Liberals and the Mass Neurosis of Political Correctness

Posted in Politics
Wed, Jul 23 - 9:00 am EDT | 3 years ago by
Comments: 175
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    The Wright Perspective - Liberty

    Tyranny is the default state of mankind.

    From the first primitive tribes under the paternal leadership of their elders to the most decadent years of the Pharaohs of Egypt or the God-Kings of Babylon, the Emperors of Rome or of Japan, the default assumption was that the great men were ordained by heaven to rule over the lesser men, allegedly for their own good. The idea that men were unequal, not just in wealth and rank, but in their innate, inner worth, their spiritual worth, is universal and worldwide.

    Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality. Christian princes held a higher rank than a pauper, but both knew that both would be naked on Judgment Day. Both knew that Saint Louis was no more nor less a saint than Saint Francis, albeit one was a prince and the other a pauper; both knew the laws of God applied equally to both. This concept was clarified and refined through the ages until, in America, a second new concept was introduced into human history, the concept of the people acting as their own prince, acting without a prince, merely with the law as their leader, and the state would be ordained by men, not by heaven, to act only in a limited sphere. It was an ideal of a small and limited government ruled by rules rather than by princes.

    The mass neurosis called Political Correctness (sometimes called Leftism or Liberalism or Progressivism or Morlockery) is the old days back again. It is the old system of government we had in the Stone Ages, where the tribal chief acted as father and priest and god-king, and in his expert wisdom, decided each detail of anything that concerned the tribe. Political Correctness is the old corrupt system of the Pharaohs and Tyrants and Sultans of the East, unlimited government, government by courtiers, government by cronies, government in every nook and smallest crevasse of life.

    It is the claim that we have persons who have an innate and inner superiority to us. By happy coincidence, our superiors happen to be them, the very people who lust over power over us and over each last tiny details of our lives and thought.

    Unlike the princes of old, the would-be Pharaohs do not claim that the gods or the karma of the universe ordains them: they merely claim to be wiser and better than you on the grounds that… well… on the grounds that Political Correctness has impeded their thought and uprooted their normal senses of shame and decency.

    They claim to be smarter than the common man on the grounds that they think all thinking is vain. They claim to be more moral than the common man on the ground that they support untruth and all dishonesty, theft and all fraud, sodomy and all sexual perversion.

    Political Correctness can be identified by two recurring patterns of behavior:

    First, the cultists do not mean what civilized men mean by ‘correctness’. We mean something is ‘correct’ when it comports with reality, that is it agrees with truth, virtue, beauty, logic, love or fidelity. Reality is not a Morlockian concern. The Morlocks are concerned with what the cult says is correct. For them, ‘correct’ means obedience. ‘Correct’ means agreeing with Big Brother, even when he changes his mind on a dime or flatly contradicts himself.

    This means they always side with falsehood over truth.

    Second, the cultists do not mean what civilized men mean by ‘politics.’ We mean the art and practice of creating and sustaining policies, laws and customs prudently calculated to secure both the public weal and personal rights, namely to life and liberty and property. By our definition, politics is concerned with measures of peace and war, public decency, keeping the peace, deterring crime, securing to each man the rights to the fruits of his labor, and so on. Everything outside this sphere (and it is most of life) is personal, including how you should brush your teeth and whom you should marry.

    For politics properly so called is not a Morlock concern. They have no interest in laws and customs except to destroy them. Their interest is in a theoretical polity whose leader, Big Brother, a creature of godlike benevolence and infinite wisdom, will intrude into all aspects of life down to the least unspoken thought. By his expert wisdom, Big Brother will decree an end to all human suffering, and, while he is at it, decree an end to all human limitations, rules, limits and the law of cause and effect.

    The rights of man are no concern of the Big Brother, but instead impede and hinder the rapid execution of his benevolent and always-perfect wisdom. Precedent is no more than the dead hand of the past strangling the brilliant innovations of Big Brother, and likewise can be done away with. Equality is an illusion, since inequality is the outcome of equal laws, equal laws must be done away with as well, so that each man stands, rightless and naked, protected by no precedence, before the unlimited power of Big Brother. Law is abolished, and each man is judged only by his race, his class, his party loyalty, not on the merits of his case.

    Those who support this vision, whether they know it or not, whether they admit it or not, always prefer untrammeled and arbitrary power over the solemnities of the law and the bulwarks of custom.

    This means they always side with tyranny over liberty.

    Those who support this vision, whether they know it or not, whether they admit it or not, always prefer an unreal and impossible solution promised by an untrammeled government over the messy world of real life with its compromises and costs.

    This means they always side with unreality over reality.

    Instead of reality, where, for example, one may not consume a good before it is produced, Political Correctness dwells in Make Believe Land, where the thing is true if we all believe it with all our hearts, squinting our eyes and clenching our wee little fists. And if it does not come true, it is your fault for not believing in Big Brother hard enough.

    Instead of politics, which is the pragmatic art of how to run a real polity, given the confines of nature of reality, the confines of our budget, and the confines of the nature of man, the Morlocks have a pseudo-religion which extends to all aspects of life and demands total conviction of the total person, his whole soul, so to speak. They call it political, but it is not.

    PC says what one may and may not think: one may only think Politically Correct thoughts, since to do otherwise is bigotry and stupidity.

    PC says what one may and may not say: one may not use English in its normal and proper use, but must adopt a complex and changing vocabulary of Dr. Seuss-style make believe words (cismale, heteronormative, islamophobic) which have emotional impact but no intellectual meaning.

    PC says what may and may not be concluded in science. For a time, physical science was the one area of learning that was not politicized. That time is passed.

    If science shows a disparity of IQ test scores between races, or a disparity in interest in math and physics between the sexes, then that result is blanked out of existence, and the cultists use the power of make believe to make believe that this cannot happen. If science fails to show a global warming trend or a global cooling trend (or whatever the trend happens to be during the current news cycle of ecological scare stories) then the scientific consensus falsifies the data, and anyone who is skeptical, that is, anyone who does real science, is denounced as a heretic or a denier or a racist.

    PC says what may and may not be thought in philosophy. You are not only not allowed to believe in God, since that would be racist and patriarchal and reactionary, you are not allowed to believe in the philosophical concepts which civilized theologians and philosophers across the ages have deduced are commensurate with belief in god, those selfsame metaphysical concepts like truth, virtue, beauty, reason, love, fidelity.

    The only thing better than being a reductionist materialist (this means someone who believes all thought is defined and determined by matter in motion) is to be a nihilist and hence not to believe in any metaphysical concepts at all, not to do philosophy at all, not to think at all.

    Philosophy is confusing and leads to disagreements, and it is probably racist and sexist and cismasculine and heteronormative and islamophobic and doubleplusungood.

    PC says what you can and cannot do with your sexual partners.

    Now, since the great and single selling point of PC is that it allegedly permits everything and anything with any sexual partner of any persuasion, orientation, species, number or age, you are no doubt shocked at this bold claim this topic is one more where PC calls for strict controls.

    Rest assured I am completely serious: PC merely reverses what is normal. Monogamy is not forbidden, but it is mocked and discouraged and called oppression; and virginity, chastity, continence and self-control is actively discouraged and mocked.

    And we monogamists, we Catholics, those of us who say sexual reproduction is for sexual reproduction, we are demonized when we meekly ask not to be forced to pay for your harlots to kill their babies in the womb. We are not bold enough to ask your harlots not to kill their babies, nor are we asking them not to be harlots; but merely for the effrontery of asking not to fund your murderous carnal evil, we are denounced as sexists making a war on women.

    Do you see how the reversal works? We want to get out of your bedroom, but you want our wallet to stay. We want to get out of your lives, and you demand we bake your wedding cake, throw you your party, rent you your hall, and participate in your evil and celebrate it, so that we are dirtied along with you.

    PC says what you are supposed to believe about history, about ecology, about art, about language. It says what jokes can be said or not said. It says whether you call the year 2014 A.D. or 2014 C.E.

    PC dictates your opinion on the skin color of the men who built the pyramids, or whether you may use the word ‘men’ to refer to all human beings as opposed to males only. PC says how much gas mileage your automobile should have, or the volume your flush toilet.

    PC says whether you tip your hat to a lady or hold a door. It says whether you are allowed to defend yourself from an attacker based on the attacker’s skin color, but not based on whether he attacks you. PC says how much carbon monoxide can be released when a cow farts.

    Wherever you are, right now, reading this, look up and look around you. Every manmade object in your immediate environment, dear reader, is one where PC has made a pronouncement or a regulation, and half the natural objects too. Everything – everything from the weather to the groundwater to the use of pronouns to the reckoning of the calendar.

    Everything is supposed to be under control, so that the worthless have all their needs provided and have no responsibilities whatsoever. That is their concept and their philosophy.

    Our concept is liberty. Liberty means each man is responsible for himself, and responsible to himself.

    Read last week’s column: The Secret to the Most Mind-Blowing Sex Ever.

    John C. Wright is a retired attorney and newspaperman who was only once hunted by the police. He is a graduate of St. John College (home of Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books Program). In 2004 he foreswore his lifelong atheism and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He has published over 10 SF novels, including one nominated for a Nebula award, and was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” He currently lives in fairytale-like happiness with his wife, the authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter, and their four children.

    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • MarthaGHoskinson

        just as
        Robert answered I am impressed that a mom can profit $8694 in 4 weeks on the
        internet . Visit Website C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

      • Ben

        Excellent.

        • The Captain

          OMG! Some people are telling us TO BE NICE… and they DARE to tell us ‘If you neither think nor act as a good person would do, you probably are one’ they are so mean! And all the complicated words they demand us to use, OMG!

          PC in simple English:
          I you behave, think and speak like a fuckhead, you probably are one.
          Easy, isn’t it?

          I’ll tell you something: People complaining about me demanding niceness usually cry like babies when I stop being nice to THEM.
          When useless scum really believes in tyranny then they should better bow to their superiors.

        • Shawn Smith

          No, PC in simple English: If you dissent even slightly from our prescribed orthodoxy, we will destroy you by any means possible.

      • PhoenicianRomans

        Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.

        Herodotus, _The Histories_, 3.80.

        Written 440 BC.

        Idiot.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          And, for that matter, 5:78

          “So the Athenians grew in power and proved, not in one respect only but
          in all, that equality is a good thing. Evidence for this is the fact
          that while they were under tyrannical rulers, the Athenians were no
          better in war than any of their neighbors, yet once they got rid of
          their tyrants, they were by far the best of all. This, then, shows that
          while they were oppressed, they were, as men working for a master,
          cowardly, but when they were freed, each one was eager to achieve for
          himself.”

          So the concepts of equality and individualism existed well before Christ. Which suggests that your entire piece is based on nothing but false assumptions prompted by a right-wing Christian bias, displaying a marked inability to engage with the reality lying outside that bias.

        • Lol

          Or you are falsely equating the ancient Hellenistic concept of freedom and individualism, a trope far more concerned with a generic political message of Greek superiority over their “barbarian” neighbors (hence their easy acceptance of slavery and treatment of women as property while still claiming to be champions of freedom), with the virtue of equality as we see it today. While a Greek man of property living in Athens might have considered another man of property his equal, he in no way saw a slave or woman as his equal. Nor were they treated as such under the law. If you had tried to explain our concept of equality to the average Greek he would have thought you insane.

          Even if you wanted to argue the point that the concepts existed in a gestalt state prior to the rise of Christendom you would still be stuck trying to explain why every Mediterranean civilization prior to Christianity was essentially built on the back of slaves. Of course, slavery persisted even after the rise of Christianity, but it was only within the Christian framework of society that it began to disappear.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Or you are falsely equating the ancient Hellenistic concept of freedom and individualism, a trope far more concerned with a generic political message of Greek superiority over their “barbarian” neighbors (hence their easy acceptance of slavery and treatment of women as property while still claiming to be champions of freedom), with the virtue of equality as we see it today.

          Nope – I made no such equation. If your point is that the concept of freedom has evolved, then I completely agree. It is still evolving – as witness the current struggle to free secular marriage from the strictures of one particular religion.

          But this is irrelevant. You are attempting to set up a strawman to detract from my point.

          Wright stated “Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.”.

          Wright has been shown to be, of course, wrong. This is a good demonstration of his bias and inability to deal with reality.

          And you give the game away here : Of course, slavery persisted even after the rise of Christianity, but it was only within the Christian framework of society that it began to disappear.

          Slavery is compatible with Christianity. Indeed, slavery is supported by the Bible and the Bible has been quoted directly by apologists in justification of slavery. Consider Leviticus 25:44-46 or 1 Timothy 6:1-2.

          Slavery is known in just about every ancient civilization before Christ above a simple chiefdom. However, this is also true of just about every civilization after Christ – with Papal Bulls supporting it. It only started to really disappear as technology progressed.

          But this is, as I have said, irrelevant to the point.

          Wright stated “Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.”.

          Wright has been shown to be, of course, wrong. This is a good demonstration of his bias and inability to deal with reality.

        • Shawn Smith

          “from the strictures of one particular religion”

          Wow. You really aren’t that smart, huh? A more accurate statement would be the foundational definition of every society on earth up until the late twentieth century. For someone who claims to know a lot about history, you’re wearing some pretty heavy blinders.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Uh-huh.

          http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

          You might want to ask yourself why the Theodosian
          Code felt it necessary to forbid same-sex marriages…

          And that doesn’t address the point that several religions, including some Christian sects, accept same-sex marriage now. Why should any one religious definition be imposed on secular marriage?

        • Shawn Smith

          Well, that’s a fantastic example of totally ignoring my point. Like I just said, it wasn’t just one religion. It was every society on EARTH up until the late twentieth century.

          Was this a matter of law in ancient Rome, or was it just a few depraved upper-class people play-acting? I think we both know the answer.

          Tell you what. I’ll answer your question if you answer one for me. Address Chesterton’s Fence regarding homosexual “marriage”, please. If you don’t know the term, look it up.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Well, that’s a fantastic example of totally ignoring my point. Like I just said, it wasn’t just one religion. It was every society on EARTH up until the late twentieth century.

          And I showed that you were wrong. Same-sex marriage existed in pre-Christian Rome.

          Tell you what. I’ll answer your question if you answer one for me. Address Chesterton’s Fence regarding homosexual “marriage”, please. If you don’t know the term, look it up.

          Simple enough –

          Firstly, I observe that pre-Christian Rome had same-sex marriage, and that the Christians changed this. You are now in a position of arguing that the Christian banning of same-sex marriage shouldn’t have occurred unless they could show that they “fully understood” why the Romans allowed it.

          Secondly, Chesterton made a fundamental error in using this metaphor

          http://theweek.com/article/index/264305/conservatives-are-in-denial-on-the-nature-of-change

          And lastly, I point to pragmatics – we know the ban on same-sex marriage hurts people. We know no valid secular justification has been advanced and survived scrutiny. We know that our laws should be predicated on advancing human liberty. And lastly we know that allowing same -sex marriage seems to have no bad effects on society. Denmark allowed de facto marriages in 1989, and the Netherlands allowed de jure marriages in 2001. Neither of them have been destroyed by God’s holy wrath.

        • Shawn Smith

          No, you haven’t remotely answered my question. You haven’t even answered my smaller question. Were these “marriages” a society-wide matter, recognized by law? Or were they essentially a joke? A little game between upper class deviants?

          Do you have evidence that these “weddings” led to “marriages” that meant anything before Roman law?

          And yes, all of the bad effects of a new social policy show up immediately and obviously. You’ve sure got me there. If there were some pernicious effect of radically altering a fundamental social institution, it would certainly show up the very next day, and the connections would be plain and undeniable.

          Chesterton’s Fence still stands, and you haven’t told me why it should be moved.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          No, you haven’t remotely answered my question.

          I did. You just don’t want to deal with the answers.

          And now it’s time for you to keep your promise.

          Why should any one religious definition be imposed on secular marriage?

          Do you intend to keep your promise, Shawn, are you going to demonstrate yourself to be a typical right-wing Christian moralizer?

        • Montague

          Actually, Mr. Wright does not argue for a Christian definition of marriage, except insofar as we need something that doesn’t contradict Christian teaching. He is arguing for the “matrimonial” position on marriage, as opposed to the “libertarian.”

          http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/on-the-sexual-nature-of-man/

          While there is truth in saying the term “traditional marriage” is not used properly, what the Catholic Church and other likeminded philosophers want is not a religious definition of marriage in the courts, but rather, law capable of recognizing a Christian marriage, or a Roman marriage, or a marriage in distant Mongolia, etc. etc.; which under the modern definition (wherein no-fault divorce is legal) the law cannot, at least to a full extent.

          As for the argument for the matrimonial (fault divorce only) view on marriage/sexuality, that is a separate matter; the link attached has a cursory examination of the matter by Mr. Wright, first written before he was a Christian (if I remember correctly).

          The analysis on Chesterton’s Fence in the linked article is poor, because it doesn’t distinguish between good change and bad change; that is to say, it assumes that if the fence gets dirty, that’s okay. It’s a game of shifting moral goalposts, rather than society kicking the ball, or rather dropping the ball, on its moral duties per natural law, which is Chesterton’s actual point – that naturally, people and society turn rotten. In nature, bodies die and rot. That’s nature; and homeostasis is hard work. I, for one, still don’t plan on dying of starvation soon. Or to quip from Chesterton again: “only a living thing is capable of going against the flow.” (that’s from memory so it might be a rough quote)

          Not to mention they assume ethical theory is merely a matter of dominant power structures, which is bullshit. You have to have real moral principles and a moral science – no “turtles all the way down.” No molding morality according to your will. The Christian (if, unfortunately, not always “conservative”) view of general ethics is based on Natural Law – and the Left must defeat natural law arguments before it can say we have no basis, or rather, that whatever we are defending is not worth defending.

          Apologies for rambling.

          -Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          Perhaps I am misunderstanding here, but: “but rather, law capable of recognizing a Christian marriage, or a Roman marriage, or a marriage in distant Mongolia, etc. etc.; which under the modern definition (wherein no-fault divorce is legal) the law cannot, at least to a full extent.”

          Presumably, if no-fault divorce were made illegal, there are other marriages that the law could not recognize, and therefore, this problem exists no matter what condition applies?

