Thursday, September 19, 2013

Oh Hail the Chief!



With a fantastic first interview!  Pope Francis threatens/promises to blow away centuries of sexual cobwebs from the Roman Catholic Church. 
Pope Francis said the Catholic Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality or risk the collapse of its entire moral edifice, "like a house of cards". 
Thumbs up from the godless for Pope Francis. What about his own community??
 To me this is a statement of the bleeding obvious.  Sexual “obsession” is the appropriate word.  A pack of old, celibate men opining on these matters (when they forgive and transplant sexual offenders of the most pernicious kind) is such an ethical turn off.  Who outside the Church is not at the same time, appalled, amazed, amused and disgusted by the current rules and practices of the Church?  They are a godsend for atheists.  It is slightly scary that, paraphrasing the words of Richard Nixon, “What will we do now we might not have the Catholic Church to abuse?”
In an interview with an Italian Jesuit monthly, the Pope said the church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules".
Its priests should be more welcoming and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats stuck in confessionals that sometimes resembled "torture chambers", he said.
FANTASTIC STUFF!  He makes people like Cardinal Pell look like the antediluvian, doddery anachronism he most surely is.
APPALLING STUFF! For the foresight of Pope Francis with his inclusion of the marginal and marginalization of the reactionaries threatens to make Catholicism Kosher again.  Already going gang busters in the developing world, Catholicism with a decent leader threatens to become popular and palatable in places where it is really struggling in the West.
The full interview can be viewed here: http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
THE STEAK KNIVES!  But wait, there’s more.  Pope Francis appointed Italian Archbishop Pietro Parolin as his new Secretary of State. One of his first acts was to open the topic of priestly celibacy.  He has argued that church’s tradition of priestly celibacy was not dogma and was therefore open to discussion. In guarded tones he has opened the door. “The effort made by the church to institute ecclesial celibacy must be taken into consideration. One cannot simply say that it belongs to the past,” he said.
Why are we still talking about celibacy?
Voluntary celibacy is maligned fairly or unfairly.  And yet it is surprisingly common across a range of faiths and practices.  It is to be found in the Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist and other traditions.  Some of these requirements are temporary and some lifelong.  With the prohibition of pre marital sex which is very widespread there is an argument that every faith requires some degree of celibacy.
However, notwithstanding the many shapes and sizes of sexual restraint, the big Momma of the discussion is of course, the voluntary celibacy of the Catholic male priest.
Let us distinguish between celibacy and abstinence.  The former is usually a result of a vow and can be lifelong renunciation of marriage and sexual relations. Abstinence is thought of as a temporary lull in the proceedings such as the Orthodox Jewish prohibition on sex during menstruation.  In common parlance however, they are seen as identical. 
Celibacy is blamed as a cause of the sexual predation now emerging in the Church.  Whilst there is insufficient evidence to be conclusive, the logic goes like this.  Celibacy attracts those for whom married life is not attractive but want the prestige of having an excuse for not engaging in marriage and/or straight sex.  And even if you are attracted to the idea of heterosexual married life, abstinence and the strange obsession with it, might change one in ways that could lead to child abuse.  That is the logic.  The evidence from the John Jay Report seems to corroborate the logic but is not conclusive. 
But whatever the relationship between celibacy and abuse, voluntary celibacy seems to me to be weird and a deprivation of normalcy. 
Just wait for it.  There will be the inevitable counter revolution.  The habits of a millennium or more will die hard.  Will Pope Francis and his Secretary of State succeed in staunching the blood flowing from the Church’s sexual Achilles heel?  Or will the forces of reaction outlast and outplay the forces of reform?
What is your view?
Do you agree that Pope Francis’ interview was disastrous for atheism in the West?
Do you think it is too little too late?
How did he keep this reformist zeal so secret that he won the vote?
Where will the Church go on celibacy?
What is your view of celibacy?
Over to you.

213 comments:

  1. Saw The Age article before.

    "Do you agree that Pope Francis’ interview was disastrous for atheism in the West?"

    No. Unless I missed the bit where he has evidence for God.

    "Do you think it is too little too late?"

    Better late than never. Will it stem the tide away from the Church? Probably.

    "How did he keep this reformist zeal so secret that he won the vote?"

    He's a priest, secrecy is their main occupation.

    "Where will the Church go on celibacy?"

    Probably keep it for a while longer.

    "What is your view of celibacy?"

    Stupid idea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MalcolmS9:02 PM

    "Do you agree that Pope Francis’ interview was disastrous for atheism in the West?"

    I think you overrate atheism Dick. Atheism is only valid as an antidote to theism - as a way of refuting false theistic claims. Without theism atheism doesn't even arise. Atheism is not a worldview and implies no worldview - it's the refutation of a worldview. A valid worldview comes from philosophy: of the nature of man, the nature of the world and man's place in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea but, yea but, yea but, yea but, yea we make so much mileage from the inarticulate and bigoted wafflers like the the good Cardinal. Pell has been wonderful fodder for the unruly and the ungodly. Eradicating the appalling defence of Catholicism's stupid views on gender and sex must kill off some of the pungency in the arguments of the atheists and other critics. This is a major exercise in small target by Pope Frankie. I like it.
      Dickie

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS10:13 PM

      Sure, but that doesn't mean that an atheist has the correct view on "gender and sex."

      In fact atheism doesn't imply *any* particular view on gender and sex!

      Delete
    3. Stop worrying Mal - you can still be just as annoying as the average bible basher!

      Of course there are plenty of atheists who do like to think logically about other topics as well, but you demonstrate clearly that there can be exceptions. It's a very broad non-church.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS6:56 AM

      LJS: ".. there are plenty of atheists who do like to think logically about other topics as well"

      Perhaps, one day, you'll join them.

      Delete
    5. A valid worldview comes from philosophy: of the nature of man, the nature of the world and man's place in it.

      lol
      Oh the irony

      Giddyup! ;)

      Delete
  3. Dick: Where will the Church go on celibacy?

    Celibacy schmelibacy. The priests aren’t celibate. They bonk each other all the time. What’s the name of that Anglican bishop who resigned after the Lambeth Conference declared homosexuality against scripture? He said half the blokes in the business are gay. They’re having a whale of a time in their men’s club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly Terry we need evidence rather than hearsay...

      Delete
    2. If they were celibate, we wouldn't have so many floods. Immoral behaviour is the cause of natural disasters, everybody knows that -

      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kevin-swanson-blames-colorado-floods-decadent-homosexual-activity-marijuana-and-abortion-rig

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS2:12 AM

      According to loons such as Flannery and Suzuki natural disasters are caused by man made CO2. Noah would be surprised! Hard to know who's the biggest loon.

      Delete
    4. "According to loons such as Flannery and Suzuki natural disasters are caused by man made CO2"

      Some natural disasters are the result of the atmosphere getting warmer. You are the biggest loon, good -bye.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS2:57 AM

      "Some natural disasters are the result of the atmosphere getting warmer"

      No they aren't and it hasn't warmed in 16 years. Try sleeping with your thermometer! :) Do your nightmares keep you awake at night? Good-bye.

      Delete
    6. "No they aren't and it hasn't warmed in 16 years."

      Yes they are and yes it has, try getting your information from scientists, not journalists.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS3:21 AM

      You couldn't distinguish between a scientist and a pimp.

      Delete
    8. You couldn't distinguish between a scientist and a philosopher.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS4:22 AM

      Yes, I can - and their similarities.

