Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The Democrats Have Seceded Before...

They should remember how that turned out for them (but they won't).
‘I Won’
The Left will not enjoy living with its own precedents.

As Charles C. W. Cooke pointed out, the same people who until ten minutes ago denounced federalism — which they mischaracterize as the doctrine of ‘states’ rights’ — as an instrument for the suppression of African Americans are now embracing secession, which, in the American context at least, has a little bit of its own racial baggage.”
Democrats seceded in order to keep slavery, lost the Civil War and still persecuted blacks for the following century, after which they put them on the welfare plantation, using them just for votes.

The Democrats are fine with States Rights, secession, racial bigotry, and lying lawlessness of all types so long as its Democrats who are doing it. Voting for Hillary is empirical proof of that. So whatever they do next just might look like 1860 as they blindly, obstinately led up to the Civil War.

That's what it takes to contain them: guidance into civility using whatever violence is necessary, and sometimes it is a LOT of violence because they listen only to themselves.


Anonymous said...

Hello Sir, I don't know if this is a good place for this question, so forgive me if this is the wrong spot. I am wondering what you think about the Aguirre Gratton model of cosmology. Sean Carrol uses this model in his debate with William Lane Craig over the Kalam argument's second premise, "The universe began to exist". Sean Carrol argues that this model is not subject to the BGV theorem and that we can't say that it has a beginning because it has an arrow of time reversal making the universe infinite in both directions. I would recommend watching the Carrol vs Craig debate on youtube if you haven't already, I think Carrol is the only atheist to do well against Craig. I just want to say that I don't mean this post to be confrontational, I am just wondering what you might say to someone who thinks the Aguirre Gratton model presents a problem for believers (it has no beginning and is infinite, so it seems like God wouldn't be needed to create anything on this view). I am a Christian btw, I am just wondering how to respond to this argument. I didn't see Craig address it, so I thought I would try with you.

Stan said...

Thanks for the question. It's a relief to be rid of political issues, if only temporarily.

As cosmology becomes increasingly bounded by the limits of empirical observation and thus the limits of objective knowledge, cosmologists compensate with increasingly phantasmagorical calculations based on increasingly abstruse premises. When premises and conclusions are without any hope of objective validation, the conclusions themselves remain perpetual metaphysical premises incapable of being actual objective knowledge of any physical correlate.

Because the limits of physical observation are being reached, science itself is becoming metaphysical. This is shown in the pursuit of String Theory, which is nothing more than mathematical metaphysics which cannot be proven or disproven in any objective fashion.

So. In terms of a viable metaphysical "solution" or threat to a First Cause, this metaphysical mathematical proposition merely enables another infinite regression. Philosophically, an infinite regression is less parsimonious than a First Cause, because it proposes an inexplicable existence, not amenable to the scientific cause/effect and logical grounding in First Principles upon which rational thought is based.

Pure mathematics allows for many constructs which do not and cannot exist in observable physical nature, including higher order, non-linear differential equations. These can be posited by starting from real existence, yet never become anything which is falsifiably, replicably testable (which is the requirement for objective knowledge).

By making mathematical claims for existences outside of observable, testable, physical nature, theoretical science becomes a system of blind beliefs.

Blind belief is religious in its nature, based in belief in convincing (to some) metaphysical concepts in support of a worldview. In this case, the worldview is Atheism and is chosen first, before the metaphysics are derived in its support.

Please note that nothing I’ve said challenges the correctness of the mathematical constructs. The work of Godel is sufficient to challenge any complete and final knowledge which is purely mathematical. And even if such mathematics is technically correct, there is no observable physical reason to believe that it applies to the singularity (also unproven, by direct observation) which resulted in the construction of the universe and its inhabitants. And the parsimony of Occam’s Razor mitigates against infinite regressions.

None of these metaphysical mathematical enterprises are explanatory for the more complex questions including the origin of First Life, origin of valid information and its necessity for life, consciousness, intellect, agency, and replication of life into increasing complexity, among the simpler of the complex questions which face humans and humanity.

Finally, please choose a moniker so that I know that I am not talking to an infinite regression of "anonymouses".

Phoenix said...

Hate to be a buzz killer but this short speech gave me goose bumps.

Polish girl speaks out against Muslim migrants – Poles support Mr. Trump’s Immigration Policy

Phoenix said...

Just saw a You Tube clip of Miley Cyrus sobbing over Trump's glorious victory.

What is that lying, idiotic, shameless, perverse moron still doing in America? She should have fled to Canada by now. Nay, she and her fellow leftist celebs should have fled to Mexico or the Islamic states.

These hypocritical leftists are eager to defend those nations but apparently those same nations are not good enough to inhabit.

Canada it seems, has become the poster child for secularism (implying Atheism) in the Americas but what these fools keep omitting, is that at least 67,3 % of Canadians profess to be Christians.