gdp's Comments

NewsReal Blog : Hot Post: Atheist Richard Dawkins Fails Religion 101

Sun, 4 Sep 2011 04:14:50 +0000

I see. You're inferring more from the statement than intended. There's some distance between pointing out that causality is an objective fact of reality and insisting that reality is limited to the objective. My point is that causality necessitates a reality beyond the objective. Since everything in the universe has a cause, so must the universe itself. That cause could not share the same nature as the universe. It would be inherently beyond our objective detection and have a super-nature with attributes traditionally regarded as divine. In order to be capable of creating all, it would have to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. It would have to be eternal, with no beginning or end, and thus without a cause of its own. If one is an objectivist, they have chosen to blankout this implication of causality, because it demands contemplating the subjective. This is why I can never call myself an objectivist, despite my reverence for objective morality in the realm of civics. The points you address about the God of the Bible are certainly provocative. I could (and indeed plan to) write a book on the subject. Within the constraints of a blog comment, I have to keep it simple. Suffice it to say, if there is a God, his divine qualities place him in rightful authority over all things. Tyranny is arbitrary, government by whim. The God of the Bible is not arbitrary. It's difficult to discern from a dry reading of scripture without truly studying it and seeking to understand the nuance of the original language in its whole context. Such study reveals that the condition of the world - "messed up" as it is - is accounted for in a manner which makes sense. It is precisely because God is not a tyrant that He granted us the capacity to mess up our world. A tyrant would have created a utopia populated by automatons. God created a world with volitional beings. As any parent knows, with volition comes rebellion. That rebellion could not be tolerated, because God is just (intolerant of wrong) and holy (the standard of right). Fortunately, being omniscient, He also had a plan to redeem us. Regarding Numbers, you don't see these rituals going on today. Much of the Mosiac law, though certainly divinely decreed, was nonetheless contextual. Recall that the purpose of setting aside the Israelites as a "chosen people" was to ensure the linage through which the Messiah would be born. Much of the Mosiac law and the relatively gruesome violence prescribed by God throughout the Exodus and beyond, had the effect of protecting and differentiating Israel from the tribes and nations around them - thus protecting that lineage. Again, we have to consider the context. These other tribes and nations were hardly paragons of virtue or champions of individual rights. They were most frequently idol worshipers who tossed their infants into sacrificial pyres. Such cultures have no moral claim to sovereignty, objective or otherwise.

NewsReal Blog : Hot Post: Atheist Richard Dawkins Fails Religion 101

Sun, 4 Sep 2011 03:12:38 +0000

I don't know a lot about Robertson, to be perfectly honest. What I do know, I'm not a huge fan of. I'm not sure I follow your point about character in opposition to argument. Are you saying an adulterer cannot argue against adultery? If so, I disagree. I can't speak for others, but believe Christians who argue that atheists are immoral are obviously not talking about objective morality. They probably aren't even aware of objective morality and hold to a false dichotomy between moral subjectivism and religious dictate.

NewsReal Blog : Hot Post: Atheist Richard Dawkins Fails Religion 101

Sat, 3 Sep 2011 06:13:49 +0000

I don't see where I said any such thing. The entire point of my post is that theism - which is inherently subjective - is nonetheless rational. Objective morality applies to the objective world. It applies to our dealings with each other and our environment. Objective ethics regards one man as equal to another. God is not an equal. A creator of the universe would inherently own it, just as a man inherently owns the product of his thought and labor. It is therefore within His prevue to use or dispose of that creation as He pleases. Fortunately, if you read the Bible without a bias against Christianity, you will find that God's love led Him to provide a means for our salvation in spite of having every right to dispose of us all.

NewsReal Blog : Escape from New York: Young Taxpayers Flee Economic Ruin

Tue, 17 May 2011 13:04:36 +0000

Intergovernmental bailouts are antithetical to division of power, insulating local and state constituents from the consequences of their elected officials' actions, and punishing taxpayers in other parts of the country without cause or consent. It's frankly evil.

NewsReal Blog : The Audacity of Wealth: How Leftist Thugs Claim Your Money

Mon, 9 May 2011 21:38:51 +0000

A point I would have made in a post twice as long, though I prefer a consumption tax solution.

NewsReal Blog : The Audacity of Wealth: How Leftist Thugs Claim Your Money

Mon, 9 May 2011 21:35:50 +0000

The poster is aware of the difference, but was blind to his usage in this case. Thanks for pointing it out.

US Liberty Journal : 2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY RALLY, SANTA CRUZ, CA

Thu, 5 May 2011 22:42:46 +0000

You've been featured in our list of Top 10 Tea Party Bloggers. Take a look. http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/05/the-top-10... You should have access to my email in your site's dashboard. I'd like to correspond about writing for us. Thanks.

