How to defeat ISIL

[GIThruster]

who are Progs?

Prog is shortened form of "progressive" which is a sanitized term for someone who sees others as objects to be "managed," cared for, taken care of, (whether they like it or not is the unspoken part of "care").

While this is in a sense true, it is not the distinguishing mark of a progressive. It's the peculiar application of managing others expressed in the notion of "social engineering" that is the hallmark of a progressive. They see things wrong with society and want to make them right, but what they identify as wrong is most often completely culturally informed, and lacking all basis of authority. When the traditionalist appeals to tradition as way to do things, he's pointing at the distillation of wisdom passed down through the ages, and there is real reason to suppose in well-functioning societies, that we've done this distillation. Progs distain this work done over the ages and abhor history--hence why ISIL has banned the study of history. Progs abhor any source of wisdom presented as nan authority--most especially the Bible. It simply does not matter, that every good thing we are, have and enjoy here in Western Civilization is the result of Jesus' and Socrates' teaching. People who don't know their history don't care about such things, and judge traditions as evil with no basis for that judgement. Hence for example, why there is no conversation about gay rights. It's obvious to a prog that homosexuals and therefore homosexuality deserves the endorsement of society, but ask them what the cost of this is and they simply cannot answer you. It has never even entered into their small minds to ask the question. And hence the REAL problem with progs. . .it's their vanity. With no apprehension of where we've come from, they pretend to know where we need to go to. Progs are not just ignorant of the facts of life and history, they are arrogant to presume to form and guild whole societies with no apprehension of what it is they're doing and why. Scary. . .

We traditionalists like progress too. We fought for the end of slavery for example. We have a smidgeon of humility however, because obviously, we have never gotten everything quite right.

[mvanwink5]

I'm rather fond of the word hubris as descriptive of Progs especially as their "social engineering" targets 100's of millions of people, and truly if they had their way, billions.

Where I believe social norms can have great value, I also believe in toleration, without which no change can occur. In our past, marriage was arranged by others. Imagine what would have happened if the traditionalist Progs encased that in concrete, by criminalizing it. It is the criminalizing part or threats overt or veiled that is the fulcrum issue, not mere social, non judicial, non police enforced action, no overt or veiled threats of violence. As it is we still have "honor killing" to ensure "morality" is enforced even when criminal enforcement has been abandoned.

[Diogenes]

Every civilized person knows abusing children is a crime... just ask a Catholic Bishop.

Again, you Libertarians postulate a "Universal Morality" that does not exist. You have a lack of understanding of actual human nature and actual history, and you *KEEP* thinking everyone else sees the world as you do, but they don't.


The very fact that 1/3 of Pakistanis think raping boys is fine, *OUGHT* to establish that the opposite of what you believe is true, but this sort of evidence simply doesn't register with your mindset.

A child is never a consenting adult...because a child is not... an... adult.

Says who? Says the law? What law? Who made it? Why should it hold?


Again, I point out the obvious. HOMOSEXUALITY was ILLEGAL. Homosexuals could not consent because they were legally "Non compos mentis".


Who said this? The Law said this. Do you agree with such a law? If you are a Libertarian, you will say "of course I do not agree with such a law." People who want to a$$F*ck other men have a right to do so despite what the law says against it. "


So why should the law against molesting boys hold sway? Indeed, the Homosexual lobby is working diligentlyto normalize pedophilia because *THEY* regard it as simply another lifestyle choice. To them, Pedophiles occupy the exact same ground that Homosexuality had in the 1950s.


Now a simple mind like yours comes along and says the one thing is bad and immoral, but the other is perfectly acceptable, yet you will not look at this position as *YOU* imposing *YOUR* morality on pedophiles. You think *YOUR* morality is correct and normal, and so therefore it *ought* to be imposed on others.


You cannot be *for* and *against* morality at the same time.

Sometimes Progs, though, have difficulty with difficult logic, especially when they are justifying being a Prog.

And naive simpletons who have only their own life history to draw on for forming their conclusions will often prattle about this or that in absolute ignorance of the larger framework of history surrounding them. Ignorant of hard societal lessons learned in the past, they come on to the scene thinking that *THEY* have the answer, because they've lived their tiny little moment in the sun.


Usually their positions are just gutless, requiring no effort or sacrifice on their own part, but allowing them to avoid the acrimony that they would encounter from having taken a stand. They care not what happens beyond their life because they are at the basic level, self centered narcissists who think their indulgent opinion steers the world.

