Ha! And you wonder why we find ourselves in a war abroad and under assualt at home? It is your capitalist imperialism that has spread suffering to our brothers and sisters around the globe, using their misery to enrich yourself.

It is your intolerance, where your ideas are "right" and every one else's are "wrong," particularly your refusal to accept all ideas as equally valid, all religious beliefs and worldviews as inherently compatible.

I don't blame the religion of peace for attacking us! You and your ilk brought it upon us and only the most insensitive among us, blinded by oil-fueled greed, could miss that fact.

Finally, you're a homophobe as evidenced by even suggesting that a bed populated by either gender should even appear in the same sentence as the term "morality." The very fact that you employ terms like "boys" and "girls" shows your insensitivity to our transgendered community who cannot be confined to such outmoded concepts as an M or F checkbox on a form. And you will no doubt further insult these misunderstood unfortunates by opposing legislation that would make it a federal crime to produce forms that do not recognize a plurality of definitions rather than just two discrete choices.

I dream of a world where we will all get along, but you, sir, and those of your kind, represent the biggest threat to that. We must be tolerant of all but the intolerant, which is why in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed.

Love,

A Liberal

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 2, 2007

Phil:

“…there are no liberal rules. Every opinion is equally valid…”

I have made this observation too, and have dubbed it “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies”: For every opinion, there is an equal but opposite opinion.

Comment by sedonaman | July 2, 2007

I have a question that wasn't addressed. Why do people who dogmatically hold opinions that are clearly left-wing, historically speaking, persist in calling themselves conservatives?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was just for old times sake. :-)

Comment by Dan Phillips | July 2, 2007

Dan: For the same reason people who claim only they know what a True Conservative is can't resist labeling everyone who, in their warped opinion, isn’t one a “Marxist, neocon, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman.”

I couldn’t resist that one either, for old time’s sake.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 2, 2007

Mr. Jackson:

Bravo sir. I always enjoy the liberals being properly mocked. I sum up the difference between liberals and conservatives this way: liberals, unlike conservatives, do not understand and/or appreciate the laws of nature, especially human nature. This explains so many things.

One point of difference: I do hope you come around to realizing that non-interventionism is the wiser way. More often than not it has proved to be counter-productive.

Comment by Liberius | July 2, 2007

This is wonderful.

And I believe that the man who just posted
"I dream of a world where we will all get along, but you, sir, and those of your kind, represent the biggest threat to that. We must be tolerant of all but the intolerant, which is why in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed. "

Is too far gone to the left in his 'dreamland' disneyland of a world. Besides, doesn't the statement 'tolerant of all but the intolerant' seem more like a dictatorship statement than his "lets love eachother" attitude…

Comment by kellytip | July 2, 2007

Liberius — I appreciate your kind remarks. But, I am a committed interventionist when I believe an action is in our national interest. It does produce counter-productive results at times, but then again, the same thing can be said about inaction. I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Take care, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 2, 2007

"I am a committed interventionist when I believe an action is in our national interest."

Is all that is required our "national interests?" No threat is necessary?

If some other country has a "national interest" in what is going on in America, would that justify them intervening here?

Here is a good article that gets at both the interventionism thing and the whole nomenclature thing.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11226

Worth a read when you get the time, Phil.

Comment by Dan Phillips | July 2, 2007

Steve Sabin:

“It is your capitalist imperialism that has spread suffering to our brothers and sisters around the globe, using their misery to enrich yourself.”

Nothing is more enduring that the idea that someone became rich by making others poor. Economics is not a zero-sum activity. If it were, the average living standard would never have gone up. As proof that it is not, I encourage you to examine a society in which individuals start out equal. It can be done through a very interesting article “Economic Organization of a Prisoner Of War Camp” by R.A. Radford that can be found at http://webster.commnet.edu/faculty/~jascot/poweconomics.htm .

“In this reading R. A. Radford, an observant inmate of a German prisoner of war camp during World War II, provides us with invaluable insights about the evolution and operation of a market system. Here we observe in miniature a price system having the same general characteristics, encountering the same problems and disturbances, and performing essentially the same functions as the infinitely more complex price system of modern capitalistic societies….Everyone receives a roughly equal share of essentials; it is by [free] trade that individual preferences are given expression and comfort increased.” [Emphasis added]

So, when the Red Cross packages were distributed at the beginning of the month, every prisoner started out equal. It was through the voluntary free trade among prisoners that not only the individuals were made better off, but the overall well-being of the prisoner “society.” The Marxist, such as yourself, would look at this and see the “injustice” of one prisoner having, say, two candy bars and another having none, never mind that this result was their preferences. It would have to be through coercive (to be polite) force that they be made equal because it would be completely against their wills. In order for Leftism to succeed (if you can call it that), you have to take away peoples’ rights.

You might also consider how many Islamic bombers sport American vaccination scars put there (probably free) when they were children. I hadn’t heard that any Muslims societies developed any cures for diseases for, “It is Allah’s will that people suffer.” The fact of the matter is that if America had never existed, humanity would have destroyed itself long ago.

“It is your intolerance, where your ideas are ‘right’ and every one else’s are ‘wrong,’ particularly your refusal to accept all ideas as equally valid, all religious beliefs and worldviews as inherently compatible.”

Where is the proof that all ideas are equally valid? If they were, why do liberals fight so hard to block conservative nominees to the courts? Why do they fight so hard to win elections?

As far as incompatibility is concerned, Western democracy is incompatible with Islam because in Islam there is no separation of church and state. There is only one law: Islamic Law that regulates every aspect of life. There also is no concept of individual rights. In fact, there is serious doubt that there is even a concept of the individual; there is only the society. Perhaps this is one reason Islam and Leftism are so cozy.

“I don’t blame the religion of peace for attacking us!”

Statements just like this were heard from America’s Left all during the Cold War, and one with less moral certitude would be hard to find. If Islam is the “religion of peace,” how did it spread from Medina to the gates of Vienna, across North Africa, and into the Iberian Peninsula to rule much of Europe for 400 years? By “peaceful” Muslims knocking on doors? By “peaceful” immams preaching on street corners? How did the “religion of peace” develop the concept of the dhimmi? You might say that Christians practiced violence too, but not only would that argument be dodging the issue, but they had to contradict their founder to do so, whereas Muslims had only to emulate theirs.

“You and your ilk brought it upon us and only the most insensitive among us, blinded by oil-fueled greed, could miss that fact.”

How sensitive is sensitive enough? What kind of insensitivity do you have to ignore over 169,000,000 corpses http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM that resulted from the failed idea of Leftism? What kind of insensitivity do you have to ignore the fact that in the last 200 years there has not been a war between stable democracies, but there have been 198 wars between non-democracies, and 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies? When you look at the record http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.1.GIF , the problem is obviously the nature and existence of non-democracies.

“Finally, you’re a homophobe …”

Ah, the ad hominems. No rational argument, so just hurl insults. I repeat: how sensitive is sensitive enough?

“…in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed.”

If all ideas are equally valid, then consider the idea that in my world people like you would be jailed or executed before they piled up another 169,000,000 corpses.

Comment by sedonaman | July 2, 2007

Dan — as I told you before, I won't practice medicine if you promise not to pretend to understand politics and political analysis. I have absolutely no interest in carrying on a discussion with you or any other uber-ideologue who still owes me answers to questions I asked 9 months ago, can’t form an original thought without pointing to a website, or relies on labels as a substitute for genuine analysis. Someone else may wish to go through this worthless exercise, but I see no more value in this discussion than I do in carrying on a discussion with Harry.

Now take two leeches and call me in the morning.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 2, 2007

#8, otherwise known as tucking your tail between your legs and running and/or taking your ball and going home.

I'll give you credit though, you know when your bested and when to quit.

But your credentialism is a bit tiresome, seeing as how you admitted at one point that you really didn't know much about neo-conservatism, and despite your PhD in political science from an elite university, didn't even grasp the fundamental left/right distinction. (I think maybe you grasp it now after us unlearned paleos schooled you.) In addition you repeatedly conflated paleos and white nationalists, wrongly attributed quotes, and couldn't tell that certain characters were obviously role playing and spoofing you. (Unless knighted people who go by Sir really do post at IC.)

And I find the accusation that I don't have any original thoughts quite rich, coming from someone who is a pitch perfect reciter of GOP/Conservative Movement talking points. I'm the one who is breaking ranks from the dominant thoughts of the day, but I have no original thoughts?

But what do I know? I'm just a simple doctor "pretending" to understand politics and political analysis.

I try to be nice. Why the hostility?

Comment by Dan Phillips | July 2, 2007

Make that three leeches.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 2, 2007

Sedonaman,

Steve Sabin was just being facetious. Don't you recall that he is our friend formerly know as nevadamistermom who wrote the essay below?

