Sunday, January 25, 2015

John C. Wright Strikes Bone

John C. Wright cuts deep into the malfunctioning minds of AtheoLeftism... again. I can't resist excerpting a large part from the beginning, but please go to his page to read it all.
A reader with the abstract yet addictive name of Concept Junkie leaves this comment regarding the case in favor of marriage, now, for some reason that does not bear close examination, called traditional marriage. (As if a three-sided triangle needed to be called a traditional triangle to distinguish it from all those square triangles with four sides):
Our gracious host has made the case better than anyone I’ve ever seen, but I don’t think his arguments, however sound and logical would change the vast majority of minds.
An understatement. My reasoning will change NO minds, zero, nada, zip, simply because those who uphold the perverse as equal to the decent, the sick as equal to the hale, the unwholesome as equal to the wholesome were never reasoned into that worldview, no, not one, not ever.

You cannot reason someone out of a stance he was not reasoned into.

A Leftist is not someone who has an alternative political philosophy to yours, or different reasons. He is someone who, in the realm of politics, has decided to eschew philosophy and abandon reason.

Leftism is what you get when you stop reasoning, kill it dead, and substitute word fetishes instead.

Consider: Marx proposed an economic system where goods and services would be produced without reference to prices, to supply and demand, and to the scarcity of resources. In other words, he proposed economics without economics. This would like someone who proposed a geometric system without points and lines, without definitions and without common notions. In order to answer his critics, Marx told them that to minds conditioned by bourgeoisie means of production, the results of the material dialectic once the dictatorship of the proletarian had ended the exploitation of private property forever was unimaginable to them. For those of you who don’t speak Leftist, Marx merely proposed that oldest and most favorite of Leftist counter-arguments: he told them to shut up.

A close study of Marx will show that he was not an economist at all, he was someone making up a plethora of windbaggy excuses, slurs, counter-attacks, and slanders to deconstruct, that is, to destroy economics. Economics led to a conclusion that Marx did not like, namely, that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch; you cannot eat your cake and save it, too. So rather than accept the conclusion, he rejected the art of reasoning. Keynes followed in his footsteps, and used a more convoluted terminology.

These terminologies are word-fetishes. A fetish is a magic token you use in order to get a magic effect in the world, and, when the effect does not take place, instead of throwing the fetish away, you adore it and implore it all the more.

A word-fetish is when you have a bit of language which you hope will have a magical effect on the world, turning gold into lead.

The simplest example is the phrase ‘wage slavery’ which, like the phrase ‘bright darkness’ or ‘four-sided triangle’ or ‘homosexual marriage’ is a nonsense phrase, signifying nothing and meant to signify nothing.

What word fetishes do is carry a connotation without carrying a denotation. In the above example, a slave is defined as one who is coerced into doing labor without a wage. The payment of a wage is the defining thing that makes a laborer not a slave; it is the sign that the exchange was voluntary. Hence the term ‘wage slavery’ has a connotation of a horrible and involuntary servitude, akin to bondage, and the connotation is affixed to working for a wage, a voluntary exchange between equals, which is the opposite.

Word fetishes are used instead of reasoning. When a man reasons, he defines his terms. When a Leftist unreasons — or whatever the mental activity is called whereby mental activity is deliberately made unable to act — what he does is undefine his terms. He makes clear terms muddy.

When the word fetish does not work, they, like the zealous medicine man whose rain dance cannot make it rain, merely dances again, this time harder. So the Leftist says his word fetish again louder or more forcefully or more scornfully. When nothing continues to happen, they try again. And so on.

I used economics as my first example because Marx is the defining pioneer of Leftism. But the same neurosis and the same results obtain for any topic discussed by the Left.

In philosophy, the word fetish is to declare that the only truth is that there is no truth. It is, in other words, an insolent abandonment of philosophy, the love of truth.

In ethics, the word fetish is to say that it is evil to distinguish good from evil, and that being judgmental or condemnatory must be brought to judgment and condemned. This is an insolent abandonment of ethics.

In politics, the word fetish is to call a greedy desire to plunder others a right or an entitlement, and to call a man’s right, especially to his own property to which he alone is entitled, greed. This abolition of all rights and boundaries is an insolent abandonment of politics, even of the concept of politics.

