Sunday, February 25, 2007

Amazing Grace – A Movie Review




Last Night my wife and I went to Michael Apted’s movie Amazing Grace, staring Ioan Gruffudd. Many will recognize Gruffudd as Horatio Hornblower from the A & E series.

It was a wonderful film, sparking in me a great interest in the conflicts and struggles surrounding the end of slavery in the British Empire. Like all good literature, the film is full of lessons and the lessons of Amazing Grace are particularly important because they instruct those who seek to end today’s evils.

The Hero, William Wilberforce, was revealed as one of the truly great men of history. The genesis of the song “Amazing Grace” presents one of the truly master poems of human inspiration.

Here are some informational clips from the movies web site for your consideration:

“William Wilberforce

“Harriet Beecher Stowe praised him in the pages of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Novelist E. M. Forester compared him to Gandhi. Abraham Lincoln invoked his memory in a celebrated speech. In the houses of Parliament, Nelson Mandela recalled his tireless labors on behalf of the sons and daughters of Africa, calling Britain "the land of William Wilberforce—who dared to stand up to demand that the slaves in our country should be freed."

“William Wilberforce (1759-1833) led the twenty-year fight to end the British slave trade, a victory now regarded as He finally succeeded in March 1807 and continued to fight for abolition until, days before his death in 1833, he saw the institution of slavery abolished throughout the British colonies. Not limiting himself to just abolitionist work, he dedicated his life to what he called his "two great objects:" abolishing slavery in the British Empire and what he called "the reformation of manners [society]." To this end, he advocated for child labor laws, campaigned for education of the blind and deaf, and founded organizations as diverse as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the National Gallery (of Art). "Good causes," it has been said, "stuck to him like pins to a magnet."

John Newton

The legacy of William Wilberforce is tied to his relationship with John Newton. John Newton, an ex-slave trader turned minister and abolitionist, wrote the lyrics for the hymn Amazing Grace and became Wilberforce's spiritual counselor. He set his young protégé on the path of service to humanity. It was only after Wilberforce underwent what he later described as his "great change" or embrace of Christianity, that he became a reformer. Newton knew this to be true, and invoking the deliverance language of the Old Testament Book of Esther, told Wilberforce that it was "for such a time as this" that he had been placed in a position as a powerful Member of Parliament to secure the abolition of the slave trade. It was in the House of Commons, Newton stated, that Wilberforce could best serve God. (Wilberforce biographer and Amazing Grace lead historical consultant, Kevin Belmonte)”


The Lyrics of the Song


Amazing Grace (How sweet the sound)

That sav'd a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.


'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fears reliev'd;

How precious did that grace appear,

The hour I first believ'd!


Thro' many dangers, toils and snare,

I have already come;'

Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,

And grace will lead me home.


The Lord has promised good to me.

His word my hope secures;

He will my shield and portion be,

As long as life endures.


Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,

And mortal life shall cease;

I shall profess, within the vail,

A life of joy and peace.


The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,

The sun forbear to shine;

But God, who call'd me here below,

Will be for ever mine.



The film begins with an intense Parliamentary debate over the American Revolution. A young Wilberforce was for abandoning the war and giving America independence. He was challenged by another MP who demanded he tell the difference between surrender and appeasement. “Time” was Wilberforce answer, but then he went on to explain the real reason that Britain must give the colonies their independence – JUSTICE. This is the thinking of a rational mind. It is not the difficulty or the cost of the cause that commends it – it is its justice. As we examine the causes for which America goes to war, or good men take up cauases, justice - not cost - must always be the deciding factor. As we consider the causes for which we will dedicate our resources, our determination or political support, it must not be the difficulty of those causes but their justice that we consider.



Two parallel plot lines evolved in the movie which enabled the audience to follow Wilberforce and his associates’ decades long struggle against slavery while becoming invested in his life at the time of his great and life threatening struggle to pass the just laws that would end slavery.



What is most instructive in the story of William Wilberforce is his perseverance. Although he faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles he never gave up the struggle for what was right. All of the excuses for maintaining slavery: economic, political, social, and even scientific and religious arguments could not dissuade him from the course of rectitude; nor did the fact that the struggle would be long, and for long futile, deter Wilberforce and his associates from doing the right thing.


This is the great message the struggle against the millennia old abomination of slavery teaches us today. Evil must be endlessly resisted. Whether that evil is a religious fanaticism which, with blood and terror, would establish tyranny upon the earth or an insidious choice that reduces the most helpless of humans to chunks of meat to be discarded or employed in the tinkering experiments of “scientists”; those who recognize evil must stand forever for the right.


Amazing Grace receives my highest rating as a movie because when you come out of the theater you are different than when you went in; because it tells a story, a true story, that all men need to know and consider.

172 comments:

Aeneas said...

Lysis,

Good movie review. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.

Rumpole said...

MindMechanic,

I apologize, as this is long. I’ve tried to address all of your post. If I missed something, it wasn’t through lack of trying.

I do not believe the majority of Europeans would find it just to abort a child with a potential handicap. I do believe that they may find it convenient; I do believe that they may use law to “justify”, just as Americans have in the case of “pro-choice.”

Your point is well made that hearts must be changed; but are those hearts changed by capitulation? Are those hearts changed by suggesting that a mindless slaughter be allowed to continue in order to appease? Don’t those who are to be potentially slaughtered deserve justice?

I would agree that abortion has been a political football for three decades. At the risk of sounding juvenile (and that is not my intention), where did the attacks and the name calling begin? This is an issue that was never decided by the voice of the people; it is an issue that has been decided by liberal courts that are willing to impose their voice upon the people.

Your analogy with the scouting program, while well intended, loses the fundamental issue surrounding the abortion debate. It has been the “rebellious soul” that has imposed his will on a willing scout leader, while that leader attempts to find a way to negotiate his way out of the problem.

Do I show that I am the bigger man by appeasement, by turning the other cheek, while the mindless slaughter continues, or do I promote justice?

By way of history, the abortion debate did not begin as “pro-life” verses “pro-choice.” It began as “anti-abortion” verses “pro-abortion.” When those who supported abortion recognized their initial tact as a losing argument, the discussion changed to one of manipulation. The pro-abortion crowd recognized the law was not to be changed by the voice of the people, so they turned to the courts. Could this have been the beginning of judicial activisim?

What is my solution? Appoint judges that will right the wrong that has been imposed upon the people.

I must also disagree with your analysis on the North verses the South. While compromise may be a successful negotiating tool, appeasement it not. If we go to the table with the terrorists we face today will they sit down and “reason together” with us? The South’s economic success was tied to slavery. Were fathers going to teach their sons over a few generations that the North’s position was the correct one, then turn over the family farm to what they believed to be potential economic ruin?

In the quote I posted from Jefferson, he suggested a methodology (and not necessarily just) to move to a solution for slavery, just as you have implied ought to have been done. In the “four score and seven years” between revolution and emancipation, were any steps taken to move that direction?

I think even Lysis might agree that in this case Jefferson was prophetic when he said “Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it (abolition), or worse will follow.”

You post “The simple fact is we don’t GET 'just' laws...we just get laws.”

In the abortion debate, we didn’t “just get law.” We had law imposed upon us. Now you suggest that we ought to negotiate?

As to your questions:

Would I voluntarily contribute to an open book trust established to provide options and opportunities to women who faced the decision of having or aborting a child? If that trust supported “convenient” abortion, absolutely not.

As to the devastating effects outweighing deaths of millions of unborn, your answer is disappointing to me. I also care about both. I think the issue is worthy of comparison. I choose life.

You ask me to “prove it up front.” I have. We’ve often heard the argument here (and from no one specifically) while discussing war that those who have not been in the service have no right to comment (which I believe to be silly). If that is true, does the following opinion now carry more weight?

We contemplated having a second child after having our first child, and our first child with Down Syndrome. We went to a physician who suggested abortion as a means of birth control after concluding definitive genetic testing on the fetus.

We never went back to that guy. Rather, we went to a physician who suggested that the decision was not to be made after conception; it was a decision that ought to be made with careful consideration before any creation took place.

Our second is () not Down Syndrome. Did you note that I did not put “thankfully?” in the parentheses? He is who he is, just as our first child is.

We debated having a third. It was difficult, especially after my wife had borne comments like “I can’t believe you would dare to have another baby after you had one like that” while she was pregnant with our second.

Our third is twelve now. He loves baseball. He loves to bowl. He loves Scouts. We just went to an -8 degree Klondike. He did quite well. I’m the assistant scoutmaster by my own bidding. I feel the need to “prove-it-up-front” and take care of my second child with Down Syndrome.

He is who he is, and I love him more because of it.

Brazilboy said...

It's great to know that there are still good movies being made. Last night I watched the oascars, a little bit. I was disgusted by the endless parade of self righteosness, extravgance, and self serving hipocracy of it all. It was amazing extravagantly rich people sitting around, giving each other awards and talking about how terrible the world is, and how great they are. Mabey durring the speaches about world poverty and global warming someone could point out that everyone there arrived in stretch limos, wearing dresses that cost more than a thrid world country. Hipocracy I say.

Anonymous said...

Important point:
Whenever Lysis begins by making appeals to ABSOLUTE JUSTICE, his modus operandi is to argue stilted "hypotheticals" and then try to to buttress them with "cost benefit analysis".

I would think that a discussion of ABSOLUTE JUSTICE should preclude COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, a RELATIVISTIC mediator, as a tool of validation.

If one were arguing legal standing of two or three "Constitutional Rights in conflict" then CBA COULD be a useful weiging mechanism for making or arguing pragmatic decisions of policy. However, using a PRAGMATIC process to determine ABSOLETE JUSTICE is like using a "what-ever" popular economic theory of the day to determine absolute GOOD!!!!

Consider the MANY hypotheticals Lysis has introduced over his last few postings -- are they not just simply using CBA as a way to determine ABSOLUTE JUSTICE????

Brazilboy said...

Anônimo,

Big words are impressive, but you’ve said nothing about whether or not Lysis is right, or wrong, just that he argues wrong. I’m in Brazil studying linguistics and the most important thing I’ve learned so far is that what you say is far more important than how you say it. Do you have anything constructive to say about truth or justice (or the lack there of) in the world today? Or is you purpose to act as some kind of “Rules of Argument enforcer,” are you a player here or just a critic screaming foul from the sidelines?

Lysis said...

Brazilboy;

So nice to here from you. I am hoping to soon read the “Captain’s logs” of your adventures studying in “far off lands”. Your comments on Flaccid’s post point directly to the flaw in his logic. He has, as always, defined the words and then attempted to use his meanings as tools to prop up his sad case. As always he has failed.

Flaccid;

Is your over all position that cost benefit analysis is somehow inconsistent with absolute justice? Part of Justice is judgment, decisions based on truth, for which there must indeed be some analysis. Every thing dependents (as Brazilboy has pointed out) on what is the cost and what is the benefit.

Because I would truly like to consider your opinions and make the debate legitimate; I ask you to provide an example of the cost benefit “tool of validation” that you find contradictory to Justice, that we might consider your meaning and not just marvel at your words.

I will attempt some examples myself, but you of course have the right to expand or adjust to establish you full position for our consideration.

Are you claiming that self defense is a cost benefit analysis of the life of the killer v the life of the intended victim? If so It is a just cost to be paid for a just benefit - it is reasonable and completely within the bounds of self-evident truth.

Are you claiming that a woman’s life being spared at the cost of the life of her unborn baby is cost benefit analysis of the life of the mother v the life of the unborn child? If so it is a just cost to be paid for a just benefit – it is reasonable (if it is the mother’s choice) and completely within the bounds of self-evident truth.

Are you claiming that the emancipation of slaves is a cost benefit analysis of the slave’s right to liberty over the slave owners right to property? If so it is a just cost to be paid for a just benefit – it is reasonable and completely within the bounds of self-evident truth. Show me otherwise.

Are you claiming that a child’s right to life - v - any persons anything other than life is a cost benefit analysis that places the life of the child over all other considerations? If so it is a just cost (all other benefits) to bay for a just benefit (the life of the child) – it is reasonable and completely within the bounds of self-evident truth.

Are you claiming that the freedom a people v the oppression of a tyrannical religion is a cost benefit analysis valuing human right to freedom over the power lust of the tyrant? If so it is a just cost to pay for a just benefit – it is reasonable and completely within the bounds of self-evident truth.

I hope you will stand up and deliver on these questions, or provide examples of your own for consideration.

Otherwise, Brazilboy is right – you are a frustrated critic screaming your [unfounded opinions] from the sidelines.

Anonymous said...

BB:
What you say IS how you say it!

"I'm really impressed with your arguments."

Now BB, say this whole sentence emphasizing the first word -- then say the sentence again and emphasize the second -- same for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth repetitiions. See how the MEANING changes when HOW you say it changes?

Meaning is ALWAYS contingent on "HOW you say it."

If, that's what you've learned from your linguistics class -- get a new class!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole...

You ever hear the expression "dont wrestle with pigs...you cant win, you'll just get muddy, and the pig likes it"? To me...THAT is the abortion debate.

I dont suggest appeasement. Never. I encourage you to go to ANY writing that I have done and point to even one suggestion of appeasement.

Oh...wait...are you suggesting that employing effective tactics is actually appeasement?

Our goal is the same. You get that...right? Your path leads to stiff necked argumentation...battles in which even the uninformed and uninvolved willfully engage. Your path leads to political gamesmanship. Your path leads to 30 years of politicking where things get worse and not better. Your path leads to polarization.

Its not that I dont respect your position...I do. I just dont see it having any more chances of succeeding today as it has the last 30 years. In the next 30 years I see it getting worse not better. The position on late term and partial birth abortions confirms that to me.

look at it this way...probably 10 million or so sit firmly on either side of this issue. Another 40 million or so just dont know. My position would be to behave in a manner that wins the hearts of the 40 million and you get what you want.

Lysis said...

Oh Flaccid, how you earn your name sake. No answers, no performance just nasty little nits to pick, and names to call. Somce we all know what name calling means, you have surely given up early this time!

Anonymous said...

I HAVE provided an example of valid ways to use cost benefit analysis in the posting.

Also, I have explained why CBA is NOT valid to justify ABSOLUTE JUSTICE -- why don't you EXPLAIN how it IS????

CBA is often a useful tool for MEDIATION when rights are in CONFLICT -- however, there are definite limitations and weaknesses; ie, 1) "the accuracy of the outcome of cost benefit analysis is dependent on how accurately costs and benefits have been ESTIMATED." 2) It is an imprecise empirical methodology that assesses PROBABILITY by using indicators from the past to make conjectures as to what will happen in the future. 3)"CBA comes from determining which costs should be included in an analysis of the signigicant cost drivers. This is often controversial as ORGANIZATIONS OR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS MAY FEEL THAT SOME COSTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED FROM A STUDY."
______________________

Disputation and argumentation can take various forms.

1. Straight refutation
2. Offering a counter-position

When an original position is offered that is so muddled, distorted and obfuscated,(most Lysis posts) there is little reason to offer a counter-position when it is impossible to know what the ORIGINAL position is -- straight refutation then becomes the ONLY option!!!!

Anonymous said...

MM
I hope you'll not be too insulted . . . but I have not read ANYTHING that has been posted at the Agora on abortion that has greater compassion and lucidness than your comments!!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh, Lies.is.us:
Another tiresome name calling post accusing me of name calling -- there are some interesting arguments out there, why not respond to them????

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

You have not. In your “keep my hands clean” acquiescence, given any position that could possibly win over the hearts of the abortionists. All the appeals to reason you offer are indeed the very ones that have been endlessly proffered by those who hope to save the lives of the unborn, not just since Roe – v – wade, but from long before. Such arguments indeed fall on deaf ears.

Again I recommend you study the progress of the abolition of slavery as the most creditable type for the efforts to end the slaughter of innocents. Read *Uncle Tome’s Cabin* again. See the foolishness of trying to soften the edges of Slavery. In the end even the most benign of masters sold off the children and spouses of their slaves because they could; because there was no law to prevent their inhumane actins to other humans.

We are not wrestling these pigs for fun. These are indeed the swine that turn and rend, they must be stopped or they will continue devourer.

Again, I ask you to state the conciliatory steps you claim will move us from a million murders a year to none. I wish you were right, that we could win these flies with honey, but they are no more attracted to kindness than they are deterred by anger. It is only when the laws of the land match the laws of nature that the murders can be curtailed.

Your” be nice and they will quit aborting” claim is a silly as saying that if we point out the down side of murder and provide companionate alternatives to greed, jealously, passion, and hate, we will be able suspend the laws against murder; make it a matter of private choice.

For thousands of years men from Plato, to Cicero, to Jesus, to Mohammad preached against the evils of slavery, their words were twisted and their wisdom ignored. It was only the laws put forward by men such as Wilberforce and Lincoln that ended the abomination.

We do have laws, laws to protect the helpless from those who would do them harm. There are none more helpless than the unborn; that they have no protection is the great sin and travesty of our time.

As Rumpole has explained and I have assented, there are many things we can do to make the lot of those facing unwanted pregnancy more bearable. To fail to do these things would indeed be foolish. But there is a vast industry and a vast ego that feeds on the lives of babes which can only be countered by the force of law. If we refuse to challenge them for fear of muddying our hand we only enable their atrocities

Try this simple test. Apply your “let’s play nice and they will stop” proposition to any other heinous crime. See how silly it becomes? Do not be deceived by the angry complaints of the killers. Of course they will call foul when apprehended in their insidious goals. But do not be deceived that they will yield otherwise.

Flaccid;

I have given you ample opportunities to clarify and explain your concerns about Cost Benefit Analysis. I have shown why I feel that such a hollow fain of an argument cannot stand. You have pretended to answered with another un-attributed definition and a quote from some unsighted college student’s debate book; a strategy scam; a trick definition to impress another barely thinking tweenager in a debate round. Such silliness falls flat here.

As for name calling – I have done none. I have been forced to apply to your arguments the label they naturally elicit. If you prefer another name – feel free to choose one. You are the one who refuse to designate yourself or your positions for identification by any means of recognition other than there lack of support.

MindMechanic said...

rumpole...

You are right...it WAS a long one!

One of the things I dont like about abortion as a politcal discussion is that it dominates all else. Lysis initial posting contained numerous subjects and candidates, and here we are still discussing abortion. It isnt that it is not important but the passion is obvious. And we AGREE for the most part.

Maybe it is my military upbringing or my military career, but I dont deal with 'fair' or 'just.' When it comes to the laws that are passed (or interpreted), the justness of the law may be discussed but it is seldom included. I disagree with abortion, therefore I see the law as unjust. There are large numbers of people that believe in the womans right to choose and would see criminalizing abortion as unjust.

Regarding the south and slavery...it isnt like every or even most southerners owned slaves. It isnt like whites had the market cornered on slave ownership. It isnt like the opinions in the south were not already changing. And it isnt like the people from the north were loving and benevolent and all wanted change out of the love for their fellow man. The political aspect of abolition came about because northern industrialists were taking a beating on labor costs. lets not fool ourselves into believing that this was purely good vs purely evil. And I do think a change was gon' come.
Thats just an opinion.

"Do I show that I am the bigger man by appeasement, by turning the other cheek, while the mindless slaughter continues, or do I promote justice?"

See...this just kind of annoys me. Dont worry...I'm over it. I'll say it again..what part of my writing or positions or opinions qualifies as appeasement? Do you honestly believe you care more? Do you honestly believe that a proposal designed to affect real and positive change, to change the hearts and minds of others...do you honestly believe that will be effective?

Do I seem like an appeaser to you? You think working to change the hearts and minds...working to end the practice by providing care and support is appeasement? Do you think kicking against the pricks for another 30 years is going to be more effective?

I respect what you have done with your child. I think it is tragic that there are those that would deprive themselves of the blessings your family has had. I know a little of that first hand.

We are once again at this place. Our intent is the same...the disagreement comes from how to accomplish it. Some choose to blow up clinics. Some choose to shoot abortion doctors. Some choose to parade infront of clinics with bottles of aborted children terrorizing young women that are already frightened to death. Some choose just to shout at them, calling them names, spewing venom and hatred. Some just argue about it. Some work to change the laws. Some talk about changing the laws. Some help. Some talk about helping.

Lots of choices.

MindMechanic said...

BB...

Actually...I think I wear the title of “Rules of Argument enforcer”. Anon plays the role of whatever Lysis loves I hate. Whatever he finds value I find worthless.

Its sort of a modern day blog "Kiss Me Kate."

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
I provided some definition of cost benefit analysis.

Don't agree?
Provide one of your own!!!!

You can attribute your sources and I will attribute mine -- though I wonder if there will be a significant difference.

College student's debate book definition????

What is this unreasonable FEAR of college/university textbooks? Don't you counsel students to use their textbooks? Might some of those textbooks ALSO be used at the University?
I do not know what a "debate book" definition would be, but I have some "hands on" experience with the phenomena of academic paranoia at the Agora.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

Great! Throw THAT (agreement) in my face! ;-)

heres the thing...

During the whole abortion argument I didnt hear one person saying "I believe abortion is good, right, positive, happy, great, etc. I really dont know of very many true 'advocates' of abortion. Most are advocates of choice.

I believe it was you that posted the comment regarding the democrats platform "safe, legal, seldom" or something to that effect. Even if we worked TOGETHER just on that point alone...if we didnt feel the need to go to war because one side or the other presents a point, we could save at least a few hundred thousand lives annually (not to mention the positive emotional changes we could bring about).

It is the absolutism that keeps us divided. It is the absolutism that keeps adoption as an alternative out of planned parenthood and abortion clinics. It doesnt always HAVE to be a war.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

2

Thats all.

I can personally name just 2 children that were not aborted but given an opportunity for life. 1 is with her mother...the other is with an adopted family through LDS family services.

Just two.

It's a start.

MindMechanic said...

"Apply your “let’s play nice and they will stop” proposition to any other heinous crime. See how silly it becomes? Do not be deceived by the angry complaints of the killers."

Sorry...this is just an asenine comment.

Most young women that choose abortion are not killers, for God's sake. They are scared frightened children. They dont see any other options. They pay for their sins with emotional trauma that is devastating. They dont do it wrecklessly or carelessly.

And you in your absolute vision of righteousness believe that somehow offering that child a different path, a different choice, you equate that to playing nice with killers? Yikes.

Lysis said...

Flaccid;

I have no problem with your definition of Cost Benefit Analysis, I simply asked you to explain why it makes one iota of difference to this discussion. All value judgments are base on comparing “cost and benefits”; your saying that “make it Relativism” is just Relativism. One can only make just decisions if one obeys the natural laws and the absolute truths that govern right and wrong.

I have no problem with college text books in general. My beef is with the debate strategy handbooks prepared by college debate teams and sold to high school coaches who are not willing to teach their students how to think but rather allow them to be programmed to impress college kids judging debate tournaments. Since you give no attribution to the silly spike on CBA you quote, I am left to assume it is just such a child concocted trick you quote. You surly used it as such.

I am still waiting for you to present ONE argument on the topic of abortion. One justification for your support of the no holes barred mass murder unleashed by the Roe –v- Wade decision. You of course cannot, but will continue to obfuscate and duck, spouting pretentious definitions and meaningless insults.

Mindmechanic;

Young women who choose abortion are killers. They are indeed reckless and carelessly destroying a life that is under their protection and in need of their care. That many killers are scared, frightened children, or hungry ones, or angry ones, or greedy ones, does not excuse the fact that a human life is being destroyed when there is NO JUST CAUSE. Fear and youth are not just excuses for killing another human being; it does not excuse this crime. Young women, and old ones, need to be offered “the other options” as the only options. Then they will not have to pay for their sins with devastating emotional trauma.

I am not at all against offering a child a different path, a different choice, but that different choice cannot be needlessly killing one helpless child for the benefit of another. That is a cost we cannot pay, the benefit not worth the price.

Let us provide shelters, schools, foster parents and grandparents, free health care, classes, and opportunities; connections to desperate childless people who would do anything to have the precious souls these scared kids would in ignorance destroy - Millions for defense but not one penny to pay for murder!

We must have laws that protect and nurture the unhappy mothers and defended and nurture the unborn children. We must strike down the pretence of law that allows one child’s frightened and ignorant choice to destroy the life of another. A horrendous act which you yourself admit affects them to their determent and despair.

You say: “And you in your absolute vision of righteousness believe that somehow offering that child a different path, a different choice, you equate that to playing nice with killers? Yikes.”

What absolute vision of righteousness are you accusing me of holding? That all life is sacred, that all life must be preserved if it can be, that a nation of our wealth and a medical profession of ours competence should insure life to all not convenience to some at the cost of death to others. YES – IN THIS I AM ABSOLUTE. That you are not is the real YIKES in this discussion.

Cameron said...

MM,

I understand your position. Women who become pregnant under less than ideal circumstances have hard choices to make. When she is just a teenage girl instead of a woman, the choices are even harder.

