I will ask a simple question: what is the POSITIVE agenda of all this hate? I've been watching all this at least since I was a grad student at the University of Chicago in the nineties, and as far as I can tell the WHOLE thing is oppositional. What do you want? To destroy THEM. How do you want to do it? BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Why? They …
I will ask a simple question: what is the POSITIVE agenda of all this hate? I've been watching all this at least since I was a grad student at the University of Chicago in the nineties, and as far as I can tell the WHOLE thing is oppositional. What do you want? To destroy THEM. How do you want to do it? BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Why? They are evil. Well, what do you stand for? Crickets, then equality, justice and tolerance. Great, got it.
What these things really are is symbols upon which to latch emotional dysfunction. If you are anxious and angry and traumatized, from anything, by anyone, well, you join the cult and boy you get to scream, hurt, yell and abuse to your hearts content.
I was thinking this morning about abortion. Many Democrats would vote for abortion rights, however they conceive them, even if it led to a global depression, the destruction of American democracy and nuclear war. Is that proportional?
And on the other side, the vitriol of this debate has pushed Democrats into de facto support for literal infanticide: the baby is born, then killed, and no legal authority can say anything about it.
The Spartans did this, but on the basis of the fitness of the child. What Democrats want is to do this based on the momentary whims of the mother. I'm a moderate on the abortion issue. I think 3-4 months, fine, then illegal for a doctor to help. Because at the end of the day these ARE babies. Little humans. How we treat the most vulnerable and helpless among us says a lot about who we are as humans. The same people who cry over homeless people and refugees have made a fetish of the legal murder of fetuses. It's incongruent, emotionally. Inconsistent, making me question the sincerity of any of their alleged compassion.
And today, we find people easily rationalizing rape, torture and murder. Is it not reasonable to suppose this process began long ago? That the coldness and cruelty, as emotional factors, began long ago? I think so. None of these ideas fall onto emotionally flat surfaces. If they are ingested, it is because of a prior readiness. That, to my mind, is the fact most worthy of analysis.
There is nothing positive with what they're pushing. It's all about wallowing in victimhood and self-pity. And we wonder why there's a mental health crisis epidemic.
If that's how you date it, and it's not a terrible idea, it would be well over a hundred years ago, at least at the university level. And of course much of "philosophy", however you define it, since then, has had the recreation of meaning in a world denuded of God as its topic. That this rests on an bad scientific basis is rarely if ever commented on.
To my mind atheism--and Materialism, which is the refuted empirical basis underlying most of it--is not intrinstically bad for "morals", however we understand the term. But it TENDS that way, just like Islam, which while not inherently violent, TENDS that way, easily. The Koran and Hadith are after all full of religious violence not just condoned but committed personally by their Prophet. If he says to kill Jews--and in some places that is what the Koran says--they kill Jews.
The analogy I always use is a four legged bar stool that is missing one leg. You can sit on it. It is serviceable. But it falls over easily.
As a Christian I believe in original sin, and people often say “the original sin is pride” or “its rebellion against trusting God”. But what are both of those things, really? Moral Subjectivism. “The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”.
Essentially I believe God Is, He is our creator and He is Good, Just, Right, and True. He knows us better than ourselves, He knows right and wrong better than we can arbitrarily determine based on whims or our “culture”. Plus its His universe, so how can the clay argue with the potter? There is an objective morality, and objective right and wrong. Moral subjectivity is original sin in my view, and all evil is downstream of this. Moral Relativism is false, God’s Word is true and good.
Of course a majority of earth disagrees with my faith and my God (The God). But man I think itd be a whole lot easier if they didnt. What is pandoras box if not moral relativism itself. The universe is not subjective, most are just wrong. I say that with no malice, just my assessment. And I pray for all.
This is why I have little love for the so-called “Enlightenment” little love for the Greek philosophers, little love for Postmodernism, no love for Leftism. Its hogwash. The French Revolution on down has all been careening society towards the literal insanity we now live in. God Is real, God Is right. Why do the nations rage? Why do they plot in vain?
