Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 18th, 2018, 7:04 am

If you do start a topic like this, then I think one of the important distinctions to make will be between what is useful/beneficial to individuals and to societies and what is an objective truth. You'll have to say whether you think there is any difference between these two things. If you do think that there is a difference between these two concepts then you'll have to make it clear whether you value Christianity (and possibly some other theistic religions) because of its utility, because of its objective truth value or both.

I'm looking forward to hearing Jordan Peterson's argument rendered into clear, simple language. With him having an IQ of 160 and all, I would imagine it's pretty damn persuasive.

Dachshund
Posts: 486
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 18th, 2018, 7:30 am

No. What I will be arguing/demonstrating is that the brand of atheism currently promulgated by popular intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, - i.e. that which, in particular denies that the "Logos" ( Jesus Christ) is DIVINE -, is a fatally flawed thesis which is no longer tenable. Nothing more.

Dachshund

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 18th, 2018, 7:34 am

Fatally flawed in the sense that lack of belief in it causes bad things to happen in society (a utility argument)? Or fatally flawed because it pedals factual inaccuracies (the objective truth argument)?

"It is beneficial to society that most people believe Jesus Christ to be DIVINE"

or

"Jesus Christ is DIVINE"

Dachshund
Posts: 486
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 18th, 2018, 8:09 am

I will be arguing that Dawkins'/Harris' case for atheism is INTELLECTUALLY flawed because it fails, from the outset, to interpret the meaning of such terms as "belief" and "religion" correctly (i.e. at the requisite level of depth). Then I will demonstrate how this, in turn, leads them to draw a false conclusion, namely, that, (with respect to the Christian religion), the "Logos" of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, was not divine ( by "divine", I mean of ultimate, transcendent value).

So, in answer to your question, no, I will be not be dealing with the question of utility, but rather limiting the content of my post to setting out the reasons why I think Peterson is correct in stating that Jesus Christ is DIVINE .

Dachshund

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 18th, 2018, 11:12 am

Dachshund:
But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is.
In the topic you started, Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum, you demonstrated that you did not understand Burke or Liberalism or the natural rights tradition. It took you several pages before you learned what Burke’s position on the equality of human rights actually is, and then you stopped posting. As with much of what you claim, it is long on rhetoric and short on understanding.
So, in answer to your question, no, I will be not be dealing with the question of utility, but rather limiting the content of my post to setting out the reasons why I think Peterson is correct in stating that Jesus Christ is DIVINE .

I would be more than happy to provide a precis of his case for you, in clear, simple, jargon-free English in an appropriate sub-forum, should you be interested in getting up to speed with the way that clever people are now beginning to think as a new post-secular, (Christian) era dawns in West.

I am looking forward to this. If you are true to your word you will not require us to watch any videos, but will summarize the argument and his claims.
What I will be arguing/demonstrating is that the brand of atheism currently promulgated by popular intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, - i.e. that which, in particular denies that the "Logos" ( Jesus Christ) is DIVINE -, is a fatally flawed thesis which is no longer tenable. Nothing more.
Well, I don’t know much about Dawkins’ or Harris’ claims but since you have set yourself the task of defending the claim that the logos is Christ and Christ is divine the discussion cannot be limited to any particular brand of atheism or theism. It will require you to defend Johannine Christianity not only against atheists but against Christians who distinguish between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John and reject the latter, and, of course, the distinction between canonical and non-canonical early gospels. In addition, it will require that you show not only that Peterson defends the position the logos is Christ and Christ is divine but that you explain exactly how he understands these terms. Nothing more. Nothing less.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7325
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Neocons: a study in the grotesque

Post by Greta » August 18th, 2018, 4:33 pm

Dachshund wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 6:58 am
Greta,

You don't think twice about referring to me as a neocon, and it crystal clear that when ever you do, you are intentionally applying the label as a term of abuse. But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is. So I challenge you to define the doctrine of Neo-conservatism in a simple sentence or two; - It is perfectly possible to do this, BTW, so go for it, girl. Tell the forum what Neo-conservatism is IYO. Define the meaning of the term for us. Then we'll take it from there. OK ?
Neocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.

Authoritarian. War hawks, ant pacifist.

Resent the "control" of science. Ignore environmental concerns.

Anti gay, anti woman (as per religious patriarchal attitudes).

Dislike all welfare and treat unemployed people (who are essential to keep inflation down) very poorly.