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/02/12/how-i-became-a-liberal-in-12-seconds-2/

Comment by Dan Phillips | July 2, 2007

Before everyone jumps on poor Mr. Sabin, you should know that he is the author of another satirical piece in the IC archives “How I Became a Liberal in 12 Seconds”. Apparently his mind-meld with liberal thought in this comment section was as effective at representing their somewhat bizarre point of view as he was regarding the other topic he took on.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 2, 2007

All,

As I wrote to Phil offline, and will repeat here, the catch-22 with trying to pose as a liberal by being satirical is that nobody can tell the difference between intentionally trying to be "over-the-top" absurd and outragous - and genuinely held liberal beliefs.

That is a sobering commentary in and of itself.

I must confess that I am but a neophyte at this. If you want some examples from a truly gifted satirist, surf on over to to the editorials on http://www.townhall.com and look for any postings by "Loyal Democrat" or "Loyal Muslim."

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 2, 2007

Sedonaman: gotcha!

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 2, 2007

I've been studying under some great professors at the University of Vermont.

[rimshot]

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 2, 2007

Mr. Jackson:

Of course I would agree with you that we Americans ought to pursue our national interests. The question is, are we really doing that through interventionism? Yes, reasonable minds can differ but I’m convinced it hurts more than it helps. The only thing we know for sure is that we are spending a lot of money and making a lot of enemies. Whatever friends we make in the process are often the type to turn on us later down the road. I offer the following examples:

1) Our entry into WWI only cost us American lives and money. It ultimately led to the creation of Israel, Iraq, and the Soviet Union.

2) Our entry in WWII in Europe cost us American lives and money. The French and Jews are ungrateful and Stalin (the biggest devil of them all) was the biggest beneficiary of our intervention.

3) In the early-mid 1940s we helped train Ho Chi Minh’s army in Vietnam and U.S. Army medic, Paul Hoagland, actually saved Minh’s life with quinine and sulfa drugs when he was near death with dysentery and malaria. Needless to say, this turned out to be counter-productive.

4) We intervened in Iran and have been paying the price for almost 30 years now.

5) We aided and supplied Saddam Hussein against Iran after Iran turned on us. Then, of course, Saddam turned on us.

6) We intervened on the side of Muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviets. We intervened with Desert Shield to protect the Wahhabi gov’t of Saudi Arabia against the secular Saddam. On paper, Osama bin Laden should have loved us but instead he gave us 9-11.

7) We intervened in favor of the Muslims in the Balkans against the Christians. We still have many troops there. Where is the Muslim love for us?

Mr. Jackson, all of these things were quite contrary to our national interests. Think of the value of the American lives lost. Think of our general fund’s national debt of $9,000,000,000,000! And what have we really gained by it? How did those things make America better off?

God has blessed us with a Christian Anglo-majority, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Too bad we don’t have the wisdom to simply avoid the hell in so much of the world. Let’s bring our troops home and focus on preserving our borders, language, culture, and finances. It may not be too late.

Comment by Liberius | July 3, 2007

Steve Sabin:

There's a pair of cowboy boots in my reply above to you. I challenge you to find them.

Comment by sedonaman | July 3, 2007

Sedonaman: I'm not familiar with the term "pair of cowboy boots" when referring to some type of hidden message. I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 3, 2007

Steve Sabin:

I rest my case.

Comment by sedonaman | July 3, 2007

Liberius

I appreciate your feelings on this issue, and I respect the fact that you’ve always conducted yourself honestly and professionally when I’ve read your comments in other posts.

I’ve written a lot on these issues in previous essays, so I won’t re-state the arguments I made again. I’d only point out that when you say things like “Our entry into WWI only cost us American lives and money. It ultimately led to the creation of Israel, Iraq, and the Soviet Union,” you are giving an opinion rather than analyzing the action strategically. Your linear, cause-effect conclusions don’t even begin to address the reasons why the US did what it did, or fully account for the actual consequences of WWI (or any of the other events you cite). Just to be frank, if you really want to make the assertion you have, you’d need to carry forward the social, economic, and political consequences of WWI, WWII, etc. ending differently had the US not participated, and do this on a global basis.

There’s a tendency to view the world through an abstract political or philosophical prism that downplays, or even discounts entirely, the real world pressures that influence government policy. Have a look at Graham Allison’s “Essence of Decision”, for example, and you’ll see how difficult it is to understand what forces were really in play during the Cuban Missile crisis. If we can’t really “know” the reality of this event, we surely can’t make the sweeping statements you have about the causes and consequences of a world war.

You and I are dealing with a different understanding of world events that derives from a different foundation upon which we make our judgments, so like I said earlier, I’m not going to try to convince you of my position but rather leave the discussion as I said. Unfortunately — and this is NOT a comment directed at you, but a general observation about continuing to debate radically different positions — what I’ve found when we get to an impasse like this in the comment section is a tendency for people to state their positions and argue endlessly, rather than ask legitimate questions seeking legitimate answers. Either their hubris, or ideology, or at times basic lack of competence does not allow them to engage in a real conversation.

Why I believe what I believe is pretty clear from the bulk of my essays. This is an issue that I see very differently from the way you’ve described it, so let me respect the fact that you define the national interest in a different way than I do, and leave it at that.

Have a good Fourth of July.

Regards, Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 3, 2007

And here I was worried that someone would read my initial post and say "Nice try…but lame. Next time, try to make the satire a little less transparent."

Guess I was *too* successful.

So I'll say it again: does anyone else find it scary that it is almost impossible to differentiate between genuine liberal philosophy and a deliberate attempt to be over the top?

Sedonaman, hope I haven't lost a cyberfriend. I always enjoy reading your posts. They make me think. I can't promise I won't use satire in the future, but I'll try to make it more obvious. However, that's harder than it looks, as I found out in the course of these postings.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 3, 2007

Steve Sabin:

Thank you for your kind words.

Comment by sedonaman | July 3, 2007

Phil (or anyone else):

Thank you. Indeed I did have a good 4th. I hope you did as well. I commemorated the day by riding my bicycle to Mt. Vernon, the home of the man who told America to beware of “foreign entanglements”.

I will be the first to admit that history is a thousand times more complicated than most people realize. However, you should not assume that I have not analyzed the strategic reasons behind our involvement in WWI and the other wars I mentioned. For what its worth, I have a B.A. in history and as a practicing attorney for 16 years I’m quite aware of the complexities involved in determining holistic truth as to past events generally. But of course, this forum forces me to be succinct. And I’ll remind you that Winston Churchill (whose knowledge of WWI cannot be surpassed) was quoted as saying in 1936:

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives."
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/cron092006.shtml

My post was an invitation to debate the matter with you or anyone else who disagreed with its basic premise. I had hoped that any contrarian would attempt to zero in on the strongest point or points contesting mine. Once focused on the root of our differences we could then have a more substantive and worthwhile discussion. I wasn’t a participant in your previous exchanges on the matter and I’m not sure if your previous sparring partner(s) advanced the same ideas that I would have.

One thing I would like to know, have you (or any readers) processed the alleged Jewish angle in regards to the cause of our involvement in WWI? I find this article fascinating: http://desip.igc.org/OriginsOfBalfour.html

Comment by Liberius | July 5, 2007

“If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent … “

On this point alone I couldn’t disagree more. Marxism/socialism/anarchism were well under way in Europe prior to WWI. WWI sped the rise of communism in Russia, but did not cause communism to happen. You can’t make a convincing claim that these ‘isms’ would not have arisen in Europe except for WWI. The industrial revolution gave rise to many of these alternative political philosophies, particularly Marxism and anarchism. Kropotkin, Gramsci, just to name two, were helping push these movements along with rest of the Das Kapital crowd. By WWI the Communist Manifesto had been around for over 60 years!

To say “had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism … “ is illogical and a-historical. Granted I’m relying on a 30 year memory of my Russian history studies, but I do remember the disastrous internal political consequences resulting from the Russo-Japanese war, not to mention the 1905 Russian Revolution which helped kick off the kind of destabilization that made the collapse of the Tzarist regime inevitable. Russian feudal autocracy was incapable of adapting to the times, and their whole social structure was rotting from within. If they didn’t collapse from their own weight, they were ripe to be carved up by their more powerful neighbors.

Germany helped kick start the 1917 Russian Revolution to take Russia out of the war, which they would have done anyway with or without the US entry into WWI. [Of course this is just conjecture on my part, but it’s no more or less accurate than your conjecture. I contend that without the US troops and aid there was no reason for Germany to negotiate an end to the war. They could have won, so contrary to your conjecture they would have kept on fighting.]

The first new Russian regime was a liberal democrat one — which couldn’t hold on to power and was eventually overthrown by the commies. None of this required the introduction of US troops into WWI to make it happen. In fact, if anything, the US tried to aid the Whites in their battle with the Reds and wasn’t successful. Take this US involvement away and the Kerensky government collapses even more quickly, or maybe never gets into power at all. They clearly had no indigenous base of support, nor the political will to act as brutally as the communists to hold the power they seize.

Any way you slice it the Russian government falls and communism comes into power. And from this base, communism can be “exported” to Germany, which will give impetus for the rise of a Hitler-like opposition. (Remember, Hitler support wasn’t just among the disaffected lower classes, but some of the powers that be thought he could help control the rabble).

