Theocracy n’Stuff
Well put, Pastor Doug, especially your conclusion: “God is being kind to us, and He is doing it in such a way as to preclude boasting on our part.” The word picture you created in your prior post along these same lines about no conservative Christian wanting to be photographed with Pres Trump (or something to that effect as I recall) was very clarifying.
Paul
Paul, thanks.
RE: Theocracy and the Tijuana Brass There is a way to present Moore’s pro-King and anti-theocracy commitments in a way that isn’t “simple incoherence,” though I have no idea whether or not he would be happy with it. It’s simply this: King’s civil rights activism relied on a distinctly biblical view of justice, but the policies he wanted don’t. Well, they depend on it in the sense that what makes any claim of justice true is its biblical pedigree, but not in the sense that there aren’t lots of other points of view from which legal protections for racial minorities make perfectly good sense. Of course there are, and because there are, pulling up Jim Crow laws by their roots isn’t theocratic in the sense that worries people who worry about theocracies—the sense according to which the theocracies tend to be objectionably sectarian. That’s a difference between a Christian using the Bible to argue for legal protections for racial minorities and a Christian using the bible to argue for legal penalties for people who (e.g.) blaspheme the Christian God. Moore himself might be incoherent—he’s a baptist, after all—but he needn’t be here.
Kyle
Kyle, if we allow biblical rhetoric only if we are speaking to an issue where a requisite number of worldviews overlap and concur, then we have created a question about how this parliament of religions is to function. And which religions are excluded, and why? Again, by what standard?
Pastor Wilson, How do these thoughts apply to same-sex “marriage?” It looks like you’re arguing against letting religious scruples inform secular law, but I seem to recall you stating that we should fight for a sane definition of marriage. Is it because there is a natural law argument for marriage but not one for teetotalism? Thanks!
Roger
Roger, it is that biblical case can be made for marriage (and also a natural law case). No biblical case whatever can be made for a mandated teetotalism.
Pastor Wilson, To say “we” shouldn’t have done the Prohibition is like saying we shouldn’t outlaw anything that is not outlawed in Scripture. Is that your position? Do you believe we should get rid of our anti-drug laws?
Jessica
Jessica, I believe that we should not outlaw something simply because the Bible defines it as a sin. Covetousness is a sin, but I don’t want the cops policing covetousness. Lust is a sin, but I don’t want the lust police. If the Bible defines something as a crime (meaning there are attendant civil penalties), then I believe we should follow suit. That said, I believe that a biblical case could be made for certain forms of anti-drug, or anti-drunkenness laws.
I continue to appreciate your insight regarding theocracy (your recent Tijuana Brass article). I can’t help but suspect that Russell Moore’s double standard, which you so adroitly observed, reveals his true allegiance: that of seeking respectability from the world. Working for civil change in the name of Christian morality is apparently laudable only so long as the goal is one endorsed by our current cultured elite. I doubt this is conscious in his part, but no less problematic. I hope, though, that your critique will help him realize whose respect he is truly courting at the end of the day.
Daniel
Daniel, thanks.
Re: Theocracy Doug, I appreciate you tackling the dirty ‘T’ word, and I agree that Moore’s (and most others’) thoughts on the topic are muddled. However, the way you are using the term is a little idiosyncratic. Theocratic is typically seen as the direct rule of God, or the rule of his emanation (whatever for that may take). Even within OT studies the theocratic era ended with the formation of the monarchy. David can be a man after God’s own heart but his rule is not theocratic, it is a lawful kingdom. This is why we have the more nuanced term theonomic, God’s law is THE law, and should be our law. Though that requires unpacking as well due to the difficulty in application, the inflexible way that some (North anyone?) have tried to apply it, and the not-at-all obvious divisions in the supposed tripartite law. If you want to use the word theocratic to mean a government that acknowledges God is the ruler of all and that earthly authorities are under his dominion, that is fine. But it may cause confusion in your interlocutors.
Demo
Demo, I take your point. But the theonomists back in the eighties fared no better on this point. Anyone who insists that we have an obligation to obey the living God in our public life will be accused of being a theocratic goon show. I have decided to just lean in. Yes, I am theocratic, as we all are.
This addresses the posts on theocracy and Russell Moore. If on the one hand, in the back of your Southern Baptist hymnal, you find the nationalist military anthem “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” a song that deifies the murderous John Brown and equates the killing of a people to the marching on of God’s truth, and then on the other hand, you have the exodus of an African American pastor from your organization even after a unanimous condemnation of white supremacy (link here), then Moore’s alleged inconsistency may be as much due to history, cultural influences, and political pressures than to any particularly Baptist error. Unless, of course, the Baptist errors are due to the same factors.
Richard
Richard, thanks.
Re: Theocracy and the Tijuana Brass So, I get it that Mr. Moore is inconsistent, bigly. My question to you is, Should we keep our non-theocratic Constitution or give it the Nehushtan treatment? What would a Wilson-approved constitution look like? Because as much as I like my Reformed friends, I really don’t want them using the power of the government to enforce their religious opinions. What’s your plan for doing theocracy without getting that kind of thing going again?
Bro. Steve
Steve, our Constitution was ratified in the “year of our Lord, 1789.” Taken with all due seriousness, that is good enough for me.
The idea of Self-Government is key to a free society. If individual people restrain personal/family behavior based on theological precepts, bringing this into the legislative, executive and judicial branches, one can claim a Godly theocracy. What other restraint would the secularist/squishy “Christian/Conservative” propose? Political Correctness? Secular Humanity? Cue Mr. T: “Pity the Foo!!” Define the restraint and identify the God of the system. Agreed, Master Wilson, theocracy is inescapable. John Adams to a Massachusetts militia 10-11-1978 (https://tinyurl.com/zy9t7u9): “But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, … this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Ron
Ron, amen. Our Constitution was not written for a nation of fornicating potheads.
Some Literary Criticism
“They are in the middle of losing a pitched battle at Midway, and have decided to send in the triremes.” I count three ingredients to the mixed metaphor. 1) Sinking Japanese aircraft carriers, 2) Ante-Marian legions, 3) Ancient naval warfare. Did I miss any? Could you double it to mixing six metaphors?
David
David, actually I would describe this as a purple metaphor, not a mixed metaphor. The two basic elements are modern naval warfare and ancient naval war. The intent was to create the idea of conflict where one side is totally out-classed, as in bringing a knife to a gun fight. A mixed metaphor would have been something like: “They are in the middle of losing a pitched battle at Midway, and have decided to send in the third string quarterback.”
“Like a dog chasing a fire truck.” Your line, “and then she takes him home for dinner, and he says (s-hole)” was the best I’ve read of your writing. And I’ve read a lot. Stopped me cold, made me laugh. Thank you. Love it when the “imagine if you will” scenario collides unexpectedly and abruptly with real life.
David
David, thanks.
Race Relations
Thank you for having the courage to write this post “Theocracy and Tijuana Brass.” I sincerely hope you will write in a future post about consistency in the aims of those who elevate MLK but destroy REL. I know all too well the situation of growing up in the south with all of the social pressures from whites and blacks alike; having grown up in Stone Mountain, GA (a suburb of ATL). What I am sensing from all of the so-called Christian movements toward racial reconciliation is a talking points memo borrowed from the world, and our media particularly, that more alleviates white guilt than it does form real and transparent friendships and love between blacks and whites. I am terribly concerned that the convenient overlooking of MLK’s whole life while simultaneously denouncing one part of REL’s life (or many other famous Christian’s from the south) will only further division, distrust, and confusion about what we actually need to be focusing on. The picture painted right now is more or less that whites in the Church are still holding blacks down and have a systemic problem of racism that they need to daily deal with. I simply do not see this happening in the Church whatsoever. Perhaps in some small country Churches full of people aged 65+ in the rural parts of the deep south this may be the case, but not in the overwhelming ranks of mainline evangelicalism. My heart breaks to see someone as Russell Moore tending more and more toward progressivism, though I’m sure he would heartily denounce me on that. He is from Mississippi, which is the “Heart of Dixie.” No state has taken more heat for their own racial sins than MS. Without knowing the man personally, I can only assume that in his position of power at the ERLC he is under heavy pressure from within and without to cast a vision for the future that bears no resemblance to the social moorings that could otherwise be bequeathed to him from his home state and a denomination that shares a checkered past as well. Back to the main issue . . . I have consistently wondered, are we influencing the world or is the world influencing us? Everywhere I turn I feel under tremendous pressure to force diversity when it may not be currently possible due to demographics or cultural differences. I also have tremendous pressure to be all in with the movements of racial reconciliation or be labeled apathetic, indifferent, or worst, racist. I am 35 years old, I am the great, great, great, grandson of a confederate veteran who died of chronic diarrhea at a prison camp in Elmira, New York. I am a husband and father of 3 children who love black, brown, and white alike. I love Jesus and my identity is only in him. May the Lord be so kind as to soften all hearts, and break through our blinded eyes with the truth of the gospel so that we may see with more clarity and consistency.
W
W, actual racial reconciliation is a work of the Spirit, which rarely happens as a result of copying the world.
Dynamite article. I’m going to be stealing that “same sex mirage” line, as I already do “by what standard.” To play devil’s advocate, what would you say to a response arguing severity? As a hypothetical rebuttal: Slavery and Jim Crow were matters of paramount importance. The subjugation of an entire race, on only the grounds of race, is a matter that the state clearly as a direct interest in. Whether or not homosexuals call themselves married, even if we take the strictest view of the negative ramifications, can’t possibly be considered as dire as Jim Crow. It isn’t very fair of you to compare the two across the board as though it’s a similar situation. Preventing large scale discrimination was a moral imperative. Stopping two consenting adults from using a title and taxing status is at the very least intrusive meddling. Applying theocracy to how people handle their interpersonal affairs in their home is clearly over the line. I imagine many people would jump to a response something to that effect. Can severity of the problem render the conflicting positions a non-issue?
