Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Pessimism]

@Cyth

Point 1: Not like it's a big deal.

Point 2/3: Don't forget that the initial subject here was abortion. Yes, to exercise any rights at all one must have that primary protection. Since we will be discussing natural rights, we'll use the Lockean natural rights for this quick discussion. My point here is that we are specifically talking about a group of individuals (the unborn) who are not only not-cognizant, but also bear the current argument that they may not in fact have the “right to life” until a certain point in time. This is still a large point of contention for our society. When is it morally justifiable to have an abortion? Can one have an abortion as long as a certain amount of time has not passed? When I mention he is conflating Christianity and government roles, I mean he is taking the basic moral premises most Christians follow (right to life at “conception”, whatever that may mean) and saying that they are rightfully protected under the government - when clearly such cases as Roe v Wade have stated it is not because of conflicting rights (in this case, the potential rights of life the fetus has when compared to both the due process clause within the 14th amendment and the right of privacy a grown human has when faced with government intervention). This is where he makes his mistake.

I'm just using the transitive law of equality to set up a model.
So, if A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C.

A=B: Christians believe in protecting the right to life (starting at conception)
B=C: Governments exist to protect the right to life.
A=C Neither the government, nor Christians, would violate the sanctity of life
A bad model for bad logic! It's this kind of articulation that further strengthens peoples thoughts that this country is a Christian nation. You may be able to see some overlap between the generalities presented by both the government and basic Christian principles, but that does not mean they are molded to each other like many in the house of representatives and the senate believe. Just because the constitution mentions “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” does not mean that the statement “right to life” necessarily equates to the Christian conception of “right to life”. To restate: the entire point here I am trying to drive home is that Rand is mixing up the Christian “right to life' with the usage of the governments.

So when you say:

What are you claiming? Are you claiming that he's taking a right-to-life argument to simply*be*an argument for the proper role of government? That doesn't appear to be what's going on*at all.

I am saying that is exactly what he is doing, and it seems readily apparent to me, especially when he is quoted like so:

(A) Dr. Paul* believes life begins at conception. (B) He recognizes the most basic function of government is to protect life. (C) It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. Dr. Paul opposes any federal funding for abortion.
Source: Campaign website,*www.randpaul2010.com, "Issues" Jul 19, 2010

*He's an eye specialist; Dr. here is being evoked improperly (as if he is an obstetrician)




Point 4:

The "harder citation" was to point out that he is in fact using religion to justify his positions. That is it.
You may not be denying he is a Christian, but you are taking a staunchly argumentative stance when it comes to proving he is acting on behalf of Christian principles when you can pull up a myriad of quotes that stress Christianity is the largest facet of his life and it is how he makes decisions. What that previous citation points out is that he is not against abortion because it deals with the misallocation of funds, he is against it due to religious reasons. here.

I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.

His faith directly correlates to the opinions he holds. I'm really unsure how to point this out any further.




@Mathias

He certainly has the most consistent worldview compared to the majority of the opposition.

 

[Cythraul]

Point 2/3: When I mention he is conflating Christianity and government roles, I mean he is taking the basic moral premises most Christians follow (right to life at “conception”, whatever that may mean) and saying that they are rightfully protected under the government - when clearly such cases as Roe v Wade have stated it is not because of conflicting rights (in this case, the potential rights of life the fetus has when compared to both the due process clause within the 14th amendment and the right of privacy a grown human has when faced with government intervention). This is where he makes his mistake.

I don't think he's making the mistake you're attributing to him. He's not saying that violating his specific conception of a right to life is incompatible with actually existing legal rights and government practice. Indeed, he's perfectly aware of that, and that's the source of his objection. He's speaking in terms of ideal theory (at least that's what I assumed he was doing); it looks like his view is that protecting the right to life is a basic function of government in the sense that it's a moral duty of government in principle, regardless of what legal rights government currently grants its citizens. So a government that fails to discharge this duty is failing to do what it's in principle supposed to do. He's not saying that it's currently a duty of government by its own standards. Why would he even need to say something like that?

And if the courts conceive of the right to life in one way and he conceives of it differently, so what? How is he making a mistake? His conception is perfectly coherent; his difference is that he doesn't countenance the trade-off between rights that you mentioned. Again, so what?