          Or do you argue for a marriage code that would permit any specific marriage custom, including, say, a same-sex one, so that it is capable of recognizing those marriages as well; that each marriage custom possess its own characteristics under law?

          “You have to have real moral principles and a moral science – no “turtles all the way down.”"

          Present me one that does not rely upon ancient axioms of texts one has no reason to trust or encoded presumptions of the “natural law”.

          I have read the attached link; it contains more logical and sociological errors than this website has margin space to contain ;) — but it is a perfect example of encoded presumptions. By presuming that laws represented social consensus, and social consensus reflects a moral absolute, and then cherrypicking the laws he wishes, he can come to the conclusion he wished to come to in the first place.

        • Montague

          True. I will confess I am not coming to the table with a full list of propositions on what constitutes a proper civil definition of marriage (and there is an argument for a purely social one not defined by the state, because there is something dubious about the state having its hand in family matters – but we’ll leave that aside for now.) Rather, I entered the lists (it appears) of a metaphysical bar fight where the majority are rather less than sober.

          So, more soberly, what is my concrete thesis? That monogamous, exclusive, till-death-do-part, generative marriage (we’ll call it Mcc, for Marriage: christian compatible) is good for society (Gs). Resultantly, Mcc ought to be the law of the land (Lol).

          Thus, arguments for Mcc and against Mm (modern marriage, the is, marriage as a terminable non-generative non-exclusive legal arrangement) will focus on whether Mcc supports a healthy society, and Mm is detrimental to a healthy society. Frankly, whether or not Mcc is traditional is almost a distraction, since it does not directly affect the truth or falsity of “Mcc is Gs.” It is relevant, however, insofar as its history is necessary for historical data, i.e., do we have historical evidence for “Mcc is Gs?”

          I may have left some things out (that are implicit in my position) from by thesis, and if I have, I apologize; but frankly, I am an amateur, so you have been warned. As always, you may look to official Catholic documents to find a more comprehensive natural law theory on marriage.

          I was thinking specifically of the till-death clause (death-terminal marriage) when I said that; but my thesis secretly and unfairly has been all along that marriage is (in historical majority and ethical reality) Mcc – monogamous, death-terminal, etc. My particular complaint was that current American Law cannot recognize death-terminality, that is, you are not actually bound by your wedding vows, legally, to love and protect your wife till death do you part. Or even if your vows do not swear to love your wife (let’s say this is true on the steppes of Mongolia, though I doubt it…) the fact that any vow made is not really a vow, does not produce a legal (and by implied extension, moral) obligation of a binding nature, is (societally speaking) unprecedented in history.

          …Well, to be frank, I can’t make heads or tails of what you said here (“present me one,” etc.) I’m interpreting this to mean “argue for the natural law position without using any texts or claims about natural law,” which, though I admit it may not be your actual request, is kind of a self-defeating question, because it won’t have any answers. If I were to present any axioms, they probably would have been discovered long ago, and thus be part of the natural law argument in ancient books.

          Well, you managed to make your only example of Mr. Wright’s error flat-out wrong. Mr. Wright states that social consensus needn’t reflect the moral absolute, since he argues against the social consensus! I do understand that it’s a rather long essay and not something you’d be inclined to read; but frankly, you show nothing in your analysis to evidence an actual reading of his arguments. You COULD have attacked any of his axioms, OR his historical evidence; but so far, you haven’t. Not to mention what you say is a bit vague on which part of his argument was fallacious, etc.

          Again, sorry for going long, and double apologies for being unforthright on my thesis in the earlier post. Trust me, I’m trying to be, it’s just difficult to keep it all together in a metaphysical bar fight.

        • Steven Schwartz

          We will begin with dryly noting that “(we’ll call it Mcc, for Marriage: christian compatible)” — is to take upon yourself the mantle of all Christians in that regard, to which many would object.

          “but my thesis secretly and unfairly has been all along that marriage is (in historical majority and ethical reality) Mcc – monogamous, death-terminal, etc”

          Given that the religious culture from which Christianity sprang (Judaism), the other large monotheistic religion on the planet (Islam), and many other religions do not feel that marriage needs to be death-terminal, your notion of “historical majority” is rather odd, especially since I doubt it is even a majority position among Christians, defining it as a “historical majority” is dubious at best, and you have presented no argument for it as an “ethical reality”.

          “My particular complaint was that current American Law cannot recognize death-terminality, that is, you are not actually bound by your wedding vows, legally, to love and protect your wife till death do you part.”

          So, you would be content if there were such a form of marriage, in addition to the others, under the same title? And I will point out that, should your marriage last long enough, in some states, spousal support (financial) is, indeed, until death do you part — which makes it unlike almost anything else I can think of under American law, save life imprisonment and some forms of exile.

          “he fact that any vow made is not really a vow, does not produce a legal (and by implied extension, moral) obligation of a binding nature, is (societally speaking) unprecedented in history.”

          Save that, as I have pointed out above, marriage vows across many cultures were treated as binding — they implied obligations and responsibilities — but were not irrevocable “until death”. A binding obligation is not only binding if it is until death.

          Now, if you are bemoaning the fact that we sign contracts for many things instead of making vows, that’s a whole different problem. ;)

          ” I’m interpreting this to mean “argue for the natural law position without using any texts or claims about natural law,”"

          Actually, what it means is that you can make claims about “natural law”, but they are not privileged; they do not stand of their own accord. For example, under most claims of “natural law”, homosexuality is considered “objectively disordered”, or some such; that there is no *evidence* for this other than that it is in the minority is that to which I object, and why I say that most “natural law” claims are effectively ones that rest upon “But this is how we all know it is” from a society already thoroughly infused with a particular set of religious views. It is nothing more than so-called “common sense” wrapped in a cloak of presumed dignity.

          If you want to claim that “natural law” says something, you may; but you ahve to realize that if natural law and, say, sociological science contradict each other, I know which I will tend to trust — the one with evidence, reproducibility, and method behind it.

          “Mr. Wright states that social consensus needn’t reflect the moral absolute, since he argues against the social consensus!”

          He argues, below, that law reflects the social consensus; and then uses that argument later to argue in support of then-exsting laws, and against “libertinism”

          “You cannot pass a law even on so trivial a matter as the speed limit, and expect the mass of subjects to obey it, if that limit is not also something they customarily would obey even in the absence of a sanction.”

          The fact that his argument is *nonsense* does not change the fact that he chose to make it.

          “You COULD have attacked any of his axioms, OR his historical evidence; but so far, you haven’t.”

          Because I was arguing here with you, not there, with him.

          I will simply point out that his claims in, for example, the section “The Sex Act”, are as well-supported as Wile E. Coyote five seconds after he has run off the cliff. “The sex act is copulation.” — there, in a single sentence, he has defined out of existence — and therefore, out of his argument — the entirely of same-sex sexual experience, and much of the rest of human sexual experience. He then goes on to build the rest of his rhetorical structure on such — *ahem* — underpinnings.

          “Again, sorry for going long”

          No worries — as you can see, I am also not conditioned to brevity. ;)

          “and double apologies for being unforthright on my thesis in the earlier post.”

          Well, now that you have stated your thesis, I am curious to see what evidence you bring forth to support it; just be aware that any such evidence will be treated with vigour, to see how well it stands on its own.

        • Montague

          Look, if I get flack for trying to reproduce ideas from the CCC, I really don’t care about people getting offended. Look, there’s no point here in saying “oh, that’s what I think, but not all these other Christians.” If people who claim to be Christians are arguing for mixed doubles sex and free divorce, I’m just gonna tell ya, they need to rethink their sexual ethics, because Jesus is quite clear on the divorce issue.

          Um… are you referring to polygamy? Or what, the Pharisees? It helps if you can give me some concrete examples as you chide me for not providing concrete examples. It really would give you some moral high ground. Also, majority temporally, or majority currently? Because I figured no-fault divorce was grounds for schism back in Henry’s day (Spanish politics notwithstanding). And no-fault divorce currently has rather clear roots in modern philosophy, which was definitely not the basis of sexual ethics in Christendom or the pagan past.

          Putting aside whether the two definitions of marriage are not flat-out contradictory, a special provisio does nothing to address the issue of whether Mcc or Mm is good for society. And what about equal recognition? Headaches galore, I assure you.

          I am not sure if you mean “divorce was possible” (which it is, even in Mcc, just under given conditions); or divorce was allowed as a matter of convenience, or something else. It would help if you would be more clear on that, if you please, because otherwise I can’t say anything /:

          Yes, law tends to be dependent on the current philosophy of the age, that is, some sort of societal consensus. If it is not the consensus of the common man, it is still at least, more or less, the consensus of an oligarchy or some other such thing, that can write the laws. This seems to be self-evident.

          …well, your assertion was so hearty that I must believe you. I am sure it is feasible to pass American traffic laws in busy streets of Mombai, or perhaps Chicago, and the people will obey at a moment’s notice.

          Seriously though, although force or fear can make people obey a law they rather dislike, the actions of a populace will in fact be dependent on their will to obey the laws, and if custom is to do so. It is rather brash to say Mr. Wright has said something so entirely contrary to fact there.

          It’s been about a day since I wrote that, so I’m not sure what my intentions were, but I think I was referring to ” it is a perfect example of encoded presumptions.” Presumption generally means “assumption,” from which it is but a small leap to “premise” and “axiom.” Not to mention the margin was indeed to small for you to fit any other evidence, which is what I wanted. But as I said, my memory is hazy.

          I see the error of my ways. I should have cited someone else, say Peter Kreeft, who would first explain his definitions, before arguing from them. However, you don’t make a an argument against the validity of the definition; what you follow up with is essentially (if not as brattily) “nuh-uh!” That is, you merely assert your definition over his.

          I suppose for our next project, we should define sex, sexual, and the sex act. You have been civil to me and I think we could try the whole “use words that mean the same thing to both of us” game that seems to be half of argument (the other half being irreconcilable axiomatic differences xP). It is a fun game and the only way to be productive in argument.

          Well, I am confident in two things: the correctness of the arguments crystalized from over 2000 years of philosophy, which I have attempted to draw from; and my utter imbecility in actual debate about it. I’ll beg for your forbearance in dealing with an amateur with the same fervor with which I shall bellow my arguments in total self-righteous conviction. Your resistance to rambling is already supplying me with hope.

          Anyway. Arguments. Frankly, since I take my arguments from Catholic sources, I think the least-labor intensive method would be for me to link an apologist I agree with, then you demolish their arguments, then I counterdemolish your arguments against their arguments, and then so on. Or, we could try figuring out what axioms we disagree on, and work towards a common vocabulary from which to argue.

          Personally, I would prefer the second, at least to start with, since it’s less pain in the long run. You?

          -Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Look, if I get flack for trying to reproduce ideas from the CCC, I really don’t care about people getting offended. Look, there’s no point here in saying “oh, that’s what I think, but not all these other Christians.” If people who claim to be Christians are arguing for mixed doubles sex and free divorce, I’m just gonna tell ya, they need to rethink their sexual ethics, because Jesus is quite clear on the divorce issue.”

          Fair enough — I have a) enough Christian friends that I felt I should briefly stand up for them, and b) I call enough Protestant fundamentalists out on the “Christians believe X” — “But what about Catholics?” “Oh, they’re not….” that I felt I should mention the claim when I saw it.

          “Um… are you referring to polygamy? Or what, the Pharisees? It helps if you can give me some concrete examples as you chide me for not providing concrete examples.”

          Divorce. Jewish and Islamic law both permit, under varying circumstances, divorce.

          But now I see your “Divorce is permissible, under Mcc, under certain circumstances” — please outline those circumstances, because yes, I was taking “Death-terminal” to mean “Death-terminal” (to steal from Hugo Black). I have seen “annulments” used as a workaround many times in history, or specific Papal exemptions — but if “death-terminal” still allows for divorce, then we have grounds for discussion.

          “” it is a perfect example of encoded presumptions.” Presumption generally means “assumption,” from which it is but a small leap to “premise” and “axiom.”"

          Indeed; it’s the “encoded” part that often gives me pause. To give you two examples:

          “The generative organs were created to…” — implicit in here is a purposeful creation; indeed, most people presenting that carry with them the implication of a specific Creator doing the creating.

          “The purpose of X…” (where X is non-intelligent) carries with it the encoded presumption of a single purpose — again, with the clear implication of intent.

          So, for example, when I hear someone going “The purpose of sexual activity is reproduction”, I know certain things about what they believe; and those are the axioms we’re going to have trouble with. ;)

          “However, you don’t make a an argument against the validity of the definition; what you follow up with is essentially (if not as brattily) “nuh-uh!” That is, you merely assert your definition over his.”

          If this is in reference to the definition of the “Sex Act” (which sounds like some delightful Parlimentary measure from the earily 19th century, perhaps), then I didn’t even substitute a different definition; I merely argued that his was unsatisfactory, because it eliminated large portions of behavior — and by doing so, rendered the general validity of his argument much reduced. If I were to make a general statement about “Christian Faith”, and then defined it as “That which is believed by Southern Baptists”, there would be no question that I was talking about *a* Christian faith, but no one (save, perhaps, the Southern Baptists) would agree that the generalizations I drew from there were logically derived and valid.

          “I suppose for our next project, we should define sex, sexual, and the sex act. You have been civil to me and I think we could try the whole “use words that mean the same thing to both of us” game that seems to be half of argument (the other half being irreconcilable axiomatic differences xP). It is a fun game and the only way to be productive in argument.”

          We can certainly give it a try — your serve. ;)

          “Well, I am confident in two things: the correctness of the arguments crystalized from over 2000 years of philosophy, which I have attempted to draw from; and my utter imbecility in actual debate about it. I’ll beg for your forbearance in dealing with an amateur with the same fervor with which I shall bellow my arguments in total self-righteous conviction. Your resistance to rambling is already supplying me with hope.”

          I am also an amateur — I work with computers for a living. I have been known, however, to describe myself as playing theology as a contact sport, so… ;) It is a pleasure to discuss this with someone who does not, for example, dismiss my entire existence with a single adjective.

          “Or, we could try figuring out what axioms we disagree on, and work towards a common vocabulary from which to argue.

          Personally, I would prefer the second, at least to start with, since it’s less pain in the long run. You?”

          Works for me.

          I’ll start here: I think that arguments from inherent purpose of things that cannot be proven to have been designed are flawed from the start. I suspect you disagree. ;)

        • Montague

          Much obliged (:

          Ah, I expected that term to get me into trouble, but “till death do us part” just felt too long a phrase, and clunky. Yes, the traditional Christian view allows divorce in rare situations, where one party has already committed a flagrant violation of their vow and essentially nullified it, for example, when there is domestic violence. I think adultery is also grounds for divorce in most cases. This is the “fault” in “no-fault divorce.”

          Ah, the teleological biology is a sticking point. Well, atheistic biologists use similar language when they aren’t concentrating, but if you so desire, I suppose you can just replace the phrases with “evolved to” or something like that. The main issue is (in those examples) do sex-organs have an inherent sex-purpose?

          A definition needn’t be poor because it is narrow; by arguing that it is poor because it is narrow, or doesn’t cover something that you think it ought to cover, you essentially are arguing for a different definition, one which covers those things left out. Merely saying it leaves those things out constitutes a complaint, but not an argument, unless you have an implied third premise which we would need to argue about to accept or not accept.

          Wonderful!

          Well, one problem term there is “proven to have been designed.” If a thing can be reasonably expected to have been designed, then there is at least a probabilistic argument for something having an inherent purpose. But I suspect that’s not the part you argue against; would I be right to assume that you hold “a thing (in nature) has no inherent purpose (so far as we know) because (in nature) nothing is designed (so far as we know)?”

          Well, leaving apart the idea of design, would you agree that (at least) “some organs have a function, which when healthy they can perform, and when unhealthy, they cannot?” My example would be the thinkpan. Assuming reasoning and argument is at least partially dependent upon the thinkpan, we must assume for practical purposes that the thinkpan can and does perform that function – that we can trust our brains when we reason. So we have found a function we must accept as normal and healthy in an organ (yes, we could pretend only the “sick” brains are the logical ones, but that is not really prudent – and besides, we know that physical damage, such as from trauma and aging, causes a decline in th function of the brain. So it seems logical that a healthy brain thinks, and can think rationally).

          At this point, you probably anticipate me expanding this principle to the other organs. I think you will not protest that. However, I think you will protest: “but function doesn’t prove inherent purpose; only transient purpose.” However, if we take health, and especially reason, to be inherently good, then the functions of our organs are inherent functions, that is to say, they have inherent purposes, informed by their forms.

          Now, I would argue from the ethical axiom we assumed (reason is good, health is good) or from evolution (i.e. regression of causes) to argue that there is a God (ontological argument) and thus there is purpose in every sense of the term; but I think the argument is valid so long as you hold the premises I stated within the argument itself, ignoring outside implications or arguments. There’s probably a few holes in there somewhere as well, since I’m trying to construct the thing from memory, so please feel free to attack it full force so I can see where they are and see if they might be fixed.

          Many thanks :)
          -Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Yes, the traditional Christian view allows divorce in rare situations, where one party has already committed a flagrant violation of their vow and essentially nullified it, for example, when there is domestic violence. I think adultery is also grounds for divorce in most cases. This is the “fault” in “no-fault divorce.”

          You might be able to persuade me that no-fault divorce is not in the best interests of a society moving forward; however, you would also have to account for the problems it has created in the past.

          “The main issue is (in those examples) do sex-organs have an inherent sex-purpose?”

          I would argue that, in humans, they appear to have more than one. (Indeed, from a purely biological POV, the male sex organ, at least, definitely has more than one, as it is also has an excretory function)

          “A definition needn’t be poor because it is narrow; by arguing that it is poor because it is narrow, or doesn’t cover something that you think it ought to cover, you essentially are arguing for a different definition, one which covers those things left out.”

          How shall we put this: When using words that have commonly-held meanings, to give them a definition that is much narrower than the common usage — and then to build upon that definition — is at best rhetorically dubious, at worst intentionally misleading.