      Delete
  4. Mal: Without theism atheism doesn't even arise.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS10:37 PM

      Terry: "Celibacy schmelibacy. The priests aren’t celibate. They bonk each other all the time"

      Yawn.

      Delete
    2. Bonking bores you? You're not that old, are you?

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS1:00 AM

      Bonking priests doesn't bore you??

      You are more weird than I thought!! :)

      Delete
  5. I think someone at the Vatican didn't read the Pope's interview... http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-dumps-rebel-priest-20130920-2u5jp.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS7:13 PM

      The catholic leopard will not change its spots no matter what the ramblings of the current pope.

      Being excommunicated in this country puts him in the company of Mary MacKillop so I guess he'll consider that a plus.

      Delete
  6. At least he's still prepared to say stupid things about abortion:

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-francis-blasts-abortion-after-decrying-focus-on-the-rules-20130921-2u60q.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. MalcolmS9:24 PM

    "With the prohibition of pre marital sex which is very widespread there is an argument that every faith requires some degree of celibacy"

    Including the faith which most on this site follow.

    Here's one of their loonier priests in full flight as he advocates global totalitarianism and sacrifice to Gaia.

    The cults of Jesus were no less saner than this mob.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c#t=71

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mal:

      Tim Flannery is an insane totalitarian. This is perhaps your finest Mal-function yet.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS1:27 AM

      Yes, that's what his ideas would result in. Thanks for your agreement!

      Delete
    3. Mal:

      BTW, I forgot to say thanks for the link. Flannery's thoughts were, as always, interesting. But not nearly as interesting as the comments that followed. There's a distinct redneck flavour to them. Are you related to any of those people, or perhaps all of them? Out of curiosity, if you multiplied their number by the quantity of their fingers and toes would the result be divisible by 10 (please include yourself in the calculation).

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS1:34 AM

      "Flannery's thoughts were, as always, interesting"

      And, as always, false!

      Delete
    5. Mal: And, as always, false!

      You forgot the fingers and toes. Is the result divisible by 10?

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS2:22 AM

      If you want my advice it's that you should be more concerned about your cloven hooves.

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cloven+hooves&client=firefox-a&hs=AdM&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BbU-Us7iHamwiAeA_YCoBQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=599&dpr=1.5

      Delete
    7. "Here's one of their loonier priests in full flight as he advocates global totalitarianism and sacrifice to Gaia."

      He does nothing of the sort, you are either monumentally stupid and didn't understand what he said, or lying about it monumentally stupid to think we wouldn't check.

      Delete
    8. Mal: If you want my advice …

      I hate to break this to you, old top, but you don’t have a lot of advice to give. That is, unless you want to teach me how to play Duelling Banjos with three fingers.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS4:59 AM

      ".. you don’t have a lot of advice to give"

      Then why do you continually request it?

      If I told you I had twelve fingers and twelve toes, that the webbing was still intact and that I had wings it would make no difference to my position and you would still not be able to answer it. Why don't you advocate your own position? Don't you have one?

      Are you stupid or something?

      Delete
    10. "".. you don’t have a lot of advice to give"

      Then why do you continually request it?"

      Who has asked for your advice?

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS6:01 AM

      Stranger: "He does nothing of the sort"

      Yes, he does. In fact he advocates that in this brave new world nobody can decide to reproduce, to defend himself or even to "garden." Who decides who can? The Global Super Organism of course! As the super organism gets more competent individuals become less competent and there needs to be "equal redistribution of resources." Who decides? The Global Super Organism. There could not be a more consistent example of totalitarian global control than that.

      Flannery is the same moron who advised governments that rainfall would no longer fill the dams and that we needed desalination plants. Now, a decade later, the desal plants are white elephants and billions of dollars have been pissed up against a wall, it rains the same as it always has and the dams are full!

      Did you fall for the Y2000K bug as well? Please check that your arse is not on fire Andrew!

      Delete
    12. Mal: Then why do you continually request [my advice]?

      Dream on, old fart.

      Mal: Why don't you advocate your own position?

      Two reasons: (1) you’re not interested in it, so why bother; (2) you won’t understand it.

      BTW, your comments to Andrew make it clear you haven’t grasped Flannery, which is understandable given your inadequacies in biology (I’m referring, of course, to your education, or lack thereof, rather than your missing digits). Flannery is not ‘advocating’ anything. He’s merely making the observation that over the last 10 thousand years the trend in human development has been towards ever bigger collaborative units. Individuals are becoming ever more connected, ever more economically specialised, and ever more peaceful under the rule of law. And all of this reminds him of superorganisms (a concept which means something specific to a biologist) such as ants.

      Now, just so you know, I’ve got a bet going with my children (who find your posts funny, by the way) that you will come back with a particular one of your half dozen standard ripostes (they do wish you would increase your vocabulary some day). My personal favourite is ‘Don’t give up the government job’ but don’t let that influence you.

      Delete
    13. Mal: Please check that your arse is not on fire Andrew!

      Such dazzling wit! Acquired, presumably, from the study of polemical science. Prof Finkelstein's Monday night seniors classes in the community hall?

      Delete
    14. ". . . the desal plants are white elephants . . . Did you fall for the Y2000K bug as well?"

      I even know people who had seatbelts and airbags installed in their cars, and then didn't have a serious accident! Crazy!

      Delete
    15. "The Global Super Organism. There could not be a more consistent example of totalitarian global control than that."

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKbFb6TPVEA

      Delete
    16. "Yes, he does."

      No he doesn't, he makes observations, you just aren't smart enough to understand.

      "There could not be a more consistent example of totalitarian global control than that."

      But you don't have a problem with totalitarian control as evidenced by you defense of the Catholic Church in sacking someone who spoke out.

      "Flannery is the same moron who advised governments that rainfall would no longer fill the dams and that we needed desalination plants"

      People are allowed to be wrong, you are wrong nearly all the time so I wouldn't go calling Flannery a moron if I was you.

      "Did you fall for the Y2000K bug as well? "

      So you don't know anything about computers either.

      " Please check that your arse is not on fire Andrew!"

      My arse is hot, according to some women.

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS7:04 PM

      Terry: "Flannery is not ‘advocating’ anything. He’s merely making the observation that over the last 10 thousand years the trend in human development has been towards ever bigger collaborative units. Individuals are becoming ever more connected, ever more economically specialised, and ever more peaceful under the rule of law"

      Fallacy of equivocation.

      Flannery, like you, is a thorough determinist and considers the above to be a part of "evolution" which it is not. Social progress has nothing to do with evolution.

      He also appears to ignore the death of 100 million people last century from "bigger collaborative units" such as the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc regimes and then goes on to recommend a totalitarian system of his own.

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS7:25 PM

      LJS: "I even know people who had seatbelts and airbags installed in their cars, and then didn't have a serious accident! Crazy!"

      Fallacy of false analogy.

      The benefits of seatbelts and airbags are well known. Cataclysmic man made global warming has always been a myth. It's not happening folks.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fNyQms8w

      Delete
    19. "Cataclysmic man made global warming has always been a myth."

      Fallacy of ignorance.

      Delete
    20. "Social progress has nothing to do with evolution."

      fallacy of ignorance.

      Delete
    21. "The benefits of seatbelts and airbags are well known."
      Seatbelts are only beneficial if you are fortunate enough to have an accident. Desal plant is only useful if the water supply is low. How is that a false analogy?

      Delete
    22. Mal-function: Social progress has nothing to do with evolution.

      0/10 marks. Admission to biology 101 denied. Go back to school and start again.