So, without the US in WWI we still get communism in Europe, which may in fact have been more powerful than it actually was with an even weaker Britain and France who may have been defeated or subjugated by Germany, leading to anther great war where even more US involvement would have been necessary to keep a check on the worldwide spread of communism/fascism/Nazism which, left unchecked, would eventually make its way to our shores.

This is why I am reluctant to engage in these massive hypothetical re-writes of history, because in the end it’s mostly philosophically-inspired BS. I can’t prove a word of what I say any more than you can. People who view the world through one ideological template will see things one way; others will not. This makes it difficult enough to discuss contemporary policy choices. It makes it nearly impossible to re-state the past in as cut and dry fashion as you (and Winston allegedly) did.

Speaking of Churchill and BS, the quote you cited is a fraud, which is another reason I won’t engage in these types of discussions except to illustrate, as I did here, why it’s all a waste of time. From Wikipedia:

Published as having been made in an interview with William Griffen, editor of New York Enquirer (August 1936) In a sworn statement before Congress in 1939 Griffen affirmed Churchill had said this. Congressional Record (1939-10-21) vol. 84. p. 686. In 1942, Churchill admitted having had the 1936 interview but disavowed having made the statement (The New York Times, 1942-10-22. p. 13).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 5, 2007

If that's your definition, then there aren't any conservatives left! Seriously, who are you defending?

For weeks we've had every conservative in the country falling all over themselves trying to see who could be more dishonest in their justification for allowing a convicted felon go free, and now we have irrefutable proof that conservatives believe that the 'rules' apply to everyone but themselves.

As with Nixon's firing of Cox, Bush's action has put in succinct terms that everyone can understand just how corrupt conservatism has become.

If you are such a moral guy, who cares about the Constitution and the rule of law, how come you aren't screaming from the rooftops at how 'un-conservative' this bunch of crooks are?

Comment by Chasm | July 5, 2007

While I'm at it, for a 'political scholar' who parades his intellect about so, you sure suck at analysis. Is this really what you think liberals believe? That we 'form (our) own opinions' as long as they don't deviate from the NYT, etc etc? Or are you trying to be 'funny'? It's 'funny' how all your 'funny' observations hew to the same 'funny' comments you conservatives always make ("Liberals are on the side of the terrorists! Ha ha."). So, for your edification:

1. Why are Liberals Liberal?
Education. When confronted with a problem, liberals are capable of assessing facts, laid out with evidence, and then formulating a plan of action to address that problem that actually has a chance of success.

Conservatives believe that if it's in the Bible, was written or said by or about Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan or Hewh Hewitt, then it MUST be true, regardless. Liberals have noted several inconsistencies in these sources, and hope to do better.

2. Why is there a double standard when commenting on a Liberal vs. Conservative act?

Because although conservatives have 'rules,' and love 'rules,' quote 'rules' and eat, sleep and piss 'rules,' when it comes right down to it, they don't believe the rules apply to themselves (see Libby, Scooter). What conservatives really love are 'Rulers.' The real double standard is the fact that conservatives go on about freedom and the Constitution, but in their secret heart of hearts, what they really want is a King.

3. When will Liberals view the Right to Life as sacred?

When conservatives stop starting wars.

To be less pithy, Mr Jackson really gets my dander up here because, as usual, he totally ignores the real reasons most liberals (and moderates) are pro-choice and instead inserts his intellectually dishonest version. Liberals understand the moral dimensions of the abortion question, and believe that the Mother, not the State, has domain over her body, and that she and she alone should make her medical decisions. Conservatives do not (see Schiavo, Terry)

5. Why has the media decided that U.S. has lost the war in Iraq?

I'm not sure they have, and Mr Jackson doesn't provide any evidence. If they have, I suspect it's because, despite meeting the objectives stated in the AUMF, we're still there 5 years later. Maybe it would help if anyone knew what 'victory' was, so at least we'd have a metric for evaluation.

More shocking is Mr Jacksons (I almost wrote Hackson) response, repudiating even the respect for the Constitution I had attributed earlier. You go Phil! I mean who needs the Constitution, habeas corpus, civilized norms, laws…. you know, RULES, when you can just "put a bullet through his head?"

What was that about respect for human life again?

Comment by Chasm | July 5, 2007

Phil (or anyone else):

First, how can you possibly not want to engage in this type of discussion? What is more important than assessing the utility of our involvement in foreign wars? Our boys are dying now! We are presently spending ourselves into “uncharted territory” according to the director of OMB! What better way of assessing the value of such hegemony than by analyzing its history? Also, what is more intellectually stimulating and fun than playing the game of “what if”?

Second, you should not so boldly claim that Churchill’s quote is a “fraud” and “BS”. I previously researched the quote and I am quite aware that Churchill vehemently denied saying it (which is why I wrote that he was “quoted as saying…”). Indeed, it may be untrue but I suspect that Mr. Greffin’s Congressional testimony was true and Churchill had to deny it for political reasons. It sounds to me something Churchill would indeed say, off the cuff in a candid moment.

Third, even if Churchill did not say it, the quote poses a profound argument that apparently was taken seriously enough to become the subject of the Congressional Record. Obviously, there were considerable people who agreed with the ideas or at least worried that it MIGHT be true. And, while you make some reasonable points in contention of the argument, you still dismiss it too quickly.

Fourth, you keep saying “your contention” but I never said I completely agreed with everything that Churchill said in the quote. The primary point of supplying the quote was to illustrate how your criticism of my last post could apply to anyone. Yes, there was some overlap in my view and the alleged Churchill quote but I never claimed to adopt it in full. Looking back, I see where I erred slightly in my wording in that I meant to only say that the USSR was a by-product of WWI as a way of illustrating the disaster of the war generally. Our entry into the war may indeed have had the affect as quoted but I need not go that far.

Fifth, my real contention is much more simple and easy to defend, to wit: our participation in WWI (and other wars) cost us American lives and money but we received no benefit from it (or at least not enough to justify the war). In short, our interventionist foreign policies have not been worth it.

The closest you came to addressing the real issue is when you opined that our failure to have put Germany down in WWI would have necessitated an even greater involvement in the future to contain communism/fascism/Nazism which, left unchecked, “would eventually make its way to our shores.” But sir, most historians agree that Nazism would not have arisen had it not been for the extraordinarily punitive measures under the Versailles Treaty which probably would not have been enabled without our entry into the war in the first place. Also, the cold war where communism became hazardous to us was also a by-product of the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

I strongly doubt that concerns about our own security justified our entry. But please consider this: both paths (entry or non-entry in war) involve security concerns and you never know for sure which path will lead to the most harm. If we were wise, we would measure the problem this way: On one side of the scale we have an extremely speculative and theoretical possibility that trouble will come to our shores in years to come if we do not make war now. On the other side of the scale we know that if we cross the sea and enter the war now we will immediately have huge loss of life and huge expenditures of money without any guarantee that we will be better off in the future EVEN ASSUMING WE WIN THE WAR. In other words, it is the possibility of future harm vs. the certainty of present harm. The wiser policy is to stand aside and let the foreigners fight their own wars. There are other, wiser ways to promote our sense of justice.

The truth is that the worse problems that came to our shores came as a result of our weak immigration policy and I’m not just talking about current events. This brings me to the other issue I raised which you did not address. Have you considered the Jewish angle mentioned above?

Comment by Liberius | July 5, 2007

Chasm:

“…how come you aren't screaming from the rooftops at how 'un-conservative' this bunch of crooks are?”

Dr. Jackson is just taking advantage of his recent conversion to being a liberal Democrat. He explains it in Chapter 8 of his “Looney Liberal Chronicles” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8

Comment by sedonaman | July 5, 2007

Don't forget that I converted to Islam too ("Democrats Hate Little Children: Allah be Praised"), so I am beyond criticism in any venue.

Phillip Bin-Ellis Jackson

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 5, 2007

Liberius:

You can’t start out by saying that “And I’ll remind you that Winston Churchill (whose knowledge of WWI cannot be surpassed)…”, and when I show you that he denied saying it (which means that he didn’t believe it), say that “even if Churchill did not say it, the quote poses a profound argument that apparently was taken seriously enough to become the subject of the Congressional Record.”

The quote is neither profound, nor historically accurate as I pointed out. And if you’re hanging your hat on the fact that it must reflect reality anyway because some clown testified before Congress and said it (despite Churchill’s denial), then there’s really no common ground for us to talk. People lie in their testimony before Congress all the time.

I’ve dealt with the subject matter you raised many times before, so what I believe is spelled out in some detail. Others may want to add to this discussion, but I’d just be repeating myself, which as I said earlier is not the most productive to explore an issue where little common ground exists. So no hard feelings, but I’ll leave it to other to continue the discussion in this comment section if they want to.

Besides, I’m having too much fun watching Chasm do his best Vermont Lib imitation and substitute personal attacks for anything remotely interesting to say. I just want to be sure that Steve Sabin isn’t having more fun with us by adopting another liberal personae. His last one was very convincing, and this Chasm screed is pretty funny too (in a sad sort of way).

You just can’t make this stuff up — or, I guess maybe you really can? That’s the trouble with a liberal who comes to the defense of liberalism. You can’t always tell when it’s real, or when it’s a parody.