          If we are looking for a definition of a sexual act, I would argue that a sexual act is one that brings sexual pleasure to the actor. This is, I am aware, extremely broad; but I think it best reflects both the common usage and the way in which people think about their own behavior.

          “If a thing can be reasonably expected to have been designed, then there is at least a probabilistic argument for something having an inherent purpose.”

          But there is no such reasonable expectation for the biological; and I truly hope you do not wish to base claims to objective fact on probabilities. ;)

          “a thing (in nature) has no inherent purpose (so far as we know) because (in nature) nothing is designed (so far as we know)?”

          More precisely: To argue that a thing has a singular inherent purpose implies that it had that purpose through design; and there is no reason to presume such design.

          “some organs have a function, which when healthy they can perform, and when unhealthy, they cannot?”

          I will accept this, since I can think of organs that have singular (as far as we know) functions; I will not accept it as a general principle of all organs. ;)

          “that we can trust our brains when we reason.”

          We can trust our brains to a point; it is because of the untrustworthiness of individual brains that I am, for example, fond of methods of knowledge that rely upon reproducible knowledge rather than individual inspiration.

          “I think you will not protest that.”

          As above: I will protest the singularity of it for its general applicability.

          How shall we put this: We can speak of things that organs do — but, for example, saying “The purpose of the brain is to reason” is fallacious — one of the functions of the brain is to reason; it also processes sensory input, and maintains the basic functioning of certain parts of the body.

          To short-circuit the next bit of argument (possibly) — it is for this reason that I view any argument regarding the genitals solely as having the inherent purpose of reproduction as flawed; they have more than one function, and choosing one as “inherent” and others as, at best, side-effects is where I find the moral presumptions being smuggled in. ;)

          (Side note: I think going into the existence or non-existence of God is rather sidetracking, especially as that is a point where I have spent many years arguing an indeterminist position.)

        • Montague

          “[Y]ou would also have to account for the problems it has created in the past.”

          What problems do you specifically have in mind? I’m sure there were plenty of unhappy marriages, but I don’t attribute their failures to a fault requirement for divorce, since that does not seem to be the origin of any friction (all one could say is having no escape route leads to increased tension, which is besides the point of how that tension exists, or if that option should exist.) Besides, divorce is by definition failure in marriage, so I’m guessing that’s not what you have in mind. Perhaps unjust stigmatizing of the legitimately divorced?

          “I would argue that, in humans, they appear to have more than one. (Indeed, from a purely biological POV, the male sex organ, at least, definitely has more than one, as it is also has an excretory function)”

          Granted. But as one particularly salacious spoonerism points out, the intimacies of sex are no place for urination. The more pressing issue concerns masturbation and the like, which appears to be sexual stimulation at odds with sexual procreation; and both organically and philosophically, the argument goes that the pleasurable stimulation is subordinate to the procreation, and to separate the two, or put the lesser before the greater, is irrational. (I would also consider the sex act without pleasure to be unhealthy and the sign of disorder.)

          “If we are looking for a definition of a sexual act, I would argue that a sexual act is one that brings sexual pleasure to the actor.”

          I argue almost the precise opposite. Firstly, we use the term “sexual reproduction” in lesser animals which probably do not have even the capacity for sexual pleasure. Secondly, since we distinguish between the sexual pleasure and (say) the pleasure of good food, there is something external to pleasure which defines sexual pleasure to be pleasure that is sexual. The sexual seems therefore not to belong to pleasure, but to the organs particularly tickled by sexual pleasure – the reproductive organs. Now, obviously, because I argue that the sex ACT is reproductive, does not mean that all sexual acts are themselves the sex act of copulation; rather, I’m arguing for a centrality of the reproductive rather than pleasurable aspect of sex to the sex act. Other acts may be erotic, though not coital.

          Oops, you said sexual act, and I said sex act. Yeah, just want to make sure if we’re making a distinction between “The sex act,” and “a sexual act.” I am. I dunno if we’re entirely at a disagreement there. However, I am fairly certain Mr. Wright say “sex act,” not “sexual act,” if that’s what you are bothered by. It’s been a while (my fault) so I might be a bit hazy on the recall.

          “[A]t best rhetorically dubious, at worst intentionally misleading.”

          Not if one actually bothers to define; at least, not necessarily. Socrates, for example – half of what he did, it feels, was replace common definitions with more narrow or nuanced ones. If one definition is more accurate, then there’s no dishonesty in using it, if you’re clear about it. And I certainly don’t think Mr. Wright is here being misleading (that doesn’t seem to be what you are objecting to. Is that true? I ask you.)

          “More precisely: To argue that a thing has a singular inherent purpose implies that it had that purpose through design; and there is no reason to presume such design.”

          “Design” seems to be here a bit tricky, since even atheists will sometimes slip into using it to describe the supposedly unintentional processes of evolution. Even assuming as it were “blind” evolutionary forces, we know what a heart does, or the lungs, and based on your response I think you don’t mean natural forms don’t have natural functions –>

          “I will accept this, since I can think of organs that have singular (as far as we know) functions; I will not accept it as a general principle of all organs. ;)”

          Well, even in organs that have multiple functions, the same applies, I think, with slight modification.

          “We can trust our brains to a point; it is because of the untrustworthiness of individual brains that I am, for example, fond of methods of knowledge that rely upon reproducible knowledge rather than individual inspiration.”

          I think this could be expressed as: “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” – so long as we both agree that man is a rational animal, truly tapping into the cosmic forces of geometry and such, and truly observing the world through sense experience (as opposed to being in perpetual delusion), I think we are getting along swimmingly on the matter :)
          I do suspect, however, that the term “rational” in “rational animal” may mean something broader when I say it that you would mean. Maybe a bit on that later.

          When I say purpose, I do not mean (at least, at an immediate metaphysical level) one purpose only, but a myriad of interdependent purposes – the mouth is for eating, more specifically chewing, for speech, etc.

          However, I think one can arrange the purposes of the organs hierarchically. The senses (the five physical and five mental, according to the medievals; I think we may add some these days, but I hope you understand what I mean) are all parts of a reasoning whole, and contribute to a brain that can reason. The brain is also the commander of the limbs, and the sense-functions are subordinate to that in some ways as well. So “the purpose of the brain is to reason” is not accurate, but not entirely off the mark. It’s too limited (since it involves the motive faculties and such as well); but we can agree that the different things a brain does has reasoning as one of its hierarchical high-ups, if not THE hierarchical high-up function. A good brain thinks.

          I think you may have been deceived as to my thesis (and perhaps that of Christian philosophy) – while we do regard reproduction as an essential part of, well, the reproductive organs and acts, we do say that sex has many proper purposes which ought to be harmonious: the reproductive, the relational, and the pleasurable. It’s just that we harp on the reproductive part because of the modern zeitgeist, which rather downplays the reproductive (to say the least).

          Actually, since the existence or non-existence of God is a key ethical and ontological issue, it’s technically speaking foundational to sexual ethics. The sexual ethics of a gnostic is markedly different from an Epicurian’s, or a Christians, or a Stoic’s; and even if you don’t speak specifically of God, at least the “metaphysical background” so to speak is a matter of importance. However, if you wish (and this is likely necessary for my short attention span) we can try to avoid the issue of the epistemology of God if we DO make clear the ontology and ethical axioms we are working from. However, I suspect it is (in the long term) a futile exercise to keep God out of any argument.

          Sorry again about the long down-time. And thanks for being a fun person to argue with – nowadays, it’s not so easy to find them, especially on the internet (;
          -Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          Welcome back! ;)

          “Perhaps unjust stigmatizing of the legitimately divorced?”

          I was also thinking of the difficulties in proving grounds for divorce, which also sometimes involved criminal punishment — if adultery is outlawed, then in order to gain a divorce one must, in effect, send one’s partner to jail, which can have catastrophic effects upon one’s family’s financial stability. Raising the barriers to divorce grants, I submit, much more power to whomever in the relationship is the financial driver; if the choice is “cope with my partner’s bad behavior or face impoverishment”, many more people will feel compelled to do the former. This is not good for people, nor for the institution of marriage.

          ” and both organically and philosophically, the argument goes that the pleasurable stimulation is subordinate to the procreation, and to separate the two, or put the lesser before the greater, is irrational. (I would also consider the sex act without pleasure to be unhealthy and the sign of disorder.)”

          But this implies a need to order them from greatest to least — and why is such an ordering required? Only if you take as an initial presumption that all things *must* have a primary purpose, to which all else is secondary.

          “Firstly, we use the term “sexual reproduction” in lesser animals which probably do not have even the capacity for sexual pleasure.”

          We use that term to distinguish forms of reproduction — sexual vs. asexual reproduction.

          As to the difference between “sexual act” and “sex act” — I submit that this difference is very significant; the one implies a continua of possibilities, while the other is acting as circumscription, saying “this is sex, and this is not”, thus implicitly defining sexuality as commensurate with the possibility of reproduction — smuggling that purpose-concept in the definition again. ;)

          ” The sexual seems therefore not to belong to pleasure, but to the organs particularly tickled by sexual pleasure – the reproductive organs.”

          I am failing to understand your point here, I admit; especially since, for example, for fetishists (and many people who wouldn’t quite fit that bill) there are acts that many would consider sexual that don’t involve the reproductive organs at all, or only do so in that they react to stimuli that did not come directly through them. Watching your partner dance erotically can bring one pleasure that is definitely sexually-related, and may produce effects *upon* the reproductive organs — but the organs *producing* the effect are eyes and brain. ;)

          “And I certainly don’t think Mr. Wright is here being misleading (that doesn’t seem to be what you are objecting to. Is that true? I ask you.)”

          I think he is; I think that Mr. Wright regularly uses terms that to him have very specific meanings, and then argues that people who disagree with those specific meanings have much larger disagreements. (the example in the other thread regarding “truth”, for example, where he takes people speaking broadly about “truths being relative”, and then argues that since in very specific logical forms you can in theory construct a truth, the statement “truths are relative” is an example of willful ignorance of reality, when the truths that are being spoken of are not the ones he constructs his argument around.

          “Well, even in organs that have multiple functions, the same applies, I think, with slight modification.”

          Fair enough — I merely wished to make clear that I was not going to buy a heirarchy of function. ;)

          ” truly tapping into the cosmic forces of geometry and such, and truly observing the world through sense experience (as opposed to being in perpetual delusion), I think we are getting along swimmingly on the matter :)”

          I am not sure I will always accept a Platonist view of mathematics, but if it comes back up again we can address it later. ;)

          “However, I think one can arrange the purposes of the organs hierarchically.”

          And this is why I said I wouldn’t buy it. To use your example of the brain — a human can continue to exist as an organism with much of the higher brain function destroyed — but leave the cerebellum intact and damage the medulla and the person would die. One can thus establish *a* heirarchy of the brain that places the medulla at the top — as most essential, while other parts of the brain are nice to have, but not really required.

          Given that we have just established, based on criteria I think we both would find valid, utterly different heirarchies of brain “functions”, you see why I find the concept highly doubtful, especially when it comes to determining views that lead to legislating behaviors.

          “we do say that sex has many proper purposes which ought to be harmonious: the reproductive, the relational, and the pleasurable.”

          Except that, instead of *expanding* the validity of sexuality by saying “it has many purposes”, what regularly happens is that it *contracts*; “if it does not fulfill purposes X, Y, and Z, then it is not valid”, rather than “If it fulfills purpose X, Y, or Z, then it is valid.”

          (As a side note, I have never seen (though I would be delighted to be contradicted) a Christian argument for divorce on the grounds of insufficient sexual pleasure. Barrenness, yes. Which suggests an implicit heirarchy among the ‘proper purposes’.)

          I guess it’s that contraction-vs-expansion issue that is, to me, at the heart of this debate; and I would not have thought if it that way had you not brought it up, for which I thank you.

        • Montague

          AUGH! I’ve been meaning to get a reply to you for over a week, this is worse than the first wait! However, I think I’ll be loosing internet access soon and then be in a flurry of travel and school related business, so it may be a long while before I can write up a competent response. My profoundest apologies, it is very rude of me to drop off like this.

          Just letting you know I’m alive and still intending to reply… if circumstances allow it TT_TT

          -Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          I attempted to reply to this earlier, and thought I had — I am going to give it a little while to recur before I try and reconstruct it from memory, as i currently do not see my reply.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          While there is truth in saying the term “traditional marriage” is not used properly, what the Catholic Church and other likeminded philosophers want is not a religious definition of marriage in the courts, but rather, law capable of recognizing a Christian marriage, or a Roman marriage, or a marriage in distant Mongolia, etc. etc.;

          Congratulations – you have that. And, increasingly, so do same-sex couples as well.

          which under the modern definition (wherein no-fault divorce is legal) the law cannot, at least to a full extent.

          Remind me again how allowing other people to get married and divorced as they want takes away from your ability to marry and divorce as you want?

        • Montague

          Unfortunately, not true. The theory of sexual ethics which allows for “homosexual marriage” is incompatible with the theory of sexual ethics which allows for Mcc (see my comment below).

          Because when binding vows are not considered binding by societal and legal consensus, you loose the ability to make a binding vow, except upon your own conscience. The moral implications of Mcc are denied by the structure of American law, law which makes Mm possible, and thus, “homosexual marriage,” possible (again, see my comment below).

          Not to mention the entire issue of whether Mcc or Mm is good/bad for society. Obviously, if Mm is bad for society, and Mcc is good, then Mm (and by extension, though it is a result of Mm and not its cause, “homosexual marriage.”)

          Because Mcc and Mm are exclusive and contradictory definitions of marriage, only one may be supported by a society.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Unfortunately, not true. The theory of sexual ethics which allows for “homosexual marriage” is incompatible with the theory of sexual ethics which allows for Mcc (see my comment below).

          Both are compatible with an ethical code that lets people exercise their own morals.

          Because when binding vows are not considered binding by societal and legal consensus, you loose the ability to make a binding vow, except upon your own conscience.

          Uh-huh. So you’re saying the only way you can feel yourself ethically bound to do something is if there’s a law telling you to do so?

          There’s no law against adultery. Therefore, according to you, spouses should not feel ethically bound into fidelity?

        • Montague

          A moral code that… is not a moral code? Look, “every man gets to make his own rules” is NOT a moral code, and hardly even a moral philosophy.

          I very explicitly said, “you loose the ability to make a binding vow, except upon your own conscience.” You must have missed that dangling sentence-end.

          Oops, looks like I made a grammatical owie. Should have been “lose.”

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Obviously, if Mm is bad for society, and Mcc is good, then Mm (and by extension, though it is a result of Mm and not its cause, “homosexual marriage.”)” — I think there is a clause missing here. ;)

          (Pardon me for dropping in — but I think I see some of the argument here you didn’t outline in your response to me.)

          “Because Mcc and Mm are exclusive and contradictory definitions of marriage, only one may be supported by a society.”

          Why? Why can they not co-exist, as, for example, union and non-union workplaces co-exist? The contract between two people is enforceable even if its terms differ from the terms of a contract between two other people — the difference between an author selling a book and an author doing work-for-hire, for example.

          That they are often *viewed* as contradictory does not mean they cannot coexist — it means they *have* not, which is not the same thing.

          Trust me, in an SF author’s blog, even if he’s writing about politics, arguing “It’s never been…” is not going to be treated as the most valid argument around. ;)

        • Montague

          Egads! My devilish ploy has been uncovered! Okay, yes, it should be something like “Obviously, if Mm is bad for society, and Mcc is good, then Mm (and by extension, though it is a result of Mm and not its cause, “homosexual marriage”) should not be the basis of civil marriage laws.” Thanks for the point-out.

          My hidden (at least, I assume it’s hidden, not that I meant to hide anything) premise is that society will not be able to sustain to standards of marriage; not to mention each definition makes different claims about how human happiness is to be achieved, at least in the sexual/marital field. A person certainly can’t personally believe in both at the same time; one either thinks the contract to be terminable when convenient, or one doesn’t. One either thinks sex to be ordered in such a way as to be more pleasurable and healthy when subjected to a certain rational framework; or one thinks it rational to pursue sexual pleasure outside of that framework. One either thinks a healthy society makes certain provisions for familial procreation of and protection of children, or one doesn’t (or doesn’t care – but I will assume most care.)

          I know you think Mr. Wright mangled his argument about societal consensus and law, but will you agree if I argue something like: “a society bifurcated on the inherent structure of marriage is unstable and will tend to adopt one or the other definition as a legal and social norm?” That seems to be what has been occurring in America for the last hundred years or so.

          I base their contradiction on the fact that both claim to be the definition of marriage, and one has terms the other rejects, and that their philosophical bases concerning sexual ethics differ. Their moral axioms are not the same and contradict (sexual ethics based on a pleasure/pain definition of good versus a teleological or ontological definition of good, with certain views on sexual teleology or ontology).

          I understand your feelings, but I advise trying to be charitable (despite that I’m not the most charitable guy around) – and also, read contextually to get the general shape and thrust of his statements. Besides, a lot of it is in the tone – C. S. Lewis makes similar types of arguments, but in a far more winsome voice.

          But my, how wonderfully polite you are! I don’t even have to try being polite with you (am I being polite?) – which I hope you’ll take as a compliment.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “premise is that society will not be able to sustain to standards of marriage; not to mention each definition makes different claims about how human happiness is to be achieved, at least in the sexual/marital field”

          Well, then the question is “Why?” Because it manages to sustain different standards in many other areas.

          If it’s because “given standard X, no one will choose standard Y”, that is not an argument in favor of mandating standard Y, unless there is some very large advantage favoring it; and I have yet to see any evidence of such an advantage.

          ” one either thinks the contract to be terminable when convenient”

          Ah — here we get into one of those slippery word choices that I have seen elsewhere.

          It is not “convenient” to end an abusive marriage. It is not, I would argue, “convenient” to end a loveless one — nor is it conducive to human happiness. As a child of divorced parents, let me assure you that it is often not at all “convenient” to deal with the stresses (financial and otherwise) of divorced parenting.

          By calling it “convenient”, you drastically minimize the weight of the decision that needs to be made, in many cases.

          You are drawing a false binary here: “Either marriage is easily terminable, or it is not terminable at all.” — whatever my position on marriage, I think you can see why I could argue, perfectly legitimately, “or it is terminable under certain difficult, but understandable, circumstances”, and undercut that binary.

          “One either thinks sex to be ordered in such a way as to be more pleasurable and healthy when subjected to a certain rational framework; or one thinks it rational to pursue sexual pleasure outside of that framework.”

          Or one believes in a different framework. ;) Again, remember, you are on the blog of an SF writer. (And I will simply note in passing the implicit “design fallacy” of “sex to be ordered” — implying the existence of an orderer.)

          “One either thinks a healthy society makes certain provisions for familial procreation of and protection of children, or one doesn’t (or doesn’t care – but I will assume most care.)”

          Indeed — but what those provisions *are* is, indeed, at the heart of this discussion. For example, I do not believe that marriage without chance of divorce is in the best interest of children.

          “”a society bifurcated on the inherent structure of marriage is unstable and will tend to adopt one or the other definition as a legal and social norm?” That seems to be what has been occurring in America for the last hundred years or so.”

          I will accept that as likely. I will not accept it as a reason to prop up a false binary. ;)

          “I base their contradiction on the fact that both claim to be the definition of marriage, and one has terms the other rejects, and that their philosophical bases concerning sexual ethics differ.”

          Ah! I knew I was looking for a factual basis somewhere around here, and I think I’ve found it.

          Different religious and secular forms of marriage have coexisted; with different axiomatic structures, etc. In this country, they have tended to exist as overlay — the state’s is the official one, on which legal benefits are granted, but individual religious groups are allowed to maintain their own strictures.

          “I understand your feelings, but I advise trying to be charitable (despite that I’m not the most charitable guy around) – and also, read contextually to get the general shape and thrust of his statements. Besides, a lot of it is in the tone – C. S. Lewis makes similar types of arguments, but in a far more winsome voice.”

          How shall we put this: I have endeavoured in the past to be charitable to Mr. Wright, and have found no charity in him towards me; I cut him at least as much slack (especially in the politeness department) as he would me. ;)

          “But my, how wonderfully polite you are! I don’t even have to try being polite with you (am I being polite?) – which I hope you’ll take as a compliment.”

          I do; how shall we put this? when there is reasonable discussion (and perhaps compromise) to be had, I find it far more pleasant to be polite than not to be so — and debate was my family’s dinner-table sport growing up; one becomes used to the practice in an environment where politeness is greatly encouraged. ;)

        • Steven Schwartz

          I hope PhoenicianRomans will not object if I take up your little challenge:

          “Address Chesterton’s Fence regarding homosexual “marriage”, please.”

          The prohibition was put in place for several reasons:

          1) because rigid moral structures developed to insist that procreation was the only valid function of sexual behavior; therefore, those who could not procreate should not be allowed said behavior.

          2) Because for the vast majority of human history, marriage was not, as it has come to be, about the love between individuals, but rather a means of arranging inheritance of property — passed on via reproduction. See #2 above.

          As a side effect, one would expect this to lead to further prohibitions on non-reproductive sexual behaviors; which is, indeed, what we have seen in many of those environments.

          So, since how we define (and for what purpose we define) marriage has changed, we can safely tear down Chesterton’s Fence in this case. (I will point out that Chesterton’s Fence is, in and of itself, a highly dubious standard; it places all the weight of potential change on those who would make the change, and none upon those who would resist it.)

        • Montague

          Your claims seem a bit misleading. As Shawn points out, “homosexual marriage” was (according to the article you cite) considered an aberration even by the Romans who didn’t mind sodomizing with (and likely, raping – I mean, slaves were considered property, and we know what happened in the American South…) little boys.

          The answer to your second… point?… in part is answered by the first. We’ve been denouncing it for over a thousand years, not about to stop now. And historically speaking, our modern heresies are entirely the influence of the external, secular conception of marriage on our Christian view; and our modern secular view is as far from all (or nearly all) conceptions of marriage as it is, and they are, from the Christian view. The Christian view adds much to the general, pagan idea of marriage; the modern view takes away – because in the pagan view, marriage was a trustworthy contract; in the Christian view, a covenant and sacrament before God; and in the modern view, a convenient legal fiction. This is true, even apart from the entire fracas about homosexuality.

        • akulkis

          Sparta, Greek society as a whole, Alexander’s Empire, the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany… tell us, PhoenicianRumprider, what society has NOT been destroyed by hypermilitarism, demographic collaps, and internal rot once the leadership was coopted and the state turned into a faggotocracy.

        • Steven Schwartz

          the Roman Empire

          It’s funny; the height of the Roman Empire, by many people’s judgment, came during the Five Good Emperors — one of whom, indeed, the one whose wise rule brought the Empire to, many think, its *apex*, was what we would now call gay.

          Those who succeeded him, including the Marcus Aurelius of whom our bloghost is so fond, did quite a fine job of maintaining the Empire; indeed, it is not until Christianity took firm hold that the last portions of the Empire in the West began to fall apart.

          And considering that the most notable gay figure in the Third Reich, unless you believe Scott Lively’s would-be-risible-save-for-its-consequences pseudohistory, was dead shortly after the election that saw Hitler to power, you would again have a hard time connecting those dots.

          In other words, Akulkis, your history doesn’t back up your bigotry.

        • akulkis

          And it continued to be under gay rule until it was reduced all the way back to a mere city-state.

          By the way, are you telling me that Ginsberg, the author of the gay-angst poem “Scream” and the PREMIER beat poet, didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that the Nazi government was a homosexual government?

        • Steven Schwartz

          “And it continued to be under gay rule until it was reduced all the way back to a mere city-state.”

          So, Marcus Aurelius & Constantine the Great were part of “gay rule”?

          Try to do a *bit* of historical research, OK?

          “By the way, are you telling me that Ginsberg, the author of the gay-angst poem “Scream” and the PREMIER beat poet, didn’t know what he was talking about when he said that the Nazi government was a homosexual government?”

          Funny — when it comes to history, I look to historians, not poets — especially since poets are known to use metaphorical language rather heavily. ;) Give me a citation and context, please, if you want to push this claim in the face of massive historical objection.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Ah, you’re one of THOSE. I was wondering if any of your ilk were lurking around.

        • akulkis

          Go troll somewhere else.
          Your education exceeds your intelligence, as in the saying, “He spouts ideas that are so stupid it takes a PhD to believe them.”

          Not that all PhD’s are stupid… far from it. But many people with PhD’s are not nearly as smart as they believe themselves to be.

          I have no idea if you ever got a PhD or not, working your little librarian job down in New Zealand, but one thing is for sure, no matter where you post all over the web, your fanatical devotion to false ideology is pathetic.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Your education exceeds your intelligence, as in the saying, “He spouts ideas that are so stupid it takes a PhD to believe them.”

          Uh-huh. Tell us about “faggotocracies”…

        • akulkis

          Oh, I’m you know the details better than I.

        • Montague

          What Papal bulls? I know of an encyclical that declares all humans to be of equal moral value and capable of reason, with rights to their property and liberty – in 1537 (Sublimus Dei) The Southern institution of Slavery, and the sort of thing Columbus did, is certainly right out.

          Not to mention Mr. Wright makes clear that he is referring not to economic systems, but the moral and metaphysical nature of man before God – a doctrine which is made rather clear in the “proof text” of slavery that is the book of Timothy, btw. Besides, somehow, I find it suspect that you agree with (I assume) Southern slave apologists, who we know are morally suspect, rather than their opponents (sometimes morally suspect), who also used the Bible.

          Indeed, the whole bent of Christian theology and philosophy has been towards making slavery more and more scarce in society; we are still complaining about wage-slavery since over a hundred years ago. Frankly, to say Christianity (and you do not even qualify your statement) is compatible with slavery (not narrowed to any particular type of slavery, I see) is too vague to even condemn as idiotic.

          You have made no distinction in the types of slavery, ignore the historical decline of slavery in Christendom (only reviving in a major way, with explicit Papal denunciation, in the age of colonization – that is, with the end of Christendom), offer little to no supporting evidence (Athenians only allowed citizens to vote, I believe), and take Mr. Wright’s words (it seems) in an absurd sense, contrary to their intention (which is to speak of equal moral worth and duty, which the Athenians most certainly did not invent, and more certainly did not spread.)

          In other words, please try harder before you conclude that Mr. Wright cannot think logically.

        • Lol

          Thank you, Montague. I could not have said it better myself.

        • Montague

          Well, it’s true that “wage slavery” replaced race slavery in the Americas partially due to industrialism – but that’s only changing forms. So our point seems to stand.

          Not to mention, he can tell the Mexican migrants pulled in for illegal labor that they were replaced by the advanced machinery of the 21st century. Ha. No, they weren’t.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          What Papal bulls?

          Dum Diversas, 1452,

          “We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.”

          Not to mention Mr. Wright makes clear that he is referring not to economic systems, but the moral and metaphysical nature of man before God

          Wright’s actual words:

          “Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.”

          Wright was wrong, as I have shown.

          Lol: As grandly unsubstantiated claims go this one is impressive

          Cf Marvin Harris on cultural materialism.

        • Lol

          “Cf Marvin Harris on cultural materialism.”

          Wasn’t he the guy who believed that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism because they suffered from a protein deficiency while at the same time arguing that Hindus also hold cows sacred because they need cows for farming?

          But seriously, every time I have ever heard the “technology makes slavery go away” argument it has been on the tongue of Confederate apologists. The reality doesn’t support that assertion in the American South any more than it does anywhere else. By all accounts human trafficking and forced labor are still alive and well in our modern and industrialized world. The difference between America and say, Sub-Saharan Africa is that we have laws banning the practice, and those laws are informed by a Christian heritage, not steam engines.

          Can you offer anything beyond the names of a controversial theory and a controversial anthropologist? Can you even expand on those things, or should I try to read your mind? Or maybe we should just quote the names of dead intellectuals at each other like peacocks flashing their tail feathers?

        • Steven Schwartz

          I have heard the “technology was making slavery economically inefficient” from people who were definitely *not* Confederate apologists.

          But let’s try this: What changed in the world that caused the movement against slavery? Clearly, Christianity (or at least the form of it endorsed by our original poster) endorsed the practice for nearly 1500 years, *at least*.

          Given that, why should we give “a Christian heritage” more credit than the technological developments that reduced the economic value of slavery?

          If anything, I would give the Enlightenment values credit — which are at most Deist, and certainly not in line with much of the Christian heirarchy of the time.

          It is a common phenomenon I’ve seen from Christian apologists to take credit for whatever is good that happens during a period of Christian dominance, and dismiss as not-relevant/not important that which is bad. It is, to put it mildly, an unconvincing division.

        • Montague

          Dum Diversas is specifically referring to the Mohammedan territory of North Africa where King Alfonse was to be fighting. Thus, the pagans spoken of in the bull are essentially prisoners of war, in a territory tanken and held by a sworn enemy of Christendom that had rampaged across the known world for the last seven hundred years or so, and is still attacking Christians today (have you heard the news from Mosul?) This is not referring to slavery in the American sense, and possibly not even the Roman sense.

          Meanwhile, Sublimus Dei is an encyclical addressed to the church at large, speaks concerning all of the new world, Africa, and future discoveries, uses language that clearly puts these peoples out of the terminology of Dum Diversas, and repudiates the practices and arguments of Triangle-trade slavery and other similar practices.

          If you want a universal declaration about slavery, I’m pretty sure this encyclical is a better document to look to than the bull you cite.

          You are ignoring context, which is a no-go. Anyone can single out an unqualified sentence and refute it. Anyone can make the Bible, or any other book or person, say the darndest things by that method. If you will not be charitable, then at least be thorough; your arguments, at least, are neither.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Dum Diversas is specifically referring to the Mohammedan territory of North Africa where King Alfonse was to be fighting. [...] This is not referring to slavery in the American sense, and possibly not even the Roman sense.

          Again, changing the goalposts.

          It was still slavery. The Pope condoned it.

        • Montague

          What, and if you had Nazis working in a prison camp, would that be the Allies condoning slavery?

          It’s not changing gaolposts (haha) – it’s distinguishing between types of slavery, and the context of it. The Pope’s declaration might even be interpreted as an act of mercy, since secular authorities were plenty willing to just execute prisoners of war. After reading Sublimus Dei, one cannot really say the Pope supports slavery without some MAJOR qualifications. Did you bother to read it?

        • PhoenicianRomans

          After reading Sublimus Dei, one cannot really say the Pope supports slavery without some MAJOR qualifications.

          Uh-huh. From Wikipedia

          —–
          Father Gustavo Gutierrez describes “Sublimus Dei” as the most important papal document relating to the condition of native Indians and that it was addressed to all Christians.[11] Maxwell (1975) notes that the bull did not change the traditional teaching that the enslavement of Indians was permissible if they were considered “enemies of Christendom” as this would be considered by the Church as a “just war”. Stogre (1992) further argues that the Indian nations had every right to self-defense.[12] Rodney Stark (2003) describes the bull as “magnificent” and believes the reason that, in his opinion, it has belatedly come to light is due to the neglect of Protestant historians.[13] Falola asserts that the bull related to the native populations of the New World and did not condemn the transatlantic slave trade stimulated by the Spanish monarchy and the Holy Roman Emperor.[14]

          In 1545 Paul repealed an ancient law that allowed slaves to claim their freedom under the Emperor’s statue on Capital Hill, in view of thenumber of homeless people and tramps in the city of Rome.[15] The decree included those who had become Christians after their enslavement and those born to Christian slaves. The right of inhabitants of Rome to publicly buy and sell slaves of both sexes was affirmed.[16] Stogre (1992) asserts that the lifting of restrictions was due to a shortage of slaves in Rome.[17]

          “[we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capital and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude…but they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves – who flee as previously described and appeal for their liberty – from the bondage of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of common law…[18]

          In 1547 Pope Paul III also sanctioned the enslavement of the
          Christian King of England, Henry VIII, in the aftermath of the execution of Sir Thomas More[19] In 1548 he authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.[20]
          ——-

        • Montague

          So basically, prisoners of war may be put to forced labor. We both, I assume, know how just war theory works.

          Again, distinguish types of slavery. Are we talking about worked owed to pay off debts? Prisoners of war? Or people kidnapped off the ivory coast?

          Also, the things you cite are a mess of somewhat contradictory authorities which I have not the time to investigate. Should I believe Falola or Stark?

          Anyway, I am a bit confused as to what your point is.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Anyway, I am a bit confused as to what your point is.

          The points are as follows:

          i, Wright was provably wrong in the one part of his screed I bothered with – concepts of equality predated Christ by a considerable amount.

          ii, This is in line with his perception on the Internet as a laughing stock who makes pompous rants based on distortion, bias, and outright denial of reality

          Then , following on from discussion about slavery,

          iii, Slavery is an institution largely based on the technology and economics of the time. Where slavery is profitable, it will exist.

          iv, Slavery is generally repugnant, and the reason for this is simple empathy. Religious people will couch that empathy in religious argument.

          v, Where slavery exists and is profitable, it will be justified. The dominant religion will be used in that justification.

          vi, Where and when it starts to become unprofitable, that dominant justification starts to slip against repugnance. This is pretty clearly illustrated in the US, where slavery ceased to become profitable in the North, was still profitable in the South, and both sides invoked God for their side.

          vii, Christians have both opposed and supported slavery throughout history. Their religious institutions generally supported it until material circumstances changed, and then moved against it. They’re not alone in this – Buddhism has a good statement against slavery in its founding principles, yet Buddhist institutions supported it for most of their history.

        • Steven Schwartz

          If you have not read it, PhoenicianRomans, I recommend you Google “Hal Duncan John C. Wright” and read Duncan’s Open Letter — it is a marvelous example of an argument’s deconstruction in…grand style. ;)

        • Montague

          …I mean confused concerning the reason for citation in the post I was replying to, but actually, thank you for expanding your explanation.

          1) Well, I think you err in your interpretation due to your focusing on (what seems to be) just one sentence (as I have already said.

          2) Ah, so he is an infamous fellow. By his own admission, a member of the evil league of evil.

          3) Sic et non. Slavery cannot be purely economic, because it requires certain ethical questions to be ignored or answered badly by a sizable or influential portion of the populace.

          4) No. Slavery can be subdivided into different classes; some classes of slavery are immoral, and some are not. For example, kidnapping a black fellow off the Ivory coast and forcing him to work in the hot Jamaican sun is a sin against human dignity. Making a convict work on a highway (within reasonable conditions) is probably a great idea, and not evil. Empathy has no inherent moral value – remember your Hume, if nothing else. Empathy is an IS, not an ought.

          5) It will be unjust and unjustifiable, and yes, religion will be used to justify slavery. Although I am likely only preaching to the choir about the ethical stuff, because obviously we rather strongly disagree on the principles of ethics.

          6) See 3 and 5. I’m not in the business (figure of speech only) of denying that people will do anything to justify evil, so I mostly agree with you there.

          7) …well, again, sic et non. If we’re going to declare the ethical position of the Christian faith off of the actions of real and fake and repentant and backsliding Christians from 2000 years of history, then all we’re going to be able to say about Christianity is that Christians are messed up, like humans generally are. The Christian says that we suck at being Christians.

          The real issue, if you don’t mind me saying so, is whether Orthodox Christian theology (and ethics, et al.) essentially supports abolition, or no. And I think this is also Mr. Wright’s point. Name one society in which the highest moral authority states “There is neither Jew nor Gentile [replace terms at will], neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus [or what have you].” Not in Athens, I’ll tell ya.

          - Christian Boyd

        • Steven Schwartz

          “What, and if you had Nazis working in a prison camp,” — If German P.O.W.s had been condemned to “perpetual servitude”, then yes — especially if (and this I do not know for sure in the case of the bull in question) they were transferable from the government to individuals.

        • Montague

          I think you are thinking of two different documents; at least, i don’t remember seeing anything about slave trading in Dum.

          Well, perpetual servitude (and here we are already assuming we mean slave labour, not feudal subjugation of territory) is still better than execution…

          That’s the real trouble with the Church and various old practices. It’s not that Church documents tend to encourage a more horrendous evil than is prevalent, so much as do too little to curb it. Like in the Spanish Inquisition – sure, limiting torture to just a little bit, and having nice prison cells, was BETTER than everyone else; just not quite up to our current standards. Le sigh.

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” at least, i don’t remember seeing anything about slave trading in Dum.”

          That’s why I prefaced it with “if” — I have not researched enough to know whether those prisoners taken could be sold, or were the property of the State.

          “is still better than execution…”

          Some people would disagree with that, frankly; not to mention the presumption that the choice was either-or.

          “That’s the real trouble with the Church and various old practices.”

          Well, when you’re trying to argue that modern goods came from the Church, it is indeed an issue. ;)

          Essentially, the line of argument you see from people like “Pete the Greek” very often is:

          “Europe has this advantage in area X.”
          “Europe was primarily Christian.”
          “Therefore, Christianity has an advantage in area X.”

          Where Area X is usually some form of human rights, but I’ve seen it applied to science as well.

          When it is pointed out that there were other influences, and that the actual Church positions stated do not reflect this advantage, fumfuh-ing usually results. Or, if in a place whose commentariat is dominated by Protestants, you get the “Well, those Catholics were retrograde, but we Protestants weren’t”…and so on and so forth. ;)

        • Montague

          Well, I’m as fuzzy as you are on historical details, but I think execution was a serious possibility (although my only certain data points are at different times or places; and a general impression of the brutality of the period).

          I know people will argue for a lot of things, but slavery is always a lesser evil than death (well, voluntary slavery is worse than involuntary death, but that’s two classes of actions. I’m talking about evils inflicted on one’s person involuntarily.) Of course, by authority here is not Homer’s Achilles, but philosophy, particularly, an ontologically or teleologically based ethic rather than a pleasure/pain ethic (in which death would be preferable often enough).

          Not really. It’s rather convenient to blame the Church for not being Christian enough, since that grants goodness in Christianity. The issue is always twofold: what is the Christian creed, philosophy, faith; and how much do Christians actually look like that.

          The argument from history is valid when sufficient philosophical grounds can be given: for example, in the science department, the Christian obviously has an advantage over (say) the Buddhist, simply because of their respective ontologies. It’s hard to practice empiricism when you think that the world is illusion xD. So again, the question becomes, is the Christian creed, and the whole bent of Christian faith and philosophy, towards a view of human dignity that transcends the ages, etc.? It’s not scandalous to say the Church was full of rotters, since that’s an inevitable result of our duty to minister to everyone, especially rotters.

          While I try to acknowledge external factors, my trust in human will and the influence of a prevalent world-view of huge an ancient proportions makes me cagy of any argument that *reduces* matters to (say) economic changes. Of such arguments I think “there is more faith in honest doubt.” So long as the influence of the Christian faith (and heretical decayings of it, or entirely foreign philosophy) is taken fully into account, I am more or less satisfied.

          I am by the way (currently) a Protestant. I just read too many Catholics and perhaps started mutating into a strange species. Perhaps one day over breakfast a strange little fellow will burst out of my chest thumbing a rosary…

        • Steven Schwartz

          “I know people will argue for a lot of things, but slavery is always a lesser evil than death (well, voluntary slavery is worse than involuntary death, but that’s two classes of actions. I’m talking about evils inflicted on one’s person involuntarily.) ”

          I would disagree — there are documented cases of people who preferred to starve themselves to death or engage in a futile resistance rather than submit to slavery. So, I do not accept this as an absolute, nor do I accept “Well, you can enslave them” as being significantly preferable to “We’ll look the other way while you kill them.”

          ” but philosophy, particularly, an ontologically or teleologically based ethic rather than a pleasure/pain ethic (in which death would be preferable often enough).”

          Rather my point ;) — and in an ethic prizing liberty highly.

          “t’s rather convenient to blame the Church for not being Christian enough, since that grants goodness in Christianity. The issue is always twofold: what is the Christian creed, philosophy, faith; and how much do Christians actually look like that.”

          Agreed; but when the issue is only used unidirectionally (Crediting the good to Christianity, the bad to the bad Church) it appears much less an issue and much more a dishonest debating tactic — especially when consequentialist arguments are used, as they often are in, for example, arguments regarding the need for absolute morals.

          “for example, in the science department, the Christian obviously has an advantage over (say) the Buddhist, simply because of their respective ontologies.”

          But not, for example, over Judaism or Islam. Indeed, there is a much stronger correlation between religious reactionaries of most any faith impeding science, while the more open-minded get out of its way.

          ” So again, the question becomes, is the Christian creed, and the whole bent of Christian faith and philosophy, towards a view of human dignity that transcends the ages, etc.?”

          And it is my argument that the answer is “Often, no; without the injection of materials from outside said faith, in which case the amount of credit Christianity deserves as opposed to something else becomes questionable.”

          And when it *is*, it is often in those portions of the creed most often dismissed by large portions of the modern churches.

          To give an example: I give Enlightenment views and economic factors much more credit in the end of slavery than Christian philosophies because both sides had strong support from Christian sects — and in the absence of a much more objective hermeneutic than I have ever seen anyone demonstrate, which one was “right” has been determined more by force of arms than by force of words.

          “I am by the way (currently) a Protestant. I just read too many Catholics and perhaps started mutating into a strange species. Perhaps one day over breakfast a strange little fellow will burst out of my chest thumbing a rosary…”

          That is a most…disturbing image. Congratulations! ;)

        • Montague

          Oh, I know people who would prefer death to slavery. I’m just saying their preference doesn’t match objective moral reality. But I think this disagreement comes from a difference in our moral axioms, so rather than assertions, it is best if we could present our axioms.

          Well, it’s only a dishonest debating tactic if it’s not true. Now, we know for a fact that Christians as people are rotten, because they are people. So to figure out if the Church is good or bad, we have to examine Church teaching and Church philosophy, the creeds and confessions. Just saying it looks suspect doesn’t provide an argument to be proven or disproven.

          Ah, do you mean “philosophical principles foreign to the faith,” or “material situations conducive to people modifying their behavior?” Also, this is now two questions: “is Christianity conducive to human rights,” and “did Christianity actually, through Christians, conduce to human rights in history, and how much?”

          Ah yes, modern churches. I blame the influence of external philosophies hostile to orthodox philosophy, but that again requires an analysis of the philosophy of the Church to evidence.

          In the question of American slavery, it doesn’t take a Thomas Aquinas to firmly show the slave trade, and dehumanization based on race (and the objectification of human beings) is inherently wrong, both by natural law, and Biblical revelation. However, I do agree that Christian theology had only so much effect on ending slavery in the Americas. Lincoln himself famously conducted the war more on economic and political grounds than on humanitarian grounds. Again, the issue is partially “how much did Christians act like Christians,” “how much did Christians actually affect the situation,” and “what does Christian theology say about slavery.”

          I was thinking Spaceballs, and it came out sounding like Alien. Eugh. Next time I should curb irrelevant and questionable personal comments. Apologies. You know how it is with humor online versus in real life :P

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” I’m just saying their preference doesn’t match objective moral reality.”

          I suspect you know what I’m going to say here: “Which ‘objective’ moral reality are you referring to?”

          “Well, it’s only a dishonest debating tactic if it’s not true.”

          How shall we put this: if the ideals consistently fail of application, their value as ideals to be followed is somewhat tarnished; setting unrealistic goals that go unfulfilled is not inherently superior to setting lower, but realistic, goals that people *do* fulfill.

          “So to figure out if the Church is good or bad, we have to examine Church teaching and Church philosophy, the creeds and confessions.”

          Ah — and here we get to part of the crux of the problem; there is no unitary set of teachings, no unitary philosophy, and no particularly strong objective hermeneutic to determine what is the correct teaching among so many.

          I must admit that I most often see that particular behavior pattern coming after the “Look at all the bad things atheists did, therefore atheism is bad!” “But what about the bad things Christians did?” “Doesn’t count!” — I suspect I will not have to cope with that with you.

          “Ah, do you mean “philosophical principles foreign to the faith,” or “material situations conducive to people modifying their behavior?”"

          Yes — whether that be philosophical views, economic pressures, etc. For example, the rapid switch away from extremely racist views held up as good Christian beliefs in the south during and after the 1960s — I suspect this was not a theological revolution, but a recognition that such behavior was no longer acceptable to the wider community.

          “Also, this is now two questions: “is Christianity conducive to human rights,” and “did Christianity actually, through Christians, conduce to human rights in history, and how much?”

          Indeed; and the answers to the first are many and varied, as there are many and varied Christianities.

          “In the question of American slavery, it doesn’t take a Thomas Aquinas to firmly show the slave trade, and dehumanization based on race (and the objectification of human beings) is inherently wrong, both by natural law, and Biblical revelation.”

          And yet it persisted, and had its religious defenders, until such time (and, indeed, probably for a while after, but they kept their mouths shut) as the practice was ended by force.

          I come from a background as a logician; and a system in which you can prove a contradiction is (unless you are of a very small, very curious breed of logicians I find fascinating) a death-blow to an axiomatic structure.

          “I was thinking Spaceballs, and it came out sounding like Alien. Eugh. Next time I should curb irrelevant and questionable personal comments. Apologies. You know how it is with humor online versus in real life :P”

          Oh, no worries at all — I was amused, and I am sorry I did not convey that well enough in my own writing. The original poster first came to my attention as an SF writer, I write SF/F myself, and a vivid image is often to be commended!

        • Pete the Greek

          Freedom and equality have not just evolved, they are totally different concepts in pre and Christian worlds.

          The assumed understanding that John is including here, is WHY. To the Christian, all men are equal because we are all made in the image and likeness of God. We are NOT equal just because we all happen to be of the same nationality, or because we have an arbitrary law stating it so. It is due to the very NATURE of Man himself.

          That is entirely a different idea than pre-Christian thought.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          That is entirely a different idea than pre-Christian thought.

          Wright’s actual words:

          “Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.”

          Wright was wrong, as I have shown. Your complaint is that of “the concept evolved” variety, which I agree with – as I have shown, Christians supported slavery for 1500 years. But the concept was there at least four hundred years before Christ.

        • Pete the Greek

          “Your complaint is that of “the concept evolved”"
          - No, that is NOT my ‘complaint’.

          You missed the point. Equality of some kind, to a greater or lesser degree, existed on some level at various points. This was based in economics, nationality, family, what have you.

          The principle involved in the Christian idea of equality is not an ‘evolution’ of the old pagan thinking, but rather an ENTIRELY different, revolutionary and, the the pagan mind, incomprehensible.

          A Jew in Jerusalem and a merchant in Sicily may be considered equal before Roman Law, as virtue of both being Roman citizens. However, the Roman would NEVER consider the Pict to be equal to him on any level, being that said Pict was a filthy barbarian.

          The Christian idea of equality was NOT an ‘evolution’ of the idea of equality that then existed in some places. It was a throwing out of the entire existing idea and replacing it with something entirely new, based in a TOTALLY different set of first principles.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          You missed the point. Equality of some kind, to a greater or lesser degree, existed on some level at various points.

          Wright’s exact words:

          “Only with the coming of Christendom is a new concept introduced into human history: the concept of individualism, of equality.”

          So if you agree “equality” existed before Christ, you agree Wright was wrong.

          The principle involved in the Christian idea of equality is not an ‘evolution’ of the old pagan thinking, but rather an ENTIRELY different, revolutionary and, the the pagan mind, incomprehensible.

          Obviously not that revolutionary if Christianity was used to support slavery for hundreds of years.

        • Andrew Brew

          You keep claiming that Christianity supported slavery for 1500 years. Gregory of Nyssa was preaching against it in the fourth century, before the empire was even converted, and once Rome was Christian slavery was subject to increasingly restrictive laws. Within a couple of centuries it had pretty much died out. Later you see explicit laws forbidding slavery in nations converting from paganism and re-ordering their affairs so as to conform to the standards of Christendom. Only with the increasing rejection of the Christian consensus starting in the fifteenth century do you start to see slavery re-introduced in Christian lands, over the protests of the church.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          You keep claiming that Christianity supported slavery for 1500 years.

          http://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/10/development-or-reversal

          ———
          More than half of the book deals with slavery, a subject that Noonan has
          researched in considerable detail. Slavery was practiced by almost
          every known society until modern times. Throughout the biblical era,
          Noonan shows, slavery was taken as a given, although the Israelites
          practiced rather mild forms of slavery and did not permanently enslave
          their compatriots. Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind
          of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social
          institution. Nor did the writers of the New Testament. Peter and Paul
          exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters. Paul urges Philemon to
          treat his converted slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ. While
          discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, he does not say that
          Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may
          have had.

          For many centuries the Church was part of a
          slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout
          Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed
          St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the
          natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St.
          Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point.
          Although the subjection of one person to another ( servitus )
          was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas
          taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by
          original sin.
          [...]
          Although the popes condemned the enslavement of innocent populations and
          the iniquitous slave trade, they did not teach that all slaves
          everywhere should immediately be emancipated. At the time of the Civil
          War, very few Catholics in the United States felt that papal teaching
          required them to become abolitionists.

          Bishop John England
          stood with the tradition in holding that there could be just titles to
          slavery. Bishop Francis P. Kenrick held that slavery did not necessarily
          violate the natural law. Archbishop John Hughes contended that slavery
          was an evil but not an absolute evil. Orestes Brownson, while denying that slavery was malum in se , came around to favor emancipation as a matter of policy.

          ——-

        • Andrew Brew

          I see you are quoting, rather than replying. The linked article notes various exceptions to my sweeping statement that slavery had “pretty much died out” by the sixth century in Christian lands. I accept that there were exceptions, especially around the edges in time and space.
          And yet… they are exceptions. Medieval Christian society, unlike all of the societies that surrounded it and preceded it, was not based on slavery, and this was precisely because of the Christian view of the nature of humanity. The most significant exception noted, that of “galley-slaves”, refers to criminals sentenced to the galleys as a form of “hard labour” punishment, and POWs. Recall, though, that one of the great advantages enjoyed by the Christian fleet over the Turks at Lepanto was that the Christian rowers were mostly, if not entirely, free men, where the Moslem fleet relied entirely on Christian slaves.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          I see you are quoting, rather than replying.

          More useful, since it’s difficult for me to make any eyewitness comments.

          The linked article notes various exceptions to my sweeping statement that slavery had “pretty much died out” by the sixth century in Christian lands. I accept that there were exceptions, especially around the edges in time and space. And yet… they are exceptions.

          Uh-huh

          ““[we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capital and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude…but they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves – who flee as previously described and appeal for their liberty – from the bondage of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of common law…”
          – motu proprio, 1548.

          Explain to us how the City of Rome is one of those exceptions “around the edges”

        • Andrew Brew

          That would be one of the edges “in time” that I mentioned. I pointed out that the Christian consensus came under challenge from the fifteenth century. A century later, despite the church’s opposition to slavery, the secular laws were making allowance for it anew. Your quote indicates that the Pope was not prepared to go so far as to attempt to impose a theocracy (which would have been unsuccessful in any event, as well as being contrary to the papal policy from the beginning), but would recognise the validity of secular law in its own realm.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          That would be one of the edges “in time” that I mentioned. I pointed out that the Christian consensus came under challenge from the fifteenth century. A century later, despite the church’s opposition to slavery, the secular laws were making allowance for it anew.

          Uh-huh.

          “”If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”

          - Synod of Gangra, c. 340

          “”Cruel avarice has so seized the hearts of some that though they glory in the name of Christians they provide the Saracens with arms and wood for helmets, and become their equals or even their superiors in wickedness and supply them with arms and necessaries to attack Christians. There are even some who for gain act as captains or pilots in galleys or Saracen pirate vessels. Therefore we declare that such persons should be cut off from the communion of the church and be excommunicated for their wickedness, that catholic princes and civil magistrates should confiscate their possessions, and that if they are captured they should become the slaves of their captors. We order that throughout the churches of maritime cities frequent and solemn excommunication should be pronounced against them.”
          - Third Lateran Council, 1179.

          “Further, slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now “slavery belongs to the right of nations,” as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”
          - Aquinas, Summa Theologica, c.1270

          Remind us again – do the years 340, 1179 and 1270 come before or after the fifteenth century?

        • Andrew Brew

          I already addressed the Synod of Gangra. That is at the opposite (early) edge in time. Christianity had been recently de-criminalised in the empire, but it was far from dominant, or in any position to do other than to urge Christians to be obedient to the law of the land as it then stood. It was not an official religion of any state outside Armenia.

          The Lateran council prescribes imprisonment with hard labour for traitors – so? Aquinas is quoting Aristotle.

          This is what you mean by “supporting slavery”? So where were the slave markets in medieval Christendom? Where the household slaves, the field slaves, the buying and selling of persons? Where they can be found at all, they are at the geographical margins, among pagan or recently-pagan people – the Dublin Vikings, the Rus, the steppe nomads.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          I already addressed the Synod of Gangra. That is at the opposite (early) edge in time.

          Uh-huh. So you’re claiming c. 340 and 1548 as the temporal “edges”, right?

          “With regard to the Brabanters, Aragonese, Navarrese, Basques, Coterelli and Triaverdini, [...] As long as such people persist in their wickedness, let all who are bound to them by any pact know that they are free from all obligations of loyalty, homage or any obedience. On these and on all the faithful we enjoin, for the remission of sins, that they oppose this scourge with all their might and by arms protect the Christian people against them. Their goods are to be confiscated and princes free to subject them to slavery. Those who in true sorrow for their sins die in such a conflict should not doubt that they will receive forgiveness for their sins and the fruit of an eternal reward.”
          – Third Lateran Council, 1179.

          This is what you mean by “supporting slavery”? So where were the slave markets in medieval Christendom?

          As shown, Rome. If you have proof that there was no slavery in Rome prior to the fifteenth century, where they talk about slaves “born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of common law“, then show it.

        • Andrew Brew

          Uh-huh. So you’re claiming c. 340 and 1548 as the temporal “edges”, right?
          More or less, less. Each lies a little outside the boudaries.

          Now you want “proof”, forsooth, that there was no slavery. As the one making the positive claim, perhaps you might offer some evidence that there was slavery, apart from a law making provision for the existence of slavery in the world in the sixteenth century?