      Delete
    23. MalcolmS11:15 PM

      LJS: "Seatbelts are only beneficial if you are fortunate enough to have an accident"

      The idiot pirate strikes again.

      "Desal plant is only useful if the water supply is low"

      Not if rain and dams are a fraction of the cost and perfectly adequate as they were, are and always will be.

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS12:07 AM

      Terry: ""Social progress has nothing to do with evolution".. Admission to biology 101 denied"

      Correction: Social progress has nothing to do with evolution OR biology.

      Carry on anthill dweller.

      Delete
    25. Mal: Social progress has nothing to do with evolution OR biology.

      No need to repeat your ignorance. I got it the first time. Unless, of course, your aim was to emphasize it, in which case you succeeded, although you didn’t have to, because the fact of it was established long ago.

      Mal: Carry on anthill dweller.

      Still not what I'd call ‘wit’ but your moving in the right direction.

      Delete
    26. MalcolmS8:32 AM

      Terry: "Still not what I'd call ‘wit’ but your moving in the right direction"

      Yes, in your case I should have referred to a *half-wit.*

      Sorry about that :)

      Delete
    27. MalcolmS8:40 AM

      Stranger: "My arse is hot, according to some women"

      Having an affair with a thermometer dopey?

      Delete
    28. If I told you I had twelve fingers and twelve toes, that the webbing was still intact and that I had wings...

      Liar: You don't have wings. Those are scapula.

      Being scrawny and deformed is a science in nobjectivist land

      Delete
    29. Correction: Social progress has nothing to do with evolution OR biology.

      False on many levels.

      The most potentially entertaining part of your response however is your unconscious acceptance of the leftwing collectivist concept of "social progress"

      Toolie the disillusioned socialist. What happened?
      Wouldnt those hippie chicks put out for you toolie?

      lol

      Delete
    30. "Having an affair with a thermometer dopey?"

      Mal's so stupid he thinks thermometers are females.

      Delete
    31. "Correction: Social progress has nothing to do with evolution OR biology."

      Fallacy of ignorance.

      Delete
    32. "Not if rain and dams are a fraction of the cost and perfectly adequate as they were, are and always will be."

      Fallacy of ignorance.

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS11:05 PM

      Stranger: "Fallacy of ignorance"

      Note to the village idiot: there is no such thing as the "fallacy of ignorance."

      Ignorance refers to a lack of knowledge whereas a fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning to derive an answer. Ignorance is not a fallacy[falsehood] - it's an *absence* of knowledge.

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    34. there is no such thing as the "fallacy of ignorance."


      Well duh.

      No fallacys are "things" nobgobbler. Thats the fallacy of reification.

      Any real philosopher could have told you that ;)

      Epistemology is not a science in nobjectivist land

      Delete
    35. Thats the fallacy of reification.

      Whup.. my mistake.

      I forgot that you suffer from an "*absence* of knowledge."

      In your case the fallacy of the raving loony foolosopher takes precedence over all others ;)

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS2:03 AM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "No fallacys[sic] are "things""

      Another village idiot! I'm surrounded! In the proper context anything can be regarded as a thing. It's certainly a cognitive/mental thing. At least learn to spell it dopey :)

      Delete
    37. "Note to the village idiot: there is no such thing as the "fallacy of ignorance.""

      Yes there is, it's when an argument relies on the ignorance of the person making it.

      Delete
    38. MalcolmS3:43 AM

      "Yes there is, it's when an argument relies on the ignorance of the person making it"

      No, there isn't.

      No "argument" can follow from ignorance.

      Argument only follows from truth or falsehood.

      Delete
    39. "No "argument" can follow from ignorance."

      Yes it can, you're a good example.

      Delete
    40. "In the proper context anything can be regarded as a thing."

      Yep. And any non-thing can be regarded as not a thing.

      Delete
    41. "Note to the village idiot: there is no such thing as the "fallacy of ignorance.""

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

      Delete
    42. zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead:

      Rofl..Who?

      Another village idiot! I'm surrounded!

      With mirrors obviously

      In the proper context anything can be regarded as a thing.

      Fallacy of tautology - Youre on a roll now numbskull!

      It's certainly a cognitive/mental thing.

      Yes yes. Like phlogiston, your tautologies and various other inane delusions

      At least learn to spell it dopey

      It dopey? Why? I prefer to call you nobgobbler

      P.S
      Youre a thing ;)

      Delete
    43. MalcolmS8:53 AM

      From LJS' link:

      "An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence"

      I rest my case.

      As I said: "No "argument" can follow from ignorance. Argument only follows from truth or falsehood"

      Delete
    44. MalcolmS9:37 AM

      Note to village idiots, please consult:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhDJxEPRDek

      Delete
    45. Note to village idiots...[sic]

      You spelled "note to self" wrong again dumbarse ;)

      Delete
    46. MalcolmS10:39 AM

      Congratulations, pussycat, on being the first to "consult" :)

      Giddyup! :)

      Delete
    47. I have never looked up any of your links and have no intention of ever doing so.

      Ride on nobjockey ..lol

      Delete
    48. MalcolmS10:51 AM

      Yes, you have :)

      Giddyup! :)

      Delete
    49. lol

      Only in your funny little nobjockey mind. Must be the constant jiggityboo ;)

      Delete
    50. "Fallacy of tautology"
      Tautology is a scientifc science.

      Delete
    51. MalcolmS6:25 PM

      LJS: ""Fallacy of tautology""

      Tautology is *not* a fallacy - except in modern scepticism where everything, including knowledge, is fallacious.

      Tautology has valid applications in the sciences of rhetoric, polemics and logic :)

      All axiomatic statements are tautologies and necessarily so.

      I hope you didn't pay good money to learn your crap. If so you were ripped off!

      Delete
    52. LJS: ""Fallacy of tautology"

      Fallacy of attributing Billy's quote to me.

      Why rely on a secondary source, when the primary source was a few posts above mine?

      Delete
    53. "Tautology has valid applications in the sciences of rhetoric, polemics and logic "

      Tautology is three sciences?

      Delete
    54. MalcolmS9:56 PM

      LJS: "Fallacy of attributing Billy's quote to me"

      I didn't! I double quoted!

      "Tautology is three sciences?"

      I made no such claim!

      Do you ever get anything right?

      Delete
    55. "I didn't!"

      Did, did, did, did and did.

      " I double quoted!"
      Tautological quoting is illogical.
      You attributed it to me. I had quoted someone else.

      Delete
    56. MalcolmS2:12 AM

      LJS: "You attributed it to me. I had quoted someone else"

      I quoted you quoting the idiotcat.

      I said @ MalcolmS 6:25 PM on this thread:

      Quote: LJS: ""Fallacy of tautology"" [NB Double quotes]

      Look it up!!

      PS When finished please attend immediately to your village idiot exercises :)

      Delete
    57. Mal: """"Fallacy of tautology""""

      What was your point again?

      Delete
    58. MalcolmS4:19 AM

      LJS: "What was your point again?"

      Just keep doing the exercises :)

      Delete
    59. Mal: "There is no such thing as the "fallacy of ignorance." "

      ""An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence""

      I noice that you have provided no evidence for the nonexistence of this fallacy. Are you just relying on the lack of evidence for the existence of the fallacy?

      So iis this a fallacy of ignorance of the fallacy of ignorance

      Tautology is still a scientific science!