The other word fetish is to put the word ‘social’ in front of a second word so as to rob that second word of meaning, or reverse the meaning: ‘social justice’ in other words, means punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty, as when non slave owners pay black rioters reparations for a non existent crime.

In logic, they use the word binary to indicate that they disapprove of the proposition that ‘A is A’ is true and that ‘A is not-A’ is false. Of course, without the binary distinction between self consistent and self contradictory statements, logic is vain. It is the insolent abandonment of logic.

Some more energetic Leftists make the argument — pardon me, they unlimber the word fetish — that unless you share the sex, tastes, race, social class, faith and nation of origin of the other man in the argument, your logic is disqualified, on the grounds that all races have different logical systems. Jew logic is not the same as Aryan logic. The mere fact that Nazis invented this argument so as to elude the need to answer critics should deter the Leftist, who claims to hate Nazis, but in truth does not.

In art, ugliness is called daring or subversive and beauty is insulted and deconstructed by any number of words mocking the motive of the artist and ignoring the merit of the art.

The mere fact that all these arguments are self defeating, absurdly obvious logical absurdities, does not shame them. Nothing does. The whole reason why the Leftist abandons reason is to quell his shame. Leftism is shamelessness.

Shamelessness is like guiltlessness in that one is free of feeling guilty, albeit, of course, one can endlessly continue to indulge in the most vile, low, vulgar, and shameful of vices. Neither the virgin nor the whore blushes, albeit, obviously, because the first has no need where the second no ability.

Shamelessness is like guiltlessness in that neither the sinner nor the saint goes to confession, albeit, of course, for opposite reasons.

If you have ever had the unpleasant experience of attempting a rational debate with a Leftist, you have no doubt come away with the same queasy sensation one might encounter if watching a man try to eat a rubber chicken, or copulate with an inflatable doll, or, to use a less grotesque example, like watching a retarded man in clown make up who does not know how to juggle tossing a single ball up into the air and letting it drop, and then smiling and bowing to the puzzled and bored children in the audience, as if he does not know that dropping the ball is not what juggling is, and does not understand why they are not as thrilled as he could be when he watches a juggler.

What the Leftist does in debate is utter his idiot word fetishes and slogans with the sneering hauteur of a card player displaying his trump card, or a chessmaster a checkmate.

And when his nonsense does not win the debate, or even address the debate, he realized you are the OTHER, and he blames you, and insults your character, your intelligence, your education, your moral stature, your maturity, et cetera.

The more mentally agile Leftists will invent some implausible sounding motive for you to be dishonest, such as (and this is the least plausible I have ever heard) he will answer cite your mental incapacity is due to ‘Christian Privilege’.

As far as I can recall, no one either in a debate or as an onlooker to a debate has ever been convinced by the ad hominem, or any like it. Why do Leftists always resort to this shift?

Naturally, he does not expect this bit of verbal drool to convince you or impress you: it is a code word, a shibboleth, a display of his credentials, a secret handshake.

[All emphasis added]

Davos and the Self-unaware Leftist Hypocrites

If you've just come out of your cave to sniff the air, then the stench of Davos will certainly choke you up a bit. The filthy rich have congealed in a single spot (Davos) to develop their world domination tactics and to tell the rest of us how to live more sparsely:
Multi-billionaire who gave a lecture about American's 'needing to have less things and live a smaller existence' owns a staggering FIVE mansions... including the nation's most expensive home

Jeff Greene, 60, is a billionaire property investor and entrepreneur
He made his money betting against subprime mortgages
At the recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland he said Americans need to lower their lifestyle expectations
He owns five multi-million dollar properties - three in California, one in Florida and one in New York
His $195 million Beverly Hills estate has been called America's most expensive house
They all arrived there in private jets so they could pontificate on the environment:
Hundreds of Private Jets Delivered People to Davos. Also, It’s Climate Change Day at Davos.
And this...
...advice from Al Gore's pet pollution puppy, Pharrell Williams:

Pharrell Williams urges climate change awareness. From a private jet. Where he sits, alone.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Is Physics Corrupted By Evolutionary Science Techniques?

Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.

"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."
It would be interesting to edit this article to replace "physics" and "the universe" with "evolution"... so I will.
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of evolution from experimental verification undermine science, argue actual biologists.