(And I managed to get my point across without once calling Chasm a hack, saying that he “sucks”, or disputing his education, etc.).

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 5, 2007

Chasm:

What is a liberal’s basis for condemning anything as immoral? Liberals have been telling society for some time now that no one’s moral standards are better than anyone else’s, that everyone’s is equally valid. Ergo, you might believe that hypocrisy and double standards are morally repugnant, but that’s just your personal belief. Suppose Dr. Jackson believes otherwise. Why aren’t his personal beliefs just as valid as yours? Please do not be judgmental in your response.

Comment by sedonaman | July 6, 2007

Sedona: Chasm is actually operating in the proper liberal mode. You forgot what I said. "Every opinion is equally valid (except, of course, for conservative or other non-liberal opinions) …"

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 6, 2007

I'm very surprised that Chasm has not sent me a personal note of support for the unassailable logic I demonstrated in post #1. But, apparently it wasn't enough, so here goes…

———————————————-

Mr. Jackson, your hypocrisy is nothing short of astonishing. You'll devote 50,000 words to a moral and intellectual condemnation of abortion, yet you support the concept of a "just war" as well as the concept of self-defense if your life, or that of an innocent, was threatened by a criminal. And, you arrogantly believe the state has the right to take a life under the guise of "protecting" or "punishing" others. Yes, there have been a recent bevy of studies purportedly showing that capital punishment does deter crime and actually saves lives, but that's a purely pragmatic argument that cannot possibly justify the barbarism of due process followed by a painless injection. As liberals, we are the ones who truly value life – with the reasonable caveat that the life must exist outside the womb, something that never fails to confound the simpleton conservative mind.

It takes one truly progressed in intellect and compassion to see that taking innocent life is necessary for the betterment of society and to preserve something even more precious than life: a woman’s right to choose.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 6, 2007

Steve … you are starting to scare me. This last mind meld with liberal logic is absolutely perfect!

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 6, 2007

Steve: Indeed, that was amusing.

Phil (or anyone else): I definitely regret using the alleged Churchill quote for two reasons: 1) it was disclaimed and 2) it allowed you to ignore my real argument. Too bad no one else will challenge my assertions. I guess I’ll have to call it a victory for non-intervention and move on to the next debate.

Comment by Liberius | July 6, 2007

Liberals think we don't "get it"…that our minds are too narrow to comprehend their logic and their arguments. If nothing else, I hope my parody proves that we do understand their tortured logic and can easily parrot their talking points. Will we ever "get it?" No, because there is nothing to get.

It is a bankrupt ideology that folds back on itself repeatedly like a computer program full of endless loops.

It glibly sees no inherent contradictions in its beliefs.

It has few absolutes, save that of "tolerance," and its caveat: intolerance of the intolerant.

It requires very little critical thinking skills, as it is an engine fueled primarily by public opinion and emotion and polls and trends.

It is masteful in its double-speak: "Progressive" means regressive. "Choice" means death. "Tolerance" means rudderless. "Freedom" means anarchy. And "is" means … a word that needs further clarification.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 6, 2007

Sorry about post #35 being dominated by italics. I just discovered that we could use HTML operands and must have forgotten the little "stop ital" operator. As a result, nearly the whole thing showed up in italics.

For the full surround-sound liberal experience, perhaps future satire should be done in ALL CAPS? Or at minimum, it should use multiple punctiation such as !!! and ??? to make its points. Liberal use (pun intended) of profanity is also essential.

I'm refining my skills. DailyKos, here I come.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 6, 2007

Oh, and let's not forget that you conservatives are quick to point out that the Bible distinguishes between killing and murder, and that the 10 commandments prohibit murder, and not killing.

These are simply semantics cited by people grasping at straws to try and cover up their inconsistencies.

We liberals have progressed to a far more enlightened view of love than that espoused in the Bible. By carefully choosing those passages that we know to be true (versus the thousands that cannot possibly be taken literally because, after all, they contradict our views), we can not only demonstrate that every world religion including Christianity actually supports our ideology, but that God Himself/Herself is/are indeed a liberal.

Sadly, the Bible's true liberal message has been suppressed through the millenia by the conservatives in each era. In their unquenchable demand for more and more power, this peaceful handbook on self-accepance and tolerance has been twisted into little more than a way to scare people into alignment with conservative dogma.

Whether God actually exists is a highly individual decision and indeed, rather inconsequential. What is important is not whether He/She exists, but rather the value of belief itself. As long as the belief bestows each adherent with a sense of inner acceptance and self-worth, it is equally valid to any other belief. The measure of validity cannot be an unproven "God" … it can only be the way that it makes each person feel. In the realm of spirituality, therefore, all roads really do lead to Rome.

That is why, as liberals, we are equally comfortable celebrating catholic mass as we are kneeling in a mosque or lighting incense in a a Buddhist shrine or celebrating the Divine Goddess with purple-clad feminists. The object of the belief is irrelevant. All that matters is belief itself.

This is progressivism at its finest. We really can all get along, but for the intolerant dogma of conservatives like Jackson.

Affectionately,

A Liberal

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 6, 2007

okok I get the joke, and if you really want to kick me away so badly, I will just come by for a little laugh now and then.

Now, to answer the only real question

"What is a liberal’s basis for condemning anything as immoral?"

Whether or not it helps people.

Contrary to your drummed up responses, we are for the most part an idealistic bunch and wish to help people live free, fulfilled and happy lives. We should have much in common with Christians and conservatives.

But, you see, morality doesn't come from a deity. They aren't picked off tablets like hors 'oderves, they are the hard won rules of survival. Individual morality, however learned, is the recognition of our responsibilities to each other in a society in order to keep that society alive. To forgo morality is to undermine society itself, a decent into the abyss, of this I am sure we all agree.

But for us liberals, the tests to morality that the recent era has put us too are far greater than the ones you see. Where you fear magical sky-man retribution against a society that permits men to love men, or gives women domain of their lives and sex - we fear actual societal demise due to a collapse of our education systems and the tragic squandering of our great nation's considerable resources - natural, economic and human.

Liberals are actually more pro family than conservatives. Liberals believe that families are the foundation of society, and that a society of strong families will be strong, and thus, moral. Liberals want babies too! We just prefer that they have families. To that end we support gay marriage, so couples of all kinds can have the economic advantages that our society gives to families. And we support each individual woman's right to decide for herself when and with whom she will start her family.

Liberals understand that the reason family life in America is in such a state is not because we as a society has transgressed the arbitrary dictum of the Hebrew Yaweh, but because of one thing: money. Strong families need money, and a secure future to build upon. In fact, liberals see America as one big family. That really is the root of the Roosevelt tradition - that we as a nation are a family and we owe it to our brothers to help them find the American dream.

So, to wrap it up before I spin off in another tangent, as a liberal, what I condem as immoral are things that go against life, and the survival of people, families, and society. Things like war, persecution, needless poverty, corruption and incompetence in government, dishonesty and dishonor.

What I value as moral are those things that I can trust to help me survive - respect, honor and honesty in word and deed, and a sense that one knows how close to the jungle we are save a little civility.

Comment by Chasm | July 8, 2007

What would it take for any of you to admit that you intentionally mis-state the distinction between understanding morality as having both subjective and objective components, with believing "everything is moral depending on the day?"

Abortion, of course, fits the bill in imaginary discussions like this one because it's really the only visceral moral decision most of us will ever encounter. Not being a nation of warriors, we don't really confront the moral dimension of the individual soldiers involved in conflict, and most actual moral decisions that the average citizen may make probably are bureaucratic in nature - whether to cheat on taxes, for instance, or whether to contemplate the environmental dimension when purchasing a car. So, for actual women most especially, this moral dilemma becomes the visceral rack to hang our philosophic hats on.

As I hinted in my last post, I like to emphasize the idea that morality, ultimately, is a function of survival. The reason we can argue about the mutability of morals over time, is because, duh, they have mutated over time. Your obsession over the idea that morals are quote unquote subjective is, I admit, true - although I'd argue the consequences of that acknowledgment is nowhere near as destructive as the denial of it.

Now, you guys like to point to the Bible as an authority on morality, and in many ways I'd agree. For one, the Torah is nothing if not a survival manual for Jews. Keep the traditions, marry in the faith, treat insiders better than outsiders - go to war even, if it threatens the tribe. If the power of morals lie in their ability to help the survival of the family, the tribe, a nation, then the Bible is truly a moral authority, one that has guided many families and many people.

That's not even a sideways swipe, but a truth. And looking at morality thru the perspective of survival even gives you a mighty brick of an argument - for abortion truly is a violation of the survival of the fetus.

But that is only the first layer, because for sure the survival of the mother can be a factor - but also the survival of her family, because what if, for instance, having this particular child would threaten her ability to provide for rest of her family? So many little 'circumstances' we could cite here that we liberals love to obsess over as proof that morality is relative. And society, of course, has to have a perspective. Is it more moral to be a society that mandates abortion or one which forces childbirth? Golly gee, I'd hate to be part of a society that has to make either horrid choice, yet you seem intent on forcing us to have a discussion regarding the latter, as tho it were more noble or preferable than China's.