      Delete
    60. MalcolmS7:53 AM

      LJS: "I noice[sic] that you have provided no evidence for the nonexistence of this fallacy"

      No evidence exists, or is required, for the nonexistence of a nonexistent.

      Delete
    61. "No evidence exists, or is required, for the nonexistence of a nonexistent."

      So how do you know that it is nonexistent?

      Delete
    62. "No evidence exists, or is required, for the nonexistence of a nonexistent."

      So how do you know that it is nonexistent?


      Now thats how an real philosopher does it.

      Now of course we can't expect Tooly McFucknuckle to understand this, but lets at least try to be understanding.

      Once an elderly chicken sexer has been made redundant they go downhill real fast.

      Sad really... poor little attention monkey
      Here mallypoo - Have a banana

      http://bitly.com/184vPvi

      Awww...So cute ;)

      Delete
    63. MalcolmS1:29 AM

      toolshead: "So how do you know that it is nonexistent?"

      So, to which "it" do you refer dopey?

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    64. "So how do you know that it is nonexistent?"

      So, to which "it" do you refer dopey?
      [sic]

      r o f l
      Fallacy of attributing LJS's quote to me.

      tip of the day

      Nobjectivists: Get free brain surgery by laying your head completely still on a cheese platter

      Delete
    65. Stranger wrote: "Yes there is, it's when an argument relies on the ignorance of the person making it."

      To me this just highlights the dangers of quoting informal fallacies like mantras.

      For example if someone says "Everybody knows who Barton LeGrange is", then I could say "If everybody knows who Barton LeGrange is then I would know who he is. I don't know who he is therefore everybody does not know who Barton LeGrange is"

      That is a perfectly valid and sound inference which depends upon the ignorance of the utterer.

      Something is an argument from ignorance where the truth of a proposition has incorrectly been assumed to depend upon knowledge about that proposition.

      Delete
    66. From LJS' link: """An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence""

      Again there is a pitfall here. We know that there is almost certainly no link between the MMR vaccine and autism precisely because we have no evidence for a link.

      In the normal case this would be an invalid inference, however we have good reason for believing that if there was evidence then it would have shown up in at least some of the studies done and therefore in this case lack of evidence for the truth of the proposition is evidence for the falsity of the proposition.

      Again, informal fallacies like this are a minefield. It is a much better strategy to examine the logic of the argument directly.

      Delete
    67. "That is a perfectly valid and sound inference which depends upon the ignorance of the utterer."

      It relies on ignorance but is not valid or sound if someone doesn't know who Barton is. It's the same as saying X doesn't exist because you personally are unaware of X existing even when it does.
      Ralph and Mal are continuously making claims, based on their ignorance, of how things work, as if their ignorance means they are right.

      Delete
    68. Stranger, it looks as though you have not read the example.

      The inference is both valid (via Modus Tollens) and sound.

      And it is sound because the premises are true. I don't know who Barton LeGrange is. And it is not possible that "everybody knows X" and "somebody doesn't know X" to be true at the same time.

      Delete
    69. Stranger wrote: "It's the same as saying X doesn't exist because you personally are unaware of X existing even when it does."

      No, it is not the same. You might want to read up a little on the "Fallacy of the False Analogy"

      Delete
    70. RalphH 27/098:14 AM

      “Ralph and Mal are continuously making claims, based on their ignorance, of how things work, as if their ignorance means they are right.” (Stranger4:03 PM)

      Stranger, this would sound better if you said continually instead of continuously. Continuously is accepted but only because ‘ignorance is bliss’. Also, nothing can be “based on ignorance” (because it’s not known) so it would be better to say, “despite their ignorance”.

      Having at least tried to correct your ignorance of language, your statement is also incorrect because neither Malcolm nor I would be silly enough to think the way you think.

      Further (I can’t speak for Malcolm here) I believe it is your ignorance of spiritual things and spiritual principles that lead you think that I am ignorant.

      Delete
    71. "Stranger, this would sound better if you said continually instead of continuously"

      Nah continuously works too.

      "Also, nothing can be “based on ignorance” "

      of course it can. All of your arguments are based on ignorance of how things actually work.

      "Having at least tried to correct your ignorance of language,"

      Says the man who can't use objective correctly.

      " I believe it is your ignorance of spiritual things and spiritual principles"

      I'm not ignorant of such things, I know more about them than you do as you just stick to what you want to be true and not bothering to find out other things

      Delete
    72. "And it is sound because the premises are true."

      No they aren't. The premise was that everyone knows who Barton is, the premise is wrong as soon as someone doesn't know him. If someone said no one knows Barton it's the same incorrect premise if someone does know him.

      "And it is not possible that "everybody knows X" and "somebody doesn't know X" to be true at the same time."

      Exactly, which is why the premise is false unless one actually knows if everyone has or hasn't knowledge of something.

      Ralph makes comments about sexuality and cognition yet he has next to no knowledge of those things, ie he is making arguments from ignorance.

      Delete
    73. RalphH 28/095:19 PM

      “Ralph makes comments about sexuality and cognition yet he has next to no knowledge of those things, ie he is making arguments from ignorance.” (Stranger4:35 PM)

      Stranger, that’s a good example of ‘wanting something to be true’. It is also an illogical statement. Having “next to no knowledge” means having some knowledge. (As a side issue, we only have your wish-think that your assessment, in my case, is true.)

      Any argument made will be made from whatever knowledge is held (be it much or little, true or false), and believed to be true. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, it is not (specifically) a lack of the knowledge of the truth of knowledge held.

      It would be more correct (and less arrogant and confronting) to say, “I believe your knowledge to be incomplete or false.” rather than claim (from wish-think) that the other person is ignorant.

      Delete
    74. Stranger wrote: "No they aren't. The premise was that everyone knows who Barton is, the premise is wrong as soon as someone doesn't know him."

      No, the first premise is "If everyone knows who Barton Legrange is then I know who he is" and the second premise is "I don't know who Barton Legrange is"

      The conclusion is a valid inference from those premises by Modus Tollens, as I pointed out before.

      Those premises are true, the inference is valid and therefore the argument is sound.

      Delete
  8. Thanks for that Malcom! Dick

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well perhaps I spoke to soon!!! The excommunication of a priest for disagreeing with the company line on woman priests and gay and lesbian issues. This takes us back to the Inquisition. Maybe things move slowly in the Antipodean outpost of Oz or maybe the Vatican is only capable of taking one step forward and one back? It is a shocking decision to excommunicate a dissident priest. Perhaps my original blog was too lenient???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dick: It is a shocking decision to excommunicate a dissident priest.

      Wouldn’t it be more shocking if they didn’t fire him?

      Delete
    2. Terry, Excommunication sounds so medieval. Like as if one would care. An excommunicated Catholic these days merely marches across the road to the nearest Protestant or Anglican Church. But given how forgiving they are to the worst of men, to punish this man because he has a different view is depressing. Have no lessons been learnt???

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS6:31 AM

      Actually I think that the Church has every right to sack a priest who does not adhere to official policy although excommunication is a little extreme. The Church is paying his way after all.

      Furthermore, the Church is not the only mob who excommunicates. The Jewish Spanish philosopher Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism when he came out in favour of pantheism in his metaphysics. I suspect Islam does likewise.

      Delete
    4. ". . . the Church has every right to sack a priest who does not adhere to official policy"

      That would be fine if they hadn't refused to sack people who had been raping children on church property.

      Delete
    5. Mal: Actually I think that the Church has every right to sack a priest who does not adhere to official policy ...

