* My comments in red between stars *




Truth, according to Realism, is not a subjective touchy feely process of dialectical thinking like our progressive friends have convinced themselves that it is. The traditional classical definition of truth is a correspondence between our subjective thoughts, and objective existence or reality. Our thoughts are not identical to reality and shouldn’t be confused with reality itself. However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism.

The reason this is important to understand is because in this worldview there is no duality between the subjective mind and the objective reality that could either correspond or contradict each other. It is all subjective empiricism and epistemological idealism which means that nothing exists but what can be experienced. As a result, the above mentioned classical definition of Truth loses all meaning. The Secular Humanist and Postmodernist must redefine truth to fit into this monistic worldview. The most they can hope for in regard to Truth is that there is a consistency within their own thoughts and perceptions, but common sense and logic dictate that even their own perceptions can’t be trusted to be consistent, because they practice even the redefining of the meaning of consistency.

* These are the things that lead liberals astray it seems. *

This has devastating consequences when these “thinkers” are in leadership i.e. governments, education, judiciary, business, and “Church,” etc. because the standard always changes. What is True and Right at one point in History becomes Wrong and Evil at another point in History.

* Because "everythings relative." and "Things change." Liberals seem to beleive that, by definition, change is GOOD. *

Another devastating consequence is the Individual loses his un-a-lien-able Rights because this Individual and his Rights can simply be redefined to fit the vocal and subjectivistic, self-centered majority.

* ..since we're in the business of redfining everything. *

A perfect example of this is the so-called hate crimes aka thought crimes against anyone who voices a public opinion against Homosexuality. As a result, homosexuals get “special protection” that is not extended to others outside of their privileged group, and totally destroys the unchanging Principle of “Equal Protection under the Law,” To acknowledge that there is such a thing as Equal Protection under the Law would imply that it is an objective principle independent and transcendent of any one particular group which condemns the Secular Humanist and Postmodern mindset.



No compromise when it comes to being Right!


Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Recently, I wrote a piece called Suspicious Terrorist Activity Detected in Seattle. For some on the unhinged side of politics, the reaction I got was not of concern for the safety of the youth, and those who work at the King County Juvenile Court, or that even Seattle IS A TARGET on the terrorist’s radar screen. Nope, the looney leftists got their panties in a bunch because I profiled! Yep, profiled. I practice discrimination and I make value judgments.

When I see certain behaviors go on around me I exercise my cognitive skills. The so called “tolerant” bunch have hissy fits when someone judges. Although, they discriminate all the time, they’re just not self-reflective and honest about it because they don’t want to think of themselves as meanies, and that would make them feeellll uncomfortable!

I hate to break it to you people on the goat (goats to the left, sheep to the right) side of politics, but nobody cares if you discriminate. This isn’t about how you feel it’s about reality. America, and many other Western countries are at war with a group of thugs who don’t care about your lack of living in reality.

In fact, I can assure you that if they get ahold of a leftist their heads will be the first to go because of the lifestyle choices they practice.

Do you really think those who practice openly gay lifestyles will be welcome under a Fundamentalist Islamist theocracy?


* As always, liberals demonstrate how disconnected from reality they tend to be. *

Strictly from a logical point of view, that might be the most poorly constructed 'argument' I've read in my time here from a source with a fairly sophisticated command of the language. It's a whiny, masturbatory stream of non-sequitur.

What the fuck is the point? As best I can tell, the author's thesis is "there is no such thing as change and therefore I don't like gay people. Oh yeah, and Muslims."

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I disagree.

As best I can tell, the author's thesis is how secular humanist, liberals demonstrate how disconnected from reality they tend to be.

I saw no "masturbatory whining" in there.

Actually, I SAW no thesis or arguments. I saw someone talking about the obvious disconnects from reality by liberal "humanists".

And, Thane, the bolded part is particularly interesting...

"What is True and Right at one point in History becomes Wrong and Evil at another point in History."

You disagree with this sentiment? Doesn't it seem odd then that we're not worshiping the sun and various animals, owning slaves, practicing arranged marriages and polygamy, etc? After all, there is only one objective take on morality - clearly the progressiveness that stopped these practices is leading to the degradation of society.