Highly tribal, tending towards racism, sometimes extreme racism - as in your case.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 18th, 2018, 5:59 pm

Greta wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 4:33 pm
Dachshund wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 6:58 am
Greta,

You don't think twice about referring to me as a neocon, and it crystal clear that when ever you do, you are intentionally applying the label as a term of abuse. But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is. So I challenge you to define the doctrine of Neo-conservatism in a simple sentence or two; - It is perfectly possible to do this, BTW, so go for it, girl. Tell the forum what Neo-conservatism is IYO. Define the meaning of the term for us. Then we'll take it from there. OK ?
Neocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.

Authoritarian. War hawks, ant pacifist.

Resent the "control" of science. Ignore environmental concerns.

Anti gay, anti woman (as per religious patriarchal attitudes).

Dislike all welfare and treat unemployed people (who are essential to keep inflation down) very poorly.

Highly tribal, tending towards racism, sometimes extreme racism - as in your case.
... and utterly antithetical to democracy.

Dachshund
Posts: 486
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 20th, 2018, 12:47 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 11:12 am
Dachshund:
But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is.
In the topic you started, Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum, you demonstrated that you did not understand Burke or Liberalism or the natural rights tradition. It took you several pages before you learned what Burke’s position on the equality of human rights actually is, and then you stopped posting. As with much of what you claim, it is long on rhetoric and short on understanding.





The terms like "liberalism" and "natural rights" have been interpreted in so many different ways, that they are now effectively meaningless.

I think I understand Burke well enough to know he would agree with me that the notion of Human Rights as they conceptualised in documents like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely, to be: universal, absolute, non-fungible, inalienable real entitlements that are possessed in equal measure by all men and women, is absurd. It is absurd because the whole idea is grounded on the presumption of the assumption that all human beings actually possess an equal, intrinsic, measure of dignity (moral worth/value). Burke would immediately reject this kind of radical moral egalitarianism as nebulous nonsense. He would argue it is a conspicuously self-evident fact that it is not the case all men and women are equally dignified; that one need take only a brief glance at any human society to see that moral worth/value is distributed hierarchically. At the top of the hierarchy ( which is vertical) we will find the noblest, most moral (most righteous) and virtuous of persons, while at the base will be those individuals who are the most ignoble and immoral members of society.

I agree, 100%.

In sum, the claim that UNUDHR - type "Human Rights" exist, is merely a presumption based on the assumption that there is such a thing as "Human Dignity" in the sense that it is a REAL, absolute, inherent, inviolable, non-fungible, unconditioned, normative property that is ACTUALLY possessed by literally each and every human being in an EQUAL measure. But this assumption is, I said, precisely that - an ASSUMPTION - and one I claimed was utterly impossible to justify ( either theoretically or in any other way).

As I recall, Fooloso4 , while you huffed and puffed about how horrible a person I was for daring to request a justification for the assumption of equal human dignity that grounds the contemporary pro- human rights discourse, you never did provide any kind of theoretical (or other) justification for them - DID YOU ?[/b] Nor did anyone else who posted on that thread. THAT'S why I stopped posting on this particular OP - i.e; because it soon became very clear that no one would be able provide the justification I requested. In short, that no one could meet my challenge.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7325
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque

Post by Greta » August 20th, 2018, 12:57 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 5:59 pm
Greta wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 4:33 pm


Neocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.

Authoritarian. War hawks, ant pacifist.

Resent the "control" of science. Ignore environmental concerns.

Anti gay, anti woman (as per religious patriarchal attitudes).

Dislike all welfare and treat unemployed people (who are essential to keep inflation down) very poorly.

Highly tribal, tending towards racism, sometimes extreme racism - as in your case.
... and utterly antithetical to democracy.
Well, it looks like we passed the neocon test. Thus Dachshund is a stripe of neocon - the KKKristian branch.

Dachshund, as a matter of interest, how do you feel about Jesus, Moses, Peter and other biblical heroes being Middle Eastern men?

After all, if Jesus Christ existed he would have looked a lot more like Osama Bin Laden than he would have looked like Kenny Loggins (the latter's appearance being closer to the usual White Jesus depictions seen in western religious art).

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 20th, 2018, 3:17 am

Dachshund wrote:In sum, the claim that UNUDHR - type "Human Rights" exist, is merely a presumption based on the assumption that there is such a thing as "Human Dignity" in the sense that it is a REAL, absolute, inherent, inviolable, non-fungible, unconditioned, normative property that is ACTUALLY possessed by literally each and every human being in an EQUAL measure. But this assumption is, I said, precisely that - an ASSUMPTION - and one I claimed was utterly impossible to justify ( either theoretically or in any other way).