      Totalitarian.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS5:44 PM

      Terry: "Totalitarian"

      Fallacy of context dropping.

      Totalitarian is a concept which applies to political systems - not to private institutions. They can set their own agenda based on their own ideas.

      Call the Church "authoritarian" and you may have a case.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS5:48 PM

      LJS: "That would be fine if they hadn't refused to sack people who had been raping children on church property"

      It's still "fine" - they are different issues.

      Delete
    8. "Totalitarian is a concept which applies to political systems.."

      Not necessarily

      exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

      Delete
    9. "It's still "fine" - they are different issues."

      If you believe that disagreeing over whether women are entitled to promotion is a sackable offense, but raping a 10 year old (using facilities provided by your employer to facilitate the rape) us not, then there really is no point in discussing moral philosophy with you.

      Delete
    10. Fallacy of thinking that your own definition is the one and only correct definition.


      "to·tal·i·tar·i·an
      [toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
      adjective
      1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
      2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic."

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarian

      Stranger is using definition 2
      Mal prefers definition 1

      Mal is wrong (again)

      Delete
    11. ". . .raping a 10 year old (using facilities provided by your employer to facilitate the rape) us not" (sic)
      obviously should be
      ". . .raping a 10 year old (using facilities provided by your employer to facilitate the rape) IS not"

      I still need a new computer (meanwhile Mal needs to get over the need to write "sic" for every obvious and irrelevant typo)

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS11:09 PM

      LJS: "If you believe that disagreeing over whether women are entitled to promotion is a sackable offense, but raping a 10 year old (using facilities provided by your employer to facilitate the rape) us[sic] not"

      I do not "believe" any of those things. Nor have I implied that I do. Are you going senile?

      ".. there really is no point in discussing moral philosophy with you"

      No, there is no point in sceptics discussing moral philosophy with anyone.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS11:11 PM

      LJS: "Mal is wrong (again)"

      No he is not. Totalitarian applies only to an extreme political system where *all* aspects of your life are prescribed ['total' - get it?!]. That does not apply to the CC or any other private institution which you can leave whenever you so desire. There is a sense in which you can describe the CC as authoritarian in that they prescribe what is required for "salvation." But that does not mean that you can be forced to conform and cannot leave. That is different to a totalitarian political regime.

      Delete
    14. Mal: Call the Church "authoritarian" and you may have a case.

      I was referring to you, grumpy.

      Delete
    15. Mal: No, there is no point in sceptics discussing moral philosophy with anyone.

      You forgot to say 'the science of' moral philosophy.

      Delete
    16. MalcolmS7:40 AM

      Terry: "I was referring to you, grumpy"

      Yes, I am aware of that dopey.

      And it's still the fallacy of context dropping.

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS7:43 AM

      Terry: "You forgot to say 'the science of' moral philosophy"

      No I didn't. I said exactly what I wanted to say.

      You are a pull-through for a canon.

      Delete
    18. No, there is no point in sceptics discussing moral philosophy with anyone.

      Wrong again toolie.

      Go on... Giddyup .. You know you want to ;)

      Delete
    19. Mal: You are a pull-through for a canon.

      You’re on a roll, grandpa. Clearly I bring out the wittiest in you.

      Delete
    20. " Totalitarian applies only to an extreme political system where *all* aspects of your life are prescribed ['total' - get it?!]"

      No it doesn't, get it?

      Delete
  10. I am pleased to see that due to the problems with Catholic orphanages, the Vatican finally has a policy on having children raised by apes. Their glorious leader denies being the first participant in this program -
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/19056194/im-not-tarzan-pope-francis-tells-young-crowd/

    Yes Mal, we know, fallcy of anthropomophism blah blah blah . . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS6:17 PM

      "Yes Mal, we know, fallcy[sic] of anthropomophism[sic] blah blah blah...."

      No, it's not.

      Delete
    2. OK, I thought you were going to complain about the pope's reference to people being raised by apes - I'm so used to you being on autopilot whenever animals are mentioned that I tried to anticipate your wrongness. OK, carry on . . . .

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS10:34 PM

      I'm never on autopilot when animals are mentioned :) OK, carry on....

      Delete
  11. Dickie me old mate, I think you're far too soft on Papa Francis. I believe he's a shifty wee shit who's trying to regain ground for the church, but at heart he's as much a 'member of the firm' as Pell the pontificator. He openly encourages members of the church to meddle in politics, but being the sly, wily old fox he is, he wraps it up in a blanket of charity and good works.

    The following is a copy of the written intro to last nights SUNDAY NIGHTS program on ABC Radio. I missed the panel discussion - Politics in the Pulpit - and don't know how to download it.

    "This week, in one of his daily homilies, Pope Francis made his thoughts on religion in politics clear. Good Catholics, he said, meddle in politics.

    "None of us can say, 'I have nothing to do with this, they govern.' No, no, I am responsible for their governance, and I have to do the best so that they govern well, and I have to do my best by participating in politics according to my ability," he said. "Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good. I cannot wash my hands, eh? We all have to give something!"

    So tonight, with the Pope's words in mind, we're looking at the issue of religion and politics in Australia. Is it appropriate for religious leaders to lobby politicians? In a secular society, how much religious influence on politics is appropriate?

    To debate, we have Father Frank Brennan; managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton; freelance writer and atheist, Chrys Stevenson; and Reverend Dr Brian Brown, moderator of the Uniting Church's NSW and ACT synod."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile Russian police are repressing pastafarians:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/russia-pastafarian-_n_3816805.html

      For all its faults, I hope that Australia retains the freedom to be touched by his noodly appendages.

      Delete
    2. I, too, hope we retain the freedom to milk a gag endlessly.

      Delete
    3. How weird-looking is the short cop's hat in that video? It's big enough to eclipse the sun. At what point in the development of Russian police uniforms did something reckon it was cool to wear something like that? What chance vodka had something to do with the decision?

      Delete
    4. Tricia - I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that if you belong to a religion you should not be politically active?

      Personally I think that everyone should meddle in politics. It is a big mistake to leave politics to the politicans

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS8:03 AM

      Tricia: "Is it appropriate for religious leaders to lobby politicians?"

      No more appropriate than for "welfare" statists or greens to lobby politicians. That's the problem with democracy - it's just a euphemism for mob rule.

      "In a secular society, how much religious influence on politics is appropriate?"

      It's not a secular society. Religion has not been banned. I presume you are aware that our head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church.

      Delete
    6. Robin: Personally I think that everyone should meddle in politics.

      What does ‘meddle’ cover? Presumably it includes individual participation. But does it extend to organisational lobbying such as, say, that by the gun industry?

      Delete
    7. "It's not a secular society. Religion has not been banned."

      Secular does not mean banning religion. Is there anything you actually know instead of just guess at?

      Delete
    8. He knows that "existence exists"... and so does non-existence.

      Also capitalism is the new jesus...

      Oh... Thats a science by the way

      rofl

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS9:07 AM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "He knows that "existence exists"..."

      Yes, true.

      " and so does non-existence"

      No, it doesn't!

      Oh the irony :) Giddyup! :)

      Delete
    10. Tricia: "Is it appropriate for religious leaders to lobby politicians?"

      No more appropriate than for "welfare" statists or greens to lobby politicians. That's the problem with democracy - it's just a euphemism for mob rule.


      Hear hear! The people are stupid and corrupt. Undeserved wealth and too much spare time on their hands has allowed a sense of entitlement to grow uncontrollably amongst the simpleminded

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

      There is only one solution.
      I hereby nominate myself for the role of despot.