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Now you want “proof”, forsooth, that there was no slavery. As the one making the positive claim, perhaps you might offer some evidence that there was slavery,

          You mean apart from the cite from the Third Lateran Council given just above?

          You are aware that 1179 lies in between the two dates you mention, right?

          Now, your proof that there was no slavery between c. 340 and 1548 is…?

        • PhoenicianRomans
        • Andrew Brew

          If you showed that there was a slave-market in Rome, I missed it. You quoted a change in the civil law of the Papal state recognising as valid the law regarding slaves in other places. Again, this is outside the (temporal) edges of medieval Christendom, and is a matter of civil law, not of church teaching. Nor is such legalisation evidence of a market.

          It is true that slavery was not entirely eliminated in Christian lands, just as as it has not been eliminated in the modern world. In the rare instances where it occurred, though, it was always exceptional and regarded as such. This was not true of any other society, contemporary or earlier.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Slavic slaves were plentiful, for example, in the Italian city-states as late as the 14th century, and African slaves could be found in Spain and Portugal in the 16th century.” — from Britannica.com.

          I have also found references to slaves being sold in Venice in the 14th century and King Ferdinand of Aragon giving Moorish slaves to Pope Innocent VIII, who gave them to preferred Cardinals — however, the citations for those are not available online beyond the articles in which they’re mentioned.

          I think this speaks to it being not so exceptional as you’d like to claim, and given that slavery under Christianity was *harsher* than under Judaism, your arguments are further undercut.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          If you showed that there was a slave-market in Rome, I missed it.

          http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/23/politics/liberals-mass-neurosis-political-correctness/#comment-1502615902

          It is true that slavery was not entirely eliminated in Christian lands,
          just as as it has not been eliminated in the modern world. In the rare
          instances where it occurred, though, it was always exceptional and
          regarded as such

          It;s time for you to start providing proof for your unsupported assertions. Please show proof there were no slaves in Christendom between c. 340 and 1548 as the temporal “edges”, or that these were “exceptional”.

          Where’s YOUR proof?

        • PhoenicianRomans

          If you showed that there was a slave-market in Rome, I missed it.

          Here you go

          http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=MFYQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false

          http://historymedren.about.com/od/dailylifesociety/a/Chains.htm

          Now, where’s your proof?

        • Steven Schwartz

          “and this was precisely because of the Christian view of the nature of humanity”

          You will need to present evidence for that — because the places where it was *useful*, it still existed. In much of medieval society, serfdom took the economic niche that slavery had fulfilled; you could not transfer individual serfs, but serfs were bound to the land.

          So, as I said, you need to demonstrate that it was the Christian view of the nature of humanity, rather than economic circumstance, that produced a low rate of slavery, before we have any reason to believe your claim.

          “Recall, though, that one of the great advantages enjoyed by the Christian fleet over the Turks at Lepanto was that the Christian rowers were mostly, if not entirely, free men, where the Moslem fleet relied entirely on Christian slaves.”

          This was true primarily of the Venetian contingent — there is not a significant indication of the superiority of the rest of the Holy League’s rowers — condemned criminals — over the Ottoman slaves.

          (I won’t even get into the significant advantage in firepower ;))

        • Andrew Brew

          The Christian view of humanity was the reason given at the time (see Gregory of Nyssa for a clear, early example). Do you have actual evidence that it occurred for technical reasons? The increasing level of technology in the early middle ages caused slavery to be un-econonomical, and the increasing level of technology at the end of the period caused it to become economical again. That is your claim, yes? Do you have any evidence to support the thesis?

          I did not say that the use of free rowers was the Holy League’s only advantage, did I? You do not deny that it was one advantage, and I do not deny that criminals doing time were used by the Christian fleets.

          As for serfdom, it is true that serfs were tied to the land they held in exchange for their service. But the same is true of knights, barons, counts… everybody in secular society, in fact. Any of these could be detached from their obligation temporarily for the sake of pilgrimage, or permanently to enter a monastery, with their lord’s permission. Such permission would generally be granted as long as provision was made for the service of the fee to continue. The point is, such limitations are not limited to serfs – they apply to all levels of society.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Do you have actual evidence that it occurred for technical reasons? The increasing level of technology in the early middle ages caused slavery to be un-econonomical, and the increasing level of technology at the end of the period caused it to become economical again. That is your claim, yes? Do you have any evidence to support the thesis?”

          No. The first case was economic, the second technical — and the circumstances between one and the other were very different. Slavery, both in ancient and (relatively) modern times, is most economically efficient in large cash-crop plantations — which is not what you had in the Early Middle Ages.

          “You do not deny that it was one advantage, and I do not deny that criminals doing time were used by the Christian fleets.”

          Then there is very little weight to your argument.

          “The point is, such limitations are not limited to serfs – they apply to all levels of society.”

          Actually, a nobleman could, in theory, return his grants of land to the one who granted them, of his own will. *Why* one would do so, and risk becoming a serf, is another question — but the serf had no such option. A baron leaving his lands could live (depending on the time) off whatever money he had accumulated. A serf could not leave their lands, if their lord did not will it.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          You keep claiming that Christianity supported slavery for 1500 years.

          When was the Synod of Gangra?

          What was its third Canon?

        • Andrew Brew

          I take it you know when it was, so you would also know that this canon is there to discourage people from breaking Imperial law.

        • Pete the Greek

          “So if you agree “equality” existed before Christ, you agree Wright was wrong.”
          - Again, no, you are still missing the point. I do not consider the the situation of, politically, some people being ‘equal’ and others not at all at the same time to be real ‘equality’.

          Not all ideas have instantaneous, global effects. The argument that slavery didn’t disappear from the planet the day after the Resurrection is proof that the Christian idea of equality wasn’t revolutionary simply shows you to be a rather shallow thinker.

          And where is slavery today? Is Christian Europe still holding millions of chattel slaves? No. Christian Europe and the US, and indeed where the Faith took root have abolished slavery. It still exists outside of Christendom.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          - Again, no, you are still missing the point. I do not consider the the
          situation of, politically, some people being ‘equal’ and others not at
          all at the same time to be real ‘equality’.

          Again, you’re missing the point. I agreed the concept evolved – but I showed it was around before Christ. Contrary to Wright’s bloviations.

          And where is slavery today?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour_in_the_United_States

        • Pete the Greek

          “I agreed the concept evolved”
          - No, the concept didn’t ‘evolve’. It is an entirely different thing. It’s nature is totally different. It was NOT an expansion of a current idea. It was an idea entirely based upon a totally different foundational premise. I don’t think you grasp the difference.

          I think you have a major problem with category distinction. Having to work as part of your punishment for being convicted of a crime is not the same as chattel slavery. In a similar way, there is a difference between locking up a mass murderer for life and a psycho kidnapping and locking up a young girl in his basement to serve his ‘needs’ until she expires. Although, given your lack of grasping key ideas thus far, I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw no difference whatsoever.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          - No, the concept didn’t ‘evolve’. It is an entirely different thing. It’s nature is totally different.

          Nope – it evolved. For example, you cite one piece of Scripture while ignoring all the rest used to justify the Divine Right of Kings and hierarchial society for more than a thousand years after Christ.

          I think you have a major problem with category distinction. Having to work as part of your punishment for being convicted of a crime is not the same as chattel slavery.

          Except that there was chattel slavery before Christ and chattel slavery after Christ – endorsed by the Christian church. Your own country, for example, had it until the Reverend Jackson had his theological debate with Reverend Lee.- and Scripture was quoted to support it.

          Oh, and speaking of “category error”, you asked “And where is slavery today?” – and you were answered.

        • Pete the Greek

          There isn’t enough deodorant for this conversation.

        • falstaff77

          ” …one piece of Scripture while ignoring all the rest used to justify the Divine Right of Kings “

          More category error. The New Testament defines the ideas of Christianity, the DRoK is an example idolatry, no less so because some jokers in robes pronounced a king devine.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And I believe PR’s point is that you can use the New Testament to support *many* things, often mutually contradictory, and it has been so used in the past; and if that’s the case, what’s the value in it for defining how one *should* behave?

          “the DRoK is an example idolatry, no less so because some jokers in robes pronounced a king devine.”

          So, in other words, you specifically know better than hundreds of years of learned theologians of many different sects? Why should we believe *you* are right, and *they* are wrong?

        • falstaff77

          Don’t *believe* me. Read the New Testament, as it obvious most of the naysayers here know little about it.

          Re “learned theologians”, how would you know they are learned?

          Matthew 23
          “23 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and his disciples, 2 The legal experts and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore, you must take care to do everything they say. But don’t do what they do. 4 For they tie together heavy packs that are impossible to carry. They put them on the shoulders of others, but are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5 Everything they do, they do to be noticed by others. They make extra-wide prayer bands for their arms and long tassels for their clothes. 6 They love to sit in places of honor at banquets. 7 They love to be greeted with honor in the markets and to be addressed as ‘Rabbi.’

          8 “But you shouldn’t be called Rabbi [or 'learned theologian'], because you have one teacher, and all of you are brothers and sisters. 9 Don’t call anybody on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is heavenly. 10 Don’t be called teacher, because Christ is your one teacher.11 But the one who is greatest among you will be your servant. 12 All who lift themselves up will be brought low. But all who make themselves low will be lifted up.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Don’t *believe* me. Read the New Testament, as it obvious most of the naysayers here know little about it.

          In other words, because they disagree with you, they don’t know much about it?

          People who have studied it for their whole lives come up with vastly different interpretations. Why should we trust *yours*?

          “Re “learned theologians”, how would you know they are learned?”

          If you want to argue against Aquinas and Luther, for example, as learned, go ahead.

        • falstaff77

          ‘Why should we trust *yours*?”

          What part of “don’t believe me” do you fail to understand?

          ‘If you want to argue against Aquinas and Luther, for example, as learned, go ahead.”

          Aquinas sanctioned the *killing* of kings. Luther’s scholarship is reflected in his 95 theses nailed the to the door, not in his sanction of a massacre, or his wardrobe, or his toiletry habits.

          Look, you are not an idiot. The suggestion that scholars, like Nobel Laureate W. Shockley who promoted Eugenics, are somehow not subject to common sense evaluation because they are learned is idiotic.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’ve read the New Testament. I find it internally contradictory, a perfect source for weaving whatever you want out of it.

          “Aquinas sanctioned the *killing* of kings.”

          Only under very specific circumstances — and discussed how they needed to have demonstrated falling away from God to do so.

          ” Luther’s scholarship is reflected in his 95 theses nailed the to the door, not in his sanction of a massacre, or his wardrobe, or his toiletry habits.”

          Or his New Testament-justified rampaging anti-semitism, and encouragement of people in hsi writings to obey those God has set above them?

          “The suggestion that scholars, like Nobel Laureate W. Shockley who promoted Eugenics, are somehow not subject to common sense evaluation because they are learned is idiotic.”

          Except here’s the difference: Shockley gained his reputation in Physics, and then made an ass of himself by branching out into fields he didn’t know and attempting to tell people who knew better what they were to believe.

          Aquinas and Luther were writing about theology — something they supposedly knew quite a bit about. If you don’t accept Aquinas and Luther knew what they were talking about, then we enter into a realm where there is no objective hermeneutic, no decision procedure — nothing but individual opinion about the meaning of a text. Hardly a stable or useful ground on which to build a church, a morality, a law based on that morality, or much of *anything*.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Reposting: My apologies if this is a double-post, but I don’t see it, and I saw no signs I’d been placed in moderation. ;)

          I’ve read the New Testament. I find it internally contradictory, a perfect source for weaving whatever you want out of it.

          “Aquinas sanctioned the *killing* of kings.”

          Only under very specific circumstances — and discussed how they needed to have demonstrated falling away from God to do so.

          ” Luther’s scholarship is reflected in his 95 theses nailed the to the door, not in his sanction of a massacre, or his wardrobe, or his toiletry habits.”

          Or his New Testament-justified rampaging anti-semitism, and encouragement of people in hsi writings to obey those God has set above them?

          “The suggestion that scholars, like Nobel Laureate W. Shockley who promoted Eugenics, are somehow not subject to common sense evaluation because they are learned is idiotic.”

          Except here’s the difference: Shockley gained his reputation in Physics, and then made an ass of himself by branching out into fields he didn’t know and attempting to tell people who knew better what they were to believe.

          Aquinas and Luther were writing about theology — something they supposedly knew quite a bit about. If you don’t accept Aquinas and Luther knew what they were talking about, then we enter into a realm where there is no objective hermeneutic, no decision procedure — nothing but individual opinion about the meaning of a text. Hardly a stable or useful ground on which to build a church, a morality, a law based on that morality, or much of *anything*.

        • Steven Schwartz

          OK. This is now twice my comments have disappeared; it is possible I have been banned, but I do not know.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Minor problem – the New Testament was, itself, defined by the same group who propogated the DRoK. Or didn’t you realise that the canon was chosen and edited by the Church?

          “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”

          — 1 Timothy 6:1-5.

          “Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.”

          — 1 Peter 2:18-29.

          The New Testament clearly endorses slavery. If you disagree, then YOU are one of those referred to in “Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words

        • falstaff77

          “Minor problem – the New Testament was, itself, defined by the same group who propogated the DRoK. Or didn’t you realise that the canon was chosen and edited by the Church?”

          Not *written* by the Church. No the New Testament does not lay the cloak of divinity on *anyone* but God, not remotely, not anywhere. No, instruction to obey the civil authority is not the same as making it divine, though many kings would have it so.

          “The New Testament clearly endorses slavery. “

          Does you consider the verse “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” an “endorsement” of the Roman Empire? An endorsement of coining money? Or is it an acknowledgment of the material world, and instruction to not mistake the material for the spiritual?

          As to the rest, the story of Christ contains again and again the proposition from the people of the time, *all* of them subject to the whim of the Roman Empire, that the expected savior would come with the sword and lead them to victory on earth. See for example the pardon of Barabbas (Mark 15:7), “the insurrectionist” no less, pardoned by the will of the people who would have Christ crucified instead. Again and again such a notion is rejected.

        • falstaff77

          “Obviously not that revolutionary if Christianity was used to support slavery for hundreds of years.”

          Please. Peter denied Christ three times, Judas betrayed Him, the Catholic church collected fees for indulgences. Christianity comes about as an *answer* to these flaws, not to be mistaken for them. Christianity says *all* are flawed, and says *all* may receive grace. As others have pointed out *all* in Christianity means what it says, not just those of the same ethnic group, legal system, nationality, or family, and no nothing like that idea existed prior. The fact that some wrap themselves in the trappings of Christianity for selfish ends (as expected, AKA false prophets) changes nothing about what Christianity is, as every Christian *in* slavery knew.

        • Steven Schwartz

          This sounds remarkably like the “X cannot fail, it can only *be* failed.” that we’ve heard about Communism (not carried out properly), Movement Conservatism (ditto), and so on and so forth.

          As with several others in this thread, you appear to be intent on claiming the good for Christianity and putting the bad off on “people who wrapped themselves in it for selfish ends.” Given that that appears to be the vast majority of people, one wonders if Christianity was any use at all, or, was indeed supportive of the people who “wrap themselves in the trappings”.

        • falstaff77

          “Sounds like … you appear to be … what we’ve heard …appears to be the vast majority …”

          Powerful response. Look, Christianity is a philosophy of the good, of love. Its not a check-off list or a political program. The like of those belong to Caesar.

        • Steven Schwartz

          So, since I do not make blanket statements, my response is weak?

          “It is not a check-off list from a self-help book or a political program.”

          So, in other words, it is useless for dealing with the world — so why bother with it at all, since following its precepts (or at least when most people try to follow its precepts) results in large quantities of suffering.

          (As a side note, since you dismiss the usefulness of Christianity as regarding the material world, you’ll not mind if we dismiss the relevance of Christianity?)

        • falstaff77

          We all live in the material world and are obliged to deal with it as the scripture states. The point is to not dismiss the spiritual life for the material!

          You, not “we”, repeatedly: make ridiculously pompous large and sweeping blanket statements, put words in the mouths of others making conversation moot. Best of luck.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I am the one making blanket statements, when you are the one who repeatedly emphasized “all” in your post? ;)

          Seriously — if trying to derive ways to live from it is so prone to failure, quite literally, what good does it do us beyond a general invocation to be good to one another? What advance does it offer, say, over Hillel’s “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another — that is the Law, all else is commentary?”

        • MattK

          Let’s examine a concept — common in some circles but apparently foreign to you — known to professional grammarians, authors, editors, typesetters, and all public school students from about the 3rd grade onward that do not suffer from major cognitive dysfunction, as the “paragraph.”

          A paragraph is a construction of related sentences which generally has a main idea, often stated at the outset, which is then further explained, amplified, clarified, focused, explicated, or qualified by one or more successive sentences. There is often, in longer paragraphs, a concluding sentence which will restate or clarify the thesis in light of the “supporting documentation” that the intervening sentences have offered.

          The intellectually curious, upon encountering a paragraph thesis which seems to conflict with something they know, or think they know, will generally read on in order to discover with what evidence the author backs up his assertion, or what subtle flavor or shade of meaning the author is employing via other sentences in the paragraph. Sometimes, this results in new knowledge entering the consciousness of the reader. This oft painful process of encountering an assertion which conflicts with current knowledge or belief, examining the evidence, and then expanding one’s mental framework to include the new bit of knowledge was in former times known by the abstruse cognitive psychological term “learning.” Sadly the process is not much engaged in any longer, and the term itself in today’s fallen, politically correct society has come to mean being programmed to believe things which mostly aren’t true via constant soul-deadening repetition.

          The liberal, or Professionally Aggrieved, reader on the other hand, whose faculty of rational thought, much less the desire to practice and improve that faculty, has mostly atrophied from disuse, will skim until offended by a conflicting thesis and then, since that rational faculty which might learn something in such a circumstance is not functional, will attempt to find a reason to disqualify the authors viewpoint from consideration. Because states of feeling ungood cannot be abided, and the author has caused ungood feelings, the author must be wrong. From the outside, among the rational, it is of course apparent that the liberal simply is not capable of learning any fact which conflicts with received beliefs.