However, only about 20% of abortions are performed on teenagers. More than 68% are performed on women between the ages of 20-34. I interpret those numbers to mean that the great majority of abortions are done not for the benefit of a scared little girl, but because people want to postpone parenthood and choose to abort the fetus.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with your "put up or shutup" point. The screamers outside of abortion clinics do no good. Pregnancy crisis centers should abound that give women and girls all the options available to them. However, abortion advocates tend to fight just as hard against even mentioning the alternatives as they do against banning abortions. It is still very difficult to enact even the simplest abortion prevention measures. It is that resistance that causes frustration, and that causes the calls of hypocrisy towards those that chant "safe, legal, and rare".

Rumpole said...

MindMechanic

Perhaps in my weakness I misconstrued your meaning when I offered that you are an appeaser. If I made incorrect inferences from what you have written, I apologize. However, here is an example of what you have written that leads me to conclude what I have:

“The best way to win a tug of war is to let go of the rope. Show your intent in actions. When given a contrast between love and support and blind hatred and anger...I can guess which side wins.”

Perhaps I misunderstand your analogy, but when I “let go of the rope,” I throw up my arms in despair. Where I come from, when I “let go of the rope”, I am acknowledging defeat.

I am not willing to do that when it comes to the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.

On more than one occasion you have posted something like “Some choose to blow up clinics. Some choose to shoot abortion doctors. Some choose to parade in front of clinics with bottles of aborted children terrorizing young women that are already frightened to death. Some choose just to shout at them, calling them names, spewing venom and hatred.”

I don’t think I have ever conveyed that I think violence and anger are solutions to this difficult problem. But I also don’t think that dropping the argument in favor an approach of heartfelt backdoor education, if you will, will solve the problem.

As I have posted, the “right” to an abortion has never been determined by the people. It is the result of a judiciary seeking to impose rather than willing to protect.

I echo Lysis’ position that abortion is not a right. Murder never has been.

As you have implied, the difficulty in an abortion discussion is that it is so emotional that statements like I just wrote become very inflammatory.

Though you postings I can see that you have a great ability to build a consensus. Perhaps my inability for that same kind of “consensus building” is my weakness; for I am unwilling to attempt to negotiate for a God give right that has been taken away under the pseudonym of “choice.”

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

As to your comments on the South and slavery:

“Regarding the south and slavery...it isnt like every or even most southerners owned slaves. It isnt like whites had the market cornered on slave ownership. It isnt like the opinions in the south were not already changing. And it isnt like the people from the north were loving and benevolent and all wanted change out of the love for their fellow man. The political aspect of abolition came about because northern industrialists were taking a beating on labor costs. lets not fool ourselves into believing that this was purely good vs purely evil. And I do think a change was gon' come.

Thats just an opinion.”

1. You will be surprised at the number of southerners who owned slaves. I have documented statistics which I will be glad to show you tomorrow.

2. The number of southerners who had slaves does not diminish the virulence with which the armies of the South fought to defend slavery. They killed and died by the hundreds of thousands to maintain this peculiar institution. Your belief that they were ready to acquiesce to its abolition through kindness is belied by the century of bigotry and continued murder and oppression of blacks that followed emancipation.

3. As for the dedication of northerners to the abolition movement, your skepticism concerning their motives is demeaning at best. There may well have been northerners motivated by profit. Though how southern slavery effected northern wages is neither supported in your claim nor by history for that matter; the average Yank in the ranks was indeed motivated by the fight against slavery. Even Lincoln’s detractors acknowledge he played the emancipation card to bolster support for the war in the north and in the Union Army.

You might be willing to discount the evil of slavery which motivated the South and diminish the goodness of the sacrifice of the Union soldiers who died to end slavery, I am not.

Perhaps you should spend an evening watching the movie “Glory” or in even more serious study the sacrifices made by northern blacks to bring freedom to the slaves. I am not willing to accept that the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who died in the Civil War did so out of greed.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"I am not at all against offering a child a different path, a different choice, but that different choice cannot be needlessly killing one helpless child for the benefit of another. That is a cost we cannot pay, the benefit not worth the price."

I say this yet again...IF YOU REALLY WANT CHANGE...then change their hearts.

They ALREADY HAVE THAT CHOICE. You speak as if it is an option they cannot have and if you havent gotten it yet...they HAVE it and have exercised it at least 44 million times in the last 30 or so years. YOU are the one that is now trying to change policy. If you want that policy to change, then you maybe ought to consider a path different from the failed policies of the last 30 years.

Scream BAN until you are blue in the face, and it will change nothing.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"That all life is sacred, that all life must be preserved if it can be, that a nation of our wealth and a medical profession of ours competence should insure life to all not convenience to some at the cost of death to others. YES – IN THIS I AM ABSOLUTE. That you are not is the real YIKES in this discussion."

How is it working for you so far?

It just blows my mind that somehow in your mindset you create this ideal that I value life LESS because I believe there are more effective paths to accomplishing change than the one you are talking about.

Beyond talking about it here and taking your very principled moral stance, what are you doing to bring it to an end? And again...how is that working?

MindMechanic said...

Cameron...

Your interpretation is that these 20 to 34 year olds are NOT at that time, scared little girls. I dont mean to be crass...but does that make them all mindless killers as well?

"abortion advocates tend to fight just as hard against even mentioning the alternatives as they do against banning abortions. It is still very difficult to enact even the simplest abortion prevention measures."

I get this. I stated it in the last thread. So...dont you think it is time to employ a little bit of a different tactic? I mean...if we REALLY care about the 1.3 million babies that will be killed this year...dont you think there are more effective ways to save lives than scream across the police lines at each other?

MindMechanic said...

"when I “let go of the rope,” I throw up my arms in despair."

When I "let go of the rope", I watch my opponents fall squarely on their as....errrr....butts. I dont get dragged into the mud with them. Its not that I CANT engage in a tug of war...it is that I find the tug of war a useless game.

I would rather find a more effective way of ending abortion than screaming and shouting about it.

"I echo Lysis’ position that abortion is not a right."

I am not playing word games... I understand the whole moral right, God given right argument. But you arent fighting against God you are fighting against the federal government and the US Supreme Court and...bad news...they happen to disagree with you.

"I am unwilling to attempt to negotiate for a God give right that has been taken away under the pseudonym of “choice.”"

Which kind of leaves you hosed. Because bottom line...you arent holding any cards to negotiate from.

I am exhausted by all this. I can not stress strongly enough...there isnt a soul here that finds abortion more or less abhorent than the others. I dont like that it IS the law of the land. I dont think we are ready to change that. I KNOW the political climate isnt ready. Because of that, I adopt the position that it is imperative that you prepare that climate for change by effective loving and caring measures. Otherwise you will continue to be blessed with moral superiority...but you wont get the law of the land changed.

MindMechanic said...

And BTW...Rumpole...

I dont see me doing a whole lot of consensus building here...just for the record.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

I eagerly await your statistics. I wonder if they will include Anthony Johnson, the slave owenrs of Lousiana, etc.

"Your belief that they were ready to acquiesce to its abolition through kindness is belied by the century of bigotry and continued murder and oppression of blacks that followed emancipation."

Just a thought...but do you suppose the century of bigotry and continued murder might just have been fed by being forced into submission and resistance to coersion?

"You might be willing to discount the evil of slavery which motivated the South and diminish the goodness of the sacrifice of the Union soldiers who died to end slavery, I am not."

So...this is how it feels? Heck...I'm not even an Anon...I just hold a slightly different (and not even a necessarily contradictory opinion)...and the wrath of Lysis then concludes that somehow I discount the evil of slavery?

"Perhaps you should spend an evening watching the movie “Glory” or in even more serious study the sacrifices made by northern blacks to bring freedom to the slaves."

Sorry...a little chuckle there and I had to rewrite the whole paragraph...

So...should I believe the "Glory" version that showed the white northern soldiers treating the freed niggers as worthy of nothing more than looting and burning because thats all the little monkeys had in their nature? I seem to recall in that wonderfully inspiring movie that it was only but a few northern soldiers that championed the blacks and their ability, let alone their right to fight. Doesnt that sort of make my point?

How welcome were all those free'd slaves in the north? Oh no...freedom...sure...but you stay down there in the south...

But once again...the funny part...you somehow think that because I think MAYBE Rumpoles posting regarding a possibly different solution to the slavery issue has some sort of POSSIBLE validity though there is of course NO WAY we can know...YOU then want to make this into an idea that I think somehow slavery wasnt an evil institution?

You think that because I question the idea that all of the north was wonderful and noble and NOT really interested in the economic gain from forcing fair labor with the south...you make that as...what...I dont know an attack on abolitionists?

Yeah...those race relations north of the ol Mason-Dixon line have been just peachy.

MindMechanic said...

for the record...I wiped out about thirty quotes of direct statements from northern politicians regarding the freed slaves and their less than human status because really...what on earth is the point?

I made THIS one statement...I believe that maybe just maybe there was a better path to enlightenment. Maybe just maybe there was a better and more effective path to ending slavery (based on...I dont know...the progress already made in the country).

And from that, I am attacking abolitionists and defending the evil practice of slavery?

Now if you want to talk straight history regarding motives of the north and south...fine...I guess. Will we be fighting the civil war over as well?

Just what are we arguing here?

For the record...the war was fought because Lincoln in his wisdom believed that the country could not be divided. He fought seccession. THAT is what the soldiers from the north were fighting for.

"And, of course in 1861, it all came to a head, as Southern states seceded to become the Confederate States of America. President Abraham Lincoln led the charge into the Civil War by insisting that the fight was to preserve the Union, not to free slaves. His position placated strategically crucial slave-owning states that chose to remain in the Union.

According to famed historian Howard Zinn, "Lincoln was certainly not an abolitionist. He found slavery personally abhorrent, but ending it was not his first priority ... He was a lawyer, with a legalistic approach to slavery: the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to interfere with slavery in the states. "

Maybe he just wished he could have accomplished his initial plan...which was to send the freed slaves back to a colony in Africa.

My ONLY POINT is that the intent of the north was not lilly white and pure. I am not denigrating the service and sacrifice of those that ultimately reunited the country and resolved the slavery issue. All I have suggested is that MAYBE there was a better way.

Cameron said...

MM,

Your interpretation is that these 20 to 34 year olds are NOT at that time, scared little girls. I dont mean to be crass...but does that make them all mindless killers as well?

No. They are not mindless killers. I do not condemn them as murderers. But a pregnant 30 year old is a far different situation than a pregnant 15 year old.

I have thought about your arguments a great deal. I hope you do not feel picked on, and I appreciate your earnestness and honesty in defending your position. Something you wrote earlier was brought to my mind. You wrote something about how there are x amount of people on either side with concrete views of abortion, and 40 million (?) people that really just aren't sure. I couldn't agree more. This is actually a point I made some weeks ago on another blog. This is perhaps the crux of your argument, and where I will happily join your side. There is an awful lot of ambiguity amongst the public concerning abortion. The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece about it a few years ago. This is where the education and "changing hearts" comes into play. These people stuck in the middle of the mindless yelling between the two opposing factions are retreating from the debate because of the actions of those that really need them to engage. If the argument is posed in terms that are normal, reality based, and level headed, then perhaps the debate will receive an influx of level headed people. If enough hearts are changed, then maybe the tug-of-war rope won't have to be let go of at all.

Dan Simpson said...

After hours of deep reflection I have come to the conclusion that the abortion issue is used by the parties as an opiate for their constituencies.

As long as the two groups can come home 'triumphant' pointing to their record defending life/choice, neither constituency looks too closely at the fact that they ignore social security reform, environmental issues, the economy, immigration, etc.

This is not to say that abortion is not an important, nay vital issue in our country, but it has become THE issue, to the exclusion of all others. Disagree if you will, it is only my opinion, but I would point you to the process were by we gain Supreme Court justices.

Though they are overstepping what they should (can) do, the Senate grills a nominated justice for days and days, and what is the foundation of all the questioning? What is your stance on abortion, and what would you do on the court i.e. abortion. Nevermind that it goes directly against all judicial ethics and rules for them to answer that question, all the Senate wants to know is their stance on that one issue.

It is obvious to me that MM abhors abortion, and I think that looking at the last 30 years, heck looking at the last ten, we should be able to agree that the current direction is not working to end abortions. Why, then, is it deplorable to look at different options.

MindMechanic said...

Cameron...

"No. They are not mindless killers. I do not condemn them as murderers. But a pregnant 30 year old is a far different situation than a pregnant 15 year old"

I understand the logic of your position if not the factual portion. I would contend that a 30 year old facing an abortion is just as scared (or emotionally damaged) regardless of the stressors or circumstances that brought her to that point.

And please understand that at no time do I suggest we can or should absolve people for the responsibility of their choices. All I have suggested is that those that really want to do something about abortion...well...there ARE things that can be done. And when that choice is still made, let God handle the judging part... and show that person love and support.

"I hope you do not feel picked on"

Nah...I dont take it personally...even when it is meant personally. A little exasperatted at times...but then...dont we all feel that way sometimes.

Your point regarding the WSJ article and the people that are stuck in the middle...it is a valid point I believe (of course I think it is brilliant and valid...it coincides with mine!). By work and action show your message and you will win hearts and THAT will affect change.

I also totally understand the points presented by Lysis and Rumpole. It wasnt long ago and I was in the same place. I still agree with them that I would like to see it a practice that is ultimately eliminated. I just think there are more effective (and different-gasp!) ways to accomplish that same goal.

The abortion argument is similar to the religion debate. We spend so much time battling each other as Christians based on who is 'right' that Satan wins by default. People are judged by their underwear or the number of candles they burn and at what time of the year and meanwhile the influence of Satan goes unchecked.

Drives me a little crazy sometimes (I love saying that...).

MindMechanic said...

Dan...

To put it in the language of the modern war on terror...which somehow everything gets back to...

I have never suggested that winning the war should not be our ultimate goal. I think a change in tactics is in order. Sometimes the only answer is to charge Normandy Beach. Other times...maybe a flanking maneuver might be more effective and maybe an airborne attack might soften the defenses more allowing for a greater chance for success.

And for the sake of Pete...suggesting a change in tactics does NOT denigrate the service and sacrifice of the thousands that struggled and died at Normandy.

When the war on terror being waged in Iraq had it's strategy altered people equated a change in tactics or leadership as a signal of our intention to quit the war. Obviously that is not the case...it was an attempt to change strategy for the same outcome.

The same goes with the abortion argument. I didn't propose changing tactics as a means of appeasement or capitulation. If anything...it requires greater effort on behalf of the armies of the righteous and just.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I am all for changing hearts, but we must also change laws. When did the hearts of Southern slave holders change? Was it the 19th century during the time of reconstruction and the birth of the KKK? Was it during the early twentieth century under the Jim Crow Laws and forced segregation? Was it in the 1950’s and 1960’s during the hard fought battle for integration? How many lynching have there been in the South since they changed their hearts down there?

My screaming will probably change nothing, but when I contemplate the slaughter of innocence so many countenance in the name of choice, I am forced to scream.

I am not against any of the “paths” you recommend, but until the law is changed the murders will continue. The type of slavery and racism as an instruction here is undeniable. It was the Emancipation Proclamation the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and such legal actions as the Brown – v – Board decision that put an end to slavery and pushed our nation away from the grip of racism and legalized bigotry. The alternatives were always out there but it took the National Guard to open the doors of the schools, it took the full weight of the President and the U.S. Attorney General to open the hearts of Americans. It took Martin King’s marches and long suffering in jail and Thurgood Marshal’s endless days in court to change the unjust laws, enforce the just ones and bring Justice to all Americans.

I do not reject heart changing – I call for it, I demand it! Why do you deny the necessity of Law?!

You ask what I do about it. I take about it, I study the truth, I challenge the lies, I teach my 200+ students the truth year after year; I support the political party whose platform seeks to protect with constitutional authority the life of all Americans. What part does each rain drop play in the rising flood? The part it can to bring the cleansing tide.

As for Statistics. I will post the document on the original web log tonight but here are is the RATIO OF SLAVEHOLDERS TO FAMILIES from the 1860 tax census. Remember that there is a tendency to UNDER REPORT taxes.

Also remember that for every family owning salves all members of that family owned slaves in the same sense that my kids all claimed to own a car when they lived in my house and drove my car.

Mississippi of 63015 Free Families 30943 owned slaves or 49%. The percentages of families holding slaves for other slave stats are: South Carolina 46%, Georgia 37%,
Alabama 35%, Florida 34%, Louisiana 29%, Texas 28%, North Carolina 28%, Virginia 26%, Tennessee 25%, Kentucky 23%, Arkansas 20%, Missouri 13%, Maryland 12%, and Delaware 3%.

And again, what is also important is that every family that sent sons to fight for slavery supported the institution with their blood though they did not participate in it as owners.

Do I believe that, “bigotry and murder might have been fed by being forced into submission and resistance to coercion?” I believe, so what. I imagine the murder and drug gangs of many inner cities will blame the police and the law for their violence. I guess Bigotry and hate are personal choices. The “if you silly people hadn’t made heroin illegal we wouldn’t have to murder you to get the money to buy it” argument is no more lame then the “if you nasty northerners hadn’t freed our slaves we wouldn’t have to mistreat the blacks” argument.

As for bigotry in the north, this is the same “two wrongs must make it right” position so often demonstrated by those who have no reasonable stand to take.

Of course northern whites mistreated blacks – does that excuse slavery? Of course back alley butchers perpetrate abortion - does that excuse infanticide done in the sterile hospital suite?

And don’t go throw up your hands and lament that “Lysis is picking on me.” I’ll chuckle at that – confident you were joking. You at least are giving your best arguments and not retreating behind word games and debate tricks.

Mindmechanic, I would not expect you to put forward less than your most heart felt arguments, more than your best effort to support your point, would you expect less of me? I would never let go the rope in the middle of our tug of war just for the pleasure of seeing you dumped on your butt. If my best effort can’t pull you across the line, I at least will hold on until you drag me over. Won’t your victory be that much sweeter, knowing it came against my best efforts, not some make you feel good half effort?

I have no problem with your different solutions; I have a problem with a nation which protects with the force of its laws the merchandizing of human beings and I have trouble with a nation whose laws allows frightened and ignorant children to choose to destroy two lives in a false solution to their problems.

The debate over the reasons for the Civil war is long and intense, there are quotes aplenty on both sides, and it is also moot in this case. Whatever the motivation for Lincoln’s actions, the Southern States left the Union to preserve slavery, and slavery was wrong. The division in America over slavery goes back to before the Revolution, before the Declaration of Independence, before the Constitution. Slaver has always been wrong. Laws that protect this abomination have always been unjust. It is the same with abortion. Like all other killing it can only be justified in self defense – and only then by the choice of she who faces death.

Cameron;

Call unjust killing what you will – it does not make them just. What we need to do is find a solution for the 15 year old and the 30 year old. I think the ambiguity you sight is to a large extent the fault of a legal system that permits killing of babies. I mean if the laws of the nation and the dignity of the Supreme Court stand behind it many Americans are forced into confusion. This was once the case with slavery and segregation. The way to clear up the ambiguity is to accept that unborn humans are still humans with an unalienable right to life and set about building a system to justly defend them and their mothers.

Dan;

I agree with you entirely, abortion is THE ISSUE! Even the Democrats’ lack of support for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in general is a result of their need to defend abortion. They have been willing to sell out their troops and their nation’s security to construct a wedge issue to leverage political power, and they need that power to control the Supreme Court and defend abortion.

I am for any option that will work, the option with the most promise is the over turn of the abortion on demand interpretation of Roe –v – Wade and a recognition of the rights of the unborn. When blacks were not considered humans it was easy to create ambiguity and confusion in the minds of those who otherwise would never have condoned their enslavement. The same pernicious lie concerning children now makes it possible for proponents of abortion to hide behind the code word “choice” to continue their atrocities.

Dan Simpson said...

I guess my post was easily misinterpreted.

First, it seems that MM thought I was disagreeing with him, and had to re-defend, not the case.

Second, Lysis seemed, and I may have misconstrued his post, to think I was in support of the idea that abortion has become 'the' issue.

I hate that it has dengrated to that, and think that the parties, both of them, manipulate politics and are able to ignore, or mishandle incredibly important topics across the board as long as they vote right on 'the' issue.

MindMechanic said...

Dan...

"First, it seems that MM thought I was disagreeing with him, and had to re-defend, not the case"

Must have been some error in my posting...that wasnt the intent.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

I know you dont see it this way, but your post proves my point.

FORCING laws on the south didnt change them. 100+ years later as you have previously pointed out there is still anger, hatred, and bigotry. I submit that is not because people of the south are wicked and evil...it is because the people of the north forced their will on them with their boot to their neck.

And please let go of the idea that because I submit that maybe there is a better path it somehow means I defend slavery...or abortion.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"My screaming will probably change nothing, but when I contemplate the slaughter of innocence so many countenance in the name of choice, I am forced to scream."

Do you get that you are not alone? Do you get that I find the practice at least equally repugnant? Do you get that my goal is to not make abortion palatable but to induce REAL choice...and that choice means life? do you get that I am not an opponent here?

You talk of the current situation and of course I agree with you. I have said...we didnt get here by mistake or accident...laws were passed and the country then went through several decades of pervasive lack of personal responsibility. That era was ushered in by wreckless governmental decisions and intentional governmental programs.

But here we are. You submit that we can stop on a dime, once you get enough support to do so. I submit that in 30 years there hasnt been enough support and considering trends towards irresponsible behavior, you wont get the support in the NEXT 30 years. and at least 44 million more will die. And IF somehow the law is reversed tomorrow, it will have the same impact as a busload of people travelling at 100 MPH and then colliding with a brick wall. And that is IF.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Yes, bigotry continued, and racism and its justification continue, but slavery was ended. Are you now contending that we and the slaves would have been better off otherwise? To you pretend that you or anyone else had some secret plan for ending slavery that never came to fruition because of the inconvenient reality of Emancipation. I would like to consider such a plan, please suggest it.

MindMechanic said...

"I do not reject heart changing – I call for it, I demand it! Why do you deny the necessity of Law?!"

It is a simple matter of perspective. I believe you put your socks on first THEN your shoes. You believe no, by the Gods, put your shoes on NOW!!!

Assuming of course you can find your shoes (pass the laws) in the first place.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

I dont have the luxury of going into a time machine and trying something different. I DO have the luxury of examining history and seeing what I can learn from it.

Freedom from slavery spread throughout the northern states. It started in places like Rhode Island and Pennsylvania long before we became a country. It spread to other states. It spread not by force or coersion, but because slavery was wrong and people knew it.

Once again...you attach an extreme argument to my words. I dont think slavery was a good thing. I dont think slavery should have continued. Heck...I dont think slavery should have ever begun. I think the commonwealth made a huge mistake when they allowed Anthony Johnson 'ownership' of the first slave in America (though indentured servitude could easily be called conditional slavery).

I am not an apologist. My ancestors came to the country in the 1880's from Denmark. My conscience is clear. But if my ancestors DID own slaves, it is unlikely I would feel personal shame because I still had nothing to do with it. Likewise I dotn take pride in ending the practice of slavery because again...I share no part in that.

There are some that would suggest that decendents of slaves actually benefit from the sacrifice of their forefathers because it brougt them here. I think that is a ludicrous argument as well.

Slavery as an institution was practiced around the world. It still is practiced today. we didnt start the fire but we did end it as a practice sooner than any other country.

All that I have suggested is that MAYBE if it had been done differently the attitudes of others might have changed more effectively and that the posterity of all might have benefitted. All I use for examples are the examples of the northern states and the national trend as a whole.

I too am a student of history. I think if you put down the propogandist history that teaches that North is good, South is bad, Northerners were loving benevolent and honorable and southerners were wicked and evil, if you give an honest look at history what you will see is the period of 1840's and 1850's, northern industrialists objected to the unfair labor practices of the south which gave them a competitive advantage and the northern politicians objected to the unfair advantage of southern politicians (based on unequal representation referred to as slave power). To counter these things they began to try to pass laws. The southern states objected and then threatened and ultimately ceceeded.

Does that in some way disparage the true northern abolitionists? No. Does that in any way demean the sacrifice of northern soldiers? No.

Do I intend to re-fight the civil war?

I wonder...on whose side would you place me?

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Do you get that I am not calling for a train wreck? Were have I ever called for that, I am calling for the reversal of an erroneous misinterpretation of Roe – v – Wade. I am calling for the recognition that unborn humans have the same right to life as born ones. I am not for punishing those who have had abortions in the past, any more that Lincoln called for the punishment of the former slave owners after the Civil War. But there can be no end to abortion as long as it is protected by the unjust miss-interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

I am for all the programs you suggest, all the education and compassion, but all are useless in the face of a Constitutional misrepresentation that allows murder to be done in private because we continue to pretend that the victims are not human.

The correct interpretation of Roe – v – Wade will not punish anyone, it will put a stop to unjust law. All the programs and possibilities you continually and obliquely refer to can come into efficacy when children are protected. To pretend that we cannot offer alternatives to abortion once we have prohibited it, is as foolish as arguing that American could not heal the evils of slavery once the slaves were emancipated.

It is the legalized killing of the unborn that is the injustice here. I am not calling for anything more or less than justice.