NONONO! you scream. It's ALL ABOUT THAT BABY and that LIFE which is so important.

And I'm here to tell you that, actually, things are different than they were back in the day of Jonah and his whale. For one, we really did go thru the so-called sexual revolution, conservative nightmare of all nightmares, and women really did tell the men that after six thousand years of this shit, they aren't going to take it any more. For another, there are many pressing problems which actually do threaten us - on every level from individual all the way up to country and planet. The answers to these questions really do amount to doing good or evil because the repercussions will determine the quality of life for generations to come.

Sorry for you to hear, I know, but who has sex with who, and whether or not they conceive, birth and raise a child is not one of them. Abortion is not a civic moral issue because the survival of the state, or even the village, is not at stake. The only people inside that little moral bubble are the mother, the fetus, and her family. And in America, anyway, privacy means that's where it stays.

It's not that I don't see that an abortion is taking a life, and not that I'd not have my own moral quandary should I be in the vicinity of such a decision - but that as a civil libertarian and liberal, I don't see the compelling societal need for injecting this lame ass diatribe into a personal moral matter.

Comment by Chasm | July 8, 2007

Chasm: "morality" is not what one religion or another says it is. It doesn't come from human consensus, education, society, genetics, or thinking good thoughts. And it isn't the product of Supreme Court decisions.

Have a look in the IC archives at "What Kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?", or wait a couple of days and you'll see this issue debated again on this website when I respond to an upcoming article that tries (and fails) to support your relativistic point of view.

That is, of course, presuming that you actually care about the issue, instead of just ranting about a subject to promote your political point of view, which is another hallmark of classic contemporary liberal thought.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 9, 2007

Phil:

"You forgot what I said. 'Every opinion is equally valid (except, of course, for conservative or other non-liberal opinions) …'"

I was just giving him the benefit.

Chasm:

If morality is relative, what is it relative to?

Comment by sedonaman | July 9, 2007

It seems to me that the big issue is to avoid war or draw a line in the sand and kick butt when someone crosses it. The liberals tend to think that it is possible to never draw a line and all can be worked out with talk and understanding. This comes from their success in changing America incrementally to the left over the last forty years. Well, some parts of America. What they do not understand is the world is not America. Ideas are not debated like they are here. I sometimes think that liberals believe an acceptable option for war is to be last in line at the gas chamber.

It does all come down to choice. Liberals believe that all life is equal and we should all sacrifice ourselves for that belief. I believe that all life is not equal. My family and country and the basis for our laws is a step higher than most of the worlds. Liberals think that any law from a foreign country is equal to our own. Again I believe that they are not equal. So I choose to believe that over the last 200 years our nation has done a better job than the rest of the world in making laws for us to live by.

Now if people in a different country stand up and shout "death to America" I take them at their word. I choose however to accept their word and then to plan their destruction instead of my own. Liberals will fly to the other country and stand hand in hand waiting for the first wave of bombers. Well, at least the serious ones.

So do we not bomb because of these liberals? I guess it comes down to if you believe that they are Americans or people of the world. I tend to think they are people of the world.

Comment by fbaginski | July 9, 2007

fbaginski:

"What they do not understand is the world is not America."

This was agrivated by the elimination of the universal military draft. Its elimination allowed a liberals to avoid being sent overseas and getting exposed to how the rest of the world views life, and being converted to conservatives.

Comment by sedonaman | July 9, 2007

Sedonaman hit the nail on the head with as few words as I've ever seen trashing the relativist ideology. Just three simple words:

"Relative to WHAT?"

In Chasm's world, mankind's survival is apparently the litmus test for everything. Thus, after millennia of hard-won lessons, then and only then, one is able to finally conclude that "murder is wrong."

It is barely worth responding to Chasm because there are thousands of examples that could be given regarding societal mores that have nothing whatsoever to do with survival of the species:

- Why is incest wrong, even when between two consenting adults?

- Why is torture wrong, even if we have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty and is going to be executed?

- Why don't we cannibalize the dead instead of burying or cremating? Isn't this wasteful?

- Why, instead of aborting that baby for the betterment of society (because after all, it isn't wanted), don't we pay the mother to bring it to term so then we can harvest its organs after a few years to save some lives and conduct medical research?

- Why don't we end children's life after birth if they become unwanted? Isn't birth a somewhat arbitrary boundary upon which to decide life is suddenly sacred? If a child suddenly becomes unwanted sometime after birth, and is destined to a life of abuse and neglect, why not a painless injection at that time?

Relativists are never forced to really answer the hard questions because they can always jump on the slippery slope of whatever society at that moment will tolerate. It gives a whole new meaning to the favorite word in their lexicon: tolerance.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 9, 2007

You guys are going to love the upcoming debate I'm having on this subject with a guy who thinks that my view of a God-given morality is completely wrong. The point-counterpoint essays should be out sometime this week. Phil

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 9, 2007

Phil, Steve, et al :

If all ideas are indeed equal, as liberals claim, then why should we accept theirs?

Comment by sedonaman | July 9, 2007

For me, the "man isn't the measure of all things" argument isn't as much a religious argument, as it is a logical argument. At some point, without an external reference point, you simply cannot make any statements about … anything. Anyone who has studied physics understand this. Motion is a relative concept. So is mass. So is time. So for anything to have meaning, we must have a fixed reference point against which we agree to measure all else.

I think this is what Phil has tried to argue in his "What Kind of Car…" essay. I have tried to studiously avoid bringing religion into this discussion. My comments in post #40 may have appeared to be religious, but my point was in trying to show the fallacy of suggesting that belief is the only thing that matters, not the object of the belief. There must be some fixed reference point against which morality is measured, or else it really has no meaning other than a social contract that evolves over time. Morality thus becomes little more than a bell curve that shifts over time.

I have never found this "it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you are sincere" approach to work in the physical realm. I can sincerely believe in something contradictory to gravity, but I do so at my own peril the next time I visit the Grand Canyon. Personally, I have always viewed morality in the same way: a statement of what "is" rather than arbitrary laws handed down by a fickle deity. Morality is to our spirit what Newton's Laws are to our body.

Ultimately, however, the reason relativism is embraced and absolutism is rejected always comes down to a religious argument. No matter how articulate and reasoned, no matter how airtight and inescapable the logic, relativists have a common thread at their core: refusal to believe in God. So, they must try to make sense out of a world in which they have already decided there is no God. Every shred of evidence, no matter how compelling, is always weighed by them in light of their over-arching assumption: There is no God; ergo, there can be no absolute standard against which all else is measured.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 9, 2007

Phil, Steve :

“There must be some fixed reference point against which morality is measured, or else it really has no meaning other than a social contract that evolves over time. Morality thus becomes little more than a bell curve that shifts over time.”

This is the situation that has resulted by allowing Supreme Court justices to use “society’s evolving current standards” to interpret the Constitution. This, of course, ignores the question of who is to decide what standards have “evolved”. Is it the courts (who have virtually no contact with real life), or the people (who do) through their elected representatives?

Our discussion here seems to have observed what is known as "The Tolerance Über Alles Principle." I detect it especially in “Chasm’s” posts.

The following is an excerpt from an exchange between author Lawrence Auster ("LA") and poster "Mark D." regarding an article, "The Death of British Civilization" http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html , by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of "political correctness" called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored. Perhaps it can help explain how we got to where we are as a society:

Mark D.:

"Coined by Samuel Francis, anarcho-tyranny is the systematic refusal to enforce the law in the most serious and essential matters, such as the protection of citizens from physical violence, combined with the assiduous enforcement of intrusive regulations in the most trivial and specious matters, such as the policing of people’s thoughts and feelings about minorities [hence, ‘tolerance über alles’*].

"…grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required.

“Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth; and there is no principle [e.g., God*] by which to discern among them. Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one’s preferences over those of others.

“On the ‘anarcho’ side this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life. If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the über principle of liberalism itself) [Phil: this is why conservative ideas are not equal and why conservatives are not allowed free speech.*].

“On the ‘tyranny’ side, it is obvious that the preferences of individual human wills are sacrosanct, such as sexual orientation, lifestyle, dissent, and so forth. Any speech, thought, or action that threatens a protected preference is therefore punished with the utmost severity as a direct threat to the ultimate good – the individual human will (which is above critique). And because the individual human will is the source of all goodness, it cannot be relativized by any ‘status,’ particularly status within a religious or ethnic minority. Those wills in the majority therefore must be restrained, and those wills in the minority must be protected, so that a principle of absolute equality is maintained. In fact, within a liberal society, the fiction is maintained that there is no majority at all; and if a majority is invoked, this claim is condemned, marginalized, or ignored. Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.

"In liberal society, human life is not sacrosanct; the human will is sacrosanct. Abortion policy is the perfect expression of this principle.

LA replies:

“Very interesting. Human life is something ‘outside’ the self, a ‘transcendent,’ as it were. Since only the immanent self and its desires have value, without reference to anything outside the self, life does not have value.