Er wait, maybe they had it wrong and we have it right now. All of the change up to now has been good, but any change from here forward is bad, right? What an amazing coincidence! Objective morality just happens to agree with you and the sophist that wrote this tripe.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ahh... even better. The author's thesis is "liberals suck."

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yes, it's interesting how a beleiver in "everything is relative" can create such a ghastly twisting of what someone has said.

It can be simplified into a Beavis and Butthead kind of statement like that I guess.

Ok, so:

"liberals suck" = "liberals have disconnected from reality."

It works I guess :-)

But we might need to be sure to define what "suck" means here then.

Re-load and try harder - you're not copping out that easily.

Let's look at this logically. In today's society, if you decided that you wanted to couple with a prepubescent girl, wait until she began menstruating, and then impregnate her, you would be locked up in a cell, tormented by inmates, and subject to various USPO regulars starting threads where they had contests to see who could dream up the worst form of torture for you.

Of course, in various societies throughout history, this was just called "marriage". Now, assuming that our "my morality is the only morality" blogger is correct that there is only one, objective truth about morality, we have two options. Either we're wrong for preventing prepubescent girls from having intercourse, or they were wrong for allowing it.

We can apply the same argument to slavery, polygamy, prostitution, human sacrifice, and any number of other institutions permitted, endorsed, or even valued in various societies. Now, if we continue along these lines, doesn't it seem the slightest bit strange to you that "objective reality" happens to coincide with "current reality" so often? Doesn't it seem a tad coincidental that, in our society, at this point in history, we have somehow gotten it completely right, whereas every other society throughout the history of mankind got it wrong?

If you ask me, that sounds more like taking your current system of values and calling them "The Truth" in order to make them sound more important than it does any "objective" assessment. And think of how great that is for cutting off argument. If I say, "I prefer to butter my toast on the top", then I'm stating an opinion. If I say "It is simply objective truth that toast should be buttered on top, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot liberal moral-relativist", I'm making a much stronger point, provided you don't actually pay attention to the fact that the two positions are the same when the invective and appeal to anonymous authority are removed.

If some sort of objective morality/truth exists, then the only arbiter of such a thing is God. We mortals are left only to guess at it. And that blogger's guess is no better than mine, whether he has the intellectual arrogance to declare his opinions "Bible Truth" or not.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

He never said that there he hated gays or Muslims. He only said that saying bad things about Gays should not be illegal.

Stirctly from a logical point of view, I see your post as a pretty poorly constructed argument. You make a straw man, and to make things worse, you don't even argue against the strawman. In essence, this post is a lie.

And, where is the non sequitor?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

That's true. I inferred it from the tone of the words. David Duke doesn't say that he hates blacks either. I tend to make quick judgments and apologize/readily admit when I'm wrong. It saves time - normally, if it walks, quacks and shits like a duck, it's a duck. Why waste time proving it, unless specifically asked to? People can play semantics games with their words until the cows come a'marchin' home, but the spirit and letter may be readily apparent.

lol... Since the essence of a straw-man argument is arguing with and destroying the man of straw, I think we might reasonably conclude that you're introducing an important-sounding term without much concern for its actual meaning. Again, snap judgments, on my part, and apologies in advance if I've misjudged you. I doubt I have, however. I mean, "straw-man" does sound impressive to a philistine like me.

** Edit: I appear to have been wrong in the above assessment.

My opinion, based on the post, is that this is a guy who finds homosexuals icky and Muslims threatening. That's an opinion, not a "straw-man". I also like jazz music. That's also an opinion, and not a "straw-man". My post would have been a "straw-man" had I gone on to discuss why hating Muslims and homosexuals is bad for society, or some such thing.

As it is, I'm trying to discern what, if anything the author is trying to say.

The first several paragraphs are (apparently) contention with the idea that reality (read: "moral reality" - I'm guessing that the author isn't concerned with whether or not we all like strawberry ice cream) is subjective. He seems to sum it up with a cumbersome allusion to an analogue of the paradox "If we can never really know anything, how do you know that?", which sounds like it came straight out of a hippie session at the beach.

