ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Hispanic firearms homicide rate

This statistical beast is somewhat elusive thanks to the FBI's resolute determination to lump all Hispanics in with whites.  However, it is possible to work out a reasonable approximation of what the statistics would be if the FBI bothered to report them accurately.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 20-year gun homicide rate is 41.9% "white" and 56.4% black.  The "white" rate is lower than reported by the FBI for 2010, which, if I am correct, reduces the known black share from 56.4% to 49% due to the rising Hispanic population.  But since there are plenty of cases that are unknown, we will use the 20-year rate in order to avoid the possibility of a single year outlier while considering the 9,146 gun homicides concerned.

We will assume, for the sake of argument, that Hispanic victims are synonymous with Hispanic killers. The BJS supports this assumption, reporting that from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white victims were killed by whites and 94% of black victims were killed by black.  A CDC report states: "Homicide rates in 2010 among non-Hispanic, African-American males 10-24 years of age (51.5 per 100,000) exceeded those of Hispanic males (13.5 per 100,000) and non-Hispanic, White males in the same age group (2.9 per 100,000)."

We're not concerned with the black homicide rate since we already know that.  What interests us is how the remaining 4,116 gun homicides are divided between whites and Hispanics.  The distribution indicated by the CDC report shows that 3,388 were Hispanic and only 728 were white.  This may be a little skewed by the focus on young males, but nevertheless provides a very credible estimate of 6.8 per 100k population, which would put the US-Latin firearms homicide rate in between Nicaragua at 5.9 and Paraguay at 7.4.  It would also indicate that the US-White homicide rate is 0.32 per 100k population, a per capita rate very close to The Netherlands at 0.33 although still higher than France, Germany, or the UK.

The chart above compares the three primary US racial populations and the rates at which they commit firearms homicide per 100k population, then pairs them with what is more or less their international equivalent.  The interesting thing is that regardless of whether it is the prevalence of firearms or the proximity to a majority white population that is responsible, it is readily observable that the US-Latin and US-Black rates of firearms homicide are much LOWER than the rates at which firearms homicide is committed by non-US Latins and non-US Africans, despite the greater access of the US-based populations to firearms.

Labels:

185 Comments:

Anonymous CS December 21, 2012 9:57 AM  

But Vox - don't you know that it's nurture and not nature?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 10:06 AM  

I would like to point to the Vox Populi readers something going on in Salinas California that relates to this.

The Alisal Unified School District is going to name a school for Tiburcio Vasquez. This guy was a rustler, outlaw and convicted murderer and hanged for it. They people that authorized this were all Roman Catholic Mexicans!

School named in honor of murderer

Tiburcio named for elementary school causes turbelent debate

While I was going around the Roman Catholic Churches to hand out a critique of this situation I also entered the Catholic Charities office in Salinas. In there, there was literature about helping them immigrate to America.

In Salinas, there have been 21 homocides already almost all of them committed by hispanics. Tirbucio Vasquez is also an Hispanic Iredentist; one who wanted to return California to Mexico! This is raising the Mexican Flag on American soil.

This is Treason. The Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason by pushing non-European immigration into this country! It is the cause of this situation. That Roman Catholics not only advance a murderer to headline a school but endorse treason and commit it as well! This is a bad situation. The only thing worse is that the European is too woosy, too effeminate, too dumb-downed, too panzied to fight back!

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:07 AM  

Why you always bother us with facts? If I want facts I'll go to listen to Fox News.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:10 AM  

Watching the History channel Vox and the highest rate of suicide is at Mount Fuji and it has something to do with aliens and such.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan December 21, 2012 10:36 AM  

There was a blue pill fella from Des Plaines,

Who believed all the diversity refrains,

Then he met a flash mob,

Black teens with no job,

And they beat out all of his brains.

Anonymous Henry VIII December 21, 2012 10:46 AM  

The Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason by pushing non-European immigration into this country! It is the cause of this situation.

The RCC presumably answers to an authority higher than that of a secular gov't. Of course, the RCC always seems to want to extract "Christian charity" from all and sundry at the point of the gov't's guns. With that said, this is ample reason to kick the RCC (the organization and clergy) out of the country and confiscate any assets.

Anonymous BluntForceTrauma December 21, 2012 10:52 AM  

If Vox's studies here were not so politically incorrect, they'd damn well be a key component of the national, nay, the international debate.

Sound thinking, my man, and very good work. I truly learned something of value in this debate.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 21, 2012 10:53 AM  

Ok, if you were to disarm blacks and hispanics.... the firearm homicide rate would approach that of Canada and northern Europe.

In addition, disarming those of Scots/Irish ancestry as well as those with Italian ancestry (I've got a little of both) would probably eliminate most firearm homicides in the US. Disarm the scary A-Rabs, too.

Then only WASPs, Jews, Northern Europeans and Asians would have guns.

What could possibly go wrong?

Research hints:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Mao Tse Tung
Pol Pot

Blogger JohnG December 21, 2012 10:55 AM  

I visited Salinas periodically when I was at language school in Monterey. It seemed to get trashier and trashier every year.

Regarding race - my pet (non-scientific) theory has always been that blacks were at constant simmer, they'd kill somebody every now and then. Whites, I think, aren't on a constant simmer, when they lose it, they lose it big and kill a bunch of people.

I quipped to my wife a while back, if we want a significant end to gun violence, ban Democrats from having them.

Anonymous Rock Throwing Peasant December 21, 2012 11:02 AM  

Mandatory NRA safety courses for all!

Anonymous Porky? December 21, 2012 11:02 AM  

Hmmm.....the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed by Democrats.

Anonymous Cinco December 21, 2012 11:07 AM  

@Tonto

"Ok, if you were to disarm blacks and hispanics.... the firearm homicide rate would approach that of Canada and northern Europe."

No, it wouldn't. Here you are admitting that disarmament works, when they probably don't have "legal" guns anyway. A more accurate statement would be that if blacks and hispanics were deported...

Don't give up any ground in terms of disarmament even when it comes to race. Criminals don't follow the law as, creating a law that forbids the ownership of firearms won't be followed by criminals anyway. Just ask all the habitual cocaine users in this country, 2 million and counting...

Anonymous The other skeptic December 21, 2012 11:08 AM  

Given the presence of a large black population for the last 200 years or more, I suspect that some of those genes predisposing blacks to homicide have leaked into the white population, explaining why the US white rate is higher than for Europe ...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 11:11 AM  

Henry VIII is right: The RCC presumably answers to an authority higher than that of a secular gov't. Of course, the RCC always seems to want to extract "Christian charity" from all and sundry at the point of the gov't's guns. With that said, this is ample reason to kick the RCC (the organization and clergy) out of the country and confiscate any assets. The penalty of Treason is death. If the Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason, then yes, it should be kicked out of this country. I agree. This was my exact feeling when I delved into this mess. This is scandalous.

At every single sermon preached in a Church they use and refer to "Love" every single time. It is all about "Love". They preach on nothing else. I would like to know if they do that much preaching on it, How is it that the Church of Love commits Treason. What part of Love commits Treason?

I am downright mad and livid.

Anonymous Kickass December 21, 2012 11:14 AM  

This is only because "You'll hear from my lawyer!" doesn't really work with everyone.

BTW, speaking of hispanics, where is your "IT's DOOMSDAY! post?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 11:14 AM  

I forgot to add, I've sent letters to both the Bishop and the Archbishop of San Fransisco. If anybody is interested in my 6 page critique of this situation and the letter, you can email me at wheelerplatsis(*at*)hotmail((dot))com.

Anonymous Cobre December 21, 2012 11:14 AM  

THE DATA IS RACIST!!! (So it doesn't count).

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 11:19 AM  

Disarm the scary A-Rabs, too.

Actually, I was surprised at how low the Arab/Turkish firearms homicide rate was, at least the available ones. Egypt is only 0.57 and Turkey 0.77.

Anonymous RINO December 21, 2012 11:20 AM  

Piers Morgan will never make the connection because he is a politically correct shill. First he sat on national TV and made a direct comparison between USA and UK gun violence casualties without nothing there's a significant difference in proportion, as noted in the earlier post. If people aren't even willing to do that then there's no hope that they will dig further yet into ethnic/racial proportions.

Blogger Giraffe December 21, 2012 11:22 AM  

Actually, I was surprised at how low the Arab/Turkish firearms homicide rate was, at least the available ones. Egypt is only 0.57 and Turkey 0.77.

That is surprising, to the point that I wonder if the numbers are reliable.

Anonymous jay c December 21, 2012 11:29 AM  

Tonto wrote,

Then only WASPs, Jews, Northern Europeans and Asians would have guns.

What could possibly go wrong?

Research hints:
Joseph Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Mao Tse Tung
Pol Pot


Funny! True, but funny.

Someone pointed out in the previous thread that disarming blacks was the first step in disarming everyone in America. Disarming people based on their ancestry probably won't go well in the long run. Repatriation appears to remain the best option. We should arm anyone sent back to Africa, Central/South America, and Asia as well.

Anonymous jay c December 21, 2012 11:30 AM  

VD wrote, Actually, I was surprised at how low the Arab/Turkish firearms homicide rate was, at least the available ones. Egypt is only 0.57 and Turkey 0.77.

They prefer beheading, stoning, and beating. Firearms are so impersonal.

Blogger IM2L844 December 21, 2012 11:30 AM  

Hmmm.....the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed by Democrats.

The vast majority of gun murders, globally and historically, have been committed by leftist governments. The irrational fear of individual ownership is demonstrably misplaced.

What was it, again, that you call people who are incapable of detecting patterns where they actually exist and have even been specifically pointed out to them time and time again? Oh yeah, IDIOTS!

You can't win an argument against an irrational person in the throws of a tantrum. They just want what they want and they will refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't advance the fulfillment of their irrational desires.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:42 AM  

The Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason by pushing non-European immigration into this country! It is the cause of this situation.

Only if this were true we could stop it toot sweet. The RCC does not pay Imignts or give them health care. They make them attendees of the church and tell them where to get the goodies like the coyotes do. I could take an ICE agent down to a place at 7 am in the morning and they could make 100 arrests. I know where they go and who gives them the TX ID card. I asked her how much she was taking off the top? and she got mad at me. They only get in her line. I got in her line on purpose though it was long just to ask her.

I told the Bishop to his face about trafficking in labor (Human Trafficking) and that the RCC says it is a sin. He completely ignored me and my family still wonders why I don't attend church. But the Parish priest knows and respects me.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:49 AM  

Bye and Bye Bishop Vann was fired from Fort Worth diocese and is off to California.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 12:00 PM  

If Father Steve gets the job, it is rigged. The people here are tired of the illegals, they get their own mass in every church. Father Steve is a little Vann, Just waiting, then spreading the word.

Anonymous Starbuck December 21, 2012 12:05 PM  

This is Treason. The Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason by pushing non-European immigration into this country!

You upset that you are learning the RCC has joined itself to the new world order? That they are taking their marching orders from the global elite? Or are they taking their orders from Satan himself instead of from Jesus?

It's a tad unsettling isn't it Mr. Wheeler?

Anonymous O.C. December 21, 2012 12:16 PM  

Um, Vox, you do realize that you are supporting the argument that tyrants have been making throughout history, don't you? That those people -- and we all know who those people are, they're [peasants, commoners, serfs, Gauls, Welsh, Scots, Protestants, Jews, freed slaves, kulaks, blacks, Irish, immigrants, Italians, etc., etc., etc., etc...] are too stupid, violent, and childish to be allowed to have weapons as good as of those of their social betters, and so -- purely for their own good, you understand, and for the greater good of the larger society -- they simply must not be allowed to have [swords, longbows, matchlocks, cannons, pistols, rifles, etc., etc., etc., etc....].

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2012 12:16 PM  

Turkey: relatively homogenous (by region) and stable (until lately). One must wonder how they account for the violence involving Kurdish separatists, etc.

Egypt is less homogenous, more prone to inter-religious conflict, less stable. Although the Mamelukes have kept a lid on things until lately and, with significant income from tourism, there are incentives for heavy policing as well as under-reporting.