"This year, debates in evolution circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed biological facts, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical evolution is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."
The article continues:
"Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts."
Now for the Evolution equivalent:
"Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some evolutionary theorists. Because evolution is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying biology [except for first life, common ancestor, predictive ability, and utility for biology of modern life] they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on emergent complexity and organic change that we can never observe. Some biologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as first life as molecular replicators and first life as metabolites, the Darwinian “variation and selection” (in which all life is gradually and infinitely variable) and preserved mutation concepts."
And then this on physics:
"These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."
With this evolution analog:
"These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as organic operation of modern organisms and the function of DNA in genetics, and the information transmission and feedback systems in cells. As we see it, theoretical evolution risks becoming a no-man's-land between fossils and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."
The similarity is uncanny; physics:
"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics."
And the evolution analog continues:
"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. Evolutionary theory has been criticized in popular books and articles. In comparative criticism claims that the theory of Evolution is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorists … have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental Evolution."
And these paragraphs stand as they are:
"Pass the test

We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron (see go.nature.com/p3upwp and go.nature.com/68rijj). Theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity turned out well because they made predictions that survived testing. Yet numerous historical examples point to how, in the absence of adequate data, elegant and compelling ideas led researchers in the wrong direction, from Ptolemy's geocentric theories of the cosmos to Lord Kelvin's 'vortex theory' of the atom and Fred Hoyle's perpetual steady-state Universe.

The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists [i.e. evolutionists] to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements."
With this finale:
"The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."
BRAVO! Well said, and more power to you!

The reason that this will never be heard from respectable biologists regarding evolution is purely ideological: evolution is a political and religious theory which is protected by law in order to establish Atheism and Materialism as respectable worldviews. To criticize it so brutally might get such talk declared a hate crime.

A Message to Valerie Tarico

I left the following comment over at Valerie Tarico's site. I hope she responds, but few Atheists actually do, especially when they are asked to defend their Atheism. They cannot, so they don't. We'll see.

"Valerie,
Your visceral hatred has truly colored your view of the world, to the point of spreading your distortions to other haters who feed on your hate. Atheism has been the most destructive ideology that the world has ever known, even in just the past 100 years, torturing and killing several hundred million humans and enslaving entire continents under the slavery of Atheist ideological oppression.

Yet you act as if "religion", under which generalization you categorize Christianity along with all other "sects", is the world's only issue. Atheism starts with rejection of principles, including morality, thereby placing itself into an unprincipled void of pure rejectionism (euphemistically called "doubt" by yourself, but really just blind rejection supported by cherry picking certain self-assigned offenses about which to complain). Doubt and rejectionism become solipsist and pyrrhonian, rejecting all knowledge, yet they are thought to generate logical arguments without the benefit of actual disciplined deduction. Skepticism never generates actual knowledge. Taken to emotional limits it prevents analysis of concepts and thus denies possible truths merely on the basis of its own presumed truth claim.

Atheism ultimately self-entitles the Atheist to believe in the inferiority of all non-Atheists, and hence creates the self-perception of the personal superiority of the Atheist. This leads directly to the elitism of self-endowed Messiahism described by Thomas Sowell, and the three-class system of the Leftist elites, who thrive on placing people into Victimhood Classes and Oppressor Classes in order to maintain themselves in their elitist Messiah Class.

You are a Messiah Class elitist who demonizes your preferred enemy, "religion", as the Oppressor Class. You, like feminists and black racists, are also in your own Victimhood Class, as an officially oppressed victim of the Oppressor Class. The three-class system clinches your superiority by your inclusion into a phony class. But it self-authorizes your class war on the Other, the Oppressor Class which you have designated as such by yourself.

The three-class system derives directly from Marxism, and is imbued with the same elitist, savior mentality which involves the Nietzschean will to power for the elites, and the domination of the inferior "herd", and the Leninist claim to a "scientific" basis (in your case psychology, the least empirical of sciences save anthropology which renounced its scientific basis in a spurt of intellectual honesty).

As is common, this is all falsely predicated in "science" (a la Lenin), in your case the faux science of psychological "interpretations" which in your hands become moral judgments, from an ideology which denies the existence of morality (again per Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil). Yet you and Atheists in general create your own moral principles, and fully condemn those who are Othered by their differing ideology from your own personal creation.