As I recall, Fooloso4 , while you huffed and puffed about how horrible a person I was for daring to request a justification for the assumption of equal human dignity that grounds the contemporary pro- human rights discourse, you never did provide any kind of theoretical (or other) justification for them - DID YOU ?[/b] Nor did anyone else who posted on that thread. THAT'S why I stopped posting on this particular OP - i.e; because it soon became very clear that no one would be able provide the justification I requested. In short, that no one could meet my challenge.
In that topic you asserted that the term "human dignity" is defined in terms of the ability of human beings to make moral decisions. You correctly stated that human infants, for example, do not yet possess the ability to make moral decisions. You also stated that in the UDHR the concept of human dignity is the basis for assigning human rights. Since the UDHR assigns rights to all humans, not just adults, and since it is self evidently true that human infants cannot yet make moral decisions, the meaning that you assert for "human dignity" must be incorrect. You must have misunderstood the meaning and intention of the UDHR. I and others in that topic said as much at the time. You ignored those comments.

Elsewhere, you have indicated your own belief that certain rights, in particular the right not to be killed, extend right down to human embryos consisting of a single cell. Clearly such a thing does not have the ability to make moral decisions. But clearly you believe in assigning some equivalent of the concept of "dignity" to it, although your own concept would presumably be expressed in terms of human lives being uniquely formed in the image of God. Same concept. Same assertion of the objectively unique status of all human beings. Different language.

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 20th, 2018, 3:23 am

Greta wrote:Dachshund, as a matter of interest, how do you feel about Jesus, Moses, Peter and other biblical heroes being Middle Eastern men?
If he is consistent with his previous comments about the distribution of g-factor around the world, his propositions about its link to the ability to make moral decisions and his definition of the term "human dignity" then presumably he will conclude that Jesus lacked the dignity possessed by himself and other men of European origin. But I doubt whether he will be consistent.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 517
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque

Post by Karpel Tunnel » August 20th, 2018, 3:58 am

Greta wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 4:33 pm
Neocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.
Actually the neo-cons while perhaps tending a little towards social conservatism, need not be that at all. The Bush Administration, Project for a New Century and actually a lot of the finance people Obama surrounded himself with are neo-cons. They are pro-corporate, pro-intervention in the economies and if needed governmetns of other countries. They are for privitization, reducing social services and so on.
Authoritarian. War hawks, ant pacifist.

Resent the "control" of science. Ignore environmental concerns.
Actually many neo-cons are concerned about global warming. Though they are hardly environmentalists. But the neo-cons have NO problem with science and technology. The latter being a big part of their religion.
Anti gay, anti woman (as per religious patriarchal attitudes).
No,you are confusing neo cons with the religious right.
Dislike all welfare and treat unemployed people (who are essential to keep inflation down) very poorly.
Yes. to this. It is all about money and corporate control of government.

Neo cons are not the religious right. They use the latter for their purposes.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 20th, 2018, 11:43 am

Dachshund:
As I recall, Fooloso4 , while you huffed and puffed about how horrible a person I was for daring to request a justification for the assumption of equal human dignity that grounds the contemporary pro- human rights discourse, you never did provide any kind of theoretical (or other) justification for them - DID YOU ?
You can recall it in any way you want, but there is a record of what was said by whom and when. It clearly shows that you did not initially understand Burke at all and over the course of the discussion learned much more about him.

I am not going to rehash the argument. Your fundamental misunderstanding of Burke is evident in the following:
While Burke does say that the "natural rights" of man exist, he regards them to be of no real importance with respect to the conduct of human affairs …
You stumbled when attempting to walk this back after it was pointed out the Burke claimed the the natural rights of mankind are “sacred things”.

As to the question of human dignity, on page 2 I said:
What assumptions underlie the idea that human dignity is something that requires justification? Perhaps you’ve got it backwards. Instead of starting with abstract rational concepts begin with considerations of man in his natural state as we find him rather than the fictional “state of nature”. Man is by nature a social animal that from a very early age displays care and empathy. From this perspective what is justified must be justified in terms of what is beneficial and unjustified what is harmful to us considered both individually and as a society. Care and consideration do not need justification, justification is based on it.
Evidently, you still do not understand how this answers your challenge. Evidently, you still do not understand Kant’s answer to your challenge either - dignity is not a matter of one’s worth or value to another. A human being is not a means to the ends of some other human being. Or, perhaps you do understand this and think that others must justify their existence to you.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7325
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque

Post by Greta » August 20th, 2018, 8:54 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
August 20th, 2018, 3:58 am
Neo cons are not the religious right. They use the latter for their purposes.
I agree up to a point but the overlap and connection between neoconservatism and the religious right are far more significant than you present. The vast majority of our neocon politicians are also of the religious right and that is not a coincidence.

Steve3007
Posts: 5516
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 21st, 2018, 4:43 am

The changing of the title of this topic is all very confusing.

Post Reply