Anonymous mikeraw December 21, 2012 12:18 PM  

Just to be clear, the population of Nicaragua is 6 million and there's hardly ever any gun violence. I mean, NEVER. This is like the safest country in Latin America but it has a bad rep from the 80s.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2012 12:19 PM  


The vast majority of gun murders, globally and historically, have been committed by leftist governments. The irrational fear of individual ownership is demonstrably misplaced.


It is hardly misplaced when you understand that what they actually fear is competition.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 12:21 PM  

Don't think so OC, Read on down.

You may choose to delegate this responsibility to others, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have, but your right to life is not inferior to theirs. It is equal. President Obama has no more right to live than you do. You are his equal from the standpoint of what your creator, and his creator, endowed both of you with. So we have established that you have the right to live, as does the President. And if the President has the right to defend his life with deadly force, and indeed the responsibility to do so, then, should it be necessary, so do you.

This debate should end right there. Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing -- not even a moral argument -- behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim -- no matter who you are.

Anonymous A Visitor December 21, 2012 12:38 PM  

Good data, Vox.

"The RCC presumably answers to an authority higher than that of a secular gov't. Of course, the RCC always seems to want to extract "Christian charity" from all and sundry at the point of the gov't's guns." I often wonder how much of the Church has been infiltrated by Communists. For those that don't think this was (or still is) a problem, check out Spies in the Vatican. It's ridiculous what they succeeded in doing.

Thankfully, the popes over the years have been consistent: Communism/socialism is plain evil: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/socialism/what-the-popes-really-say-about-socialism.html?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0161&utm_campaign=MainNewsletter

I always struggle to figure out what is the Church's true teaching and what is Communist/secularist attacks against our faith.

Anonymous A Visitor December 21, 2012 12:39 PM  

Just because I don't understand where the Church is coming from or necessarily agree with it on some points doesn't give me an excuse to leave it.

Anonymous BluntForceTrauma December 21, 2012 12:45 PM  

@O.C.: I don't think Vox is or would ever argue to disarm certain races. But he IS defending the U.S. against the charge that the plethora of guns in our country and our liberal gun ownership laws make it a violent country.

He is pointing out, quite nicely methinks, that gun violence in the U.S. is a cultural thing, a thing organic to current black and hispanic culture. (I certainly don't believe skin color has a damn thing to do with it. Maybe Vox does. But, then again, he believes the moon landings were faked. . . .)

At any rate, he is pointing out that the U.S. would most likely have the same low gun crime rates as homogenous white European countries if not for the violence of our large minority populations.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 12:46 PM  

Turkey: relatively homogenous (by region) and stable (until lately). One must wonder how they account for the violence involving Kurdish separatists, etc.

Egypt is less homogenous, more prone to inter-religious conflict, less stable. Although the Mamelukes have kept a lid on things until lately and, with significant income from tourism, there are incentives for heavy policing as well as under-reporting.


The majority of violence we see from arabs is political, and I think you have to differentiate political (or better, organized) violence from criminal violence. I mean, it doesn't make much difference to the dead folks, but to people worried about becoming dead, if you don't live in a country with either an ongoing rebellion or a violence-preaching dominant religion, it's random criminals you need to worry about.

The gun violence Vox is talking about here is basically the result of poor impulse control and the inability to defer gratification. Populations that have good impulse control only engage in violence when they don't see any other viable alternative. Even a guy like Lanza, mentally damaged as he was, had enough impulse control to avoid doing something like this until he thought he was out of options.

But in the end, IM2L844 is right:

You can't win an argument against an irrational person in the throws of a tantrum. They just want what they want and they will refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't advance the fulfillment of their irrational desires.

Gun-grabbers are completely irrational. Their positions are driven by emotions, mostly fear with a little bit of envy and major feelings of inadequacy thrown in. They're afraid of doing what's needed, afraid of not doing anything, embarrassed by people who are willing to act, and engaging in the debate is so emotionally painfull to them that they have to avoid it at all costs and just scream their slogans.

Anonymous CS December 21, 2012 12:46 PM  

Just because I don't understand where the Church is coming from or necessarily agree with it on some points doesn't give me an excuse to leave it.

No, but because the church intentionally obfuscates the scriptures and prevents its adherents from having a biblical relationship with Christ certainly does.

Anonymous outlaw x December 21, 2012 12:48 PM  

I always struggle to figure out what is the Church's true teaching and what is Communist/secularist attacks against our faith.

No it's not read the following and to disregard it is to disregard the Gospels.

http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church/dp/1574551094/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356111775&sr=1-4&keywords=catechism+of+the+catholic+church+3rd+edition

Remember JP I was killed because he was going to expose the Vatican Bank and Money laundering. One month, "from half moon to half moon." "De medietate lunæ."

Anonymous ridip December 21, 2012 12:53 PM  

Since Wheeler and Co. already went there and we are discussing Latino/Hispanic gun violence this seems on topic.

If you want to see one of the ugly faces of the RCC investigate Revalution Theology. It was pushed hard and heavy by the RCC throughout Central America during at least the 80s. And it seems they have moved it north.

Here is just a small sample. The nuns that were so famously killed during the El Salvadoran civil war were transporting guns to the rebels. The network news people on site literally conspired to whitewash this and prevent it from coming out in the US.

That multiheaded beast has no loyalty to the the Nations where it operates. I think it's the original supranational organization.

Mild ATOB spoiler: Vox your book has the politicos attempting to infiltrate and influence the church. How about a little of that Sociatas Iesuesque behavior of church intel ops and skulduggery from the dark subjugating power.

Blogger IM2L844 December 21, 2012 1:12 PM  

It is hardly misplaced when you understand that what they actually fear is competition.

I agree when the "they" are the governments and their proactive cronies, but the average citizen has nothing to fear from individual gun ownership. It is far more reasonable to fear the government and disregard the naive notion that western governments today are simply incapable of becoming viciously autocratic in the wake of some unforeseen triggering event. Just look at the mass hysteria generated by the comparatively insignificant event in Newtown (relative to the 150 million deaths by democide in the last 100 years or so).

You are correct, Stilicho. The historical evidence is clear. Once a government's internal competition is eliminated, the statistical probability that it will begin to lean more toward a tyrannical disposition goes up exponentially. And the most common way of eliminating internal competition begins with eliminating individual gun ownership with loopholes and exceptions for likely government supporters.

I'm not too concerned with anything like that happening in my lifetime, but the salesman already has his foot in the door. I'm concerned for my children, my grandchildren and some of you people 30 years down the road when I'm dead and gone.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 1:31 PM  

I agree when the "they" are the governments and their proactive cronies, but the average citizen has nothing to fear from individual gun ownership.

That is absolutely true, but the problem is there are many people with irrational fears, many of them, shall we say, conditioned? One irrational fear a lot of people in the US have these days is fear of confronting subjects such as Vox has raised here, or more proprely a fear of being called a racisss for doing so.

There's also a fear of making hard decisions about mentally unstable people like Lanza. Actually both are just different examples of a fear of making decisions. A lot of people just don't want to take the responsibility of making a decision (the biggest problem is we let them vote, which today is an exercise in decision making almost completely deviod of responsibility).

Anyway, these people don't want to take responsibility for protecting themselves, but they don't want to be victimized either, so they defer to anyone offering to take care of them. The fact that the offer is bogus doesn't matter to them, they just need the comfort.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 1:34 PM  

Pole shift, I feel it now. Wait that was my dog farting and turning over.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2012 1:37 PM  

I agree when the "they" are the governments and their proactive cronies

When you beat the snot out of the bully, the toady tends to run away. At least that's what Ralphie told me.

Anonymous A Visitor December 21, 2012 1:41 PM  

If you want to see one of the ugly faces of the RCC investigate Revalution Theology. It was pushed hard and heavy by the RCC throughout Central America during at least the 80s. And it seems they have moved it north.

Revolution theology, from my understanding, is a perversion of the Church's teachings, plain and simple. It's a perfect example of Communist infilitration.

Anonymous Daniel December 21, 2012 1:49 PM  

Thank goodness that we have such stringent bomb-control laws, so that this threat was so easily disregarded.

I don't know why she was charged with a crime, though. Don't the police realize that bombs have been banned, so criminals can't blow up schools anymore?

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 21, 2012 1:50 PM  

WLW:
This is Treason. The Roman Catholic Church is committing Treason by pushing non-European immigration into this country! It is the cause of this situation. That Roman Catholics not only advance a murderer to headline a school but endorse treason and commit it as well! This is a bad situation. The only thing worse is that the European is too woosy, too effeminate, too dumb-downed, too panzied to fight back!

Wheeler, as the more-or-less traditionalist Catholic Ann Barnhardt has mentioned numerous times, the Roman Catholic Church in the USSA is owned, operated and controlled by Marxist homosexuals. The fact that the Vatican has done zilch about this over the years speaks volumes and raises serious questions about the Vatican itself. Not only are they (the US RCC) advocating the importation of syncretistic nominally-Catholic Mexicans and others from Latin America, they are even taking tax dollars to help with the Muslim colonization of the upper midwest. Treason doesn't even begin to describe it.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 2:10 PM  

@ The Visitor and General Kong, I've been praying. I'm telling God that the Gates of Hell are prevailing in the Church and to get His Son down here. The time for the Second Coming is here. There is mass Apostasy.

Fr. Malachi Martin outed John Paul II as wanting Globalization. The only thing I can figure out is that Catholics have bought into, hook, line, and sinker, the Unity of Man junk of the Jews. Marxist infiltration of the Church is huge.

That Revolution theology is called Liberation Theology. I thought American Catholicism was immune to that. I guess not.

Just this week, it dawned on me while working on my response to this Tiburcio stuff is that the Roman Catholic Church is committing treason. That is a High Crime! Tiburcio wanted to return California to Mexico! He is an Hispanic irredentist! It is La Raza ideology! This is just too crazy to behold! And here the Catholic Church is mightly working to bring in a hostile minority! And then they let Marxist agitators in among them to whip up the crowd! This is just stupid!

The Catholic Church is committing blatant treason. It is reason enough to close the churches, arrest all the hierarchy, try them, and then line them up and shoot them!

The Church is committing Treason. God who created this world now, has to fight his own Church!

And don't get me wrong, the Methodists, Presybeterians, and the Anglicans are just as worse if not more so. Tell me what Protestant denomination is still for America? For the WASPs? Even the Episcopal and the Anglican churches are not even for the WASP!

This is just disasterious.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 21, 2012 2:33 PM  

Don't worry about the Anglicans in America. We're doing all right.

But the Episcopalians are pretty screwed. I doubt they'll survive another generation as their version of Christianity is much worse than a simple failure to correlate the facts of mass migration and the myth of equality.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 2:54 PM  

When you beat the snot out of the bully, the toady tends to run away. At least that's what Ralphie told me.

Speaking of which, it's about time to break that dvd out and watch it again.

Anonymous Josh December 21, 2012 2:54 PM  

The papists and joos is out to get us!

Anonymous George of the Hole December 21, 2012 2:59 PM  

Wheeler: "Tell me what Protestant denomination is still for America?"

We've got a big American flag in our church.

This is just disastrous.

It's not as if you haven't been warned for thousands of years.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 3:18 PM  

I'll say it again. God (Jesus) did not come to save America or the flag, he came to save you.

Anonymous Testing123 December 21, 2012 3:18 PM  

We've got a big American flag in our church.

This is the idolatry of American Evangelicals. Richly blessed by the Holy Spirit, their fall has been sad to watch.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 21, 2012 3:24 PM  

We can all wait till Hell freezes over for the government to decide how to deal with illegal immigration, other than simply grant everyone amnesty. Too many people lack the stomach for deporting them, as the law provides. So they want to change the law and have "comprehensive immigration reform". (Of course, this begs the question: If the present laws can be ignored with impunity, why would the new law have any more effect?)

