Comical liberal reasoning on gun control

While liberals have emotionally blinded themselves so totally that they believe they’re taking compassionate, intellectual, well-crafted stands, this is how they sound to everyone who’s not a liberal…

4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven’t broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we’re sure won’t enter “gun-free zones” for some reason. Unless they do…. Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law.

Quote source

Hawkins, J. (2014). 6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe. Town Hall. Available http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/18/6-arguments-only-a-liberal-could-believe-n1810570/page/full. Last accessed 11th Oct 2014.

Gender studies courses as indoctrination

Spencer Case asked:

The question is: there is a kind of tension between, I think, more traditional type philosophers and people who are into feminism, gender studies, this kind of stuff. I’m sort of the mind that these fields inject politics and political activism too much into philosophy. But they have responses to that. One of their responses is: “We’re concerned about justice, we’re concerned about authority, and these really are perennial philosophical issues.”

Roger Scruton answered:

Yeah, sure. There is plenty of room for people to include as part of the philosophical discussions of justice the whole question about the relation between man and woman, all the questions that feminists consider. There’s absolutely no reason why that shouldn’t be included. But, if the assumption is that one has to be a feminist, one has to arrive at a particular conclusion as a result of studying this, then what is involved is not philosophical discussion but ideology. The whole defining nature of philosophy is that you start from free inquiry and you don’t actually know what you’re going to come up with as a result of your arguments. To think that you have to have the conclusion prior to the investigation is effectually to say that this is a form of indoctrination.

 

Putting the epistemological onus on the atheist

Dr Jonathan Sarfati…responded to show that Christians need not play by self-serving new rules made up by their opponents…

And we often point out that the design in living organisms is evidence of an intelligent designer. If this is not evidence, then it’s worth asking: what evidence would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, whether by human design or by any other intelligence?…

Conversely, the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refuting—perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals.

Quote source

Sarfati, J. (2007). Atheism is more rational? Creation Ministries International. Available http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational. Last accessed 11th Oct 2014.

Ruben Schade’s shallowness vs. Malcolm Pollack’s depth

According to Ruben:

What I will say sir is that what a woman does with her own body — or a man with his for that matter — is none of the State’s business.

But Malcolm, responding to a similar kind of rhetoric, exposes the shallowness of that position:

Regarding “the personal responsibility to decide whether to bring a pregnancy to term”: by posing the question in this way, you simply sweep under the rug the central issue, which is whether abortion affects a second, otherwise defenseless party whose rights deserve to be considered.

Quote sources

  1. Schade, R. (2010). Trevor Grace’s South Aussie leaflet thing. Rubénerd. Available http://rubenerd.com/trevor-grace-leaflet/. Last accessed 11th Oct 2014.
  2. Pollack, M. (2013). Sugar Daddy. Waka Waka Waka. Available http://malcolmpollack.com/2013/07/31/sugar-daddy/#comment-471446. Last accessed 11th Oct 2014.

Government ‘shutdowns’ and their semantic deception

In fact, the vast majority of the American government’s bills will still be paid in a shut down. That’s because the government’s version of a ‘shut down’ really means living within your means. Running a balanced budget might be something you do every day, but to politicians and economists it’s a devastating concept. One that could reduce American economic growth by a whopping 1.4% in the fourth quarter. Golly gumdrops, 1.4%! The Americans, being American, annualise their GDP growth figures. So 1.4% in the fourth quarter is really just 0.35% to the rest of the world.

Quote source

Hubble, N. (2013). The US Government Shutdown: A Stumbling Empire in Decline. The Daily Reckoning Australia. Available http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/the-us-government-shutdown-a-stumbling-empire-in-decline/2013/09/30/. Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Claiming health and naturalness—yet popping The Pill

As a culture, we are increasingly cautious about consuming hormones and other “unnatural” products.  We eat eggs from free-range, hormone-free chickens.  We are incensed by the existence of CAFOs [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations]. Government agencies are investigating the labeling of genetically modified foods.  High-fructose corn syrup and other “artificial” products are on most people’s no-no list.  And justifiably so—such things aren’t good for us.

And yet, we see nothing amiss in promoting—nay, pushing—“women’s health” in the form of encouraging girls at younger and younger ages to start dosing themselves with extra hormones, and by requiring insurance companies to provide such “medical” necessities free of charge.  America’s female elite sees nothing amiss in popping their morning mini-pill before heading out to their gardens to cultivate their own vegetables or picking up the most recent edition of Backyard Poultry.

Quote source

King, N. (2014). Why the Hobby Lobby Decision Is Not About “Women’s Health”. The Family in America. Volume 28, No. 1. Available http://familyinamerica.org/blog/2014/07/why-hobby-lobby-decision-not-about-womens-health/. Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.

Shining the spotlight on scientism

David Attenborough asserts that:

In the not too distant future, there are certainly going to be major problems: problems about climate change, problems about increasing density of population. There will be a problem too about power – how are we to generate power.

Science will produce the answer. What the answer will be, I don’t know. But I’m perfectly certain that it is science that will find it for us.

Bill Vallicella states that:

The theological virtues are three: faith, hope, and charity. The scientistic virtues are two: faith and hope. The scientistic types, pinning their hopes on future science, are full of faith in things unseen, things that are incomprehensible now but will, they hope, become comprehensible in the fullness of time. They thirst less for justice and righteousness than for the final slaying of the dragon of the Hard Problem that stands between them and the paradise of naturalism.

Quote sources

  1. Attenborough, D. (2010). Genius of Britain. Episode 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAUkYkY33cQ. Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.
  2. Vallicella, B. (2013). The Theological Virtues and the Scientistic Virtues. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/04/the-theological-virtues-and-the-scientistic-virtues.html. Last accessed 4th Oct 2014.