Here's one, all crimes are immoral, but not all immoral acts are a crime.

You naive person. You keep thinking that what you think of as "moral" is universal, and that everyone shares *YOUR* ideas about this. The reality is that all laws are "Moral" laws, they are just not necessarily *YOUR* morals. If viewed from the correct framework it becomes apparent that all immoral acts are a crime, and all crimes are immoral. You are just having difficulty grasping a differing frame of reference from your own.

Yes, a difficult bit of logic for a Prog. Here are some examples to help clarify: cheating on your wife. She may never know, but you will... and it will effect your conscience. Immorality has consequence but is not always a crime. Lying to your best friend, now there is another one. Mistreating your dog because you had a bad day. The examples are endless.

Yes, i'm sure you have an endless list of things that you distinguish as being different between "Moral" and "Crime" but we don't have a mvanwink5 sitting in every courtroom to explain the distinctions whenever we need to have a trial. Besides that, people don't agree with your list, and you are not King, ergo, you don't get to impose YOUR morals on the rest of us.

[mvanwink5]

But you do?

[Diogenes]

But you do?

Tu quoque is the best response you've got?



Why am I not surprised?

[mvanwink5]

Just lazy.
But you are prolific, it is impressive.

[Diogenes]

Just lazy.
But you are prolific, it is impressive.

You have no idea. Part of my problem is I write far too much. People like to get their pieces of information in small bites. It works better if you can condense an argument to it's essential basics, but it is not always easy or even possible sometimes.

[mvanwink5]

Writing for me is like chiseling granite and I rarely state things well as writing is not very high on my skill list (such as it is).

[Diogenes]

Writing for me is like chiseling granite and I rarely state things well as writing is not very high on my skill list (such as it is).

I used to suffer from the delusion that I was a decent writer, but thankfully I have overcome that erroneous impression and I now realize that i'm middlin to mediocre.



But I can still recognize very good writing. Gerard Vanderlune is astonishingly good. Wretchard (Richard Fernandez) is also very good. Kevin Williamson is currently one of my favorite writers. (over at National Review Online.)


There are a few who manage occasional flashes of brilliance, but writing consistently good is rare.

[GIThruster]

Again, you Libertarians postulate a "Universal Morality" that does not exist.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul explains how The Law (Jewish canon) makes us aware of sin, and without it we would not know we are condemned. basically he is saying there is no universal morality or law and this is why it was revealed. Conversely I've had several different people, mostly atheists but others as well, argue for this "Universal Morality" several times now, and I always find it's enlightening to look around the world at the kinds of things people believe and entrench in law, and wonder at the variety of the stuff.

In one village in Irian Jaya for example, when the Gospel of forgiveness was first explained, the natives all at once erupted in applause and loud approval, but not when you'd think they would. It was when Judas betrays Christ with a kiss that they applauded. First time having it explained, they thought Judas was the hero! Well, it turned out to be a headhunter society. They glory in betrayal. The finest example of a headhunter in his element, is when he invites someone over for dinner, and then eats them. No joke.

So one has to wonder how anyone can put stock in any sort of Universal Morality, given the bewildering counter-examples. Rather, I think it is people whom have rebelled against what they perceive as a universal morality, whatever that is in their culture; that seem to believe there is anything universal to rebel against.

[GIThruster]

The plan is: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/173496- ... d-one-map/

[choff]

Too funny, India and China are just going to roll over and let ISIL swallow them up. If America won't stop them, the Hindu's and PLA definitely will! Just let them try and walk over the Gurkha's in Nepal, they'll learn new lessons in decapitation they've never dreamed of.

[tomclarke]

I don't need a Book to tell me what is right and what is wrong. And I've seen enough of the world and its horrors to tell the difference between prejudice and badness. OK - I may get this wrong from time to time but on reflection I'll get it.

Dishonesty. Wrong, but we all know cases where giving unwanted information is cruelty. Honesty is about what is understood, not what is said.

Hurting others. Wrong. Sometimes unavoidable if we are part of the world.

Sex (or anything else that shakes the spirit) within relationships of inherently asymmetric power. Wrong.
This one catches a lot of stuff that moral absolutists would claim needs a Book to prohibit. And means that quite a lot of what a religious hierarchy does is inherently wrong.