“Also, Mark D. said: ‘Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities. Liberal communities are merely a collection of individual human wills.’ … this means that ‘in liberal societies, two principles we take for granted no longer apply: (1) consent of the governed, and (2) rule by majority.

"…Since only the individual and his will matter, and all individual wills are of equal value, no majority of individual wills can be allowed to force its will on any minority of individual wills [hence the constant harping by liberals that ‘you can’t force your beliefs on me’*]. Therefore the society cannot be ruled on the basis of the consent of the majority, also known as the consent of the governed. The society must be run by a non-elected instrumentality [e.g., the courts*] that is independent of the governed, in order to protect the equality of all individual wills.” [Emphasis added]

*My notes.

Comment by sedonaman | July 10, 2007

Steve

I was grounded in science most of my life. My faith rest with man and what I thought was pure knowledge. Only in the last 3 years have I found that science is just as screwed up as any other man made volume of information. Complete with bias, agendas, limiting world views, and the rest of man's fallacies. My study of science over forty years eventually lead me to conclude that the data and the theories do not match. So with me floating with no foundation I studied the religions. I always had a belief in God but still had doubts about death. I now know that if you have doubts about the afterlife then you have no faith. As I started to grasp the reality of God and a purpose driven universe I developed the ability to focus on issues and divide them into right and wrong. This is in contrast to the science guy who divided the universe into scientific theories with everything else being in the realm of voodoo. I used to feel I was on pretty firm ground but now I feel I stand on bedrock.

Just as you said, it comes down to your world view. Right and wrong spring from your belief structure. When God is removed from the equation then wrong is removed from the equation as well.

Comment by fbaginski | July 10, 2007

fbaginski ,

I am delighted that your search has caused you to embrace faith rather than reject it. I have always believed that honest seekers will be rewarded, while the Richard Dawkins of this world aren't seekers at all, but merely hucksters.

I have never viewed science and faith as being at odds with one another. Indeed, I have always viewed the order and rationality of science to be indicative of the order and rationality of a Creator. I believe it comes down to a fundamental premise. If you assume the existence of a God, then you interpret life, behavior, and science in light of that underlying assumption. If you reject the existence of God, that that becomes your governing and inviolate rule against which all else is measured.

Recently, I heard an interesting statistic that serves as a good analogy. Windows Vista contains approximately 50,000,000 lines of source code. When you consider the complexity of the average home computer and operating system, they easily qualify as some of the most complex machines ever devised by man.

Now imagine some distant locale, far removed from our place and time, where two archeologists unearth a Windows Vista DVD. They have no visibility into its origin or purpose – merely that they have discovered a silvery disk made of translucent hydrocarbons with a thin layer of reflective metal. As they study the object over the course of many years, they eventually discover that a laser focused on this disk reflects in an intricate pattern of binary information, literally billion of bytes long.

One, who has rejected the idea of intelligent design, marvels at the ability of plastic and metal to spontaneously organize itself into such intricate patterns. The other, who has placed no such constraint on his interpretation of what they have found, concludes that the disc can only be consistent with intelligent design.

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs. Few would assert that Windows Vista, in all its complexity, was a more wondrous design than a single strand of human DNA, yet anyone who seriously asserted that something with the complexity of Vista could spontaneously assemble itself would be institutionalized. It would not matter how long we set a blank disk in the sun and allow it to absorb energy, hoping against hope that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be violated and it would evolve into something orderly. It simply would never happen.

Yet, that is exactly what science does when it comes to interpreting the physical world and attempting to create a hypothesis for where life and the universe originated. No matter how impossibly complex, no matter how indicative of intelligent design, that possibility is always dismissed outright as “impossible.” So back to my little analogy. The poor guy who suggests that the disk indicates some type of externally intelligent agent at work is laughed out of the room while the guy that insists upon spontaneous evolution of plastic and metal is heralded as a genius. It all comes back to the initial assumption and the way everything is interpreted in light of that assumption.

My belief in God is what gives meaning to science. Science can only answer "what" and sometimes "how"…but it cannot answer "why."

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 10, 2007

Steve, that is the lamest analogy I have ever read. And you give your ignorance totally away by mentioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

For one, what about a shiny, plastic disk would make any scientist, anywhere at any time believe it was organic? Second, no one (except creationists with an agenda) thinks human DNA "spontaneously" assembled itself. Read up on the concept of natural selection before you try arguing again. For that matter, I suggest you find some science books and read and try your very darndest to understand the 2nd law if thermodynamics and the concept of entropy- clearly you've been corrected enough times to include the sun as a source of energy.

I actually came back today to respond to some earlier questions - basically, I wonder how come you guys insist on repeating that liberals believe that because that morality CAN be analyzed objectively, that means libs believe ALL morals are mutable, depending on the situation.

After all, you guys will defend the death penalty while condemning abortion - so clearly ALL killing isn't immoral - it just depends on the situation, right?

This goes to the heart of my matter with Steve too - no matter how many times commenter's (like me) or even real scientists tell Steve that he's twisting the meaning of the law of thermodynamics to make a erroneous point, he will continue to make the error because he thinks it supports his argument - but it doesn't anywhere but among people as ignorant of facts as he (although I totally agree that science cannot answer "why").

Now, back to morals - "relative to WHAT" - I realize I used the phrase, but I was actually being sarcastic for my audience (re-read the passage) - not very successfully.

Morality is clearly a concept that CAN be used in relative terms as evidenced by the fact that we're ARGUING about it. If morals were absolute, there'd be nothing to discuss! Everything would be clear for everybody to see, just like other absolute things like the Empire State Building or the Pentagon. After all, THOU SHALL NOT KILL is pretty frickin clear. No. Killing. Ever. Yet, here we have all these exceptions - some of them are even performed or encouraged by the very same deity character who made the rule in the first place! So, is God a moral relativist?

I know I'm not saying anything you haven't heard before - I know this because your discussions (and even Phil's posts) have devolved to the point where all you do mock these questions, confident that somewhere in the archives is enough twisted logic to back you up.

I was going to answer some of Steve's questions, but on second look, they are so bizarre and self-evident (and more than a little revealing), I'm not sure I should bother.

For instance, besides being creepy, incest could very well be threatening to the survival of a tribe - inbreeding selects for unwanted mutations raising the ratio of birth defects - which might be a reason for banning the act.

Now, WE don't eat our dead - too much emotional attachment plus possibility of disease - but there most certainly have been cultures that do. If eating dead humans is universally immoral, and morals are universal, how come there have been cultures that DO eat human flesh? Wouldn't they have been touched by the same God? Moreover, when westerners have found isolated cannibalistic cultures, pointing to immorality is hardly a way to convince them to stop. The tribal responses is that THEIR GOD says they must eat and posses the souls of their enemies. And notice that I'm not saying that cannibalism can be 'right' or 'wrong' depending on the circumstances - I'm just pointing out that the act HAS been justified by some.

If you believe that morals are God given, inherent, immutable things, then why hasn't every being from time immemorial "known" cannibalism was wrong?

I realize this puts y'all in a bind - you can't really discuss this at all, because to do so you would have to acknowledge that at some point in time a foreign culture came to a different moral conclusion than you have - and that would be just too… objective.

Comment by Chasm | July 11, 2007

Chasm

Your response to Steve's comments are so typical. First of all fosilized amber is plastic and it does occur naturaly. Plastic comes from oil because it is cheap but it can also come from sap from trees. You know the sticky stuff oozing out of pine trees. But then again maybe I am all wrong. Maybe you should enlighten me as to how the molecular engineers first came up with plastic. I am always willing to be corrected on any technical issues that arise.

On natural selection - I have been feeding my dog cat food for three years and he has yet to turn into a cat. Again I may be doing something wrong. I so want to have a cat-dog just like the one I saw at the museum. After I figure this out I will start on my ape fish.

Comment by fbaginski | July 11, 2007

fbag, was that really your answer to my question? That because plastic occurs naturally, scientists in some distant future might be tempted to postulate that a perfectly round, perfectly flat, piece of 99.99 percent pure polycarbonate sandwiched with binary encoded mylar and marked "Windows Vista" has evolved through natural selection?

Or was that your point… that only in a world where scientists believe feeding cat food to a dog will change it's species would it be logical to believe a CD arose naturally?

If so, I'm with you. If not, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Comment by Chasm | July 11, 2007

Steve's questions, about eating the dead, incest, etc, are interesting because they are the kinds of questions that no one would ever really ask, least of all liberals (these moral extremes are, as here almost always envisioned by conservatives). I mean, no serious liberal anywhere has ever suggested legalizing incest, or eating the dead for food, yet here we are accused of supporting a moral worldview that would endorse such a thing - if at least for it's conceptual purity.

Not that there is anything wrong with valid criticisms of the liberalization of modern culture. I can see how the last 50 years or so (or even the last 30, 20, 10!) has scared the crap out of old-school Biblio-conservatives. And since it is so hard to rail against specific, modern targets without sounding like a bigot, I don't fault you for reaching for far-out scenarios and moral extremes to try and prove a point.

Which brings us to "the line." Steve, in a common line of thought, accuses me, and the left, of playing "slippery slope" morality and of "not having a standard" by which to judge morality. Always (at least here at IC) is the plea, "oh why can't the dumb liberals understand that the 'line' of conception cannot be crossed?"

But there is always a 'line.' Even were we to make willfully terminating a pregnancy a crime, there would still be litigation to establish were the new line is. Where is your line Steve? Rape? Incest? Health of the mother? None of the above? Assuming we all agree that none of this is actually covered specifically enough in your ancient texts for the 9th Circuit, how is 'no abortions, except to save the life of the mother' any less of a 'line', and thus a moral relevancy, than 'no meddling in private affairs until after the first trimester'?

And since Steve mentioned it, tell me how it is that the left was universally outraged, while only about 1/3 (at most) of conservatives showed even minimal interest upon being informed that our country tortures people? Every moral person, every moral nation the world over throughout history - including our own - has condemned torture as barbarous and evil. Yet the conservative moral 'absolutists' of the time fell all over themselves to excuse and minimize the meaning of Abu Ghraib.

Where was the 'line' then?

Comment by Chasm | July 11, 2007

Here's the QUESTION I want answered:

Is God a moral relativist?

If no, give an example of a universal, God given moral command that could never conceivably be argued AND the specific citation for it's province.

Then give another. And another.

See if you can get to ten.

If you can't, does that mean that all the morals we DO argue about are not God-given?

If the answer to the first question is 'yes,' does that make God a liberal?

Comment by Chasm | July 11, 2007

Chasm:

I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, so I'll say this again. I answered all of these questions in my original paper in the IC archives ("What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?), then again in the Jackson-Carmine debate in the IC archives, and will do once more in response to Raymond Ingles article today.

Since this seems to be a burning issue with you, spend a couple of hours reading and you'll see that God is not a moral relativist, there are universal moral codes instilled in all of us by God, these universal codes can be expressed with great specificity, and to assign a political label to God is the height of ignorance — though what men do politically can certainly support, or deviate from, the UMC.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 12, 2007

Chasm,

There are two worlds of thought. One in which man sets the rules and argues over them over time and makes adjustments. The other set of rules came with the creation. As God set the laws of physics He also set moral rules for His creation to live by. Since God has chosen for us to make up our own mind about who's rules to follow He has also left us with man's interpretation of His rules. This is a big problem if you let your head do the sorting out. It is your heart that we are told to follow.

The point about the CD is our human DNA defines intelligent design more than the CD does.

If you truly believe we are an acident of nature and there are no moral codes then why are you wasting your good time here on earth writing comments on IC. You should be out having the most fun possible every day. I often think that liberals join in on these discussions because they feel it is fun to blast the conservatives. I for one don't feel blasted.

Although I have been told not to cast pearls before swine, I catch myself doing it all to often. I just pray I don't run out of pearls.

Comment by fbaginski | July 12, 2007

You see, you still haven't actually absorbed one thing I have said, so it does become a little frustrating. I don't believe we are an accident of nature, nor do I believe there are no moral codes. Few people believe these things. Breaking a glass on the floor is an accident, the evolution of a tree is a wondrous process, stunning in beauty and purpose.

I appreciate your explanation of morality, but it sounds a little confusing, actually. God created perfect morality, but didn't really tell us what it is, except in our "heart," and we are free to follow or not follow our "heart" as we choose, but not to means we are against God.

I can also appreciate how having such a worldview could case one to stay with a leader who so famously uses his gut to make decisions, no matter how disastrous.

I comment here because I am seriously interested in the philosophy of morality. Far believing there are "no morals codes" I understand that they are just that - a contract among the closed system of a society - and that some codes have evolved over time (slavery) and others have been with us a long time (murder).

If you and convicted murderer are being transported on a plane to his execution, and that plane crashed on a jungle island, even his status as a criminal would not prevent your "heart" from telling you to enlist his aid in survival and rescue. Nor, unless he was truly deranged and psychotic (lets just say he's an under-socialized gang banger), would he refuse your help. In a larger society, he is a criminal who has broken the contract with that society, but I doubt very much that your "heart" would tell you to put a bullet thru his head were he someone upon your own survival depends.

Furthermore, your morality seems to me to be MORE flexible and MORE ambiguious than mine! Aside from the obsessive sexual prohibitions, of course, my morals, my contract with society is for the most part written down in the form of laws, which I, for the most part, obey.

But as we have seen, in a "heart" based moral universe, the president can order the most horrendous torture upon anyone his heart tells him is "evil." And if his "heart" tells him to sustain the most basic of societies rules in the prosecution of certain crimes, that seem to be ok too, in this flexible universe you describe.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

Oh, I just caught the part about swine.

F*** you too, fbag.

There, that was the most fun I've had all day.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

Why do the long posts take so long, and the short ones appear immediately? That last post isn't nearly as funny (and seems a tad ruder) than if it has posted after the very long one that will probably appear shortly. My apologies for the rudeness, as they say in comedy, timing is everything.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

Philip,

I have read your essays, and they are a main reason I pop by here occasionally. Since being a condescending prick IS your strong suit, I'll just explain that I find them entertaining but grossly wrong, I imagine for many of the same reasons Mr Ingles does. For that reason I shall be spending some time reading that discussion as it unfolds too.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

My, my. It’s taken this blog a little longer than the average internet exchange to degrade to Godwin’s Law. Or is it Benford's Law of Controversy? But we got there.

Comment by sedonaman | July 12, 2007

Chasm,

Since we are on the topic of "condescending p****s," may I suggest that you look in the mirror and consider the reflection?

As an engineer, I took sufficient thermodynamics courses in college to understand what is is, where it applies, and how it applies. Apparently the simplicity of your argument has escaped not only myself, but also people like Stephen Hawking who seems to find the issues created by the 2nd Law far more problematic than you do — to the point that he has attempted to explain why entropy goes in the wrong direction with Darwinian evolution by suggesting that perhaps we need to look at the entire cosmos rather than just our solar system. He has postulated that entropy is perhaps increasing elsewhere in the universe in order to offset the decrease in entropy required by evolution on earth. He is not nearly so cavalier about brushing off the apparent paradox as you are. Although I don't agree with his explanation, he is at least honest enough to admit that it merits more than a curt wave of the hand and a cluck of the tongue.

I also see that my analogies don't help clarify a position with people like yourself, they simply provide fodder for you to focus on minutiae. Should we discuss the thickness of the DVD foil? Perhaps critique the exact polymer chain used in the plastic? Or how about whether it was produced by a petrochem plant in Shanghai or along Houston's ship channel, and whether it was pelletized into spheres or ovoids? I am sure that would be productive and sufficiently direct attention away from the actual point of the analogy.

Frankly, I don't think you missed my point, nor do I doubt your intelligence. I simply don't have much respect for the way you communicate or the way you debate.

I'd be happy to reply to your questions but it's the equivalent of screaming instructions in English to a taxi driver that doesn't speak the language: It's just going to frustrate both parties and the car won't move an inch.

Let's move on. You find folly in the pages of IC, I find wisdom. Our lives will both end soon enough in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps I am wrong with my faith and my beliefs, but I have nothing to lose through a belief in God and a saving faith in His Son; in contrast, you have everything to lose through your unbelief. I guess that is a gamble you are willing to take, but it is not one I am willing to take.

Comment by Steve Sabin | July 12, 2007

well, I will (and have) admit to feeling embarrassed at the fu2 remark - I really had just penned a rather long post, with examples and that one apparently got lost in the mail. The remark was meant as a rejoinder to fbaginski calling me swine, and out of context of the longer post, appears crasser than intended. I do apologize for that one.

Less so the one directed at Mr Jackson, who, while I do enjoy reading his work sometimes because I respect the intent of his moral musings (while not always agreeing on the logic of his ways), I often find him dismissive in a rather off-putting way (and not necessarily to me, but to any who would presume to challenge his logic).

Beginning a post with a criticism of my reading comprehension skills is NOT a good way to make a logical point, but a good way to start a flame war. Perhaps just referring me to your essay (again) and giving your short rebuttal without the condescending comment would have been a better way to proceed. Then I wouldn't have used the P word either and everybody would be happy.

And so Steve. Lets break this down just a little: I bagged on your thought experiment because you postulated that a scientist "open to the possibility of intelligent design" would have an advantage in figuring out the truth of the CD's origins, while one who dismissed design would just figure it was a natural artifact. Your intent with the analogy seems to be to prove that accepting "design theory" is a logical way to conduct science, and indeed allows one to find answers where others cannot. But the story falls flat because the second scientist ISNT DOING HIS JOB: he's not pursuing the evidence to where it leads. In fact, he's acting more like what we would call "IDers," declaring that because the only logical explanation doesn't fit his world view, he doesn't know the true nature of the CD! Unless this all takes place in a place where the trees really do sap out perfect shiny disks, your second scientist is derelict.

I get that you are trying to tie the complexity of the information on the CD with the complexity of our DNA, and then trying to make the information entropy argument tie in with that. But to tell you the truth, I just don't buy the argument that entropy has ever been violated in any way, much less in any way that is relevant to the transmission of information during the process of procreation and natural selection. You can take your shot and actually link to some sources, but I've heard it all before too and the scientific rebuttals are always more convincing.

