A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, January 17, 2014
An Actual Man
In my reading various sources on the subject of today's child-man epidemic, I came across the story of a real man, a man anyone, well most anyone, would be proud to know: Rick Rescorla.
Col. Rescorla, I didn't know you, but rest in peace.
Killing a human life is never 'ok'. That's the great irony og self-labeled "pro-life" people. They define human life as starting at conception, where it's completely irrelevant to leave even consider this to be a human life, yet, they tend to be pro-war (Hi Stan!) and pro-death-penalty. Completely illogical, emotional to the core.
@Choices: Your kind sees 'war' to be the greatest evil ("it never solved anything") because you say so. But killing helpless unborn humans - that's not evil at all. In fact, your kind has decided that *preventing* it is evil.
You should know from illogical, all right. I can see why Stan chose to ban you.
"Killing a human life is never 'ok'. That's the great irony of self-labeled "pro-life" people."
Interesting projection on to "pro-life" people, especially since you obviously never bothered to read Mary Elizabeth Williams' Salon article (nor my own posts on THAT subject).
She explicitly claims that a "fully human" life begins at conception, yet she is rabidly "pro-choice" on the extreme position that the woman has an exclusive "unrestricted right" to kill what she explicitly DEFINED to be a "fully human" life.
Would you perform that "old black magic" of re-labeling just one more time, and re-label Mary Elizabeth Williams as "pro-life" ? I'd be willing to bet you (based on her article) that SHE wouldn't accept that "pro-life" label UNLESS it comes with a guaranteed "unrestricted right" to kill a "fully human" being. She explicitly stated that the desire to co-opt the terminology of "pro-life" was the purpose of the article, while retaining all the "benefits" of the "pro-choice" right to kill a human life.
Cat got your tongue?
Or will you just evade the topic as usual, and make up your own definitions as to what is "logical" or "illogical" with no logically grounded argument whatsoever?
Irony never stops when ideology supersedes logic. One of the radical intellectual arguments FOR killing the new human has been that the pregnancy oppresses the pregnant. This goes clear back to Margaret Sanger, who designated the woman as the Victim and the man as oppressor who uses pregnancy to oppress the woman.
Under this warped scenario it is appropriate to kill in defense of the Victim, yet the same group expresses horror at killing in defense of a victimized population, a situation which has actual, demonstrable victims and actual, demonstrable oppressors.
This same group also is behind setting up gun-free Kill Zones, which are natural targeting areas for the mentally unstable (usually Leftists, btw).
Their failures are never admitted to be their own fault. Just like Obama and his cronies place blame for the failed ObamaCare website on conservative opposition and racism, their persistent failures are due to the oppressors.
Thomas Sowell has written several books documenting this exact Leftist mental manifestation.
Messiahs can never be wrong; their own personally derived and applied morality sets are in place to assure themselves of their own personal morality. Any failure of any boneheaded scheme is always - always - the fault of the designated Oppressor Class: those who disagree with Messiahism and its boneheaded assaults on both of the phony Victim and Oppressor Classes.
"Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today."
Summary statement:
"Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is."
Let's dispense in advance with the knee-jerk "Progressive" charge of racism regarding any unflattering assessments of our Narcissist-in-Chief: Dr. Sowell is totally black (not half-white, half-black),and considers that "factoid" neither a handicap nor an advantage, and totally irrelevant in a reasoned debate.
There are now 4 installments from Dr. Sowell on "Fact-Free Liberals"
Here's the summary from Part IV:
"The vision of the left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves -- a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create "social justice" and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to. Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control, minimum wages, or innumerable other issues -- and why they react so viscerally to those who challenge their vision."
The series of articles is thought-provoking IFF you actually think.
Dr. Sowell is a true intellectual, in the sense of grounded, evidence-based thinking. He is a fine example regarding the pursuit of truth vs the pursuit of justification of self-elitism.
11 comments:
warrior,
You didn't read the article did you. This man saved many lives and gave his own life doing it.
You are obviously another troll, as well as Choices.
He saved some American lives so that balances out the lives of the what article calls "the enemy" that he killed?