      Toolie I nominate you for the role of jester.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester#Political_significance

      C'mon.. Dance your little attention monkey dance for me fool ;)

      Delete
    11. zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead:

      lol ...who?

      "He knows that "existence exists"..."

      Yes, true.

      " and so does non-existence"

      No, it doesn't!


      Ahem:

      In the proper context anything can be regarded as a thing. It's certainly a cognitive/mental thing.

      Better ask your mum for help with this one dumbarse

      C'mon... Dance for me some more little attention monkey ;)

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS10:28 AM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "Hear hear! The people are stupid and corrupt"

      No, only the mob.

      "Undeserved wealth" is the "sense of entitlement" of the welfare recipient - the nonproductive, looting swill. It does not apply to those who have produced/earned their wealth.

      You're getting a little confused pussycat :)

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS10:28 AM

      Boring.

      Remind me to have my fool whipped. That'll make him dance better


      Delete
    14. MalcolmS6:37 PM

      "Remind me to have my fool whipped"

      Oh, I dunno... Your medieval mind precludes you from requiring a reminder.

      Delete
    15. Terry wrote "What does ‘meddle’ cover? Presumably it includes individual participation. But does it extend to organisational lobbying such as, say, that by the gun industry?"


      Lobbying is not my own preferred model for meddling in politics but I certainly support group actions.

      Delete
    16. MalcolmS2:20 AM

      Robin: "Lobbying is not my own preferred model for meddling in politics but I certainly support group actions"

      So, what is your preferred model for meddling in politics?

      Delete
    17. Oh, there are many and various. I could go into a few later when I have more time. Consider the way Brendan Nelson was made to change his tune on there being a place for "Intelligent Design" in our public schools when he was Education Minister.

      Delete
    18. The "Bent Spoon" nominations were one tactic that I recall.

      Delete
    19. Robin:

      I can’t see where the dividing line is between lobbying and group action. And just because group action helped bring Nelson to his senses doesn’t make group action a good thing. You forget that group action probably caused him, directly or indirectly, to lose his senses in the first place.

      Governments should just concentrate on doing what’s good for individuals and ignore the importuning of interest groups. Their job is to provide an environment in which children can learn in physical safety how to think freely and sensibly. Governments have no business promoting ideas concerning the content of their education.

      Delete
    20. Oh, I dunno... Your medieval mind precludes you from requiring a reminder.

      Prithee, yon twiddleheaded nobjockey doth speaketh from his aerse again.

      Coachman! Shove a Mangelwurzel up there forthwith! ;)

      Delete
    21. RalphH 27/098:57 PM

      “ "Undeserved wealth" is the "sense of entitlement" of the welfare recipient - the nonproductive, looting swill. It does not apply to those who have produced/earned their wealth.” (MalcolmS10:28 AM)

      One doesn’t have to be a “welfare recipient” to have a “sense of entitlement” Malcolm. Many people are welfare recipients because of the sense of entitlement of ‘fat cats‘ who (because of their wealth) hold some sort of monopoly over the means of production or the legal system (or both) enabling them to feather their own nests at the expense of the community that produces wealth. For example, many CEO’s and company managers who set themselves exorbitant salaries do so from a sense of entitlement. Their wealth is “undeserved” because they haven’t earned it.

      On the contrary side of the ledger, many people who are welfare recipients have either earned their pension or are unemployed due to poor or faulty government control of the economy i.e. the allowing of monopolistic practices and the rewarding of short term projects that rape the land and the economy destroying long term wealth and and future prospects.

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS11:38 AM

      RalphH: "One doesn’t have to be a “welfare recipient” to have a “sense of entitlement” Malcolm. Many people are welfare recipients because of the sense of entitlement of ‘fat cats‘ who (because of their wealth) hold some sort of monopoly over the means of production or the legal system (or both) enabling them to feather their own nests at the expense of the community that produces wealth"

      The "community" does not produce wealth. That's a collectivist/Marxist myth. Only individuals produce wealth. The only individual who has the right to wealth is the producer of that wealth by virtue of his having produced it. It was the recognition of this fact that led to the principle of individual rights in politics. The rise of the so-called welfare state was a direct violation of that principle.

      Delete
    23. " The only individual who has the right to wealth is the producer of that wealth by virtue of his having produced it."

      Who actually produces wealth, the worker or the business owner?

      Delete
    24. Mal: Only individuals produce wealth.

      Too simplistic. Why then do we form companies and other such business entities? Where’s the objective rationality of which you are so fond in not recognising the bleedin’ obvious fact that we are a social species and not a collection of lone rangers?

      We could go on and ask why do musicians band together to produce music? Why do sportsmen band together to play sport? Why do objectivists band together to … to …to … ?

      Delete
    25. That's a collectivist/Marxist myth.

      Know a fair bit about marxism/collectivism dont you?

      Just as I figured. Get a job ya bludger.

      Delete
    26. Why do objectivists band together to … to …to … ?

      Why Terrence old boy, I believe the word you're looking for is "giddyup" . ;)

      Delete
    27. Only individuals produce wealth.

      Dunno 'bout that.
      I do know an individual who produces a fair amount of stupid though

      Delete
    28. MalcolmS4:48 AM

      Stranger: "Who actually produces wealth, the worker or the business owner?"

      Both, if they are productive. A non-productive worker should/would be sacked since production is where his wages come from. A non-productive business owner goes broke. Surprised you didn't know that.

      Delete
    29. MalcolmS4:54 AM

      Terry: ""Mal: Only individuals produce wealth" Too simplistic"

      To simpletons perhaps. Wealth is a product of reason[faculty of] and reason is an attribute of the individual. Hence, only individuals produce wealth.

      "Why then do we form companies and other such business entities?"

      For a number of valid reasons. There is no reason why individuals shouldn't cooperate - they do not lose their individuality by so doing as they do so voluntarily and in contractual agreement. Such individuals are not required to think *collectively* - in fact they couldn't even if they wished to do so. Only individuals think! There is no such thing as collective thought. That's a Marxist myth. You seem to think that human beings are some sort of coral bush or beehive. They aren't!

      "Where’s the objective rationality of which you are so fond in not recognising the bleedin’ obvious fact that we are a social species and not a collection of lone rangers?"

      Don't be so sure! That depends on the "society." I would rather be a "lone ranger" on a desert island than a citizen of the USSR any day!

      Delete
    30. MalcolmS4:57 AM

      idiotcat: "Know a fair bit about marxism/collectivism dont[sic] you?"

      Enough!

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    31. I would rather be a "lone ranger" ...

      Oh you're a lone ranger all right...giddyup ;)

      Delete
    32. Wealth is a product of reason[faculty of] blah blah blah...

      You claim to be a "self funded retiree" and yet your opinions on wealth, economics and thought are all built out of naive meandering reductionist goofyness like this. Its plain as day that anyone foolish enough to follow your "theories" would shortly find themselves living on the street

      Again I call bullshit on your claims.

      You're a teenager, in a basement, with your hand on it and your mum just came in and caught you

      Hard luck son.

      Delete
    33. "Stranger: "Who actually produces wealth, the worker or the business owner?"

      Mal: Both, if they are productive."

      Why then does the boss get more wealth than the worker? Especially if it's the worker that actually creates the thing that creates the wealth?

      Delete
    34. "There is no such thing as collective thought."

      And just before you were lambasting mob rule, which is collective thought. Is there anythign in human behaviuor you actually know about?