My own compromise position is pretty simple. You say we cannot deport those in the country illegally. I say, OK. We can send them all to Alaska instead. New Rule: Illegal aliens will be sent to Alaska instead of the Rio Grande. Alaska is a big place and there are not many people. Companies who want to hire illegal aliens can move their production to Alaska. Oh yeah, if they ever want to leave Alaska, there are regular flights to Mexico City and they are more than welcome to go.

Anonymous George of the Hole December 21, 2012 3:31 PM  

Testing 123: "This is the idolatry of American Evangelicals."

Flag worship is rampant among evangelicals?

Who knew?I guess I've been too busy handling snakes to notice.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 3:31 PM  

Don't forget the globalist, Gnostice heresy that infects the conservative Protestant and Catholic churches ...

the so-called pro-life movement.

I find it bizarre that so-called conservatives are bleating about the "unity of man" while ignoring it's ideology in their own pews and pulpits.

Anonymous ridip December 21, 2012 3:34 PM  

You are right Wheeler. Liberation Theology it is. Three days of being sick and the discussions mixed between English and Spanish in my head I couldn't even spell revolution correctly.

We are agreed I hate to see that come to America, but I've figured the 30 years of southern invasion were bound to bring the same political and social issues with them.

But on the positive side I see a lot of growth in belief in Christ occurring within the membership of the Catholic church.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 3:37 PM  

@ DonReynolds

Well, the easy way to deal with it is to restrict all child-aimed government services to children who are living with their own biological parents, and this would include public schooling, but I don't see conservatives on board with that agenda.

Why not? Because the so-called conservative churches are infected with the same sort of "oh my god, it's for the children" weepy sentimentality that exists in the greater liberal culture. From your comment on VD's "killing children is wrong" post I would wager you are infected with this same anti-biblical weepy sentimentality.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 3:45 PM  

@ Testing123

Having a flag in one's own church is a symbol of love for one's own people. Hell, by that standard of idolatry the Jews of the OT would just be one non-stop event of idolatry. But let's extrapolate out what that position entails. I mean, if expression of political allegiance, identity and love for one's own is idolatry in the community of a christian church then how is it any less idolatrous in a christian individual.

By that standard, voting is a form of idolatry. BTW, growing up, I knew a smattering of christians who thought that.

Anonymous ridip December 21, 2012 3:50 PM  

The problem of the government and a lack of desire to deport is directly tied to a perception, correct or not, that allowing them to remain and making them legal increases the tax base and therefore the money and power the government has. We are asking them to do what is right rather than what is in their own self interest.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 4:01 PM  

By that standard, voting is a form of idolatry. BTW, growing up, I knew a smattering of christians who thought that.

When talking about national elections I tell all my family that voting is a sin.

Once you figure that out you won't be a part of the empires war or complicit in it.

Anonymous Josh December 21, 2012 4:07 PM  

Voting for the sake and the pledge of allegiance are idolatrous.

And churches should not prominently displaythe American fflag.

Anonymous mjb December 21, 2012 4:09 PM  

It goes without saying that the higher murder rates in black and hispanic neighborhoods are due likely to a culture that has embraced a way of life that does not advance the younger generations. No improvement in those types of neighborhoods, and it now permeates them culturally, whereas this was not always the case with the black neighborhoods.

The problem obviously isn't the skin color, but the culture in which that person was brought up in.

The cracker lifestyle, while not as prevalent as these other cultures, seems to be just as good at causing one to act out in the ways typical of black or latin neighborhoods.

Source: White boy from the projects.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 4:13 PM  

I have a picture album on my book shelf. It contains about 70 picture I collected off the net of dead brown children with legs arms and other things blown off. Then after they pass through them, their are mangled American Soldiers. No one messes with me anymore, they don't want to see the pictures. Maybe some new bait may come buy some day?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 4:14 PM  

In today's Salinas Californian, the paper for Salinas, the front page top article has "Shootings double for Salinas in 2012". In 2011, there were 53 shootings. This year there have been 115 shootings and 21 murders. Mostly gangs and drug related.

Let's us all thank the Roman Catholic Church for such a good job in creating Christians and for importing millions of indigenous peoples into Northern America.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 4:15 PM  

@ Josh

Voting for the sake and the pledge of allegiance are idolatrous.

Then the Jewish people of the OT were, by their very existence, idolatrous. I find it odd that God both simultaneously commanded and forbade idolatry ... something is wrong with your thinking.

Anonymous Kickass December 21, 2012 4:19 PM  

Wheeler, why has this caught you by surprise? Do a little less research about Ancient Greek Homosexuals and a little more into the RCC. Well, that was redundant...

Anonymous Kickass December 21, 2012 4:20 PM  

Outlaw X, you cheeky son of a gun. Thanks for the laugh. I felt that pole shift too.

How are you feeling?

Anonymous George of the Hole December 21, 2012 4:21 PM  

And churches should not prominently display the American fflag.

They shouldn't have crosses either but oh well.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 4:23 PM  

@ josh

Hell, by your standards, any expression of anything political is idolatry. Why are you bothering to comment on a website that is filled with nothing but idolaters. Aren't you risking running afoul of James' admonition to "keep oneself from being polluted by the world"?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 4:26 PM  

"The papists and joos is out to get us!"

Nope, just the Jews.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 4:31 PM  

And spelling it "joos" in some allegedly comical way doesn't make it less true.

"An ustroyd is going to slam into da Moon!"

You mean an asteroid. And yes, it _is_ going to slam into da moon. And yes, the Jews _are_ working day and night to eradicate white Christian people. And spelling it "joos" will not make this unpleasant truth go away.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 4:33 PM  

Outlaw X, you cheeky son of a gun. Thanks for the laugh. I felt that pole shift too.

How are you feeling?


Like a Mayan with a second chance.

Anonymous jay c December 21, 2012 4:35 PM  

You mean an asteroid. And yes, it _is_ going to slam into da moon. And yes, the Jews _are_ working day and night to eradicate white Christian people. And spelling it "joos" will not make this unpleasant truth go away.

Some Jews are. Most aren't. Some white Christians are working day and night to eradicate white Christian people.

Anonymous outlaw x December 21, 2012 4:46 PM  

http://www.infowars.com/federal-reserve-christmas-message/

Anonymous Daniel December 21, 2012 5:24 PM  

Obsidian gets his feelings hurt by Voxian logic, apparently because it gets in the way of his gun-free white utopia or something.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 5:52 PM  

mjb says:

The problem obviously isn't the skin color, but the culture in which that person was brought up in.

and Vox says:

it is readily observable that the US-Latin and US-Black rates of firearms homicide are much LOWER than the rates at which firearms homicide is committed by non-US Latins and non-US Africans, despite the greater access of the US-based populations to firearms.

Vox says this after looking at data. mjb says what he says after... er, making an assertion about culture.

Now, I'm all for recognizing the importance of culture - I think it's the most effective way of dealing with human nature ("most effective" of course not being the same thing as "completely effective" sadly). But mjb, you just totally blew off Vox's data. If you disagree with it, disagree with it. Don't just make an assertion that contradicts it without even mentioning the contradiction, let alone attempting to explain it.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 21, 2012 6:12 PM  

"Obsidian gets his feelings hurt by Voxian logic, apparently because it gets in the way of his gun-free white utopia or something."

This Comrade Obsidianich, while admirably attempting to make a progressive case for disarming of zeks, fails miserably in his gun-massacre analysis:

Clearly the problem is not the amount of solitary former capitalist white males using firearms in isolated mass liquidations. The true problem (besides the unauthorized extraducial reprisals that these lone gunmen engage in - honorable as they may be, that is the State Security's job)... the real problem is the lack of universal revolution that should be characteristic of the masses taking up arms against the capitalist system of compulsion, as well as self-cleansing of enemies within their own ranks. Clearly, the African 5th Column and Los Mojados have progressed much more so on this critical front than their fellow untermensch white countrymen.

Und auch, the allowance of fingers to pull the triggers, the liberal and bourgeois retention of unauthorized pentadactyly, is a massive oversight in federal regulation. No fingers, no weapons fired. Why try to eat the tail when you have the rest of the fish to pick apart and enjoy.

Although, with this excising of the index and middle fingers of all zeks, we must not be too harsh towards the recidivist: the remaining 3 digits should be retained; but as with all things being class-conscious, surviving fingers will be held hostage, subject to removal depending on if and when another capitalist goes on another unauthorized liquidation with a firearm - or, of course, if work norms are aren't being met by their fellow zeks. This is but fair and Frenkel.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 6:23 PM  

@ Jack Amok

I think it's important to remember that despite the hugely disproportionate level of violence among blacks as a group the vast majority never murder. This is not an unimportant observation and our species tends to infer individual behavior from aggregate group tendencies. My younger brother's best friend of twenty years, from our church, has one black and one white parent.

His dad is jet black so he look "black" in an American context. If you call him black he won't take offense but he will make fun of you and just respond "nah, dude, I'm white". So, yeah, culture does make a difference.

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 21, 2012 6:58 PM  

WLW:The Church is committing Treason. God who created this world now, has to fight his own Church!

And don't get me wrong, the Methodists, Presybeterians, and the Anglicans are just as worse if not more so. Tell me what Protestant denomination is still for America? For the WASPs? Even the Episcopal and the Anglican churches are not even for the WASP!

This is just disasterious.


Of course it is. At the root of it all is the great lie: equality über alles. A single line of scripture, Galatians 3:28, has been elevated to a new gospel - far above Christ himself. The rot is in every single church - some worse than others. The Southern Baptists have embraced it as has Dobson's old ministry Focus on the Family. No borders, no nations, no male, no female. All created order is to be bulldozed. The so-called Christians will do it in the name of Jeezus naturally. The following video sums up their mentality perfectly, with more than a smidgeon of irony. As it is presently constituted in the west, Christianity is the enemy.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 7:38 PM  

I'm a strict materialist, but "Christianity" is not the enemy. No, corrupt and meritless theology is the enemy, and the "pro-life" movement is an excellent example of corrupt theology.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 7:38 PM  

Obsidian gets his feelings hurt by Voxian logic, apparently because it gets in the way of his gun-free white utopia or something.

snicker-snack

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 8:35 PM  

I think it's important to remember that despite the hugely disproportionate level of violence among blacks as a group the vast majority never murder.

I'm all for treating people as individuals. I think groupism is the source of most of our problems. Rather than looking at group tendencies to commit violence, I'd much rather look at individual behavior and incarcerate those who can't keep from attacking others.

But the dominant political debate in our society doesn't want to do that. Instead, you have people doing the inverse of what you did - you argued that only a few blacks are violent criminals so we shouldn't tar (so to speak) the decent black citizens because of a few who are violent. We should look at the behavior, not the skin color. That's entirely fair and reasonable. But the Al Sharptons, Barack Obamas, and plenty of white liberal accomplices of the world, are inverting that. They're looking at the skin color of criminals and saying "hey, there's too many black folks in prison, we shouldn't prossecute this poor individual."

As long as liberals insist on quoats and ratios and "disparate impact" nonsense when discussing public policy, we going to have to look at group tendencies, IQs, etc.

If we don't want to compare avearage white and black IQs or criminal tendencies, then we need to stop looking at groups.

Instead, we have a high violence rate that liberals want to blame on "gun nuts" and use as an excuse to implement more of their destructive policies. So whatchagonna do?

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 8:44 PM  

"snicker-snack"

one of the big snickers or just the mini ones? I like the big ones the extra large snicker. Keeps me from losing so much weight, that and chocolate protein drinks.

Anonymous zen0 December 21, 2012 8:55 PM  

@ Asher
and the "pro-life" movement is an excellent example of corrupt theology.

How so?

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 9:20 PM  

The pro-life movement ignores that God apportioned authority and, thus, responsibility for children amongst their parents, their community and the nations. Now, when the Bible uses the term "nations" it is not a reference to nation-states but to "peoples", today what we call cultures or ethnicities, depending on context. America is not one nation, but it is a political empire comprised of many different nations, i.e. peoples. Leftists are a completely different people from us, and their children are not under our authority, and, thus, not our responsibility.

The "pro-life" movement completely ignores the biblical concepts of jurisdiction and authority, and this makes it a Gnostic heresy.

