Senator David Leyonhjelm’s maiden speech

This entry was posted in Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

429 Responses to Senator David Leyonhjelm’s maiden speech

  1. Aristogeiton says:

    s/athiest/athiest/

  2. Aristogeiton says:

    s/athiest/atheist/

  3. Yobbo says:

    Christians, British Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement you idiot.

    Post enlightenment, sure. Not until after they’d got done slaughtering millions in Scandinavia and burning thousands at the stake though.

    The religion as a whole has one of the worst records of any.

  4. nerblnob says:

    There are dozens of mentions of slavery in the Christian bible, none of which are protesting against it.

    The Old Testament ain’t the “Christian Bible” . It’s a Jewish history text.

  5. Yobbo says:

    Abolition of slavery was a christian movement and they were the very first people to start it.

    Shinto/Confucian Japan banned Slavery in 1590. They had never heard of Jesus.

  6. Fisky says:

    There’s nothing special about Christianity.

    It offered salvation to its followers, which Judaism never did. It re-formulated the Golden Rule clearly and unambiguously in a way that few other philosophical traditions could. It created a moral justification for secularism, 2-fucking-thousand years ago.

  7. Aristogeiton says:

    Yobbo
    #1376797, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:17 am
    Christians, British Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement you idiot.

    Post enlightenment, sure.

    I see. So they were more influenced by the classical texts (recall that Greek and Roman civilization had the more profound influence, so you say) they could not read, than the Gospels that taught humanitarianism that they read or listened to regularly?

  8. JC says:

    Not until after they’d got done slaughtering millions in Scandinavia

    You mixing up bullshit over bullshit. The Scandinavians were some of the worst fucking offenders pre-Christianity. They basically raped and pillaged their way through Britain for example.

  9. Aristogeiton says:

    Fisky
    #1376800, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:20 am
    […]
    It created a moral justification for secularism, 2-fucking-thousand years ago.

    Absolutely. Render unto Caesar.

  10. Yobbo says:

    They’d been reading the gospels for 1700 years before they decided to stop burning people at the stake. Either it took them a really long time to learn how to read, or something else was the cause.

  11. JC says:

    Shinto/Confucian Japan banned Slavery in 1590. They had never heard of Jesus.

    Read what I said. The British christian movement made it their objective to stamp it out around the world. The Japanese were basically slaves to the local warlord.

  12. Yobbo says:

    The Scandinavians were some of the worst fucking offenders pre-Christianity. They basically raped and pillaged their way through Britain for example.

    Still doesn’t change the fact that the entire region was eventually forcibly converted to Christianity, and hundreds of thousands who resisted were killed.

  13. Fisky says:

    They’d been reading the gospels for 1700 years before they decided to stop burning people at the stake. Either it took them a really long time to learn how to read, or something else was the cause.

    Things went backward when state authority appropriated the religion in the 4th Century.

  14. Aristogeiton says:

    Fisky
    #1376809, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:24 am
    […]
    Things went backward when state authority appropriated the religion in the 4th Century.

    True. It is an ancient punishment. But I suppose that Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile had nothing to do with the Inquisition; they could read ‘between the lines’ of the Gospel. It wasn’t about diminishing the political influence of the conversos.

  15. JC says:

    Still doesn’t change the fact that the entire region was eventually forcibly converted to Christianity, and hundreds of thousands who resisted were killed.

    Yea perhaps the rest of northern Europe had enough of those fucking ratbags, felt the only way to civilize them and stop them raping and pillaging was through Christianity. I can can see that happening under the circumstances. They were even marauding around the Med looking to plunder and steal. I see it almost similar as western intervention in Afghanistan.

  16. Fisky says:

    True. It is an ancient punishment. But I suppose that Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile had nothing to do with the Inquisition; they could read ‘between the lines’ of the Gospel. It wasn’t about diminishing the political influence of the conversos.

    Ferninand and Isabella were busy winning their country back after 7 centuries of foreign occupation.

  17. Aristogeiton says:

    Fisky
    #1376817, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:31 am
    […]
    Ferninand and Isabella were busy winning their country back after 7 centuries of foreign occupation.

    To be clear, I’m giving Yobbo a belting here, not you.

  18. Yobbo says:

    Oh well, at least we’ve moved on to excusing it rather than denying it.

  19. JC says:

    Yobbo

    The sacndis are the worst possible example against Christianity one could think of. They were absolute fucking marauding ratbags.

  20. Fisky says:

    I love the fact that the Larvatus Prodeo crowd would decry the Spanish Inquisition but have nothing negative to say about the violent post-colonial movements of the 20th Century. It’s basically the same thing.

  21. JC says:

    Yobbo accept it as fact. There has to be a God. How else could XON be up 3% in a horrible US stock market. God loves XON and He also loves Monsanto.

  22. Fisky says:

    You invade a country and colonise it, and then wonder why the natives throw you out on your ass. It’s very strange to expect anything else.

  23. Oh come on says:

    Shinto/Confucian Japan banned Slavery in 1590. They had never heard of Jesus.

    Nonsense. Christianity was a powerful force in Japan in 1590.

  24. dover_beach says:

    Wow. What a ridiculous thread.

  25. Aristogeiton says:

    Oh come on
    #1376824, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:37 am
    Shinto/Confucian Japan banned Slavery in 1590. They had never heard of Jesus.

    Nonsense. Christianity was a powerful force in Japan in 1590.

    It continued until the Edo period.

  26. Oh come on says:

    Check out this guy’s bio if you don’t believe me. And the Tokugawa shogunate which followed was also very keen on stamping out Christianity because they considered it anti-Japanese.

  27. Aristogeiton says:

    dover_beach
    #1376826, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:39 am
    Wow. What a ridiculous thread.

    We’ve had Kantian rights, “rape machines”, “sluts”, white supremacy, and the usual anti-Christian sectarianism from Yobbo. It’s easy to follow.

  28. Yobbo says:

    It’s not sectarianism Ari. I have previously been banned from commenting here because I’ve been even less generous towards Islam.

    You are all atheists in regards to the thousands of gods that have been worshipped around the world since the dawn of man. I just believe in 1 less god than you guys.

  29. dover_beach says:

    You are all atheists in regards to the thousands of gods that have been worshipped around the world since the dawn of man. I just believe in 1 less god than you guys.

    The one-less-god argument is utterly ridiculous.

  30. Aristogeiton says:

    Yobbo
    #1376833, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:46 am
    […]
    You are all atheists in regards to the thousands of gods that have been worshipped around the world since the dawn of man. I just believe in 1 less god than you guys.

    You’re quoting Dawkins now? Phhhht!

  31. Aristogeiton says:

    Yobbo
    #1376833, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:46 am
    […]
    You are all atheists in regards to the thousands of gods that have been worshipped around the world since the dawn of man. I just believe in 1 less god than you guys.

    When will you get it through your thick skull? I’m an atheist.

  32. Fisky says:

    You’re quoting Dawkins now?

    Hitchens, I think.

  33. Oh come on says:

    You guys? I only corrected your assertion regarding the ending of slavery in Japan. I actually don’t know why the policy you mentioned was enacted in 1590. What I do know is that, in the era you specified, Christianity was actually flourishing in Japan. I am not claiming that had any relation to slavery being outlawed.

  34. Aristogeiton says:

    Oh come on
    #1376839, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:53 am
    You guys? I only corrected your assertion regarding the ending of slavery in Japan. I actually don’t know why the policy you mentioned was enacted in 1590. What I do know is that, in the era you specified, Christianity was actually flourishing in Japan. I am not claiming that had any relation to slavery being outlawed.

    I know; you were just correcting Yobbo’s bullshit.

  35. dover_beach says:

    Actually, it’s called the ‘one god further’ argument and it’s Dawkins. Feser demonstrates its ridiculousness here and here.

  36. Aristogeiton says:

    dover_beach
    #1376842, posted on July 11, 2014 at 2:06 am
    Actually, it’s called the ‘one god further’ argument and it’s Dawkins. Feser demonstrates its ridiculousness here and here.

    This is great. Thanks for that.

  37. Oh come on says:

    The one-less-god argument is utterly ridiculous.

    This is a grand time to be agnostic. I can absolutely see why the “one less God” line would be a killer argument to atheists, and also realise why it’d be rejected out of hand by Christians. Know thy enemy, gents, know thy enemy.

  38. Oh come on says:

    As I was saying, Grigory – know thy enemy. You might think that tombstone terribly cutting. Atheists would just laugh at you for proffering such ineffectual nonsense in that they know you know what they think, so obviously going at them from that angle is going to raise a dud.

  39. dover_beach says:

    OCO, gnu atheists like that line because it frees them from the ordeal of thinking.

  40. Oh come on says:

    Dover, you are as much a prisoner to it as they are.

  41. Yohan says:

    Abortion and Religion. The two issues upon which the libertarian/classical liberal will always infight.

  42. dover_beach says:

    Dover, you are as much a prisoner to it as they are.

    OCO, you need to provide some explanation here.

  43. Yohan says:

    David L is the Australian Ron Paul !! about time.

    Xenophon and his evil eyes…. not only is Nick a total statist, but you should have seen the way he was talking in early 2013, he though he would be the kingmaker in a hung Senate and it would all be about him. He wasn’t expecting to be just another fish in a pond of minor party Senators.

    Milne and SHY – make no mistake they fear people like Bob Day and David L much more than Abbott and the LNP, because its a counter to their own ideology and over time could break their grip as the 3rd party in the Senate.

  44. Damn! Where’s the popcorn?! You guys stayed up all night to argue about the existence or otherwise of god. Worse, y’all tried to assign blame and credit to religion or culture according to your own prejudices. Still, t’was a fun read.

  45. john constantine says:

    some say that the difference between the king james, and tribal tradition is the difference between resource rich new mexico, and resource rich old mexico.

  46. Joe Goodacre says:

    You’ve got yourself in a philosophical mess while doing so, advanced another incompatible theory

    Upwards of a year ago I argued that governments constituted on liberty were moral.

    I later was convinced that it was another form of victimhood to believe that we don’t choose who we associate with and the laws we live under (something we disagree on).

    I have since questioned whether absolute morality can exist in a world without a God, rather morality is a subjective code of of conduct people adopt to guide their own lives and to govern how they live together.

    My views on abortion were previously influenced by believing that there was an absolute morality. This is the first time discussing the topic since I’ve departed from that view – so there are inconsistencies.

    I think abortion is immoral by my own subjective morality and would vote for it to be illegal. I would also vote for a law being introduced which punished previous abortions. I don’t accept your reasoning that being retrospective makes that wrong, in the same way that though it wasn’t illegal at the time to be a stormtrooper at a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, people who did so were later punished.

  47. Joe Goodacre says:

    JC,

    If an egg is fertilised, having a curette means that it is not capable of attaching itself to the wall of the vagina, killing it.

    This means a curette is abortive – even if at the time it is performed the egg isn’t fertilised.

    I don’t know how I would react if presented with that scenario.

  48. This means a curette is abortive – even if at the time it is performed the egg isn’t fertilised.

    See what you’ve done, JC? You try and be reasonable and look where it gets you. Next they’ll be calling for an inquisition on masturbation to be applied retrospectively for all those murderers of potential human beings. Think of the sperm!!

  49. Joe Goodacre says:

    Why stop at masturbation – why is that different to letting sperm die and peeing them out.

    You’re saying that anyone who thinks a fertilised egg being left to die is wrong must also think that any person who doesn’t let every sperm or egg become a life is a killer. You went to the toilet this morning and peed out some sperm – what a killer.

    Or maybe there’s a difference between terminating a life that has started and growing by it’s own design and deciding not to combine the building blocks for life.

  50. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1376943, posted on July 11, 2014 at 8:07 am
    […]
    I later was convinced that it was another form of victimhood to believe that we don’t choose who we associate with and the laws we live under (something we disagree on).

    As I have noted, there are many impediments to free choice. First of all, freedom of movement is limited. Secondly, this would involve some cosmopolitan nomadism; for where will the laws be precisely to your liking? Finally, you don’t seem to admit of moral disagreement; one may not think that others have the moral (as opposed to legal) right to interfere with you in the manner that they do.

    I have since questioned whether absolute morality can exist in a world without a God, rather morality is a subjective code of of conduct people adopt to guide their own lives and to govern how they live together.

    I don’t know whether the conceptions are mutually exclusive. I do know, from Johnathan Haidt and the philosophy of Hayek, that epistemological rationalism is certainly false. Furthermore, there are some norms (the harm principle, for one), which I am willing to force upon others. Perhaps somebody more familiar with meta-ethics will be able to make some sense of that. The question is, to my mind, where at least some significant portion of morality is contested and contestable, what is the best way to live peaceably, one amongst the other, in disagreement? My answer to that is Mill’s answer: what we now call classical liberalism. Illiberal laws are valid laws (if you were not forced to read Hart’s ‘The Concept of Law’ as an undergraduate, I urge you to do so). I just don’t think they are moral laws.

    I would also vote for a law being introduced which punished previous abortions. I don’t accept your reasoning that being retrospective makes that wrong, in the same way that though it wasn’t illegal at the time to be a stormtrooper at a concentration camp in Nazi Germany, people who did so were later punished.

    Well, this is a longstanding principle of our law, encapsulated in the maxim nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. The Nuremberg trials, which I am not necessarily defending here, were part of the inchoate international humanitarian law. First, I don’t think that most Germans at the time knew or approved of the genocide; it was conducted in secrecy. Secondly, there has not been a Western civilization in the modern age which has thought that genocide was morally justified; the SS engaged in a frantic effort to cover up their actions. Third, practice of genocide is limited to a handful of cases in the modern age; abortion is practiced widely. Fourth, abortion, despite the creep of humanitarian law over the last 50 years or more, has never been enjoined under humanitarian law. Finally, you would have to agree, that the morality or otherwise of abortion is a hotly contested issue. If there was a technical deficiency in the drafting of the criminal statutes which allowed a man to stab another through the heart at midnight while dancing a jig, with malice aforethought, and escape punishment, that may be an arguable case for a retrospective criminal law. To make abortion retrospectively criminal, where the morality of the practice is the subject of ongoing debate, is in my view an evil proposition.

  51. Aristogeiton says:

    Also Joe, and I know that this is engaging in the association fallacy, that you are defending the position of a man who argues that women that fall pregnant by accident are “sluts”, was moved to proclaim that “[w]omen like getting cummed in” (sic?) for some reason, and is a white supremacist.

  52. Aristogeiton says:

    s/that you are/know that you are/

  53. Sinclair Davidson says:

    You will notice that some comments by James b have been deleted along with responses. He is no longer here.

  54. Joe Goodacre says:

    I agree with James B on the things I agree with him on – nothing more.
    [Edited. Sinc]

  55. Gab says:

    A Doomlord’s work is never done. Even while on holidays.

  56. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377057, posted on July 11, 2014 at 10:36 am
    […]
    I agree with James B on the things I agree with him on – nothing more.

    As I said, it’s not a legitimate argument against your views, because it is an association fallacy. Consider it an FYI.

  57. Aristogeiton says:

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1377055, posted on July 11, 2014 at 10:32 am
    You will notice that some comments by James b have been deleted along with responses. He is no longer here.

    Oh! So white supremacy and the c-bomb are the lines that will not be crossed? This blog is a fascist toilet! /sarc

  58. Aristogeiton says:

    Sinc, in the words of Fran “I’m an activist” Kelly: “Since when does the ‘Cat disappear people”?

  59. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Ari – we don’t use the term ‘fascist’ anymore. It is hurtful. Try ‘thick libertarian’ instead.

  60. Fleeced says:

    You will notice that some comments by James b have been deleted along with responses. He is no longer here.

    Good. At first I thought I was misreading – maybe missing some subtle sarcasm – or that he was trolling… but seems he was the real deal.

  61. Aristogeiton says:

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1377082, posted on July 11, 2014 at 10:52 am
    Ari – we don’t use the term ‘fascist’ anymore. It is hurtful. Try ‘thick libertarian’ instead.

    I see. I’m more of a ‘thin (skinned) libertarian’.

  62. Aristogeiton says:

    Fleeced
    #1377084, posted on July 11, 2014 at 10:53 am

    There was another white supremacist here recently. If you can be bothered looking, he’s in the “Open the front door” thread of doom” somewhere.

  63. Aristogeiton says:

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1377082, posted on July 11, 2014 at 10:52 am
    Ari – we don’t use the term ‘fascist’ anymore. It is hurtful. Try ‘thick libertarian’ instead.

    I still use it, but I try not to, because I know that Orwell would disapprove of my bastardisation of the Language.

  64. Aw, Sinc! It’s people like James B that make my job easy. He’s the low-hanging fruit, the fish in the barrell, the man with one hand tied behind his back by his own stupidity.

    You stole my fun, Sinc, after going to all the trouble of buying popcorn. Shame on you, oh Doomlord, shame!!!

  65. Joe Goodacre says:

    As I have noted, there are many impediments to free choice. First of all, freedom of movement is limited.

    I agree with this. I believe though that there is no outcome in this world that I haven’t chosen. If a car hits me tomorrow, I chose to drive. If an earthquake destroys our home, we chose to live here. Everyone is subject to some form of duress or chance and I absolve neither the poor person who needs food and must work for a lowly paid job, or the well off citizen who doesn’t like the laws of society but remains for the consequences of their choices. This means that I’m forced to face the fact that I’m enabling some of the 80,000 abortions a year because I pay taxes in a society that helps fund them. This is a relatively new mindset (less than a year) – so I’m not completely sure how my opinions on life play out with these questions. Maybe the truth is that life is not that important to me, because I could donate more to people who need assistance and I could physically stop people from having an abortion by force. I choose not to do these things.
    Secondly, this would involve some cosmopolitan nomadism; for where will the laws be precisely to your liking?
    There is no society that offers all the laws that I like. That’s no different though than many other choices we face where our most desirable option isn’t available.

  66. Joe Goodacre says:

    Finally, you don’t seem to admit of moral disagreement; one may not think that others have the moral (as opposed to legal) right to interfere with you in the manner that they do.

    I’m not sure of the point of prescribing morality to how we interact with others. I look at a lion eating a gazelle and don’t consider it a moral question – the lion is just stronger and faster. When the strong take from the weak, they do so because they can – I’m not sure there’s anything different between the smart tricking the stupid. I may want to live in a society that follows the rule ‘do unto others’, but I accept that is a subjective code of conduct. If others don’t share that morality, it doesn’t make it wrong – it just makes them a bunch of people I wouldn’t want to have as neighbours. If I’m choosing to have them as neighbours because overall I’m better off, there may still be a moral disagreement (where they don’t ascribe to my belief do unto others), but isn’t it a moot point if all morality is subjective?

  67. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377129, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
    […]
    I believe though that there is no outcome in this world that I haven’t chosen.

    This is lunacy. To transgress Godwin’s law, did the Jewish Pole choose to be exterminated by the SS?

  68. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377129, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
    […]
    There is no society that offers all the laws that I like. That’s no different though than many other choices we face where our most desirable option isn’t available.

    This might be a valid argument, if your contention wasn’t that principled disagreement were ‘victimhood’.

  69. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377135, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:28 am
    […]
    I’m not sure of the point of prescribing morality to how we interact with others.

    I’m not sure we have much to talk about then. If you don’t think that human behaviour has a moral character, then I suppose you can masturbate yourself to sleep while reading the Melian dialogue. Just count me out.

  70. Joe Goodacre says:

    Furthermore, there are some norms (the harm principle, for one), which I am willing to force upon others.

    I would like to force that too.

    what is the best way to live peaceably, one amongst the other, in disagreement? My answer to that is Mill’s answer: what we now call classical liberalism.

    I agree.

    Illiberal laws are valid laws- I just don’t think they are moral laws.

    I agree that they are valid laws. I would agree that they aren’t moral laws in the sense of what I think is moral (which is possibly not too different from you), but since I think morality is subjective and only as good as it can be enforced, I’m concerned with the moral dimension less and less. Because we don’t have the numbers to enforce our morality, I accept that I’ve already accepted other people in Australia as neighbours and it becomes more of a negotiation to get them to be more pro liberty. An important factor in negotiating successfully (in my opinion) is framing the issue as to why they are better off for agreeing. This has meant more of my discussions drop the moral element. In hindsight I haven’t applied that methodology to abortion discussions yet.

  71. . says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377022, posted on July 11, 2014 at 9:55 am
    Why stop at masturbation

    Oh dear God.

  72. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377160, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:48 am
    […]
    [B]ut since I think morality is subjective and only as good as it can be enforced, I’m concerned with the moral dimension less and less

    That’s why the solution is the minimum set of norms one can enforce while allowing the maximum expression of individual morality. The marketplace of ideas will sort the norms out. Classical liberalism.

  73. Driftforge says:

    The correction of that requires that the feminine nature of women is reasserted.

    How so?

    The notion of equality (not in the original sense of being equally human, but rather the leftist sense of being blank slates and of equal potential) has produced over the last 50 years or so a cultural pressure for people to simply be humans rather than be distinctly men or women. (c.f yesterday’s discussion on door holding)

    This has lead to a significant number of societal outcomes that are less than helpful in the generational sense. The smarter, the more capable, the more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to have children, and the less children she is likely to have. A recent study in Taiwan showed:

    This study estimates the effect of dysgenic trends in Taiwan by exploring the relationships among intelligence, education and fertility. Based on a representative adult sample, education and intelligence were negatively correlated with the number of children born. These correlations were stronger for females. The decline of genotypic intelligence was estimated as 0.82 to 1.33 IQ points per generation for the Taiwanese population.

    Now Taiwan is not Australia, but the issues are the same here.

    We’ve found it easy to see the advantages to the individual of having women working from an early age. Yet because it goes against the wisdom of this age, the societal costs of this change are only really starting to be come apparent as time goes on.

    Yesterday’s conservatives are being proved right.

  74. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377166, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:50 am
    Joe Goodacre
    #1377022, posted on July 11, 2014 at 9:55 am
    Why stop at masturbation

    For you Dot.

  75. Joe Goodacre says:

    did the Jewish Pole choose to be exterminated by the SS?

    A valid question.

    Jewish pograms have not been limited to Nazi Germany. They may not have desired the outcome, but it was known that Jews have been killed for their religion and there was a climate in Europe at the time that was anti-Jews.

    I’m not the first people to make the argument that had the Jews remaining in Eastern Europe read the changing climate in Europe better, they would have left to the US like others did, which was a country that effectively had open borders at that time. Had they owned weapons and organised against the discrimination, the outcome for many may have been different.

    This is a similar argument to the one others have made on here when they say that there are no Zulu genes in African Americans.

  76. Joe Goodacre says:

    The marketplace of ideas will sort the norms out

    Arguably it already has – classical liberalism lost.

  77. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377178, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:56 am
    did the Jewish Pole choose to be exterminated by the SS?

    A valid question.

    Jewish pograms have not been limited to Nazi Germany. They may not have desired the outcome, but it was known that Jews have been killed for their religion and there was a climate in Europe at the time that was anti-Jews.

    Let’s go back to the originating comment:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377129, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
    […]
    I believe though that there is no outcome in this world that I haven’t chosen.

    So, the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews for not buggering off quickly enough? Are you fucking retarded?

  78. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377186, posted on July 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    The marketplace of ideas will sort the norms out

    Arguably it already has – classical liberalism lost

    Snooze. Read Mises’ “Liberalism”.

  79. . says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377178, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:56 am
    did the Jewish Pole choose to be exterminated by the SS?

    A valid question.

    In the mangled and adulterated words of Dr Strangelove…Mein Fuhrer! – Just. Shoot. Me. Now. before society gets too fucking stupid.

    Joe Goodacre is going to give me a heart attack if I read anymore of his pro fascist nonsense.

  80. Joe Goodacre
    #1377129, posted on July 11, 2014 at 11:25 am
    […]
    I believe though that there is no outcome in this world that I haven’t chosen.

    But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

  81. . says:

    Always expect the Spanish Inquisition…

  82. . says:

    LOL

    I was expecting this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMkcBctE7c

    Given Goodacre’s “blame the victim” view of the Holocaust.

  83. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377210, posted on July 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Love Mel Brooks. Don’t mention the I-word again, or Yobbo will be on this thread like stink on a monkey.

  84. Aristogeiton says:

    Oh, sorry Dot. I should have responded thusly.

  85. Joe Goodacre says:

    Two things.

    Firstly life is uncertain.

    What people will do to us is uncertain.

    As TBW says – no one expects the SI.

    Anyone who chooses to live, is choosing an uncertain life.

    They would rather an uncertain life to a certain death – that’s a choice most people would make.

    Secondly, you’re using words like ‘fault’ in a judgemental sense.

    I don’t look at it that way.

    All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.

    That is all people in the present and future can do – decide whether they want to learn lessons from the past.

  86. Aristogeiton says:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1377220, posted on July 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm
    […]
    All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.

    Speechless.

  87. JC says:

    I’m not the first people to make the argument that had the Jews remaining in Eastern Europe read the changing climate in Europe better, they would have left to the US like others did, which was a country that effectively had open borders at that time. Had they owned weapons and organised against the discrimination, the outcome for many may have been different.

    Badacare, you fucking imbecile, the US basically closed around 1915. The Jews had no place to go.

    But you’re right, it as their fault they were murdered.

    You’re a thousand times worse than captain Spud.

  88. Derp says:

    All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.

    I guess they had it coming, dressing up like uncovered meat hmmm?

  89. Aristogeiton says:

    You know, Joe, reading your admission of your own fallibility this morning, I mused to myself: “Maybe Joe’s not a bad guy, just struggling through the moral questions we all do in his own way”. But, mere hours later, and I realise that you are more of a cnut than I ever imagined.

  90. JC says:

    Badacare

    Have you ever thought about calling the JC leftie suicide hotline? I promise you there would be a call centre of people jumping over themselves to take your call and help you though it.

  91. JC says:

    There’s something about you, badacre that is truly vile and despeciable.

  92. JC says:

    There’s something about you, badacre that is truly vile and despicable

  93. Aristogeiton says:

    +2

  94. Aristogeiton says:

    JC
    #1377249, posted on July 11, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    There’s something about you, badacre that is truly vile and despeciable.

    He has no principles: that is what is vile and despicable. I once asked him to outline his basal principles. This is what he said, and this was my response. I despise this prick with a vicious, thread-derailing fury.

  95. Oh come on says:

    OCO, you need to provide some explanation here.

    It’s what sociologists like to call your differing frames of reference. Hence why you both consider the other to be shallow thinkers.

  96. . says:

    Fuck Joe Goodacre. Fuck all those like him who believe freedom is dangerous:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jri0U57iWWM

    Movie CLIP – The Schindler Jews Today (1993) (Schindler’s List)

    My grandfather killed Nazis in the SS Waffen and poor kids in the Wehrmacht.

    Those German kids that Pop shot, like the Polish Jews killed by the Germans and their collaborators, didn’t have a choice nor chance.

    You ignorant sack of crap, Goodacre.

  97. . says:

    Watch this too you silly, stupid man and reflect on your stupidity:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFP4dDheqHY

    Schindler’s List Graveside Tribute to Schindler

  98. Joe Goodacre says:

    I’m good to my family, work, pay taxes, don’t steal, murder and wouldn’t condone an abortion. I avoid swearing and let other people have their say, even if I disagree. I voted Liberals last election as many people on here probably did as well.

    Apparently that my belief that people who chose to live, accept that life is uncertain and there are people out there who may try and hurt us makes me a vile and despicable human – despite the fact that there are people on here quite ok with killing unborn children who don’t get that outrage.

    And that’s why you can’t have an honest discussion on these issues.

  99. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377277, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm
    […]
    Those German kids that Pop shot, like the Polish Jews killed by the Germans and their collaborators, didn’t have a choice nor chance.

    One of the great things about modern WWII documentaries is that they tend to interview German soldiers as well. The sad fact is that they are no different from the Allies. Soldiers don’t tend to be political. They are just the means in some other bastard’s vain end. Each dies without dignity, ‘gasping for breath [as] darkness shroud[s] his eyes’.

  100. . says:

    You are morally equivalent to the Nazi Party of the Third Reich.

    Fuck off.

  101. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377296, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:14 pm
    You are morally equivalent to the Nazi Party of the Third Reich.

    Fuck off.

    Is this directed at me? If so, I don’t think you’ve understood the point of my post.

  102. . says:

    Goddamn it you just need to be less paranoid. Goodacre thinks Polish Jewry brought the Holocaust onto themselves and believes his anti abortion view and lack of swearing absolves him of such moral turpitude.

    He thinks freedom is dangerous then blames unfree people for their own slaughter.

    He is an unenlightened sloth.

  103. Oh come on says:

    Pretty sure he’s referring to Joe, Ari.

  104. Oh come on says:

    Yep.

  105. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377326, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    Goddamn it you just need to be less paranoid.

    Sorry, my mistake. I thought you’d taken legitimate offence at me indicating some kind of moral equivalence between German and Allied soldiers as instruments of foreign policy. I just meant to discuss them as individuals.

  106. Aristogeiton says:

    .
    #1377326, posted on July 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    […]
    Goodacre thinks Polish Jewry brought the Holocaust onto themselves and believes his anti abortion view and lack of swearing absolves him of such moral turpitude.

    He thinks freedom is dangerous then blames unfree people for their own slaughter.

    I know. I’ve been abusing him for months now 🙂 But this latest outburst really takes the cake. I actually can’t believe it.

    He is an unenlightened sloth.

  107. Alfonso says:

    “All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.”
    Please explain, champion.

  108. Aristogeiton says:

    Can’t you see, Alfonso? The Jews were behind Port Arthur.

  109. dover_beach says:

    It’s what sociologists like to call your differing frames of reference. Hence why you both consider the other to be shallow thinkers.

    OCO, it’s a shallow argument, period. You can’t hide behind the claim that we have different ‘frames of reference’, whatever that means in this instance. Another problem with this claim is that people can either be persuaded by an argument or by criticisms of it which would be impossible if we were stuck, as it were, within our own ‘frames of reference’.

  110. Aristogeiton says:

    dover_beach
    #1377390, posted on July 11, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    […]
    OCO, it’s a shallow argument, period. You can’t hide behind the claim that we have different ‘frames of reference’, whatever that means in this instance. Another problem with this claim is that people can either be persuaded by an argument or by criticisms of it which would be impossible if we were stuck, as it were, within our own ‘frames of reference’.

    Forget your “frames of reference”, OCO. I’m an atheist, and the posts d_b linked to comprehensively dismantled Dawkins ‘argument’ to my mind. Piss off.

  111. James B says:

    Sinclair Davidson, what’s with the tantrum? Why are you censoring my views, you cunt?

    [Why indeed? Sinc]

  112. Alfonso says:

    Ppppht… a well known Eskimo conspiracy….But nice to see you’ve been researching the alarming difficulties of the blown firearm.

  113. Aristogeiton says:

    It consumes me now, Alfonso. Did you know that the Illuminati assassinated Tupac?

  114. Alfonso says:

    Geeez….that’s a shame.
    Did the have 66 IQs as well?

  115. “All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.”

    Short answer – no.
    Long answer – their fate was sealed long before their deaths. There’s a common theme in time travel stories where changing individual events fail to change the final outcome. This is because outcomes are rarely the result of single events, but rather a culmination of many. Even if you could change events, you cannot overcome the prevailing environment. You must stop it from becoming a reality.

    For your particularly thick skull, this is why we are standing up to the closet tyrants of the left. At some point, resistance becomes a death wish. If you cannot speak the truth, you cannot fight the tides of tyranny. If people have to take matters into their own hands, then we have already failed. You cannot fight everybody and win, no matter how well you fight. Soon we will be too old, and those that are left will be ill-equipped to resist. If you slept for ten years and woke to see what this country has become, you would not believe it. Stop accepting the arguments of those who would enslave you. Watch Palmer pull another stunt next week, and know that he cares not for you or anyone else. Know thine enemy, and be rid of your juvenile foolishness.

  116. Steve says:

    “All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.”
    That is vile.

  117. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Joe Goodacre is in auto moderation.

  118. Joe Goodacre is in auto moderation.

    The fun police strike again!!

  119. . says:

    Like Joe Goodacre says, the consequences of freedom are unpredictable!

    He’s such an idiot.

  120. Driftforge says:

    Arguably it already has – classical liberalism lost.

    More like the ratchet just kept moving society left, leaving classical liberalism (the left of its day) behind to form today’s far right.

  121. Oh come on says:

    Joe Goodacre – those stupid Jews should have done as you said! It’s not as though they didn’t have the benefit of 70+ years of hindsight to inform their actions, is it?

    Europe’s Jews have historically been persecuted. They also have a long (and proud) history of being resilient in the face of persecution. In the early to mid 1930s, I don’t imagine the fascist threat would have appeared especially grave to Europe’s Jews – no more menacing than anything they’d had to live through before. By the time the Nazis started making their intentions clear, it was really too late to do anything about it. Jews didn’t sign up for Auschwitz, Joe. Who could have predicted the events of 1940? If you told a French Jew on the eve of war in 1939 that within two years half of France would be occupied, and the other half would be actively collaborating with the Nazis to ship France’s Jews to death camps, he most likely wouldn’t have believed you.

    Forget your “frames of reference”, OCO. I’m an atheist, and the posts d_b linked to comprehensively dismantled Dawkins ‘argument’ to my mind. Piss off.

    Don’t be a twerp, Ari. Your perspective on the matter is not authoritative in the slightest – who cares what you think about the posts Dover linked to?

    Dover: I agree with you that it’s a shallow argument from your perspective. Because of this, it fails abysmally. Those it is supposed to persuade will dismiss it as trite ignorance, formulated by people who clearly don’t have the foggiest notion of where their opponents are coming from. The flipside is that the responses that you linked would be similarly unconvincing to the Dawkinses of this world. In this case, both sides are fielding arguments and counterarguments which do not attempt to engage the metacontextual difference of perspective, and instead construct their positions based upon this difference. Consequently, the debate put forth by either side is considered invalid by the other. To consider Dawkins’s argument coherent and rational, you need to share his metacontext, and obviously the targets of his argument do not. Likewise, to consider Feser’s response a rational and effective counterargument, you need to share his metacontext, which the atheists clearly don’t. So at the end of the exchange, both sides are simply singing to the choir whilst eroding the goodwill that might exist between the two camps, making it less likely that anything will be learnt from debating differences in the future.

  122. Aristogeiton says:

    James B
    #1377398, posted on July 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm
    Sinclair Davidson, what’s with the tantrum? Why are you censoring my views, you [wonderful man]

    Sinc is a tyrant James B. He hates freedom, and won’t recognise our collective ownership of his blog. Until we hold the means of production, we will never stop our terror against the bourgeoisie. Comrades, unite!

  123. Aristogeiton says:

    Oh come on
    #1377463, posted on July 11, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    […]
    Don’t be a twerp, Ari. Your perspective on the matter is not authoritative in the slightest – who cares what you think about the posts Dover linked to?

    OCO, I am going to be uncharacteristically polite, because I approve of your hatred of Badacre. By the same token, your perspective is no more authoritative than mine.

  124. Gab says:

    Could be worse, at least he didn’t call you a socialist, Doomlord.

  125. Aristogeiton says:

    “metacontextual difference of perspective”… 3, 2, 1… that’s your argument lost right there.

  126. Aristogeiton says:

    Sinc (Sinclair Davidson), I no longer have any textbox buttons and have to type the tags manually. FYI.

  127. JC says:

    Sinc

    You have to stop your vacation and deal with Ari’s complaint.

  128. Oh come on says:

    I agree it sounds wanky, as do frames of reference. But it’s true in this case.

  129. Aristogeiton says:

    URGENT: Vacation cancelled (FYI); Sinc… Sinc…

  130. Oh come on says:

    By the same token, your perspective is no more authoritative than mine.

    Agree, Ari, but then again this is not relevant as I have not put myself forward as an authoritative perspective.

    Basically, from what I can see, both sides are failing to engage each other because they’re putting forth rationales that require their opponent to share their belief in the basic principle which is the source of their disagreement.

  131. Oh come on says:

    OCO, I am going to be uncharacteristically polite, because I approve of your hatred of Badacre.

    Anyway, at least we agree on something. Actually, you’re a bit of an acquired taste but you’re all right.

  132. JC says:

    JamesB

    You know how you despise black people and think they’re beneath your station. Consider this. The wealthiest nation earth per cap is populated by descendants of black slaves. Bermuda

    In the right circumstances with institutions people can trust we all can do pretty well. Go tell that to your friends at storm front.

  133. Aristogeiton says:

    Well, I have put myself forward as an authoritative perspective. After all, I am not a Christian, and suffer no bias toward d_b’s argument. What are your credentials?

  134. Aristogeiton says:

    Thanks OCO. I need all the friends I can get around here 🙂

  135. Alfonso says:

    The Badhectare is correct in ways he doesn’t intend….indeed “the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently”…had each Gestapo / Brown Shirt at a Jew’s front door been met with a shotgun, Adolph baby would have had his attitude permanently adjusted. After the first 10,000, knockers on Jewish doors would be lacking motivation.
    Statist door knockers intent on murder can’t survive a 2nd Amendment.
    Those Israeli Jews won’t make that mistake twice.

  136. Aristogeiton says:

    The point I would make, OCO, is that the “one god further” argument relies upon a misrepresentation of the views of the monotheist. I would be equally brutal of any misrepresentation of the views of the atheist. In fact, I have been.

  137. Aristogeiton says:

    Alfonso, as my wife said when I discussed the issue with her: “Do you know who could have more readily prevented the Holocaust?”.

  138. Aristogeiton says:

    My wife… Aliice. Did you hear that Anne?

  139. Fleeced says:

    Speaking of abortion… check out the video of this Burger Bitch.

    ‘No uterus, no right to talk about it’

  140. Aristogeiton says:

    I’m not sure why Burger Bitch is so concerned about an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t like her chances…

  141. Fleeced says:

    Aww, that’s not nice, Aristo. Besides, if the Internet has taught me anything, it’s that there’s a demand for everything.

    It’s her personality that’s the biggest turn-off… LOL – that’s actually a good insult: “She’s not very pretty, but she has an really ugly personality”

  142. Aristogeiton says:

    Hey Fleeced. I agree. It’s the whole package that repels.

  143. Fleeced says:

    “Misogynist. Racist. White Male Privilege!”

    Sounds like a uni student.

  144. Oh come on says:

    ‘No uterus, no right to talk about it’

    Fine. If the mother has an absolute right to decide whether or not the baby she’s carrying comes into the world, then the father should have an absolute right to deny his parental responsibility for the child.

  145. Oh come on says:

    Did anyone see how the Leyon of the Senate went today?

  146. Leo G says:

    “All I ask is whether the Jews could have prevented the Holocaust had they done things differently. I think that can be answered in the affirmative.”

    Hitler wove his hatred for a Jewish chap who raped his mother, and the Jewish physician who unsuccessfully treated his mother’s cancer into the wider belief of German soldiers that Novemberverbrecher (the November Criminals) betrayed Germany to end World War 1 and that they were mostly Jews.
    Does the Cat host another Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth) believer?

  147. Ozboy says:

    Gees, I think I’ve stumbled into a Godwin-fest here! What’s going on?

    I have so much respect for Catallaxy. Leyonhjelm’s election should be a cause for us to celebrate. His maiden speech was masterful. See the forest, folks, not trip over the branches.

  148. Alfonso says:

    “His maiden speech was masterful.”

    Yeah, alas and alack a doomed hero……..if Dave ever ends up on the leaders pre election tv debate he’s gonna implode defending concealed carry for newly legalised weed smoking newly legalised helmetless bikies.
    It’s the first question from Fran and Dave is thereby fucked on the tv evening news.

    Go right ahead, pretend he has appeal to Kylie and Shane.

  149. OzGrandPooba says:

    cuz it was a speech that had some rather ugly bits in it Ozboy. So far we know that pro-lifers are worse than slavers sending our kids off to Vietnam, that abortion is a victimless crime, that there isn’t hetero person in Oz who is fit to be his PR man and that we’re just idiots to ask that migrants to this nation meet certain criteria regarding culture and value rather than just $$s and if 20million saudis, russians and syrians can pony up $50k each thats just dandy thanks. Eftpos or cash sir? I could go on but you’re getting the drift ya.

    It was a speech by a poli who is pissing a whole lotta folk off who are probably itching to vote for anyone on the right other than the LNP. Family First looks like it will be that party for me and mine, could have been LDP.

  150. Tel says:

    It’s the first question from Fran and Dave is thereby fucked on the tv evening news.

    Don’t bother moping about how Abbott should grow a pair, while you are personally living shit-scared of the dickheads that hang around on TV. It’s a dying medium, half the people who do leave the TV on only enjoy the background noise, their attention is focussed on a laptop or a mobile. The advertising dollar is slowly but surely shifting online.

    Television has responded to their escaping audience by lowering the content bar. In turn that chases away more of their audience so they lower the content bar again. Where will this end up, hmmm?

  151. dover_beach says:

    Basically, from what I can see, both sides are failing to engage each other because they’re putting forth rationales that require their opponent to share their belief in the basic principle which is the source of their disagreement.

    OCO, firstly, you haven’t shown that the metacontext of both sides is different. Secondly, you haven’t pointed out how Feser’s response fails to take his opponent’s metacontext into consideration. Thirdly, what basic principle needs to be shared in order to acknowledge the fallaciousness of the ‘one god further’ argument? As Feser showed, it’s the form of the argument that is fallacious.

  152. Yobbo says:

    I have so much respect for Catallaxy. Leyonhjelm’s election should be a cause for us to celebrate. His maiden speech was masterful. See the forest, folks, not trip over the branches.

    I think you’ve missed that Catallaxy is now home to a whole heap of refugees from Bolt’s page, mostly fascists, who hate the LDP and see it as a threat to their beloved Liberal party. That’s why every LDP thread gets trolled to death by the same usual suspects.

  153. Yobbo, if the LDP are the vanguard of the libertarian right, that is only because the liberals have been infested by socialist-lite wannabes and have utterly dropped the ball.

    Congrats, Yobs. Your mob win by default. Lap it up.

  154. Alfonso says:

    Yeah, LDP threads should stick to abortion…. that’ll work a treat as priority in western Sydney.

  155. Oh come on says:

    OCO, firstly, you haven’t shown that the metacontext of both sides is different.

    Isn’t this self-evident?

    Secondly, you haven’t pointed out how Feser’s response fails to take his opponent’s metacontext into consideration.

    Sure I have. By responding with a counterargument that is going to be rejected by atheists for the same reason why Feser rejected the atheist ‘one god less’ argument, he’s failed to take the atheist perspective into account.

    Thirdly, what basic principle needs to be shared in order to acknowledge the fallaciousness of the ‘one god further’ argument?

    A belief in God.

    As Feser showed, it’s the form of the argument that is fallacious.

    No, I don’t think he’s demonstrated the form of argument is fallacious. He’s basically said – correctly – to the atheists “your argument doesn’t carry water with us because you don’t understand the way we view God” and then schooled them on that to illustrate why the ‘one god less’ argument is preposterous. However, an atheist can easily dismiss that explanation by stating – quite reasonably – that they consider Feser’s view of God to be wrong.

  156. Yobbo says:

    Yeah, LDP threads should stick to abortion…. that’ll work a treat as priority in western Sydney.

    Abortion in this thread was brought up by said concern troll “libertarians” who criticise the LDP for not being enough like the Liberal party in every single thread.

  157. Oh come on says:

    You have a point there, Yobbo – particularly when (as was pointed out) the LDP abortion policy is more restrictive than the current, rather incoherent, LNP policy.

  158. Oh come on says:

    As I said earlier, it’s now time to take sides. Do you think the LDP presence in the Senate will have a positive or negative influence going forward?

  159. dover_beach says:

    Isn’t this self-evident?

    No. Feser, for instance, was an atheist for most of his 20s until he began considering the arguments for God’s existence when asked to teach a course on the subject at uni and was in time persuaded by their cogency. Not all the arguments were finally deemed cogent, only some of the arguments. mind you. This change of mind and capacity to discriminate between good and bad arguments with respect to God’s existences is inexplicable given the argument you are making.

    Sure I have. By responding with a counterargument that is going to be rejected by atheists for the same reason why Feser rejected the atheist ‘one god less’ argument, he’s failed to take the atheist perspective into account.

    No. I’m sure the late David Armstrong, for instance, would have rejected the ‘one god further’ argument for the same or similar reasons as Feser outlined.

    A belief in God.

    This is just facile.

    No, I don’t think he’s demonstrated the form of argument is fallacious. He’s basically said – correctly – to the atheists “your argument doesn’t carry water with us because you don’t understand the way we view God” and then schooled them on that to illustrate why the ‘one god less’ argument is preposterous. However, an atheist can easily dismiss that explanation by stating – quite reasonably – that they consider Feser’s view of God to be wrong.

    He applied the form of the argument to different content to demonstrate its fallaciousness. This demonstrates the mistake you made above in reference to the basic principle, and here. Namely, it doesn’t actually account for the generation of the view itself as arising from a chain of reasoning. It’s reduced merely to a point of view; the same is also true of the point of view/s of atheists. This makes your next statement difficult to understand. They can’t “reasonably” dismiss a view without providing some arguments in favour of its dismissal and that is precisely what the ‘one god further’ argument attempts to avoid; providing reasons in justification of any existing or new arguments in this or subsequent instances.

  160. dover_beach says:

    Corr: providing reasons in justification when dismissing any existing or new arguments in this or subsequent instances.

  161. Oh come on says:

    No. Feser, for instance, was an atheist for most of his 20s until he began considering the arguments for God’s existence…

    So you’re saying that the fundamental principles that frame one’s outlook – the metacontext – of an atheist and that of a believer in God are not self-evident? Okay.

    No. I’m sure the late David Armstrong, for instance, would have rejected the ‘one god further’ argument for the same or similar reasons as Feser outlined.

    Good for David Armstrong. Your point being…?

    This is just facile.

    Why? A belief in God is a fairly fundamental metacontextual difference between an atheist and a believer in a monotheistic God, is it not?

    He applied the form of the argument to different content to demonstrate its fallaciousness.

    He did, but unfortunately the different content are not analogous. An Isoceles triangle is an Isoceles triangle, or it isn’t. The existence of God is a rather more ambiguous question.

    This demonstrates the mistake you made above in reference to the basic principle, and here. Namely, it doesn’t actually account for the generation of the view itself as arising from a chain of reasoning. It’s reduced merely to a point of view; the same is also true of the point of view/s of atheists. This makes your next statement difficult to understand. They can’t “reasonably” dismiss a view without providing some arguments in favour of its dismissal and that is precisely what the ‘one god further’ argument attempts to avoid; providing reasons in justification of any existing or new arguments in this or subsequent instances.

    The problem here is that you cannot prove the existence of God. It is not the job of the atheists to prove your assertion, which they consider unsubstantiated, to be correct. They would state that the onus is on you to demonstrate that God exists. If you can’t, why should they not dismiss your view? Because your belief *is* merely a point of view from their perspective. That’s where they’re coming from. That’s the mistake you continue to make. It’s the same mistake atheists make when they attempt to push the “one god less” argument onto believers.

  162. dover_beach says:

    So you’re saying that the fundamental principles that frame one’s outlook – the metacontext – of an atheist and that of a believer in God are not self-evident? Okay.

    Quite, the different meta-contexts are not self-evident. You’re confusing the issue by talking about principles, conclusions, beliefs, and meta-contexts as if the are the same or similar when they are not.

    Good for David Armstrong. Your point being…?

    David M. Armstrong was Australia’s preeminent metaphysician until his death this year. He was also an atheist. That should provide sufficient context.

    He did, but unfortunately the different content are not analogous. An Isoceles triangle is an Isoceles triangle, or it isn’t. The existence of God is a rather more ambiguous question.

    Firstly, they are analogous but they are not identical, to be sure; they don’t need to be for the argument to work. Secondly, you’re begging the question. I could just as easily say that either God is God or it isn’t (classical theists can provide a rational account of this). If you’re going to say that they are different in the relevant sense that makes it inappropriate to apply just this form of argument you are going to have to actually demonstrate that.

    The problem here is that you cannot prove the existence of God. It is not the job of the atheists to prove your assertion, which they consider unsubstantiated, to be correct. They would state that the onus is on you to demonstrate that God exists. If you can’t, why should they not dismiss your view? Because your belief *is* merely a point of view from their perspective. That’s where they’re coming from. That’s the mistake you continue to make. It’s the same mistake atheists make when they attempt to push the “one god less” argument onto believers.

    This is wrong in a number of ways. Firstly, whether I or anyone else can prove the existence of God is precisely what is being determined and in order to do so one must actually consider the argument/s presented. Secondly, if the atheist claims that I cannot prove the existence of God they are obligated to prove this assertion. Whoever makes an assertion, and you refer to two different assertions above, has the burden of proof. Thirdly, the argument of the classical theist is precisely that it is not a matter of belief; the literature distinguishes what can be rationally justified from what cannot be although the latter can still not be irrational. Fourthly, do you know what a proof in philosophy is? And what it requires? Because if you don’t, and this is true of many atheists, than the problem is not differing meta-contexts or points of view, but a failure to recognize the type of argument being engaged in here. Fifthly, since it can’t be proved which of the competing theories of quantum physics is correct, why can’t I just reject all of these theories and refuse to consider any subsequent theories using the ‘one quantum theory further’ argument; that is, the difference between me and you is that while you reject every quantum theory apart from the Standard Model, I just go one quantum theory further. I think this should demonstrate the rank stupidity of the argument.

  163. Oh come on says:

    I’m off to bed, Dover. Been nice chatting – will return to digest and respond later.

    Best

  164. Alfonso says:

    Another triumph for Dave, seems his first political move in the Senate will be a referendum on gay marriage.
    Should leave an impression…..nothing like watching the elites at play for ordinary punters.

  165. . says:

    Alfonso
    #1378026, posted on July 12, 2014 at 8:07 am
    Another triumph for Dave, seems his first political move in the Senate will be a referendum on gay marriage.
    Should leave an impression…..nothing like watching the elites at play for ordinary punters.

    No. He questioned the need for the G20 laws which suspend our common law rights.

  166. Yobbo says:

    His first act in the senate was to lead a push that successfully rejected a tax hike, saving taxpayers $2 billion. Not bad for his first day on the job.

  167. Fleeced says:

    Abortion in this thread was brought up by said concern troll “libertarians” who criticise the LDP for not being enough like the Liberal party in every single thread.

    Given that both major parties support it anyway, I don’t know why this is such a deal-breaker for many.

  168. Yobbo says:

    It’s not. The deal breaker is liberty. Like I said, they are concern trolls.

  169. dover_beach says:

    Fleeced, it’s the signalling that’s the problem. It would have been easy enough for the LDP to maintain their policy position without raising the issue in the way he did in his maiden speech.

  170. Fleeced says:

    Why would he not mention it, db? You’d rather he be like all the rest, and hide what he truly believes – just in case people don’t like it?

  171. dover_beach says:

    Why would he not mention it, db? You’d rather he be like all the rest, and hide what he truly believes – just in case people don’t like it?

    Did he mention every policy of his party? I don’t think so, so this certainly signals a policy he thinks important enough to mention in his maiden speech or a constituency he could not care less for. The form of words he used were quite amazing:

    I also noticed that those opposed to abortion or in favour of conscription were not interested in trying to debate their opponents; instead they sought to seize the levers of government and impose their views on everyone else.

    I judge the latter.

  172. wreckage says:

    Yeah, that paragraph was shyte and deserves to be judged harshly. People with principled objections to the moral arguments for abortion have been arguing the case non-stop for 30 years, all of it from opposition, and have been repeatedly replied to with “Shut up we hate you fuck off and die”.

    The argument that outlawing abortion does no good to anyone was enough, and it should have been left at that.

    Nevertheless, a pro-abortion view, indeed that even a stance that even questions whether an abortion might, in principle, be the wrong way of dealing with some cases, is itself hideously immoral, is unanimously held by our ruling class. Doubtless DL’s display of moral solidarity will make later negotiations with the other princes much smoother. And moreover it’s irrelevant at the pragmatic level. DL will never vote for restrictions, process, or caveats on abortion. So be it; neither will any of the others. DL will at least defend our right to object.
    And debate. Which according to him, we never do, but it’s big of him to make it legal for us to do so, anyway.

    He’s said “No increase it taxes, no decrease in liberty”. That, if applied, makes him the most moral and principled politician in the senate. I’d just appreciate not getting shit on by him; that I even care is a signal of respect.

  173. Yobbo says:

    I’m sure if a bill came up stopping taxpayer funding of abortions, David L would vote for it. But it will never come up since both major parties support the status quo.

  174. wreckage says:

    Pretty much what I’m saying, Yobbo. DL at least defends the right of anyone to hold, and speak, unfashionable opinions on the matter. That makes him one step more pro-Christian than the majors.

    And I think we just agreed on something again. Sign of the Apocalypse, I reckon.

  175. Tim says:

    Yobbo, if the LDP are the vanguard of the libertarian right, that is only because the liberals have been infested by socialist-lite wannabes and have utterly dropped the ball.

    Yes. Which would be why the majority of the LDP membership is composed of former Lib members and supporters who got sick of the endless beatings and abuse and decided to leave and find a new partner who didn’t treat their beliefs as a punching bag. If the Libs had been actual free market believers in freedom there would never have been an LDP.

  176. Yohan says:

    Dover Beach, I have 3 of Feser’s books and read his blog a lot. I like the way he used a rationalist deduction and logic to prove the existence of god. But the part where it breaks down for me is where he then tries to confirm actual scripture as being somehow valid. This is the point where his non-bias and clear logic descends into irrationality.

  177. dover_beach says:

    Yohan, the transition from classical theism to Christian theism is not irrational, but you cannot get to it in same manner as you can get to classical theism. Feser, and the tradition of apologetics, admits this in the division of reason and revelation. You cannot rationally demonstrate the trinity, for instance, but neither is it contrary to reason. A position similar to yours is Conway’s The Rediscovery of Wisdom.

Comments are closed.