Do you know that Congress actually passed a law against debate in the House concerning slavery. They somehow thought that they could do away with the problem by shutting up the screamers; men such a Benjamin Franklin, whose dying act was to demand that the laws of the United States conform to the laws of nature and abolish slavery.

America bumped along for four score and seven years pretending it could be a nation founded on principles of liberty while condoning slavery. How many years would you have allowed slavery to continue, would you condone it still today, if it would avert the terrors of war or the discomfort of angry debate? Of course you would not, why are you willing to acquiesce to an even more abominable injustice in the name of harmony? It is not logical. It is a trick of those who need to maintain the legality of abortion, the perpetuation of the injustice.

Let me reiterate. For decades abortion was illegal throughout the United States. There were terrible things that continued to occur, but millions of live were saved and the rights of the unborn justly defended by just law. We need to return those rights to the unborn and then while they enjoy the legal protection of the Constitution bring about the changes in society that will enable women to be protected and children to be defended from the challenges of unwanted pregnancy. Get the cart before the horse!

I am not spewing hate or anger; I am talking reason. It is the only defense of the unjust to characterize the call for the protection of life as hate speech. Answer me this; to allow everything you call for to be done, why must abortion remain under the protection of unjust law?

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

I dont dispute your stats. I think they are probably somewhat bloated. But how can we really know...after all...the census reports of the 60's claims that approximately 6,000 freed slaves travelled the underground to freedom while unoffcial claims place that number at 600,000.

To be effective we need comparison. I hope the link you post has slavery statistics for the 30's, 40's and 50's.

And BTW...I didnt complain that you were picking on me. Heck...I love a good debate. I DO NOT like the illogical leap that because I disagree with process I must somehow support evil. That is what I pointed out. I dont support abortion because I think there are different ways to bring about change. I dont support slavery because I think there could have been more effective means of ending it. I dont support slavery because I believe the intentions of the northerners were not necessarily all pure and lilly white. I dont denigrate the sacrifice of others because some in the north were less than integrous in their intent.

I believe the simple cause of preserving the union was just cause for going to war. That it hasnt the end of slavery is a good thing...but did it cost 140 years of hatred in the process? I dont know the answer to that question. It is something to consider. It is arrogant to assume.

Just as it is bigoted to assume that the only reason for continued anger from the south is that the south is populated by a bunch of racists.

Like any other disorder...ask what causes the anger. An alcoholic isnt born with an alcohol deficiency. And a racist isnt born with racist genes. You want to help the alcoholic find out what is causing pain, dont try to cure the alcoholism. Same theory applies.

MindMechanic said...

"To you pretend that you or anyone else had some secret plan for ending slavery that never came to fruition because of the inconvenient reality of Emancipation"

The only secret plan I know of is the one favored by Lincoln to send all the slaves back to Africa after they were freed.

I dont think there was a secret plan to free the south. I DO think the institution was on it's way out. Or do you submit it was just the northern states that were capable of enlightenment?

MindMechanic said...

phew...I think that covered them all...

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"Do you get that I am not calling for a train wreck?"

1.3 million to zero by the stroke of a pen. THAT would be a train wreck. How many people would you jail? How many doctors? How many mothers? What would be the consequence? Are we REALLY ready for that? (and keep in mind...my goal is to make us ready for that...and not in another 30 years).

"I am calling for the recognition that unborn humans have the same right to life as born ones."

And I agree...which is why I call for people to start acting like it and not like it is a campaign slogan.

"I am for all the programs you suggest, all the education and compassion, but all are useless in the face of a Constitutional misrepresentation that allows murder to be done in private because we continue to pretend that the victims are not human."

I am all for ending the legal practice of abortion but it is USELESS unless you can first create an environment where support programs are in place, compassionate care is offered, real hope and alternatives are provided, and personal responsibility is taught.

"To pretend that we cannot offer alternatives to abortion once we have prohibited it, is as foolish as arguing that American could not heal the evils of slavery once the slaves were emancipated."

To pretend there wont be tragic consequences if we simply ban abortions is foolish as assuming there wouldnt be racial strife for 140 years following the forced abolition of slavery.

"It is the legalized killing of the unborn that is the injustice here. I am not calling for anything more or less than justice."

And in order to achieve that you better find a way to win the hearts of the great majority. It is a noble cause...but not one you will win by just demanding a change.

"Do you know that Congress actually passed a law against debate in the House concerning slavery. They somehow thought that they could do away with the problem by shutting up the screamers; men such a Benjamin Franklin, whose dying act was to demand that the laws of the United States conform to the laws of nature and abolish slavery.

Do you know that several states banned slavery before the constitution was signed? Do you know that we had already banned the importation of slavery around 1807? That our country....this infant country...was already setting an example to the world less than 20 years after its formation?

How many years would you have allowed slavery to continue, would you condone it still today, if it would avert the terrors of war or the discomfort of angry debate?

Really good question, Lysis. I suppose if I had been alive then my preferred course of action would be to travel the south attempting to affect positive change...to appeals to the masses. To point out the economics of freedom...to use whatever tool necessary to change the hearts of men. And yes...that constant message would ultimately be freedom.

How many years? I cant answer that. I dont know. Heck...isnt it at least significant that slaves were ultimately awarded voting rights earlier than women were? Doesnt that indicate the need for and constant climate of growth the developing country faced?

"It is a trick of those who need to maintain the legality of abortion, the perpetuation of the injustice"

Hogwash. Dont assign my ideas to your enemies and dont pretend that they are the influence of mine.

"We need to return those rights to the unborn and then while they enjoy the legal protection of the Constitution bring about the changes in society that will enable women to be protected and children to be defended from the challenges of unwanted pregnancy."

Wake up and realize that your tactics have failed for the last 30 years and meahwhile at least 44 million lives have been lost. Along the way we have changed from medical necessity, to the first three months, to late term, to partial birth abortions. Things are not getting better they are getting worse.

Get the cart before the horse!

Amen.

"Answer me this; to allow everything you call for to be done, why must abortion remain under the protection of unjust law?"

The answer to that question Lysis is found in our current reality. The majority do not BELIEVE you that abortion is an unjust law. You simply cannot suddenly change the law. THAT is the reality. In order for you to bring about chnage there has to be at least a 2/3 majority for a constitutional amendment...THAT is not going to happen until you change their hearts.

REALITY dictates that first you must change the trends...you must change the hearts and minds of others. You must provide opportunity for change. And THEN you might influence enough opinion to bring about the change.

Do you not see that what you are proposing is simply not possible? Not that it wouldnt be swell...it just isnt going to happen. Your idea is this...we just ban avbortion and everything is great. Well...your first major stumbling block is BANNING ABORTION.

You can trust the politicians to bring about change, or, in the meantime...there ARE things we can do to bring about change and save lives. AND work towards both.

All I have to offer is 30 years of history and trends as proof that your path is not working.

Dan Simpson said...

I have to disagree about what caused the anger and resentment in the South.

I don't think it was forcing emancipation, it was taking property without compensation. And before anyone argues about whether or not slaves were property/human, the constitution and the country considered them property. They were property, property that many peoples livlihood (and the economy of the south), depended on.

Does this mean that slavery shouldn't have been stopped, of course not. But when you change existing law, you must be prepared for the consequences. Plunging an entire region into economic ruin (above and beyond the ruin caused by the war and war crimes i.e. sherman), will cause resentment, hatred, and lingering problems (see continued resentment today, I have lived in former confederate territory, its still there).

I think MM's point is applicable in light of what we know happened in the South.

It is all fine and good to say the compassion and programs would be there, but they aren't. We can say, lets pass the law, and then we can deal with the ensuing problems.

Here is the flaw in that logic (in my point of view). Politicians don't deal with things they don't have to.

Lets say that Congress passed legislation ending abortion but for the life of the mother. Let's say the SC agreed that such legislation is constitutional. Okay, now here we are and no one can argue that there won't be gads of problems. Now, what is the drive to solve these? The pro-life constituency is already placated. The pro-choice party won't be fighting for education and compassion, they will be fighting just as hard as the former to rechange the legislation and SC makeup to return law to Roe v Wade times.

We will be at the same spot we are now, though abortions will be illegal, and the sides screaming will be flipped as far as who wants status quo, and who wants change.

Here is the problem (as I would be very happy if abortion were illegal), I don't think we would be any different that we are now as far as options, support, education, help for those who need it. The easiest out would be an illegal abortion.

Now, there is a reason I believe that. As of right now, the society has been convinced that abortion is an easy out. Quick, relatively painless, no-consequences. There will, no doubt, be people willing to perform abortions. And to someone facing that decision, it may well seem by far the easiest decision.

The only way I see to change that is to put the effort, and the money, into such programs that will take the message to the streets, so to speak. Not lobbying, not PAC's, not money to pass legislation (please someone explain why legislation needs your money).

Unless the resources are in place beforehand, unless the programs are up and running, unless there are alternatives actively available. I fear that a simple law change will not be as effective as we all would hope.

Surely some abortions would be stopped, but the life of abuse, neglect, and horror suffered by those children may well out strip anything we can now imagine.

And to try to quell the arguments about talking doesn't change anything. The LDS church has, in the last year or two, stepped up their social services (read adoption) campaign by leaps and bounds. The numbers that come to them to put their children up for adoption has skyrocketed. Would all of those babies been aborted, I am sure not, but some would.

What if every group who disagreed with abortion put their efforts into change, not just legal, but change in the trenches.

With the millions spent to change the law, how many foundations, clinics, etc. could have been set up to encourage adoption, counseling for new mothers, prenatal care, support? Again, to get legislation passed does not require our money. To actually change how our society works will.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

You say: “I dont support abortion because I think there are different ways to bring about change. I dont support slavery because I think there could have been more effective means of ending it. I dont support slavery because I believe the intentions of the northerners were not necessarily all pure and lilly white.”

Such non-support is enabling.

You say: “The only secret plan I know of is the one favored by Lincoln to send all the slaves back to Africa after they were freed.”

This was also the plan favored by Joseph Smith and at least presented as an alternative in *Uncle Tom’s Cabin*, but it was a farce.

These people were not Africans and Africa was not a country. The racial implications that black need to “go home” is a bit disconcerting.

That hundreds of thousands of Southerners became killers to defend slavery does not speak highly of their tendency toward enlightenment.

How long do you think it would have taken that screw to turn, especially under your “don’t scream about it you’ll hurt their feelings” policy?

I no more fantasize that the end of legalized abortion would reduce abortions to 0 over night than I would pretend the making murder illegal would end it or that making child abuse against the law would end it all over night. But I think such laws against murder and child abuse would be just and that we should have them. Wait a minute, we already do. Where was the collapse of society? Must have missed it. Let me go on record in support of laws against murder and child abuse as well. I know this might bring untold distress to murderers and child abusers – they’ll probably have the ACLU after me, but what the heck I’m a bomb thrower. (For Flaccid’s sake – that is sarcasm)

How can people act like the unborn are humans when the law says they are not?!

There will be tragedies after the unborn have their rights – there were tragedies after the blacks received their freedom, are you really advocating we wait to make this omelet until we figure out a way to do it with out breaking any eggs? But none of these difficulties – these unnamed and I believe mostly imagined terrors will in anyway compare to the murder of a million babies.

And by the way; if you were a slave, how long would you have waited for a kinder gentler plan to have ended you servitude. Would you have seen your daughters sold as breeders and you sons as hands to the cotton fields were life expectancy was measured in months not years?

How patient would you be under the lash Mindmechanic? How many generations of your family would you allow to be exploited and abused for the comfort and benefit of your masters?

I am glad to see you disavow the tricks of the pro abortion enemies of the unborn. I will even more please when I see you disabuse their incantations.

What is the tactic you claim I espouse that has failed for thirty years? Calling for Justice?

And so you leave the unborn, human beings with even less ability to defend themselves than slaves, unprotected through an overt affront to the natural laws that this nation pretends to espouse. A present reality were pointing out the injustice of abortion is misconstrued as a call for mayhem, a present reality where year after year the number of abortions increases and the number of children damned to a life of regret and shame skyrockets to salve the consciences of killers.

How sad when a call for justice is misrepresented as a bus wreck. You had better figure out what my path is before you condemn it. You might even find yourself walking it with me.

MindMechanic said...

lysis...

"Such non-support is enabling"

This isnt rhetoric...I think it is your side that enables the abortionist.

"The racial implications that black need to “go home” is a bit disconcerting."

OGL. I hate to say it...but..."well...there you go again." Dont assert 'I' make racial implications...it wasnt my plan. Blame Lincoln.

"That hundreds of thousands of Southerners became killers to defend slavery does not speak highly of their tendency toward enlightenment."

Only if you in your narrow minded sense of absoluteness believe that was in fact their intent. Since by your own statistics the actual number of slave owners tallies in around 30% and since it isnt likely they were the ones out fighting, then it is logical to assume that the history accounts are correct and a great majority of the southerners fought because they resisted dominance by the north OR were simply drafted and forced to fight. THAT isnt my position...it is the position of Andrew Johnson...stated in his plan to take the land in the south from the owners and give it to the "grey wool hatters"...the soldiers of the confederacy.

“don’t scream about it you’ll hurt their feelings”
I'll say to you the same thing I say to Anon when he uses such tactics...it is infantile and beneath you. That isnt my position. You know better. Stick to the arguments and avoid the rhetoric.

"But I think such laws against murder and child abuse would be just and that we should have them. Wait a minute, we already do. Where was the collapse of society? Must have missed it."

Same tactic.

"How can people act like the unborn are humans when the law says they are not?!"

How can people consider to engage in hate filled rhetoric that srtrengthens the cause of the abortionists?

more later...

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...

I do not have time to deal with your entire post here, but just on the first line. I never implied that you or anyone was a raciest. I said that the plan was put forward by Lincoln, Smith and Stowe; none of whom I consider racists. The plan was raciest, Lincoln abandoned it, Stowe provided several viable alternatives, not the least of which was constitutional amendment and the protection of blacks throughout America, and Joseph Smith probably now realizes how silly of an idea he had. Now is the time for you to consider how silly your covert plan for “bringing justice to the unborn while allowing their slaughter to continue as legal” is.

MindMechanic said...

cont...


"if you were a slave, how long would you have waited for a kinder gentler plan to have ended you servitude. Would you have seen your daughters sold as breeders and you sons as hands to the cotton fields were life expectancy was measured in months not years?

How patient would you be under the lash Mindmechanic? How many generations of your family would you allow to be exploited and abused for the comfort and benefit of your masters?"

Apples and oranges. I suspect if I was a slave and raised on the principles of freedom (I can only go on my own experiences) I would have taken out my owner and taken my family and headed west. Who know what the results might have been.

"I will even more please when I see you disabuse their incantations."

Once again Lysis you attempt to disrespect me by comparing my ideals to an abortionist. It is cheap as if I were to compare you to an abortion clinic bomber or an abortion doctor murderer.

"What is the tactic you claim I espouse that has failed for thirty years? Calling for Justice?"

Shouting from the rooftops 'injustice!' and demanding an end to abortion.

"And so you leave the unborn, human beings with even less ability to defend themselves than slaves"

Really? Aside from the obvious snide nature of your comment it is simply the reverse of the facts. MY position is to truly fight for the unborn. Your position is to fight against abortion. My position would be save lives and provide hope. Your position solidifies opposition to your cause.

"a present reality where year after year the number of abortions increases and the number of children damned to a life of regret and shame skyrockets to salve the consciences of killers"

And in 30 years, the anti abortionist rhetoric has failed to stop the ever increasing tragedy. Do you not yet see that?

"How sad when a call for justice is misrepresented as a bus wreck. You had better figure out what my path is before you condemn it. You might even find yourself walking it with me"

Lysis...do you really think it is challenging to figure out your path? My point is that your path has been a 30 year long bus wreck that has not saved the 44 million. Standing and saying "abortion is unjust and must end" does NOTHING to end the practice.

If you werent so confronted that others have ideas that differ with yours even though the end result is the same, you might realize that I AM walking the journey with you, if not following in your path. Because...silly, confused me...I dont think your path is the best solution. It has a 30 year track record of failure. I dont see it changing any time soon.

MindMechanic said...

"Now is the time for you to consider how silly your covert plan for “bringing justice to the unborn while allowing their slaughter to continue as legal” is"

Now is the time for you to consider that your plan has a 30 year history of failure at a cost of 44 million dollars and an ever increasing trend toward more and more horrible abortions.

Lets put it this way...

How many of those lives could be saved annually by providing real hope, real choice, real opportunites?

And how many have arealistic hope of survival udner your plan?

And please...if you insist that your plan has even a snowballs chance of survival...explain how and based on what.

Unlike the slavery issue where the country started and began moving towards liberation from the very beginning, the abortion issue is just the opposite. We move towards more and more. We move towards late term abortions. We move towards partial birth abortions. We move towards genocide for the handicapped or even PROBABLE handicapped. What in that history gives you even the idea that blogging "Abortion must end" will make even an ounce of difference?

Do you not yet get that our goals are the same...an end to abortion?

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

On the Civil War;

I am impressed with the comment made by Mark Twain in his book, live on the Mississippi that Sir. Walter Scott caused the Civil War. His point was this, that the romantic and false culture of the south, bedded on Slavery, and erected to ennoble a false chivalry of class and manners drove otherwise thinking men to fight and kill for something that didn’t even exist, the justice of slavery. Please understand that many “poor whites” fought to maintain slavery in the false believe that its maintenance was their god given duty and that only thus could they prevent themselves from sinking to the bottom of the pile.

If they thought they were fighting for another “states’ right” than the keeping of black men in servitude they were deceived, they were not, and they were not.

Now to the crime of abortion:

If saying that abortion is unjust and calling for its end is hate speech to you, they you are past reason. Please understand that it is thirty years of the misinterpretation of Roe – v – Wade that has killed the children, not the calls to bring America back into reason.

I await your secret plan.

I am well aware that this blog will have little if any influence on the fate of the unborn, nor will my pointing out their injustice, anger those who seek at any const to keep the killing legal. In the post for last week I suggested that support of the Republican Party is perhaps the best way to end the killing. The Republican platform calls for the very amendment to the constitution that would recognize the rights of all human being regardless of their age.

I have not sought to insult you; if the truth hurts you must learn to deal with it. You are the one resorting to the dodge of defining arguments out of existence. To call a “call for justice”, hate speech so you can condemn and dodge it seems a rather limp position indeed. I am amazed that you would seek to silence me, to stifle the truth.

I encourage you to reread the original post above, draw from the example of William Wilberforce the perseverance to continue the fight against abortion. He did not stop crying “injustice” just because his opponents called foul, he told the truth again and again until he was heard. There is our hope.

MindMechanic said...

"If saying that abortion is unjust and calling for its end is hate speech to you, they you are past reason."

This.

This is where debate and conversation degrades into worthless rhetoric.

You live in a land of laws. The laws governing the land in which you live do not define abortion as unjust. In order to effect change you need more than rhetoric.

Degrading the debate to name calling, labelling, tit for tat exchanges, and in a discussion with someone that respects and admires you, it is the last tool you need to employ.

It is not hate speech to seek to bring about change. But I promise you...you will never accomplish your goal of bringing about change by using rhetoric. I have said it so many times even I am tired of it...but in order for you to affect change you MUST change the hearts and minds of the majority. That WONT HAPPEN by shouting from the rooftops.

Roe – v – Wade is the law of the land. You want that changed. 30 years of demanding change has led to an increase in frequency and in acceptance. Obviously...the calls to bring America back into reason are not working.

I await your secret plan.

And I await you tiring of this tactic. There has been nothing secret about my vision or intent. If anything I am OVERLY vocal...not secretive. (IF...THERE is an understatement).

"The Republican platform calls for the very amendment to the constitution that would recognize the rights of all human being regardless of their age."

And has for how many years? And to what end?

"I have not sought to insult you; if the truth hurts you must learn to deal with it."

Dont confuse my lack of regard for certain tactics as accepting an invitation (or creating one, for that matter) to insult. I am not so tender.

We have had decades of angry hate filled anti abortion protestors screaming and labelling and marching, and chanting, and demanding, and bombing, and shooting...and to what cause? To what end?

Your goal is to end abortion. I say...GREAT GOAL. Mine too. You think that will happen by continuing the above behavior...I think that will just lead to another 30 years of the same.

"What is the tactic you claim I espouse that has failed for thirty years? Calling for Justice?"

Shouting from the rooftops 'injustice!' and demanding an end to abortion.

The only comments I recall making regarding debate tactics here are towards the little snippets of personal attacks that leak into your arguments. If I am somehow misreading them...I'll have to be more careful with that. And to make sure mine are directed to the conversation as well.

"He did not stop crying “injustice” just because his opponents called foul, he told the truth again and again until he was heard. There is our hope."

Lysis...I hope that you get that it isnt that I disagree about whether or not the law of abortion is just. I also hope you get that my goal is the same. Our difference comes in tactics. I simply do not see that things will change by attacking abortion, its practice, or practitioners.

Running your head into a concrete wall a thousand times doesnt mean that on the 1,001 time the wall will fall. Instead...it is far more likely that at 2,000 you will still be running your head into the wall, the wall will be that much bloodier, your head will be that much softer, and your footing will likely be fading fast.

30 years, 44 million lives later things arent better they are worse. I simply believe a different tactic is needed.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Let’s try again.

You say: “You live in a land of laws. The laws governing the land in which you live do not define abortion as unjust. In order to effect change you need more than rhetoric.”

I am all for more than rhetoric, I am for changing the unjust laws so they reflect natural law. I am not degrading anyone, I am not labeling anyone; I am not indulging in hate speech. You say I am screaming, I say I am making a joyful noise. I am stating the truth. Abortion is unjust! The agora is not much of a roof top but it is one of the many places in which I am reasonably stating the truth. If it sounds like a shout, it is the power of the message – there is no way to disguise it.

I admire all efforts to curtail abortion, as I admire the Quakers who year after year slipped runaway slaves to Canada; but there would have been no refuge for them in Canada had not William Wilberforce changed the law of the British Empire to match the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

For the last thirty years and forty-four million murders, where have your tactics gotten us? If I am battering my head against the concert wall, those who practice your tactics are simply leaning on it.

By way of challenge to your claim that talking about the evils of abortion only makes them worse, I once more I go to the abolition of Slavery for support. *Uncle Tom’s Cabin* shouted the evils of slavery, all slavery, from the roof tops. Abraham Lincoln himself believed that it was Stowe’s shouting that “started the Civil War”. He said so to her himself. Many lives were lost, but slavery was ended. It was not ended by the compromises, which were over ruled by a Supreme Court manipulated by a Senate balanced between pro slavery and pro freedom states. Slavery was ended by a lot of roof top shouting, in spite of a Supreme Court ruling in Dread Scott that slavery was the law of the land everywhere in it. It is interesting that in Siam *Uncle Tom’s Cabin* was also the tool of ending slavery. There the Crown Prince’s English teacher had him read the book which shouted the need for change into his heart. When he became king he CHANGED THE LAW and ended slavery.

Thirty years of compromises and playing nice on abortion has only brought thirty years of butchery. It is time the American people, the RULERS of this land, saw the light. It will not happen by hiding it under a bushel to mollify the pro-death lobby.

I agree with you, thirty years of kooks picketing and displaying the corpses of aborted children has not effected the necessary change, nor has thirty years of providing counseling and feel better about your abortion therapy groups. Both paths have failed. The media refuses to tell the truth about abortion, so someone must. Perhaps if more of us joined the spirits of William Wilberforce and Harriett Stowe on the roof tops and presented to the American people the reasonable truth, the logic of the sanctity of life, it would make a difference.

I am not inclined to follow either of the failed paths you reference, I call for a the successful path, one along which every reasonable person comes to the aid of his country.

Anit-abortion pressures are making things better, people are more aware; science and medicine are moving day by day forward in evidencing the humanity of the unborn. Just this past month National Geographic aired a program and published a magazine demonstrating the humanness of the unborn. What an eloquent shout from the roof top. As, I believe Dan recently pointed out, a national news magazine recently published a cover story about the alternatives to abortion. Surely this will comfort those who think that protecting the unborn will destroy their mothers. I am so glad it was shouted from the rooftop.

I also think that Roe – v – Wade is very close to being overturned. If people can be brought to realize how close the shift in the court is, if people can see the need to maintain that trend then it has a chance. A majority of Americans are now against abortion on demand. A lot of shouting has got them there. More and more states are passing and maintaining laws that restrict and reduce abortions. After a lot of shouting in state legislatures you may be sure. This continues to come about because more and more people are willing to consider the truth. The past thirty years has not been a total waist. To talk about the justice of protecting life, to encourage the election of Senators and Presidents who value life, is not hate speech, it is the duty of those who would bring about the end to evil.

Although I am still not sure what you are calling for by way of ending abortion, I cannot see how telling the truth will in anyway prevent your success.