But let's just say that God was a pro-lifer in the political sense. How would the Bible read? We would see the following passage in the Old Testament:

Thus sayeth the Lord, Moab has a big festival next Tuesday where they plan to sacrifice their children. In order to avoid as much bloodshed as possible, I mean, there are some innocents, donchya know, you are to sneak into their city and rescue their children. Over the next eighteen years you are to nurture and care for them, train them to be mighty men of valor and that sort of stuff. Yes, they'll turn around and try to conquer you, but, hey, I the Lord your God am pro-life and pesky, little practical considerations can't get in the way of my conservative principles.

Do it for the children. Thus sayeth the Lord.


And from the NT:

And Jesus said to his disciples lay the intellectual foundation for a country whose destiny is to conquer the world and institute anti-abortion laws in every corner of the earth. That whole "dividing the nations" thing that occurred in Babel is so Old Testament. I am here to inspire a One World Government whose primary goal will be to end abortion.

Do it for the children. Thus sayeth the Lord


The so-called pro-life movement is antibiblical, Gnostic and heretical.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 9:23 PM  

@ Jack Amok

No, actually, group analysis is far more important than is methodological individualism. Analyze groups, but act toward individuals as individuals.

The problem with blacks, as a group, is not just that they are more violent and prone to, even, non-violent criminal activity. The far greater problem is that a majority is incapable of contributing in any meaningful way to a modern society.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 21, 2012 9:27 PM  

What on God's green earth are you smoking, Asher?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 21, 2012 9:28 PM  

What on God's green earth are you smoking, Asher?

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 9:34 PM  

@ stg58/Animal Mother

What on God's green earth are you smoking, Asher?

If you understood the Bible you would make an argument. You obviously don't. "what are you smoking" isn't an argument

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 9:39 PM  

@ stg58/Animal Mother

Jesus did not die on the cross to give you the jurisdiction and moral authority to invade Sweden, or any other people, to prevent them from having abortions. Leftists are no different - you have no moral authority or jurisdiction over them, therefore, you have no responsibility for their children.

To assert differently is anti-biblical and heretical.

Anonymous stg58.308/Animal Mother December 21, 2012 9:55 PM  

If you were walking down the street and saw a child being beaten black and blue, would you have any duty to help that child, since you have no authority over that child? Or does the community authority you referred to encompass American children? Or wait, since you said the Leftists' children are not our responsibility, should we enquire as to the child's parents' political ideology before assisting?

Please straighten me out, you've got me all cocked up.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 21, 2012 10:00 PM  

Come Lord Jesus Come. Your Church is in mass apostasy and there is really no way to correct it. The Gates of Hell are prevailing against the Church.

There is only a tiny remnant left. The great rebellion has come. Unleash the Four Horsemen. Let it begin, Lord God.

Come Lord Jesus Come and save us oh, Merciful One.

Anonymous Kickass December 21, 2012 10:00 PM  

@ Outlaw x Enjoy it then. You are in our prayers.

Anonymous kh123 December 21, 2012 10:04 PM  

Reading over at Obsidian's blog listed above. His response to Daniel is pure gold in terms of vapors reaching critical mass:

"Hey Dan, just you try to run that "statistically insignificant" rap to the parents of those slaughtered kids up there in Newtown, and holla back the results, OK?"

Honorable Scalzi Award, that one.

Anonymous Bastiat December 21, 2012 10:07 PM  

I've been mostly lurking since the turn of the century, and seeing Wheeler break down like this is something else.

Anonymous kh123 December 21, 2012 10:28 PM  

Another moment of vapor lock:

"Uh-Oh, you're not one of those NRA gun nuts are you? In case you haven't heard, LaPierre's "plan" to arm the schools would cost upwards of $20B USD - and exactly how are we supposed to pay for this, in a time when we're all about to go over the Fiscal Cliff?"

Given the fact that he/she mentions earlier that the discussion isn't about foreign policy (since the monthly body count of children killed from drone strikes in Pakistan is apparently off limits in a discussion about children being killed), I'll venture a suggestion outside of the box: End the foreign adventures to spread democracy and nation building.

Unless of course, home improvement has now come to mean rebuilding mud huts surrounding the Ferghana.

Anonymous kh123 December 21, 2012 10:46 PM  

...As an aside, if I remember correctly, older IDF vets perform security for Israeli schools, armed and all.

Blogger Joel December 21, 2012 10:48 PM  

@ stg58/Animal Mother

Notice that you don't even attempt to make a bionically-based argument. No, you operate from the purely weepy sentimentality of an five year-old girl who's sucking her thumb and wetting her panties after seeing her kitty run over by a car in front of her.

You are conflating two completely different categories of action: individual empathy and imposing rules of behavior on entire peoples, i.e. politics. These have nothing to do with each other. Of course I would try to stop a child from being beaten up without asking their parents cultural affiliation, but I would do so out of empathy and not out of responsibility. I would do so for another reason, as well: the bullies are likely to have committed crimes against people to whom I do have moral duties. In fact, the latter reason would be more pressing and important than the former.

The entire "pro-life" movement is nothing more than effeminate, weepy sentimentalism. It has no biblical warrant.

Additionally, there is a war coming between right and left and the more of their own they abort the fewer of them we'll need to kill.

On a related note, if you want to have fun with feminists tell them that if you walked by a dark alley, heard a woman being raped and knew it was a feminist you walk by and pretend you heard nothing. Great fun. See, arguing logically with feminists is quite useless, as the basis for feminism is that women, collectively, have zero moral obligations to men, collectively. When this is the premise it puts the entire debate outside bounds of rational discourse, as the premise is "take it or leave it". By responding in kind you demonstrate to any audience the full implications of this premise.

Actually, this is related to the abortion issue I broached. The root of morality is mutual reciprocity, meaning that you have no moral obligations to someone who has none to you. Now, you may object that this is clearly not biblical. And you would be correct. This is because morality is human convention and has nothing to do with the bible, as the term morality comes from the Latin mores, simply meaning customs.

Yes, this means that Nazism was a moral system, although certainly not a moral system to which I ascribe, nor a very successful one.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 10:49 PM  

@ @ stg58/Animal Mother

the last comment was me. I logged into the wrong gmail account.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 10:51 PM  

@ stg58/Animal Mother

Opps, "bionically-based" argument should have read "biblically-based argument. You failed to offer a biblically-based argument, which just demonstrates the unbiblical nature of the "pro-life" movement.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:26 PM  

Opps, "bionically-based" argument should have read "biblically-based argument. You failed to offer a biblically-based argument, which just demonstrates the unbiblical nature of the "pro-life" movement.

Die then, nobody will miss either of us. Your spelling and grammar sucks as well. Whether you believe in the Bible or not the "B" is capitalized.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:35 PM  

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Anonymous CitizenOutkast December 21, 2012 11:37 PM  

Had a "debate" with a "male" teacher today. Basically, he hated the idea of teachers being armed (or anyone for that matter) claiming everything would become the "wild west" and we'd be shooting each other constantly. After a few minutes of his nonsense, through questioning, I actually had him admit that he preferred the idea of letting a gunman go through a school without opposition rather than have teachers shooting at him. Why? Because he didn't like the idea of teachers missing with "pea shooters" and having ricochets bouncing around that might hit the kids. He also didn't see any point in people trying to take out a gunman with a machine gun if they only had handguns, cuz, well, I guess having a bigger gun also makes you bulletproof or otherwise untouchable. Yes, this is the way many think. It is apparently worse to maybe mistakenly shoot someone while trying to take out someone that is definitely killing people. Hardly matters that even if you accidentally take out one or two to get the gunman you may save a dozen or so.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:45 PM  

"Had a "debate" with a "male" teacher today. Basically, he hated the idea of teachers being armed (or anyone for that matter) claiming everything would become the "wild west" and we'd be shooting each other constantly."

Wrong answer, the West wasn't wild, most didn't have a gun. The TV is an idiot box for Idiots like him.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:47 PM  

Please don't tell me he taught history.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 21, 2012 11:47 PM  

The Jesus who said, "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who persecute you," would most definitely stop to help a feminist being raped.

Even the Old Testament instructs its readers that, if your enemy hungers give him bread, and if he thirsts give him drink, for in doing so you pour coals of fire on their head.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with harsh criticism of people who stand contrary to the truth, the goal should always be to bring them to the truth. Our enemies are not flesh and blood, but powers and principalities. Human beings are captives, even if they're also slave soldiers in the enemy ranks.

The simple reason we should oppose abortion is because it ends human lives on grounds that are unbiblical, being neither in self defence nor in time of war nor in the execution of justice.

Poor Obsidian, he was certainly arguing like a woman on that one.

Anonymous CitizenOutkast December 21, 2012 11:49 PM  

Please don't tell me he taught history.

Elementary school, so most likely just what was in the textbook. We all know how accurate those are, though.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 11:51 PM  

Have him read this.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Day-the-Cowboys-Quit/dp/B0074CRLOK/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1356151741&sr=8-9&keywords=the+day+the+cowboys+quit

Or better yet read it first then nail him to the wall.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 21, 2012 11:51 PM  

Outlaw, I've read something like that myself. Apparently Tombstone, a reputed wild town, only had about 20 homicides in its worst year.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 12:00 AM  

Asher, you are a complete moron. Dismantling your idiotic argument, although rather simple to do, would be an utter waste of time and benefit no one because you are too confused to grasp it and I'm reasonably certain that to almost everyone else here it is already obvious. As a pro-lifer, I believe that "Thou shalt not kill" applies to unborn fetuses and as a conscientious objector I should not be compelled under threat of force to pay for that to which I am objecting. It's really that simple.

Feel free to blather on and further demonstrate your obvious amentia to the delight of the audience.

Now, dance, monkey!

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 12:24 AM  

"Now, dance, monkey!"

Put Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin together and you get a mother f*cking monkey.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:28 AM  

@ Outlaw X

That verse has nothing to do with abortion. It is God setting the groundwork for one particular prophet that he called with a specific mission to call the children of Israel to repentance

@ Duke of Earl

That same God commanded the Israelites to slaughter newborn infants of idolatrous nations surrounding them. Either the God of the OT and NT are not the same God, an ancient heresy, or you are confused on what that verse is saying. The OT does instruct the Jews to love their enemies, but that is in the context of other individuals within the Jewish faith. BTW, all the promises that God give in the OT are not to the individual Jew but to Jews, collectively.

Yes, God did command to "not kill", but he also turns around and orders killing. Either God is wishy-washy and inconsistent or you misunderstand the command. What you seem to think that command mean is "end all killing everywhere", which is heretical. Why is it a heresy? Because the bible teaches that the heart of man is "desperately wicked" and that the "wages of sin is death", but the impulse to utopianism, i.e. end all killing everywhere is the ancient Gnostic heresy.

"Do not kill" and "end all killing everywhere" are completely different commands. The bible teaches the former while you hold the latter.

Which is why you are an antibiblical heretic.

The simple reason we should oppose abortion is because it ends human lives on grounds that are unbiblical,

God also opposes homosexuality, so let's invade the Netherlands and repeal their marriage law which acknowledges same-sex unions.

You are blatantly ignoring the biblical concepts of jurisdiction and proper authority. Yes, abortion is a grave sin against God, but that is not a command to enact global laws spanning the globe that punishes abortion. Again, heresy. Notice that you're not even attempting to give me biblical support for your contention that we have a duty to impose abortion bans on other people. None.

Which is why you are a heretic.

@ IM2L844

Asher, you are a complete moron

Given your inability to demonstrate this claim you are not off to a good start. Hint: calling someone a moron is appropriate if you follow it by showing where they are being moronic. Notice that no one is actually using arguments from the bible to debate the point (except me of course).

As I already pointed out to Duke the bible commands "do not kill" and not "end all killing everywhere".

The bible teaches the former while you hold the latter.

Which is why you are antibiblical and a heretic.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:32 AM  

Look, this is really simple. The bible commands us not to sin, but that does not imply that we are on this earth to use the sword to end all sin in the human race.