Ignoring ones own (conscious and unconscious) feelings. Wrong - but inevitable. I have sympathy with the Christian doctrine of original sin and continual struggle for redemption here. And taking ones feelings into account of course does not usually mean acting on them. We are more than animals, and the first lesson of civilised behaviour is that though we may feel like killing our parents we do not do it.

Now other people may not share these things. In which case they will do wrong, thinking it is right. Pretty common.

I doubt there is anything right-thinking people would see as wrong not caught by the above list. Free sex, for example, will not happen in harmful ways - probably not much at all - if people take there own feelings into account. But I'd welcome attempted correction.

Notice that I do not mandate contraception as wrong. That, alone, puts me in a morally superior position.

The headhunter example below: I guess that is a society where violence (hurting others) is admired. There are many many such. We have elements of it - for example the love of boxing. No society is perfect.

Again, you Libertarians postulate a "Universal Morality" that does not exist.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul explains how The Law (Jewish canon) makes us aware of sin, and without it we would not know we are condemned. basically he is saying there is no universal morality or law and this is why it was revealed. Conversely I've had several different people, mostly atheists but others as well, argue for this "Universal Morality" several times now, and I always find it's enlightening to look around the world at the kinds of things people believe and entrench in law, and wonder at the variety of the stuff.

In one village in Irian Jaya for example, when the Gospel of forgiveness was first explained, the natives all at once erupted in applause and loud approval, but not when you'd think they would. It was when Judas betrays Christ with a kiss that they applauded. First time having it explained, they thought Judas was the hero! Well, it turned out to be a headhunter society. They glory in betrayal. The finest example of a headhunter in his element, is when he invites someone over for dinner, and then eats them. No joke.

So one has to wonder how anyone can put stock in any sort of Universal Morality, given the bewildering counter-examples. Rather, I think it is people whom have rebelled against what they perceive as a universal morality, whatever that is in their culture; that seem to believe there is anything universal to rebel against.

[tomclarke]

A child is never a consenting adult...because a child is not... an... adult.

Says who? Says the law? What law? Who made it? Why should it hold?


Again, I point out the obvious. HOMOSEXUALITY was ILLEGAL. Homosexuals could not consent because they were legally "Non compos mentis".


Who said this? The Law said this. Do you agree with such a law? If you are a Libertarian, you will say "of course I do not agree with such a law." People who want to a$$F*ck other men have a right to do so despite what the law says against it. "


So why should the law against molesting boys hold sway? Indeed, the Homosexual lobby is working diligentlyto normalize pedophilia because *THEY* regard it as simply another lifestyle choice. To them, Pedophiles occupy the exact same ground that Homosexuality had in the 1950s.


Now a simple mind like yours comes along and says the one thing is bad and immoral, but the other is perfectly acceptable, yet you will not look at this position as *YOU* imposing *YOUR* morality on pedophiles. You think *YOUR* morality is correct and normal, and so therefore it *ought* to be imposed on others.


You cannot be *for* and *against* morality at the same time.

So to take this (classic) example.

No, homosexuality is not per se wrong. However, if homosexual feelings are the result of some (all that Freudian stuff) reaction to childhood experience then they will not lead to the bonding etc that we all want. Which would appear sometimes to be the case, perhaps more so than for the case of heterosexual feelings - though these are equally capable of leading us astray as literature depicts for us over and over again.

However the P word (no point in giving fodder to the bots) is unconditionally wrong because it is inconceivable that a young child could be in anything other than an asymmetric power relationship with an adult over sex, and therefore we have something powerful in an asymmetric power relationship.

The very strong taboo against this is perhaps because without civilisation it would happen quite a bit: with consequent bad genetic effects quite apart from morality - so there is perhaps some biological inhibition here to counter the otherwise strong biological attraction.

Notice that when you get to boundary cases they resolve nicely:

Teacher + pupil - very likely wrong because of asymmetric power, but if pupil is old enough not necessarily so as a few successful marriages will attest.

Two young (equally inexperienced) people - no asymmetry but still likely (though not intrinsically) wrong if they are young because there are an awful lot of feelings that get ignored without care.

Back to the OP. Homosexuals who are not ignoring their own feelings (in some major way) would never support a campaign for free sex because they would understand the emotional vulnerability. But those (and heterosexuals) who were, probably through damage, too unable to understand their own feelings and therefore saw sex as being like sweets might do so. I think that characterising this as a "homosexual lobby" is overly generalising, and as such, like racism, harmful.

[GIThruster]

PC out of control: http://twitchy.com/2014/09/01/rotherham ... -concerns/