      Delete
    35. RalphH 29/099:14 PM

      “The "community" does not produce wealth. That's a collectivist/Marxist myth. Only individuals produce wealth. The only individual who has the right to wealth is the producer of that wealth by virtue of his having produced it.” (MalcolmS11:38 AM)

      I agree with Terry, Malcolm, this is way too simplistic. For starters, it depends on what you consider wealth to be. E.g., many people would include the value of land they, by virtue of the legal system, believe they ‘own’ as part of their wealth. Yet they haven’t produced it. They would also include the naturally occurring produce and resources on that land, yet they haven’t produced that either. (From a religious perspective, “The earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness.” - Psalm 24:1)

      Why does the value of land increase? Because people want and need to use it - a place to live and run a business. It is the press of people (the community) that increases the value of land with it’s naturally occurring resources. Because of this, some hold, with good cause, that it is wrong for anyone to claim more than stewardship or tenancy of land - from the community which (as a whole) creates it’s value.

      “It was the recognition of this fact that led to the principle of individual rights in politics. The rise of the so-called welfare state was a direct violation of that principle.”

      Individual rights (e.g. the holding of tenure to land and the right to use it and it’s resources) are important but so also are individual responsibilities. Access to land and it’s resources creates a huge advantage without which no individual wealth could be created from work or industry. The flip-side of this "right" is a responsibility/debt to the community at large.

      All people are not created equal as to their physical and mental capacities to produce wealth - there is huge variation. A far more important principle than ‘individual rights’, IMO, is that we are all here to serve others in the best way we feel capable of doing.

      It is an unspoken spiritual law that the strong should aid and protect the weak, that the intellectually smart should assist and lead those not so smart. IMO, the “welfare state”, despite it’s openness to abuse because of the corruption of human nature (with greed and laziness), is an attempt to achieve that balance.

      Delete
    36. MalcolmS12:28 AM

      RalphH: "Individual rights (e.g. the holding of tenure to land and the right to use it and it’s resources) are important but so also are individual responsibilities... The flip-side of this "right" is a responsibility/debt to the community at large... A far more important principle than ‘individual rights’, IMO, is that we are all here to serve others in the best way we feel capable of doing"

      I'll tell you what Ralph... just let me know your address and I'll find a few hundred homeless to take you up on that one :)

      Delete
  12. MalcolmS wrote: "That's the problem with democracy - it's just a euphemism for mob rule."

    Better mob rule than elite rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS8:00 AM

      Historically mob rule is a transitory, unstable mix which eventually[usually] becomes elite rule.

      Delete
    2. So you are predicting that democracy will eventually collapse. If so then it is still the best system while it lasts.

      And we managed to keep it mob rule until now, I think we can keep that up for a little bit longer. I am certainly going to keep trying.

      Delete
    3. Historically mob rule is a transitory, unstable mix which eventually[usually] becomes elite rule.

      lol
      News flash Toolie
      "The elite" actually think you are even more ridiculous than I do. And thats saying something!

      Prepare to spend your "golden years" toiling in an arse mine with the rest of the microcephalics

      Sorry 'bout that ... ;) rofl

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS2:56 AM

      toolshead: "And that's[sic] saying something!"

      LOL That'll be the first in a long time dopey.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS7:45 AM

      Robin: "So you are predicting that democracy will eventually collapse. If so then it is still the best system while it lasts"

      I don't think it's the best system. It's the system which murdered Socrates and elected Hitler.

      The best system is a Constitutional Republic based on the [Lockean] principle of individual rights - much like the original US system. What you are calling the "best system" includes the remnants of this system which still exists in Western countries. Without individual rights, democracy [as in ancient Athens] is a nightmare.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS8:25 AM

      Or, to put it another way, it's the principle of individual rights[what's left of it], that gives any protection against the collective[the mob] - not democracy.

      Delete
    7. Or, to put it another way, it's the principle of individual rights[what's left of it], that gives any protection against the collective[the mob]

      lol
      Only if you have a stronger mob to impose the principle of individual rights twiddlehead

      Delete
    8. I don't think it's the best system. It's the system which murdered Socrates...

      "Systems" dont murder people twiddlehead.

      ...and elected Hitler.

      So you would prefer to take away the right of individuals to vote for who they please?

      As I recall the USSR had a system like that.

      See? You talk individual, but walk collective.
      Just what I'd expect from a disillusioned socialist. Get a job

      Delete
    9. Mal:

      Who's the lucky 'mob' that get's to decide what rights individuals are entitled to?

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS wrote: "I don't think it's the best system. It's the system which murdered Socrates and elected Hitler.

      The best system is a Constitutional Republic based on the [Lockean] principle of individual rights - much like the original US system. What you are calling the "best system" includes the remnants of this system which still exists in Western countries. Without individual rights, democracy [as in ancient Athens] is a nightmare."


      To what are you specifically referring to when you talk of the original US system?

      Are you saying that the best system would not include the right for the individual to vote for their Government?

      Delete
    11. Robin: Are you saying that the best system would not include the right for the individual to vote for their Government?

      Geez, Tweety, don’t you know nothin’? Mal’s a raving objectivist. To him democracy’s not about people power. It’s about protection. A government’s one and only job is to protect your right to decide for yourself what’s good for you. After all, you’re rational, right, and you know when and when not to do the right thing?

      In Malworld, if your nose is plugged, the rational thing to do is pluck out the offending booger, and dispose of it as you see fit. The government's is obliged to make sure you are able to do this unhindered. It has no business telling you whether or not plucking out boogers in public is permissible.

      Delete
    12. Robin:

      I should have added that in Malworld individuals also have the right not to have old codgers mine for boogers in front of them. And the government is obliged to protect them from such public displays. All of which creates something of a dilemma for the government. The trouble, of course, is the third of Newton’s famous philosophical laws which states that for every right there is an equal and opposite re-right (philosophy of course being the science of everything).

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS11:19 AM

      Robin: "To what are you specifically referring to when you talk of the original US system?"

      A Constitutional Republic based on the principle of individual rights where each citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. The only system where government is properly a servant and not a ruler. You can't get more specific than that!

      "Are you saying that the best system would not include the right for the individual to vote for their Government?"

      No, I am saying that the function of government is specifically limited by the constitution. You can vote for any candidate but the majority cannot do *anything.* That was not the case in the Athenian polis where a majority *could* vote for anything including the murder of Socrates, not for anything he had done, but for the ideas he held. An unlimited democracy is no different to a lynch mob.

      Delete
    14. A Constitutional Republic based on the principle of individual rights where each citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. [sic]

      So you dont like Australia. Well fuck off then. I can promise that not one person will miss you.

      Or have you already tried that but the Yanks kicked you out again?
      Visa denied - excessive moronicism. lol

      Delete
    15. Malcolm S wrote: "A Constitutional Republic based on the principle of individual rights where each citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. The only system where government is properly a servant and not a ruler. You can't get more specific than that!"

      That is supposed to be the case here in Australia.

      I would be the first to agree that we fall short of this.

      But do you expect perfection?

      Delete
    16. MalcolmS3:23 AM

      Robin: "That is supposed to be the case here in Australia. I would be the first to agree that we fall short of this"

      Yes, we do fall short of this. So why claim: "it[democracy] is still the best system while it lasts"?

      "But do you expect perfection?"

      No, I don't know what you mean by "perfection" in a political context. Perhaps you could explain. I expect *objectivity* in politics and that was what the original US system strived for derived as it was from Enlightenment political thought. Remember that Plato expected "perfection" yet he was the father of Western dictatorship!