The latter is antibiblical, but the pro-life movement, in fact, does this very derivation. Which is why it is a heresy.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 12:37 AM  

Asher
Google is your friend, all the work has already been done. I don't need to redo it for you.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

You can write, but can you read?

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:42 AM  

@ Duke

The bible also says that God's way are not our ways. One of the implications of this is that what is apportioned by God to do becomes sinful when man tries to take on the mantle of God's authority.

What was the first sin? Satan attempting to take on the authority of God. What was his sin? "I will become like the Most High." I'm quite certain that if God embodied himself in human form (no, we're not talking about Jesus sojourn on earth) that we would eliminate abortion. But God's kingdom is not of this world and ending sin in this world is not biblical. It is, in fact, heretical

Further, during Jesus stay on earth he did not try to end all sin on earth.

When Christians attempt to take on the responsibilities of God they become heretics.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:47 AM  

@ Outlaw X

I've read the catholic teaching on abortion. It is not biblical because it does not take the biblical teachings on jurisdiction and authority into account.

Let's be clear that I would support laws punishing abortion if we lived in a God-fearing society but we do not.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 12:51 AM  

Asher
If you are looking for forgiveness you came to the wrong place.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 12:53 AM  

Look, this is really simple. The bible commands us not to sin, but that does not imply that we are on this earth to use the sword to end all sin in the human race.

The latter is antibiblical, but the pro-life movement, in fact, does this very derivation. Which is why it is a heresy.


Yes, Asher this is very simple and I'm going to make an exception and walk you through this baby step by baby step and most assuredly make a fool of you in the process, but first, back up your assertion that the pro-life movement's official position is "to use the sword to end all sin in the human race".

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:55 AM  

Forgiveness for what, exactly? For pointing out the blatantly antibiblical nature of the "pro-life" movement?

If you regard the Catholic teachings valid then I would point out that the church, even the most conservative elements, are globalist and open borders (also blatantly unbiblical)

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 12:55 AM  

Only 5 more minutes before the world can end in CST. I am staying awake.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 12:57 AM  

"Forgiveness for what, exactly? "

Thou doest protest too much.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:01 AM  


>first, back up your assertion that the pro-life movement's official position is "to use the sword to end all sin in the human race".

Because it is. You stated your sole support of laws punishing abortion on the the command "do not kill" and that God regards abortion as sin (it is). But you gave zero reason why we have an obligation to punish abortion in the US and not in other countries. Unless, you have a second principle that tells us why we should support this double standard then you have no basis for objecting to my description. You have had ample to time to offer a biblically-based principle for this discrepancy. You have yet to do so.

I'll make you a deal: if you can offer me a biblically-based argument for why we should use the "sword" of the US government to punish abortion in the US and not in Sweden then I'll walk it back.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:02 AM  

@ Outlaw X

Um, a question is not a protest. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 1:04 AM  

Look, Asher, you have made a naked assertion with no corroborating evidence that I think is nothing more than tilting at windmills. Now, either substantiate your assertion or shut up.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 1:06 AM  

"Um, a question is not a protest. Talk about intellectual dishonesty."

Guilt is the most honest thing we ever own. Ask a women who had an abortion if she feels guilt?

Do that for ten women who will admit it, then get back to me, goodnight.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:23 AM  

@ IM2L844

Hey, moron, I used your own fucking words. Your sole basis for your claim boils down to "God hates sin". Since, presumably, God hates sin everywhere equally. Since you want to use the power of the state to stop sin then by your own premise we should use that power to stop all sin everywhere.

The fact that you arbitrarily decide to apply your premise is not my problem but it does indicate that your support for laws punishing abortion are not based on the bible but on weepy, effeminate sentimentalism.

Again, your whole argument boils down to "God hates sin, therefore, we are hear to end it". Your own fucking premise.

Moron.

@ Outlaw

Guilt is the most honest thing we ever own. Ask a women who had an abortion if she feels guilt?

Ah, yes, the appeal to feelings. Again, this is just another version of "I feel bad about it, therefore, punish it".

Just more weepy, effeminate sentimentalism.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 1:26 AM  

"Just more weepy, effeminate sentimentalism."

I can't help you.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:26 AM  

I am dealing with a colicky ten week old.

" Since, presumably, God hates sin everywhere equally. Since you want to use the power of the state to stop sin then by your own premise we should use that power to stop all sin everywhere."

Should read

" Since, presumably, God hates sin everywhere equally your premise implies using the power of the state to stop all sin; by your own premise we should use that power to stop all sin everywhere."

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 1:32 AM  

"I am dealing with a colicky ten week old."

Remember it is not his fault and I love you.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:34 AM  

I would also point to the similarity between the anti-gun arguments and the pro-life arguments

Something offends me ====> Let's ban it

Blogger Duke of Earl December 22, 2012 1:34 AM  

My word, I'm accused of being an antibiblical heretic by someone who would walk by a woman being raped because she was a feminist. We have a real paragon of virtue here.

Yes, God commanded the destruction of the nations that occupied Canaan, however if you understood the nature of ancient hyperbole you'd know it didn't literally require them all to be killed. Driving them out of the land was quite sufficient, however leaving them in the land would have been a sin.

You also suffer from what I regard as a sin, poor reading comprehension. I did not say, use the sword against abortionists, I said oppose abortion. That is to argue against it and urge people not to do it.

I also specified what were Biblical grounds for killing. Defence (of self or others), warfare (including that mandated by God), or execution under the law. Abortion doesn't meet any of those requirements so should be opposed.

As for homosexual marriage in the Netherlands? I could care less. Yes it's contrary to divine law, but the parties are making choices for themselves as the unborn cannot. Vox converted me to qualified libertarianism a long time ago.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 1:40 AM  

You stated your sole support of laws punishing abortion...

This is a blatant lie. I never stated any such thing.

Hey, moron, I used your own fucking words.

This is another naked assertion, another blatant lie and a clear violation of the rules of the blog.

Again, your whole argument boils down to "God hates sin, therefore, we are hear to end it". Your own fucking premise.

I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. I know the difference between hear and here. Besides, even if you were quoting me, I do not nor have I or anyone else here that I know of ever claimed to be an official representative of the pro-life movement. Your naked assertion was that the pro-life movement's position is "to use the sword to end all sin in the human race". Try to keep up, dumbass and substantiate your assertion so I can move on to destroying the rest of your idiotic argument.

If you are not going to substantiate your naked assertion then just shut up!

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:43 AM  

@ IM2L844

If you say "A" and A implies "B" then if you say A then you are saying B. This reminds me of a leftwing economist who recently called for the formation of a new federal department that would treat habitual drug users and alcoholics similarly to those with permanent disabilities on the reasonable premise that it would actually reduce the social costs to everyone. Lots of conservative commentators pointed out that this would just create another voting bloc that would overwhelmingly vote Democratic and that this just looked like democrats looking for more votes.

His only, hilarious, defense was that this was not what he *intended*. Of course, his intent is irrelevant to the implications of the policy.

The same can be said of your position that "God hates sin. Let's ban it". The obvious implication is that since God hates all sin then we should ban all sin. That this is not your intent is irrelevant to the clear implication of your premise.

Again, if we lived in a homogeous, Christian, God-fearing people I would fully support laws punishing abortion.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 22, 2012 1:44 AM  

I think everyone should shut up just now, can't you read between the lines. Stop it!

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:54 AM  

@ IM2L844

Again, your whole argument boils down to "God hates sin, therefore, we are hear to end it". Your own fucking premise.

I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me.


Yes, you did when you said ...

I believe that "Thou shalt not kill" applies to unborn fetuses

That IS just another way of saying "God hates sin. Ban it".

Look, the fact that you can't comprehend the logical implications of your own positions doesn't mean that those logical implications can be brushed aside with "oh, that's not really what I mean".

Look, moron, your position boils down to God hates sin. You quoted the Biblical injunction that "thou shalt not kill" and then you extrapolated that we should seek laws that outlaw that sin. Bam! "God hates sin. Let's ban it". That IS what you're saying. The fact that you can't even comprehend the implications of your own position does not change the necessary implications of your position.

And there's a reason for this. That reason is that your support for anti abortion laws has nothing to do with the Bible and is solely based on weepy, effeminate sentimentalism.

If I call you a moron it's because it's infuriating to deal with someone so dim they can't draw out the obvious logical implications of their own damn positions.

Anonymous other mom December 22, 2012 1:56 AM  

1-800-773-6667

Anonymous physphilmusic December 22, 2012 1:58 AM  

Again, if we lived in a homogeous [sic], Christian, God-fearing people I would fully support laws punishing abortion.

What's the difference? How homogeneous does it have to be before you would support such laws? Does it have to be politically homogenous? Since you think left-leaning people are another "nation", then do the people who are mocking and arguing with you also constitute another "nation"?

Just more weepy, effeminate sentimentalism.

Do you oppose laws against murder?
Do you oppose laws against rape?
Do you oppose laws against assault?

Or are all these fine, as long as these acts are not happening within your own self-defined "Christian" nation? Is someone's support of a law against wanton murder necessarily a result of "weepy, effeminate sentimentalism"?

Jesus did not die on the cross to give you the jurisdiction and moral authority to invade Sweden, or any other people, to prevent them from having abortions.

Nobody's talking about invading Sweden, because the cost of invading Sweden would probably result in bloodshed comparable to the lives we were supposed to save. Nobody's talking about invading China or any African countries where many worse things than abortion are allowed, either, because as any self-help book can tell you, change starts from the inside first. For some people the goal isn't even to prohibit abortion in the entire US - it's to prohibit it merely within the state, or even by protesting local abortion clinics. If we can't even restrict abortion in the communities around us, how can we be expected to have the ability and moral high ground to gather forces to invade Sweden for the pro-life cause?

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 1:59 AM  

@ Asher

My words and their meaning were very precise and unequivocal. My intent was in no way ambiguous, but again, you are quoting someone else; not me. You are confused in more ways than one.

Anonymous Bobo December 22, 2012 2:00 AM  

With heroes like Tiburcio Vasquez and Che, it's little wonder that kids turn to violence and murder.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 2:01 AM  

@ IM2L844

It's also infuriating to encounter someone who blithely refuses to even acknowledge raised questions. Answer this question:

Since you have stated nothing more than a blanket opposition to abortion then why aren't you calling for an invasion of Sweden to end abortion there, too?

It's a simple question. Answer it.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 2:07 AM  

@ IM2L844

My words and their meaning were very precise and unequivocal. My intent was in no way ambiguous, but

That's true. It's also irrelevant. Because your problem lies not in ambiguity but in simply ignoring the implications of your position.

Let's say I take some position "A". Let's also say that "A" is clear and unambiguous. Further, let's say that position "A" implies some derivative position "B". Thus, when you say "A" you are axiomatically claiming "B" no matter what your subjectively think. That you simply refuse to derive "B" is irrelevant.

What is supposed to happen here is that you either explain how A does not imply B or you alter position A. What you are doing is the equivalent of a five year old stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting "la la la I can't hear you"

Anonymous another mom December 22, 2012 2:08 AM  

Asher

Call the number I gave you, these people cannot help you.

1-800-773-6667

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 2:08 AM  

"Thou shalt not kill" is not even close to just another way of saying "God hates sin. Ban it."

Just as I thought. A colossal waste of time.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 2:17 AM  

why aren't you calling for an invasion of Sweden to end abortion there, too?

It's a simple question. Answer it.


You keep asserting that I have somehow suggested the use of force to end abortion, but you can't actually show that because I have done no such thing. You are delusional.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 2:22 AM  

@ IMZL844

"Thou shalt not kill" is not even close to just another way of saying "God hates sin. Ban it.".

Yes it is. OMFG you are reading that verse as "ban all killing". Duh. In plain language that IS what you are saying but that is NOT what the verse says.

I feel like I'm trying to teach Kant to third-graders.

Look, dude, your support for anti-abortion laws has nothing to do with the Bible and is nothing more than weepy, effeminate sentimentalism. Nothing more than "think of the children" followed by hand-wringing.