Then, with a whiplash-inducing segue, he begins to talk about how homosexuals receive special treatment, which does not follow, logically, from a discussion about the nature of whether morality is subjective or objective. In fact, it could well be that God, or whoever has authored moral objectivity, has decided that homosexuals ought to receive special treatment, which would obviously make his whining a bit damning to his own argument. (Or, on the flip side of the coin, He could have created a morality in which homosexuals ought to be executed on sight, which would, again, constitute "special" treatment) He calls this an "example" of the problem with the "error" of subjective morality, but that's nonsensical. Of course, he goes on in a retroactive attempt to link the two by declaring "Equal Treatment Under the Law" to be an unimpeachable example of an "objective truth", but this is begging the question. In order to accept his conclusion (there is objective truth), we need to assume the conclusion (there is objective truth and one example is "Equal Protection Under the Law").

Of course, the most ironic part is that we're treated to a defense of racial profiling in the very next paragraph. So much for objective reality...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Let me offer my take. I don't know anything else about this guy than the short sample in the OP, so this post is my oppinions, not his.

I, too, believe that there is an objective morality, but I don't believe that we, as a society, practice (or hold) these objective morals. In fact, I think we are quite a bit off the mark. These objective morals have existed throughout human history.

In short, the objective morals is based on one's right to own himself. From this, we can come to a remarkable number of conclusions, all of which are based on logical progression from the fact that everyone owns his or her body.

In my oppinion, the worshipng of sun gods and the like, falls under what may be termed subjective morality, or religious morality. These are morals that each person holds indivdually. It may be true that many people hold many of the same sunjective morals, but this, in no way meants that they are objective morals. For example, as a Christian, I believe that it is immoral for me to covet. However, this does not violate anyone's right to own his own person. Therefor, this is a subjective moral.

Subjective morals are based on what one deems to be good or bad. Both of these terms are subjective. They describe the way that an evaluator feels about something. Nothing can be objectivly good or bad. The only objective thing we can say is that an action is either objectivly moral or immoral.

For example, imgaine a situation in which A is drowning and B is standing next to a life raft. If B does not throw the life raft to A, it might be said that B has done something bad by not acting. This, however, is incorrect. Because "bad" is subjective, we cannot say that this action (or in this case, non-action) is bad. To A, it might have been bad, but to B, it was good.

Further, we cannot say that this action is objectivly immoral because B did not violate anyone's property rights. We can, however, say that it might be subjectivly immoral. According to the subjective morals of the populace, B has done wrong. We may refuse to trade with him or talk to him.

Now, let's change the situation and have B throw the life raft to A. Assuming that A wants the life raft, we might be inclined to say that this is an objectvly good action. After all, if B had not wanted to throw the raft to A, he wouldn't have, and if A had not wanted the raft, he wouldn't have taken it. Because both A and B agree that the throwing the raft is a good thing, some may be led to believe that the action of throwing the raft was an objevtvly good thing. However, it may be possible that A goes on to kill 20 innocent people. The families of those who were killed might have a very different oppinion of the goodness of the action of throwing the raft.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

This is meaningless. What a bunch of internet forum bloggers say about a pedophiles punishment is in no way applicable to what is being discussed.

See above.

Because we have it mostly right right now does not mean that our society is going to CONTINUE to get it right.

Which is what this is about.

The Secular Humanist and Postmodernist must redefine truth to fit into this worldview. As truth and freedoms are continually redefined by idealists who are willing to completely ignore or dismiss reality a society will become weaker and weaker. History demonstrates this.

Unimpressive sophistry intended to pound into submission what this is really about.

See above.

I notice you're avoiding directly addressing things said in the OP. You only did it with ONE sentence. One sentence that was easy. Easy because some of the intended contextual support(s) weren't included. They should have been, I'll grant you that.

You can now choose to dismiss the entire thing as 'tripe' if you like. Based on that alone I guess.

Hmm... this is far more interesting than the swill in the OP. I'll have to address this later, when I have a bit more time on my hands.

Oh, and true to my word, I retract my presumptions about you in my previous post. I appear to have underestimated you in earnest

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Meh... liberty's post has piqued my interest, so you'll excuse me if I don't address what appears to be a bunch of ideas and terms borrowed from my lexicon and thrown back at me randomly.

If you have any ideas outside of defending something that doesn't interest me, I'll be much more inclined to address them. When you dump articles on the forum and then defend them unquestioningly, I tend to bore easily.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson