Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Clarkmod]

I don't know if it is actually in the Bible, but a lot of religious Christians say that the End Times will involve the truth being accepted as lies and vice-versa.

One thing is certain. Millions and millions of people are under some kind of spell. It is quite disturbing. Whether you want to call it mass formation psychosis or under the spell of evil doesn't really matter. It is real.

Let’s go back to basic Strauss and Howe turning theory. In every crisis there is a progressive faction that says these things are broke, we have to fix them. There is a conservative faction that thinks the way things have been done all along is fine. Each thinks the other crazy. In prior ages at least, many were willing to risk lives in order for their worldview and values to triumph. But from another perspective, every four score and seven years there comes a new birth of freedom.

Let’s look the prior American crises. The Revolution suppressed colonial imperialism and promoted independence. The Civil War ended slavery (but not prejudice) and increased industrial political power. FDR regulated the economy and pushed containment. In each case the intended solutions to problems became basic American values. In each case, any movement to continue past practices faded.

Can you see that the world changes? New problems must be met with new solutions? Urban areas just see problems sooner, and tend to conflict with the slower rural perspective. Turnings just give this pressure to adopt a rhythm, a cadence?

That is your “some kind of spell”. The conflict is natural, inevitable. It is not good against evil, but the old against the new. If in a crisis the new tends to win, you ought to expect it. In this crisis I expect containment will be confirmed. Autocracy will be challenged. Rule of law will be strengthened. Attempts to fight science saving lives will be met more firmly. Prejudice will withstand yet another set of blows, will be weakened but not defeated. Social media will somehow be strengthened to allow various positions to be aired, but to fact check the inevitable liars. And yes, the new technology related to abortion will be embraced.

And this isn’t some sort of evil spell. It is called progress, as in progressive. It is honorable for a conservative to try to preserve the best of what came before, but to stand in the way of the onrushing train isn’t wise.

[Clarkmod]

I'd suggest that the right to swing your rape opinion ends when a rapist's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe that the husband should support the rapist's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have the right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

I'd say the rapist's opinion yields to rule of law. I'd say the rapist's opinion should yield to rule of law and would enforce it. I would yield to the woman's choice. Yes, in this and many questions, the ability to make your own choice is freedom, it being forced by the government is tyranny.

I answered the questions. Will you?

The slave owner, before the ACW, had his opinion supported by the "rule of law". You would yield to the slave owner's choice then, by this logic, if you had lived in 1859. The South held that its ability to make its choice was freedom, and the War of Northern Aggression was tyranny. I have been answering your 'questions'. Answer mine: Give a rigorous defense of abortion which cannot be applied to the first year or so of infancy, aside from such arbitrary things as location.

Oh, by the way, before you or someone cites the (in)famous 'arc of history', here is a good take on that:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/1 ... f-history/
TL;DR version:
The arc of history really exists only in technology. In morality we are no different from our ancestors. And trying to improve us by political force has cost millions of lives.

[Clarkmod]

Most important government policies are based on religious ones. Murder, theft etc. And no, I do not propose any kind of state religion, but that does not prevent adopting religious ethics.

Children will become "sentient" is not killed. Animals never will be. Your argument doesn't work very well.

When you are discussing abortion as a secular law in a nation which separates church and state, you shouldn’t base your argument purely on religious documents. Proposing a religious argument for a secular law is perilously close to establishing an official state religion.

If you create an argument against killing something which is apt to become sentient, as opposed to something which is sentient, you could create an entirely logical and rational argument that would be meaningful with people who accepted your premise as true. Unfortunately, many would object to the premise. You would just be assuming your conclusion. Without an acceptance of the questionable premise, the argument falls apart.

A large percentage of laws in Western countries are already based on religious teachings. Religion is the basis for most morality and ethics in the west so that ship sailed centuries if not millennia ago.

Your argument is specious. First of all, I'm tired of playing your semantical gains. Let's look at an actual definition of sentient:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient


1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Since research has shown that babies respond to sensory input at mere (low) weeks of age, your own window for abortion is quite small.