Again, your sole statement for anti-abortion laws was "god says thou shalt not kill". That's it. Nothing more. which is just another way of saying "God hates sin. Ban it". Duh. That IS what it IS.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 2:26 AM  

@ IM2L844

You keep asserting that I have somehow suggested the use of force to end abortion,

Fine. But then you have your own private definition of pro-life which no one shares. The general use of the term "pro-life" is to identify someone who advocates laws that punish abortion. If you had some private definition of the term that no one else shares then you should have made that clear upfront.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 2:32 AM  

@ another mom

Call the number I gave you, these people cannot help you.

1-800-773-6667


Ah, yes, the ol' "anyone who disagrees with me is mentally unstable" gambit. Used by leftists since the early days of the Soviet Union. Here's some advice: that sort of stuff only works for leftists who have The Cathedral (aka the university system) available to sanctimoniously pronounce that all non-leftists are "crazy". Doesn't work so much for your like.

Leftists want to exterminate you and you just want to save their children. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 22, 2012 2:50 AM  

Asher's a hilarious idiot. What's with the fixation on Sweden? Why aren't you questioning us on not invading every single fucking country in the world which isn't in line with our moral views?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 22, 2012 3:06 AM  

Asher teaches Kant to third graders!

BOOM

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 3:12 AM  

Yes it is. OMFG you are reading that verse as "ban all killing". Duh. In plain language that IS what you are saying but that is NOT what the verse says.

Murder and "all killing" are not equivalent. Consider killing in self defense, for instance. Now, if murder is what you want to discuss, that's different. It is actually more relevant. If I viciously murder a pregnant woman and her fetus incidentally dies as a result, should I be charged with two counts of murder?

The general use of the term "pro-life" is to identify someone who advocates laws that punish abortion. If you had some private definition of the term that no one else shares then you should have made that clear upfront.

I've talked with a bunch of people who consider themselves pro-lifers and their general use of the term is for someone who does not condone abortion or believe that it should be sanctioned by the government via subsidisation with their tax dollars. Anti-abortionists, on the other hand believe abortion should be criminalized. I believe the criminalization aspect should be left up to the individual states.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 3:38 AM  

@ physphilmusic

What's with the fixation on Sweden? Why aren't you questioning us on not invading every single fucking country in the world which isn't in line with our moral views?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! If the premise of a law is "God hates it. Ban it." then that would imply that we have an obligation to invade every country and ban whatever it is that God hates. This is why the "pro-life" movement is not biblically-based. It is based on weepy, effeminate sentimentality.

I could have used any country but just picked Sweden out of a hat.

I would support anti abortion laws in a homogeneous country with a unitary people who shared a common heritage and who were God-fearing. The American people are not such a people. In fact, there is no American people as "America" is a multiplicity of different peoples, ruled by an imperial government, each with it's own distinct moral view of the world the majority of whom reject the sovereignty of God. The political pro-life movement is about using secular, temporal power to impose God's law on various peoples who reject God's Law. In doing this, they are claiming the sort of authority to do that which is the sole province of God Himself.

That is why the pro-life movement is unbiblical and heretical - it usurps the authority of God for itself. That is the same reason Satan was cast from Heaven.

Also, the very concept of "moral views" is a secular one, as the word "moral" is simply derived from the Latin word "mores", meaning customs. Well, every single group of people develops customs, therefore, morality is nothing more than what is generally accepted at a particular time and place. Leftists living within the American Empire no more share your moral views than do people living in Sweden or Saudi Arabia.

Attempting to impose god's Law on the Leftist people or the Black people, or any other peoples living under the rule of the American Empire is categorically similar to invading Sweden to impose your moral views. Sure, the quantity of force required to impose your moral views of the Swedish people is greater than that required to force your moral views on the Leftist people living in the American Empire but the category of action is the same.

Once you set up a defining criteria for a particular category of action you can't simply drop your criteria when it becomes inconvenient. If you consider it your moral duty to impose your moral views on a foreign and alien people that implies you have an obligation to impose that same moral views on all people everywhere, and the Leftist people living in the American Empire are no less a foreign and alien people than are Swedes, Saudis and Singaporeans.

Let's take this concept of categorical action away from the abortion debate for a moment. Way back when Clinton was escalating intervention in Serbia I had leftist acquaintances claiming that we had a moral duty to intervene. I pointed out that equitable violations of "human rights" were occurring under the Chinese government, so I asked them if they advocated invading China, too, to stop those violations. The uniform answer I received was that such an action was not feasible.

That is called an argument from convenience. Basically, they were just preferring action in Serbia and not in China because one was relatively convenient while the other one was not. The thing is that once you establish a criteria for a particular category of action but then decline to apply it using arguments from convenience then that indicates that there is something wrong with your initial criteria.

If you want to impose God's Law on one foreign and alien people then you cannot object when others expect you to use that same criteria to do the same to all peoples.

Since the "pro-life" movement is not advocating this it is pretty clear that there is something wrong with their criteria for action.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 4:04 AM  

@

Murder and "all killing" are not equivalent.

This is true but completely irrelevant. Having been raised in nothing besides a conservatively evangelical protestant milieu I'm well aware that this injunction is about unjustified killing. A better translation is "thou shalt not murder".

talked with a bunch of people who consider themselves pro-lifers and their general use of the term is for someone who does not condone abortion or believe that it should be sanctioned by the government via subsidisation with their tax dollars. Anti-abortionists, on the other hand believe abortion should be criminalized. I believe the criminalization aspect should be left up to the individual states.

Well, maybe you're not aware that one of the two major parties has included a constitutional amendment banning abortion as birth control as one of their primary planks. Having grown up in a totally "pro-life" environment I can assure you that the practical method of federalism is simply a means to eliminating abortion for convenience across most of the American Empire. Mostly, federalism is just a ruse to get people comfortable with it on a state level so they can approach it on a federal level.

But the premise is just plan wrong. Federalism has been dead for a very, very long time and it is never coming back. The various states, today, are nothing more than appendages of the Imperial Federal Government and no amount of "what the Constitution really means" or "this is how things should be" is going to bring federalism back from the dead.

The original concept of federalism was that you had a unitary American people with widely shared sense of values, to use a modern term, with minor local flavors, and that the states could offer competing methods to implement those shared values. Today, not only do the peoples in the various states not have shared values but most neighbors do not even have shared values. This mess requires a bloated and corrupt Imperial central government to hold it together. Pro-life versus anti-abortion is a distinction without a difference. Pure rhetoric. Having grown up around nothing but pro-lifers I can assure you that 99.9 percent object to abortion per se and not just to having their tax dollars fund the procedure. The appeal to federalism is just a fig leaf.

Asher teaches Kant to third graders!

I've taught Kant. I can imagine what it would feel like to try and teach it to third-graders. I'm pretty sure this is what it would feel like.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 4:11 AM  

A) There is a future war coming between us and various other peoples living in the American Empire
B) Abortion has the effect of killing off large numbers of individuals who will be enemy combatants in that war, even if there is no intentionality to that effect
C) Therefore, abortion has the effect of making that future war a more likely victory for our side

What is wrong with that reasoning?

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 4:25 AM  

Do you believe "pro-lifers" only argue that life begins at conception and killing fetuses is tantamount to murder simply because their God says so? There are other ways to arrive at the same conclusions.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 4:37 AM  

A) probably

B) I suppose it's possible that Margret Sanger et al. may have had something like "B" in mind when the American Birth Control League was founded since her focus was mainly on blacks.

C) It's not looking too good

What's your point?

Anonymous kh123 December 22, 2012 4:38 AM  

Fairly safe to assume that derailing has been achieved.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 5:06 AM  

@ IM2L844

No, I am arguing that, according to the Bible, God establishes different realms of authority and that any particular person has no authority over most life and, thus, no responsibility to those lives. Just because God hates sin doesn't give one authority to use secular power abolish that sin. Now, there *are* specific jurisdictions in which you could claim proper authority to prohibit abortions, in your case you consider the proper jurisdictional authority to be the state.

Here's what you're saying: I, John, live in the state of Virginia and it is within my authority to advocate legislation punishing abortion in the state of Virginia. However, I have no authority to pass such legislation for people living in Maryland.

That is a perfectly reasonable position to take but it has nothing to do with the Bible. It is a completely secular argument. The problem is that the political pro-life movement is overwhelmingly informed by religious sentiments, sentiments which are extra-biblical Again, that's fine but claiming the authority of the bible for something that is not actually in the Bible is what makes the pro-life movement heretical.

The American Empire is rather similar to the Persian Empire in that the Persian Empire was ruled by one central ruling tribe with its own particular culture/people, which ruled various conquered cultures subservient to it. As long as they acknowledged the supremacy of the Persians and paid taxes the subservient cultures/peoples were allowed to keep their own ways of life. The important difference is that under the Persians the various peoples were geographically unified so the local customs were confined to the local peoples.

The American Empire is different in that there is little geographic contiguity of the various ruled cultures/peoples. Therefore, laws passed in a particular state govern a vast array of diverse peoples with no real sense of shared common values. This is why an Imperial central government is required to keep "America" together.

Hell, the Democrats gave this dirty, little secret away when in their ad campaign that claimed that government is the only thing to which we all belong. Yes! Government, in today's "America", IS the only thing to which we all belong, the only thing that keeps us together.

I am amusing by conservatives who bleat that "America is a Republic" when the root of the term republic is res publia. But America is not a republic, and has not been one for decades, because a republic requires one public, and America is comprised of a plethora of publics, each with its own distinct moral system and not beholden to the other various and sundry publics.

This is also why the various states are nothing more than bureaucratic appendages of the central government and why talking about federalism makes about as much sense as talking about chivalry. Both are dead, the cultural environment that nurtured them died a long time ago and there is no resurrecting the bodies.

If you want to punish abortion, even in one state, then you are using secular power to push a particular moral view of the world on peoples who utterly reject it. As a category of action this is no different than invading Sweden and imposing that moral view. The only difference is one of convenience, not one of category - basically, quantity not quality. It's sort of like saying that BMWs and Hyundais can't both be called cars because one has a higher top speed.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 5:18 AM  

@ kh123

Fairly safe to assume that derailing has been achieved.

No. The link is that both the anti-gun and pro-life movements are grounded in weepy, impotent, effeminate sentimentality. The pro-life movement is to the right what the anti-gun movement is to the left. Both claim their authority from abstract, transcendent moral principles grounded in a higher reality.

@ IM2L844

I suppose it's possible that Margret Sanger et al. may have had something like "B" in mind when the American Birth Control League was founded since her focus was mainly on blacks.

In case you didn't notice the original post was about race. If Sanger had her way the US murder rate would be almost an order of magnitude lower than today.

Anonymous fnn December 22, 2012 6:01 AM  

We've got a big American flag in our church.
This is the idolatry of American Evangelicals. Richly blessed by the Holy Spirit, their fall has been sad to watch.


We all know what the American neo-Bolshevist Empire has become:

Our More Perfect Union
(...)
"Viewing footage of the Black Friday rite, we must conclude that it is one phenomenon among many uniting Americans of the most diverse ancestry into a common cause- the cult of Mammon. Look into the consumer throngs: here can be seen the uprooted children of Africa, Meso-Americans, Asians and the sad descendants of the Indo-Europeans. As editorial writers have informed us upon President Obama's re-election, the United States has entered "a new normal" of cultural and demographic transformation. The old holiday of Thanksgiving simply did not extract the necessary profits desired by the corporate-financial priesthood, and so it was re-formulated according to their wishes. In the same way the U.S. population has been subjected to several decades of Cabalistic processing through every available means: psychological warfare waged by the media-entertainment complex, indoctrination in academia and so many of the churches, and waves of immigration from alien lands. Black Friday marks the perfection of mass man, the "individual" consumer wholly divorced from generations of his faith, ethnic heritage and family, a slave to debt, technology and base impulses."
(...)

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 6:08 AM  

@ fnn

No kidding. I mean, it's obvious that I certainly hold that "America" is dead as a door nail. But at least the flag in that church represents, in the minds of those people, something beyond the rotten, crassness of mass, individualistic society. Rottenness pervades his every corner of existence and, yet, he's worried about a swatch of cloth.