Too many buy into the warnings of the pro-death host, as too many bought into the scare tactics of the slavers. But people who have heard the truth begin to think about it; people who think about it choose justice. Let’s shout it from all the roof tops we can find, let’s go tell it on the mountain. Let’s take our inspiration from Martin King’s marches and from the masses that assembled to hear his dream shouted from the steps of the capitol. History is not with you on this Mindmechanic. Acquiescence brings no change, progress towards justice comes when people hear the truth, this is the successful path, telling the truth is working because someone is doing te telling.

MindMechanic said...

"I am for changing the unjust laws so they reflect natural law"

Great. Go ye therefore to.

I just dont see it happening unless major changes occur.

Lysis said...

Dan;

I think your historical prospective as to the aftermath of the Civil War is fairly astute. I just am not sure how it relates. You are surely not implying that because of a host of evils which may have been perpetrated on the South after the War the slaves or the nation would have been better off had there been no emancipation.

Are you implying that it would have been better to have allowed slavery to languish on in the South until the people became enlightened enough to give it up slavery and its manifest benefits without the demands of the law?

As for postponing laws for the protecting the unborn until there are adequate programs of compassion to deal with their mothers. It seems your “no problem no action” axiom pushes in just the opposite direction than the one you indicate. There will indeed be problems once the killing has been stopped, and then it should be much easier to get something done to alleviate them.

As I have stated above, thirty years of abortion on demand has not generated the programs of compassion that Mindmechanic seems to feel will bloom if the anti-abortion folks would just shut up.

I want change. I don’t want any mother to suffer because she has an unwanted child, I am confident there are a host of eager support groups that will come to the aid of such mothers. And the beauty of it is that once they have been healed, there will be no eternity of regret with which to deal.

I am less skeptical about the compassion of the American people than you are. I am confident there are masses of people and organizations that would eagerly support life if it were the option, even as there are now. Women who choose to have babies and then give them up for adoption are not left alone and unattended, they are in many cases more carefully nurtured than those who bear children under “normal” circumstances.

I am all for putting resources into place now; I believe they are already in place in many cases.

This paragraph troubles me:

“Surely some abortions would be stopped, but the life of abuse, neglect, and horror suffered by those children may well out strip anything we can now imagine.” Sounds a little like prior restraint to me.

Once again I go to the type of Slavery. How often did the slavers caution the abolitionists by prophesying the abhorrent conditions under which the poor and benighted freed slaves would have to live as a stall to their liberation. And indeed many blacks suffered in freedom – do you think they would have chosen the comforts slavery.

I am afraid that many who are born unwanted will suffer abuse, as many children who were “wanted” to begin with do. Do you think they would prefer the peace and comfort of the grave – or in most cases, the garbage bin?

I am ready to go to the trenches to save any innocent life, what greater reason for giving my ten percent, or my all?

Rumpole said...

MindMechanic,

There has been so much discussion that I hope my responding isn’t irrelevant at this point.

So when you let go of the rope you “watch your opponents fall squarely on their as … err…butts.”

What have you accomplished? In the acknowledgement of defeat, you have a moment of pleasure, and you lose! Those who were willing to engage until the end are victorious!

So their can be no misunderstanding, I know you abhor abortion; I know you are far from liberal; but to me the analogy we consider is a demonstration of why conservatives have failed when trying to combat liberal ideas.

The battle gets a little difficult, it gets a little dirty, and we throw up our arms for a moment of false satisfaction while giving our opponents victory.

I respect you; you are the best; but this I do not understand.

I’m certain that on this particular discussion, we are at the point where we agree to disagree.

Lysis said...

Rumpole:

Well, you might not be willing to drop the rope and dump you opponent on their butt, but is seems you more than willing to tie off your end to the nearest tree and slink off the field.

I prefer to continue in the ropes till someone goes over the line.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I have put the slave ownership ratio document up on the original post. If you click on it, it should blow up big. I hope it helps.

Rumpole said...

Lysis,

See how you are? Now I know how the Anon and Mindmechanic feel. When the least bit of kindness and gratitude is shown, you pounce!

I guess it is part of your "charm." It must be what keeps us coming back for more!

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

I have looked at the link and several other docs at the site. I wish the census statistics gathered were consistent...it is difficult to draw a comparison when there arent comparable stats.

I did find it interesting the breakdown...the lower southern states had the highest percentages while the middle less and the border states were far less. The overall average was in the 20% range. A pretty good indicator that the message was already spreading. Still...without consistent statistics it is impossible to get a real feel.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...
Thats the beauty of letting go of the rope. There will always be those demanding victory. Dont worry...one of the nice things about being an absolutist is that you will always have opponents.

At this stage...I hear your points, I respect your positions. I agree with your goals. I simply disagree with your tactic for accomplishing it. I think the tactics engaged for the last 30 years have been ineffective. That is my opinion. All I can base it on is 30 years of history.

Regarding slavery...I also wont play the silly game. One...the battle is over: to re-fight the civil war seems kind of silly. Two...we are left to theorize intent...again...good fodder for discussion but sort of silly if kit is a basis for absolute opinion. Three...in a debate I dont mind playing devils advocate, but I absolutely refuse to defend or have assigned positions that are not mine.

On the subject of slavery...recognizing the realities of slavery is not defending the practice of slavery. Allowing for the possibilities that maybe there were more effective means of ending slavery with more effective long term success is not a defense of slavery nor an attack of those that fought secession. Structuring an absolute opinion based on snippets of convenient quotes is equally unrealistic.

I agree...slavery was wrong. I agree slavery had to end. I simply think they could have been more effective and the lasting impact would have been better. That is my opinion. All I can base it on is 140 years of history.

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole...

Lets try this again...I answered this last night but apparently the last posting didnt work.

I dont know...maybe it isnt the best analogy. I choose to not engage in the tug of war. Especially when it is what the other sides wants.

This discussion is similar to others we have had. We didnt quit the war on terror because we changed tactics. We arent abandoning the fight. The goal is still the same. We are (I am) simply employing different tactics.

No difference RE abortion. You can continue the same battle which has seen 30 years of ineffective effort which has fed the other side, or find a better way. My option is to find a better way. My opinion is the old way isnt working.

Anonymous said...

I have read ALL the postings on abortion.

For me, COMPASSIOM wins -- ALWAYS.

Lysis ALWAYS chooses what he sees as an uncompromising ZEALOTRY for his ideology, but what he and his position lacks is an EMPATHY for the human condition over and above the NATURAL LAW ABSOLUTES that he uses as a self-righteous club rather than as a conveyance of hope and security in the face of tyranny -- for Lysis to show GRACE, would truly be AMAZING!!!!

MM
"You are a better man than I Gunga Din"

I have little patience with the barrage of corney insults and slights that Lysis ALWAYS makes his patter when ANYONE disagrees --I have seen him "run off" some wonderful Agora bloggers with his juvenile antics, simply to call "victory" when they show the good sense to move on.

I have chosen to return insult for insult with him, and have had some fun doing so, but his disgraceful responses to YOU have made me aware that he is just a "one trick pony" of insults and demeaning comments to EVERYONE who disagrees.

I sincerely admire your diligence to not get side-tracked off the argument and to push through all the "win at all costs" BS -- I too should follow that example!!!!

Lysis said...

What slimy tentacle is this, reaching out to grasp at our minds; to pull at the rope? Oh – it’s just Flaccid; flat and phony as ever. How twisted can you get?

When the dismemberment and evisceration of babies is called compassion and a plea to protect their lives labeled zealotry, we have ample proof of how lip and devious relativism can be.

I must admit that, as my post above about the movie *Amazing Grace* indicates, I am much taken by the greatness of William Wilberforce. By the way he was long called an uncompromising zealot by his detractors. However, on reflection I have found an even more fitting hero for the defense of the unborn, and an even better example to fit our nation’s present crisis. I ask you to consider the civil rights movement and the accomplishments of Thurgood Marshal.

What this nation really needs is a NAAUP a National Association for the Advancement of Unborn People.

“There is very little truth in the old refrain, that one cannot legislate equality. Laws not only provide concrete benefits they can change the hearts of men.” Thurgood Marshal.

By the nineteen thirties the ruling in Plessey – v – Ferguson was not only the unjust law of the land; it was the mindset of the people. The very idea that blacks (and other minorities) had the same rights and abilities as whites was generally held to be unthinkable. But Marshal had faith in JUSTICE. He set about to bring the laws of the Land into alignment with Natural Law. He had faith that all men can recognize the truth when it is presented to them, and that when the law defends the right, the right will prevail.

Dan and Mindmechanic have suggested that overturning Roe – v – Wade will have negative effects on society. Please consider the trepidation in the Warren court as they considered ending the sacred cow of “Separate but Equal”. Would the nation be torn by Civil War? Would the streets run with blood? They considered these things. What about the disruption that would occur in communities the damage done to schools, the moral outrage of race mixing; surly they considered the riots and lynching that would sweep across America. Yet in the end the Supreme Court did the right thing. They ruled for justice

Remember that it took armed soldiers in the street of Little Rock to integrate the high school there. Now my students shake their heads in disbelief that, less than my life time ago, the people of America believed that the mixing of races was immoral, that forcing integration was brutalization of society.

Someday my students will surely shake their heads in disbelief that the laws of America once refused to recognize the human rights of the unborn, and marvel at the puny and poltoornish arguments that were twisted up to deny the children life.

I ask you, that rather than licking your rope burned fingers you think of the rights of the unborn; try having some compassion for them. Thurgood Marshal put his trust in the Law and in all men’s ultimate ability to recognize truth. We must do the same. We begin that process, for the sake of the unborn, by realizing that both Law and Truth exist.

Dan Simpson said...

You are so blinded by your own sense of self-righteousness, you cannot see that you misconstrue arguments.

I have never said that Roe v Wade shouldn't be over turned. I in fact have said I look forward to it, and would rejoice.

I merely said that there are things that must be in place when it happens, they cannot be hoped into existence after the fact.

Right now the majority of those calling for the end of abortion are ignoring those things, they matter little to them as their whole focus is on changing the law with no care whatsoever for the consequences.

I say consequences, knowing that you will misconstrue this stance just as you did my statements about slavery.

I do not say there will be consequences so let us not do it, I say there will be consequences, let us deal with them now, not hope that they will either a) not happen or b) take care of themselves after we change the law.

To Anonymous.

Maybe now you will see why I think you are being ridiculous when you speak of the Agora as if it is some monolith of thought. As if we all sup from the same dish and none think for themselves. This is not the first time people have disagreed with Lysis.

Maybe now you can go on record awknowledging that while we may disagree, we are not as you would claim we are.

Reach Upward said...

I'm not sure why we are battling with each other about this. This is not an 'either or' thing, but an 'and' thing. We need multiple sustained tactics in this battle. We need to fire on all cylendars.

We need loud calls for justice. We need to change hearts. We need to have compassionate methods for dealing with unwanted children. We need all of this and more. We need to use all right and good methods without excluding any of them. While one may be unsuccessful alone, the synergy of them all together may be successful.

We even need technological approaches. The Wall Street Journal recently cited a study (sorry, I can't find the link) that shows that ultrasound scans are the best deterrent to abortion. Why? Once a girl/woman carrying a child sees the baby, it becomes human in their minds. The mother's feelings change almost instantaneously. No longer able to dehumanize her baby, she becomes open to other options.

Please do not argue that we need to ignore any just tactic in the fight to stop the murder of the unborn.

Reach Upward said...

On the Civil War score, I believe those that argue that the South would have eventually become enlightened are misinformed. That natural transformation was not happening. In fact, one of the major points in the run-up to the war was that slavery was expanding and becoming even more entrenched in the South. There is an excellent discussion of this in Bill Bennett's book, America: The Last Best Hope.

This parallels the expansion of abortion since the passage of RvW.

The South was not going to respond to enlightenment. Its entire economic structure revolved around slavery and processes that were unnecessarily kept manual, all while the North was automating. The South had very little in the way of rail transportation when compared with the North. And Southern politicians were adamant that no new state would be a non-slave state. This problem was not going to go away simply through education and compassion -- at least not for many generations.

Bennett also faults the rigid positions of the strictest abolitionists with turning hearts away from the anti-slavery cause. But it is important to note that the Republican Party was founded by a coalition of various anti-slavery groups and politicians.

Bennett argues that many of the post-slavery problems occurred because we as a nation dropped the ball on reconstruction. This means that we should have a plan in place for dealing with a post-abortion nation.

Lysis said...

Dan;

I think in your eagerness to disagree with me, you are so blinded by your own sense of self-righteousness that you cannot see that you misconstrue my arguments. What I said above was:

“Dan and Mindmechanic have suggested that overturning Roe – v – Wade will have negative effects on society. Please consider the trepidation in the Warren court as they considered ending the sacred cow of “Separate but Equal”.”

If you will take the time to re-read this you will see that I said that you said exactly what you said you said you said.

I never say that you are against the over turn of Roe – v – Wade, only that you say that there are things that must be in place [or there will be a negative effect on society]. Your exact words were: “Lets say that Congress passed legislation ending abortion but for the life of the mother. Let's say the SC agreed that such legislation is constitutional. Okay, now here we are and no one can argue that there won't be gads of problems. Now, what is the drive to solve these?”

Can’t I interpret “gads of problems” as negative effects on society? And, what else could be the meaning of your rhetorical question?

Please find anywhere where I claim you are against the over turn of Roe – v – Wade.

Reach Upward;

So nice to hear from you!!!

I agree with you that there must be both reform and calls for justice. I argue above that there have been significant advances against the “evils” that many seem to fear. The betterment of society in general can only help the cause of justice, but as Thurgood Marshal so eloquently said, it takes a change of law, (a change from an unjust to a just Law) to change the hearts of men.

Anonymous said...

Dan:
At times the Agora HAS been monolithic!

At times -- almost for a year -- the Agora was SO monolithic that EVERY poster, but one, spoke opposition in the royal perrogatived "WE", not first person singular "I" -- you were one.

Yes, there has been more "breaking of ranks" than in the past by various posters, yourself included. However, lately, the biggest difference has been with Lysis' willingness to verbally LASH even the SLIGHTEST variance in the ranks and even among persoanal friends -- he sees disagreement as some kind of disloyal "cut and run" infidelity and is willing to stoop to ANY disreputable tactic to restore "discipline".

Lately, and even in your last posting, you've chastized Lysis for "misconstruing" arguments and for "arrogance" -- I must respond that it's taken you MUCH too long to reach THAT conclusion -- skin for skin!!!!

Dan Simpson said...

Lysis, perhaps I misconstrued your argument, but I doubt it.

When you post things such as this:

"Are you implying that it would have been better to have allowed slavery to languish on in the South until the people became enlightened enough to give it up slavery and its manifest benefits without the demands of the law?"

that are directly contrary to what I state, I can only assume that you likewise directly misconstrue the corrolary I make to abortion.

Anonymous calls MM's stance (which I have agreed with almost without exception) compassionate. you follow it up with things like:

"When the dismemberment and evisceration of babies is called compassion"

You post:
"Dan and Mindmechanic have suggested that overturning Roe – v – Wade will have negative effects on society"

the obvoius juxtapostion meant to put us on the same side as the naysayers of Brown vs. the board.

you then say:

"and marvel at the puny and poltoornish arguments that were twisted up to deny the children life."

after the things you have labeled MM with, the fact that I have openly agreed with him, and the other things you have said (see above), it is a fairly obvious move (one I think you meant to put forward) to place myself and MM with those doubters and naysayers that spoke against the passage of Brown v the board, and speak against repealing Roe v. Wade.

You have never directly said, Dan is against the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

I have argued, and spoken with you enough to know that you imply plenty when you argue. You may not have meant it here, but the implications were thick, if it wasn't meant it sure was a great coincidence.

Anonymous:

"I must respond that it's taken you MUCH too long to reach THAT conclusion -- skin for skin!!!!"

You make me laugh. It probably only took a few months for me to say those things to Lysis the first time. I know that it came up, at least, in the thread about Pearl Harbor, the thread about the Scooter Libby indictment, the thread about the wire tapping.

I have disagreed with Lysis (including in the last year) as often as I have agreed. This is what I mean. You assign one idea, even where it doesn't exist.

Yes, there have been times when everyone but you agreed, but you have acted, in nearly every thread, as if that is the case, sometimes saying it right after someone has posted in opposition to a stance Lysis has taken.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

MY suggestion (just mine) is that 1-abortion WILL NOT be overturned with anger and rhetoric. It must be prefaced with a demonstration by those screaming for an end to abortion with a willingness to provide compassion, care, and hope. When that is the STANDARD...then you will have a legitimate shot at banning it.
2-I do not believe we as a country are ready for an end to abortion.

Neither of those points indicate I have anything but disgust for the ACT of abortion.

The ideas of compassion that I have offered are also just my position. I realize it is a little twisted. I have to be able to offer that same compassion to child molesters and rapists. But to what end? This. those people will eventually serve their sentence. They will eventually return to society. My hope is that through effective therapy they wont re-offend. That doesnt mean I dont hold revulsion for the acts. But I cant afford to hold it for the people.

I too wish we didnt face the specter of abortion. We do. If that is ever going to change, we better find an effective way to affect change.

You point to the civil rights movement...a valiant movement...I agree. But you also point to actors and laws passed 100 years after the abolition of slavery. We both agree there are ongoing racial problems. I also think we both agree we dont want to see us fighting the abortion battle for 140 years after Roe V Wade.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

I suspect the difference between your exchanges w/ Lysis and mine is that in my disagreement with him I still have the utmost respect and admiration for him. I dont feel the need to stand against whatever he stands for. I wont guess as to which came first as I dont know anything about your relationship...but if there is anything at all resembling mutual respect it is seldom put on display. (and note...I did say mutual).

MindMechanic said...

Dan...

easy on the anon...after all...how many times have I knee-jerk reacted and misconstrued your comments and presented a return volley when no inbound was meant? ;-)

MindMechanic said...

Reach...

your points on the need for an all encompassing attack on abortion are valid. However, flamethrowing tends to strengthen the resolve of enemies and makes onlookers retreat as well. Every abortion clinic that was bombed served as a feather in the cap of the abortionists. Every abortion doctor that was murdered was seen as a martyr for the cause. That didnt help the anti abortion movement at all!

Regarding the south...and slavery...I would ask you the same question you asked...why does this have to be an absolute argument? Every position offered on the south and slavery is theory and supposition. There are many theorists that have suggested that the people in the south came quickly to recognize that the best thing for the small farm and plantation owners was the abolition of slavery. They went from being required to provide 24/7 care to only having to hire workers at minimal wages and only during the planting and harvesting seasons.

By holding the position that the south would not have found enlightenment, does that mean the people of the north were better, more intelligent...and more honorable?

The abolition of slavery started in places like Rode Island in the 1780s. It spread throughout the north and was spreading into the border states. I believe it is absolutely reasonable to assume that it could very well have spread to the south. In my OPINION.

Cameron said...

Here in Idaho there is a bill proposed that would make doctors offer an ultrasound to women that are considering an abortion. It will not force anyone to do anything, but the option will be there if the woman chooses. It has been shown that women who see their baby via ultrasound are much less likely to get an abortion.

Of course, the "safe, legal and rare" crowd are working very hard to oppose this bill. Our AG says it is constitutional, it will likely reduce abortions, and it will offer women the ability to make an informed "choice". So why are people so opposed to it?

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

I know it will be hard for you to comprehend this, but those times when everyone agreed but you. Everyone was right but you. It has always amazed me that you seem to delight in being wrong – but that does not deny the fact that you are. The empirical proof of your endless lost arguments is your endless insistence in attacking the messenger that bears the truth since you are ALWAYS unable to handle the truth. By the way, I think your glee in finding some sort of empathy in this is a pipe dream.

Dan:

My question: "Are you implying that it would have been better to have allowed slavery to languish on in the South until the people became enlightened enough to give it up slavery and its manifest benefits without the demands of the law?" was, of course, rhetorical. I am sure that you would NOT have allowed slavery to languish in the South, so I am amazed that you insist that recognizing justice concerning the rights of the unborn is something that must wait until some undesignated miracle of compassion occurs.

Now try answering some legitimate leading (CX) questions.

1. Does Mindmechanic’s compassionate position allowing abortion to remain legal?

If no – then he and I are NOT in disagreement.

If yes – then does not this “compassionate” legalized abortion require the dismemberment and evisceration of unborn human beings?

If no – just how do they compassionately abort children? (Not leading – feel free to answer as you please.)

If yes - then was not my follow up legitimate.

If no – please explain why not. (Not a leading question – I am curious).

If yes – then we agree again.

I did obviously juxtapose the timorous insistence that nothing can now be done to over turn Roe – v – Wade with frightened calls for caution and restraint that peppered the Supreme Court and the nation when Marshal was fighting very verbosely for an end to “Separate but Equal”. It was exactly my intention to make that comparison. Why is that not legitimate, why dose that constitute some kind of “hate” speech on my part?

You claim:

“I have argued, and spoken with you enough to know that you imply plenty when you argue. You may not have meant it here, but the implications were thick, if it wasn't meant it sure was a great coincidence.”

What is the “IT” that I am angry about?

Is it that there will be a million and a quarter children killed this year because of an unjust ruling foisted on our nation by a misguided Supreme Court? Yes, you are right – that makes me mad. I do not imply this, I state it. How does so doing make me hateful.

Mindmechanic:

Before I get to your suggestions:

I have gone back through the post to see where the idea that I was attacking you or your position might have come from. At one time you posted this:

“Regarding the south and slavery...it isnt like every or even most southerners owned slaves. It isnt like whites had the market cornered on slave ownership. It isnt like the opinions in the south were not already changing. And it isnt like the people from the north were loving and benevolent and all wanted change out of the love for their fellow man. The political aspect of abolition came about because northern industrialists were taking a beating on labor costs. lets not fool ourselves into believing that this was purely good vs purely evil. And I do think a change was gon' come.”

To which I replied:

“You might be willing to discount the evil of slavery which motivated the South and diminish the goodness of the sacrifice of the Union soldiers who died to end slavery, I am not."

Rather than explaining to me why your claim that, “it isn’t like whites had the market cornered on slave ownership,” and “the political aspect of abolition came about because northern industrialists were taking a beating on labor costs. Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that this was purely good vs purely evil.” did not trivialize the evil of southern slavery nor diminish the goodness and sacrifice of union soldiers; you replied:

”So...this is how it feels? Heck...I'm not even an Anon...I just hold a slightly different (and not even a necessarily contradictory opinion)...and the wrath of Lysis then concludes that somehow I discount the evil of slavery?”

I assumed you were joking. Weren’t you? I do not believe I attacked you personally, nor do I believe you felt that way. But then . . .

Flaccid comes on and says – look look Lysis is being mean to MM. Dan comes on, calling me arrogant, self-righteous, blind, and chides me for “the things [I] have labeled MM with.” Both seem eager to yap about the “politics of personal destruction” while Flaccid dodges my arguments and Dan misconstrues them.

This is Flaccid’s MO. Turn the debate to a “you said bad things about me so I’ll say bad things about you” dust up. He does it for fun? It is all he’s got. I don’t see you joining in. I believe an honest Flaccid would see that too.

I continue to ask you questions – I have presented the example of the over turn of “separate but equal”. I have pointed out that many Americans felt the same reservations about giving Constitutional protection to the rights to blacks as you seem to now hold for giving Constitutional protection to the unborn. Lets talk about it, leave the sputtering and limp name calling to those who have noting else to discuss.

In that vain; back to your “suggestions” –

“1-abortion WILL NOT be overturned with anger and rhetoric. It must be prefaced with a demonstration by those screaming for an end to abortion with a willingness to provide compassion, care, and hope. When that is the STANDARD...then you will have a legitimate shot at banning it.”

I don’t disagree – but I do not accept that pointing out the truth about the injustice of abortion and calling for the immediate over turn of Roe –v- Wade is angry rhetoric. I’m all for providing compassion, care, and hope. I presented evidence that such programs are already in place and are increasing in number and effectiveness. When will you be satisfied? How many babies will have to die before your goal adequately achieved?

“2-I do not believe we as a country are ready for an end to abortion.”

I don’t disagree, obviously the majority in the Supreme Court and the Democrats everywhere agree with you. But I think we must push as loudly as possible the facts about abortion and demand that people think about it so they will come to see the truth and be readied. This is not hate speech. Calling it that is a political dodge. I also put forward the example of Marshal and here add the example of M. L. King. They were not willing to sit by and wait until those in power evolved an understanding of justice. They got up on the roof tops and shouted the truth. Surely many racists and bigots of various degree felt such actions hateful and wrong. They were not; nor did the anger and frustration of the Bull Connor’s and KKK members of the world dissuade these great people from their course. Nor did the fact that most Americans, while not being overt racists or knowing bigots, called for going slow and acting only with deliberation concerning such shocking demands, discourage them from making them.

The unborn have no voice, I am not much of a voice, but I refuse to be silenced. I am not speaking hate – I am telling the truth.

I am afraid I am still not clear on the ideas of compassion you have offered to stop abortion.

You indicate that you are able to offer compassion to child molester and rapists. Has this “compassion” ended rape and child molestation? Would you be for a Supreme Court Ruling that rapes and molestations to be carried on in private until we have workable programs of compassion to deal with them adequately once they are again declared criminals?