A=B: Christians believe in protecting the right to life (starting at conception)
B=C: Governments exist to protect the right to life.
A=C Neither the government, nor Christians, would violate the sanctity of life

First of all, what's standing in for A, B, and C here? This makes no sense. For instance, in the statement "Governments exist to protect the right to life," what does B stand for and what does C stand for? You might as well have symbolized it as a simple premise-conclusion argument thusly:

P1: Christians believe in protecting the right to life (starting at conception)
P2: Governments exist to protect the right to life.
C: Neither the government, nor Christians, would violate the sanctity of life

Obviously, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But that doesn't even matter, because nothing in what Paul said indicates that he would accept that conclusion. The conclusion he accepts is "The government ought not to violate the sanctity of life." Moreover, I can't see where you're getting this argument from. It's not in the quote. I can't see how you could possibly parse those statements in such a way that you end up with that result.

Here's the full statement once again:

"Dr. Paul believes life begins at conception. He recognizes the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. Dr. Paul opposes any federal funding for abortion."

If there's any argument there, it's largely implicit in what's stated and it would look more like the following:

P1 (unstated): If something possesses human life, it has a right to life.
P2: Human life begins at conception.
P3 (unstated): Abortion ends human life.
--C1 (unstated): Abortion violates the right to life.
P4 (unstated): The government has a duty to protect rights.
--C2 (unstated): By C1 and P4, the government has a duty not to allow abortion.
P5 (unstated): If the government has a duty not to allow abortion, then it has a duty not to fund it.
--C3: If the government funds abortion, it acts contrary to its duty.

This is what I see as implicit in the full statement quoted above. It has the advantage of being far more charitable than the crazy interpretation you gave, and hence harder to dismiss out of hand.

A bad model for bad logic!

A bad model that you conjured up in your own head!

To restate: the entire point here I am trying to drive home is that Rand is mixing up the Christian “right to life' with the usage of the governments.

Where's your evidence that he's doing that?

*He's an eye specialist; Dr. here is being evoked improperly (as if he is an obstetrician)

How is this relevant? And anyway, I think you might be reading too much into that. I thought it was very common to refer to the Pauls by the 'Dr.' title.

The "harder citation" was to point out that he is in fact using religion to justify his positions. That is it.

But it didn't! That page said absolutely nothing about how he justifies his positions. Where in the world are you getting this idea from?

What that previous citation points out is that he is not against abortion because it deals with the misallocation of funds, he is against it due to religious reasons.

How does it point that out? Explain it. There's nothing whatsoever in the citation that explains how Rand Paul justifies his views. Actually, what I was interested in was the statement that life begins at conception. That's a metaphysical/empirical claim that I don't think logically requires a specifically religious justification. I'm very skeptical about the claim that his primary reason for accepting that particular statement is religious. Moreover, the Christian idea of a right to life is not specifically Christian in the sense that there's plenty of secular argumentation out there in support of it (but obviously, Christians are more likely to accept it. I don't accept that you can only have religious reasons for believing in such a right though (yes, there are people who make that claim.)) But fine, I'll concede to you that his general moral principles are informed by his religious faith. I was more interested in that specific claim that I mentioned.

 

[Pessimism]

I don't think he's making the mistake you're attributing to him. He's not saying that violating his specific conception of a right to life is incompatible with actually existing legal rights and government practice. Indeed, he's perfectly aware of that, and that's the source of his objection. He's speaking in terms of ideal theory (at least that's what I assumed he was doing); it looks like his view is that protecting the right to life is a basic function of government in the sense that it's a moral duty of government in principle, regardless of what legal rights government currently grants its citizens. So a government that fails to discharge this duty is failing to do what it's in principle supposed to do. He's not saying that it's currently a duty of government by its own standards. Why would he even need to say something like that?

I don't think he is speaking from one isolated perspective, especially since you could argue that both of the platforms he is running on (constitutionalist/small government & Christian) can alter what moral compass should be followed and when.

And if the courts conceive of the right to life in one way and he conceives of it differently, so what? How is he making a mistake? His conception is perfectly coherent; his difference is that he doesn't countenance the trade-off between rights that you mentioned. Again, so what?