NewsReal Blog : Who Parents the Parents? San Fransisco Set to Ban Infant Circumcision

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:29:26 +0000

My above response to Reason_For_Life addresses your comment as well. You appear to derive parental rights from the needs of the child. Teaching and feeding are okay because they meet needs, you say. But that is not the premise upon which parental rights are based. If it were simply a question of the child's needs, anyone could meet them. Indeed, so-called "progressive" attacks against the family rely upon the sense that "society" has both the right and responsibility to meet children's needs. But that does not comport with natural law, as I describe above. There is no fundamental difference between the notion that children must be protected from their parents and the notion that people in general must be protected from themselves. Both fuel the nanny state.

NewsReal Blog : Who Parents the Parents? San Fransisco Set to Ban Infant Circumcision

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:17:57 +0000

Your last paragraph highlights the crux of the matter. Your observation that the child has no choice is correct. The point is, neither do you, unless it's your child. You distinguish an adult's decision regarding their self from a parent's decision for their child. That's the crime in this debate. You don't get to determine what decisions parents make for their children, for precisely the same reason you do not get to determine what decisions they make for themselves. There is no distinction. To assert otherwise is to concoct some collective claim to parental authority which cannot be derived rationally, because it does not exist. If a parent does not "own" their child, which I agree they don't, surely no one else does. If a parent is not empowered to direct the life of their child, surely no one else is. This is not a principle upon which I'm prepared to give ground, because there is no middle ground. If you concede that parental authority is subject to the rational analysis of others, than there is no parental authority. And that's precisely what we see in everything from dietary dictates in public schools to prosecution of religious parents for controversial medical decisions. The state's role in protecting children is the same as its role in protecting anyone, preserving individual rights. For the reasons I articulate in the post, that means preserving the parents' right to direct their children's lives. It is the sanctity of individual rights which should compel us to set an extraordinarily high standard for interfering in the parental relationship. I think it reasonable to expect that standard to include self-identified victims advocating on their own behalf, rather than a cadre of busy bodies eager to impose upon others. Again, I know of no such victims. Given the hundreds of millions of American men who have been circumcised over the years, if the practice is as horrific an abuse as you claim, the outcry from those actually affected would be readily apparent.

NewsReal Blog : Who Parents the Parents? San Fransisco Set to Ban Infant Circumcision

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:53:56 +0000

I never claimed it was painless. Neither is a spanking or having your ears pierced. Should we criminalize those practices? You're calling hundreds of millions of American parents child abusers. Forgive me if I find that absurd. "The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States." http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ This demonstrates that people are, of their own accord, moving away from the practice. Take your case to those who remain. I see no reason to enforce it through law. If anything, the decreasing numbers strengthen the case for leaving it to parents.

NewsReal Blog : Arrest of Koran-Burning Pastor Terry Jones Brings Freedom of Speech Into Focus

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:48:13 +0000

There are many more people confronting Islam than Terry Jones. Usama Dakdok, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, and pretty much the entire DHFC staff are among them. There is a distinction between confronting an idea and encroaching upon someone's space - getting in their face, if you well. I'm not saying Jones necessarily did anything wrong. I'm saying a case could have been made, which we must acknowledge to protect ourselves from similar encroachment. As it stands, the Michigan authorities were 100% in the wrong.

NewsReal Blog : What Donald Trump's Popularity Means for the Rest of the 2012 Field

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0000

My doubts about Trump have nothing to do with his qualifications. I don't think he's a real conservative. He's a showman taking advantage of political tension to heighten his brand. He's not "serious" because he's not talking about anything serious. He's talking about Obama's birth certificate and advocating protectionism. I haven't heard one take on policy from him that I agree with.

NewsReal Blog : The Pied Piper of Voter Fraud

Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:04:26 +0000

Simple solution: have judges from both parties help instead of, or in addition to, the guardian.

NewsReal Blog : The Pied Piper of Voter Fraud

Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:02:23 +0000

I don't know whether he has an ID or not. To your point, the current Voter ID proposals do not go far enough to prevent this kind of exploitation. I would consider a provision requiring election judges representing both parties to be present with individuals under guardianship throughout the process to ensure their guardian is not coaching their vote. If the guardian tells them how to vote on the way there, fine. If they can remember it and act accordingly, they obviously have the cognition to make a decision. But they shouldn't be coached in the polling place.

NewsReal Blog : The Pied Piper of Voter Fraud

Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:54:30 +0000

That's I point I keep coming back to. The Left continually attempts to represent laziness or disinterest as disenfranchisement. If you don't care enough to do what it takes to vote, you have no business voting. Getting an ID is not a "barrier."

NewsReal Blog : Clinton & Gates Suggest Constitution No Longer Supreme

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:47:17 +0000

You know, I had that thought Monday while listening to his speech. I immediately dismissed it as unpalatable given the tiresome calls for Bush's impeachment. However, the case could certainly be made.

NewsReal Blog : Constitutional Fail: 7 Ways the Left Abuses the First Amendment

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:16:55 +0000

As I clearly state, the source of the issues within our Tea Party group was the cultural contagion introduced by the Left. You apparently think identification with an organization prevents the adoption of particular ideas. The Left, by the way, is not a political party or single organization. Republicans can be full-blown leftists or strongly influenced by leftist ideas. In fact, that is a large part of the reason the Tea Party exists. That the Tea Party is itself vulnerable to leftist thinking is a point which shouldn't short circuit anyone's cognition. UK Uncut was an example cited by Johann Hari as a model for the Left to follow in America. This was clearly stated. You obviously didn't read it. The notion that someone's unwillingness to compromise is anti-democratic is itself anti-democratic, unless you care to contend that your opinion obligates me to change mine. The notion that the federal government ought to subsidize speech implies an argument for entitlement. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of subsidy? Our democracy occurs within the confines of a constitutional republic, which means 50% + 1 do not get to impose upon the natural rights of the other 49%. That means you don't get to have your programming subsidized simply because we live in a "democracy." There's a higher standard than that. Expanding enumerated powers requires amending the Constitution. Please don't think bandying about about terms like "strawman" makes you either appear intelligent or demonstrably correct. In this case, it simply demonstrates that you can't comprehend plain language or make abstract associations.

NewsReal Blog : Who Are Wisconsin's True "Forces of Evil?"

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:38:01 +0000

Look, I appreciate the debate too. I really do. However, I'd encourage you to consider what force actually is. It lies at the crux of this and many other issues. You are not "forced" to pay oil companies. You choose to. You do so because you perceive a need to travel, and doing so under the power of an internal combustion engine is most efficient. You could walk. You could go out and buy a Volt. There are alternatives. They just don't make sense. So you wisely choose the option which does. This is the market in action, not force. Conversely, efforts to artificially accelerate the scarcity of fossil fuels under the misguided presumption that higher prices cause alternatives to magically manifest IS force. It is one party (government) interfering with the economic activity of others without just cause, like me telling you who you can and can't do business with or trying to dictate how. Government is force. That is its nature. We grant it a monopoly on force to protect us from fraud and abuse by others. When the government itself becomes fraudulent and abusive, even if motivated to save the Earth, it becomes the very problem it was meant to solve. I don't care how many union protesters are in Wisconsin. I guarantee you the Utah statute would have a similar effect in that state. Why? Because people are much more cognizant of cost when they have to write out a check. And when people are cognizant of cost, they start to evaluate what they are getting in return. The union folk in Utah came to the conclusion that they weren't getting much. Regardless, it's not as though union members are the sole parties in our consideration. The unions are one party in the dispute. The taxpayers are the other. The voices of the latter matter as much as the former. And the latter have the moral high ground when it comes to collective bargaining. This is not about destroying unions. Unions are free associations which people have an inherent right to enter. This is about the inverse right, the right to choose not to associate. It's also about the special relationship between state employees and their employer, a relationship not subject to the same market forces which reign in private sector unions. Research "moral hazard" and you may begin to see my point.

NewsReal Blog : Bill Maher Thinks Lenin and Stalin Were “Right-Wingers”

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:40:19 +0000

We could travel down a very long and pointless rabbit hole arguing about definitions and the merits of one political spectrum over another. However, our time and cognitive ability is better served recognizing that the core political contest is between liberty and tyranny. I don't care how you model it, as long as you recognize that liberty is preferable.

NewsReal Blog : Joy Behar Asks Miss America: Would You Vote For An Atheist?

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:15:23 +0000

I assure you, I don't need to rush to the dictionary to answer your challenge. It's pretty clear you're more interested in telling me what I said and what it meant than having an actual conversation. So I'll leave you to your inaccurate interpretation of my point. Regarding your take on the justice of God, his picking and choosing of who lives and who dies, the explanation is quite simple. You cannot judge God as if He were on the same level as creation. The "ethics branch of philosophy" you apparently think I've never heard of includes the natural law, which is derived through an observation of humanity in the state of nature. Humanity is the key word. It doesn't apply to God. God created nature. It's his. He can do with it as he pleases. He no more needs to justify killing one person over another than I have to justify which charity I choose to support. It's his choice, period. There is no authority greater than his which can be appealed to. If there was, He would not be God. You don't have to believe in God to recognize the logic of his theoretical existence placing him in authority over that which He created. With that in mind, when we regard the concept of sin - of all life deserving death, what is remarkable is that we have been tolerated at all. You are quite right to conclude that God's perfect justice requires the death of us all, which is why - in his equally perfect love - He died in our place. In so doing, He satisfied the dictates of justice while saving us from our deserved fate. Again, you don't have to believe that. But that's what Christians believe. And in the debate over whether someone's beliefs make sense, you have to deal in what they actually believe, not an interpretation of those beliefs which better suits your argument.