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS wrote: Yes, we do fall short of this. So why claim: "it[democracy] is still the best system while it lasts"?

      Where exactly do you see the contradiction in this?

      You appear to be dancing around saying what you mean here.

      Do you think that the best system would be non-democratic, ie that it would not involve people voting for their leader?

      Yes or no?

      If yes, then please explain how your proposed system would work. Would involve any leaders? How would they be appointed.

      If no, then you have just agreed with my statement.

      Delete
    18. Robin: "To what are you specifically referring to when you talk of the original US system?"

      Mal: A Constitutional Republic based on the principle of individual rights where each citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness

      It took them a long time to ban slavery or see black people as citizens.

      Delete
    19. MalcolmS10:22 PM

      idiotcat: "So you dont[sic] like Australia. Well fuck off then. I can promise that not one person will miss you"

      Awe... I dunno pussy :)

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS10:27 PM

      Robin: "Where exactly do you see the contradiction in this? You appear to be dancing around saying what you mean here. Do you think that the best system would be non-democratic, ie that it would not involve people voting for their leader?"

      I explained this at 11:19 AM above. Yes, we vote in the election of officials. No, we do not elect the "leader." A small elite does that. Yes, the best system is non-democratic where the elected are restricted to what they can do by the constitution and by the rule of law. That was not the case in the democracy of the Athenian polis where there were no checks and balances on majority rule[the mob]. Unlimited democracy is almost as bad as dictatorship and usually descends into exactly that. Unlimited democracy ultimately is no different to a lynch mob.

      The principle of individual rights should be enshrined in the constitution. The only thing banned is the initiation of physical force by the citizen [or his elected representative] against another citizen. Government action can be directed only at the force initiator. Hence the police, armed forces and the law courts[based on objective law] are legitimate functions of government. 'Welfare,' education, health, science, transport, roads, public utilities, censorship, conscription, etc are not as all involve the initiation of the use of force by government.

      Delete
    21. MalcolmS10:41 PM

      Stranger: "It took them a long time to ban slavery or see black people as citizens"

      The US did not invent slavery. They inherited it in a world where slavery was noncontroversial. What was the reason for eventually banning it? The discovery of an important Enlightenment political principle: individual rights. Yes, they took too long to ban it. What was the main impediment? The Christian feudal south. Slavery was acceptable in the Gospels - even to Jesus!

      Delete
    22. Slavery was not uncontroversial - there were may, such as Edmund Burke pointing out the contradiction between the fine words about equality and rights and making people property.

      Jefferson even sponsored legislation to strengthen the arm of slave owners against those who were trying to get their freedom.

      The impediment was that all the stuff about freedom and equality was just words.

      it is utterly absurd to idealise that system.

      Delete
    23. MalcolmS wrote: "Unlimited democracy ultimately is no different to a lynch mob."

      But as I don't recall using the phrase "unlimited democracy" then again I ask - what is the contradiction you say in me saying that a democracy is the best system.

      If the system you propose involves people having the right to elect those in power then you agree with me.

      You still have not explicitly answered this. The system that you are proposing as the best - would it be a democracy?

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS wrote: "The only thing banned is the initiation of physical force by the citizen [or his elected representative] against another citizen.

      You never did clear up the problem with this. I go to my neighbor's carport while he is away and hotwire his car and go for a ride in it. I sell it to someone.

      I have not initiated any physical force against anybody. So, under your system, nobody would be able to stop me doing that - right?

      Delete
    25. MalcolmS12:22 AM

      Terry: "Mal: Who's the lucky 'mob' that get's to decide what rights individuals are entitled to?"

      Principles are not discovered by mobs - there is no such thing as collective thought.

      The discoverer of the principle of individual rights was John Locke, Aristotelian, Enlightenment philosopher, the first of the British empiricists and one of the most influential philosophers on the US founding fathers. The best validation of this principle is in the essay “Man’s Rights” in The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

      Delete
    26. Mal: They inherited it in a world where slavery was noncontroversial.

      How could slavery have been uncontroversial in a land where people believed that every man had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

      You live in a fantasy land that’s no different to Ralph’s, except that the probability of him reaching his particular heaven is greater than the probability of you reaching yours.

      What you’re suggesting is that we should leave teenage boys in charge of the drinks cabinet. You are naïve with respect to human nature. We are social animals and we simply do not behave in the idealised manner that you have managed to fool yourself into believing.

      Delete
    27. Mal: The best validation of this principle is in the essay “Man’s Rights” in The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

      You might as well refer me to the Bible. Why would I want to read anything by Rand on selfishness? She didn’t have a clue. Her ignorance is embarrassing.

      Delete
    28. MalcolmS12:44 AM

      Terry: "How could slavery have been uncontroversial[????] in a land where people believed that every man had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

      The historical reason given was that blacks were not fully *human.* That's how it was I'm afraid and remember we have the benefit of hindsight. Deists, who favoured individual rights, were in the minority. Christians, more commonly, still favoured slavery. Remember that only individuals think and discover principles and it takes time to convince the masses.

      Delete
    29. MalcolmS12:51 AM

      Terry: "You might as well refer me to the Bible"

      Yeah.. you're correct.

      I had forgotten how bog ignorant you are.

      Sorry about that.

      Delete
    30. Mal: Remember that only individuals think and discover principles and it takes time to convince the masses.

      Remember? No, I don’t remember. How would I? I don’t attend philosophy for seniors classes in the town hall.

      We are social animals, with brains wired for social life. Most of the time our emotional tail is wagging our rational dog. It is not the individuals who influence the masses. It is the masses who influence the individuals.

      Delete
    31. MalcolmS2:43 AM

      Terry: "We are social animals, with brains wired for social life. Most of the time our emotional tail is wagging our rational dog. It is not the individuals who influence the masses. It is the masses who influence the individuals"

      Speak for yourself sweetheart.

      Oh... that's right... you were.

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    32. MalcolmS3:51 AM

      Terry: "We are social animals, with brains wired for social life. Most of the time our emotional tail is wagging our rational dog. It is not the individuals who influence the masses. It is the masses who influence the individuals"

      So... if the individual [you] cannot know the truth of the above quote and only "the masses" [non-you] can know the truth... how does the individual [you] know that what "the masses" [non-you] say is correct?

      Answer: they can't.

      As I've explained before determinism is self-refuting.

      Hope you were paying attention this time :)

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS wrote: "That's how it was I'm afraid and remember we have the benefit of hindsight."

      As I pointed out earlier, hindsight has nothing to do with it.

      The abolition of the slave trade began in France in the 14th century, in Spain in the 16th century. The Quakers mounted a campaign against it in the 17th century.

      The early Americans would have known all about the abolitionist semtiment from the beginning of their nation and would have heard over and over again about the conflict between their professed ideals and their ownership of slaves and their defence of slave ownership.

      There is no glossing over this with ideas of "hindsight" and judging people by the standards of their time.

      Delete
  13. Meanwhile, on an unrelated topic . . .


    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/fighting-sexually-transmitted-demons-20130925-2udli.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully they'll never breed.

      Delete
  14. Vaguely relevant. The Archdruid has an interesting post this week

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/which-way-to-heaven.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. It would appear Papa Francis is just blowing smoke. Typical bureaucracy, say one thing do another.

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/09/28/exhibition-of-same-sex-snogging-in-churches-outrages-the-vatican-ban-is-slapped-on-gallery/

    ReplyDelete

Followers