offense (I know a few electricians who do it all the time).
I agree that the mere possession of zip ties is not a crime nor, in and of itself, indicative of a crime. However, it's a little too much of a strain on my credulity to wonder if the people invading the Congressional floor during the insurrection are brandishing zip ties because they chose that moment to work on the Capital's electrical system.
No, I admit that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. Apparently, then, Ashli Babbitt was not thinking clearly at the moment she started through the window. Still not sure killing her is the best solution to that problem, though.
I don't know if that's the best solution, either. Perhaps there could have been a warning shot. On the other hand, when I get into these discussions because someone has been shot in a backyard while holding up a cellphone, I am constantly reminded that you don't fire a gun unless you mean to hit something. Given the choice between firing the gun and letting the people behind that door storm the area where, to my understanding, there were Representatives present, I can't say that this officer did the wrong thing.
You cannot possibly know this.
You are correct that I don't have the testimony of Babbitt on this issue. What I do have are the statyements of other peope at the conflict, most of which present the type of thinking I describe, but Babbitt could have had a singular frame of mind.
It’s just as plausible that after watching the police stand down in riot after riot in large cities across the nation during the Summer, failing to protect even their own precinct headquarters, she concluded that the police, whether they agreed with her aims or not, would not try to stop her.
That would be another product of primarily getting news from right-wing sources. The accounts of the protesters describe things quite differently, including regular police crackdowns after curfew. As for police precincts, it's true a number of them have been vandalized, but not because the police refused to protect them.
Yes, there were cameras and the rioters were aware of them. So what’s more blatantly conspicuous and unlawful, having a Glock hidden in a shoulder holster under a jacket, or tying up a host of Congresspersons with zip ties? That’s to say nothing of an exit strategy after forcing the entire Congress to submit to their will.
When you think you're on the side of the law, why do yo need an exit strategy. When you think you have the support of the country, why shoot anyone when you can control them?
Don McIntosh,
Yes, you have indeed stated clearly that you don’t mean to say that people like me are actually consciously biased or malicious racists, ... But other of your statements appear to have betrayed you. At minimum there’s evidence of inconsistency in your position.
You feel I have made statements pointing to something other than an unconscious bias? Than I owe you an apology for being less than clear on that. I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I thought you were consciously racist.
Tell you what: I will go so far as to concede that the problem could be mutually reinforcing; in other words *each* of us has an understanding that doesn’t fit into the “little boxes” of the other. In any case I think it’s clear that you have some little boxes of your own, not only in your interactions with me but in claiming to know, for example, a deceased Ashli Babbitt’s innermost thoughts and motivations.
You are quite possibly correct here. We never see our own boxes, and can't rely on people who think like us to point them out. That's one of the reasons I seek out opportunities to engage reasonable people who disagree with me.
I do recall you saying that implicit racism, unconscious bias, etc., are universal human problems; and while I don’t agree with that sentiment (in that as a human I don’t believe racial bias affects my own decisions or treatment of others in any meaningful way), I can understand it.
That's nice and all, but the effects of habits, childhood images, stories, and others things we use without thinking has been studied for decades, and the effects they can have on our behavior have been well-documented. So, saying you don't believe in it is, to me, like saying you don't believe our planet is a spheroid. The proof is there if you want to see it.
Further, I'm guessing you're a person who thinks that we live in a sinful state (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I find it odd when people say they are inclined to engage in any manner of sin, and have to struggle to stay righteous, except for the specific sins of racism/sexism, of which taint they are free.
But then you turned around and implied – or certainly *appeared* to imply, and not for the first time – that my racism is actually a little more serious or deep-seated than yours.
Again, I apologize. I grew up in a time when the Forbidden 7 were still airing on broadcast television, ate pancakes at a restaurant named Sambos, heard neighbors talking about maintaining neighborhoods, shared jokes about body parts, etc. My internalized racism is, in all likelihood, little different from yours. What I see as the larger difference is that I am aware of this tendency, and therefore can try to fight against it.
I can see no other purpose for your suggestion that I would not have been opposed to the Capitol lockdown had the protesters/rioters been brown.
I hope I have been clearer, then.
If I misunderstood, help me understand. Were you personally opposed to the Capitol lockdown, or not?
I would agree with the sentiment it was too much, too late. It's primary purpose was not to secure a Capitol no longer under significant threat, but to make Congresspeople feel safer. I think it was a waste of money and manpower.
If not, would you have been personally opposed to it had the protesters/rioters been brown?
From what I can tell, there were good reasons (known before Jan 5) for heightened security on Jan 6 (though probably not to that extent), and I would have supported that against any protestors, just as I support the limiting of protestors to specific places as occurred in the cities throughout the summer.
Martin:
“Boy, I sure am a jerk for wanting to help the poor and working class over the wealthy elite, amirite?! That's what steers my politics, mostly.”
That’s what steers a lot of conservative-populist politics also. And it’s why I think a conscious anti-elitism can be a common cause for struggling Americans of all political persuasions. My thinking is that we need to look less to towering personalities (Obama, Trump, etc.) for political salvation and learn to appreciate our common interests as members of a still relatively free democratic society.
In the meantime elitists are nothing if not smart, and they know that as long as they can keep us at each others’ throats over issues of race, ethnicity, gender, party, vaccine status, and countless other personal identifiers, we will never come together to oppose them and limit their ever-increasing share of the nation’s wealth and power.
One Brow:
Thanks for your latest remarks. It’s gracious of you to apologize, and I apologize in turn for my part in what I think is mostly a misunderstanding. Seems to me that neither of us means harm in any case.
I did read everything and likewise appreciate what you’ve said. We still disagree about how to best interpret certain facts in evidence, but otherwise you’ve made a lot of progress. Lol, just kidding.
Leaving most of that aside, however, for now I want to focus on this:
“That's nice and all, but the effects of habits, childhood images, stories, and others things we use without thinking has been studied for decades, and the effects they can have on our behavior have been well-documented. So, saying you don't believe in it is, to me, like saying you don't believe our planet is a spheroid. The proof is there if you want to see it.
“Further, I'm guessing you're a person who thinks that we live in a sinful state (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I find it odd when people say they are inclined to engage in any manner of sin, and have to struggle to stay righteous, except for the specific sins of racism/sexism, of which taint they are free.”
There’s a lot to address here. For starters, I would point out that if behaviors can be learned through habits, upbringing and stories, they can be unlearned. I was brought up to be a racist by my father, for example, but I consciously took a different path. Thus my father was less than thrilled when he found out my fiancée (now my wife for over thirty years) was the child of relatively poor first-generation immigrants from Mexico.
For me, racist thoughts are kind of like adulterous thoughts. I occasionally have them, and then dismiss them as wrong and harmful. But otherwise racism is not a big problem for me, just like the temptation to commit adultery is not a big problem for me (though I went through a brief midlife crisis some years back when that temptation was admittedly more powerful). The way I see it, insisting that our society is and must always be racially torn because of slavery would be a little like saying my marriage must forever be on the rocks because my great-grandfather was known to be a habitual philanderer.
You’re right that as a Christian I believe sin to be a universal human condition; but that condition manifests itself differently through different personalities. Some people rob banks or sell illegal drugs, while others put people in prison for robbing banks and selling illegal drugs without stopping to consider whether they are actually guilty or not. Some join violent white supremacist groups; others scarcely think about race at all and openly despise others instead for their economic status or their religious beliefs. And so on. Besides, the Christian gospel is not so much about the power of sin; it’s about the greater power of Christ to forgive us and deliver us from sin’s curse upon humanity.
“My internalized racism is, in all likelihood, little different from yours. What I see as the larger difference is that I am aware of this tendency, and therefore can try to fight against it.”
Well, either it’s possible to fight against that tendency or it’s not. If it is, I would suggest that as a Christian disciple I am as determined not to be a racist as you or anyone else.
Don,
According to Wikipedia:
Public approval of interracial marriage rose from around 5% in the 1950s to around 80% in the 2000s. The proportion of interracial marriages is markedly different depending on the ethnicity and gender of the spouses.
Since 1967 when State interracial marriage bans were overturned, there were more interracial marriages in the US. ~15% for a while now. Most States other than the South didn't ban those types of marriages before so there have been 54 years of "legal" children produced in the South (along with the entire rest of the US) since those laws were overturned. So I wonder if the children of those marriages since 1967 and before are considered white or POC? Or just people?
Can any "white" person in the US actually claim they have no "non-white" relatives? Can any POC claim they have no "white" relatives?
BTW, as Pew says:
Despite the long history of Hispanic residents in the United States, there was no systematic effort to count this group separately in the Census until the late 20th century.
Seems no one thought it was a big deal, but all of the sudden it became a political issue? Hmm.
Not to say that people cannot be jerks, even to their family members. The people of the US should seek what unites us rather than what divides us, especially since what supposedly divides us is to a large extent a construct that certain people decide to adopt arbitarily.
Thanks for that, bmiller.
It seems that most everyone, critical race theorists included, agrees in principle that the idea of fixed separate races is an arbitrary construct which underlies much of our social disord.
But most everyone then turns around and tries to correct the problem by assuming that same idea to be correct. Speaking out against "white privilege," for example, implicitly assumes that at any given time there is a certain number of people in the population that can be objectively and consistently identified as "white."
It seems like our elite are performing some social experiments on us by seeing how we'll react to their destructive theories. Like we're living in that movie Trading Places
Don McIntosh,
Speaking out against "white privilege," for example, implicitly assumes that at any given time there is a certain number of people in the population that can be objectively and consistently identified as "white."
Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "passing". The very existence of passing means that white privilege can be acquired by a person with black parents, as long as their skin color is sufficiently pale. The notion of race as a social construct doesn't change the physical markers that the social construct uses to determine race.
Post a Comment