Justin
Justin, the problem is that Jim Crow laws were Jim Crow laws. The state was not the savior in all this, the state was the problem. In a free society (where freedom of association was honored), a non-bigoted white man would have had the liberty to open a restaurant that served all races. After all, everybody’s money is the same color. But under Jim Crow it was against the law to do so. When our current laws mandate who you must and must not associate with, they are perpetuating the central problem.
That Gagnon guy deserves a courage award for his piece calling out TGC. I am sick to death of their moral preening designed to pander to the Leftist elites.
BJ
BJ, I agree that such things take a great deal of courage. And part of the equation is the fact that the elites all agree that such things require no courage at all. And those who think it does are playing the worldview equivalent of Walter Mitty games in their head.
Thanks, Pastor Doug. It’s all true and then some. I hope you are able to talk more about the general screaming inconsistency in Gospel Coalition praising a man like MLK at present, after they’ve worked so hard to shame Cracker-Evangelicals for stooping so low as to vote Trump over Hillary. As you mentioned above, if General Lee’s statue should come down with ropes, shouldn’t MLK’s be addressed with dynamite? What I find so disturbing these days is that men whom I have loved for years, such as Piper and Don Carson, see no problem in being involved in a conference in honor of MLK. One of the plenary talks is about addressing the present inconsistencies of Whitey-Evangelicals! I grant such inconsistency in the likes of the Falwell crowd, smiling for pictures with Trump while his Playboy magazine hangs in the background. But the irony of addressing white inconsistency during a conference which is itself inconsistent is rich indeed.
Dave
Dave, thanks.
“But there are many people of influence in the Southern Baptist Convention who do see these contradictions, and who are in a position to fix it. And they really need to, because this is embarrassing.” The problem of course, is that we Baptists are largely far more worried about being embarrassed (in front of the cool kids) by biblical consistency than we are worried about being embarrassed (in front of the theology nerds) by inconsistency.
Gary
Gary, I think this is true of a number of “thought leaders” who want to wind surf the zeitgeist. But I know that it is not the case for a number of principled leaders in the SBC.
The Porn Lady
Thank you Doug for taking the time and effort to piece together this very thoughtful article.
Brendan
Brendan, welcome.
There is more evidence of collusion with Russia (which sits at zero) than this porngate nonsense. We know Democrat operatives paid upwards of $700,000 to get women to falsely accuse Judge Roy Moore of rape. How much do you think they paid the whore? Her only evidence is an unsigned contract. If that’s all it takes, then I’ll show you an unsigned contract that you owe me a million dollars. Pay up!
Boxty
Boxty, a couple things. First, I stated at the beginning of the article that the WSJ had established something as “likely.” I do grant that the claims could be false. But if they are true, they are the kind of thing that Trump has been notorious for, and has bragged about himself. My point is, that if it is true, it is not news. Roy Moore denied everything from beginning to end. If the allegations about him were true, it would be nothing but news.
In your post “Already Baked In,” you counsel that “condemning Trump’s open adulteries takes little courage and even less detective work. Remaining relatively silent about them is a form of culpable expedience.” I suppose I would like you to say a little more about this. I gather that your main target is Christians or Christian organizations of some public standing, which therefore have an ‘on the record’ sort of public witness. I, however, am interested in the obligations of condemnation that private, ordinary, “never interviewed by the news” Christians have. I bristle at the media condemnation machine, or the way people use condemnation on social media as a type of preening or virtue signaling. I invoke Amos 5:13—he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time as this, for it is an evil time. However, I certainly do not wish to be guilty of culpable expedience. There seems to be a tension between the prudential counsel of silence and the imperative to proclaim God’s truth fearlessly. I suppose I would simply like to hear your own counsel on how to navigate this—for private individuals, not large evangelical organizations.
Matthew
Matthew, I agree with your distinction here. The culpable expedience I was talking about had to do with Christians who had direct knowledge about something in their own sphere—e.g. a volunteer at the crisis pregnancy center who knows that the abstinence lecturer they employ is sleeping with her boyfriend. That would take courage to deal with. But to refuse to obey the media condemnation machine—that takes another form of courage.
In response to your article about porngate. Thank you for finally speaking of Trump how he deserves. Though not as strong as I would have written, it seems you have finally grown a backbone. One thing I would add is the fact that this has not created a stir is terrifying. We have grown so used to the antics of this madman that we aren’t at all surprised and there is little political recoil. Imagine what would have happened to Obama, who was hounded for putting his feet on his desk by Fox News. I’m terrified if we continue in the trajectory of moral decline that we are on. Feet on the desk making to affair with a porn star, murder seems to be next if this metaphorical slope is followed.
Malik
Malik, saying that unrepentant adulteries land you in Hell isn’t strong enough? But one can’t be sent to two Hells.
Fail. I don’t like Trump and I don’t condone having sex with pornstars, but adultery in the OT occurred when a man had sex with another man’s wife. That’s it. Call it whatever you like, but it isn’t adultery when a man “cheats” on his wife (or wives).
D
D, it most certainly is adultery when a man cheats on his wife, no scare quotes. That is in fact covenant breaking (Rom. 1:31-32). And the Lord gives us the exception of “divorce for adultery” (Matt. 19:9), and He teaches it is possible for a wife to put away her husband. “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark 10:12). In other words, she commits adultery through divorce and remarriage, unless her husband was unfaithful to her. If she initiates the divorce, the exception clause applies to her.
Kill the Dragon
Blessings from Wisconsin! I am currently reading a book by Trevin Wax called “This is Our Time,” which has been enjoyable so far, but I noticed something I thought you might enjoy. On page 53 Wax writes, “I once heard an author sum up the storyline of the Bible in a few words: Kill the dragon. Get the girl.” I thought you might want to know that you made his book Incognito. I suppose he could be referring to someone else but the fact that he didn’t name the author (in a book full of quotes from authors with full name published) was a sign that it was. He probably would have gotten in a little too much trouble had your name appeared! Hopefully, you get a kick out of that. Michael
Michael, you may be right. But I got the precise phrase itself from Joe Rigney, and he remains preeminently quotable.
Doug, I can “amen” every word of this post. The “cool-kid-ness” of all this is, to my mind (which I hope is informed by the Spirit), repugnant. With that said, I must ask you an honest question. A dear friend and brother, to whom I often forward these posts, asked it of me. How do these articles relate to Matthew 18:15-17, in terms of calling sin to a brother’s attention first privately, then if no repentance is forthcoming, in front of a few witnesses (preferably, elders of the church), then, if necessarily, bringing it before the entire church? I understand that the passage talks in terms of sin against another Christian personally, and I understand the heavy responsibility on a denominational leader, who is operating, in a sense, in a de facto surrogacy for his denomination, as in this case. But there are those who view such articles as the last few as something that brings unnecessary disunity. I am, frankly, undecided on the matter. I view Scripture as having more continuity than discontinuity, and I see scriptural examples, particularly in the prophets, of such a “serrated edge.” But I wonder if the prophets in question had essentially followed the Matthew 18 pattern—speaking direct accusation, then “writing it up,” so-to-speak. I would appreciate your explanation of why you chose to chasten brother Moore in this manner. Thank you for your love of truth and for the teaching that I have so personally benefitted from.
Jim
Jim, thanks for the good question, and thank your friend also. First, I would be delighted to meet with Russell Moore to discuss these things privately. I am not opposed to that. That said, I do not believe we are in a Matthew 18 situation. As you indicated, Russell Moore has not sinned against me personally. I don’t have a personal relationship with him. If I did, I would be happy to pursue that first, and all for the sake of unity. But I believe this situation is more (structurally) akin to Paul addressing Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11). There is no indication that Paul went to Peter privately first, and he says explicitly that he rebuked Peter in front of them all (Gal. 2:14). This is because Peter’s error was serious, and it was public. That sort of thing should be addressed immediately, and in as public a way as the error was public.
Random Polity Question
Having allowed that you could have Arminians in the soup there, what happens if they like it? What happens if, say, you get a flood of ’em coming in, such that they outnumber the Reformed-minded 100-to-1? Are you still a Reformed church? Your definition of what your church “is” seems dependent on the stripe of doctrine promoted by those you identify as leaders. But what a shame if some of those Arminians get called to lead? You’d forbid such scandal, yes?
Eric
Eric, they would all be welcome, and yes, that would not keep us from being a Reformed Church. But our constitution requires elders to subscribe to our confession, which is the Westminster. Now there are ways under this set up for the church to lose its Reformed identity—but there is no honest way for it to happen.
Doug, ‘And the Lord gives us the exception of “divorce for adultery” (Matt. 19:9)’ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9 ESV) I am tired of seeing the exception clause poorly, if not incorrectly, stated. As can be clearly seen in the quoted scripture, the exception is “sexual immorality” and the result of divorce for any other reason is “adultery”. In other words, the exception clause is “except for sexual immorality”, not “except for adultery”. Note: I recognize that adultery is sexual immorality (Greek porneia) and thus… Read more »
And incest.
“Imagine what would have happened to Obama, who was hounded for putting his feet on his desk by Fox News.” -Malik I find it genuinely terrifying that there are people who truly believe that Obama was treated *worse* by the mainstream media than the average president, much less the current one. Trump tells a lie, and Trump gets called out on telling a lie on every station by every program even ones that aren’t supposed to be political. Trump tells the truth and Trump gets called out on telling a lie by the same set of people. Obama lied in… Read more »
I have heard that media reports on Trump are 90% negative 10% positive. That may well be true in the US. For me, I have not seen a single positive report on Trump on the news in my country. And I don’t think I saw a single negative one on Obama.
Likewise. Fairfax has a near-monopoly here which, surprise surprise, leads to unbalanced political reporting.
What country do you live in?
Well,….look on the bright side Justin:
At least Malik thinks that our host has “finally grown a backbone.”
‘Just the sort of thing all nameless blog commenters should weigh in on! ; – )
I am left to wonder if Malik actually knows what a back bone is. ; – )
‘Wonder how our host reached his mid 60’s as an invertebrate?
Pastor Wilson can’t be a one-note blogger, however…
A lot of people really seem to want to see him go after the Gospel Coalition/Russell Moore. Count me as one, also. It’s needed, and I say that knowing what Doug has already said/done on the subjects.
The US talks a lot about racial conflict. Now perhaps it is worse there than in other Western countries, but from my interaction with a significant number of people groups (here and overseas), it seems that tribalism is common to man. Many countries highly prefer certain groups: whether culturally or in law. Some policies create huge divisions within a people group. Many have class or caste differences. Progress in the West seems to be the least limited (from the perspective of individuals) compared to elsewhere. This does not excuse individual racism or systemic racism, but some perspective is surely helpful.… Read more »
“from my interaction with a significant number of people groups (here and overseas), it seems that tribalism is common to man”
This is precisely the case. The narrative that’s presented, is the more influenced by western culture, capitalism, or Christianity a place is, the more racist they assert the people there are, with the assertion being that it doesn’t exist anywhere else. I live in Washington State. It isn’t uncommon for people to casually mock those dumb racist southerners. Meanwhile, while walking my kids, I came across chalk drawings on the street calling for the murder of white Christian conservatives.
“We know Democrat operatives paid upwards of $700,000 to get women to falsely accuse Judge Roy Moore of rape.”
Whoa there Boxty, slow down. You may know that but “we” certainly don’t. Got any sources?
Alex Jones and Dr. Dino don’t count…
If that payment claim is true, I would hope a lawsuit for libel would have a reasonable chance of success.
Does anyone know if the accusations against Moore have been pursued since that election, or did they just go into limbo? I suppose the latter, implying that they have served their desired purpose and there will be no attempt to establish their veracity.
Pray for God to send us a faithful king.
Amen.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/we-re-number-two-switzerland-named-world-s-best-country-in-2018-canada-2nd-1.3771915
This is interesting and sobering, especially for a patriot type.
…..Why? A group of people who don’t share my values put together a subjectively generated list of things they like? By that standard I should be really worried about youtube lists of over rated movies including a movie I like.
Hahaha, they measured things like overall quality of life, crime rates, homicide rates, general wealth, income inequality, stuff like that I believe. Surprise surprise America is really high on gun crimes (thanks NRA). We are so so low in education, research, environmental everything, inovation etc. You know what we are one in, military. That’s about it. Trump just cut education funding again, which can only be imagined as awful there is no upside there. Also if it was subjective they would have put Canada first, they are Canadian. Also you personally can like America the best, it doesn’t make it… Read more »
Ok. So you don’t understand the basic premise of the topic. Who is it that gets to decide which is worth putting you higher in the ranking, homicide rates or general wealth? Which one makes a country “better” than the other? You must at a basic level apply subjective preferences for one issue over another. For example, there is no rational reason to cite “income inequality” as a problem *at all* in comparison to other nations. America has a lot more income inequality than Haiti. Does that mean Haiti is better off economically? No. Of course not. In fact, the… Read more »
The point is that we are like in the 20s in every single catagory. Maybe Japan and Germany switch places, but that isn’t the point. We are just pretty low in everything
You’re moving the goalposts now, since you very clearly a moment ago were claiming that these were objective standings, but that’s ok because your new stance doesn’t fix the problem. How did they come to the rankings on each issue? If we’re taking say, education, how are you measuring education? Is it all the kids or only the ones who go to public school? Are they taking where kids’ grades start, and measuring how well they end and taking the difference as the effect of the school? Are they measuring grades at all? Is this just measuring spending? Are they… Read more »
Yes, very scientific. The thing is there are statisions who do a very good job of this, it’s their job. And its not really a problem given standardized testing. Also basically they are measuring who has the best educated, maybe read smartest people. While you can argue over those details and they are valid, you have to be careful because doing that you can choose to ignore whatever stats you want. And yeah, I did move them but only to the important ideological place.
” The thing is there are statisions who do a very good job of this, it’s their job.” I agree. That does not inherently mean that these people did a very good job. “And its not really a problem given standardized testing. ” So do you know if they used standardized testing? Because I thought we were caring about the amount of money spent on the education? Because many parts of the country where we spend the most per child get the worst scores in standardized tests. So which are we weighing as more important, the money or the grade?… Read more »
Yeah makes sence
Justin, I think that Canadian education is very good indeed. It is one of the few countries where socioeconomic class is not determinative of test performance on international measures such as TIMMS. However, I think the strong Canadian results in math and science also reflect the tough admission requirements for immigration as well as the absence of a permanent underclass.
I like what you did there with the immigration comment. I don’t know a thing about Canadian education (other than their draconian social policies on college campuses), but here in the States I could write a book on my problems with the system at large. There’s a lack of genuine interaction between the student and the system until they’re nearly adults. It breeds a passive attitude towards life in general. Unlike, say, asian systems where testing at early age sends people down different tracks (this isn’t an endorsement), almost everything you do at school has zero significance so long as… Read more »
First I’m not a fan at all of the American education system. I would say this is a bit of an over generalization though. It allows for these things but the way you described it leaves no room for the responsibile hardworking kids who really take it seriously. Also I would argue that high school has a huge effect on college, I witnessed that first hand. My friends who didn’t try hard in highschool ended up with mountains of debt at poor schools, my really smart friends ended up at incredible schools with no debt and I was somewhere in… Read more »
“It allows for these things but the way you described it leaves no room for the responsibile hardworking kids who really take it seriously. ” Responsible hard working kids don’t need my help getting better education policy. Very rarely, do responsible hard working people need much help at all in the absence of some sort of disaster. You’re not wrong. I just wasn’t talking about them. “I witnessed that first hand. My friends who didn’t try hard in highschool ended up with mountains of debt at poor schools, my really smart friends ended up at incredible schools with no debt… Read more »
Justin, I agree with a lot of this, but what do you think could be done differently? The programs that are, in fact, different and innovative tend to benefit only the gifted–who don’t need the school’s help to excel. Gifted children get creative, gifted teachers, lively curriculum, and small classes. And earning that gifted designation isn’t all that hard for a child from a highly verbal and literate middle class home. I think boys are at much more risk of being lost in the system than are girls. But, when you look back, can you think of interventions that would… Read more »
I can give lots of ideas. Unfortunately I can’t say with confidence any of them is a definite solution since virtually nothing is allowed to be tried. There isn’t much data on this. When I was in school, I would ace all the tests because I knew the material, but got zeroes on the homework because I just wouldn’t do it. Not something I’m trying to justify here, just trying to honestly give my background on this issue. The most appealing solution to this problem in particular to me, is utilizing technology to customize curriculum. When I need to learn… Read more »
Justin, I think technology is underused where it could be valuable–filling in basic gaps in knowledge and skills. If three students don’t understand punctuation rules and the others do, better they do a lesson on a PC than make the rest of the class sit through a deadly lesson on comma splices. I imagine the same would be true for math; the whole class needs to be taught how to do quadratic equations, but not everyone needs to sit through lectures on calculating percentages. My issue with mastery learning/computerized instruction/individualized lessons (and I know something about this as I volunteer… Read more »
I think with your last paragraph you may have misread my intent. I wasn’t suggesting altering grading for the sake of better qualified teachers. I was suggesting it so the students get a cleaner image of their performance. “I got a C” is a little too abstracted for lots of kids to really internalize the cause and effect relationship in their lives. Adding a little competition by a clear understanding of how they’re doing in relation to others could provide a little incentive, even if it is ego based.
Right, we don’t disagree. I was trying to make the (unimportant) point that you seemed a little too universal.
And as you said some parents don’t take enough part in their kids education, I think the motivation would be where the parents are especially responsible as it is hard to concieve a way for a large school to do this well.
Hey Jilly! Hope you are well!
I have a new Canadian hero! I mean, after Bob and Doug Mckenzie.
Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
The guy is quite possibly your equal, in the common sense department at least!
; – )
He’s great…not an orthodox Christian, but fascinating on many topics. And I love how he stands up to the PC powers that be in academia.
“I have a new Canadian hero! I mean, after Bob and Doug Mckenzie.” Mine too…society needs more “powerful” men, not fewer. (If I see another man-bun skinny jean wearing adult male I think I’m going to toss my breakfast.) Peterson is brilliant and so correct. Just came across the video Monday, really enjoyed the part around 23min’s in, after going at Peterson with all she’s got (and losing badly), Ms. Newman gets all flustered because his demeanor as an Alpha male overwhelms her feminist objective. As she goes all “schoolgirl” his point is thus made. (Reminded me of Greg Kinnear’s… Read more »
That debate should be required viewing for any high school and college worth its salt. As someone else put it: “”His argument is a difficult one to put forth. It’s nuanced, technical, politically incorrect and easily misunderstood. Most people, faced with a skilled interviewer trying to rip them to shreds on national TV, would wilt. Or get angry and stomp out. Jordan maintains his cool. And because he remains calm and sticks to well-backed research, the results are catastrophic for Newman. At one point he calls her out on her hypocrisy and has her completely speechless. Why? Because she it… Read more »
Yessir! (on all points)
Apparently Peterson’s other videos, geared towards young men, are said to be excellent. The intent being to counter the wussification of boys by the prevailing societal mentality that males are stupid and perceived as prone to abuse if assertive, and their inherent proclivities as designed by God himself should be lessened so woman can achieve as “equals.” (more idiotic hogwash by the left)
No, US was 8th overall.
Malik,
“The point is that we are like in the 20s in every single category.”
Wrong! The actual rankings in the nine categories are: 43, 33, 29, 22, 17, 16, 3, 3, and 1. The categories are weighted and the United States is “#8 in Best Countries Overall”.
If you are going to insist on showing a lack of understanding, go right ahead. But this is just one instance showing why it would then be foolish to expect your opinions and statements to be treated with respect.
Actually, the average there I would say is close to 20. I didn’t say our overall rating was in the 20s, just lost of the categories.
“America has a lot more income inequality than Haiti. Does that mean Haiti is better off economically? No. Of course not.”
FYI, Haiti has one of the highest GINI index numbers in the world. US is high middle, amongst a bunch of African and South and Central American nations. the higher trust the nation the lower the GINI usually. Economic inequality may or may not be bad in and of itself, but it is a symptom of a nation’s sickness.
Demo, how do you mean, ‘the higher trust’? I’d never heard of the GINI index until now and have just been looking at the wiki map here
. Interesting to see Norway and Japan on the same economic equality level as Ethiopia and Afghanistan. If economic inequality is a symptom of a nation’s sickness, I’m not convinced that economic equality is a sign of a nation’s health.
Indigo, Very good questions. I am using social trust in the Putnam sense. Trusting your neighbors, willingness to work for common goals, to take part on civic organizations, to volunteer, etc. This is much higher in demographically stable ethnically homogeneous countries. As to Ethiopia and Afghanistan I am wary of data from such countries, but their low GINI is almost certainly due to their very high (among the highest in the world) rural populations. Rural people have much lower inequality and much higher social trust than urban. That Norway (19% rural) is about equal with Ethiopia (80% rural) is noteworthy… Read more »
Demo, thanks. I suppose it stands to reason that a group of primary producers will have more equal means than a cross-section of any urban group. I’m interested in the social trust correlation with rural life because that has not been my experience. Not a valuable data point, I know, but there must sometimes be other factors involved in the creation of community trust. The one place I lived where no one seemed to lock their houses or cars is a busy but geographically remote tourist destination town in Central Otago. The cost of living was high compared to the… Read more »
Indigo, There is nothing magic about rural areas, no magic dirt. They just typically (traditionally) have the sort of community and generational structure that leads to higher trust. People tend to live close to where they were born, they have a strong connection to a particular piece of land, they know and are known by their neighbors, multi-generation homes are common or the norm. However, in developed countries rural areas have been ravaged by a number of factors especially: creaming – the best and brightest have been leaving for university and cities or several generations now leaving these areas bereft… Read more »
It was a bit of an unnatural community. Not many really put roots down there. It was hard to make friends because people kept leaving!
Demo, is there a ranking of nations on social trust in the Putnam sense? I would think Canada would score well despite its being heavily urbanized and multi-ethnic but I don’t know for sure.
I will try I find you something. I am sure Canada is high trust (but I bet it is falling). However, I think it is actually more rural that the U.S. and is multi-ethnic in a very limited sense. I think Canada is very white/western European, most of the immigrants are first gen from SE Asia with some from the Caribbean, both high performing high trust areas. They have went from about 12% visible minority to 25% on the past 15 years. I wish them well, but that pace of demographic change spells real trouble. They don’t get have the… Read more »
“Economic inequality may or may not be bad in and of itself, but it is a symptom of a nation’s sickness.”
Based on what? If the poorest people in Nation A are better off and have a higher standard of living than the poor in Nation B, why does it make a difference if there’s more “economic equality” in Nation B? So everyone can be equally poor and miserable?
Economic inequality has been the basis for some horrible ideas and policies, but not much else.
“Economic inequality may or may not be bad in and of itself, but it is a symptom of a nation’s sickness.” How does your evidence remotely support your conclusion? If were were to qualify the income “inequality” (a terribly dishonest term) with something like “government obtained income inequality”, I could agree. A massive difference in wealth levels as caused by immoral and illegal oppression, sure, that’s a sign of a nation’s sickness. Where that doesn’t follow is to the ambiguity of the term at large. Let’s say I start a company and hire you as my first employee. I pay… Read more »
Justin, I have a theory. I was young a few centuries ago, and much more leftwing than I am today. I made my fair share of incredibly stupid arguments, which were met, by my parents and teachers, with derision and mockery. “So Jill thinks that the company founder and the janitor should make roughly the same money. Perhaps she would like to explain why anyone would bother risking everything to form a company if he can’t make much more money than the janitor.” I don’t think young people, who will always be idealistic and say silly things, are met with… Read more »
A great idea Jill. I would like to, as a public service, offer my time to tell young people that they’re wrong and being stupid. A tough job I know. Just the kind of giving guy I am. ;)
Justin,
That “public service” would not just be tough, but mostly thankless and, I suspect, almost always a waste of your time and energy.
“Surprise surprise America is really high on gun crimes (thanks NRA)”
And Switzerland is #1? You apparently know nothing about Switzerland and gun laws. And again, you’re making the mistake of comparing a melting pot to largely homogeneous nations.
Ha, Switzerland has the lowest gun crime rate? Isn’t their gun ownership rate like 75%?
I didn’t say anything about that, just saying we have a high gun crimes rate, and lax gun ownership laws. I know multiple people who have been shot, one who died. Most of my international friends have never heard of a person being shot (meaning not media but like a friend of a friend type thing) and most have never seen a gun until they came here. Anyway, I’m not trying to start this discussion, lol.
Not trying to start it either. Though I would urge you to consider the wider issue when you look at crime statistics in the future. Nations with heavy guns laws brag about having no gun crime, but then, it doesn’t mean much if they just pick different methods to the same end. I can understand an opposition to civilian owned firearms (though I strongly disagree), but I’m beyond tired of the irrational arguments that ignore the various side effects of depriving people of self defense weapons. There are after all, something like 100,000 instances a year in the U.S. of… Read more »
Yeah, and trust me I used to be extremely, extremely on that side, and I can still to an extent understand it. I can’t understand some parts like felons allowed to buy guns, but ah well, I can understand the general philosophy, though I disagree. Part of it was talking with people from countries with strict gun laws. Also watching them debate with one friend who is very pro guns kind of drove it home for me. Anyway, sorry, I said I wouldn’t get into it. And I know you don’t think I actually look into things for my opinions,… Read more »
” felons allowed to buy guns, ”
They aren’t….so not sure what you mean.
Here’s a question for you, and yes, this is getting into it. I have a gun in my house. What gives you the moral right to come in and take it by force?
Fine let’s get into it lol. I’ll be brief, but I don’t mean to be rude. The NRA was pushing to allow them to recently or something. And I’ve heard people argue that. Nothing gives me the right to. However if as a country we decide that in order to create a safer society we give up our guns, that’s morally fine. For the same reason that C4 is illegal, or speeding is illegal. They are things that aren’t inherently wrong but we gave them up as a society to be safer. Honestly the only thing that keeps me from… Read more »
” However if as a country we decide that in order to create a safer society we give up our guns, that’s morally fine.” Why? A lot of people saying it doesn’t change the morality at all. A lot of people said it was morally ok to enslave the blacks. That didn’t make it ok. “or speeding is illegal. ” A poor example, as history suggests that speed limits do little to effect traffic. Most people don’t drive faster than they feel safe at, and those that do aren’t dissuaded by some numbers on a sign. ” we gave them… Read more »
I wouldn’t come take it of course but I have no problem with the government doing it. I see what your saying, I made a poor argument. But for one thing you didn’t address the C4 part. By your logic what give you the right to say I can’t have a tank, or C4, or a bazooka, Heck maybe you can throw drugs in there for good measure. And the answer would be that they are harmful and dangerous. And yes, there is a limit to what you can restrict for safety. So the question is do guns kill enough… Read more »
“. But for one thing you didn’t address the C4 part. By your logic what give you the right to say I can’t have a tank, or C4, or a bazooka, ” I didn’t address the C4 part because I didn’t think you’d care for the answer and it might have colored your view of the rest of my argument. There’s no reason C4 shouldn’t be legal. I know, I know, wait a moment. Let me make my case before you grab the tar and feathers. Ok. Now are you ready for a shocking truth that will break you down… Read more »
Like I said, I think it makes a place safe, you think it makes it more dangerous, I don’t really feel like arguing that point, we’ll never agree,and honestly it’ll be a waist of time.
Since you so consistently admit that you won’t listen to other people no matter what evidence is presented, why do you bother coming here to talk?
No I’ll talk to people, just not here, and not now, you can’t object to that. I’m buisy and have other much more important things. I told you at the beginning I didn’t want to get into this.
“I’m buisy and have other much more important things. I told you at the beginning I didn’t want to get into this.”
(Trigger warning: another possible “credibility attack.” Read at your own caution.)
You’ve also said that you barely spend any time on the internet, but have gradually admitted you follow 20+ news sources, are active on Twitter, actively follow people on Youtube, listen to lots of left-leaning podcasts, and it’s a safe bet that you comment on quite a few other sites/blogs besides this one.
He’s able to keep up with me on here and I’m a stay at home Dad. Shoot, I can barely keep up with me on here lol.
Actually your wrong, this is the only one. I barely watch YouTube. I read the news while I eat, every meal. I listen to podcasts while I drive and work, which is a lot. And I stuffy the rest of the time, or spend time with friends. You don’t know me. I am actually buisy, but oh, since I can’t prove it it’s like the school I went to, you don’t believe me. You can question me all you want but your belief doesn’t dictate reality, and it isn’t my job to convince you of every statement I make about… Read more »
” it isn’t my job to convince you of every statement I make about myself.”
That would be the case if you didn’t use “Trust me, I know about X” as an argument ten times a week. When trusting you is part of the argument, you need to establish your trustworthiness.
Malik, there is an old saying that would serve you really well if you were inclined to take it to heart:
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.”
If you have no problem with the government taking Justin’s guns, you have a very high level of trust that the government will always be benevolent. When you read about the Warsaw Ghetto, do you ever find yourself wishing a few more of them had been armed?
Jill, I suspect Malik discounts the value (or perhaps does not recognize it) of learning from historical precedent.
“The NRA was pushing to allow them to recently or something.”
When you make arguments like this, it’s really hard to believe some of your claims (like implying that you’re quadrilingual on Twitter).
I wasn’t trying to convince anyone is the thing. It wasn’t an important point, I was brushing it off. It only served to be an example of something that I don’t agree with. And I’m not quadrilingual, I speak Spanish and English, I’m currently learning the others and Korean.
Also, you are killing your credibility on calling things about me into question, my race, what school I went to, my Twitter bio, come on.
I don’t speak all of those but I’m taking all of them, learning languages is something I really enjoy.
“Also, you are killing your credibility on calling things about me into question”
I’ve dabbled in several languages myself, but I don’t list them on social media or anywhere else. I’ve done nothing to lower my or your credibility…but you certainly lower yours with questionable claims, sloppy thinking and shoot-from-hip posts.
That’s great, but because it’s important to me I put it there. No problem with that
Malik, You have a right to your opinion [to ban guns]. But here’s the rub: It doesn’t matter because the right to bear arms is Constitutionally protected, regardless how the left wishes to parse the Founders language in order to say otherwise. In that, most American’s could care less what another country’s mentality is about guns. Last I checked I live in America, and that takes priority. And considering we are a nation of citizens (not immigrants), the majority also understands a country doesn’t exist without borders, language, and culture, conspicuously all tied to our Bill of Rights and Constitution.… Read more »
It’s an amendment,it’s easy to change. I think it’s obsolete now, if you are so worried about what the founders wanted make it legal to carry muskets, and ban everything else. It’s an old argument but the founders didn’t know the technology we have now, nor did they have school shootings twice a week. Maybe it’s time to update.
Nope…not going to happen, too many Americans trust the Founders brilliance with foresight in certain aspects needed by the citizenry for maintaining balance. Tyranny comes to mind if this goes away. But hey, then we’d be like a lot of other country’s.
Yeah, I know it won’t happen soon. But the younger generations care much less about the Constitution. And the American government was genius when it was created. But right now it seems to be falling apart, a re-up seems worthwhile, of course keeping the rigorous checks and ballences, but some work could be don’t to grease up the system, no one would argue that point. And I think if any of the amendments from the bill of rights is overturned it will be the second. I agree that it is not feasible at the moment, but I’ll bet it will… Read more »
Here is another thing with guns, you all think they make you safer. I’m pretty sure you don’t care about safety that much. It’s fine to say you want it because you like it, or freedom over security, but every American I’ve talked to who likes guns doesn’t care about protection. Chances are I could have picked the lock on every one of your front doors by the age of seven. I know I could pick mine. My brother was two years younger, five, and he could open any front door if the doorknob was locked. Now I could pick… Read more »
” I’m pretty sure you don’t care about safety that much. ” ” Gun ownership like guns, they don’t like protection.” “You don’t go to home security conventions, you go to gun shows. ” “You don’t have any knowledge chances are of home security, or anything like that, but your gun makes you feel like a big man. ” “it’s fine to like guns for the sake of the fact that they are fun and cool, but really, protection isn’t on your front radar usually.” Quick. Spot the sentence where Malik isn’t being an arrogant, condescending, bigoted creep, who can’t… Read more »
Lol, so no arguments, just attacks. I’m not trying to be arrogant, show that I’m wrong. Do you have a decent lock? What brand and model? When was the last time any gun owner went to a home security convention? They subscribe to Smith and Wesson, not padlocks weekly. It isn’t about security, tell me I’m wrong. I’m fine with being wrong. But I can almost guarantee you that it would take me seconds to pick your lock, and that I could find five other ways to get in. In my experience people talk about security, but they just like… Read more »
“Lol, so no arguments, just attacks. ” I gave a pile of arguments that you said multiple times you didn’t want to discuss. That’s *why* I’m pointing out that all you’re doing is attacking people. “I’m not trying to be arrogant” Nobody ever is. That’s not a qualification for its truthfulness. ” Do you have a decent lock? What brand and model?” Forgive me for not providing that information on the internet where I’ve used my real name, and mentioned what state I live in multiple times. ” When was the last time any gun owner went to a home… Read more »
Whatever, I’m done. You got the last word
It isn’t about the last word. It’s about getting you to engage with truth and objective facts in any capacity at all.
You won’t engage with what I say, how can I have a conversation. Everything I say you take personally. You aren’t the right to bear arms, when I attack it you act like I’m attacking you, and then call me a bigoted creep, we can’t talk on those terms.
“You won’t engage with what I say, how can I have a conversation. ” Please reference anywhere I have been unwilling to engage with any point you have made. Anywhere at all. If you can’t, I want an apology. “when I attack it you act like I’m attacking you, ” I haven’t done that once. You haven’t seen me when I’m responding to a personal attack. What you are seeing is someone who doesn’t let dishonesty or hypocrisy pass by. I didn’t call you a bigoted creep in general, I said that’s what you were doing in that post, which… Read more »
Nah man that’s not how it works, tats an argument from middle school. ” I didn’t call you stupid, I called what you said stupid,” come on, let that die where it’s supposed to, at age 8. And I didn’t make basless accusations. I said that gun owners aren’t worried about security they like guns. That’s not making an accusation, at worst it’s a bad assumption, but come on, almost no one has high security locks, I have a big enough sample size to say that. And you and JP love to turn things really personal, you can’t deny that.… Read more »
“Nah man that’s not how it works, tats an argument from middle school. ” I didn’t call you stupid, I called what you said stupid,” come on, let that die where it’s supposed to, at age 8. ” The truth doesn’t expire when you grow up. I phrased it the way that I did for a reason. It was intentional at the time. You’re accusing me of lying without evidence, which brings me to my second point. ” I said that gun owners aren’t worried about security they like guns.” To be more specific, you claimed that their overt statement… Read more »
Alright, I’m sorry. I’m surprised you don’t admit to yourself you have been overly agressive, And personal in your attacks. And most of those things were JP that I mentioned specifically. I’ve done it too, as much or more than you, I’ve been less than civil, but you are hardly above reproach.
I called you a “logic whiz” because you bragged about “acing” logic classes, but make one fallacy after another on here. And for the record, I never took logic, but have studied my share of it. If you’re that sensitive, maybe you’re the one who needs to grow a backbone, not Doug.
You have no problem acting tough–throwing around certain 3 and 4 letter words and challenging the manhood of others (backbone and male genitalia references). Maybe you should stop that act and grow up a little. And yes, you can be sassy and certainly passive aggressive.
I aced Doug’s class. That doesn’t mean I’m good at logic. It just means you have a choice to make in what you say about my logic. I wasn’t bragging. And look I’m not going to pretend to be all tough, cussing doesn’t make anyone tough, or look tough. And actually I made fun of the same thing you’re trying to, fakes. And there are lots. And I’m not like some ultra tough guy. But I’m not baby. I’m a big Irish guy that loves to fight. I started construction at 14, I had a job doing river fishing that… Read more »
“You cant make fun of my toughness and then loose a fight. ”
Certainly not. But I’m more than capable of making fun of your toughness and then losing one.
Just playing here. No offense meant. I’m quite certain you would easily defeat me in physical conflict. Let me have my spelling correction.
Hahahaha???? the funny thing is I was so confused, I didn’t catch the difference until I read the last part????
“I’m a big Irish guy that loves to fight…You cant make fun of my toughness and then loose a fight. That’s all I’m saying. Not that I’m all tough, just don’t make fun of me without backing it up.” First, this is the internet, where anyone can claim anything. I’m not sure how you reconcile your “love to fight” attitude with Christianity and your inner city ministry stuff…it sounds more like Antifa than Tim Keller. I have no problem using fists or guns in legitimate self-defense or defense of others, but would never fight over personal insults or to protect… Read more »
Where’d you get my picture!?!
That looks like it was taken around 1995. I figured you were a toddler back then!
Born in ’87. I just look like I’m 16.
I don’t fight over ego. I fight in the cage, that’s a lot of fun. The only other times is if a friend is being physically picked on. But my love of fighting didn’t come with the usual Irish temper, so I save it for the cage, I’m not exactly an aggressive guy????
Sometimes I wish I had at least gotten the Irish accent, that would have been cool????. No temper or accent????????
JP said: “First, this is the internet, where anyone can claim anything.”
That strongly reminds me of Brad Paisley’s song Online, which has the line “I’m so much cooler online”. It can easily be found on YouTube if you are interested.
Malik, there’s a difference between being physically tough and intellectually or emotionally tough. You seem to be less than tough when you complain about personal attacks, lack of respect, others question the basis for your statements, etc.
True, it’s not cuz I can’t take it it’s just ridiculous to not have a real discussion.