          You keep telling us that you have shown Mr. Wright to be incorrect based on the first sentence of his second paragraph. All you’ve really shown us is that you either stopped reading there, or have extremely poor reading comprehension.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          Let’s examine a concept — common in some circles but apparently foreign to you — known to professional grammarians, authors, editors, typesetters, and all public school students from about the 3rd grade onward that do not suffer from major cognitive dysfunction, as the “paragraph.” [...] You keep telling us that you have shown Mr. Wright to be incorrect based on the first sentence of his second paragraph.

          Third paragraph. Didn’t get as far as the third grade, huh?

        • MattK

          And thusly you continue to demonstrate my point.

        • PhoenicianRomans

          What, that you either don’t understand what a paragraph is while lecturing others on them, or that you can’t count up to three?

        • Steven Schwartz

          MattK, writing with the ever-so-winning tone of condescension, presumes to explain both how to read an article and when one can dismiss an article.

          Say, Mr. K, that an article contained, within its early paragraphs, absent any indication that it was satirical or surrealistic in tone, the assertion “We know, of course, that the walrus is a desert creature”.

          One might reasonably be caught up short by that, and, if one read further in the article which based all of its explanation of the ways of walruses upon their desert nature, one might reasonably dismiss the article.

          One might even read to the end of the article, to make sure that there is no particular clever punchline waiting at the end; but, upon finding none, one can reasonably say, in refuting the article: “You said that walruses are desert creatures. This is simply wrong. Your credibility on animals and their habitats is therefore shot.”

          It is possible that the author even made true statements, regarding, say, the camel (an actual desert creature) later in the article — but when the article rests upon the walrus’ love of heat and sand, one can reasonably dismiss it by citing the early error.

          Given that you *also* made an early error, which radically undercut your tone of superiority — and, indeed, any claim to superior reading comprehension, upon which the rest of the retort was based, I think PhoenicianRomans is entirely within reasonable limits to dismiss you based upon your early error – -as your entire claim to status is your (claimed, albeit demonstrably false) reading comprehension.

          That I have chosen, in both my comments on Mr. Wright’s original article and your reply to Mr. PhoenicianRomans, to go beyond the desert-dwelling walruses you drop early in your respective writings, is a rhetorical *choice*, not a requirement.

        • akulkis

          Actually, you did make exactly such an equivocation.

      • Steven Schwartz

        I hardly know where to begin.

        But we’ll start here:

        “The mass neurosis called Political Correctness (sometimes called Leftism or Liberalism or Progressivism or Morlockery)”

        By beginning with this, you’ve made it clear that any statement you follow this with, you feel, applies to those on the Left; or who identify as Liberal, or Progressive.

        Just making this clear, as we’ll see why later.

        “First, the cultists do not mean what civilized men mean by ‘correctness’. We mean something is ‘correct’ when it comports with reality, that is it agrees with truth, virtue, beauty, logic, love or fidelity.”

        So, for example, the love of two men for each other is correct. (Of course, you don’t believe that, because you have your own twisted notion of “love” — indeed, none of this can be read as reasonable at all unless one subscribes to your very specific definitions of words.)

        “By our definition, politics is concerned with measures of peace and war, public decency, keeping the peace, deterring crime, securing to each man the rights to the fruits of his labor, and so on. Everything outside this sphere (and it is most of life) is personal, including how you should brush your teeth and whom you should marry.”

        So, then, you support same-sex marriage? Of course you don’t; because you feel it falls under “public decency”, and can therefore be controlled.

        And that definition of politics works equally well for those you oppose — it is only your pure assertion that they are not interested in such things. (Indeed, the labor movement (one of those progressive movements you refer to as Morlockery) is primarily concerned with — get this! — the rights to the fruits of one’s *labor*.)

        “Law is abolished, and each man is judged only by his race, his class, his party loyalty, not on the merits of his case.” Funny — it makes one wonder why progressives try to *legislate* at all, as they clearly do, if you bother to look at the evidence.

        I suspect your answer is that it is false legislation, or some such crockery — in which case we must rely upon solely one person’s judgment for that — oh, wait! Who was setting up a single leader again?

        And then we get to the money quote:

        “Those who support this vision, whether they know it or not, whether they admit it or not, always prefer untrammeled and arbitrary power over the solemnities of the law and the bulwarks of custom.”

        In other words — no matter what his opponents say, no matter what they claim to know, no matter how they feel — they are wrong, and Mr. Wright is right, because, um….

        Because he is, I suppose, due to lacking any evidence other than the broadest of generalizations and sweeping statements.

        You will be unsurprised if I find this…unconvincing, to put it mildly.

        “Political Correctness dwells in Make Believe Land, where the thing is true if we all believe it with all our hearts, squinting our eyes and clenching our wee little fists.”

        Ah! Like the land where, contrary to all evidence, if we believe hard enough, abstinence-only sex education will work, rather than make teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission rates worse? I think you’ll find that’s not the land PC dwells in; that is rather more a land of blind faith.

        “one may not use English in its normal and proper use” — Perhaps you would prefer the courts to go back to using Law French? When, pray tell, did the Academy define the normal and proper use of English, a lá French?

        “(cismale, heteronormative, islamophobic) which have emotional impact but no intellectual meaning.”

        I have to admit, I think this is the first time I’ve seen anyone claim “heteronormative” to have significant emotional impact — especially *outside* its intellectual meaning. I can very precisely define each of the terms you’ve used — they have meanings, and intellectual uses. *You* appear to be the one who wishes to control what language people use, prohibiting new concepts if they do not fit your idea of what *should* be spoken.

        “If science fails to show a global warming trend or a global cooling trend” — And, to paraphrase an English air marshal, if your uncle had been plumbed differently, he would have been your aunt. How much consensus do you *need* before you admit to what is obvious to most everyone who isn’t trying desperately to cling to an ideological viewpoint?

        “PC says what may and may not be thought in philosophy. You are not only not allowed to believe in God, since that would be racist and patriarchal and reactionary, you are not allowed to believe in the philosophical concepts which civilized theologians and philosophers across the ages have deduced are commensurate with belief in god, those selfsame metaphysical concepts like truth, virtue, beauty, reason, love, fidelity.”

        Hm. I wonder what liberation theologians would say to that. Or Reconstructionist Jews. (Or many Reform Jews, for that matter.) Just because God is not given the kind of complete dominion previous centuries used, does not mean one is not allowed to believe.

        Of course, there are people who choose not to — or do you not grant them the right to make that choice? And if so, who is it who is being tyrannical?

        “Philosophy is confusing and leads to disagreements, and it is probably racist and sexist and cismasculine and heteronormative and islamophobic and doubleplusungood.”

        Some philosophers are. Some philosophers aren’t. Guess what — philosophy has a broad scope.

        “PC says what you can and cannot do with your sexual partners.”

        Unlike, of course, religion, which has nothing to say on the subject, and would never dream of supporting cruel and sometimes fatal punishments for the way people choose to engage in sexual activities. No, not ever. Nompe.

        “Now, since the great and single selling point of PC is that it allegedly permits everything and anything with any sexual partner of any persuasion, orientation, species, number or age, you are no doubt shocked at this bold claim this topic is one more where PC calls for strict controls.”

        Tell me, Mr. Wright — do you own a straw factory? because if not, I blanch to think at the bills you must be running up here.

        Remember — at the beginning of his essay, Mr. Wright conflated “liberals”, “the left”, and “progressives” with PC. So, he’s arguing that somehow, everyone on the left supports pedophilia and bestiality.

        Go and look at the real world — and see if you find evidence for this. Not “One or two people say things that might support it.” Not “There was this organization…”

        Mr. Wright is saying they *all* do.

        Consider this, and consider the awareness of reality such a person is displaying.

        “And we monogamists, we Catholics, those of us who say sexual reproduction is for sexual reproduction, we are demonized when we meekly ask not to be forced to pay for your harlots to kill their babies in the womb.”

        I can only presume that Mr. Wright has never been to a clinic and seen protests there. I also assume that he has no knowledge of his own church’s politics (which go far beyond merely “meekly asking…” nor the political environment which already means he doesn’t have to pay. No; Catholic churches are asking to be allowed to force others *not* to have abortions — I will not even go into the traditional language arguments that can be had here — and will restrict myself to pointing out the disingenousness of his words.

        “We are not bold enough to ask your harlots not to kill their babies”

        Balderdash. You have *failed* in your attempts to get the state to *enforce* your insistence that people not have abortions. That does not prevent you from asking, nay *harassing* people who try to do so.

        “Our concept is liberty. Liberty means each man is responsible for himself, and responsible to himself.”

        Except, of course, when they try and do things you find “offensive to the common decency” or the like.

        We have seen Church regulations in the past; if they do not regulate as much as they used to, it is because they have lost power, not because of any demonstrated lack of desire.

        Do you wish to see the tyrant, Mr. Wright? The one who slavers to control others, to enforce their views of proper behavior, proper English, proper worship?

        Go look in a mirror.

        • msmischief

          “So, for example, the love of two men for each other is correct.”

          If it is the desire for the good of each other, yes, it’s correct.

          If, on the other hand, both of them would react with scorn and fury at the notion of forgoing something they wanted to do because it might endanger the purported beloved’s life. . . .

        • Steven Schwartz

          “”If it is the desire for the good of each other, yes, it’s correct.”

          So, two gay men, each wanting the other to be happy and sexually fulfilled, loving each other is correct. Thank you for the support.

          “If, on the other hand, both of them would react with scorn and fury at the notion of forgoing something they wanted to do because it might endanger the purported beloved’s life. . . .”

          Ah — I see we’re going to try and slide the “Gay sex is *so* risky*” in here not terribly subtly. Sorry; that won’t fly. It’s no more risky (or not-risky) than other people’s sex, given the same level of safer-sex precaution. So, reacting with scorn and fury to the (incorrect) idea that they are somehow to forgo what other people are allowed for some alleged safety reason seems, well, to be expected.

        • msmischief

          ROFLOL.

          That’s why you are dying like flies of AIDS and roared with outrage at the mere notion that you should restrain yourself from using your purported beloveds as sex toys when it could KILL them.

          No, you do not love each other. You do not desire the good of each other. And denying either charge is refuted by the masses of gravestones your “love” produced.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “That’s why you are dying like flies of AIDS” You do realize that the vast majority of AIDS-infected people and new AIDS infections are heterosexual, don’t you?

          That, indeed, it is the attitudes of people like you that helped *cause* the deaths that you appear to find so amusing — because instead of treating a disease, you preferred to blame the victims.

          “No, you do not love each other.”

          Ah, the ever-familiar telepathy of the self-righteous, always willing to tell people that they don’t feel what they feel, because it doesn’t align with their preconceived notions.

          “You do not desire the good of each other.”

          See above; you actively deny the only source of knowledge about such things you have — the feelings and opinions of those who actually *have* such desires.

          “And denying either charge is refuted by the masses of gravestones your “love” produced.”

          So if a woman dies in childbirth, her husband did not love her? That’s the logical result of your assertion here — since none of those deaths was intended, but many of them were the result of people expressing their love for each other.

          The only way you can claim that is by defining “love” in a way that no one, outside of your narrow view, would recognize — a “love” that is closer to “slavish obedience to archaic dogma” than anything else.

        • msmischief

          That’s because you are such a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of the populace that even total kill would not make you most of them. (The heterosexuals, also, of course, do not love each other.)

          My attitude did not force anyone to infect anyone else with disease. And it is manifestly absurd to say that it is not blameworthy to openly, wittingly, and freely do something to that will cause you or anyone else to suffer a fatal, ghastly, and incurable disease.

          Your feelings are irrelevant. Love is not what you feel. Love is what you DO.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “My attitude did not force anyone to infect anyone else with disease.”

          Your attitude impeded study of the disease, its vectors, its mechanisms, its prevention, and its treatment. That is ample reason to blame your attitude for deaths.

          ” And it is manifestly absurd to say that it is not blameworthy to openly, wittingly, and freely do something to that will cause you or anyone else to suffer a fatal, ghastly, and incurable disease.”

          And there’s the crux: “will cause”. Because in many cases, it didn’t.

          Would you agree that people are to blame for openly, wittingly, and freely doing something that could very easily cause sudden death or massive disability to themselves or innocents, and therefore they do not love anyone they do it with?

          Congratulations — you’ve just declared you don’t love anyone you drive in a car with.

          Many people who engaged in same-sex sex did not suffer a fatal, ghastly, incurable disease. Your claim is, therefore, invalid.

          “Your feelings are irrelevant. Love is not what you feel. Love is what you DO.”

          So, living with someone, supporting them through good and ill, sharing one’s life with them — that’s not evidence of love? Or is it only evidence of love if it’s approved by whichever particular narrow-minded viewpoint you agree with.

          (I do find it noteworthy that “feelings are irrelevant”. I’ll remember that the next time I hear a religious person talk about how they feel the presence of God, or love their neighbors, or demand respect for their feelings.)

        • msmischief

          You didn’t care about its vectors. You fought tooth-and-nail against research.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I beg your pardon? You have no idea who I am; you have no idea what I did or didn’t do.

          *I* was not among the people who denied there was an AIDS crisis for many years. I was among the people trying to bring attention to it, and help people cope with it.

          *I* was not among the people who described AIDS as “God’s punishment” — I think you will find you stand much closer to those folks than I do.

          I notice, also, you carefully don’t respond to any of my other arguments; I suspect because you lack the capacity to do so honestly and rationally.

        • msmischief

          You are in denial. The people trying to “cope with it” were those who were reduced to shrieking incoherent rage at the idea that it should be contained by the way we knew how to contain incurable, fatal STDs — and which we knew would work because they worked on syphilis before the mass production of penicillin.

          No, it’s because your arguments are so startlingly incoherent that they have to be teased apart enough to get at the core before they can be argued with.

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” it should be contained by the way we knew how to contain incurable, fatal STDs”

          Ah — so the people who shrieked with rage because they demanded that they not be locked up in camps and left to die?

          Funny how that works.

          Or did you have some other “containment” in mind?

          (As a side note: with proper treatment, expected lifespan with HIV is now equal to expected lifespan. Just letting you know.)

        • akulkis

          Wow. So you’re so stupid you’ve never heard of the concept of quarantine for lethal and/or highly contagious diseases, and how that is NOT a “death camp” but simply a public health measure. The fact that you would even equate the two for emotional shock value and pretend victimization point is precisely the point… you would rather have MORE AND MORE of your fellow gays die of AIDS than to contain the problem. This is part and parcel of the Borderline Personality Disorder which is also rife within the gay community.

          Mr. Mischief is right. You all fought tooth and nail against quarantine, because you’re literally so self-destructive that you thought that spreading AIDS among yourself was more important than containing the epidemic within your community.

          Your behavior was SO ludicrous, outrageous and anti-logical, that it turned red diaper-baby editor-in-chief of Ramparts magazine (the leading left-wing advocate of revolution) into a hard-right conservative.

        • Steven Schwartz

          As usual, you misinterpret what’s said and wander off into Cloud Cuckoo-land with your interpretations.

          Let me give you a quick clue: if the choice is “quarantine” or “research and treat”, guess which I’ll pick? Do you honestly believe the same amount of research would have gone on when people were simply quarantined away to die alone?

          (I know; asking logical questions of a troll is probably a waste of time, but I figure that anyone reading this might want to know a bit more than the nonsense this idjit is spewing.)

        • akulkis

          You can’t defeat the argument, so you immediately go for disqualification, hoping you can sidestep the argument., then when that doesn’t work, you’ll just resort to using ad hominem attacks.

          Too bad — that’s a fallacy, too. You can’t defeat my argument, because it has the one quality which your’s lacks — it’s based on truth, through and through.

        • msmischief

          “And there’s the crux: “will cause”. Because in many cases, it didn’t.”

          By that argument, compelling a small child to play Russian roulette is harmless, because in many cases, the kid’s brains won’t be blown out. And defending it on the ground that anyone who gives any child something to eat risks giving the child food poisoning.

          No, any sane person would see the distinction there and between AIDS and the counterexamples you are dredging up to justify despicably unloving acts.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You’re the one making the claim; it is up to you to defend it.

          Two monogamous gay men, having sex with each other, after both have been tested clean — risk of HIV infection? Infinitesimal.

          A heterosexual couple, driving to work each day — risk of dying? Not inconsiderable.

          You can argue “unsafe sex isn’t displaying love” — but that doesn’t say anything about *who* is engaging in said sexual activity.

          But to argue that, by definition, same-sex lovers (since, after all, lesbians have a *lower* HIV infection rate than heterosexuals) are “unloving” is to ignore all the evidence to hand, both of their own testimony and the statistics.

        • akulkis

          What the fuck ever, bugchaser.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ladies and gentleman, a (sadly not-too-uncommon) double feature: The troll and the ad hominem attack.

          When presented with facts, what does he do? Resort to “Whatever” and namecalling.

          If that’s him in his profile picture, he certainly is a disgrace to the uniform.

          (And, BTW, that’s not an argument ad hominem. THat’s simply an insult, which he richly deserves.)

        • akulkis

          Translation from Schwartzian into Standard English: “How dare anyone truthfully and accurately point out that buttsecks is Russian Roulette with the GRID virus.”

        • Steven Schwartz

          If “Anything voluntarily done and nonessential involving risk” is “Russian Roulette”, then so’s driving your car anywhere you don’t absolutely have to go.

          Oh — and calling it “GRID” is another giveaway as to either your a) troll or b) irredeemable bigot status, since that hasn’t been used in *decades* by the medical or research community, and no longer accurately represents the population it most heavily affects.

        • akulkis

          See, this is why I don’t trust gays.

          1. You’re not even sane enough to protect your own life — why should I trust you in ANY way to lift a finger to protect me from harm.

          2. You’ll go out of your way to risk your life for no reason at all — why should I trust you in ANY way to not put equal effort into needlessly putting anyone else’s life at risk, too.

          The problem here is this — gays refuses to see as legitimate ANY measure that interferes with their pursuit of fagtopia. Hence NAMBLA, and not a single gay organization attempting to put distance between themselves and NAMBLA… because because it’s not just a case that NAMBA is gays, but gays ARE NAMBLA.

        • Steven Schwartz

          1. You’re not even sane enough to protect your own life — why should I trust you in ANY way to lift a finger to protect me from harm.

