Children are taught not to “fight” in the modern age, a stricture applied not only to physical conflict, but also verbal ones. Dinner tables oft forbid any discussion of politics or religion, as if we should aim to sacrifice truth to indifference, cowardice, or appeasement — in service of the masquerade of “keeping the peace”.
Along the lines of your article, I think that many today have lost the humility necessary to admit their knowledge may be imperfect or incomplete. This is a necessary characteristic needed for engaging in a genuine argument. With the wealth of human knowledge and the volumes of recorded history too large for any one person to learn, most people economize and accept a default view of thing that is accepted by their peer group, or pushed by the media. It takes courage and humility to question and push past the default to confirm, expand, or change their understanding.
The Scholastics did this, always arguing a point from several positions being put forth on the issue before drawing their conclusions - thus proving their claims. Think Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. This method formed / is the basis of our Western University system and the scientific method. Yes, we all need to take it back, as in conquer evil with good as the doctrine of Jesus Christ instructs his disciples.
I have a slightly different perspective on the subject and you may consider it just semantics.
My mantra is " I will discuss anything with anyone but argue with no one " . Arguments implies an entrenched position and that you are unwilling to concede another point of view at any time in the future.
The points you have raised, I find deeply frustrating as most people have a fixed view, and particularly following the Government's diktats, but they can not OR will not substantiate their view with reasoned data and information. This I found particularly true with Covid, what they believed is
" Settled Science " and there was no room for discussion and if you started to substantiate your position they would either stand there dumbfounded or just walk away.
The largest problem in society, on this topic , is with those that are employed especially in
Governments.
If you discuss / disagree with your superiors you could be told to be quiet , be out of the running for promotion or if they feel really aggrieved you will be dismissed from your employment.
So this is why there is a massive disincentive to take an alternative view and is endemic in
" Newspapers " and Television stations.
I find it rather ironic the two top universities in England have Debating Societies.
"We all have obligations of self-betterment in service of God and fellow man."
A true and beautiful sentiment. And I hate to be argumentative, but the problem with rational discussion in the 21st century is not us. The leftists make false claims, will never compromise, never change their minds when they are wrong (e.g. about whether men can really be women), never change their policies when they are proven to cause great harm.
Leftists DO NOT BELIEVE that they have obligations of self-betterment in service of God and fellow man. We on the right can discuss things literally in good faith, but believing that we can make progress by using reason with leftists is a false hope, I am afraid. When has it ever worked?
We will never run out of "wrong thinking" people to disagree with. So if left of centre is to stop growing, we have to either shift the goal posts, (the centre line), or hope that someone changes their ways. Maybe don't call them leftists? They might just be assholes.
The goal is to leave the playing field. If you are a leftist and burn things down, you are actually just an arsonist. If you are a leftist and revising history, you are actually just an asshole. Criminals hide behind false identity. Just call them out for what they are.
Also, isn't the 9th amendment just a "free pass" for humans to claim anything as a "right"? Therefore making it more difficult to say "no" this goes against Christianity?
Yes. All crime, no matter what it is, must have a similar consequence if you're going to deter the next criminal from committing the same. Let's be honest. If humanity didn't follow Satan as they do and we didn't stray from or ignore the original laws of the commandments, we wouldn't be in this position. Simple? Yes. Barbaric? (Matter of opinion) . But an excellent deterrent none the less.
I would like to point out that our right to bear arms does not come from God but from the Constitution. A document which, if examined closely, strays quite far from the Old testament.
The Founders who wrote it didn't believe themselves to be "creating rights", for they believed in natural law, with man's rights being given by God. Without natural law and the Divine origin of rights, the 9th Amendment makes no sense at all.
Along the lines of your article, I think that many today have lost the humility necessary to admit their knowledge may be imperfect or incomplete. This is a necessary characteristic needed for engaging in a genuine argument. With the wealth of human knowledge and the volumes of recorded history too large for any one person to learn, most people economize and accept a default view of thing that is accepted by their peer group, or pushed by the media. It takes courage and humility to question and push past the default to confirm, expand, or change their understanding.
Thank you. That's quite insightful.
The Scholastics did this, always arguing a point from several positions being put forth on the issue before drawing their conclusions - thus proving their claims. Think Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. This method formed / is the basis of our Western University system and the scientific method. Yes, we all need to take it back, as in conquer evil with good as the doctrine of Jesus Christ instructs his disciples.
As always you are correct in your assertions.
I have a slightly different perspective on the subject and you may consider it just semantics.
My mantra is " I will discuss anything with anyone but argue with no one " . Arguments implies an entrenched position and that you are unwilling to concede another point of view at any time in the future.
The points you have raised, I find deeply frustrating as most people have a fixed view, and particularly following the Government's diktats, but they can not OR will not substantiate their view with reasoned data and information. This I found particularly true with Covid, what they believed is
" Settled Science " and there was no room for discussion and if you started to substantiate your position they would either stand there dumbfounded or just walk away.
The largest problem in society, on this topic , is with those that are employed especially in
Governments.
If you discuss / disagree with your superiors you could be told to be quiet , be out of the running for promotion or if they feel really aggrieved you will be dismissed from your employment.
So this is why there is a massive disincentive to take an alternative view and is endemic in
" Newspapers " and Television stations.
I find it rather ironic the two top universities in England have Debating Societies.
--
"We all have obligations of self-betterment in service of God and fellow man."
A true and beautiful sentiment. And I hate to be argumentative, but the problem with rational discussion in the 21st century is not us. The leftists make false claims, will never compromise, never change their minds when they are wrong (e.g. about whether men can really be women), never change their policies when they are proven to cause great harm.
Leftists DO NOT BELIEVE that they have obligations of self-betterment in service of God and fellow man. We on the right can discuss things literally in good faith, but believing that we can make progress by using reason with leftists is a false hope, I am afraid. When has it ever worked?
A. When we stopped calling them Leftists.
We will never run out of "wrong thinking" people to disagree with. So if left of centre is to stop growing, we have to either shift the goal posts, (the centre line), or hope that someone changes their ways. Maybe don't call them leftists? They might just be assholes.
The goal is to leave the playing field. If you are a leftist and burn things down, you are actually just an arsonist. If you are a leftist and revising history, you are actually just an asshole. Criminals hide behind false identity. Just call them out for what they are.
Also, isn't the 9th amendment just a "free pass" for humans to claim anything as a "right"? Therefore making it more difficult to say "no" this goes against Christianity?
Is there a divine right to weaponry of any kind? And would that not go against "thou shall not kill"?
An eye for an eye ?
Yes. All crime, no matter what it is, must have a similar consequence if you're going to deter the next criminal from committing the same. Let's be honest. If humanity didn't follow Satan as they do and we didn't stray from or ignore the original laws of the commandments, we wouldn't be in this position. Simple? Yes. Barbaric? (Matter of opinion) . But an excellent deterrent none the less.
I would like to point out that our right to bear arms does not come from God but from the Constitution. A document which, if examined closely, strays quite far from the Old testament.
The Founders who wrote it didn't believe themselves to be "creating rights", for they believed in natural law, with man's rights being given by God. Without natural law and the Divine origin of rights, the 9th Amendment makes no sense at all.
Hello Joseph,
if you have not read the book below it will increase your depth of knowledge on the subject of the " holocaust " : it is not as one race portrays it.
Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality
Nicholas Kollerstrom Foreword by James Fetze
https://archive.org/details/BreakingTheSpellTheHolocaustMythAndReality/page/n7/mode/2up