Secondly, that is ignoring the issue of human beings having an intrinsic worth. Using your standards it would be perfectly okay to murder someone in a coma or with some kind of severe dementia because they are not "sentient" by your standards. You have a woefully low bar to clear before murdering people is fine with you. I would really suggest that instead of playing word or logic games you look at the consequences of what you're suggesting.

[Clarkmod]

A large percentage of laws in Western countries are already based on religious teachings. Religion is the basis for most morality and ethics in the west so that ship sailed centuries if not millennia ago.

Your argument is specious. First of all, I'm tired of playing your semantical gains. Let's look at an actual definition of sentient:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient


1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Since research has shown that babies respond to sensory input at mere (low) weeks of age, your own window for abortion is quite small.

Secondly, that is ignoring the issue of human beings having an intrinsic worth. Using your standards it would be perfectly okay to murder someone in a coma or with some kind of severe dementia because they are not "sentient" by your standards. You have a woefully low bar to clear before murdering people is fine with you. I would really suggest that instead of playing word or logic games you look at the consequences of what you're suggesting.

The given definition of sentience seems inadequate for the abortion argument. Can you agree that the major point is that sentients should not be killed? Meat animals can respond to stimuli, but are not considered sentient. Therefore, a definition of sentient that labels meat animals as sentient puts the pro life advocate in a problematic position.

You have to find a scientifically measurable criteria for sentience that a meat animal cannot meet. I threw out language use as one such possible criteria, which would suggest 12 to 18 months, but rejected it as unpalatable. No one has suggested an alternative trait. In its favor, only humans use language and only humans are considered sentient. The big but is that most people (including me) find this logical rational age not palatable, so they arbitrarily want to move it earlier, but cannot really justify their intuition.

If you want to suggest another criteria, go ahead. In rejecting “word games” you are rejecting logic and reason in the abortion question. In moving from 12 to 18 months to the end of the second trimester, so have I. So we really have to switch gears.

(Sound of gears shifting.)

From a turnings perspective, values change with each crisis. Quoting ancient texts from long before the crises you will not get worldviews that are compatible with turning theory. If we counted on ancient texts and laws, we would never get anything new. We’d still have noble privilege, colonial imperialism, slavery, etc… With turning theory, the civic generation creates a new set of values which address the current problems and conflict. The other generations are stuck with it. If women are voting to keep the government away from their bodies, the turning process has clearly replaced “word games”. The question may be settled in the voting booth rather than with “word games”.

The slave owner, before the ACW, had his opinion supported by the "rule of law". You would yield to the slave owner's choice then, by this logic, if you had lived in 1859. The South held that its ability to make its choice was freedom, and the War of Northern Aggression was tyranny. I have been answering your 'questions'. Answer mine: Give a rigorous defense of abortion which cannot be applied to the first year or so of infancy, aside from such arbitrary things as location.

Oh, by the way, before you or someone cites the (in)famous 'arc of history', here is a good take on that:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/1 ... f-history/
TL;DR version:
The arc of history really exists only in technology. In morality we are no different from our ancestors. And trying to improve us by political force has cost millions of lives.

I disagree that only technology changes. Turning theory has society shifting as a result of new conflicts and technology. Again, noble privilege, colonial imperialism and slavery are among the many old values that have been rejected in a crisis, often over the resistance of champions of the old values. Yes, the process often involves a large loss of life, but the result is American values: independence, human rights, etc…

As to a rigorous defense of the pro choice position, I have been doing this for pages but apparently you have not been paying attention. If you want to play word games, you first assume sentients should not be killed. You then search for a scientifically measurable criteria which has a fetus as sentient, a meat animal not. The ability to sense threats does not work as meat animals can do that. Language use does work, but suggests an age that is not palatable to most. The other question is whether you do not kill sentients, or you do not kill anything that might reasonably be expected to become sentient. At bottom, that difference is what we are arguing about, and which position cannot be decisively settled with word games.