          You mean how the safer-sex educations that are now part of any responsible sex education programs (as opposed to those catastrophic failures, “abstinence-only” programs) were developed from curricula in the GLBT community?

          Not to mention how you got from what I said to what you posted — wow. That’s some impressive …it’s not even projection; it’s sheer leap-into-the-unknown.

        • akulkis

          So, just to get this straight… Steven, you’re both Jewish AND a practitioner of Man on Man sex…. which is why your objections to my other comments are hysterically mutually contradictory.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I find it amusing that you claim you can deduce my (religion/ethnicity) from posts on which I don’t make any specific claims.

          And the fact that you find *who* I am rendering *what* I say somehow contradictory returns us to logical-fallacy land.

          Tell me, troll, what benefit do you gain from being slapped around in public for your shoddy reasoning?

        • akulkis

          I find it amusing that YOU would find it amusing that anyone would use evidence and logic to deduce what is by now, quite obvious.

        • akulkis

          Hey tell us, Steven, why can’t you gays have one of your ridiculous “pride” parades without it turning into a wandering public nudity get-together?

          What in the fuck is wrong with you?

          As a comedian once noted, “If you get arrested for posession of marijuana, it’s not because you had marijuana on you, it’s because you were acting like a pothead.”

          Likewise, society doesn’t give a shit about when you gays keep it in the closet. But as soon as you’re allowed one centimeter out of the closet, you all suddenly think that means you have permission to turn all of society into fagtopia. People don’t dislike you for your weird sexual yearnings. People dislike you for your neverending quest to turn society into fagtopia (and the high rate of buggering underage boys — sometimes to the point of death — doesn’t help — espeically when you then blame the death on “homophobia” instead of where it squarely belongs: the level of insanity that is prevelant throughout the gay community.)

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Likewise, society doesn’t give a shit about when you gays keep it in the closet. ”

          Nor do people care that you’re a troll and/or a homophobic antisemite until you open your mouth and start broadcasting it.

          Given that you seem determined not to bring any actual *facts* to this discussion, I don’t see much point in answering you further.

        • akulkis

          Quit demanding that people take you seriously while prancing around down the street wearing nothing but assless chaps.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I never demand that people take me seriously while prancing. ;)

          (Oh — and BTW, “assless chaps” is redundant, and merely points you out for the clueless twit you are.)

          In all seriousness — what do you get out of this? I mean, you’re not persuading anyone, since all you have is insults and incorrect facts — so why bother?

        • akulkis

          the assless may be redundant, but it’s there to make it clear to the uninformed just exactly what level of undress you gays consider to be within the bounds of proper attire while walking around in public.

        • Porphyry

          “I want to do whatever I want and Im not going to listen to any of your moral presumpticans… bla bla bla” That’s so exciting, I hope you feel the same way when you’re being gang raped by a tattooed bunch of 80IQ thugs, in the ghetto.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I fail to see how you get what you claim I said from what I actually said. Perhaps you should try *reading*, rather than simply presuming you know what I am saying.

        • akulkis

          Thank you, Steven, for demonstrating, repeatedly, exactly what is wrong with Political Correctness.

          Your first instinct in all cases was to IMMEDIATELY jump to Political Correct-speech shaming phrases rather than actually trying to refute an argument put forth.

          Congratulations! Now that you’ve been successfully trolled multiple times, I suggest you take each and every one of the hook out of your mouth.a And stop acting like some sort of hyper-reactionary dumbass. You’re no better than the free-speech hating morons that I see on every campus these days… people who are completely OBLIVIOUS to the concept that, of any place on the planet, a college or university should be THE PLACE to discuss ANY ideas. But apparently, that applies only to ideas which your ilk agree with, and nothing else.

          You should be proud of yourself — You’ve proven Mr. Wright’s point.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “Your first instinct in all cases was to IMMEDIATELY jump to Political Correct-speech shaming phrases rather than actually trying to refute an argument put forth.”

          You mean like calling an anti-semite an anti-semite? Or pointing out the *factual* errors in your claims?

          “Your first instinct in all cases was to IMMEDIATELY jump to Political Correct-speech shaming phrases rather than actually trying to refute an argument put forth.”

          I recommend you, and anyone else involved in this thread, look at my discussion with Montague, if they want to see how I react when I am not dealing with someone whose first post is full of historical errors and contains the term “faggotocracy.”

          Even there, if you bother to look at the post immediately following your first appearance in this thread, it contains facts and rebuttals, and only ends on bigotry because you’d already demonstrated it.

          “Congratulations! Now that you’ve been successfully trolled multiple times,”

          In other words, “Now that, as a dishonest interlocutor, I feel I’ve had enough fun….”

          You then go on to complain about college speech codes, an idea with which I also vehemently disagree; I’m a firm believer in “more speech to correct bad speech”, which is why I continued to engage with you even when I decided you were, as admitted, a troll.

          What you’ve proven is that not until you push your argument beyond the bounds of all reason, into the sort of areas where your claims are rejected by not only the left but most of the right, do people stop engaging with you, and that by dismissing you as the fact-averse lunatic you presented yourself as.

          If *that* is “political correctness”, you and Mr. Wright are using a very different definition from the rest of the world, troll.

        • goldushapple

          >>So, for example, the love of two men for each other is correct.

          LOL. It’s not love. It’s perversion. It’s lust, even. It’s demented.

          The whole “love is love” card is myth.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And what gave you such magical insight into people, that you can tell when two people are in “love” and when two people are in “perversion”? Since clearly you don’t trust *them* to tell you?

          “The whole “love is love” card is myth.”

          And on what do you base this?

      • akulkis

        To make the point further, the very term, “Politically Correct” originated in the Russian Politburo in thelate 1920′s. Far too many Russians were still blabbering the truth about every subject under the sun to the point that it was empeding the Communist Party’s ability to psychologically bully the Russian populace.

        Remember also that most of the Politburo was made up of people who were born in Russia, but who never considered themselves to be Russian…. same group who is the lead proponent of PC speach codes here in the U.S, and often identify themselves as members of some other group before being American, and who even go so far as to propagandize that there is not, and never has been any such thing as “an American culture.”

        I now understand why they were kicked out of Egypt.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ladies and gentleman, Homo Antisemiticus, flourishing in its natural habitat of a space of low accountability.

        • akulkis

          What did I write which was antisemitic, exactly?

          Note that in another thread above, I’m accused of blindly believing what was written by a Jewish man about the Nazis. How can this be true?

        • Steven Schwartz

          “What did I write which was antisemitic, exactly?”

          Let’s see — you attempt to blame Stalinism, in effect, on Jews, you repeat the old canard that they consider themselves Jews before being Americans, that they claim that there is no such thing as “American Culture” — the old Enemy Within myth.

          Oh, and top it off with a warped Exodus reference — unless there’s some other group famous for leaving (or “being kicked out” of) Egypt that everyone should be aware of.

          Good enough for you? Or was I incorrect in calling you an anti-semite when I should have just dubbed you “troll”?

        • akulkis

          So you’re saying that the Politburo was not predominently Jewish at that time?

          Disagreeing with known historical facts just shows everyone that either you have something that you want to deny, or you’re an idiot.

          Which is it?

        • Steven Schwartz

          I will note that later in this thread, you draw a contradiction between identifying as Jewish and engaging in certain behavior — implying Judaism should be treated as a religion. Here, you treat Judaism as an ethnicity. You should pick one, if you’re going to try and claim things like “contradictions.”

          As to the rest: The 15th Politburo (1927-1930) had 1 person of Jewish, 3 people I could not be sure of, and 15 who were not Jewish. That’s an interesting definition of “predominantly” you have there.

          (Research done using Wikipedia, since I don’t have exhaustive reference works on the Politburo to hand at my house. ;))

          So; why don’t you answer your own question?

        • akulkis

          Handwave all you want. All you’re doing now is trying to suppress facts which you don’t like people knowing.

          Hey, Steven, are you into book-burning, too?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Heh. Why am I not surprised that I bring him a fact in contradiction to his preconceptions and he accuses me of “handwaving”.

          To akulkis, a fact that doesn’t agree with his preconceived notions isn’t a fact.

          And no, akulkis, that’s more in line with the people you seem determined to associate yourself with, that whole bookburning thing.

        • akulkis

          I’m just talking about your attempt to stifle any mention of facts which don’t present Jews as being the source of all that is good and right.

          If you want to make speech codes prohibiting any negative words about the actions of Jews in history, move to Isreal. Otherwise, I will avail myself to my right to free speech and write the truth.

          If you don’t like it, you can pound sand.

          My ancestors came from Scotland, Germany (Amish– i.e. pre-War of Independence) and Ukraine and Lithuania.

          Unlike you, I have no qualms with commenting on the massive fucktardary of Ukraine.. both in the present and going back for hundreds of years — The place is overwhelmingly criminal, and I don’t blame the Russians one bit for their animosity against the Ukrainians — because the Ukrainians EARNED it.

          Since the time of Joseph in Egypt, the Jewish people have travelled to new lands, and deliberately fucked over their hosts, and then cried and whined when their hosts got sick of the shit and rose up against the Jews. Being God’s chosen people does NOT mean you have carte blanche to ignore God, turn your back on God, and do everything to shit on God’s instructions. Jesus repeatedly talked about how the teachings of the Pharisees were directly opposed to God’s word, and yet even today, the Jewish community (both religiously observant and not) continue to live the wicked ideology of the Pharisees, of taking advantage of non-Jews whenever the opportunity arises (Wall Street Bailout — followed immediately by HUGE BONUSES FOR THE GUYS WHO CAUSED THE CRASH!!!!).

          And then you act like people are surprised when, after a couple of generations, your generous hosts decide that maybe it would be better to see your blood running in the streets.

          In a matter of 60 years, Jewish immigrants from Europe have managed to turn the U.S.A. into Weimar Germany. And you think that the results will be different? Do you all plan to run to Mexico? Canada? Or is the plan to take a long swim back across the Atlantic. Recently, there was a conference of Jewish leaders dicussing the possibility of fleeing to China after the Banker-caused collapse of the U.S. finally becomes catastrophic. Seriously, the Han don’t even like their closest cousins within China, and hold to the same sort of ethnic bigotry as you do — they consider ALL members from other races to be subhuman… even Jews. And unlike the U.S., whining about he Holocaust won’t tug at their hearstrings, and they have no Statue of Liberty with an Emma Lazarus poem at the base.

          But keep on treating the rest of the world as stupid cattle, as taught in the Talmud, and then act all hurt and surprised when the “cattle” decide that the best solution is deportation or extermination. Because that worked so well the last time, didn’t it.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “I’m just talking about your attempt to stifle any mention of facts which don’t present Jews as being the sole source of all that is good and right, and never the source of anything else.”

          Well, when you find a fact, do bring it up — you haven’t brought any to the discussion so far.

          “Otherwise, I will avail myself to my right to free speech and write the truth.”

          Oh, you have every right to your own words; what you don’t have is a right to your own facts, and when you make claims that are easily disproven, it just goes to show that, indeed, you place less importance on truth than on bigotry.

          “My ancestors came from Scotland, Germany (Amish– i.e. pre-War of Independence) and Ukraine and Lithuania.”

          Hm. A pretty close match for mine, actually, in geographical terms. However, I don’t happen to believe in broad ethnic stereotyping as a good way to understand history, treat individuals, or arrange public policy. I had rather hoped that, as a country, we’d gotten past “No Blacks, no Dogs, no Irish” — but you don’t seem to have.

          “Since the time of Joseph in Egypt, the Jewish people have travelled to new lands, and deliberately fucked over their hosts,”

          Hm. I’d love to see some evidence for this other than your simple assertion, since we’ve already determined that you consider 1 out of 20 to be a predominant number.

          The rest of your post is just typical anti-Semitic drivel, as we’ve seen in one form or another for thousands of years, and having the same relationship to reality as the rest of your claims. Blah, Blah, Jewish Banking Conspiracy, blah, blah, parasites. Why don’t you try and go for the trifecta and fit the blood libel in there?

          I find it, I admit, somewhat amusing, given that your attitude towards Jews would fit right in with the Nazis you so vigorously try and claim as “gay” — even though they put homosexuals in camps. You hate the same people the Nazis do — perhaps you should look in a mirror and consider whether you’re closer to them than you think.

        • akulkis

          Wow. Read the old Testament.

          Joseph goes to Egypt. Becomes advisor to the pharoah, who asks him what a dream means . Joseph correctly interprets it to mean that there will be 7 years of good harvests, followed by 7 years of famine. So, what does he advise the Pharoah to do? Raise grain harvest taxes during the good years, filling the storage silos to overflowing, and then during the 7 years of famine, give the grain (which came from the people) back to the people only through methods of extortion — first demanding that they turn over all of their livestock, and eventually surrendering even their land…. TO GET THE BACK THE VERY SAME GRAIN WHICH THE PEOPLE HAD GROWN AND HARVESTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Shortly after that, the Jews in Isreal went from being guests to being enslaved, until Moses finally leads the Jews out of Egypt with the Pharoah’s army in hot pursuit.

          Variations of this story occur throughout the old Testament. Jews settle in a foreign land. One or a few Jews become noted advisor to the local ruler. Jewish advisor instructs the ruler on how to manipulate people and situations to the detriment of the populace at large. Populace eventually rises up, and wants to kill all the Jews in their midst.

          And why is it that even in modern times, we see the EXACT SAME SHIT being repeated around the world. Bolshevik Revolution. Weimar Germany. Soviet domination of Europe. Destruction of European Christian nations by planned and organized invasion by “immigrants” from every 3rd-world country under the sun. Regardless of the country, the leading advocates for these destructive policies which punish the host country are invariably Jewish.

          Keep judging everything on the basis of this single question, “Is it good for the Jews” to the exclusion of any concern about anybody else.

          Start treating the country you live in as a car you own, not a rental.

          Stop using the Satanically inspired Talmud as a guide to what constitutes ethical behavior — to wit, if a non-Jew is harmed, it’s a tood idea — all of which flies in the face of the 10 Commandment given directly to Moses from God.

        • Frank DiSalle

          Congratulations! You are “Hater Of The Year”!

        • akulkis

          Just because the Nazis were war-criminals doesn’t mean that they didn’t justify their case for their actions upon truth.

          How is it that an ethnic group which comprised less than 1% of the German population came to hold over 30% of the real estate, 40% of the scrap metal businesses, 65% of all other metals businesses, and constituted 80% of the trading activity on the Berlin stock exchange and held 85% of the seats on the Berlin Stock Exchange?

          Hitler didn’t create anti-Jewish sentiment — all he did was tap into a volcanic pool of seething anger from Germans wanting revenge for having their country literally stolen from them.

          And don’t even try to deny that the Jewish business holdings in Germany were so huge — Jewish accounts of Kristallnach speak of the streets being filled with broken glass. This doesn’t fit very well with “one or two” Jewish shops in town have their windows smashed in — that’s a description of practically every shop in town having its windows smashed. And one things Germans have NEVER been accused of is being sloppy — which in this case, would imply smashing in a lot of non-Jewish storefronts.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Mr. Wright — I want you to look at your defender.

          Will you disavow him? Or do you accept him?

          Because I stop arguing when it is clear I am dealing with a neo-Nazi; the world has passed judgment upon your arguments already, and someone as far gone into delusion as you are — well, there’s no hope.

        • akulkis

          The Politburo rubber-stamped whatever the Commnist Party Leadership said, and the party leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. This is beyond dispute. And the Russian wiki pages are even more incriminating.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You made a claim. It was proven to be untrue. *Nothing* you say is “beyond dispute” anymore, since you seem to have at best a dubious acquaintance with actual facts.

        • akulkis

          And nothing you say is “beyond dispute” either. Which means no automatic victory for you, toodles.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’m not the one claiming things are “beyond dispute”. You’re the one pitching conspiracy theories that almost no one believes, that condemn huge numbers of people; the burden of proof is on you.

        • akulkis

          Thank you, Steven, for demonstrating, repeatedly, exactly what is wrong with Political Correctness.

          Your first instinct in all cases was to IMMEDIATELY jump to Political Correct-speech shaming phrases rather than actually trying to refute an argument put forth.

          Congratulations! Now that you’ve been successfully trolled multiple times, I suggest you take each and every one of the hook out of your mouth.a And stop acting like some sort of hyper-reactionary dumbass. You’re no better than the free-speech hating morons that I see on every campus these days… people who are completely OBLIVIOUS to the concept that, of any place on the planet, a college or university should be THE PLACE to discuss ANY ideas. But apparently, that applies only to ideas which your ilk agree with, and nothing else.

        • Frank DiSalle

          To make the point further, the very term, “Politically Correct” originated in the Russian Politburo in thelate 1920′s.

          Nice try, but nope, the Commies didn’t originate this term.

          In the 18th century, the term “Politically Correct” appeared in U.S. law, in a political-lawsuit judged and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1793.[1][2] The first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is stated in William Safire’s Safire’s Political Dictionary to be by Toni Cade in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman, where she wrote “A man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too”.[3]

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#History_of_the_term

      • Frank DiSalle

        Your pretentious, overwrought Manichaean writing style reminds me of Mein Kampf.

        All PC does is ask (not tell!) people not to call each other deliberately offensive names.

        The environmental standards you mention- gas mileage, toilet flushes, etc. are not “PC”, they are regulations legislated by lawfully elected democratic governments, not arbitrary measures imposed by tyranny.

        If you don’t like such regulations, you are free to oppose them in any non-violent way you wish.

        Your assumption that any woman who has an abortion is a “harlot” is rather bizarre. Do you really believe that married women don’t have abortions—- including lots of Catholic women?

      • Frank DiSalle

        PC says whether you tip your hat to a lady or hold a door.

        Poor Mr. Wright, those leftist bullies won’t allow you to tip your hat to a lady, or hold a door!

        It must be hell, living a world of paranoid delusion.

        Can I simply suggest that you go back on your meds again…?

      • johnmc

        I am reminded of, I think, what Chesterton said to the effect that when you abolish the great rules in society you don’t get no rules. What you get are the little rules.

        STTJOHMC

      Be Sociable, Share!