Very difficult to have a real conversation when you shut it down every time we get to the real reasons why you think what you do.
I didn’t criticize your civility or lack thereof, I’ve criticized your honesty. I’ll readily admit to being aggressive. I don’t consider it a problem unless I otherwise step over a moral line. Being aggressive in defending the truth isn’t a flaw, it’s my responsibility. If you can point to somewhere I provably lied, or was unfair, I’ll be happily analyze it and admit fault where applicable. There is one thing I regret and that’s the word “creep”. I apologize for it. It doesn’t contain adequate meaning to be defensible as a truthful description of your words. The rest I maintain… Read more »
Okay, yeah I mean you didn’t sin, in some places you were agressive on a way the shot yourself in the foot, like I wasn’t going to listen to what you said because of the way you said it, but that’s all fine, and I did the same.
Having been raised in Canada, I find handguns alien to my experience and I don’t have any wish to own one. However, the knowledge that somebody could easily pick my locks would make me more inclined, not less inclined, to get one. I don’t think that is a winning line of argument!
Well the spin I’d put on it is you probably would rather the guy who can get into you house to not have a gun, lol,but I see your point. And this is unrelated to anything but I find security because of a locked door or whatever humorous. Growing up being able to pick locks starting at seven, and watching my five year old bother figure it out gave me a distain for security measures, which of course there are problems with. You can imagine my mom getting paranoid watching us open her locked door all the time ????. That’s… Read more »
Malik,
“Well the spin I’d put on it is you probably would rather the guy who can get into you house to not have a gun, lol,but I see your point.”
Are you really so naïve that you think that gun control would significantly reduce the likelihood that a criminal would have a gun?
It does. It’s not like I think that criminals would obey the law, but this is a dumb argument. In Australia a gun that cost 800 before the ban is now 34000 to get it. My friends from Canada, Panama, Norway, Thailand, Spain etc have never seen a gun and never heard of a crime with a gun. So yeah, it makes a difference. And the American system is stupid. A guy from the Norwegian army was talking to me he was like it’s dumb, you shouldn’t be able to go get your groceries and gun at the same time.… Read more »
Curious. Can you name I don’t know…….three mass shootings in modern memory that weren’t in gun free zones?
Bigoted creep? You spook easy when people talk about taking your guns man. Look I’m not about to drive to your house and take them, I’m not a politician, calm down. You don’t have to agree. Also almost 90% of Americans agree with “common sence gun laws” so it’s not actually as unpopular as you would like to think. The NRA is just really good at what they do.
“Also almost 90% of Americans agree with “common sence gun laws” so it’s not actually as unpopular as you would like to think.”
Ding! Another logical fallacy. I’ll let you name it, since you proclaimed yourself a logic whiz in school.
A good lesson for us all:
A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.
Malik, we differ at many points but I applaud you for not returning insult for insult.
You mean, other than asserting that gun owners on the whole were fundamentally dishonest? Or that Doug didn’t have a backbone? His arguments are regularly built from the foundation on insults.
Edit: The post you’re evidently referring to me as a fool for making, is criticizing him precisely for the insults you aren’t acknowledging.
Justin, I am not defending his remarks (the one about Doug’s backbone was just bizarre) but ‘arrogant, condescending, bigoted creep’ is a pretty heavy-handed insult and, in my opinion, unjust. Your previous interactions with him on this thread have been otherwise calm and reasoned, and I wonder if you perhaps lost sight for a moment of what you were trying to achieve. Edit to reply to your edit: I was not using the proverb to cast you in the role of fool. I intended it to be an exhortation to Malik, but I can see how the misunderstanding arose. If… Read more »
I thank you for your honesty. I would point to my carefully chosen words. I laid out specific sentences and asked “Where (among these options) isn’t Malik being this.” This would suggest immediately that I was confining this criticism to the field of those sentences. It was a condemnation of what he was doing right here. Though I think you might have missed something in the timeline. I had just been working towards an objective fact based conversation about the issue, which he explicitly stated he didn’t want to have. Then, minutes later. I’m fairly certain less than 15 minutes… Read more »
“Here is another thing with guns, you all think they make you safer.” Uhh, they do, without a doubt statistics prove they do. I could reach for baseball bat, or if I’m Jason Bourne, a magazine or Bic pen, but a gun is still the unequivocal weapon of choice for the every man or woman to stop an assailant. If some nut is trying to come into my house he will be stopped. A gun allows me to stay back ten feet and not directly engage (God forbid this ever happens but plan for the worst is a good motto.)… Read more »
Uhh, you can make a case both ways but I’ve seen more convincing ones that say less guns=safer. And I’m not anti guns, I wish it was the other way around, I enjoy them as much as anyone. Your point about the animals is fair, my dad used to carry whenever he was working on this one site that had a large number of bears. But if banning them would stop mass murders I think that would be a net good, as bears and other animals kill less people. It’s kind of a problem in the country, no doubt they… Read more »
” I’ve seen more convincing ones that say less guns=safer.”
Which is assuredly aided by your constant refusal to let any of us make a case otherwise.
“But right now it seems to be falling apart” Because you and your side have abandoned its principles. “a re-up seems worthwhile, ” I agree, you should make an effort to rededicate people to its principles. ” but some work could be don’t to grease up the system, no one would argue that point” Why on earth would you say no one would argue that point? I will argue that point right now. The United States government was specifically designed for the maximum amount of freedom possible, and for it to be as difficult as possible for dictators like yourself… Read more »
I’m not saying our government doesn’t keep away from dictators, it does. And chill out calling me a dictator. I’m just saying there is clearly dysfunction, no one disagrees. I’m not saying rewrite the Constitution, just shuffle things up and make some changes. And I’m well aware how changing the Constitution works. And I think making it a little more current would be beneficial. It was written in the 1700s, the principles are sound but it’s a bit out of date. And I think the gun rights part is part of the outdated part. You know it’s the oldest Constitution… Read more »
Many scholars believe that San Marino has the oldest written constitution (1600), but in the words of my favorite movie, that’s not important now. I don’t see what the age of the document has to do with its value or relevance; Magna Carta is 803 years old, and the part saying “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we… Read more »
Huh, okay, I didn’t know that that’s cool
“But the younger generations care much less about the Constitution. ”
There’s the rub, all due to a leftist bent educational system that indoctrinates instead of teaching.
Lol, actually that’s BS, given I have been in contact with that system, it’s still all patriotic and go Constitution stuff. We are just departing from the “wise old ways” to ideas that work everywhere else
“it’s still all patriotic and go Constitution stuff. ”
That says nothing at all about what of substance they teach on the Constitution, which you prove with your next sentence. You’re making his point for him.
Where true, that is tragic because the Bill of Rights transcends political differences. You can be an ardent left winger and revere the Constitution. Wanting to tear it down sounds more like anarchy to me.
We’re not “everywhere else.”
“it’s still all patriotic and go Constitution stuff. ”
As it should be, unabashedly so. The vast majority of School districts and universities are left-leaning with many fully un-American. Proper history is not being taught in schools, at least for the past 40 years…it’s all revisionist pap. If kids have no clue about our Constitution who’s fault is that?
“. If kids have no clue about our Constitution who’s fault is that?”
The people running the education system? Who have been consistently far left ideologues for the last 50 years? Just a thought.
“The people running the education system?”
My inference exactly. But the slow creep of indoctrination against who we are as a nation is proved by Malik’s comment that kids simply don’t care about our founding documents and the sacrifice by so many to achieve and maintain that delicate balance.
What’s most concerning about this is that the constitution IS the basis of the entire government and all of their rights. Disregarding the constitution is disregarding the very concept of us having a society we both engage in to begin with. If you can’t agree on the constitution, we aren’t a nation anymore. We’re a bunch of people who geographically live near one another.
“If you can’t agree on the constitution, we aren’t a nation anymore. We’re a bunch of people who geographically live near one another.”
And some want exactly that, to which I say, “Okay, then leave.”
BTW, not trying to change his mind, just offering the more accurate viewpoint based in fact not feelings.
“We are just departing from the “wise old ways” to ideas that work everywhere else” Plenty of things “work” in times of relative peace, stability and financial security. Your ideas haven’t been put to the test, and I can guarantee a disarmed populace and an uber PC military/police will be a disaster in a true crisis. Europe may find this out the hard way if they keep letting Muslim immigrants have their way. And for the record, not everything is “working” well in Europe–note Brexit and debt-ridden, socialist nations that almost caused a huge crisis a few years ago (bailed… Read more »
Paul, just to make you feel better, Malik’s disdain for the Constitution is not typical of the young people whom I have taught. My daughter’s very left-wing LA school inculcated a reverence for the Bill of Rights as everyone’s protection against tyranny. They learned the landmark cases–Mapp, Gideon, the NYT–and why they are important. One hopes that Malik was simply not paying attention during government class, and that one day he will understand that people with unpopular opinions above all need the protection of the Bill of Rights.
Okay, let me clarify. Clearly the Constitution was a work of genius. And the concepts are as valid as ever. However it sets up the way a government operates, and it was written in a completely different age. I’m not saying shred it, I’m saying that I think some adjustments need to be made due to the fact that we live in a different world, maybe change some systems that were set up to work better with the current world. One example is the second amendment, the fact that arms have changed to allow for massive killings like Vegas makes… Read more »
” That would have been impossible in the times of the founders,”
There were rudimentary machine guns at the time, which were legal. More prominently a private citizen could buy as many cannons as they wanted. You could run your own private military if you so desired. The capacity for murder with the laws at the time was *much* higher.