Your last post sounds suspiciously like a defense of slavery. It seems to posit that the great questions asked and settled in prior crises should not have been asked. The changes in American values that resulted should not have happened.

Um… No.

[Clarkmod]

I disagree that only technology changes. Turning theory has society shifting as a result of new conflicts and technology. Again, noble privilege, colonial imperialism and slavery are among the many old values that have been rejected in a crisis, often over the resistance of champions of the old values. Yes, the process often involves a large loss of life, but the result is American values: independence, human rights, etc…

As to a rigorous defense of the pro choice position, I have been doing this for pages but apparently you have not been paying attention. If you want to play word games, you first assume sentients should not be killed. You then search for a scientifically measurable criteria which has a fetus as sentient, a meat animal not. The ability to sense threats does not work as meat animals can do that. Language use does work, but suggests an age that is not palatable to most. The other question is whether you do not kill sentients, or you do not kill anything that might reasonably be expected to become sentient. At bottom, that difference is what we are arguing about, and which position cannot be decisively settled with word games.

Your last post sounds suspiciously like a defense of slavery. It seems to posit that the great questions asked and settled in prior crises should not have been asked. The changes in American values that resulted should not have happened.

Um… No.

Everything changes. But only STEM things change in one direction consistently...and even for that, Europe had some regression after the Fall of Rome. Slavery was abolished in the South 1865 (effectively) and Brazil in 1888. Yet it arose in Germany in the 20th century in a form far more malignant than the Confederacy's, and only Hitler's blunder in basically attacking the rest of the world except a couple friends ended it...and it was a close thing for awhile.
I am not defending slavery. I am pointing out that the argument that the law and the majority of the voters support at least some level of abortion could have been used by a Southron in 1859 to do so, just by changing a word.

[Clarkmod]

I don't know if it is actually in the Bible, but a lot of religious Christians say that the End Times will involve the truth being accepted as lies and vice-versa.

One thing is certain. Millions and millions of people are under some kind of spell. It is quite disturbing. Whether you want to call it mass formation psychosis or under the spell of evil doesn't really matter. It is real.

Let’s go back to basic Strauss and Howe turning theory. In every crisis there is a progressive faction that says these things are broke, we have to fix them. There is a conservative faction that thinks the way things have been done all along is fine. Each thinks the other crazy. In prior ages at least, many were willing to risk lives in order for their worldview and values to triumph. But from another perspective, every four score and seven years there comes a new birth of freedom.

Let’s look the prior American crises. The Revolution suppressed colonial imperialism and promoted independence. The Civil War ended slavery (but not prejudice) and increased industrial political power. FDR regulated the economy and pushed containment. In each case the intended solutions to problems became basic American values. In each case, any movement to continue past practices faded.

Can you see that the world changes? New problems must be met with new solutions? Urban areas just see problems sooner, and tend to conflict with the slower rural perspective. Turnings just give this pressure to adopt a rhythm, a cadence?

That is your “some kind of spell”. The conflict is natural, inevitable. It is not good against evil, but the old against the new. If in a crisis the new tends to win, you ought to expect it. In this crisis I expect containment will be confirmed. Autocracy will be challenged. Rule of law will be strengthened. Attempts to fight science saving lives will be met more firmly. Prejudice will withstand yet another set of blows, will be weakened but not defeated. Social media will somehow be strengthened to allow various positions to be aired, but to fact check the inevitable liars. And yes, the new technology related to abortion will be embraced.

And this isn’t some sort of evil spell. It is called progress, as in progressive. It is honorable for a conservative to try to preserve the best of what came before, but to stand in the way of the onrushing train isn’t wise.

The "progress" that you see is something akin to an evil spell. Mass formation psychosis,etc whatnot the phenomenon is real. But when you are enveloped in it, you cannot see outside of the range of thought. It's a cult and you are an adherent. Intellectual discourse becomes impossible with cult members therefore. That is why people here get frustrated with you.