Ah. Now it is clear. You alone define the enemy, and he failed to check with you.
Killing a human life is never 'ok'. That's the great irony og self-labeled "pro-life" people. They define human life as starting at conception, where it's completely irrelevant to leave even consider this to be a human life, yet, they tend to be pro-war (Hi Stan!) and pro-death-penalty. Completely illogical, emotional to the core.
@Choices: Your kind sees 'war' to be the greatest evil ("it never solved anything") because you say so. But killing helpless unborn humans - that's not evil at all. In fact, your kind has decided that *preventing* it is evil.
You should know from illogical, all right. I can see why Stan chose to ban you.
"Choices" chooses to return!
"Killing a human life is never 'ok'. That's the great irony of self-labeled "pro-life" people."
Interesting projection on to "pro-life" people, especially since you obviously never bothered to read Mary Elizabeth Williams' Salon article (nor my own posts on THAT subject).
She explicitly claims that a "fully human" life begins at conception, yet she is rabidly "pro-choice" on the extreme position that the woman has an exclusive "unrestricted right" to kill what she explicitly DEFINED to be a "fully human" life.
Would you perform that "old black magic" of re-labeling just one more time, and re-label Mary Elizabeth Williams as "pro-life" ? I'd be willing to bet you (based on her article) that SHE wouldn't accept that "pro-life" label UNLESS it comes with a guaranteed "unrestricted right" to kill a "fully human" being. She explicitly stated that the desire to co-opt the terminology of "pro-life" was the purpose of the article, while retaining all the "benefits" of the "pro-choice" right to kill a human life.
Cat got your tongue?
Or will you just evade the topic as usual, and make up your own definitions as to what is "logical" or "illogical" with no logically grounded argument whatsoever?
Inquiring brains (NEVER MIND) want to know...
Irony never stops when ideology supersedes logic. One of the radical intellectual arguments FOR killing the new human has been that the pregnancy oppresses the pregnant. This goes clear back to Margaret Sanger, who designated the woman as the Victim and the man as oppressor who uses pregnancy to oppress the woman.
Under this warped scenario it is appropriate to kill in defense of the Victim, yet the same group expresses horror at killing in defense of a victimized population, a situation which has actual, demonstrable victims and actual, demonstrable oppressors.
This same group also is behind setting up gun-free Kill Zones, which are natural targeting areas for the mentally unstable (usually Leftists, btw).
Their failures are never admitted to be their own fault. Just like Obama and his cronies place blame for the failed ObamaCare website on conservative opposition and racism, their persistent failures are due to the oppressors.
Thomas Sowell has written several books documenting this exact Leftist mental manifestation.
Messiahs can never be wrong; their own personally derived and applied morality sets are in place to assure themselves of their own personal morality. Any failure of any boneheaded scheme is always - always - the fault of the designated Oppressor Class: those who disagree with Messiahism and its boneheaded assaults on both of the phony Victim and Oppressor Classes.
Highly regarding Dr. Thomas Sowell:
Fact-Free Liberals
Thomas Sowell | Jan 21, 2014
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/21/factfree-liberals-n1781568?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Opening paragraph:
"Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today."
Summary statement:
"Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is."
Let's dispense in advance with the knee-jerk "Progressive" charge of racism regarding any unflattering assessments of our Narcissist-in-Chief: Dr. Sowell is totally black (not half-white, half-black),and considers that "factoid" neither a handicap nor an advantage, and totally irrelevant in a reasoned debate.
There are now 4 installments from Dr. Sowell on "Fact-Free Liberals"
Here's the summary from Part IV:
"The vision of the left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves -- a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create "social justice" and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to. Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control, minimum wages, or innumerable other issues -- and why they react so viscerally to those who challenge their vision."
The series of articles is thought-provoking IFF you actually think.
Dr. Sowell is a true intellectual, in the sense of grounded, evidence-based thinking. He is a fine example regarding the pursuit of truth vs the pursuit of justification of self-elitism.
BTW, that's a great quote from Dr Sowell, and thanks for the link.
Post a Comment