Was there ever a mass murder of 60 people? However you want to look at it, technology has changed, I highly doubt you are actually claiming there were more effective weapons in those days. If there were no weapons laws there they could get some cannons. Now if there were none you could get military rocket launchers, fighter jets, and…nukes. we need some rules. And look around, the world is different, not even a fool would disagree on that premis.
“Was there ever a mass murder of 60 people? ” Yes. I can recall one time the government decided to impose immoral policies so the people said no. The government then killed 24,000 people. Lots of guns were needed to put an end to it. ” I highly doubt you are actually claiming there were more effective weapons in those days. ” That’s not what I said. I said the capacity for killing with the weapons legalized at the time was higher. If I were allowed to start my own private military now using only the military weapons available at… Read more »
Come on, a private army and a middle launcher, those are reasonably comparable. And also come on, you can kill more people with weapons now than that. And you are making my point, LAWS now have restricted the ability to slaughter people, and it works. I’m saying increase that. And with the 24000 people honestly idk what you’re talking about, but that wasn’t one person. One person (or four if you believe the conspiracy) killed almost 60, I’m saying that was impossible with the weapons then. And this is still a pointless argument.
” And with the 24000 people honestly idk what you’re talking about” The revolutionary war, the primary reason we have a second amendment. The primary purpose of the amendment isn’t to protect us from burglars, but to protect us from the government itself. Civilizations only end in one of two ways. Either they’re conquered from without, or corrupted from within. In either case you would rather have a population that’s already armed. Hitler disarmed his population as a first order of business for a reason. It is nearly impossible to control an armed populace without their permission. If you’re so… Read more »
Ah okay, I thought you were talking about like the American government, I was like I guess I fell asleep in history class everytime that one came up????. And if the government goes corrupt your hand gun isn’t doing anything, they have drones. What would we do. And yeah I’m scared of Trump but my pistol, or shotgun or whatever isn’t doing much versus an airplane. I mean in theory that makes sense though.
“And if the government goes corrupt your hand gun isn’t doing anything, they have drones. What would we do.”
There are a hundred million Americans with three hundred million guns, who’s location and identity they don’t know. What exactly would they target with the drone?
But wait a minute, it sounds like you’re making an argument for private citizens to have military arms? Great idea!
“Was there ever a mass murder of 60 people?”
There were mass murders of millions upon millions of people in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany and other totalitarian states with unarmed populaces.
That’s a different topic. We talking about independent mass killers. In the 1700s.
No, it’s not a different topic. I think you missed the “unarmed populaces” part.
We are talking about mass killers not government oppression, that’s a related but different thing
We’re talking about the second amendment. You’re deliberately ignoring the primary reason it exists.
You are assuming that the second amendment forbids any attempt to regulate weapons. There are numerous laws around the country that place serious restrictions on gun ownership–check California’s laws. I can’t go all GI Jill on the streets of Los Angeles, which, judging from my track record with glue guns and electric knives, is probably a good thing. It is weird for me to find myself defending gun ownership. Even so, in my wildest dreams, I can’t conceive how guns in the hands of people like Justin pose any threat to the public safety. If he decides to build nukes… Read more »
“I can’t conceive how guns in the hands of people like Justin pose any threat to the public safety.”
I appreciate it Jill. This would be doubly true if you met me in person. My intimidating countenance in web form is diminished to a slightly shorter than average, overweight person with cheerios in his socks from his kids stuffing them in there, with more interest in avoiding conflict than participating.
Being in a world that only recognizes words does quite a bit for my first impressions.
Hahahahaha. Well I think you could definitely give a gun to Justin, but I know plenty of people who shouldn’t have one but could run to Walmart and buy one same day. I have a problem with that. MO is very very lax, and the government can’t get to know Justin to know if he should or shouldn’t have one.
Jill, refreshing to hear (on all your points).
Malik, the founders are dropping tears onto their parchment to discover that the younger generation doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights–which even I as a non-citizen recognize as probably the most glorious political document in human history. Luckily you are wrong that it is easy to amend or delete an amendment; otherwise we might have descended into tyranny long ago. So you would like to change or remove the second amendment. Do you like the fourth amendment, the one that prevents police officers from coming to your house without probable cause or a warrant to look for lock-picking equipment?… Read more »
Everyone is tired of irrational arguments, because everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is irrational. I think almost every pro gun argument (aside from Paul’s point about animals) is complete BS and irrational too. I respect the view but I think the arguments are as BS as you think mine are.
Also this is to respond to Justin’s thing about irrational arguments above, idk why it ended up here.
” I think almost every pro gun argument (aside from Paul’s point about animals) is complete BS and irrational too” Given your fallacy-ridden, stream-of-consciousness thinking, I really don’t know how you determine if something is rational or not. Sadly, it sounds like you received good training when you were young, but have chosen to depart from it…at least for now. I pray you will return. Watch the Jordan Peterson debate mentioned in this thread. The lady he’s debating is from the place you’re drifting towards. She’s obsessed with inequality and has a warped view of social justice–so much that she… Read more »
Thanks, but me having a different view of guns makes me a prodogles son? I don’t remember that being a biblical thing. My parents did raise me in a republican type beliefs but that’s the thing, I’m not going astray from the Christian view on guns, or immigration. Christian and Republican shouldn’t be sinonomus. Like I get it but I’m kinda tired of people saying because I don’t agree with them there is some kind of biblical problem. With homosexuality, I don’t think so but I get it. Everything else is like you can be wrong without being unbiblical. But… Read more »
JP, To your point [about cog. diss.) I read some comments on another site regarding Peterson and Newman’s interaction, some went so far to [fairly convincingly so] say Newman was excellent and did not flounder because it was her job as the interviewer to provoke Peterson. To know there are people out there who see her failing as “doing a phenomenal job” is not surprising considering our current level of dishonest discourse. Can’t change peoples minds when they are so ideologically entrenched in their bias.
Malik, I’ve interacted with you on twitter and you’re about the most hateful person I’ve ever come across online. Please, people, don’t talk to this guy. You are wasting your time.
It must not be this Malik:
https://twitter.com/obamamalik?lang=en
It must not be this Malak.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Malak
Okay, you followed David Duke on Twitter until I called you on it, and made horribly racist comments. I believe you have been kicked off Twitter a few times for your hate actually. Yes I hate racism, I don’t hate you.
What did he say? Because following someone on Twitter doesn’t mean much. I follow Donald Trump on twitter, and yet I’ve lost lifelong important relationships over my objections to the man.
Right, I follow him to, unfortunately that’s nessisary these days. Here are a few things I remember him saying. White people will eventually rise up and take back the country Black people will never integrate to our society, and they are less intellegent and unwelcome here Black people are by nature less intellegent (he doesn’t seem to know about Asians in this part of his argument for white people being suprime rulers of the world.) Other minorities are a drag on America, don’t contribute, and are unwelcome merely because or race (read up on the Irish and Chinese immigration wave,… Read more »
He called be “scum.” Yet he says he doesn’t hate me. Hmm.
I’m sorry for calling you that. But if that hurt you, and I’m sorry if it did, think about how what you say effects people.
So what did you say when you called him out? Getting kicked off Twitter can be a badge of honor in some cases. They have no problem with hate as long as it’s coming from SJWs.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/07/25/conservative-writer-posts-same-tweet-as-ghostbusters-actress-to-see-if-twitter-has-bias-see-what-happened
I said that that was racist and he should see someone etc. And getting kicked off for that degree of racism(if you read what he said in my comment above and don’t have a problem with it then I don’t want to continue this conversation, not because I hate you but because it won’t go anywhere) is not a badge of honor.
I said “Getting kicked off Twitter can be a badge of honor in some cases.” I wasn’t referring to Ben’s case (don’t know the details), just the hypocrisy of what Twitter considers hate speech. Did you see the link I posted? For someone who claims to be a master of logic, you sure misread and twist the words of others a lot (equivocation, red herrings, etc.).
I know you weren’t,you were saying that in some cases,but since we are talking about Ben I think it’s fair to dismiss the extra argument that I don’t disagree with, there’s no badge of honor for Ben. That’s what we were talking about.
What did he say? I know people probably don’t want to give their Twitter handles on here, but this is all “he said she said” without quotes.
Man I gave you quotes right up above. Like four comments up. Also unfortunately I don’t think you can go see them, Twitter has taken a lot down, at least I can’t see them
Well, on the one hand , I have to admit that if that is the same Ben, your criticisms are correct. On the other hand, revealing your own twitter shows that you think that a government shutdown caused by a Democrat filibuster can be blamed on someone who can’t control the Democrats, bringing serious questions to your basic integrity.
It’s the only Ben I’ve interacted with, I hate Twitter. And come on, are we really going to rehash the whole debate? Are you not tired of it? Are you really saying that my political views question my integrity? I give Trump supporters to respect to not think automatically they are all dumb and racist, or have compromised integrity. And Trump attacked Obama saying the last shutdown was his fault so by his standard it was his fault. Also he was presented with a bipartisan agreement and he turned it down. And also I think it is amoral that he… Read more »
“Are you really saying that my political views question my integrity?” Well obviously that depends on what your views are. Clearly, for example, Hitler’s political views call into question his integrity. No, though, I wasn’t calling your integrity into question for your support of the Democrat government shutdown. I’m calling into question your integrity for dishonestly saying that it isn’t a Democrat shut down. You can say the DACA program is worth it. That’s an understandable perspective. What you can’t do is say Democrats aren’t responsible for the actions of Democrats. ” I give Trump supporters to respect to not… Read more »
Found some.