[Clarkmod]

Let’s go back to basic Strauss and Howe turning theory. In every crisis there is a progressive faction that says these things are broke, we have to fix them. There is a conservative faction that thinks the way things have been done all along is fine. Each thinks the other crazy. In prior ages at least, many were willing to risk lives in order for their worldview and values to triumph. But from another perspective, every four score and seven years there comes a new birth of freedom.

Let’s look the prior American crises. The Revolution suppressed colonial imperialism and promoted independence. The Civil War ended slavery (but not prejudice) and increased industrial political power. FDR regulated the economy and pushed containment. In each case the intended solutions to problems became basic American values. In each case, any movement to continue past practices faded.

Can you see that the world changes? New problems must be met with new solutions? Urban areas just see problems sooner, and tend to conflict with the slower rural perspective. Turnings just give this pressure to adopt a rhythm, a cadence?

That is your “some kind of spell”. The conflict is natural, inevitable. It is not good against evil, but the old against the new. If in a crisis the new tends to win, you ought to expect it. In this crisis I expect containment will be confirmed. Autocracy will be challenged. Rule of law will be strengthened. Attempts to fight science saving lives will be met more firmly. Prejudice will withstand yet another set of blows, will be weakened but not defeated. Social media will somehow be strengthened to allow various positions to be aired, but to fact check the inevitable liars. And yes, the new technology related to abortion will be embraced.

And this isn’t some sort of evil spell. It is called progress, as in progressive. It is honorable for a conservative to try to preserve the best of what came before, but to stand in the way of the onrushing train isn’t wise.

The "progress" that you see is something akin to an evil spell. Mass formation psychosis,etc whatnot the phenomenon is real. But when you are enveloped in it, you cannot see outside of the range of thought. It's a cult and you are an adherent. Intellectual discourse becomes impossible with cult members therefore. That is why people here get frustrated with you.

Yes, exactly, and this was obvious to me (I called it out, that's why he can't stand me, it's because he can't stand the truth) and others to a large degree long ago. I thought that a good faith argument might be at least somewhat possible, but it isn't. There is no perception of any objective standard or reference, which is actually the point, because they hold anti-christ points of view (recall, it really means "instead of" even though they are also against Him). They set up idols ("progressive", "new vs old" etc) that they worship but are grounded in nothing. That's why they join the mass psychosis, as you know. It's better to not even address or entertain this fool anymore. Shun him and his nonsense entirely, since it is based on secular humanism, which is just a nice way of saying satanism.

[Clarkmod]

Everything changes. But only STEM things change in one direction consistently...and even for that, Europe had some regression after the Fall of Rome. Slavery was abolished in the South 1865 (effectively) and Brazil in 1888. Yet it arose in Germany in the 20th century in a form far more malignant than the Confederacy's, and only Hitler's blunder in basically attacking the rest of the world except a couple friends ended it...and it was a close thing for awhile.

I am not defending slavery. I am pointing out that the argument that the law and the majority of the voters support at least some level of abortion could have been used by a Southron in 1859 to do so, just by changing a word.

First, what do you mean by a STEM thing? I may have it. I think. I have STEM education as way to use AI to teach Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. That doesn’t relate to the problem we are dealing with.

And what do you mean that the arc of history exists only in technology. I argue that man evolved as a hunter gatherer, has instincts and emotions for that, and these drives have been applied differently in the Agricultural, Industrial and Information ages. These ages change when there are great differences in how information is processed (spoken, written, printed, computed) what weapons are used (clubs, metal, chemical, nuclear) or how man governs himself (chiefs, kings, representative democracy and... I kind of believe computer networked democracy will come someday, but we haven’t sufficiently solved the security problem yet.)

And Catholic Christianity is centered on one medieval perception of things. It provides a complete perspective for how things were and are is centered on one old perspective. You get suck in one way of looking at things. Not everybody is stuck. We had the protestant reformation and a tendency toward more secular values which effected many people. We have crossed two Age boundaries since then. We have changed in many ways, but some cling to another time, ignore, disregard or simply do not notice the changes in values.