I continue to offer that the only effective way to end abortion is to put the laws of the United States back in line with Laws of Nature.

I would argue that Americans sat on their hands for 100 years after abolition. Most took no thought of our nations racial problems at all. They thoughtlessly accepted the necessity of racial segregation in acquiescence to the Plessy ruling of the Supreme Court. It was not time nor programs of compassion that ended legal segregation in the United States. It was the valiant efforts of civil disobedience exemplified by Martin King, and the courageous jurisprudence of the NAACP and others like Thrugood Marshal. Let’s jump ahead in this fight against abortion by a hundred years, and let’s have faith that a nation that can recognize the humanity of a black man is already mature enough to recognize the humanity of an unborn child.

Lysis said...

Cameron;

What a wonderful and compassionate action to take in the process of moving America’s attitude toward the abolition of abortion. I absolutely support it!

MindMechanic said...

Cameron...

I hope the folks in Idaho point out very clearly the pro-abortion position as being illogical and politically driven. i hope they stress the humane aspect of the program and the importance for the perspective mother to fully understand their choices and the immediate, short, and long term repercussions of 'choice.'

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

You post: For me, COMPASSIOM wins -- ALWAYS.

Please, define compassion.

Is it compassionate to remove natural consequences in the name of momentary pleasure? Is it compassionate to eliminate personal responsibility to protect individual choice? Is it compassionate to murder based on subjective predictions, and predictions that cannot be proven?

Please, define empathy.

Is empathy lacking if it is suggested that natural consequences ought to be accepted? Is empathy lacking if it is suggested that individuals ought to accept personal responsibility? Is empathy lacking in the desire to prevent murder?

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

Why ask Dan about my positions? He has made his own position known and doesnt deserve to answer my intent.

1. Does Mindmechanic’s compassionate position allowing abortion to remain legal?

Allow? My compassionate position is designed to prepare for and bring about positive change that ultimately would lead to the abolition of abortion. But 'allow'? I have no power to allow. Or disallow. In order to disallow I need the support of a 2/3 majority of Americans. I have to find an effective way to both accomplish compassionate goals AND change hearts.

We are not in agreement because you believe that the answer is to demand change now and you insist that tactic will work.

"If yes – then does not this “compassionate” legalized abortion require the dismemberment and evisceration of unborn human beings?"

We ALL agree that the practice is horrible. The issue is not whether or not it is...the issue is how do you bring about change? Thats it...and thats all.

The Lysis position is to stand up and say "I demand an end to this horrible practice and I demand it now."

And for 30 years the answer has been no. It isnt working.

Kind of an impotent feeling when you think about it.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I ask Dan about your compassionate position because he was talking about it. He said: “Anonymous calls MM's stance (which I have agreed with almost without exception) compassionate.” He seemed to be claiming some expertise, I just wanted to know why he has been supporting “it”.

As for the end of abortion needing a 2/3 majority of Americans; it takes ¾ of the state legislatures or conventions to amend the Constitution, but it may only take one more just justice on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe –v- Wade. Thrugood Marshal didn’t need to amend the Constitution to bring blacks their human and civil rights; he only had to get the Constitution properly interpreted in the Supreme Court, and the President to send out the troops.

Where have I insisted “any tactic” will work? I am only calling for justice. Where have I ever said, “I demand an end to this horrible practice and I demand it now."? And if I have said that or implied that – how is that zealotry or hate – it seems reasonable to me. If describing abortions and pointing out that unborn humans are humans with rights is considered hateful it is because aborting babies and taking away human rights are hateful things. Quit attacking the messenger. How is your saying abortion is an abomination any different than my saying it is unjust? The “I don’t like the way you say the truth so I’m not going to accept it” position does not seem reasonable at all.

It always surprises me to see anyone give up because success is difficult to obtain. Such an “I must have victory at once or I’ll go home” attitude is no way to win a war with determined terrorists in Iraq, or with Communists – that one took 70 years – or with the pro-deathers here in America.

I still maintain that we are making progress – many examples of it have been sighted in this very string. One judge away for justice seems very promising to me.

I read your comment to Cameron with interest. It seems a bit odd that you would cheer for the efforts of the state of Idaho to get the truth out; encourage them to “point out very clearly the pro-abortion position as being illogical and politically driven.” while calling me a bomb thrower for saying the very same thing.

Rumpole:

Great questions; don’t expect any answers.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

These postings get so long...

"I assumed you were joking. Weren’t you?"

I was very definitely trying to keep the mood light. Joking? sort of.

Lysis you do tend to be heavy handed IMO. Look I am as stubborn and pigheaded and arrogant as the next guy...provided 'I' am the next guy. Compared to normal people, I am probably Ghengis-like in my opinions and defense of my opinions. I DO listen to others. I HAVE been enlightened by others. My positions on things like abortion, welfare reform, and capital punishment have all been altered over the course of time and discussions with others. But I am still admittedly not overly flexible.

And I think in a lot of ways we are a lot alike.

I just feel that sometimes you take it personally when people disagree with you. I dont know...maybe it feels as if it is a challenge to authority.

I mean...look at the disagreements we have had.

We BOTH are opposed to abortion. We differ on how to end it, but we both agree it should end. And we both try to persuade...thats what a debate is. It just feels like sometimes it degrades from debate to battle. And I accept my role in that.

I dont think you personally attacked me. I think your attacks are easily taken personally.


"Flaccid comes on and says – look look Lysis is being mean to MM."

example-I have a court ordered teen that I work with. His father is as NPD as anyone I have met. Recently in a letter to the court he stated that of all the medical and psych doctors...of all the lawyers and all the parents and teachers involved (besides himself)...the only person that truly has his sons best interest at heart is me. Flattering...except...of course his intent is to stick his thumb in the eye of his sons mother, stepfather, and court appointed doctors. I know manipulation when I see it.

But I dont think my response to Anon is any different than Dans and I dont think it is anything that hasnt been said before. I enjoy Anons presence and his countering positions...even if I think they sometimes are just directed to spite you. I wish that part would go away and we could all enjoy open debate.

"Dan comes on, calling me arrogant, self-righteous, blind, and chides me"

And it isnt the first time. He also just as readily rebuked anon for not seeing his independence earlier.

This is Flaccid’s MO.

Got it. And I hope he can lose that and join open debate. As I have said numerous times...I STILL await the day when he posts an actual position to defend. I have heard those occaisinal awesome and lucid points presented by ONE of the Anonymy. I enjoy them even when I disagree with them.

"I continue to ask you questions"

And I DO try to keep up with them!

"I have pointed out that many Americans felt the same reservations about giving Constitutional protection to the rights to blacks as you seem to now hold for giving Constitutional protection to the unborn."

My only position has been to do the right, compassionate and necessary things to make both of those positions workable.

"I don’t disagree – but I do not accept that pointing out the truth about the injustice of abortion and calling for the immediate over turn of Roe –v- Wade is angry rhetoric."

Not necessarily. But when pointing out the injustice of abortion includes equating a 15 year old child to a murderer...you lose people in the argument.

I just realized the hypocritical nature of my argument...I mean I am the FIRST to expound graphically when discussing the actions of terrorists. I do it for shock valuer and I do it to point out the character of our enemies. I assume you do it to point out the similar nature of the act of abortion. The problem is...the people you need to convince do not see a young women struggling with the notion of abortion as a terrorist.

I’m all for providing compassion, care, and hope. I presented evidence that such programs are already in place and are increasing in number and effectiveness. When will you be satisfied?

Lysis...this doesnt work. "I will provide you compassionate care, but if you dont take it, rot in Hell you baby murdering scum-bag."

"How many babies will have to die before your goal adequately achieved?"

Presumably far less than the 44 million that have died while the old ways have failed.

“2-I do not believe we as a country are ready for an end to abortion.”

I don’t disagree, obviously the majority in the Supreme Court and the Democrats everywhere agree with you. But I think we must push as loudly as possible the facts about abortion and demand that people think about it so they will come to see the truth and be readied."

Lysis...this is my point. Anti abortionists have been pushing as loudly as possible...and it gets worse not better. It is a tactic that is not working.

"I am afraid I am still not clear on the ideas of compassion you have offered to stop abortion."

I'll repost...

"Keep in mind that this comes from someone opposed to ending legal abortion in America...

I would call the defense of abortion on demand unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call support for late term abortions support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call the support of a right for irresponsibile behavior that results in 1.3 million babies a year executed over the willful teaching of and accountability for responsibility in reproductive rights unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call support for partial birth abortions...a procedure where mature infants are inches from delivery and self sustaining life... unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.

I would call support of the practice that has led to forty four million, six hundred and seventy thousand, eight hundred and twelve babies unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.

Wrap it up in celebrating a womans right to choose all you want. Confuse and disguise the argument in nonsensical ramblings about eggs and sperm. I suppose that makes it easier. It doesnt change the fact that we conduct genocide in America. It doesnt change the fact that every two years babies equalling the population of the entire state of Utah. Are slaughtered.

Kind of makes you wonder...how many scientist, artists, doctors, teachers, etc have been lost. How many cures. How many great paintings. How many treasures.

5:36 PM
Delete
MindMechanic said...

My personal position...

I am opposed to making the practice of abortion illegal. I think criminalizing abortion will lead to the affluent travelling to get safe abortions while the poor will get back alley abortions. It will make criminals of those who need more than anything else our love and support.

I think both sides (again...a party thing) are dishonest about their intent. I wont address the democrat intent...instead I will adress the conservative intent.

Abortion is a political tool. It is a way to inflame and spark passion. From a party standpoint it has nothing to do with love and caring.

If both sides REALLY cared about the unborn children and the frightened child scared half out of her mind, they would offer her love and support. They would offer her real options. They would make sure she was aware of the psychological repercussion this act will have on her for the rest of her life. Instead spending billions fighting abortion they would spend those billions providing health care, homes, surrogate support, etc. In short, they would provide real hope and real opportunities. And when those young women still ultimately decide to make the choice to abort they will embrace Gods plan and allow God to judge them while they love and support them.

I am sickened at the behaviors of both sides of the debate.

The only solace I take is found in the words of George Carlin..."you ever notice that the women who march in favor of abortion are women that man, you wouldnt want to have sex with in the first place?"

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"You indicate that you are able to offer compassion to child molester and rapists. Has this “compassion” ended rape and child molestation?"

I am not naive. I dont try to end rape or child molestations. I try to help ONE convicted rapist never reoffend. I try to help ONE child molester to not reoffend. With that ONE person I hope to avoid more victims.

Now let me ask you...

Your plan to continue to call abortion to the fore...

Has it ended abortion?

No. 44 million times no.

"Would you be for a Supreme Court Ruling that rapes and molestations to be carried on in private until we have workable programs of compassion to deal with them adequately once they are again declared criminals?"

Dont be silly. I would try to work effectively with these offenders so that they dont reoffend. And it may be effective in some...and NOT in others, but it beats the heck out of telling them that they ARE...thats all they will ever BE...and when they are released watch them harm more innocent people. Some of those potential victims out there are people I care about.

But they WILL be released. Maybe I am just silly...but I think we better do anything we can to allow for as few victims as possible. Passing the laws obviously hasnt stopped the act. So we better keep working.

"I continue to offer that the only effective way to end abortion is to put the laws of the United States back in line with Laws of Nature."

And I continue to point out that the effort to do so has failed for 30 years and it shows no sign of success. Yours is not a new and inspired position...it is one that has been trumpeted for decades. And it isnt working.

"I would argue that Americans sat on their hands for 100 years after abolition. Most took no thought of our nations racial problems at all"

I made this exact point during the last thread. Once the 'cause' is over the care is gone. Which tells me that it doesnt mean they care about the people...they care about their particular political cause.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"I am only calling for justice. Where have I ever said, “I demand an end to this horrible practice and I demand it now."? And if I have said that or implied that – how is that zealotry or hate – it seems reasonable to me."

Do you get that I would love for your position to actually work? Do you get that I would LOVE it if we could pass an official decree and make it so? DO you believe me when I say I absolutely wish it never happened?

I think this is why I get so tired...back and forth...back and forth...

We arent going to change, you and I.

If your way succeeds and has the results you believe they will...I win. we both win.

If my way succeeds and has the results I believe they will...you win. we both win.

In about 2 minutes, I will include in my prayer a hope for victory.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

In my comment to Cameron I stressed a tactic that was hopeful, positive, and showed who really cares about life and who really cares about their cause.

I dont think there was any inconsistency.

Dan Simpson said...

This, Lysis, is why I think you are blinded by your own argument.

"If your way succeeds and has the results you believe they will...I win. we both win.

If my way succeeds and has the results I believe they will...you win. we both win."

Even though you both want the same thing, that thing that I and virtually every other poster here wants, you see MM's position as the enemy, as the appeaser, as the enabler of slaughter.

It is this kicking off of your side those who don't want, or agree, with your tactic that makes your tactic so unlikely to work.

You talk about one more SC justice, congress has changed, you can bet that there won't be another Alito any time soon.

The whole process for getting a SC justice through has changed. Back when Justice Ginsberg was being put through, everyone knew there place, they questioned, the vetted, but in the end 98 (if I remember correctly), of the senators realized this was not their call, it was the presidents.

Look to the numbers confirming Roberts and Alito. It will continue to become more and more partisan, with abortion being the one and only qualifier.

I (MM has put forth his own position) believe we should continue to fight to change the law, but feel that we MUST be fighting just as hard (actually those of us not in Congress should be putting MORE of our effort), in to all of the other things I have mentioned. You say they are already there, in a very small amount they are. But how many programs, safe houses, free ultrasounds and prenatal care. Information about adoption, etc. could there be if ALL of those who claim to be against abortion put THEIR efforts towards that, and let the politicians try to pass laws?

Again, our money isn't needed to pass the laws, but it could be used elsewhere. Our yelling won't convince politicians about our seriousness any more than our efforts to establish clinics, work to change the misconceptions about orphanages, adoption etc. will.

From all the cases I have read, even with the changes on the SC, I think there is zero chance this court will overturn Roe v Wade, that is a shame, it is sad, but it is, I believe, a reality. I therefore think that if we want the law changed, it will take an ammendment. This is a much, much harder fight than Thurgood Marshall had. We have to convince many, many more people.

Because of that, the bulk of our efforts must be in trying to change minds, rather than get our representatives to draft, debate, and vote for bills. (our efforts mind you, I have no problem with the politicians continuing to try their best to end any procedures that they can successfully end.)

Oh, and I never said anything about you and hate, not sure why you keep asking me about hate speech etc., I don't even like the term, think it is an invention of political correctness.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Thank you for staying with me; so many excellent points, so late working on them. I give you these responses because I respect you and want you to consider them. I will always value this week’s discussion; as it has helped me clarify my thoughts on these MOST important subjects. I hope the debate is of equal value to others.

I don’t know if the murderers of babies go to hell or not – it is not my call, and I have never said so. I would rather that children did not have the option to become the killers of their own children. Laws helping to prevent this are full of compassion for the sakes of the mothers and for that of the children. Hell is Gods bailiwick – I am more interested in justice.

I disagree with you that things are getting worse. I am forced to imagine that someone must have said that to Martin King when the cops were turning the dogs on the little girls outside his church. If they did, it didn’t seem to dissuaded him from his goal.

I am not calling for endless rhetoric, I am calling for the over turn of Roe –v- Wade; a goal almost within our grasp.

Can’t you see how you contradict yourself? When asked if you would wait till adequate and successful programs were in place before you allowed laws against rape and molestation you say: “Dont be silly. I would try to work effectively with these offenders so that they dont reoffend. And it may be effective in some...and NOT in others, but it beats the heck out of telling them that they ARE...thats all they will ever BE...and when they are released watch them harm more innocent people. Some of those potential victims out there are people I care about.”

For these people you allow law AND programs of compassion, why not for the victoms of abortion – and believe me both the mother and the child are both victims.

But when asked if it wouldn’t be just and reasonable for laws to defend the unborn be put in place before they can perfectly deal with the problems you say: You say no that you would prefer, “If both sides REALLY cared about the unborn children and the frightened child scared half out of her mind, they would offer her love and support. They would offer her real options. They would make sure she was aware of the psychological repercussion this act will have on her for the rest of her life. Instead spending billions fighting abortion they would spend those billions providing health care, homes, surrogate support, etc. In short, they would provide real hope and real opportunities. And when those young women still ultimately decide to make the choice to abort they will embrace Gods plan and allow God to judge them while they love and support them.”

But there is no reason you can’t offer love and support and do all these other things once abortion has been made against the laws of the United States – it is already against the law of nature. Telling good people – and I believe most people and therefore most pregnant women are good – that abortion is wrong, that is a crime will help them make a decision that will not harm them throughout their lives, but rather save them from the very pain you hope to spare them.

You are wrong when you imply that my call to end abortion is lacking in compassion for the women who would commit it. Preventing a life of psychological repercussions is truly the compassionate thing to do. Some day these women will know the truth – then they will rejoice that they were spared the misery of having killed their own child.

Why would you allow a girl to abort a child and say – well let God deal with that; unless you would be likewise willing to let any other murderer kill and then face God’s judgment in due time.

Please explain to me why you would put Jeffery Dommer through all the suffering of a trial and prison and death by toilet bowl, when all he did was make a choice?

I am sorry that facing these arguments makes you sick. I am made sick by the fact that a Nation which claims to be founded on the principal of justice for all, and a people who pretend to be motivated by compassion, insist on closing their eyes and ears to injustice and the lack compassion for these babes and their mothers.

As for your, “once the cause was over [meaning the civil war I guess] the care is gone” comment. Don’t you think Martin King cared? Don’t you think Thrugood Marshal cared? Don’t you think Eisenhower, and Kennedy, and Johnson, and Nixon, and Earl Warren cared? They and millions of American came to care once they were told the truth. Why wait a hundred years to tell the truth, why wait for a hundred years to overturn an unjust Supreme Court ruling? Just because it too hard to try? Not for me.

Lysis said...

Dan;

Seems you are up as early as Mindmechanic is up late.

I agree with you that everyone wins when abortion is ended. I have nothing against any and all programs that make the end of abortion possible. But the final and key point remains that the laws of the United States must come in line with the laws of Nature. Natural Laws are based on eternal Truths, when people reasonably consider those truths they will choose justice. It worked for slavery, it worked for segregation, and it will work for abortion.

I will continue to support all programs that will make it easier for women to choose life. I will also continue to speak the truth about abortion. As you have shown – the goals are not contradictory – I do not think the methods are either; and I believe they are mutually supportive.

I have not kicked anyone off any side. I have called for a frank and honest discussion on this extremely difficult subject. I think we have achieved that.

The difficulty of getting a Justice that will rule justly is indeed gigantic. Those who are for maintaining abortion never relent, never wait for better times, never take their eyes off their goal for other political, social or even national security concerns.

We should take a lesson from Mammon.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

As always, I appreciate your candor. Even when we disagree. Disagreement doesnt equate to disrespect. I hope that message comes through.

"I don’t know if the murderers of babies go to hell or not – it is not my call, and I have never said so."
No...the "go to Hell" part was me adding my rhetoric to the argument. I do hope that you can see (from the many times it has been posted) that at the very least, meant or not, that is often how the argument is perceived.

"I disagree with you that things are getting worse."

Again...we disagree then. I recall the early days of the legaization of abortion. The first trimester was the only time when abortion was considered ethical, legal, 'right' (I know...I know...it was never 'right'). Today we have reached a point where the standard is abortion on demand and abortions are performed as late as during delivery. The numbers are ever increasing...not just in America but worldwide? You dont see that as society and practice getting worse not better? We definitely disagree then.

"I am not calling for endless rhetoric, I am calling for the over turn of Roe –v- Wade; a goal almost within our grasp."

And I say good luck...but as Dan has mentioned...I dont see it happening. personally...I would prefer the SCOTUS declare the abortion battle extra constitutional and allow it to return to the states for resolution. But then...I feel that way about drug laws as well.

Can’t you see how you contradict yourself?-For these people you allow law AND programs of compassion, why not for the victoms of abortion – and believe me both the mother and the child are both victims."

I say it is a silly argument because it is an apples to oranges debate. Pregnant women are not rapists and child molesters. Their motivators are not equal-or even in the same ball park. Rapists and child molesters violate existing law. They create victims due to pain, anger, helplessness, lowered self esteem, etc.

The ONLY comparison I make is for the effective value of compassion and healing vs incarceration and rhetoric.

Just by way of example...

of 19 incarcerated sex offenders 19 are told by the state and by their 'treatment' programs that they are evil...they are predators...they will always be predators and in order for them to get out they have to learn how not to resist acting as predators. How is that working? Judging by the recidivism rate of rapists and child molesters...not very well.

Now how many women have more than one abortion? How many stop caring? How many turn to other destructive means to counter the emotional damage they feel? Those are current trends and they must be changed or the problem of abortion will continue as surely as the problem of rape and child molestation.

Got to break this post up or it is just going to get wacky, silly long and twisted....

MindMechanic said...

"But when asked if it wouldn’t be just and reasonable for laws to defend the unborn be put in place before they can perfectly deal with the problems you say: You say no that you would prefer, “If both sides REALLY cared about the unborn children and the frightened child scared half out of her mind, they would offer her love and support. They would offer her real options. They would make sure she was aware of the psychological repercussion this act will have on her for the rest of her life. Instead spending billions fighting abortion they would spend those billions providing health care, homes, surrogate support, etc. In short, they would provide real hope and real opportunities. And when those young women still ultimately decide to make the choice to abort they will embrace Gods plan and allow God to judge them while they love and support them.”

And by damn...when both sides have done that...then you WILL HAVE those laws you seek. The angry screechers on both sides will become apparent and their power will diminish. Those that actually CARE will also be idnetified as the norm. Lives will be saved.

Isnt that the goal? Change minds. Change hearts. THEN laws can be changed.

It IS NOT that I dont want the laws changed. It is as I have said I dont know how many times now...The laws WONT be changed, HAVENT been changed under the current climate. In point of fact it gets worse not better. You HAVE to change that or there will never be a change in the laws.

"But there is no reason you can’t offer love and support and do all these other things once abortion has been made against the laws of the United States"

And you know why this wont happen? Because at the root...the most vocal people on both sides of this argument care about politics and not people.

"it is already against the law of nature"

Yes it is Lysis. And in fact I would go so far as to agree with you that the GREAT majority of people KNOW abortion is wrong...or at least in their hearts believe it to be wrong. And yet...they stop short of making that declaration. What you get is "I personally believe it is wrong...but...it's not my place to say..."

You have to change that mindset. You cant do it by declaring it must change. You cant do it by decarling it an unjust practice. You have to win allies and in order to do that you MUST offer more than "our cause is right and just before God". Because that argument isnt WORKING.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"I have called for a frank and honest discussion on this extremely difficult subject"

I know when personalities get involved some people tend to lose sight of this. It is my hope that everyone watching, everyone participating, that everyone feels free to chime in without repercussion and to enrich us all with differing opinions.

And I hope the Agora as a forum continues to offer ideas and a place for debate. For that Lysis I am always greatful to you and the effort you put in here.

MindMechanic said...

even when you are wrong...

MindMechanic said...

;-)

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

You say;

“Yes it is Lysis.[Abortion is against the Law of Nature] And in fact I would go so far as to agree with you that the GREAT majority of people KNOW abortion is wrong...or at least in their hearts believe it to be wrong. And yet...they stop short of making that declaration. What you get is "I personally believe it is wrong...but...it's not my place to say..."

BUT IS IT THEIR PLACE TO SAY – IT IS THE PLACE OF EVERYONE WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH TO PROCLAIM IT.

I agree with you, and always have, that people who seek justice, must do the one (speak the truth) and not leave the other (provide the programs) undone.

And it is working, it will work! They couldn’t shut up the abolitionists nor ignore the Emancipation Proclamation or the 13th amendment; they could not shut up the advocates of integration nor maintain separate but equal against the voice of reason, and they shouldn’t be able to shut up those who are willing to tell the truth about abortion nor ignore the Constitutional rights of the unborn.

Finally, I would hope that all chime in most eagerly in that situation were I am wrong. I, like so many others, look forward to that day and to that debate.

truth to power said...

Here's the problem: nothing new has been said on the political question of abortion here. Nothing new has been said on the subject in any forum whatsoever for many years. If there is any topic which is absolutely pointless to debate, this is it. Bringing it up in the first place is a big waste. If ever an abortion question showed up on a list of National Extemp topics, we'd all be looking for the person to lynch. None of which is to say that the subject is unimportant. It's of vital significance. But debating it generates only intense heat, no light.

That said, I'm just hypocritical enough to dip my oar in--although I lay no claim to original arguments.

The abortion problem is a moral one. Change the law if you like, but the problem doesn't go away. How do you change people's hearts? How do you create in them a respect for the sacredness of life, the sacredness of sex? How to strip people of the selfishness that places their own personal enjoyment above the right of another to draw breath? How to keep males who are mature in only a biological sense from scattering their seed and fleeing all consequences?

If you think the return to a ban on abortion would end the practice, consider what doctors do where assisted suicide is prohibited. Or consider what really happened after the 13th Amendment "ended" slavery.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"BUT IS IT THEIR PLACE TO SAY – IT IS THE PLACE OF EVERYONE WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH TO PROCLAIM IT'

This is my very point. It is the point I made in the last thread about this mindset. It is the point that disheartens me MORE than those that biologically disagree with the definition of life.

Your challenge then is to convince them that it is not just their right to say but their responsibility. That is why I submit that the way to help them decide to do the 'right' thing is to change their hearts and not to deride them for their failings.

Cameron said...

Finally, I would hope that all chime in most eagerly in that situation were I am wrong. I, like so many others, look forward to that day and to that debate.

Classic. :-)

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Please do not take this as personal. I accept that you are against abortion and are looking for ways to stop it. I place this “disclaimer” here because we are not face to face in this Agora. Even when we sat face to face at the feet of Zeno there were misunderstanding, but across cyber space they are all too common. Having said that; we have what we have.

Anyway – It is the tactic and long standing policy of the pro-abortion forces to immediately labeled any criticism of abortion as a violent attack on some nebulas mass of innocent girls. Note that such laws as the eminently reasonable one being put forward in Idaho are immediately vilified as an, “attack on women’s privacy and an attempt to legislate how women control their own bodies”

It is the standard practice of the pro-abortion ranks to insist that there can be no line drawn but “no line”. Since their position benefits from ignorance they claim that any attempt to enlighten is too hurtful.

Example: Laws seeking to punish those who cause the death of a fetus through assault on the mother are consistently blocked by the pro-abortion lobby. Granting that someone who has killed a women and her unborn baby is guilty of two murders is seen by the pro-abortion brigades as a hole in the dike through which an outlaw of all abortions will come. They may well be right, but the point is they are viciously active in their attacks on even the slightest sign of recognition of the rights unborn. Thus talking about unborn humans as having rights is immediately labeled hurtful and attacked.

Parental consent laws are routinely challenged by the ACLU and other pro-death supporters. In a community were a school nurse cannot give a sick student an aspirin without parental permission, informing a parent of a child’s intent to have an abortion is considered a crime.

The pro-abortion folk always immediately claim the worst case scenario – if parents know their children are pregnant they will kill them, disown them, abuse them. To prevent this, laws routinely have provisions for court intervention and protection – but this does not satisfy the pro-death defenders because it will prevent some abortions. None can be prevented at all is their ABSOLUTE stand.

It is an effective tactic. When one describes abortion as what it is, they are routinely accused of hurting the poor and helpless girls who are forced to have abortions. This is of course nonsense, no girl is forced to have an abortion, but it has been stated and restated so often that it has become the accepted mind set. This is the goal of the pro-abortion team. They maintain that any criticism of abortion hurts women; any law to protect children destroys choice. Even the use of the word choice instead of abortion or killing is a demand of those who defend abortion at any cost, even at the cost of the suspension of reason a justice.

By allowing no discussion of abortion, those who perpetuate the ban, prevent the application of rational thought to this atrocity. Remember that the first Congress of the United States passed a law forbidding Congressmen for bringing any debate concerning slavery to the floor of House. Silence is the shield of these insidious crimes.

Another example: The proper way for a pro-abortion person to deal with my calling abortion an “insidious crime” would be to present reasonable arguments why it is not. Instead I am told that such a claim is hurtful and I am a bad man, making things worse for saying such words; that I had better just shut up about it. Go figure!

Lysis said...

Cameron;

I thought so.

Reach Upward said...

MM, I'm not sure how you construe my call for all right, good and just measures to stop the genocide of the unborn to include fire bombing of clinics, killing of abortion doctors, yelling at pregnant girls, etc. In what way are these things included in "right, good and just"? I never implied that two wrongs make a right.

I'm totally in favor of correcting the law. I'm totally in favor of changing hearts. I'm totally in favor of providing compassionate resources and alternatives to those who have unwanted pregnancies. I'm totally in favor of repeatedly and loudly getting out the message of what morality and justice require. I see no reason to oppose any of these things. It seems to me that any ground that can be gained in any of these arenas can only be good.

Dan has a point about SCOTUS. Thomas Sowell has an excellent article about why most of the justices proposed by 'conservative' presidents over the past several decades have turned out to not be very conservative, while all of the justices proposed by liberal presidents have been reliably liberal. There is no guarantee that we will get a conservative justice the next time a position opens up. With Justice Kennedy becoming increasingly liberal -- or increasingly choosing deliberate vagueness, it is not even necessarily likely that SCOTUS will overturn RvW the next time it comes up.

Yes, we need to continue to hope that SCOTUS overturns RvW, but that cannot be the only place we focus our energies. An amendment is unlikely to pass, but should nevertheless be pursued, since it allows an opportunity to get the message out and get people thinking about it. All just and good options should be pursued.

Abortions would not stop if RvW was overturned. The question would simply revert to the various states. Some would certainly outlaw elective abortion, but we already know that our most populous states would not. An amendment would best preserve the lives of the unborn nationwide.

And yes, if the law were changed, abortions would continue, some of them via unsafe methods. But we would not have a legally sanctioned industry that earns its keep by perpetrating genocide. And yes, the moral thing to do is to provide help for those with unwanted pregnancies. The problems wouldn't go away, but our laws would be just. And we could certainly work to provide real solutions to those in trouble.

Lysis said...

By the way; since the tactic I describe above is so effective it is often applied by Relativists. An excellent example: someone points out quite logically that passing resolutions and laws calling for withdrawal and mandating defeat in Iraq encourage and embolden the terrorists. What those who are calling for defeat should do is explain to the world how such actions do not give aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Instead they accuse those who point to these eminently reasonable truths as “questioning their patriotism”. What a deceitful and seemingly effective dodge!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...

Reach Upward;

Your comments are most reasonable, and therefore most necessary to move us toward the day of justice for all.

It seems to me that if Roe –v- Wade were overturned on the grounds that, and because that, the unborn are humans with human rights, states would no more be able to legislate their rights away than they were to continue segregation after the reversal of the Separate but Equal doctrine.

It is an outcome much to be hoped for by all who value human life, your careful and reasonable arguments must become the common knowledge of all Americans if that day is to come. Hence they will face the most virulent obfuscations from the pro-abortion lobby and apparently even “shushes” from those who claim to know better.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"Instead I am told that such a claim is hurtful and I am a bad man, making things worse for saying such words; that I had better just shut up about it. Go figure!"

I am just curious...that whole post...was all that...for this? And do you purport that I am (or anyoen else for that matter) is suggesting you shut up? I would say that flies in the face of the countless times I have expressed appreciation for your differing point of view.

I WOULD however applaud your comments "The proper way for a pro-abortion person to deal with my calling abortion an “insidious crime” would be to present reasonable arguments why it is not." And of course I apply that to anti abortionists. And to my mind, that is done by living the model of love and compassion, exhorting others to as well, all the while openly discussing a world without the NEED for abortion. Imagine!

Otherwise your message is the yin to the pro-abortionists yang.

MindMechanic said...

Reach...

"I'm not sure how you construe my call for all right, good and just measures to stop the genocide of the unborn to include fire bombing of clinics, killing of abortion doctors, yelling at pregnant girls, etc. In what way are these things included in "right, good and just"? I never implied that two wrongs make a right."

I often have this tendency to take postings which I agree with and add to them. I suppose my intent is to do more than just mimic the "me too" argument that you often get from the anonymy. Unfortunately...it is often easily misunderstood as disagreeing with the original post. (I have done it to Dan several times)

maybe instead I should just say "well said!"

I wasnt criticizing or disagreeing. I was adding to...and obviously...not well.

Lysis said...

Truth to Power;

You are so right, in my years as a debate coach many of my students asked if they could do orations on abortion. I advised them thusly – if you care about the topic and what to, go ahead, but plan to be dropped to 5th in at least half of your rounds. I had several who did it anyway. Days of #1 and #5 always resulted. They and I were made better by their integrity.

Indeed abortion is a moral problem, so is murder, theft, and drug abuse. One purpose of just government is to maintain moral behavior of the citizens. One’s moral behavior is only free to the extent that it does not encroach on the rights of another. That is the social contract such is the stated purpose of government – to defend the rights of the people.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I specifically said I was not talking about you. I do not believe that you ever said; “that I had better just shut up about it. Go figure!" I just said I have been told that.

The purpose of the post is to encourage those who are against abortion and for justice to follow the example of William Wilberforce.

Lysis said...

Test

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

Yet another case where I should probably have kept my own digital mouth shut...sorry.

I remember debate classes...1978-1980...

...and abortion bills came up in every Legislative Forum I attended.

And the debate topic was fossil fuels dependency.

Weve come a loooong way, baby.

Anonymous said...

"I suppose my intent is to do more than just mimic the "me too" argument that you often get from the anonymy." -MM

I post as Anonymous -- I haven't noticed any other posting that way for quite some time -- which arguments did you understand as expressing "me too"!!!!

I have posted many arguments about collateral damage, cost benefit analysis and absolutism that you and Lysis never have responded to. Are you somehow thinking that these arguments "me too" some other's postings????

I have complimented some of your postings as being sincere, compassionate and humane, because 1. I hadn't seen those values expressed with any fervor at the Agora. (especially THIS topic) And
2. I hadn't seen YOU previously express these values so fervently and credibly.
I was surprised and elated.

I am APPALLED, however, that you could NOW think that I've signed some kind of "blank check" of acquiessence and "me too" YOUR every whimsical idea -- especially when many BETTER arguments are ignored.

Also, I am disgusted that you saw a friendly gesture as an attempt at MANIPULATION.

I'd fail miserably if that were so. There is NO CHANCE against all of the others who so effectively manipulate you NOW!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

I think this is one where YOU took offense where none was directed.

When we have several posting under the anon label I invariably refer to them as the anonymy or the anon collective. If I am addressing a specific anon, I direct my comments to 'Anon..."

So when I state...
"I suppose my intent is to do more than just mimic the "me too" argument that you often get from the anonymy." -MM

I meant exactly what I said. That you choose to take it as a personal attack on you does not make it so. I somehow doubt you would deny there has been a significant "me too"-ism going on...

Part 2...of course not. When you post I respond to you. I address you by the only name you allow. I ratrher think you know when I am addressing you.

Part 3...and 4...

Dont be disgusted. Be disappointed. If I misread your intent I apologize. Sincerely.

"There is NO CHANCE against all of the others who so effectively manipulate you NOW!!!!"

Yep...thats me...a candle in the wind...

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

Hopefully you didnt miss this part...

"But I dont think my response to Anon is any different than Dans and I dont think it is anything that hasnt been said before. I enjoy Anons presence and his countering positions...even if I think they sometimes are just directed to spite you. I wish that part would go away and we could all enjoy open debate."

I was sincere when i said that as well. My intent was not to attack you. I do apologize if it did (as it obviously did) come out that way. I hope you can accept that.

Lysis said...

Flaccid;

The problem is that you never have anything to say about the TOPIC under discussion. What do you thik of the movie, what about William Wilberforde? What do you think about the issue of abortion? Are you in the “it’s evil but we can’t do anything about it” camp? Are you ready to shout the evils of infanticide from the rooftops? Are you inclined to see abortion as the private choice of teenagers and abortionists?

You have heard the arguments form several points of view – why not give us yours. Poke holes in any of my claims – come on I triple-dog-dare you!

You say: “I have posted many arguments about collateral damage, cost benefit analysis and absolutism that you and Lysis never have responded to.”

I commented on them – they are irrelevant, and I told you so. They are debate tricks – they do not address the issues being discussed.

How about slavery – are you still for it? I guess the Agora is rather monolithic in it Absolutist position against Slavery – has that got your knickers in a knot?

Do you miss the days of Separate but Equal. I am absolutely certain that was an injustice. Are you ready to claim that misogyny is the nasty collateral damage of race mixing? I have counted the costs of abortion and the benefits of justice - other than calling me arrogant – any comment on what I have actually put up?

I know you’ve missed the Child lately, its been a while since anyone came on to squeal, “Well done my master” in your direction.

You know, if you actually tried to make a stand you could earn a little respect by trying to reveal some truth. Oh – but then you don’t believe in truth do you.

I am sorry I have spent so much time off topic, but I want to give you the same attention I give to other posts.

The inspirational Movie that headlines this web log would have been well worth discussing, as are the topics of abortion, and defense against terror it so perfectly relates to. I think everyone here would like to have considered your arguments. But, Flaccid, all you have presented to comment on is your usual limpness.

Anonymous said...

Amazingly, with years and years of experience to the contrary, Lysis believes that his pathetic rejoinder "that's a debate trick" is something more than an enfeebled admission of defeat and incompetence.

My impression is that more than a few Agorites have some formal training in debate -- many under the tutelage of Lysis himself. How many rounds did YOU win uttering the incantation "that's a debate trick" as your rebuttal???? Chances are, IF you had done so, Lysis would have lost his boot in your backside . . . I sure hope so.

"Oh most lame and impotent conculsion . . ."

Many at the Agora expect your best, Lysis. Just because it's "home court advantage" doesn't mean that crap suddenly will stand "erect" at your command --as always it just collects into one steaming messy pile!!!!

MY ON TOPIC and RELEVANT contentions, which were explained quite succinctly, are left unchallenged by any claim having integrity.

Reach Upward said...

Columnist Ken Blackwell agrees in this article. "The unborn need a Wilberforce."

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

Lets talk CBA...

What do YOU see as the costs of abortion? benefits? And at the end of the day...what are your conclusions regarding the legal practice of abortion and it's future?

MindMechanic said...

reach...

I wonder if Ken Blackwell has ever heard of Randall Terry?

Anonymous said...

columnist Ken Blackwell? That is technically true but he was also the AG for Ohio.

Anonymous said...

Pardon me, what was I thinking? Secretary of State was Ken Blackwell's position.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

Back to the initial thread on slavery...

"Rather than explaining to me why your claim that, “it isn’t like whites had the market cornered on slave ownership,” and “the political aspect of abolition came about because northern industrialists were taking a beating on labor costs. Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that this was purely good vs purely evil.” did not trivialize the evil of southern slavery nor diminish the goodness and sacrifice of union soldiers"

Apparerently I didnt reply to this...so I'll try.

Your contention is that my comments regarding the institution of slavery trivialized the evil of slavery and diminished the sacrifice of the union soldiers.

I disagree (obviously).

I have said from the beginning of my time here at the Agora that I prefer historical perspectives and not hysterical perspectives. Historically, the practice of slavery is not good or bad, right or wrong...it simply is. A historian studies history, they dont judge history. Sort of a "we report you decide' idea.

And we have covered this. Slavery as an institution didnt begin in the south. It didnt begin in America. It is an institution that is global and has lasted back from the beginning of recorded history through today. It still exists.

When studying American history there are a lot of things that arent covered. Americas natives practiced slavery. The first slave owner in the American colonies was a freed indentured servant named Anthony Johnson. Freed black slaves by the thousands owned slaves. Slavery was practiced throughout the initial colonies, not just in the south. Slavery was banned by some states before the country became a country. Importation of slaves was banned less than 30 years after the constitution was finally signed and ratified. America as an emerging country abolished slavery in far less time than any other established country.

All of those things are factual statements and yet they say nothing about whether slavery was right or wrong. It simply was. And is. (I KNOW we have covered this ground before).

Now...from a personal nonhistorical judgemental perspective I ABSOLUTELY AGREE thatALL slavery is and was wrong. It is as wrong today as it was then. But that isnt what we were talking about.

What we were discussing was the idea or possibility that maybe...hypothetically...possibly..maybe there was a different solution to ending the practice of slavery than creating a divide in the country. Maybe just maybe the politicians and industrialists in the north cared less about the plight of slaves and more about the political strength gained by Slave Power and the economic advantage of free labor.

Historically...THOSE are correct statements as well. It says nothing about a defense of the 'evil' institution of slavery.

Why is it valuable to study this? Why cant we just take it for granted that Lincoln and the northerners were the white knights riding in glory and righteousness to save the day? Because it isnt intellectually honest for one, for two, a war erupted and we have had conflict ever since and maybe we can learn from it so that we dont repeat mistakes, and for three...it's just fun to consider all sides of possibility.

At the end of the day...this isnt even something that I will ever make a firm decision on. Because ALL we have is speculation. So I too will speculate that while the north had NO options but to go to war to preserve the union, there may have been options that could have accomplished the goals and avoided the situation in the first place. Maybe there was a way to end slavery, unite the country, improve social relationships, and not create eternal anger and enmity.

But at no time does ANY of that denigrate the sacrifice of others or defend the institution of slavery.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

What does his governmental position in Ohio have to do with anything?

Lysis said...

Reach Upward;

What a great article. I think it is heartening that there are indeed growing numbers of peoples and organizations like Operation rescue. Ever snow ball grows as it rolls. Most need a lot of pushing.

MindMechanic said...

Global Insanity

Is anyone buying the whole man-made global warming argument?

There is an old saying that holds true today…if you want to know what is really going on…follow the money. OK…so…follow the money.

Who stands to gain financially? In defense of status quo, it is the oil companies that benefit so of course they will promote studies that will deny the human impact on global warming. The left on the other hand benefits in a myriad of ways. More taxes (don’t you know the left LOVES to raise taxes). Increased taxes on rich oil industrialists (ummm…don’t you mean increased taxes on consumers because REALLY that is who will end up paying? Oh and believe me…they WILL pay…just look at the tobacco lawsuits…). More money for scientific studies, more money for the UN, more money to the rest of the world being sent by Uncle Sam. Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo money’…

And GUILT. Oh BABY there is a HUGE market for guilt. If the left succeeds in making capitalists feel guilty about success, why they can EASILY tap that to increase social gains as well.

So…what do we learn? Well…following the money says BOTH sides are lying. Is that really a shock?

Who is the “Dr Evil” of the global warming craze? Why Al Gore of course. And what is Al’s position? No debate…we have scientific consensus. Anyone that disagrees is a heretic. The media has been TOO un-biased in reporting the global warming situation and mans responsibility. Heck Al…if you can’t get the liberal left media to buy off on your lunacy…doesn’t that stand as a pretty good indicator that there ISN’T consensus?

And lets talk hypocrisy. Lets talk Carbon Credits.

Just a refresher on the Kyoto Accord BTW…

Clinton/Gore did not elad the country to the Kyoto Accord. The global commission began in 1992 under George Bush.

Clinton/Gore never once submitted the Kyoto Accord to congress for ratification. Why?

Because Democrat Senator Robert Byrd introduced legislation before the Kyoto Accord was passed that insured the Kyoto Accord COULD NOT be passed. And that legislation DID pass…unanimously.

Now…

Following the Kyoto Accord the geniuses of the global warming movement dreamed up the CCE…Carbon Credit Exchange. Here is how it works. If you sign off on the Kyoto Accord you agree to limit your emissions. Unless of course it costs too much to limit them. If you cant or don’t want to limit them…don’t be ashamed or embarrassed. BUY credits from non-industrialized countries that don’t produce as much pollutants. OK…so you aren’t reducing your emissions…you still just managed to make your country in compliance and Carbon Neutral!

Hmmm…where have I heard that term before.

Oh yeah…back to Al Gore. Recently it was revealed that Al Gore uses more electricity in one month than any typical home uses in a year. And that INCLUDES times when he isn’t even home! Plus all the travel to and fro in his private jets (using more fuel and creating more emissions than a thousand SUVs)...

So…How does Al soothe his conscience? Same way…he buys himself into carbon neutrality. He invests in eco friendly power production. He buys credits. He pays for it. Does that mean he ISNT exposing the world to the same number of pollutants? No…but hey…he is a CELEBRITY and there is ALWAYS a double standard for celebrities.

What DO we know?

We know there IS a possible consensus that the earth MAY be going through a warming trend that MAY or MAY NOT be influenced by humans.
We know the planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling and has theoretically for hundreds of thousands of years and the industrialized cavemen likely didn’t have much of an impact on it them.
We know that Mars is currently going through a warming trend that mirrors ours suggesting that MAYBE those scientists that believe it is not about humans but is about the suns increased solar output.

Undoubtedly we ARE going through a string of weird weather. But there IS no consensus on why and passing into law a UN agreement that defines India and China as developing countries and thus requires the US to pay for theirs and all others emission controls, all the while cutting our economic production 40%...well…that just doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Sorry for straying...

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic Here,

Greetings from our nations capital!

Interesting news story for Flacid.

Hipocracy is a wonderful thing....

Thursday, March 01, 2007

By Brit Hume

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION Story tools
sponsored by

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Taking Stock

While the left-wing activist groups supported by billionaire George Soros have been attacking the Halliburton Company — Soros has been quietly taking a major stock position in the company. The Securities and Exchange Commission reports Soros has purchased nearly two million shares of the company once run by Vice President Cheney — investing more than $62 million.

Editor Mike Boyer of Foreign Policy magazine writes on his blog: "The real question, however, is whether MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and other organizations that have benefited from Soros' charity will see a problem with accepting money earned off Halliburton shares?"

Have a great day!

MindMechanic said...

Veg...

Not shocking...a few years back Michael Moore was preparing for his yet unseen 'documentary' on the drug industry. During one of his talks he stated that he loathed stock owners and would NEVER be one. Come to find out...not only is a he a major stock owner, but he also owns major interest in drug companies.

And we wonder why his movie hasnt yet shown...

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I see you point, I don’t entirely agree. The study of history should not be free of judgment. Let me give and example:

Teton Damn Disaster; it is instructive to study the history of that event to learn of the failure of the engineering – the mistakes in building that led to the failure of the structure, and it is also instructive to study the success of the actions to handle the challenges thrust on the community. My son wrote a brilliant paper on this his senior year at USU – which went on to explore the effects of the response to the Damn Disaster on the way the people effected say themselves and their community. We were able to contrast their historic actions to those of the people in New Orleans sitting in the filth and demanding President Bush come save them. Examination of the history provides endless moral and ethical examples to consider. But we can also say the damn was poorly built and the engineers were wrong in their actions.

In the same way, considering the actions or the motivations of the soldiers who fought to free the slaves is instructive – and surly can provide some important precedents on which to build as we seek to deal with the great civil rights problem of our time.

Fair and balanced does not, as the media of today often misinterpret it to be, mean that you must give equal hearing to “both sides” of an issue. When studying the Teton Dam disaster there is little point in giving time to those who argue that thing poor engineering is a good thing because it provides jobs for BYU graduates or that we should not admire the efforts of the Mormon community in meeting the challenge because Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

We do not have to give equal time when studying the Civil War to those who think slaves were better off before they were freed, nor in the abortion debate to those who think that children are better killed before birth than being allowed to be born with handicaps or into single parent homes. I guess we can listen to both silly positions – but then we need to point out their flaws and get on to making the just judgments that history and reason impel.

Your post of Global Warming is excellent – I will have to give it some comments when time allows.

Vegimatic;

I suppose there is enough hypocrisy to go around, but it is always fun to see these frauds reviled for what they really are. Thanks for the “heads up”.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

"but then we need to point out their flaws and get on to making the just judgments that history and reason impel."

I agree with this...

During the recent Holocaust denial seminar in Iran I think it was VERY valuable to study the remarks of the participants. Do i think it gave proof to their lie that the holocaust never happened? No! It exposed the deniers for what they are, purely racist and bigoted. Instead of presenting reasoned opinion supported by facts they used snippets of population samplings, rhetoric, and blamed modern jews and the US and Russian governments as perpetrating a hoax to steal land and to rid the USSR of it's jews.

Now...I think a historian would present the evidence of the holocaust, present the 'evidence' as presented by the deniers, and then allow the students of history to decide who was telling the truth and who was telling lies. And it wouldnt be hard.

What the historian WOULD NOT do is say...
"this is the proof as presented by the valiant soldiers, courageous survivors, and photographers who bravely risked their lives to save as many of the tragic victims of Nazi perversion as they could, while here is the 'proof' (snort) as presented by this former white sheet wearing klansman, nutbag religous schemer, and obvious hack that are out trying to smear and besmirch the good name of jews everywhere."

The historian wouldnt have to.

MindMechanic said...

How can the media ignore this???

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dclinton02mar02,0,4941933.story?coll=sfla-news-miami

CORAL GABLES -- If he were president today, Bill Clinton says, his No. 1 priority would be stabilizing Iraq by following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that wants more diplomacy and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country.

In remarks Thursday at the University of Miami's 2007 Spring Convocation, the former president suggested an abrupt pullout by the United States was not the answer.

"For all of you that would like us to leave tomorrow, keep in mind the United Nations policy is ... we've got to try to hold this country together if we can to make it work and not let it become the new Afghanistan for terror," he said.

Clinton spoke at the annual campus event at the invitation of UM President Donna Shalala, who was secretary of Health and Human Services in his administration. Shalala introduced Clinton as "one of the most remarkable and sophisticated political leaders of our time."

Clinton said Afghanistan would be his second priority. That nation has seen a rise in violence by Taliban militants, five years after a U.S-led invasion toppled the country's Taliban regime. On Wednesday, a suicide bomber attacked the main gate of a military base in Afghanistan where Vice President Dick Cheney had spent the night. Twenty-three people were killed, including two Americans.

"We cannot afford to let the Taliban and al-Qaida overthrow President [Hamid] Karzai, a genuinely popular, moderate, Muslim democracy," he said. "It could go bad and it will be bad for you personally. It will affect our security here."

Anonymous said...

We have met the enemy and he is us! -Walt Kelly/ Pogo

The ABSOLUTIST position, "all abortion is murder", is responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of the unborn and has become the PROBLEM with creating effective legislation that could and would significantly reduce abortion deaths.

The all or nothing INFLEXIBILITY of "abortion is murder" creates a insolvable quandry that is very similar to the mathematical quandry of squaring the circle -- in the REAL world this is IMPOSSIBLE because PI is a transcendental number, not an algabraic one.

Obviously ALL means EVERY kind of abortion is murder, so in a RATIONAL world of laws and definitions it is soon necessary to EXACTLY define and interpret the LEGAL terms "abortion" and "murder". However, such definitions at once become limited by the very INTERPRETATION of the words and therefore, inevitably SOMEONE'S definition will be "cut off"; much like Procrustes was "fitted" to his own bed by cutting off his head and feet (metaphor meaning an arbitrary, "NON-ABSOLUTE" standard).

A definition informs us of WHAT something IS but also WHAT something IS NOT, by its very nature.

Lysis; et al, as proponent of the "all abortion is murder" position has ALREADY admitted to certain EXCEPTIONS which HE chooses to minimize through "cost benefit analysis". However, at the same time he chooses to ignore as ridiculous what SOME OTHERS(Catholics) would ALSO choose to define as abortion and the MANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES of definition -- Ending with the very FINITE and NON ABSOLUTE procrustean position of LYSIS' OWN limited and non-absolutely inclusive PREFERRED definition to the words, abortion and murder.

I do not oppose LYSIS on THIS basis, because I believe ALSO that definitions of abortion must be established using "cost benefit analysis" (however I do not pretend that the definitions EVER could include ALL) -- a kind of cost benefit analysis calibrated upon REAL WORLD utility and practicability would WORK by significantly and judiciously reducing the deaths of the unborn.

However, Lysis has previously held this to be anathema because it allows SOME innocents to die -- he chastises MM that ALL innocents would be saved if "all abortion were murder".

The ABSOLUTIST position can NEVER solve the problem, and Lysis' preoccupied CRUSADE to make it law is a demostrated hypocrisy, while real world PRACTICAL reductions are within reach -- THAT IS THE REAL CRIME AGAINST THE UNBORN RIGHT HERE AT THE AGORA!!!!

truth to power said...

Dang! It's so hard to keep score. Does anybody know whether or not this Anonymous decrying the "ABSOLUTIST" position that "all abortion is murder" is the same one who recently preached us the Catholic doctrine against birth control?

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Part of historical research is examining and judging the sources of historic information. Part of studying history is checking and judging your sources; part of teaching History is presenting the facts and debunking the BUNK.

It is dishonesty to present the lies of holocaust deniers on the same level of legitimacy as documented testimony. Your, “let the student decide” method reduces all history to a conglomeration of opinions, in the postmodern “everyone’s opinion is of equal value” mindset, we would leave those who should be seeking the truth with no way of making judgments about it.

You say:

*** “Now...I think a historian would present the evidence of the holocaust, present the 'evidence' as presented by the deniers, and then allow the students of history to decide who was telling the truth and who was telling lies. And it wouldn’t be hard.

What the historian WOULD NOT do is say...

"this is the proof as presented by the valiant soldiers, courageous survivors, and photographers who bravely risked their lives to save as many of the tragic victims of Nazi perversion as they could, while here is the 'proof' (snort) as presented by this former white sheet wearing klansman, nutbag religous schemer, and obvious hack that are out trying to smear and besmirch the good name of jews everywhere." ***

Why would you insist that a historian not tell the truth about his sources of information? How can you call for the presentation of obvious lies side by side with and claiming equal credibility to the truth?

Should a teacher explain to his students that some people think the earth is round and some think it is flat, and then say you decide? Should a teacher tell students that some people think that drugs enrich ones life experience while others think that drugs kill your brain – but I make no judgment, it’s up to you? Would you allow a tobacco company to present the benefits of smoking with equal time and weight to the report of the Surgeon General on the hazards of smoking and tell you students that it would be out of place for you to offer an opinion? Would you have a scoutmaster tell his charges that some people recommend not pouring gas on a fire – but others do it all the time, so it’s up to them; or that some people think one should only climb cliffs with ropes but others think that ropes reduce the adventure and are for sissies; its up to you?

One does not present truth and lies with equal deference, nor should there be any fear that presenting the truth about sources will do anything but improve the ability of students to find the truth.

I have heard this sort of silliness in classes at the University. “George Washington went to war for his beliefs, so did Osama Bin laden. One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist, and one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot – its all opinion, fell free to draw yours.” The differences between Washington and Bin Laden are measurable and reasonably recognizable. The students need to be taught the difference, not allowed to believe that any creditable teacher or person would support such a silly statement.


Flaccid;

First, thank you for your efforts to provide arguments and relevant claims. It is indeed refreshing, and although, I will vigorously disagree with you – I am grateful for the chance to consider what passes as belief for you and be forced to defend my own position against it. This is when debate begins to serve a real purpose in the search for the truth.

However, what I really would have liked to read is how abortion is not murder. This would give us something “real” to debate.

I do clearly believe that all abortion is murder; all killing of humans is homicide. But surely you understand that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. The question comes down to what is the justifiable reason for killing another person. The law is quite clear on this, the law can also be quite clear on when abortions might be committed without being considered unjust.

I would also like to read why you believe it is impossible to draw any line short of no line. Are you willing to accept that sometimes killing a born-person might be acceptable? Or do you insist that claiming that it is just to killing someone under some circumstance must necessarily allow for the killing of any person under any circumstance?

Your irrational refusal to recognize human ability to draw just lines, and you insistence that such lines must be “non-absolute”, has not been supported by anything. You claim that, any abortion should be allowed because outlawing some, but not all, is tantamount to cutting of someone’s head to make them fit their bed; is foolish.

Can’t you see that I can be ABSOLUTLY against murder and be for killing someone in self-defense without accepting that all murders should be legal? You are pretending here, not reasoning. Your entire purpose is to obfuscate and dodge the fact that we can justly draw an absolute line concerning abortion. There is no squared circle here. Justice allows us to fit square pegs in to square holes, and round ones into round ones. It is a judgment that any child capable of thought could do.

Was it cost benefit analysis that allowed a policeman to judge that he must shoot a teenager killing people in a mall? You COULD argue so – the death of one deranged zealot weighed against the lives of many innocent people and police officers. I admit that it can be so construed, but the decision to shoot is also justice because it conforms to a line that is absolute.

A policeman could NOT go into a mall and shot teenage boys for any other reason, nor could he have shot this one – if the kid would have put down his gun and surrendered. This is not a line drawn by “cost benefit analysis”, though there are surly costs and benefits to be considered; it is a line drawn by just reason based on an absolute truth that does not change from one instance to another.

You have not demonstrated any hypocrisy in my position; it is unflinching, constant, measurable, reasonable, and just.

My position on slavery is the same – I claim it to be wrong under any circumstance but that does not mean I obstruct any activities that seek to end slavery.

The thirteenth amendment gave the force of American law to Natural Law that demanded the end of Slavery in America; it did not diminish the valuable work of all those who had, and continue to, work to free slaves in times past or present.

It is you refusal to allow judgment that is arrogant and fanatical. The position is the constant retreat of those who would deny the protection of law to the unborn, the endless and mindless harangue of those who refuse to recognize the humanity of these children.

Your only logical position, your only legitimate stand, would be to prove that unborn children are r not human, or that, for some reason, they are not entitled to human rights, or that some “right” of the pregnant woman outweighs the right to life of the child. You, of course, dodge taking any of these positions because they are ABSOLUTLY WRONG.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

My answer is the same today as it was the last time...because a HISTORIAN does not operate on bias. A historian does not seek moral or philosophical truth...only truth. Therefore a historian would not prejudice their audience with bias.

If a historian were to archive our discussion on this thread he or she would describe the players and their stated positions. He or she would NOT state, "The noble X fired a valiant volley by blasting fiercely the weak and uninspired arguments of Y. Y attempted to refute, but only came across as petty and arrogant. Soon Z and B joined in and they too took Y to task. The trouncing was historic and their cause obviously was more convincing because it smacked of truth. J then entered the fray...

Now it is unlikely that ANY unbiased reader could come away from the above account with anything other than the opinion that Y was wrong and took a beatdown. Whether that is the actual case or not would be impossible to tell because there was no unbiased historical perspective.

MindMechanic said...

"I have heard this sort of silliness in classes at the University. “George Washington went to war for his beliefs, so did Osama Bin laden. One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist, and one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot – its all opinion, fell free to draw yours.”"

THIS is precisely my point! The historian should not speculate as to intent, noble or otherwise.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

Telling the truth is not bias.

What does this mean? “A historian does not seek moral or philosophical truth...only truth.” Truth is truth whether it is scientific, philosophical, moral, religious, or political; all truth is all truth.

One might sound a little corny calling X valiant and Y uninspired. But if X is fighting to liberate Europe from the clutches of Nazism and Y is fighting for to be able to exterminate or enslave everyone on earth who doesn’t fit their definition of Arian, a historian is perfectly within his venue to point out the evils of Nazis and the justice of fighting them.

I agree if the words you use, noble, handsome, really nice hair are what you are asking your students to judge the case on, you are a little loopy in your delivery. But to point out that fighting to maintain slavery is wrong, but fighting to preserve the Union is a good thing is a good thing.


Are you “agreeing” that there is not difference between George Washington and Bin Laden other than the opinion of a student who has heard them equally presented, or are you admitting that a teacher who refuses to teach what is just is indeed muddying the waters with his own prejudice by pretending that there is no difference between a terrorist and a patriot?

MindMechanic said...

"Why would you insist that a historian not tell the truth about his sources of information?"

You mistake me...I INSIST that they tell the truth. Not the truth clouded by their own bias and polluted with adjectives and superlatives. The truth is enough.

"How can you call for the presentation of obvious lies side by side with and claiming equal credibility to the truth?"

Truth will out. The truth will set you free. In the holocaust example you report the positions and supporting facts. Truth is FAR more powerful than bias.

"Should a teacher explain to his students that some people think the earth is round and some think it is flat, and then say you decide?"

No. The teacher should explain that the scientific basis for 'round' had not yet been determined. It is a perfect opportunity to teach the evolution of thought. Then the teacher can teach on how and why we know what we know today. Of course...that is what you teach in a science class. You might even teach the possible consequence or proposed physics of a flat earth. The students might learn better why it is round and not flat. GREAT learning opportunity.

Should a teacher tell students that some people think that drugs enrich ones life experience while others think that drugs kill your brain –

Yes, if you are teaching psychologists or psychiatrists that need to understand the thought processes (faulty or not) as to why some people make some choices and others choose differently.

Keep in mind of course that when you teach this to psych students you also have to teach cognitive, behavioral, cognitive behavioral, Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian psychoanalysis, Existentialism, Humanism, reality, aversion, and any number of theories on cause. You have teach that some agree and some that disagree so the prospective clinician can decide on the style that best suits them and is most effective.

However if the teacher is an Erickson disciple they might teach that Ericksons theories were the only ones that REALLY made any sense. And THAT is the danger of a teacher foisting BIAS.

Would you allow a tobacco company to present the benefits of smoking with equal time and weight to the report of the Surgeon General on the hazards of smoking and tell you students that it would be out of place for you to offer an opinion?

Sure. Unless the students asked the opinion of the teacher. But the more effective reponse to the student might be "what do YOU think and why?" I am hoping that MY students are being taught critical thinking skills, in which case they dont need me spoon feeding them.

Would you have a scoutmaster tell his charges that some people recommend not pouring gas on a fire – but others do it all the time, so it’s up to them; or that some people think one should only climb cliffs with ropes but others think that ropes reduce the adventure and are for sissies; its up to you?

Of course not. I would discuss both action and consequence. However you are talking something a LITTLE diffferent here...you are talking rules. Now no one is suggesting that rules should be negotiable.

However...if you REALLY want your teaching to be effective then you teach THIS is why you need a a bolayer (spelling...you know...the guy at the bottom that holds the rope) and the consequence is you are likely to fall on your head. And here is an example of why. Now...go and do. Because now they are armed with knowledge so that when they make their choice they have a better shot at making the right choice.

"One does not present truth and lies with equal deference, nor should there be any fear that presenting the truth about sources will do anything but improve the ability of students to find the truth."

A historian presents the facts. No fear. No bias. Just the facts.

How often is revisionist history taught today in our schools? How often is evolution taught as fact and not theory? How many students have been indoctrinated with the Bush lied ideology? How many teachers are teaching their students that global warming is not only real but man made and specifically caused by America?

And do you think those teaching revised history say it with ANY less conviction than you do?

MindMechanic said...

Telling the truth is not bias.

I agree...telling the truth is telling the truth. Throwing in opinion or bias is not telling the truth, it is telling a story.

What does this mean? “A historian does not seek moral or philosophical truth...only truth.”

It means this.
In 2002, George Bush addressed the UN and spoke of Iraqs requirement to comply with UN resolutions. Iraq refused and in 2003 George Bush went before congress and the world and cited several reasons for preparing for and ultimately engaging Iraq in war.

That is a true historical statement.

This is NOT.

Geroge Bush stole the election with the help of his brother and once in office he set out to even the score with Saddam for trying to kill his daddy. Dick Cheney was all for it because Dick Cheney had friends on the board at Haliburton and knew they could make tons of cash. So they fabricated evidence and then lied about their reason and then went to war so they could steal all of Iraqs oil.

THAT is NOT a historical statement. I GUARANTEE you that is being taught in high school and college history classes today.

"Truth is truth whether it is scientific, philosophical, moral, religious, or political; all truth is all truth."

Hogwash. If that were the case there would be only one opinion.

MindMechanic said...

"Are you “agreeing” that there is not difference between George Washington and Bin Laden other than the opinion of a student who has heard them equally presented, or are you admitting that a teacher who refuses to teach what is just is indeed muddying the waters with his own prejudice by pretending that there is no difference between a terrorist and a patriot?"

Neither. I am stating that a teacher that uses bias has obviously tried to influence his or her students by equating George Washington and OBL as the same.

Studying the historical origins of George Washington allows the student to better understand and the individual and his acts.

Studying the historical origins of OBL also allows the student to better understand the individual and his acts.

There IS a value to learning the historical facts surrounding the creation of an OBL. Just as there is a value to understanding why it is easy to recruit terrorists in that region.

Lysis said...

And there is value in learning values.

Osama Bin Laden is a legitimate subject for study by anyone looking to understand evil. It is not legitimate to present his beliefs in neutral terms as if they are just as just as Washington’s if that is what one wants to believe.

It is irresponsible to teach – it is wrong to believe - that the principles of terrorist fanaticism are in any way on a par with the enlightened values that are the foundation of individual freedom, self-determination, and the defense of the natural rights of man which motivated Washington’s noble life. Besides; Washington had better hair. (Flaccid – the last was a joke.)

Rumpole said...

MindMechanic,

You post: “The historian should not speculate as to intent, noble or otherwise.”

This sounds like something that a graduate from the USU history department would suggest. He would probably be seeking validation because he felt the pressure of being compared to graduates from superior programs, like at BYU.

Is not intent the very basis of history? Without intent is there any creation of history?

You pose the question “Is anyone buying the whole man-made global warming argument?” Let’s take the position (which is perfectly reasonable) that global warming is indeed, a fraud. In our example, when global warming is exposed as fraud, is the study of history complete, from the historian’s perspective, without the discussion as to why the fraud was attempted?

Here is an example that the anonymy may appreciate. Let’s pretend (and this is really pretend) that Republicans fixed the election in Florida, which enabled President Bush to win re-election. Is the study of history complete, from the historian’s perspective, to not ask why?

Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Why?

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Why?

You post: “a HISTORIAN does not operate on bias.” Is it your contention, then, that “why” can only be told with bias?

You post: “A historian presents the facts. No fear. No bias. Just the facts.” Is it your contention, then, that the reporting of “intent” can never be factual?

There is much speculation as to why Oswald did what he did. There is much speculation as to why Lincoln did what he did. Which historian is right? Are they all wrong?

There are answers. Even if we don’t yet know, there is a reason why Oswald shot Kennedy. Even if they have not been uncovered yet, there are clear reasons why Lincoln emancipated the slaves.

The historic record is incomplete without knowing why.

The historian of value is the historian that can accurately and without bias tell us why!

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole...

"Is not intent the very basis of history? Without intent is there any creation of history?"

teaching intent is WONDERFUL...if in fact you KNOW their intent and do not instead SPECULATE and ASSIGN intent. So...it would be OK to say "Hitler stated (or wrote) extermination of the jews is my goal because I believe they are evil before God and a scourge on the land by their demonic practices." IF that was what he said. However there is plenty of speculation as to his intent. Instead, the historian simply reports his actions without the assigned input of intent. Where it is known...fine...state it...but STATE it.

I wonder if maybe I am missing something...me not being a college edumacated teacher and all. I didnt know the role of teachers was to indoctrinate. I thought it was to teach. I'd be real careful about endorsing indoctrination, especially in light of the fact that there are so few enlightened educators out there that teach the just and righteous causes of the conservative right.

I DONT mean that as a slam to any present company! My point is that if all the left leaning liberal teachers taught with the intent to indoctrinate based on THEIR belief system...the majority of our kids WOULD be educated to believe abortion (choice) is (God Given where it suits them) right, God is a fairy tale, evolution is fact, and OBL is more noble and honorable than George. Bush that is.

My oldest daughter was having a problem in her science class at Layton High. She graduated 7 years ago, so this would have been about 8 years ago. Her science teacher openly mocked faith and religious belief (and especially that of the dominant local religion) and instead taught Darwins theories, while still being developed, as the ONLY truth. She was marked down for pointing to the flaws in Darwins theories and expressing that it was THEORY and not fact. Shame on me for teaching my children and allowing them critical thought!

What is the difference between that educator and the vision that educators have a right to teach what they believe based on THEIR view of history?

It would be swell if ALL teachers did what you propose...provided they were all right (according to my version of right and wrong). But since that isnt likely to happen, I expect that the school TEACH and leave the moralistic indoctrination to ME. That is my job as a parent. Why? Because sometimes I dont LIKE my kids being indoctrinated by some of the educators.

"In our example, when global warming is exposed as fraud, is the study of history complete, from the historian’s perspective, without the discussion as to why the fraud was attempted?"

The study of history? I dont know about that. The study of Political Science? Sure! Teach away. Teach intent, theory, delve into students perspective, teach background...include everything. But not in the history class. In the history class I would think you teach both sides of the ongoing debate and the political climate.

You dont even teach the science of global warming in history class...thats what science class is for. That is as out of place as teaching pythagorian theorum in home ec.

"Here is an example that the anonymy may appreciate.(RE Bush's stolen 2000 election)-Is the study of history complete, from the historian’s perspective, to not ask why?"

Rumpole...let me tell you why I think the answer to this is to NOT teach 'why'. What if your childs history teacher did just that...taught why. What if the reason he taught was that the Bush family has been since the 1930's involved in the one world government 'Illuminati' and that they controlled oil holdings and fixed prices for generations, that they worked with the Ford family to provide parts and oil to the Nazi regime, that Bush 1 was set in power not by the American people but by the Illuminati, and that families like the Bush and Rockefeller clan conspired to ensure that Bush 2 was elected. It was fixed so that if there was any question, the final vote would come from Florida, a state that just 'happened' to be controlled by who? Jeb Bush. Coincidence? Please! Pull the other one. The SCOTUS which takes direct calls from the red phone in chambers hooked not to the white house but to the OWG (one world government) desk, was informed on which direction to cast their vote. Oddly enough Rhenquist was a holdout, which is why the slowly poisoned him to replace him with two more conservative judges. Ginsberg is currently also being poisoned and has been shown to fall asleep during oral arguments...proof that the poison is taking affect so that Bush can assign yet another OWG patsy onto the supreme court.
BTW...the OWG wanted Bush, obviously, but there was a failsafe backup plan, You see...four years later, after the 2000 election became so closely contested, they made sure that Bush's opponent in the 2004 election was another member of the Skull and Bones Society...so their reign would not be threatened...

OK...I know...sounds silly...right? But the fact is...I didnt make ANY of that up. Those are all positions being thrown about at COLLEGE level.

ALONG WITH the 9-11 theories taught at YOUR SUPERIOR INSTITUTION that George Bush ordered explosive charges be planted in the twin towers and then ordered them all to be brought down, along with destroying evidence in the pentagon by a plan attack that never occured...

"Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Why?"

Because Johnson was under contract by the mafia and ordered him to.

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Why?"
He wasnt supposed to...the Illuminati (run out of Rome at the time) was angry, so they sent their hitman John Wilkes Boothe to punish him.

Is it your contention, then, that “why” can only be told with bias?

It is my contention that 'why' IS taught with bias and that is WHY it should not be taught. It is my contention that HISTORY should be taught and that students should be 1-ENCOURAGED to speculate as to why, and then 2-CHALLENGED to defend their critical thinking process.

"There is much speculation as to why Oswald did what he did. There is much speculation as to why Lincoln did what he did. Which historian is right? Are they all wrong?"

See...thats my point. Funny. 'I' was going to post that. The problem, Rumpole, is the tendency of people to teach ONLY their absolutist position (there is that word again).

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

You might find this a powerful clip. I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kbJ0QsT0xw&mode=related&search=

I love Ann Coulter. I DO think she goofed when recently calling John Edwards a 'faggot' however....

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

It has become obvious that you have painted yourself into a corner on this one. You’re not going to get out by splashing on more layers!

Your say:

“I DONT mean that as a slam to any present company! My point is that if all the left leaning liberal teachers taught with the intent to indoctrinate based on THEIR belief system...the majority of our kids WOULD be educated to believe abortion (choice) is (God Given where it suits them) right, God is a fairy tale, evolution is fact, and OBL is more noble and honorable than George. Bush that is.”

The truth is that this is the very dribble that is taught in most high school classrooms, and surly all college ones. And what is particularly insidious is that these teachers PRETEND to be unbiased striving for to be fair and balanced in their presentations. But one cannot fairly present lies, one cannot deceive without bias. Your defense, your children’s defense, the truths defense, is to teach the truth.

You relate the difficulty your student had with a “science teacher” who openly mocked faith. I quote:

“Her science teacher openly mocked faith and religious belief (and especially that of the dominant local religion) and instead taught Darwin’s theories, while still being developed, as the ONLY truth. She was marked down for pointing to the flaws in Darwin’s theories and expressing that it was THEORY and not fact. Shame on me for teaching my children and allowing them critical thought!”

Of course the last sentence was sarcastic – you are a hero for teaching your children critical thinking. That is the job of every teacher, parent, mentor, and friend. This is the way to protect children for lies. And one of the lies – AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO RECOGNIZE – is pretending that there is no distinction between right and wrong in history. There is noting critical about thinking that puts everything on the same value level. Just because some teacher teach things that are not true does not mean all teachers should teach there students that there is no truth.

You have carefully avoided answering any of my questions. You say:

“In the history class I would think you teach both sides of the ongoing debate and the political climate.”

Does that mean that Osama and Washington should both be presented as terrorists to your child? Does that mean that Hitler’s murders should be given parity with the efforts of Allied troops on the beaches of Normandy? Are you implying that a teacher should tell students that supporting the continuance of slavery was a viable solution to the economic problems of the south or that separate but equal was just as good a solution to America’s multi racial reality as integration?

There is still open debate concerning creation of life on earth, but are we really still debating weather slavery is just or not? Are we still discussion the merits of slavery, or the positive ramifications of segregation?

With the reasoning of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton we gave up on teaching the earth centered world as a reputable position on the workings of the world, not because of anyone’s bias, but because of the truth.

Students should be free to challenge anything taught to them by there teachers, and among the most insidious things taught to children is that everything is neutral until one applies one’s own opinion to it.

We should not fear teachers with openly stated and readily identifiable biases – we should fear teachers you by pretending to be without bias remove our children’s abilities to think critically by enticing them into believing that there is no right or wrong to criticize.

The best thing for you to do is to turn around, fill in the corner, and back out covering your tracks as best as you can.

By the way – the political agenda of those who pretend that global warming is occurring and that it is the fault of American economic and industrial success is very much the type of thing that should be taught in History class. It is an excellent lens through which to consider the many politically motivated frauds of the past. The lines between class content are arbitrary at best – the present thrust for cross curricular study emphasizes the advantages of learning about topics in a variety of settings.

Anonymous said...

Einstein took what Lysis still regards as Newton's purportedly "absolute" truth and made it ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE -- how quickly can what Lysis preaches as TRUTHS become whimsical fables!!!!

Part of the teaching about TRUTH that SHOULD be required above ALL else in classrooms is the many historical examples of "TRUTH'S" IMPERMANANCE -- and how "TRUTH" advocacy so quickly becomes propaganda promotion when indoctrination becomes the defacto GOAL of an educator!!!!

By all means, insulate your children from the "tentacles" of ALL such grasping zealots.

Anonymous said...

Your claim that any abortion should be allowed . . . -Lysis
_______________

Not my claim.
Far from my claim.
I made some claims.
Rspond to those!!!!

To reiterate.

The position "All abortion is murder" is an ABSOLUTE claim ONLY until the words abortion and murder are defined.

When abortion and murder are LEGALLY defined
the position becomes FINITE and RELATIVE depending on whatever meanings are ascribed to the words, BECAUSE ALL DEFINITIONS, past, present and FUTURE can NEVER be expressed!!!!

Lysis' preferred definition is subjective and relative and, AT LEAST 65 million Americans (many more) think that it is too NARROW.

Lysis feels HIS defintion is the ABSOLUTE and that "their" definitions are ridiculous and should be ignored.

Even though '"it is a judgment that any child capable of thought could do", Lysis' defintion of "ALL abortion is murder" is a masquerade for his TRUE position that only SOME abortion is murder!!!!

That's the argument.
Stay focused.
No red herrings.
No teenaqe "shooters".
No slavery.
No telling me what I must argue instead . . . or else it's a "dodge".

Rumpole said...

MindMechanic,

Your speculation as to why we ought not to teach “why” illustrates exactly my reasoning of the opposite. In our example of a “stolen election,” if the reasoning you gave as to why the election was stolen was true, if that reasoning was verifiable, then it ought to be shouted from the rooftops. If that reasoning were speculation, it ought not to be discussed.

Is Oliver Stone’s version of JFK accurate, or is it speculation? No one has proven any conspiracy theory in the assassination of JFK; the “facts” that Stone presents are not verifiable; the movie is not history, and shouldn’t be taught as such.

Did Hitler exterminate millions of Jews? Yes, the facts are verifiable. Teach that, not the President of Iran’s version that there was no Holocaust. My kids need to know that the Holocaust happened as verifiable historical fact, and is not just one side of an ongoing debate that attempts to introduce propaganda into the historical record.

You post: “It would be swell if ALL teachers did what you propose...provided they were all right (according to my version of right and wrong).”

Are there “versions” of right and wrong, of good verses evil, and of truth verses lies; or is there right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lies?

Is murder wrong, or is it just the opinion of the majority in an ongoing debate?

Is communism wrong, or did the eastern block countries have the right to enslave their people for generations as a difference of opinion?

Are Islamic Fascists wrong, or should we feel empathy for them after they go to our malls and murder our friends?

You imply by your “swell” comment that my views are idealistic. Perhaps they are, but it is an idealism that is rooted in the fundamentals of democracy. There is right and wrong, there is good and evil, and there are truth and lies. These positions are not relative to someone’s “version”. Every man does not fare according to the management of his own creature.

Truth is unchanging; truth is universal; truth is recognizable. Truth should be taught freely to our children. Truth has nothing to do with my “version” of events. When the breakdown occurs (which is happening before our very eyes, witness the abortion debate) that we can no longer freely teach truth to our children because of someone else’s “version”, we will be eyewitness to the crumbling of our society.

As for my “superior institution,” my comment was an inside barb to Lysis. I’m sure he understood. Lysis and I have often lightheartedly debated BYU’s superiority to USU. It is a "fact" that he now eagerly accepts.

I know I’m sticking my chin out there now when I say this, but my feelings for BYU are similar to my feelings for Rush. Rush makes no pretense that he is a journalist; Rush is a commentator; as such, he has no responsibility to eliminate bias. BYU makes no pretense to be a public institution; the LDS church is its endower; its only responsibility is to the accreditation board (assuming that it wants accreditation, which is certainly debatable, ask the education department).

Teachers do have responsibility to eliminate bias. They must teach truth. Unfortunately, there are many that have and promote their own agenda.

I truly enjoy our discussions. I think we are again to the point of our disagreement. You post: “It is my contention that 'why' IS taught with bias and that is WHY it should not be taught.”

If indeed “why” is always taught with bias it is wrong to teach why. I do not believe that to be the case. I do not believe “why” cannot be taught without bias, and I do not believe teaching “why” should be eliminated.

There is no value in the study of history if we eliminate “why.”

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

Color me a little confused...

"You have carefully avoided answering any of my questions."

I have PAINSTAKINGLY posted responses. I have been direct, confrontive, and open. If I missed a question it was inadvertent. I have given example. I dont skimp on confrontation. And after reading your entire post...I have to be honest...I see someone in a corner...and it aint' me!

"Does that mean that Osama and Washington should both be presented as terrorists to your child?"

NO!!! For the love of all that is Holy...NO!!! The HISTORY teacher should teach the historical data of both men. The history teacher should encourage critical thought of the students. But IN NO WAY do I want HISTORY teachers teaching with the kind of judgment you describe. Why? Because for crying out loud, Lysis...you JUST POINTED OUT that THAT is what kind of DRIBBLE is being taught in schools and colleges today. YOU make the argument we have HISTORY TEACHERS (doesnt it blow your mind???!!!) that teach George Bush is WORSE than OBL! THAT is what happens when you allow for teaching using some morons bloated sense of right or wrong. Some idiot that thinks they can sit at the feet of liberal professors and then come back and have not the RIGHT but the responsibility to indoctrinate our youth...doesnt that just make you want to scream?

Because oh yes...we ARE BACK to the problem of left and right, right and wrong.

Unless you know of some secret plan to allow you to establish criteria, we are going to be left with biased educators teaching slanted history based on their personal perspective.

History lesson. Osama Bin Laden grew up in a male dominated culture. He was the 17th son of a very rich Arab who divorced his mother shortly after his birth. (now...if we are teaching a PSYCH class we can go a LOT of places with this! ALL of this might have an impact on his thinking...but History is not the place for psychological profiles and studies because they are speculative). (all of this is factual). He ultimately ended up in Afghanistan where there was a battle raging between muslims and soviets. While there, he was contacted by member of the US CIA and supported financial and technologically to fight a battle against the Soviets and oust them from Afghanistan (again, all factual). After the Taliban secured Afghanistan he was again a rebel in search of a cause and formed terror organizations and planned terror attacks around the globe. (all factual). Documents and his own statements indicate that he later engineered the attack on the US on 9-11. He sought refuge in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. After the fall of the Taliban he and his remaining Al Qaida operatives hid in caves and tunnels between Afghanistan and Pakistan. His current whereabouts are unknown.

By his OWN word but certainly by the definition of terrorism, OBL is a terrorist.

Washington was the leader of the rebellion against England and later after the country won it's freedom, Washington was asked first to become king of the new country and then asked to be its first president. Was Washington a terrorist? Not by any classic definition of the word. But was he a rebel? Absolutely, in the eyes of the Brits. All of that is factual.

You can go more into depth on the words and actions of both OBL and Washington. Given the facts I seen reason why the students could not be trusted to use critical thinking and make their own conclusions. Then, when in a debate forum they hear OBL and Washington compared, they could make a reasoned argument as to why the either agree or disagree. They wouldnt just spout the hate filled rhetoric pumped into their brain by a biased 'educator'.

Does that mean that Hitler’s murders should be given parity with the efforts of Allied troops on the beaches of Normandy?

Do I have to spell this one out as well and if I dont will I be accused of not answering? TEACH HISTORY. There is no need to indoctrinate.

IF you allow for indoctrination you get the empty headed dribble that is currently being taught in schools and colleges today.

Are you implying that a teacher should tell students that supporting the continuance of slavery was a viable solution to the economic problems of the south or that separate but equal was just as good a solution to America’s multi racial reality as integration?

Interesting note...this very discussion is currently ongoing at WSU in a class. And believe it or not they have the same varied opinions and questions about the above issues as we have had. Because (hang on!) not everyone agrees...not with you, not with me, not with anyone. And that is PRECISELY WHY I DO NOT want my educators indoctrinating based on their biases...because they teach empty headed dribble.

A certain Mrs S at LHS only this year has been known to teach lessons on the middle east. She teaches them with those biases...that empty headed dribble you mentioned. When certain students question her, they are ordered to shut up and quit being disruptive. How can she effectively indoctrinate the rest of the class when her very obviously wrong positions are being questioned??? And who on earth taught these young upstarts to THINK critically? ESPECIALLY about a subject where she is OBVIOUSLY the expert because after all SHE is the teacher and has read a book or two on the practices and 'history' of the middle east, which gives her cause and justification to explain why America is the source of all their wrongs.

No sir...I DO NOT want those people indoctrinating my children. I do not want my children subjected to their bias. I DO NOT want their empty headed drivel.

Shut up and sing. Shut and teach. If you want to wax philosophically then teach philosophy but even THEN teach the practice of philosophy...a practice which DEMANDS open discussion and critical thought.

"There is still open debate concerning creation of life on earth"

NO SIR! NO there is not! Because BIASED EDUCATORS do not allow for discussion of creation. Dont EVEN pretend that is the case. Because YOUR PLAN for teaching bias is in FULL SWING. You cant discuss creation...you cant discuss ID...all you have is speculative 'science'.

"but are we really still debating weather slavery is just or not?"

Once AGAIN...

DONT TEACH SLAVERY AS RIGHT OR WRONG. TEACH IT AS HISTORICAL FACT.

My ancestry came to America in the 1880's. I have no dog in this fight. Barrack Obama...a 'black' man... is the son of a WHITE woman...who we now know 2 and 3 generatiosn ago OWNED slaves. His father is from Nigeria. He has SLAVE OWNERS as heritage from both his other AND his father. Now teach THAT as a matter of right or wrong.

It is NOT NECESSARY to teach slavery as a wicked practice. Anyone that can string together a sentence can, in this day and age, make the right conclusion due to our social enlightenment. So stop teaching "America bad" for evil slavery and start teaching the evolution of thought GLOBALLY regarding the practice of slavery. Stop creating 6 and 7th generation victims. Stop creating 6 and 7th generation guilt. What on EARTH are you trying to accomplish by fighting the slave argument OVER and OVER and OVER for?

NO ONE thinks slavery is a GOOD thing. No one except the AFRICANS and the aborigines in New Zealand that STILL practice it today. How often do you see THAT taught in schools??? Never? WHY?????

TEACH HISTORY. The TRUTH is there.

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole...

sigh...

"If that reasoning was verifiable, then it ought to be shouted from the rooftops. If that reasoning were speculation, it ought not to be discussed."

I AGREE. But the problem is we HAVE speculative arguments being thrown at students as FACT because we have a system polluted with educator bias.

"Is Oliver Stone’s version of JFK accurate, or is it speculation? No one has proven any conspiracy theory in the assassination of JFK; the “facts” that Stone presents are not verifiable; the movie is not history, and shouldn’t be taught as such"

I agree. So dont pretend you can speculate about Lee Harvey Oswalds motives unless you absolutely know them. Then BY ALL MEANS...teach them.

"Did Hitler exterminate millions of Jews? Yes, the facts are verifiable."

I agree...teach that. We dont need to speculate...teach facts.

"You post: “It would be swell if ALL teachers did what you propose...provided they were all right (according to my version of right and wrong).”

"Are there “versions” of right and wrong, of good verses evil, and of truth verses lies; or is there right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lies?"

Yes, Rumpole...there are. There are a large number of educators that believe in THEIR VERSION of right and wrong and they teach George Bush is a liar. THAT IS WHAT I OBJECT TO. They have stopped teaching fact. They teach SLANT and BIAS.

"Is communism wrong, or did the eastern block countries have the right to enslave their people for generations as a difference of opinion?"

Ask the teachers that believe or country would benefit from a turn to socialism. Ask the college professors that teach Cuba is a shining example of freedom and progress. You DONT have to ask me...you KNOW my opinion. Unfortunately...You have educators that teach communism was nothing but a red herring scare and that socialism is preferable to the excesses of capitalism.

"You imply by your “swell” comment that my views are idealistic. Perhaps they are, but it is an idealism that is rooted in the fundamentals of democracy."

rumpole...you get that from all I can see, our views on many issues are mirror identical...right? I am not denigrating your views.

The PROBLEM comes when you have educators that come from a different school. They DISAGREE with you, AND me...and they are in a position to indoctrinate our youth. And THAT is why I dont WANT teachers teaching right and wrong...I want them teaching FACTS.
I'LL take care of teaching right and wrong in my family...it is MY JOB to indoctrinate...not theirs.

"There is right and wrong, there is good and evil, and there are truth and lies. These positions are not relative to someone’s “version”."

Does the brick LITERALLY have to fall from the sky and land on your head for you to get that your version of right and wrong (even CORRECTLY APPLIED) are immaterial when it comes to liberal ideologies that are being taught? DO you simply not get that right and wrong as YOU apply it does not work the same way with many liberal educators? And the downside of endorsing teaching RIGHT and WRONG is that you dont get to pick and choose what is taught as right and wrong???

I dont mean to be rude...I really dont...but it is EXASPERATING. EVEN LYSIS admits our schools and colleges are populated with liberals...useful idiots...empty headed fools that are spewing leftist hatred and venom. And YOU endorse that because YOU think they SHOULD be able to teach right and wrong...and THEY DONT AGREE with your version of right and wrong!

"Truth is unchanging; truth is universal; truth is recognizable. Truth should be taught freely to our children."

This is the exasperating part that gets so tiring. The tenured at professor at Kent State who posts anti-American rhetoric and recruits muslims for jihad AGAINST America BELIEVES he is speaking truth. And the citizens of the state of Ohio PAY HIM to do so. OF COURSE I dont agree with him and OF COURSE you dont agree with him...and OPF COURSE he is wrong...but he is STILL spewing it and standing for his truth and college students are STILL inodctinatedc by it and guess what...after reading 15 pages of postings by his students...a LOT are buying it.

THATS WHY I DONT WANT THEM TEACHING BIAS.

"As for my “superior institution,” my comment was an inside barb to Lysis. I’m sure he understood. Lysis and I have often lightheartedly debated BYU’s superiority to USU. It is a "fact" that he now eagerly accepts."

My return volley was not an attack...I cheer for the Cougs AND the Utes...and I have nothing against them. The POINT was there was a professor at BYU spewing mindless empty headed rhetoric that he HONESTLY BELIEVES is truth. No one is immune.

Teachers do have responsibility to eliminate bias.

No sir. They do not. They SHOULD...but they DO NOT. Teachers EVERYWHERE are spewing rheotric and bias without regard to FACT. THAT is what this debate is about. I want that to end. I wnat historical FACT...not liberal (OR conservative) slant.

"There is no value in the study of history if we eliminate “why.”"

I believe teaching facts ALLOWS for the understanding of why. Critical thought allows for the understanding of why. Indoctrinating does not teach why...it teaches the teachers version of why and THAT is what happens far too often.

MindMechanic said...

Lysis and Rumpole...

Sorry if those posts come across as testy. Emphasis adds to that. I DO respect you both and appreciate that even though you are both WRONG ;-) you both are willing to express and defend your positions. Worthy adversaries...

Rumpole said...

MindMechaninc,

I’m glad we have found common ground. I have never felt that you have “denigrated” any of my views. The discussion is what I enjoy at the Agora. I’m glad to have a differing view to “press against.”

We agree right up to the point of “versions of right and wrong.”

George Bush did not lie; I know you know that. However, the teachers that promote that he did are wrong, and they know they are wrong. Now I am going to go into a little gray area here; I do not consider what I am about to express a deviation; I hope it will only add to the discussion.

There is an absolute difference between right and wrong; that difference is definable and discernable; but the law cannot punish anyone for their beliefs. I am angry when a teacher promotes that George Bush lied, but I will not change our system based on that debate. That kind of a change cuts both ways, and those who would advocate such a change are foolish and naïve if they believe it will only impact one side of the discussion.

You have implied that I am somewhat idealistic in my hope that teachers will teach “factual intent” if we can refer to it is that; I would suggest to you that your hope to only discuss “fact” (as opposed to “factual intent”) is also not only idealistic, it is unwise. We cannot eliminate the opportunity for the truth to be freely discussed.

Is there risk? Absolutely. You see that risk exhibit itself right now. My kids have been indoctrinated, if you will, from the beginning of their education with global warming. It is not the truth, and those who promote it as the truth know of its fraud.

They hide behind their freedom in order to promote lies and a different political agenda. Earlier I referred to this issue being right to the core of Democracy; if the people are not educated, if the people do not have a clear understanding of the truth, their very freedoms are in jeopardy.

What we need are not history books that only teach fact; we need history teachers that are willing to teach truth, to teach good, and to teach right without promoting an agenda. We also need to insure that an environment is created to allow that to take place without the teacher teaching in fear.

How do we reach that point? Lysis and I have had many “off-air” discussions about it. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he might suggest to you that the answers lie in a strong public education system. I don’t know if I buy that yet. Perhaps he can elaborate and convince me.

As weak as it is, at this point I can only point out what is wrong and offer a possible direction to rectify.

I get it when you offer that my ideas of right and wrong are not “applied” by liberal educators. Note that I said “are not”, rather than “do not.” But maybe a brick will have to fall to convince me that they do not understand the truth and hide behind the law to promote their own agenda. I grew up with many of those “educators.” Based on my experience with them, I believe my position to be accurate.

The “tenured at professor at Kent State who posts anti-American rhetoric and recruits muslims for jihad AGAINST America BELIEVES he is speaking truth” knows he does not speak the truth. He hides behind his academic freedom because he believes his agenda is greater than the truth.

Now let me wrap myself in the flag. When all Americans again desire freedom and self-determination, this problem will be resolved. I acknowledge to you that I do not know how to get there.

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole...

"Now let me wrap myself in the flag. When all Americans again desire freedom and self-determination, this problem will be resolved. I acknowledge to you that I do not know how to get there."

We are both speaking of ideals. It is no more likely that educators will see things my way as they will yours. I also understand that.

I think the tragedy is that it will likely take hitting rock bottom for we have that bounce that causes change. That is the curse of success. Until then...we keep fighting the good fight.

Lysis said...

Flaccid;

You say:

Einstein took what Lysis still regards as Newton's purportedly "absolute" truth and made it ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE -- how quickly can what Lysis preaches as TRUTHS become whimsical fables!!!!

This is your way of insisting the sun goes around the earth. You are so limp you can’t even lift you head to see how silly your arguments have become.

Einstein’s own theories are questioned as well and Hawking’s will soon be challenged, but in the end, when man knows the truth of the workings of the Universe, the truth we discover will be absolute.

You say:

That's the argument. [Is all abortion is murder or is some abortion murder]
Stay focused.
No red herrings.
No teenaqe "shooters".
No slavery.
No telling me what I must argue instead . . . or else it's a "dodge".
These are the issues you have dodged. I have already clearly said that some abortions are justified, and told you the absolute standard by which any reasonable person can recognize the difference. You continue to play games and dodge – you answer none of my questions.


Mindmechanic:

You say:

NO!!! For the love of all that is Holy...NO!!! The HISTORY teacher should teach the historical data of both men. The history teacher should encourage critical thought of the students. But IN NO WAY do I want HISTORY teachers teaching with the kind of judgment you describe. Why? Because for crying out loud, Lysis...you JUST POINTED OUT that THAT is what kind of DRIBBLE is being taught in schools and colleges today.

First encouraging critical thought requires presenting them with a judgement!!!

I simply say that pretending that it is imposable to tell the difference between behaviors and the rightness or wrongness of those behaviors is a very incisions way of teaching students that there is no difference between right and wrong.

Critical thinking demands that the actions of the past be critically presented and the students be allowed to think about them critically. Fact and fiction can not be placed side by side in the classroom, or the mind, on equal grounds.

My present dust up with Flaccid is a perfect example of this. The pro-abortion forces, rather than address the truths, that a child is a human being even before it is born, that all human beings have rights, that the purpose of just government is to guarantee the rights of the governed; instead of debating these truths, they actually want the argument to disintegrate into a “you can’t know the truth so my “kill a million a year” is just a good as your “protect their lives” position.

I am not trying to get testy with you – just think about it. Flaccid, here in the post, is saying that no one has the right to say that abortion is wrong because there is no way that anyone can no the truth, and you are saying teachers can’t teach students that Washington was just and Bin Laden is unjust because that is the “same dribble that [bad] History Teachers teach”. I know that many teachers and TV talking heads tell people that Bush is worse than Bin Laden, I heard one of the talking heads on Fox Watch say Bush was the worst President ever, just yesterday. But then there was no reason given, no argument.

It is in the reasoning and critical thinking that must surround such a claim that the truth is laid bear. I have nothing against teachers telling their students such sill things. As we both have agreed it happens all the time. What I do object to is the insidious trick of relativism that teaches people – as Flaccid would insist here – that there is no truth so don’t bother reasoning it out; just accept “what ever turns you on”.

I maintain that certain values are facts and should be taught. Flaccid and his ilk will jump in and scream you can’t make those decision because you don’t know anything for sure.

This takes me back to the mast head of this web Log. “In a world where absolute truth exists but cannot be known, one must live by reason and faith.” Information must be presented to students in an environment of reason. Once they have heard the lessons from their teachers they must then have faith in their decisions. This cannot be done in an environment were there is no claim of truth; no position taken on right an wrong.

Let me go on record. The schools are full of teachers who teach false things to their students. In the end, most are reveled for what they are – but I would not want to stop them from spouting their drivel if it required that those who have valuable lessons of truth were to be shut down as well.


As in this forum, so in the classroom, let there be a free market of ideas presented. The truth dose not need to fear the lies. I will continue to insist that it is alright to teach about slavery, and to teach that slavery is WRONG. I continue to believe that a teacher can give the arguments to prove the unalienable nature of human rights and that those rights need to be applied to all humans, even unborn ones. I will continue to believe that a teacher can discriminate, and teach his students to see the difference, between the lies of the Communism and the truths of free trade; the evils of mob rule and the need for the rule of just Law.

MindMechanic said...

"you are saying teachers can’t teach students that Washington was just and Bin Laden is unjust because that is the “same dribble that [bad] History Teachers teach”. I know that many teachers and TV talking heads tell people that Bush is worse than Bin Laden, I heard one of the talking heads on Fox Watch say Bush was the worst President ever, just yesterday. But then there was no reason given, no argument"

And this is my point.

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic;

I get it. Your point is, that because some people teach lies it is wrong to teach the truth, – that is Flaccid’s point too.

What you are both saying is that because Newton may have made errors concerning the workings of the world, it is wrong to teach students that the earth goes around the sun because of gravity and inertia unless you also teach them that it is just as likely that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle in a sea of milk. Oh, I get it!

MindMechanic said...

"I get it. Your point is, that because some people teach lies it is wrong to teach the truth, – that is Flaccid’s point too."

No you dont. My point is that history teachers should teach history and not teach bias. Teaching bias is NOT teaching history. and as yourself point out...public schools and especially the colleges are polluted with bias.

I DO want history teachers to teach. History.

Lysis said...

I’m afraid all people, including teachers, students, and parents are bias. The idea of “giving all points of view equal airing” is a nasty form of bias; a bias toward the flaccid position that there is no right or wrong. Teachers who espouse it are deceiving their students and promoting intellectual laziness.

Teaching direct lies in order to deceive or manipulate is also an evil from of bias. I think good teachers are biased toward teaching the truth and their lessons reflect this.

There are challenges for students in an atmosphere of so much bias. The best defense is, as you have said, is to teach them to think critically, to reason and to doubt, to question and to challenge their teachers as they develop their own bias – hopefully for the truth.

Anonymous said...

For the reason that the admin of this site is working, no doubt very shortly it will be famous,
due to its feature contents.
My webpage - hpv treatment for men

Anonymous said...

Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I
provide credit and sources back to your site? My blog site is in the exact same
niche as yours and my visitors would certainly benefit from a lot of the information you provide here.
Please let me know if this ok with you. Thank you!
Look into my blog post : kids fishing apparel

Anonymous said...

Very nice article, just what I needed.
My webpage - Vertnet.ca

Anonymous said...

Hello, i believe that i saw you visited my weblog so i came to go back the prefer?

.I'm trying to in finding issues to improve my site!I suppose its good enough to make use of a few of your ideas!!
My web site > http://sanstreet.com.sg

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous story there. What happened after? Good luck!
Also visit my website ... F---Q

Anonymous said...

As the admin of this site is working, no hesitation very soon it will be
well-known, due to its feature contents.
Also see my web page :: Downtown

Anonymous said...

Excellent write-up. I definitely love this website. Keep it up!
Here is my homepage - Kauai Weddings

Anonymous said...

I like reading through a post that will make men and women think.

Also, thank you for permitting me to comment!
Visit my web page :: 11 inch two sided imprinted balloons 6 count

Anonymous said...

Today, while I was at work, my sister stole my apple ipad and tested to see if it can survive a forty
foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.
My iPad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this
is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!
Also visit my homepage :: road service

Anonymous said...

Sweet blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News. Do you
have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Cheers

Feel free to surf to my site ... test taucherbrillen