I will ask a simple question: what is the POSITIVE agenda of all this hate? I've been watching all this at least since I was a grad student at the University of Chicago in the nineties, and as far as I can tell the WHOLE thing is oppositional. What do you want? To destroy THEM. How do you want to do it? BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Why? They are evil. Well, what do you stand for? Crickets, then equality, justice and tolerance. Great, got it.
What these things really are is symbols upon which to latch emotional dysfunction. If you are anxious and angry and traumatized, from anything, by anyone, well, you join the cult and boy you get to scream, hurt, yell and abuse to your hearts content.
I was thinking this morning about abortion. Many Democrats would vote for abortion rights, however they conceive them, even if it led to a global depression, the destruction of American democracy and nuclear war. Is that proportional?
And on the other side, the vitriol of this debate has pushed Democrats into de facto support for literal infanticide: the baby is born, then killed, and no legal authority can say anything about it.
The Spartans did this, but on the basis of the fitness of the child. What Democrats want is to do this based on the momentary whims of the mother. I'm a moderate on the abortion issue. I think 3-4 months, fine, then illegal for a doctor to help. Because at the end of the day these ARE babies. Little humans. How we treat the most vulnerable and helpless among us says a lot about who we are as humans. The same people who cry over homeless people and refugees have made a fetish of the legal murder of fetuses. It's incongruent, emotionally. Inconsistent, making me question the sincerity of any of their alleged compassion.
And today, we find people easily rationalizing rape, torture and murder. Is it not reasonable to suppose this process began long ago? That the coldness and cruelty, as emotional factors, began long ago? I think so. None of these ideas fall onto emotionally flat surfaces. If they are ingested, it is because of a prior readiness. That, to my mind, is the fact most worthy of analysis.
There is nothing positive with what they're pushing. It's all about wallowing in victimhood and self-pity. And we wonder why there's a mental health crisis epidemic.
Yup, it did begin decades ago when we began pushing out G-d in favor of Darwin.
If that's how you date it, and it's not a terrible idea, it would be well over a hundred years ago, at least at the university level. And of course much of "philosophy", however you define it, since then, has had the recreation of meaning in a world denuded of God as its topic. That this rests on an bad scientific basis is rarely if ever commented on.
To my mind atheism--and Materialism, which is the refuted empirical basis underlying most of it--is not intrinstically bad for "morals", however we understand the term. But it TENDS that way, just like Islam, which while not inherently violent, TENDS that way, easily. The Koran and Hadith are after all full of religious violence not just condoned but committed personally by their Prophet. If he says to kill Jews--and in some places that is what the Koran says--they kill Jews.
The analogy I always use is a four legged bar stool that is missing one leg. You can sit on it. It is serviceable. But it falls over easily.
As a Christian I believe in original sin, and people often say “the original sin is pride” or “its rebellion against trusting God”. But what are both of those things, really? Moral Subjectivism. “The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”.
Essentially I believe God Is, He is our creator and He is Good, Just, Right, and True. He knows us better than ourselves, He knows right and wrong better than we can arbitrarily determine based on whims or our “culture”. Plus its His universe, so how can the clay argue with the potter? There is an objective morality, and objective right and wrong. Moral subjectivity is original sin in my view, and all evil is downstream of this. Moral Relativism is false, God’s Word is true and good.
Of course a majority of earth disagrees with my faith and my God (The God). But man I think itd be a whole lot easier if they didnt. What is pandoras box if not moral relativism itself. The universe is not subjective, most are just wrong. I say that with no malice, just my assessment. And I pray for all.
This is why I have little love for the so-called “Enlightenment” little love for the Greek philosophers, little love for Postmodernism, no love for Leftism. Its hogwash. The French Revolution on down has all been careening society towards the literal insanity we now live in. God Is real, God Is right. Why do the nations rage? Why do they plot in vain?