Anonymous kh123 December 22, 2012 7:40 AM  

"No. The link is that both the anti-gun and pro-life movements are grounded in weepy, impotent, effeminate sentimentality."

That's your link, and you're certainly welcome to it. It's an unexpected one I'll admit, since you brought it up several posts back, and not without interest.

But from what I recall, the theme in this post is as the title indicates: Hispanic firearms homicide rates.

Until they start performing abortions at 25 yards, I think it's safe to assume that the topic at hand has been, at best, rabbit trailed.

Anonymous Josh December 22, 2012 9:38 AM  

Asher, are you a Calvinist?

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 11:30 AM  

@ Josh

As a strict materialist who is only interested in things that are empirical I reject the metaphysical notion of free will. The current state of so-called atheism is absolutely pathetic. I call myself an apatheist - I can't empirically investigate God, so I don' care. Most "atheism" today is a triumphalist rejection of God and not a sober reflection on evidence - sort of like an "intellectual" version of five year-old screaming that he wants ice cream right before dinner.

This understanding of so-called atheism was very practical applications, too. That old nature versus nurture debate? Yeah, the nurture side of that is not talking about an empirically investigable concept. What they are talking about is, wait for it, free will! I mean, in a world of pure cause and effect everything comes from somewhere, is an effect f prior causes. So where does this nurture originate? No nurturist will, or can, give you an answer to this question when, of course, the obvious answer is nature. Yeah, in a Darwinian world nurture is simply another facet of nature, but the so-called Darwinists reject the notion of God simply so that they can put themselves in his place. In what world can you call yourself an atheist and simultaneously consider yourself God?

It's hilarious to insist to a roomful of self-described atheists that they really aren't atheists and that they've simply replaced God with themselves. And I'm not nice about it either, really, really, really not nice. Nice or not, though, it is great fun.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 11:39 AM  

The problem is that the political pro-life movement is overwhelmingly informed by religious sentiments, sentiments which are extra-biblical Again, that's fine but claiming the authority of the bible for something that is not actually in the Bible is what makes the pro-life movement heretical.

So, your objection is not to the conclusion. Your presumptuous objection is to how one arrives at the conclusion? That's just stupid. The conclusion that murder is wrong had been reached long before the pro-life movement came along. The pro-life objections are to the way the pre-existing, universally accepted conclusion is selectively applied to exclude fetuses. They don't need to claim the authority of the bible to support the already established, universally accepted precept that murder is wrong. It's a given. Where are they claiming the authority of the bible specifically to support their contention that abortion is tantamount to murder? Your arguments are tangential, convoluted and nonsensical.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:52 PM  

@ IM2L844

Okay, the basic statement "x is wrong" takes two forms:

A) Secular and relative
B) Religious/metaphysical and absolute

The statement that "murder is wrong" is ambiguous as the next question becomes "what is murder". The answer I usually get to that is "murder is unjustified" to which I reply "when is it unjustified". I've had this line of questioning a great number of times and it just results in an endless regress of people defining words in terms of further undefined words to infinity.

Fact: our species has been killing each other to the tune of hundreds of billions for millenia. This implies that killing is a natural part of what it means to be human - our natural state, ala Plato, is war. War is the only natural law.

To escape this endless state of war of all against all human societies institute governments to implement secular rules to give us a little respite from this unending war. Now often these rules take the form of a metaphysical/religious command "x is wrong" but that is just a figure of speech. In fact, the institution is secular and once the government and institutions in question lose their authority "x" is no longer wrong and we have returned to the natural state of war of all against all.

Thus, "x" is in a strict, secular sense no longer "wrong". Anyone who wants to say "x is wrong" when the secular reasons for doing so has entered the realm of metaphysics/religion.

Okay, so what is the secular argument vis a vis killing? The secular position is that murder is killing of individuals who have value, and this implies that not all individuals have value. In fact, secularly no individuals have any inherent value and are value-less until demonstrated otherwise. This means that killing them is not murder.

So, your exception is no exception, at all. Prohibitions against killing have always been about not killing individuals who have value and individuals who have no value are fair game for being killed. Yes, different times and places have different standards for evaluating individuals but the template for "what is murder" holds across time and place.

So, when you say "abortion is murder" you are making the assertion that the fetuses in question have value. Clearly, their own parents and community disagree with you, and since you're not making a secular argument for their value you must be making a secular/religious argument for their value. You are assigning value to individuals that transcends there material, animal existence, so you have left the world of secular arguments and entered the world of religious/ metaphysical arguments.

Given that the vast majority of those who resort to religious/metaphysical arguments are Christian it is reasonable to infer that their religious/metaphysical authority is the bible.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 12:57 PM  

@ IM2L844

Your position is not clearly stated. Is the basis for your statement that "abortion is wrong" secular or religious/metaphysical?

If the first then you have to demonstrate why those individuals have value because there is no inherent value in mere physical existence. In a secular world people are valueless unless it can be demonstrated that they have value.

If the second then you have to cite your authority for this inherent higher value, derived from a higher, non-physical reality, that transcends mere physical existence.

You're not at all clear about which category of valuing you are using to claim that abortion is wrong.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 1:22 PM  

Here's another way of putting it. Historically, there has never been a blanket prohibition against killing. The prohibition was on killing individuals who had no value. This category of killing was titled "murder". So, killing has always been okay unless there was some reason not to kill.

A better way of translating the sixth commandment is "thou shalt not kill that which has value". So, this template is universal and any peoples who didn't develop this would quickly kill themselves off. But there is no universal standard of value, unless you are making a religious/metaphysical claim, so "value" is just a product of historical development and varies by time and place.

"Abortion is not murder" is not an unprincipled exception to a universal rule prohibiting murder, because there is no substantive universal meaning to the term "murder". No, "abortion is not murder" is a particular application of the prohibition "do not kill that which has value" and that particular valuation is a product of a particular time and a particular place. In a different time and place that valuation might be different, but there is no absolute standard to judge between those valuations, unless one is taking a religious/metaphysical stance

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 2:33 PM  

Your position is not clearly stated.

My position is, as it has clearly been from the outset, that the onus is on you to substantiate your claim. Dancing around the issue is not making your case. This is real simple. Provide some corroborating evidence beyond deduced analogous examples and illustrations that the pro-life movement is explicitly claiming "the authority of the bible" as the fundamental basis for their legal argument that abortion is tantamount to murder.

The relevant fact is that the pro-life movement's legal argument doesn't require authority from the bible. The claim that a fetus has the same civil rights as any other human being is a purely secular argument. Are you unaware that there are avowed atheists who are part of the pro-life movement?

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 4:13 PM  

@ IM2L844

I asked you a very simple question. On what basis do you support laws punishing abortion. "Abortion is murder" is simply argument by reiteration. You aren't even attempting to justify the claim that abortion is murder. You just keep asserting it over and over with no justification.

the pro-life movement is explicitly claiming "the authority of the bible" as the fundamental basis for their legal argument that abortion is tantamount to murder.

Um, you're confusing arguments for "can punish abortion" with "should punish abortion". A legal/procedural argument is simply that we "can" punish abortion, but that is unrelated to whether or not we "should" punish it.

The problem with you is that you lack a coherent understanding of your own position. You take some simple statement, pronounce it, and then claim that it is clear and unambiguous. I mean, for God's sake, you can't even understand the difference between can and should.

The argument that the various states have the constitutional authority to outlaw abortion is unrelated to the argument that such laws would be a good idea. The arguments for federalism are legal/procedural; they address the "can" aspect. However, they are completely unrelated to whether or not such laws are a good idea or not.

Now since the pro-life movement is making a political argument for outlawing abortion, beyond the mere legal/procedural argument, it implies that there is a reasoning behind that advocacy for those laws. Remember we're not talking about can we outlaw abortion, but whether or not passing such laws is a good idea.

Got it? Okay? We're talking about "should we outlaw abortion". I will cede the point that we "can" do so.

Now that we're this far we need to categorize the various reason that people give for passing rules governing behavior. There are two general categories of reasons:

A) Secular
B) Religious/Metaphysical.

A corollary to this is that if not A then by definition B. Why? Because it's pretty clear that the human cognitive default is to think in metaphysical terms, and this includes so-called atheists.

Let's put this in abstract terms but plain English.

Anyone who advocates for a position that is not explicitly spelled out in secular terms is by implication advocating on religious/metaphysical grounds

This applies to every group of people: Christians, Muslims, socialists, leftists, and so-called atheists.

With me so far? Great.

So, where are the secular arguments that laws punishing abortion are a secular good? Unless those explicitly exist then the default is that pro-life arguments are based in religion/metaphysics.

BTW, almost every policy advocated by the Democratic Party is couched in purely religious/metaphysical terms, but, then, they are of a completely different religious heritage than are we; they want to impose their metaphysics on you, as do you on them.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 4:15 PM  

@ IM2L844

Simple question. What are the substantive secular arguments that we *should* punish abortion.

Put up or shut up.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 4:39 PM  

@ IM2L844

The claim that a fetus has the same civil rights as any other human being is a purely secular argument.

Um, no, it's not. The concept of "rights" is purely metaphysical and you can't base a secular argument on a metaphysical premise. In a secular world there are no rights, there is only the endless struggle for power.

Are you unaware that there are avowed atheists who are part of the pro-life movement?

I often tell people that I am history's first atheist, and I am not sure whether or not this is a factually correct statement. I live in uber-liberal Seattle and have had dozens of in-depth conversations with supposedly avowed atheists. When I started questioning them it turned out that their thinking was riddled with metaphysics and magical thinking.

I have met a legion of avowed atheists. Not one of them upon inspection turned out to be an actual atheist, and lots of them had advanced degrees in the maths and sciences.

If there are pro-life atheists then why aren't they advancing secular arguments? And "equal rights" isn't a secular argument because the concept of "rights" is metaphysical and not secular.

Blogger IM2L844 December 22, 2012 9:42 PM  

Special snowflake, you obviously intend to continue to sidestep my appeals to the primacy of custom and habit with philosophical reductio ad absurdum. You have continuously failed (intentionally, I think) to even attempt a proper response to a simple request and I'm glut with the incessant tedium of your metaphysical materialism.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 11:23 PM  

@ IM2L844

you obviously intend to continue to sidestep my appeals to the primacy of custom and habit

Yeah, I'm a conservative, and one of the things you're missing is that custom and habit gets warped when it is imposed on another culture with its own sets of customs and habits. That is not conservative, at all, but radical. Any appeal to custom and habit is only coherent within a homogeneous population that, generally, observes those customs and habits.

Anyone who calls for imposing their particular group's customs and habits on a foreign and alien group must either appeal to secular arguments or to a higher metaphysical reality. Appeals to custom and habit are moot where those customs and habits are not, generally, observes. Since you are not appealing to secular arguments and cannot appeal to custom and habit, in this particular debate the only option left is too argue on metaphysical/religious grounds.

your metaphysical materialism.

There is such a thing as metaphysical materialism but I am not an adherent. Metaphysical/religious arguments are quite relevant and valid within a particular context of custom and habit, in fact the two are inseparable.

Here's what's so distressing about this conversation: even if you win, you lose. Why? Because you are attempting to use the power of the Imperial government to force your customs and habits on foreign and alien peoples who reject their authority, as they have their own customs and habits.

Leftists want to exterminate people like us, trust me, they do, and I've been in the cocktail parties where that sort of stuff is discussed, and your response is that you just want to save their children. We are at war with them and you're merely concerned with your precious "conservative principles". You intellectually masturbate to your "principles" while the world you love is being torn to shreds around you.

I would also point out that one salient feature of the customs and habits to which you adhere is a healthy respect for the Bible. I initiated my commenting on this thread by pointing out that the Bible does not give sanction for what the so-called pro-life movement is advocating. So, even by by your own standard, that of custom and habit, you fail. Your advocacy of a pro-life position is a betrayal of your own damn customs and habits.

This is why you are not a conservative but a radical.