Your site is strikingly similar to white supremacist sites I have stumbled onto.

In fact, the morality of the modern western Messiah Class is eliminationist, just as are all supremacists. Tolerance now means tolerance for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, whose opinions of dissent must be quashed under hate crimes. Equality now means equality for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, which must be held back in education, have its wealth redistributed, and its "privilege" revoked and reversed in order to favor the Victimhood Classes.

Atheist supremacism has demonstrated its vile character sufficiently in the Atheist domination of the USSR, China, S.E.Asia, Cuba, etc, with political genocides and gulags - all similar to the Atheist French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.

Atheism and its complete moral and intellectual void is the world's biggest hazard, even today, as the Russians re-invade their previous captive nations and China arms itself beyond the capabilities of free nations. Atheist domination differs from ISIS only in the fact that Atheism has no morality attached to it, and thus is free to assert any atrocity, anywhere, any time.

Actually, Atheism is on the same moral plane as ISIS, isn't it?

Your own pretensions of morality and moral judgment are purely derived from yourself as the determiner of what is moral and what is not, under your own personal moral authority to decide morality for the masses. It cannot come from Atheism, because Atheism has no morality attached to it. So it is purely your own device, your own opinion, which you pass off as definitive morality from your presumed position of moral (and intellectual) superiority. Thus you have self-elevated to godhood, and the self-perception of elitism and perfection, purely based on three words: "ain't no God". And that enabling phrase has created (in you) a moral authority over your designated Oppressor Class.

Being the elite, then, perhaps you can prove that there is no God other than yourself. No Atheist has ever done that, though, certainly not using the intellectual tools of disciplined deduction, nor the functional tools of materialist empiricism. Yet if you have managed to do so, then how about providing that proof over at this site:
atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com

We'll watch for your proof.
Stan
"
Valerie moderates comments, so this might not make it onto her site. We'll see.

UPDATE:
My comment did not make it onto her site, but many hundreds of others did make it, well over 700 so far. Tarico is a magnet for the eliminationist AtheoLeft, it appears. And Tarico censors criticism that is dangerous to the ambient narrative, although some cannon fodder is allowed in to feed the Atheist site dwellers.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Network News: Perspectives

TV News Priorities: 68 Minutes for Under-Inflated Footballs, Mere Seconds for Obama's Release of Terrorists

"The three major networks, through Thursday morning, have devoted a staggering 67 minutes and 49 seconds to obsessing over every aspect of whether the New England Patriots cheated in their AFC championship win on Sunday. Yet, only ABC allowed a scant 34 seconds to the Obama administration's release of five terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay and back to areas connected with extremist violence. The contrast is 120-to-1.

NBC was, by far, the most lopsided in terms of journalistic priorities. From Monday through early Thursday, the network's morning and evening shows produced 33 minutes and 35 seconds to the so-called "Deflategate." Last week, however, NBC didn't offer any coverage to the release of five detainees, just seven days after the slaughter of cartoonists in Paris.

ABC came in second, devoting 19 minutes and four seconds to examining every detail of the deflated footballs used in the Patriots win over the Colts. Even reaction to the State of the Union on Wednesday was secondary. Yet the network managed only 34 seconds for Guantanamo. Last Thursday, Good Morning America's Amy Robach briefly related, "Well, the U.S. has freed five more detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The men were accused of fighting for Al Qaeda."

She ominously noted, "Many of the prisoners were transferred to Oman which shares a border with Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity." That 16 second story was followed up with an 18 second report on Thursday's World News.

CBS, like NBC, didn't cover the release of the terrorists. Yet, the network focused on Deflategate for 15 minutes and ten seconds. On Wednesday, during a segment on the State of the Union, co-host Gayle King quizzed Vice President Joe Biden: "What do you make of Deflategate, that 11 of the 12 balls allegedly that the Patriots used in that championship game were underinflated. What do you think of that, soft balls?"

Not only did the release of the detainees get almost no coverage, the contrasting football story featured hyperbolic language.

On January 21, GMA's Robin Roberts proclaimed it a "super scandal. On January 22, George Stephanopoulos trumpeted, "The embattled Patriots coach speaking out this morning as more cheating allegations emerge."