Simple organisms evolved into complex ones because doing so ultimately made them more efficient. Just as we have had to construct complex moral codes to live in a vast, layered society, so did thriving colonies of early cells have to learn to divy up the worklorad of processing food and waste to ultimately become us. THAT is why the analogy to evolution is used in social sciences, not because it is literally true that morals are passed thru genes.

Perhaps you are right, and I just don't understand, but then explain, if just a bit, how it is that natural selection violates thermodynamics. If DNA is just a string of data, like a word, like the word GOD even, how does changing it to DOG cost energy in reproduction, and thus violate entropy?

You get the point. If scientists have observed that all life on this planet shares a common method of information transmission, and all it takes is changing some letters to create variations on a life form, none of that involves entropy violation. So now we're all the way back to the evolution of DNA itself, a subject of which I know absolutely nothing. Enlighten me on how this development violates a law of nature.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

This is a duplicate comment that I posted on Raymond Ingles’ Universal Morality And The Morality Of The Universe. I hadn’t paid much attention to who Chasm was until I read his comment #64. Then I remembered who he was! It’s all pretty funny, in a sad sort of way. But don’t let it get in the way of a legitimate conversation on the debate I’m having with Raymond Ingles. Phil

****

Mr. Ingles —
One of the reasons I agreed to a debate with you is because your approach was so different than Chasm. Although we disagree on basic issues, you’ve kept the conversation professional. I contrast this with Chasm who has a tiny bit of trouble telling the truth, which was most notable when he commented on my original article by saying that he had spent “hours working on a point-by-point rebuttal of my position ‘a few days ago’”, when in fact the essay was released less than 24 hours earlier. [Comment 16].

Unlike your position, Chasm also believes there is no evidence to prove that raping and killing a 5 year-old girl is “inherently immoral” [Comment 14], that “infanticide” is not inherently immoral because spiders do it to their young (notwithstanding the fact that my essay was about human morality, not animal instinct), [Comment 14], as well as making a number of other bonehead observations.

The reason for his somewhat odd comments is that in actual fact, Chasm has read only the first 20 pages or so of my moral relativism essay, and reacted to what was said in that. When I called him on this and pointed out what he did he was embarrassed, and disappeared from that conversation. What’s distinguished your comments from Chasm’s is that you’ve actually read my original essay and commented professionally on its substance, rather than used it as a launching board for a political screed.

You have also rejected the morally-relative rationalizations Chasm uses to justify abortion on demand in his recent comments to my July 2 article. I’m going to repost his comment verbatim below, because they stand out in such stark contrast to what you wrote. [Note — the Capitalizations in Chasm’s comments are his]:

“Is it more moral to be a society that mandates abortion or one which forces childbirth? Golly gee, I’d hate to be part of a society that has to make either horrid choice, yet you seem intent on forcing us to have a discussion regarding the latter, as tho it were more noble or preferable than China’s. NONONO! you scream. It’s ALL ABOUT THAT BABY and that LIFE which is so important. And I’m here to tell you that, actually, things are different than they were back in the day of Jonah and his whale. For one, we really did go thru the so-called sexual revolution, conservative nightmare of all nightmares, and women really did tell the men that after six thousand years of this sh*t, they aren’t going to take it any more. For another, there are many pressing problems which actually do threaten us - on every level from individual all the way up to country and planet. The answers to these questions really do amount to doing good or evil because the repercussions will determine the quality of life for generations to come. Sorry for you to hear, I know, but who has sex with who, and whether or not they conceive, birth and raise a child is not one of them. Abortion is not a civic moral issue because the survival of the state, or even the village, is not at stake. The only people inside that little moral bubble are the mother, the fetus, and her family. And in America, anyway, privacy means that’s where it stays.”

It’s important for everyone dropping in on this conversation to know that people like Chasm do NOT represent the point of view you’ve advanced. Where you and I disagree on abortion is over a small but significant point which I will address at some length in my rejoinder. It is not the kind of almost unintelligible claptrap that passes for thought from Chasm, who blends a discussion about morality, social policy, religious teachings, and Constitutional rights into one intermingled thought with no understanding or appreciation for the role played (or NOT played) by each of these constituent elements.

In fact, none of what Chasm said above about abortion has anything substantively to do with the moral issues of abortion that I outlined in my original essay [in fact, I specifically reject religious teachings in and of themselves as a basis for morality, spoke about the difference between man made and God-given rights, specifically rejected the notion that the state should impose moral decisions (such as prohibiting abortion) rather than have these decisions come from the people themselves through a democratic process]. Chasm doesn’t know this because he hasn’t read my original essay, even though he makes a false claim that he has.

His “support” for your point of view, therefore, is politically motivated and not intellectually based, so anyone who reads his screed should not confuse Chasm’s opinions with yours. His motivation for commenting on my work is not to advance the issue through a reasoned give-and-take of ideas, but rather is summed up in a comment he made to my July 2, 2007 essay: “I have read your essays, and they are a main reason I pop by here occasionally. Since being a condescending prick IS your strong suit, I’ll just explain that I find them entertaining but grossly wrong, I imagine for many of the same reasons Mr Ingles does. For that reason I shall be spending some time reading that discussion as it unfolds too.”

We can only look forward to the carefully thought-out commentary from Chasm that is sure to come. In the meantime, though, to anyone pro-or con looking in on this discussion, please direct your meaningful comments to what Mr. Ingles says, and not what his new ‘best friend’ Chasm offers as enlightened observation, since Mr. Ingles’ reasons for this debate are NOT the same as Chasm’s.

Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 12, 2007

Now I have been accused of being a liar - and apparently my most notable lie ever was saying I had produced a rebuttal to a story that hadn't been published yet - -

but if you actually look at my first comment #6 (rather than YOUR response to it at#16) you would understand I was referring to your piece from a month earlier on global warming. THAT was the piece I had written to you about that had gotten lost. Geez, I was still reading the WWJD piece when I first commented, as I admitted.

Also, I didn't say there wasn't ANY evidence to prove killing a 5-year old was "inherently immoral," I said "YOU didn't prove raping and killing a 5 year-old girl is inherently immoral." And while my examples and method at the time may have been crude, Mr Ingles today has backed the essence of that assertion up with a much better argument.

Finally, my reasons for this debate are probably more or less exactly what Mr Ingles are (tho I am much more hesitant to speak for him than you are for me, apparently). You made the assertion that if there were no objections, you were going to go ahead and allow super-natural explanations for anything you felt had not been covered in Morality 101. I objected. Mr Ingles has objected, albeit much more beautifully (tho of course it did take 11 months).

Whether Mr Ingles shares my political views, or even my views about the appropriateness of the state intervening in private decisions is irrelevant to the fact that as a matter of arguing the divine providence of morality, his argument is much better than yours.

Comment by Chasm | July 12, 2007

Has anybody noticed a striking similarity between the way Chasm thinks (including his word choices when he speaks) and Vermont Lib in my Looney Liberal Chronicles Postscript? Could they be the same person? He even lies the same way. Here’s the opening line from my August 25, 2006 moral relativism article:

“I have a question that’s been bothering me for some time now, ever since my social consciousness was raised a couple of years back by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. It’s embodied in an extension of the question they asked when they tried to persuade me that God wouldn’t like it very much if I continued to drive my SUV. “

To which Chasm responded on August 25: “This is the kind of thing I love to take apart as it is one of the most intellectually inconsistent ‘arguments’ I have seen. The thing is, it’s so damn long and there are literally fallacies in almost every paragraph that it would take just as long to unravel all the logical jumps. The reason I hesitate wasting my time engaging this is the last time I responded point by point (to Mr. Jackson’s laughable attempt to justify his SUV) it never appeared in the comments!” And what was the “last time” he responded? In Chasm’s own words on August 26: “I may have been a wee bit combative in my first post, but thats because I spent hours working on a rebuttal a few days ago and it got ‘eaten’ by the spam filter.”

Nice try Chasm. You were clearly speaking about your first effort to do a “point-by-point” rebuttal of the “What Kind of car would Jesus Drive” article I wrote (which you incorrectly assumed was an attempt to “justify my SUV” because you were simply responding to each new sentence you read, not to a previous posting from a month earlier). In fact, I even said so as much at the time [Comment 18].

I said yesterday “Chasm also believes there is no evidence to prove that raping and killing a 5 year-old girl is “inherently immoral” [Comment 14]”, which Chasm also disputes. Here’s his full comment: “Actually Phil, you didn’t prove raping and killing a 5 year-old girl is inherently immoral. You kind of skipped over exploring a genetic basis for wanting to protect children. I mean, it could be that everyone agrees that children are innocent is because hundreds of millions of years of mammalian evolution has drilled an instinct to protect the young into our genes. Simply pointing out everyone agrees after 6000 years of civilization that murder of innocents is bad doesn’t prove it’s a ‘universal truth.’

Now, anyone who’s actually read my original essay knows that I dev