Anonymous Asher December 22, 2012 11:48 PM  

One additional thing to point out is that conservatism, the adherence to customs and habits, evolved for the purpose of protecting the survival and of promoting a thriving space for one's own tribe. That is its purpose and etiology. When a conservative tries to expand his customs and habits beyond his own tribe and people, to those who reject his customs and habits, the entire project disintegrates because the tool that is conservatism is wholly unsuited for anything beyond that purpose.

Custom and habit is a useful tool for molding behavior only where it is already widely accepted. When it is used for anything else it loses its usefulness and ends up destroying itself.

Blogger IM2L844 December 23, 2012 12:20 PM  

I would also point out that one salient feature of the customs and habits to which you adhere is a healthy respect for the Bible. I initiated my commenting on this thread by pointing out that the Bible does not give sanction for what the so-called pro-life movement is advocating. So, even by by your own standard, that of custom and habit, you fail. Your advocacy of a pro-life position is a betrayal of your own damn customs and habits.

This is why you are not a conservative but a radical.


Oh, look! Chum in the water.



Custom and habit is a useful tool for molding behavior only where it is already widely accepted. When it is used for anything else it loses its usefulness and ends up destroying itself.

Oh, look! More chum in the water.

How can I possibly keep resisting such tasty looking snacks?

Hey, wait a minute! That's not chum. That's just a bunch of crank bait and spinners. There must be an angler way up there on a pedestal somewhere.

Anonymous Asher December 23, 2012 6:46 PM  

@ IM2L844

Let me tell you something. Seattle has a large contingent of people in their 20s and 30s who were raised in nice, middle-class environments with their biological mothers and fathers and whose families ranged from vaguely to rigorously Christian.

Why? They hate people like you. I mean, really, really, really hate people like you. they uniformly vote Democratic for the sole purpose of expressing that hatred, but they are educated, intelligent and live their lives similarly to people like us. Seriously. Again, even if you were to win this debate you would be losing the political war.

Politics has one rule and one rule only: just win, baby.

So, run along and intellectually masturbate to your "conservative principles" while your world crumbles around you.

Blogger IM2L844 December 24, 2012 10:48 AM  

Arrrrgh...must resist...gasp...can't hold out much longer...Gulp!

Okay one last word and I'm done with your unresponsive nonsense.

I was never trying to "win" a debate. I was just trying to get you to see the obvious hypocrisy in an already established legal system that can charge a drunk driver with double vehicular homicide, of one degree or another, for killing a woman and her fetus, in a car crash, who was on her way to the abortion clinic to have the fetus legally killed.

It's real simple. Pro-lifers do not need to invoke moral absolutism in order to argue against abortion regardless of how much you want to engage in philosophically tangential nit pickery. Pro-lifers simply believe killing fetuses belongs in the pre-established customary legal category of murder. How some of them may derive that belief is insubstantial, irrelevant and immaterial in that it is inconsequential to the force of the argument. It's the blatant double standard that is obviously and immediately relevant. But, I've already said all this in one way or another and you refuse, now and forever, to accept the simple truth of it.

Your impeccable hyperbolized obstinance is admirable in some respects. I'm fine with it. ;)

Anonymous Asher December 24, 2012 5:23 PM  

@ IM2L844

Okay one last word and I'm done with your unresponsive nonsense.

I've directly responded to every single point you've made by demonstrating that your premises were incoherent or that they were just blatant assertions with no premise, at all. Let me give you an example from this last comment:

I was just trying to get you to see the obvious hypocrisy in an already established legal system

Duh. I'm clearly aware of this blatant hypocrisy. Here's the problem: the American legal system is inundated with a vast array of blatantly hypocritical laws. Therefore, if you are advocating to change one law on the basis of its hypocritical nature then you must equally call for the removal of all hypocrisy in all law. But I don't see pro-lifers doing that and, in fact, I see pro-lifers advocating hypocritical laws in areas of law unrelated to the abortion issue.

If you use hypocrisy as a means of selectively targeting one area of law but ignore that the entire system is riddled with hypocrisy then you, yourself, are being hypocritical. The further question, then is what is the ends-based objection you have to abortion? It can't be hypocrisy qua hypocrisy because we've already established that you don't object to hypocrisy per se, as you are only using the charge of hypocrisy as a means to achieve prior ends. Well, there are four possible sources for these ends:

A) Secular
B) Habit and custom
C) Metaphysics/religion
D) Unprincipled emotional sentiment, simple sense of taste

It can't be A because you're simply not making secular arguments. It can't be B because opposition to abortion is not a custom or habit with vast swathes of the populations within the American Empire. Which leaves us with either C or D, and those are often interchangeable.

You can't use hypocrisy as a standard and then ignore hypocrisy elsewhere. That is, itself, hypocrisy. And the level of hypocrisy in American law is so great that to reduce it to minimal levels would require a complete trashing of all existing legal codes and restarting from scratch. That would be profoundly unconservative.

I've already said all this in one way or another and you refuse, now and forever, to accept the simple truth of it.

No, I already stated that I agreed with you that abortion laws are hypocritical. It's obvious. It's also obvious that the very nature of Empire requires vast amounts of hypocrisy in law to sustain that empire. You simply want to gain status of ruling class for yourself and those who share your values and implement your own set of hypocritical laws that sets the rules for empire.

Which makes you a hypocrite when you object to hypocrisy but ignore it in other areas.

Anonymous Asher December 24, 2012 5:36 PM  

@ IM2L844

Come to think it I already pointed out your hypocrisy earlier but just failed to use the term itself. I pointed out that it was inappropriate to try and implement customs and habits on people who don't, in practice, hold to those customs and habits. I should have pointed out that it was hypocritical of you to advocate such a thing.

Blogger IM2L844 December 24, 2012 6:29 PM  

Which makes you a hypocrite when you object to hypocrisy but ignore it in other areas.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. You're exhausting. I'm not some kind of activist out to save the world. There are a plethora of things wrong in the world and nobody can fix even a fraction of them.

Making a few simple observations on a specific topic on a blog somewhere on the internet doesn't mean anything. It's certainly not indicative of some grandiose desire "to gain status of ruling class" for myself or those who share my values so we can implement our "own set of hypocritical laws that sets the rules for empire"

Can you hear yourself? Hell, I can't even fix you. Despite the few moments of lucid intellection you occasionally display, I'm beginning to think you really are delusional or drinking too much.

Anonymous Asher December 25, 2012 6:18 AM  

@ IM2L844

I'm not some kind of activist out to save the world.

Well, that may not be how you perceive yourself, but, then, you don't get to have some personal definition of terms and phrases. I grew up in conservative, evangelical circles and I listen fairly regularly to conservative talk radio where the callers and hosts are stridently "pro-life". The "pro-life" movement definitely sees itself as out to save the world, When I was young the reasoning was that God would judge "our nation" for a holocaust like that perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Now, it's been moderated to cultivate "a culture that respects life", implying that a culture with elective abortion will degenerate into one that doesn't respect life. Basically, they're the same thing but one has more religious overtones and the other is more metaphysical.

So, no, you don't get to have your own little private definition of "pro-life". And, yes, you are out to save the world even if you're completely unaware of this motivation, because that's what culture is. That's its sine qua non. People develop cultural markers so they can readily associate with and understand the vast array of strangers they encounter in mass society. You could look at ideology/metaphysics/religion as a social technology developed for the purpose of facilitating orderly mass society.

Let me give you an analogous example. Say I walk into a bar wearing a white hood with two eyeholes. I don't get to choose how other people interpret that cultural marker, because its meaning exists independent of any particular conscious mind. (No, I'm not comparing the pro-life movement to the Klan).

Anyways, yes, you are on a crusade to save the world because you affiliate with and give aid to people who clearly on a crusade. On the left side of politics there are, similarly, millions of passive liberals who don't see themselves as on any sort of crusade to save the world. That matters not a whit, as the liberal crusade is totally mind-independent; I'm guessing you've read Hayek and I would suggest you reexamine his take on how ideas take hold in society without any real intentionality.

Anonymous Asher December 25, 2012 6:22 AM  

@ IM2L844

Can you hear yourself? Hell, I can't even fix you. Despite the few moments of lucid intellection you occasionally display, I'm beginning to think you really are delusional or drinking too much.

Ah, yes, the old "you're crazy" resort. Again, even if you were to make this stick you'd still be losing. Why? Because the left does it much, much better than the right by virtue of having captured most elite social institutions, especially The Cathedral (aka the university system), which can churn out studies alleging that people who hold your views only do so by dint of mental disorder/illness.

Anyways, this is you verging on admitting that you have either lost or are outmatched.

Let me offer you some advice. If you get the urge to declare someone crazy, don't. Crazy people comes in two flavors: those with messed up brain chemistry and those who have experience significant emotional trauma and have erected an intricate systems of sophisticated falsehoods to protect themselves emotionally dashed expectations.

They're easy to distinguish. The former can't coherently answer questions, while the latter can. You "cure" the latter by simply asking them questions - the former with medication.

In the past thirty, or so, hours you've asked me precisely one question. You asked me to provide you with examples of pro-lifers explicitly advocating metaphysical/religious arguments related to abortion. My response was coherent and relevant: it was that your question was not valid as cultures develop all sorts of implied premises that exist independent of any explicit voicing. That sort of argument has been around since Socrates. Hell, that's what the vaunted Socratic Method is all about.

In your defense, I've had this identical conversation with quite a few conservatives, none of whom had ever encountered this line of reasoning. I know how this debate goes, I could win this debate after drinking a fifth of tequila, I know every ebb and every flow. the trick to winning is only getting into something that you're absolutely sure you'll win, in advance.

Blogger IM2L844 December 25, 2012 9:04 PM  

Anyways, this is you verging on admitting that you have either lost or are outmatched.

Au contraire mon frere. I don't know exactly why I've bothered to indulge you this long other than out of sheer boredom. Maybe I'm just feeling charitable because of the holidays. Whatever.

In your defense, I've had this identical conversation with quite a few conservatives, none of whom had ever encountered this line of reasoning.

Seriously? What line of reasoning? This is completely laughable. The only reason nobody has ever encountered this so called line of reasoning before is because no one in history has ever been stupid enough to pursue such a ridiculously vacuous line of reasoning even if you could call it a line of reasoning with a straight face.

Your entire argument consists of conjecture and naked assertions presented as brute facts. You haven't presented anything substantive to dispute.

Here is what you said you were arguing:

Premise: "God establishes different realms of authority"

Conclusion: "any particular person has no authority over most life and, thus, no responsibility to those lives."


You offer absolutely nothing to support either the premise or your conclusion. Maybe the premise is true, but I certainly don't grant it. It's not a given and you haven't made a case, of any kind, for it. You first need to make a conclusive case for the premise before you can even begin to demonstrate how it applies to your conclusion. You don't bother with either for the entirety of your argument.

Let's take a look at some of the other naked assertions you make.

1. Christianity is a corrupt and meritless theology.

Completely unsupported naked assertion.

2. The Pro-life movement claims the authority of the bible.

Another completely unsupported naked assertion contrary to your claim that pure conjecture is sufficient:

"My response was coherent and relevant: it was that your question was not valid as cultures develop all sorts of implied premises that exist independent of any explicit voicing."

3. The Pro-life movement has nothing to do with the bible.

Yet another naked assertion and, following 2, is a a non sequitur. If you'll remember you asserted both 2 and 3 in the same post.

4. "The pro-life movement completely ignores the biblical concepts of jurisdiction and authority"

Yet another naked assertion and, again, following 2, is also another non sequitur.


You make backhanded accusations of antinomy toward me while your entire argument essentially consists of "X, X, X, and X are true, therefore not-X must be false".

See the problem, professor?

You've got nuthin'. Now, I'm really done. I simply can't stomach any more of your idiocy.

Merry Christmas and God bless!

Anonymous kavador August 16, 2013 10:45 AM  

Something's wrong with your data and chart.Take a look at this numbers:

http://s23.postimg.org/mz52ozyrv/SDT_2013_05_gun_crime_A1_09.png

Source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/2/

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts