Category Archives: Uncategorized

There’s No Such Thing as Free

This image has been popping up on social media frequently the past few days. I thought I’d critique the hell out of it, because its content is as foul as the language it uses:

15965156_594257584101494_97997607295255909_n

Let’s take this emotional-tirade-pretending-to-be-an-argument one falsehood at a time so as not to cause ourselves permanent brain damage.

What .. is wrong with Americans who aren’t on board with free healthcare.

  1. You’ve already committed the fallacy of equivocation.
  2. There is no such thing as free healthcare.
  3. Presuming you are actually referring to a system where the government taxes its citizens and pays hospitals directly or funds universal health insurance, there are economic, moral, and practical reasons to oppose.

I’m Canadian and I don’t care that I pay extra taxes…

  1. Is this an argument?
  2. Why do your preferences constitute objective moral law for everyone?
  3. You probably don’t pay taxes in the first place. If you did, you’d probably care.

… so a little boy in Alberta can have open heart surgery or an elderly man in Nova Scotia can get the heart medication he desperately needs.

  1. This is sentimentalism, which is not an argument. Feelings do not constitute an argument.
  2. I bet heart surgery is covered by private insurance. So is heart medication.
  3. Government subsidized college in the US has increased in cost by magnitudes in only a couple decades. Do you suppose medical costs might parallel this? Do you simply not care about these implications, or have you never taken a course in basic economics?
  4. Even if it is noble for these people to receive money to cover their needs, why is it noble to take that money from people by a government backed by military force? Charity is one thing. Taking money by force and redistributing it is not charity.
  5. Do you donate money to such causes?
  6. Are you aware that scarcity exists whether the state pays for something or not? A market can easily get goods and services to where they are needed most by price increases and decreases. Your system devolves into rationing to people the government picks. They probably won’t pick that elderly guy in Nova Scotia.

It’s called taking care of people.

  1. It’s called socialized medicine. Whether it more effectively “cares for people” than a free market is a dubious claim.
  2. Your tax dollars being whisked away by an unseen government, put into a giant pot, and then that same government spending money on drugs or surgery is not “care” any more than a machine “cares” when you press buttons on it and it makes you coffee.

I’m glad I pay so that people can have a good quality of life.

  1. You probably don’t pay. I suspect you are a leech on the system. What you mean to say is that it makes you feel good that other people are forced to pay because you vote for liberals to take their money.
  2. Did people not have good quality of life before bleeding edge medicine? If not, how can you make bleeding edge medicine a prerequisite for good quality of life?
  3. Are you sure the system increases quality of life in the first place? Are you sure everyone’s quality of life might not be enhanced without government theft?

It’s called being a decent *** human being.

  1. It’s called socialized medicine.
  2. Your childish moral superiority complex does not constitute an objective moral standard by which you can bash everyone else.
  3. People who oppose socialized medicine have good reasons for it. You don’t have good reasons to ignore them.
  4. You’ve equated being a decent human being with being a socialist. Are you sure you want to do that? Are you really really sure? Because I can think of some people you might not consider decent who were socialist demagogues and who maybe, just maybe, murdered hundreds of millions of people. It was for a good cause, though.
  5. You are a pompous ass, not a decent human being.

The most irritating thing about all of this that you know the woman who wrote it is convinced she is better than you because she votes to take away people’s money to give to others. She’s never thought about any potential flaws in the system (rationing, cost increases, inefficiencies causing death because of no market corrections to fix them). But it doesn’t matter.

On second thought, the most irritating thing about it all is that her vote is equal to the vote of an economic scholar.

Advertisements

Mob Rule as Science

I’ve been researching the philosophy, history, science, and politics of transgenderism in order to create a more comprehensive series of posts that deal with topic. This is still something I’d like to complete soon, but while going through the process I discovered some surprising things.

In every article discussing changes to mental health guidelines (whether the APA’s or the WHO’s), the driving force to rewrite sections on transgenderism was liberal politicians in countries that held sway over the respective guidelines.For instance, in Denmark, politicians declared that they would legislate new guidelines for a presumably scientific document:

“I think it’s really time to push the WHO in the direction of changing now,” Flemming Møller Mortensen, a Social Democrat member of Parliament and deputy chairman of the health committee, told STAT in an interview.

“Now we give them a little kick and we say: ‘If you do not finish in the autumn of this year, we will go by ourselves by the first of January.’’’

And what was the motivating factor?

Rights group LGBT Denmark also welcomed the move.

“To remove transgender from the section of mental disorders means removing an institutionalised stigmatisation of trans people,” spokeswoman Linda Thor Pedersen said.

That’s right. The reason it is no longer scientific to call a man wrong for thinking he is a woman is because professional agitators want to “remove an institutionalized stigmatization”. I wonder if physics has a history of change due to the feelings of people impacted by physics. This is “science” by legislative dictate in order to appease the mob. Which is to say, it isn’t science.

There are thousands of LGBT blogs advocating to what they call transgender rights. The word “right” has been bastardized beyond meaning, but the gist of the articles on these blogs is that the science really doesn’t matter when it comes to transgenderism. What matters is the stigma. So whether people are objectively wrong about their own bodies or not, the only important concern is the feelings those people have. And this at least is consistent. If feelings are more important than the human body, why wouldn’t they be more important than a human intellectual pursuit like science?

Not a single article I could find articulated a case for transgenderism based on logic or biological factors. The closest I could find were articles discussing the structure of brains in those who are mistaken about their sex, but by nature these arguments can say little about the merits of treating transgenderism as normal and healthy. Just as the presence of people born without legs can say little about the merits of treating such a condition as normal and healthy. In both cases, it is the incredible rarity of both that negates the claim to normalcy, and frustration of natural ends that negates the claim to health.

I expected to come across something that resembled an argument, and the closest I got was a few self-described “mental health workers” talking about their experience treating people who believed themselves to be the opposite sex. Even in these cases, there was no argumentation. There was simply an irritated reaction.

Even on the topic of hormone blockers, I found people simply defending the practice of disrupting human health on the basis of dignity. Why is it dignified to take hormone blockers? No one seems to know.

So, in the end, I discovered that the transgender movement is based on assertions, is propagated by force and threat of force, and is justified by sentimentality. This isn’t too far off from what I had expected, but to find nothing at all outside of this shallowness was a little surprising.

Weak Christianity

I encountered an unfortunate article on MereOrthodoxy this afternoon that had me remove the website from my subscription list. I have a big enough list as it is, so poorly thought and poorly written articles cause me to prune it down.

The article was about how bad Trump and Cruz are, and why the author would abstain from voting if Cruz were the nominee. I’m not sure why Trump was even brought up in the article, since the headline was about Cruz specifically. The author says, in essence, that a vote for Cruz is mere desperation of a dead “Religious Right” movement.

It had me thinking, though not about what it was supposed to have me think about. I thought instead about how today, Christians demand perfection in areas they will never get it (politics), while tolerating evil where they should never have it (in churches, accepting the sexual revolution, anti-intellectualism, etc).

We have a spineless church, unwilling to be involved in any part of the world unless that involvement is done through perfect ambassadors. We have a church that won’t vote for Cruz because he is imperfect, and will therefore help Hillary, who supports all sorts of evil. It’s the two-story view that separates the world of morals from the world of practicality taken to its most extreme.

Cruz is not a Savior. But he’ll probably fight government-funded abortions. He isn’t an Apostle. But he’ll probably stand up for religious freedom. He isn’t the way to God. But he will probably be a good president. If this isn’t good enough, nothing will ever be, and such Christians ought to just admit that they’d rather retire into a monastic order and just wait this whole pre-heaven thing out. Which, unfortunately, is an insult to monastic orders.

Abortion Better than Life for Orphans?

I encountered this image, courtesy of “FeministsUnited” or some such group on Facebook:

1936676_1010325192346341_7322814247370481349_n

Three problems are obvious after reading it.

First, many pro-life people do adopt children. Some even forgo having children of their own in order to adopt. Pro-lifers also donate millions of their dollars to help care for children who have no parents in their lives.

Second, there is another alternative to abortion and adoption: not getting pregnant in the first place. While leftist feminists will immediately bring up rape when this is pointed out, the fact is that rape accounts for a very small fraction of pregnancies. Enough that, thankfully, it is a rare exception and not a rule. For the vast majority of what feminists might call “unwanted” children, the children were brought into existence by the immature behavior of their parents. Had the parents taken responsibility for their actions, the children would not require adoption.

Third, and most important, this position requires the person who holds it to affirm the following statement: It is better for a child to die than to live in circumstances I find unsatisfactory. This brings to mind the origin of Planned Parenthood and its mission of eugenics.

A person who is pro-life is condemned for focusing on the barbaric slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn and innocent children while not doing enough for orphans, where enough is never defined. A person who is pro-abortion is praised for giving human life value based on the circumstances of birth. Far from being “pro-choice” as the slogan goes, the pro-abortionist denies any choice to the only innocent party involved.

You can tell, based on the existence of images like this, that supporters of abortion know they are defending moral bankruptcy and horrific depravity. Else, they wouldn’t try to stretch so far to find justification. If abortion were not from hell, why act like it needs to be defended? If unborn children are just masses of tissue, why abandon the argument?

As for the girl in the back of the text, the pro-abortionist must be willing to say that she ought to have been murdered before birth. I dare them to do so.

How to Tell If Your Religious Liberties are Being Violated

Religious liberty is the freedom to practice one’s religion as dictated by that religion. However, the Constitution was not written by religious pluralists or modern secularists who were ignorant of the massive and insurmountable differences between non-Christian faiths and the idea of a free republic grounded on natural rights given by God. Hence Joseph Story, one of the greatest constitutional scholars in American history, and associate justice of the Supreme Court, wrote:

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.

That’s politically incorrect, even if historically accurate, so what would a modern person say in response? Probably something close to this mess of poor thinking:

You are legally allowed to marry the person you love. Like your sibling or parent.

You are legally allowed to marry the person you love. Like your sibling or parent.

“Your liberties are being violated if…”

  1. “… you are not allowed to attend a religious service of your choosing”. This in practice would prevent Christian churches from practicing church discipline, since it could be argued that anyone removed from the church for their unrepentant acts is having their “religious liberty violated”.
  2. “… you are not allowed to legally marry the person you love.” For the past fifty years, marriage has been stripped of its meaning to the point that this line is considered profound by a contemporary person in America. “All you need is love”. Nothing intrinsic to this definition prevents group marriages. A whole county could get married! And it certainly doesn’t prevent siblings from marrying or a father from marrying his son or daughter. Families love each other; why not have the whole family “marry”?
  3. “… you are not allowed to teach your children creation stories of your faith, in your own home.” As long as you realize you are an idiot who hates science, you bigot. Which, when taken with the right half of the image, is exactly what’s being said. How dare you not be a philosophical naturalist? Don’t worry. The public schools that have your children captive for 6-8 hours a day will fix the problem and teach them that all your beliefs are ignorant and backward. Because Science!

“Your liberties are not being violated if…”

  1. “… someone else is allowed to marry the person they love no matter what your religion says.” Like a parent marrying their child, or a group getting married. And God help you if you deny them a wedding cake. That would be equivalent to denying them the right to get married, you bigot. There is clearly no difference between denying a person on account of how they get their sexual kicks and denying a particular service because you disagree with it – like maybe a cake for a man marrying his daughter or a woman marrying herself.
  2. ” … you are unable to prevent others from using birth control.” In the strictest sense this is true. Your liberties are not violated because the woman who lives across the street from you is using birth control. However, some forms of birth control are abortion-inducing, and ending someone’s life certainly seems to be a violation of that person’s liberty. I suppose that’s why the euphemism “fetus” (which just means child in another language) is used instead. Makes it less obvious what you’re doing, and it’s only wrong if you feel it is, right? But what happens if you are, say, a Christian or anyone in America who lived before the 1960’s, and you believe abortion and drugs that induce it is murder, yet you owned a business and had to provide health care? Doubtless, the author of this image would find you contemptible for thinking your religious beliefs are violated just because you are certain on scientific and philosophical grounds that you are paying to murder children. Bigot.
  3. “… public school science classes are teaching children science.” And by “science”, it means philosophical naturalism. But “science” just sounds so much more… scientific.

The image fails to mention a few things though. Here are some other ways that your religious liberties could be violated:

  • You are forced, under threat of bankruptcy, to provide services for events you do not support. Like a cake for a same-sex “marriage” (something everyone agreed was a contradiction five short years ago). Or posters for a neo-Nazi rally. Or fliers for a pedophile club. There is a difference between denying a service on account of what the service itself is, and denying a service on the basis that you don’t like the person you are serving. Don’t expect modern people to grasp this distinction over their frothing-at-the-mouth rage.
  • You are forced to provide abortion services through your tax dollars via Planned Parenthood, that beacon of eugenics and murderer of more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined.
  • You are told that you must keep your religious beliefs in the closet and that politics cannot involve your worldview. Only naturalistic atheists can keep their most fundamental beliefs with them to inform political decisions. Christians must abandon their most fundamental beliefs and become naturalistic atheists when writing law.