Well, it seems incredibly important to know how his conceptions are grounded. Especially since he's running for such a powerful office. Would you really expect a being elected to a high office with the power to change or alter the interpretation of the law, on which many precedents are set, to not understand the full scope of his decision? Even if he did not accept those points in the end, he damn well better understand them.

The conclusion he accepts is "The government ought not to violate the sanctity of life." Moreover, I can't see where you're getting this argument from. It's not in the quote. I can't see how you could possibly parse those statements in such a way that you end up with that result.

See below

Here's the full statement once again:

"Dr. Paul believes life begins at conception. He recognizes the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. Dr. Paul opposes any federal funding for abortion."

This is what I see as implicit in the full statement quoted above. It has the advantage of being far more charitable than the crazy interpretation you gave, and hence harder to dismiss out of hand.

It's certainly more charitable, and completely at odds with what the government currently holds to be true. Plus I'm not arguing that he only holds one view, and that is that he believes abortion should be outlawed due to religious reasons. I'm saying his reasons stem from multiple areas. These areas more than likely deal with government jurisdiction when discussing the right to life, but also with religious jurisdiction.

First of all, what's standing in for A, B, and C here? This makes no sense. For instance, in the statement "Governments exist to protect the right to life," what does B stand for and what does C stand for? You might as well have symbolized it as a simple premise-conclusion argument thusly:
etc.
A bad model that you conjured up in your own head!

It was never meant to be formal – which is also why I laughed at the irony of you actually going to the length to write out a formal rejection. Should we go all the way and map this bitch out with some formal predicate logic (complete with existential quantifiers)?
I don't even remember A, B or C I think I was hinting at implicit reservations. I don't remember.

How is this relevant? And anyway, I think you might be reading too much into that. I thought it was very common to refer to the Pauls by the 'Dr.' title.

The whole "doctor" comment was to point out how titles can be used in a fallacious manner (appeal to authority). Fox news is actually quite famous for this,since they have a regular doctor (gynecologist) who has in the past been called upon to testify as an expert in a field he has no experience in. When they mention Rand is A DOCTOR and that he is against abortion... it seems just a tad bit off. Either way it was just a tangent and not meant to be taken as a separate argument for why he may or may not be wrong in some way. I could be reading way too much into it. Then again, many people have used titles like that to get far less.

But it didn't! That page said absolutely nothing about how he justifies his positions. Where in the world are you getting this idea from?

It did not outright say it, I inferred it. The entire main premise about his faith and how it affects his reasoning was provided via an inference. I then tried to further elaborate on where this inference came from by giving you another quote where he said how awesome it would be if everyone was religious like him. When a guy goes around spouting off how awesome his absolutist religion is, it is very very hard to not see how his other views might now be affected by such things.

How does it point that out? Explain it. There's nothing whatsoever in the citation that explains how Rand Paul justifies his views.

Actually, what I was interested in was the statement that life begins at conception. That's a metaphysical/empirical claim that I don't think logically requires a specifically religious justification. I'm very skeptical about the claim that his primary reason for accepting that particular statement is religious. Moreover, the Christian idea of a right to life is not specifically Christian in the sense that there's plenty of secular argumentation out there in support of it (but obviously, Christians are more likely to accept it. I don't accept that you can only have religious reasons for believing in such a right though (yes, there are people who make that claim.)) But fine, I'll concede to you that his general moral principles are informed by his religious faith. I was more interested in that specific claim that I mentioned.

Again, inference. His reasons for abortion being illegal may in fact be entirely due to his views on proper jurisdiction. But the fact that his faith is a strong facet of his worldview, and this faith is of the sort that claims absolute sovereignty over not only his eternal soul, but ethical outlook, I do not think it is just him being consistent. More than likely his beliefs in both systems have blended somewhat.

Take for example his published stance:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/abortion-2/
Yes, his “libertarian” views (if you want to call them that) are consistent, but I see an undercurrent that specifically roots itself in his religious leanings, particularly with his endorsement of both those acts which are very heavily right wing in their origin. The self-association with the term “pro-life” also shows an acceptance of everything that comes with that term – including the political and religious implications that were created to be associated with it (exactly the same for the counter-terminology).









Chocovine rules.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't think he is speaking from one isolated perspective, especially since you could argue that both of the platforms he is running on (constitutionalist/small government & Christian) can alter what moral compass should be followed and when.

Sure, yeah. I'm just suspicious of this idea that his view is relying on some fact about current government practice wrt the constitution or some facts about actually existing legal rights. I don't know, maybe it is, but it sure as hell isn't evident from the statements we've been arguing over. I think the guy opposes abortion from the standpoint of ideal moral/political theory.

Well, it seems incredibly important to know how his conceptions are grounded. Especially since he's running for such a powerful office. Would you really expect a being elected to a high office with the power to change or alter the interpretation of the law, on which many precedents are set, to not understand the full scope of his decision? Even if he did not accept those points in the end, he damn well better understand them.

Sure, that's important. But I think my point was just that your objection seemed to be relying on this notion that Paul thinks his notion of a right to life is the way that the government actually thinks about this and that therefore, on pain of inconsistency, the government needs to prohibit abortion or refrain from funding it. But I don't think he does, though he may think that that's how they ought to think of it. I guess I didn't make the point very well.

Should we go all the way and map this bitch out with some formal predicate logic (complete with existential quantifiers)?

Don't tempt me!

 

[Dak]

Ultimately we will always disagree Dak. I am egalitarian by nature (not to say you are not), and fully support the protection and betterment of the populace by most any means necessary. I have no preference for a certain political or economic system; and if that government is invasive or limited doesn't really matter to me if it can achieve my desired results. If it works then it works. I will however state that I do not care for the capitalist system. I will also state that I do realize that my conception is very very prone to abuse in the real world, and thus can never be implemented, unless of course it was done by a benevolent leader who also happened to be immortal.

I've been in some debates of a similar sort on another board, and what it appears to boil down t, at least between myself and someone with your views, is that they perceive a lack of caring for others because I don't see government heavy handedness as the best means, regardless of whether we both would like to see similar ends.

Bureaucracy is a black hole for resources, and people who are paid to merely fixing a problem with no personal interest and/or profit motive will never fix it, because to fix it would be a conflict of interest.

I recced it in the book thread, read Evolution of Civilizations by Carroll Quigley. While I do not agree with every assertion, the pattern of societal evolution/decay is undeniable, and can only be averted by recognizing it and not doing the same shit again.

Most government Agency's have a fine goal, but that doesn't mean it will work as a public institution. The FDA and the EPA are major offenders. We are filling our earth and food with toxins and GMOs but attacking Amish farmers, vitamins, and carbon emitters over dubious beliefs on the part of the respective agencies and their lobbyists.

As far as homeschooling goes, I did have the benefit of having two college graduate parents, and my mother also went to a private school K-12. However, my mother did almost zero teaching once I learned how to read. I had a stack of books and an assignment sheet, and turned it in to be graded once I was done.

I like to refer to myself as "self taught", and it works better for me anyway. I did two years of secondary education and hated almost every minute of sitting in a classroom, only allowed to go as fast as the teacher or cover the reqs of the class.

The modern education system is thoroughly broken because it is bloated and inflexible, and success achieved through it is always in spite of, and not because of. You might not see it this way being closer to the ivory tower side of academia, but the foundation is rotten, and it is because of government involvement, not because there isn't enough.

Edit: and yeah I havent been really impressed by Rand.

 

[Einherjar86]

Can we just say that Pessimism made an assumption that, in all likelihood, is true, but that can't actually be directly supported by the words on the page?

 

[Cythraul]

yes

 

[Matt]

So say the Republican primary is today: who would you guys be most likely to vote for?

 

[Pessimism]

I don't remember writing my last two posts here

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...den-and-torture/2011/03/03/AF10AnzG_blog.html

 

[Dak]

So Ron Paul is running. I'll probably wind up voting for him, as he is the least evil of the field of evils.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I agree. While I don't agree with some of his social & private stances, I think economically he's the most logical person to vote for.

 

[Dak]

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

 

[The Ozzman]

National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 2011)

FACT SHEET

National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 2011) is scheduled for May 2011. The purpose of the exercise is to prepare and coordinate a multiple-jurisdictional integrated response to a national catastrophic event.

NLE 2011 is designated as a Tier I National Level Exercise. Tier I exercises (formerly known as the Top Officials exercise series or TOPOFF) are conducted annually in accordance with the National Exercise Program (NEP), which serves as the nation’s overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises. The NEP was established to provide the U.S. government, at all levels, exercise opportunities to prepare for catastrophic crises ranging from terrorism to natural disasters.

NLE 2011 is a White House directed Congressionally-mandated exercise that includes the participation of all appropriate federal department and agency senior officials, their deputies and staff; and key operational elements. NLE 2011 will focus on regional catastrophic response and recovery activities between federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector participants.
Exercise Focus

NLE 2011 will simulate the catastrophic nature of a major earthquake in the central United States region of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). The year 2011 is the bicentennial anniversary of the 1811 New Madrid earthquake, for which the NMSZ is named. NLE 2011 will be the first NLE to simulate a natural hazard.

NLE 2011 activities will take place at command posts, emergency operation centers and other locations to include federal facilities in the Washington D.C. area and federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector facilities in the eight member states of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC). The eight member states of CUSEC encompass four different FEMA regions: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee (FEMA Region IV); Illinois and Indiana (FEMA Region V); Arkansas (FEMA Region VI); and Missouri (FEMA Region VII).
Exercise Objectives

Through a comprehensive evaluation process, the exercise will assess response and recovery capabilities both nationally and regionally. The exercise is designed to validate the following capabilities:

Communications
Critical resource logistics and distribution
Mass care (sheltering, feeding and related services)
Medical surge
Citizen evacuation and shelter-in-place
Emergency public information and warning
Emergency operations center (EOC) management
Long term recovery

Validating the Homeland Security System

Exercises such as NLE 2011 are an important component of national preparedness, helping to build an integrated federal, state, tribal, local and private sector capability to manage a catastrophic event; and rapidly and effectively respond to and recover from any major disaster that occurs.

The functional exercise offers agencies and jurisdictions a way to test their plans and skills in a real-time, realistic environment and to gain the in-depth knowledge that only experience can provide. Participants will exercise response and recovery functions that are critical to responding to a catastrophic event. Lessons learned from the exercise will provide valuable insights to guide future planning for disasters and other emergencies.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/nle2011_fs.shtm

A facebook friend posted a Youtube vid made by someone talking about this. He deleted it and I tried to find it, but to no avail (you can find tons of vids on it; just search NLE 2011 NEW MADRID) I guess the plan is that HAARP or FEMA will set off the New Madrid Fault Line and cause a massive earthquake and will lead to internment of survivors in FEMA camps.

There are some conspiracy theories I find plausible, but there are others that are just really ridiculous. I think the above is one of them. It's like when people were talking about how Bush was going to declare martial law so he could stay in power...and nothing happened. Or when people were saying something catastrophic was going to happen when Obama took office...and it didn't.

The New Madrid Fault Line is going to be triggered AT SOME POINT because it's just fucking inevitable (in terms of triggered, I mean a massive quake). That fault line sits on tectonic plates, which tend to cause more devastating earthquakes. Earthquakes there happen frequently (although most are quite small).

Just thought I'd talk about something different from Ron Paul for a bit

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Stewart v. O'Reilly

http://i.imgur.com/6YOSs.jpg

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Barack Obama Versus Fundamentalism & Religious Sectarianism

 

[Dak]

I like how he references "common law", which his own Justice Department is apparently ignorant of.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Stewart v. O'Reilly

http://i.imgur.com/6YOSs.jpg

I actually watched that interview/debate, it was quite good. The thing about O'Reilly is that he is probably the best pundit FoxNews has, which goes to show how pathetic they are as a "news" organization (only MSNBC is worse).

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Badbird]

I actually watched that interview/debate, it was quite good. The thing about O'Reilly is that he is probably the best pundit FoxNews has, which goes to show how pathetic they are as a "news" organization (only MSNBC is worse).

MSNBC is tad better then FoxNews is.