As well as ages changing, we have civilizations rising and falling. Under these conditions, a smooth linear transformation should hardly be expected.

I am willing to acknowledge that some groups will cling to an ancient set of values, but am far more with turning theory that values change every crisis, generally driven by a civic generation setting a new pattern. There is a wish to get rid of great flaws in civilization at the time of the crisis. This is generally done: colonial imperialism, noble privilege, slavery, autocratic aggression. Values which counter these flaws become basic to the society: independence, equality, freedom, containment. If your basic way of perceiving things can’t wrap around change and growth, places an emphasis on one perfect being who never changes, you have a problem. Your method of thinking is not apt to mesh with one who is into turning theory.

(I have managed to hit all four of my common ways of looking at history in this note: evolutionary biology, turnings, civilizations and ages.)

Yes, the southerners could have changed much with a word, but they were more addicted to using slaves and were willing to risk death rather than change their values. People are highly addicted to their worldviews. You need to clarify that their values will not work anymore with an Atlanta or Hiroshima for things to truly shift. So what happens if containment works well enough to prevent the edict of the civic generation? Will the conservatives try to cling to old values indefinitely, prevent the turnings from turning?

A side story. There were a bunch of mostly American prisoners held in Japan at the end of World War II. As it would take some time for the occupiers to reach them, they 'borrowed' a train and headed for an already occupied area. In doing so, they passed through a city, or a place where a city once was. Instead, smoke, debries, ash, destruction. The answer was cheers. After living for some time as the old Japanese treat prisoners, they could hardly be blamed. They then passed through another former city. Same result. Cheers. Applause. They then passed through a third former city.

Silence.

But that is how hard people will cling to their values, will refuse to admit they are wrong.

[Clarkmod]

The "progress" that you see is something akin to an evil spell. Mass formation psychosis,etc whatnot the phenomenon is real. But when you are enveloped in it, you cannot see outside of the range of thought. It's a cult and you are an adherent. Intellectual discourse becomes impossible with cult members therefore. That is why people here get frustrated with you.

The nature of the 'psychosis' is that progressives see society as flawed, and wish to fix it. Yes, it is real. No, they can't see that not fixing a broken society is rational. Conservatives wish to freeze society. Progressives want to fix the most obvious flaws. This fixing process happens most in crises. This tends to make conservatives wail and moan as the crisis fixes begin to manifest.

A long time ago I viewed the Broadway play 'Pippin'. The play was based on a book by Descartes on Pippin the Short, son of Charlemagne, and rebutted the proposition that the world we are living in is 'the best of all possible worlds'. It featured things like rape and war, suggesting that maybe this isn't the best that could be. I'm with Descartes. This world has problems. They need to be fixed.

[Clarkmod]

The "progress" that you see is something akin to an evil spell. Mass formation psychosis,etc whatnot the phenomenon is real. But when you are enveloped in it, you cannot see outside of the range of thought. It's a cult and you are an adherent. Intellectual discourse becomes impossible with cult members therefore. That is why people here get frustrated with you.

The nature of the 'psychosis' is that progressives see society as flawed, and wish to fix it. Yes, it is real. No, they can't see that not fixing a broken society is rational. Conservatives wish to freeze society. Progressives want to fix the most obvious flaws. This fixing process happens most in crises. This tends to make conservatives wail and moan as the crisis fixes begin to manifest.

A long time ago I viewed the Broadway play 'Pippin'. The play was based on a book by Descartes on Pippin the Short, son of Charlemagne, and rebutted the proposition that the world we are living in is 'the best of all possible worlds'. It featured things like rape and war, suggesting that maybe this isn't the best that could be. I'm with Descartes. This world has problems. They need to be fixed.

I would say your fundamental flaw in reasoning is what either "side" is hoping to accomplish. You can't fathom that perhaps, just maybe, that what appears as "progressive" is actually something far different. And sinister according to many. Downright evil by the deeds and words we have seen. The "change" purported is destruction without means of viable replacement. Akin to the Russian and Chinese "progressive" movements in history. Comrade