Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
"It is beneficial to society that most people believe Jesus Christ to be DIVINE"
or
"Jesus Christ is DIVINE"
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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.But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is.
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.
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.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.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Neocons: a study in the grotesque
Neocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.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 ?
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.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque
... and utterly antithetical to democracy.Greta wrote: ↑August 18th, 2018, 4:33 pmNeocons today are largely socially conservative Christian clowns like you aiming to recreate society in their own image.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 ?
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.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2018, 11:12 am Dachshund:
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.But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is.
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
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque
Well, it looks like we passed the neocon test. Thus Dachshund is a stripe of neocon - the KKKristian branch.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 18th, 2018, 5:59 pm... and utterly antithetical to democracy.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.
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).
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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.Greta wrote:Dachshund, as a matter of interest, how do you feel about Jesus, Moses, Peter and other biblical heroes being Middle Eastern men?
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque
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.
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.Authoritarian. War hawks, ant pacifist.
Resent the "control" of science. Ignore environmental concerns.
No,you are confusing neo cons with the religious right.Anti gay, anti woman (as per religious patriarchal attitudes).
Yes. to this. It is all about money and corporate control of government.Dislike all welfare and treat unemployed people (who are essential to keep inflation down) very poorly.
Neo cons are not the religious right. They use the latter for their purposes.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
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.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 ?
I am not going to rehash the argument. Your fundamental misunderstanding of Burke is evident in the following:
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”.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 …
As to the question of human dignity, on page 2 I said:
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.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.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Neocons: a study in the grotesque
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.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 20th, 2018, 3:58 amNeo cons are not the religious right. They use the latter for their purposes.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023