World News's David Muir deemed it a "bombshell." A CBS This Morning graphic promoted the story as a "pressure cooker." "
I don't see why anyone who went to high school has any truck at all for football players or football. Men in tights playing with a ball is an absurd activity; it's even more absurd to consider it to be an important activity, and more absurd still to consider it worthy of national news obsession to the detriment of actual national and world crisis reporting.

But it works as cover for obscuring what is really happening.

Obama is closing Gitmo by merely releasing all the terrorists back into their briar patches. Like the Obama loss of Iraq, the Islamic terror war is being bolstered on the side of the Islamic terrorists by Obama's penchant for doing the exact wrong thing every single time.

And the MSM covers for him.

Headline of the Day

David Clarke, Wisconsin sheriff: ‘Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from’
"Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke didn’t pull any punches in his assessment of the Rev. Al Sharpton — who vowed to keep fighting for justice for slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, despite the feds’ decision to drop a civil rights investigation — and characterized him on national television as less than intelligent and unworthy of respect.

“The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Sheriff Clarke said, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “Officer [Darren] Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?”

Sheriff Clarke then directed anger at Mr. Sharpton, who spoke sharply in the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision not to prosecute Mr. Wilson, a former police officer, on civil rights charges.

“I don’t expect anything intelligent to come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton,” Sheriff Clarke said, Mediaite reported. “We know he is a charlatan. Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from. The police officer is owed a lot from him, Eric Holder and the president of the United States.”
Darren Wilson should sue them all, including every organization which showed up in Ferguson, for millions from each one. The race baiters are Leftist-sanctioned parasites on humanity.

Men's Rights in Germany

German judge defends right of men to pee standing up
Landlord took former tenant to court for refusing to pay for damage to the marble floor of the bathroom he said was caused by stray drops from the tenant’s habit of relieving [himself].

"Men have the right to pee standing up in their own homes, a German court has ruled.

An Englishman’s home may be his castle, but in Germany the courts consider it their duty to rule on even the most intimate details of life at home.

The ruling comes after a landlord took his former tenant to court for refusing to pay for damage to the marble floor of the bathroom of his flat that he said was caused by stray drops from the tenant’s habit of relieving himself standing up.

It might seem standard practice for most men to take aim from a standing position, but some sections of German society have a bizarre obssession with obliging men to answer nature’s call while seated.

It is not uncommon to find home-made signs in German bathrooms commanding men to adopt a seated position.

The landlord complained that his tenant had caused €1,900 (£1,440) of damage to the floor of the bathroom. But the judge ruled on Thursday that the tenant had the right to take care of business standing up.

“Despite the increasing domestication of men in this regard, urinating while standing up is still widespread,” he wrote in a judgment which appeared at times to be a riposte to the claim that Germans have no sense of humour.

“Anyone who still practises this formerly dominant custom has to expect occasional clashes with their flatmates, particularly female ones. But they don't have to worry about damage to the marble floor.”

The judge’s ruling in Düsseldorf comes only days after Germany’s supreme court ruled that smokers can face limits on how much they can smoke on the balconies of their own homes.

Last year a court upheld the eviction of a pensioner from his home of more than 40 years for excessive smoking indoors."

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Logical Absurdities and Islam

Principles of disciplined rationality are Hellenic; Islamic culture and thought are not based on Hellenic fundamentals, nor is there any remote similarity. For Islam, internal contradiction is no problem, similar to the thought process of western Leftism, and all manner of totalitarianism.

The list here is just a sample:

All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Cover all women except for their eyes (they have to see in order to obey).

All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Remove the clitoris of all women in order that they not seduce men.

All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
Freedom is not an option, only obedience or lashes/death.

All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
No thinking contrary to Islamic narrative is allowed.

All Islamic men are morally weak with no character, so:
A woman who is raped is guilty of seduction, and must be beheaded to restore honor.

However, Islamists are very moral, so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.

Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
there is no atrocity which is not allowed, if it is done on the Other in the name of Allah.

Islamists are very moral (see above), so:
Slavery must be moral too.

Islam and Allah are not convincing as theological concepts, so:
Conversion is by force of fear of beheading, lashes, stoning or all of the above.

Uthman rewrote the Qur'an and burnt all prior copies and records, so:
the Qur'an is Muhammad's precise revelation and cannot be erroneous.

Allah is weak, so:
Muslims must perform all sorts of atrocities to protect him and the religion of peace.

Jihad is peaceful, so:
They kill people for jihad, to spread peace.
It's "inerrant" logic is reminiscent of Atheist philosophers who insist with great intentionality that there is no free will and hence no intentionality. Whatever is necessary for the narrative becomes a non-negotiable Truth, regardless of its internal self-reference or general non-coherence.

For the Islamics and western Leftists, Truth is no longer discerned, rationally; it is received either by heavily edited revelation or by some other authority. For the Muslim it is received from Uthman; for the Atheist it is received from Hegel/Hume/Diderot/Darwin/Comte/Nietzsche/Marx/Dawkins, etc.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

An Interesting Thought

Ideas don't need rights; people do.
(from a twitter commenter at Nadim Koteich's page).
What Muslims demand is full protection of a concept - Islam - from encroachment of human free speech. This is the directly contradictory principle which differentiates Islam from the west. But that is changing as the west adopts multicultural political correctness and equality of all cultures, a logical failure which places legitimacy on the claims of Islam within the new western context. But it is internally contradictory to claim that a culture which wishes to silence and conquer all other cultures is equal to those other cultures.

Giving rights, protective or otherwise, to a culture which demands the protection of its own hegemony is both absurd and insane, a virtual plan for cultural suicide.

More on why, under Islam, "We are all ISIS", found here.

At Vanderbilt, Muslim Students Demand Silencing of Speech

Muslims, even American Muslims, have no concept of irony or internal contradiction, it appears. They use their free speech to demand the muzzling of free speech. They demand the silencing of criticism in order to prove that they are peaceful and benign.

Vanderbilt students rally against hate speech

"Students, faculty and community members marched on Vanderbilt University's campus Saturday afternoon to protest hate speech and bigotry, following the publication of Professor Carol Swain's op-ed in The Tennessean.

Swain wrote the article "Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam," which first ran online Thursday in tennessean.com and in print on Friday.

The demonstrators gathered on Liberty Lawn near the campus library under near-60-degree temperatures and demanded that Vanderbilt officials condemn Swain's comments and declare that the campus is free of intolerance and hatred against its students.

"This protest is not about Carol Swain," said rally organizer and student Farishtay Yamin. "I have no doubt that she is an educated, informed woman and she has been a member of our faculty for 16 years. This protest is about the fact that a member of Vanderbilt's faculty attacked her own students, that a member of the faculty published hate speech against the very young adults that she seeks to inspire."
Actually not claiming that what Swain said is false, the student protest organizer claims it is an attack, this truth telling, and must be stopped because: hate. Hate to hear the actual truth? Well of course; it is intolerant to tolerate that which annoys me.
"Yamin also read a statement she said was from provost, which said: "… we in no way condone or support the views stated in the [op-ed] and we understand they are deeply offensive to many members of our community, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. We are fully committed to ensuring our campus is safe and welcoming to all. Closely related to this commitment is our support of free speech, which is put to the test when polarizing speech such as is this is shared. It is in these times more than ever when we must keep dialog."
Undauted, Swain responded:
Swain did not attend the rally. However, she posted the following statement on her Facebook page Saturday morning: "Why are today's university students so fragile they need counseling and affirmation whenever they hear something that makes them uncomfortable? Learning how to deal with your emotions is part of growing up."
Given that the totalitarian nature of the student's demands are to eradicate freedoms which are inconvenient for Islam, their actions prove the point which they are trying to silence. Their attitude toward western freedoms is eliminationist. Hence, they are the very danger to which Swain refers. They are intellectually locked out of freedom to think by their hive ideology. They are obliged to respond to western freedoms in the immoral lockstep of preventing others from thinking too.

For Islam and Muslims, that is their definition of "tolerance, freedom, and personal comfort". It's also the totalitarian definition of those principles.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Why War With Islam Is Inevitable: Two Observations

Victor Davis Hanson reviews facts and fallacies surrounding Islam.

William Gairdner illuminates the two warring theologies
: Islam, the unquestionable, and Secularist Freedom, the godless god of democracy.

Both are worth a read.

The Messiahs' War On Humans, In Scientific American

Even if there is no discernable Victimhood Class for a particular Messianic war, the self-righteous Messiahs still war on their designated Oppressor Class. A major case in point is identified in Scientific American, where the cost to the real-life victims of the Messiahs is quantified in "life-years":
"Their study, published in the journal Environment and Development Economics, estimates that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children."
Golden rice is a GMO which merely added vitamin A to rice. The opposition is opposed to any GMO, in the same sense that it is opposed to DDT: just because of the Precautionary Principle, which is the Luddite thesis that technology could, possibly harm someone; so don't do it, despite no evidence to support that position. So despite the obvious benefits to malnourished peoples, they are protected from being nourished.

The Messiah Luddites should be shamed by the bright light of numerical deaths and suffering that they have aided and abetted. But they cannot be shamed, because their morals do not include shame. They are always more moral than any moral facts to the contrary. That is the definition of evil.
"The opponents of Golden Rice who have caused this harm should be held accountable.

That includes Greenpeace, which in its values statement promises, “we are committed to nonviolence.” Only their non-violent opposition to Golden Rice contributes directly to real human death and suffering. It includes the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, which claims the credibility of scientific expertise, and then denies or distorts scientific evidence in order to oppose GMOs. It includes the U.S. Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club and several environmental groups who deny and distort the scientific evidence on GM foods every bit as much as they complain the deniers of climate change science do. It includes the Non-GMO Project, started by natural food retailers who oppose a technology that just happens to threaten their profits."
The perversion of "risk" for the benefit of a set of egos:
"The whole GMO issue is really just one example of a far more profound threat to your health and mine. The perception of risk is inescapably subjective, a matter of not just the facts, but how we feel about those facts. As pioneering risk perception psychologist Paul Slovic has said, “risk is a feeling.” So societal arguments over risk issues like Golden Rice and GMOs, or guns or climate change or vaccines, are not mostly about the evidence, though we wield the facts as our weapons. They are mostly about how we feel, and our values, and which group’s values win, not what will objectively do the most people the most good. That’s a dumb and dangerous way to make public risk management decisions.
And yet: the author goes wildly off message as he leaves technology and veers straight into Leftist swamp of dogma and cant:
"When advocates get so passionate in the fight for their values that they potentially impose harm on others, it puts us all at risk, and we have the right to call attention to those potential harms and hold those advocates accountable. And this is much broader than just GMOs:
-Delay on dealing with climate change exposes us all to much greater risk. We should hold responsible those whose ideology-driven denial of climate change is responsible for some of that risk.
-Resistance to anything to make it harder for bad guys to get guns puts us all at risk. Society should hold responsible the paranoid arch-conservatism that has created resistance to any prudent gun control and contributed to that risk.
-Parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids put others in their communities at risk. They certainly should be held accountable for this, and in some places, that’s beginning. Several states are trying to pass laws making it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their kids."
There are significant differences between these issues and the GMO food issues at the beginning of the article. Here the author flips to the other side, becoming the advocate of the Precautionary Principle himself. There are, within each of these three non-GMO situations, significant contrary facts to consider, facts which the author now suddenly presumes not to exist. So he commits the EXACT error which he started out to condemn: denial of rights (to nutrition) by asserting a "risk" principle which is not provable and is arguable by contrary fact, and further, to assume that the solution (denial of rights) is better than personal choice.

What started as an objective article on nutrition turned out to be a Trojan Horse type vehicle for Leftist suppression.

Does Scientific American have no editors? Or is it so AtheoLeftist that it needs no editing for dogma? As always, the tautologically-moral cannot be shamed.

Why Loretta Lynch Is A Perfect Fit For Obama's Government

Loretta Lynch’s Secret Docket

"Yet new evidence suggests that Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s pick to take DOJ’s reins from Eric Holder, may have gone beyond the accepted norms of prosecutorial conduct in her time in charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Lynch’s office appears to have let self-professed criminals walk free in exchange for their cooperation with her office, watched impassively as they committed further crimes, and intentionally kept the victims of those crimes in the dark — denying them their chance to seek tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution in direct contravention of federal law."
What better replacement for scofflaw Holder than another scofflaw?