Echa un vistazo al Tweet de @Ben_K_G: https://twitter.com/Ben_K_G/status/955594727373656065?s=09
Echa un vistazo al Tweet de @Ben_K_G: https://twitter.com/Ben_K_G/status/955601477132783616?s=09
https://twitter.com/Ben_K_G/status/955601868994031621
Echa un vistazo al Tweet de @Ben_K_G: https://twitter.com/Ben_K_G/status/955604149865013248?s=09
How’s that?
You seem to think racism in the great and unpardonable sin, with supporting the GOP coming in a distant second. Biblically speaking, why is it okay to say things like “Arrogant b*tch” and “you are probably in your parents (sic) basement” to a racist, but not do the same to adulterers, fornicators, liars, gossipers, homosexuals and others who are in sin according to Scripture?
Let’s stay out of the blame game. I told you what this kid said, and I never said I was a perfect person. Think whatever you want, but I’m not trying to argue who’s worse, him or me, that would be ridiculous, and arrogant
Found some but they are awaiting moderation. Maybe because of the links.
On said basically “I’m sorry blacks will never be able to achieve what whites have”
“I’m sorry that blacks are on average less intellegent than whites. Why can’t they just be grateful to live in a first world country without complaining”
It’s like if bdash were to shoot up three times a day and take baths in protein powder, it’s really bad
Rather than sobering, I suppose it would be cause for celebration for Swiss and Canadian patriots. :) And who really cares? My state is considered terrible in most rankings, but I much prefer it to many of the states considered to be superior.
True, it is for sure relative in that way. The take away ig is Americans tend to be very adiment about being the best, which we really aren’t. There is a comedy bit where the guy is like maybe if we started chanting we’re top ten in Kansas then the terrorists would stop trying to saw our heads off
How they ranked the countries with weighting. Adventure (3.24 percent): friendly, fun, pleasant climate, scenic, sexy Citizenship (16.95 percent): cares about human rights, cares about the environment, gender equality, progressive, religious freedom, respects property rights, trustworthy, well-distributed political power Cultural Influence (12.93 percent): culturally significant in terms of entertainment, fashionable, happy, has an influential culture, modern, prestigious, trendy Entrepreneurship (17.42 percent): connected to the rest of the world, educated population, entrepreneurial, innovative, provides easy access to capital, skilled labor force, technological expertise, transparent business practices, well-developed infrastructure, well-developed legal framework Heritage (3.17 percent): culturally accessible, has a rich history, has… Read more »
Malik, there are lots of questions to ask if you think surveys like this mean anything. You need to ask what is the metric? See my earlier comment which gives them. You need to ask how was it measured? how reliable was they data this was taken from? Is it accurate? You need to ask what leads to these things. For example it is not clear that funding education or health improves it, especially beyond a certain level. And other things like immigration policy may be disproportionate. Switzerland and Canada are far more restrictive than the US. You need to… Read more »
Right, makes sense
How much weight did they give to having an easy to look at Prime Minister?
Given those respectability ratings, clearly too much. Did you see Trudeau’s recent comments on pro-lifers? ugh. One day there will be a famous Justin who doesn’t embarass me. One day.
I hadn’t seen the comments, so I looked them up. Apparently they were intended to explain why the Canadian government demands that applicants for summer job funding sign a statement of support for human rights, including reproductive rights. I find this a serious encroachment on conscience rights, and I am glad it is going to court. I understand why the government cannot be expected to fund programs which militate against government policies. But this is a huge over-reach. If I want funding for a program to hire students to plant trees or feed the homeless or pick up litter, for… Read more »
I hadn’t seen the context. Only the comment isolation. It’s so much worse now…..
One wonders what people think a totalitarian government policy *is* if not taking efforts to control how people think.
Tangentially, your name makes a good punchline.
‘Do anything fun over the weekend?’
‘Oh, I was Justin Parris.’
I once knew a man by the name of Justin Time. I was terribly jealous.
Or an insurance salesman called Justin Case.
From my preferences Adventure. Who cares but low weighting. Citizenship. Important, but who’s human rights? Certainly not unborn children. And many human rights are not rights at all. And some so-called rights should be negatively weighted. Cares about the environment: yes but not by popular metrics like climate change, rather pollution and litter. Gender equality: by what definition? Equal rights in courts good. Forced employment of equal numbers of women in business bad. Progressive bad. Religious freedom good. Respects property rights good. Trustworthy good. Well-distributed political power: what does this mean? Cultural Influence. Who cares. And why weight it so… Read more »
Malik, concerning your comment above about Doug having grown a backbone: Do you know what blog you’re on? What year it is? What universe you inhabit? Your own name? Your ignorance is indescribable. Should you desire at all to remedy it, go ahead and look up a little book entitled Black and Tan and then come back and tell us how spineless Doug is. Oh, and before you return, take a quick perusal of the Bible, then recall that you affirm homosexual perversion. Spineless? The longer you comment on this blog the more you are becoming a case study in… Read more »
Malik probably wouldn’t find the commenters here so abrasive if he didn’t start every week with an insult himself.
“Should you desire at all to remedy it, go ahead and look up a little book entitled Black and Tan and then come back and tell us how spineless Doug is. ”
That would have to come with a trigger warning from the Surgeon General in Malik’s case. And DW may have to shut down comments for good.
Eh, honestly there r plenty of books I’ll read when I have time before that one. Not trying to piss myself off for hours on end lol
First, we can have a respectable conversation, no need to be like that. My view is that Doug is very brave when speaking from the shelter of the church out against the world. But really, the real test of a backbone is speaking out against something/one when there may be actual consequences. Speaking out against Trump takes a lot more balls than talking about gay marriage. No one in his Church will be upset about him not supporting gay marriage, but if he speaks out about Trump’s sin, that may offend people that he actually knows and has to talk… Read more »
” Speaking out against Trump takes a lot more balls than talking about gay marriage. ”
DW has faced plenty of “actual consequences” for taking positions that greatly anger the mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, SJW-lite Evangelicals, etc. That takes a lot more courage than pointing out the sin of someone he didn’t even vote for. I seriously doubt anyone in his church (including Trump voters) got upset about his porn actress post.
I sure hope they didn’t get upset. And they do have consequences, but not if you work at a Church, he’s fairly insolated
” Which he seemed to be avoiding.”
Based on what exactly? Go ahead and use the search bar in the corner. Search “Trump” and poke around for a bit. What exactly gives you the impression that she’s shy on the issue?
After the shithole countries remark Wilson just talked about theocracy for like three days, no condemnation
Malik,
Do you really consider Haiti and many African nations to be desirable places to live, or are they terrible places to live? If the latter, then your problem is not with the truth of the statement (if it was actually made), but with the fact that Trump had the gall to actually say it rather than being polite. I don’t like Trump’s style, but I am willing to recognize the truth in spite of how it’s presented.
I don’t care about that, I care about the underlying racism and ignorance. African immigrants are much more educated than the average American. They are also more educated than people from other countries like Noway. They are also more likely to have higher language proficiency. But he wants the white people from Norway, that’s my problem. The merit based immigranion argument is a front, he’s just racist. If you think he isn’t I can give you a list of racist crap he has done. Again, I don’t care what words he uses, but the racism from the president is unacceptable.… Read more »
“I don’t care about that, I care about the underlying racism and ignorance. ”
So you avoided the question (is Haiti a desirable place to live…or some type of “hole”) and went straight to implying racism. I’ll let you name the logical fallacy you just committed.
You’re trying to tell me what my argument is. I’m not arguing the living conditions, I’m arguing the other points I made. You are trying to get me to defend a position that I don’t hold. I didn’t say he way lying, I said he shouldn’t have said that and I told you the reasons. This is such BS, you can’t tell me position
You’re missing a very relevant factor Malik, the truth. If it is true that those places are sh**holes, then the worst someone can be guilty of for saying as such as being impolite. That’s why JP is pressing the point. If what Trump said is true, people who care more about truth than pleasantness won’t particularly care. Further, it isn’t possible for that comment taken on its own to be racist. They’re nations, not races. I can for example say that California is a lousy state to live in, and that is not a statement about the skin color of… Read more »
You didn’t look into this or you didn’t listen to me or both. Go reread it. It was a foolhardy, rediculous move that puts Americans at risk and hurts our agenda overseas. That’s the important part. The unimportant part is I think along with most that it was racist and impolite. You don’t call someone ugly, and then when they get mad be like well it’s true. That’s called being an ass hole not a crusader for truth.
” It was a foolhardy, rediculous move that puts Americans at risk and hurts our agenda overseas.” Which, at worst, is a mistake, not an immoral act. So a religious site has little reason to talk about it, much less require Doug to speak at length about something unrelated to Christian morality. “You don’t call someone ugly, and then when they get mad be like well it’s true. That’s called being an ass hole not a crusader for truth.” And you can’t call a statement racist without a lick of evidence. That’s blatantly dishonest, and immoral, unlike simply being rude.… Read more »
Malik, “African immigrants are much more educated than the average American. They are also more educated than people from other countries like Noway.” Why do these “African immigrants”, for example, choose to immigrate to other countries such as the USA? I think it has something to do with their rankings. The African nations I see listed have low rankings (I suppose the other African nations would fare less well): South Africa 39, Egypt 42, Kenya 57, Tunisia 65, Ghana 71, Nigeria 76, Angola 79 If those “African immigrants” heard you proclaiming how terrible it is here in the United States,… Read more »
Hey now, that’s not fair to what I said, at all. I know America is a great country to live in, clearly. I have friends from Venezuela you have no idea the stories they have. What I’m saying is it’s beyond ignorant for the president to push merit based immigration and then turn around and say he wants less immigrants from Africa and more from Norway. The stats show Africa as having the merit, even under the lottery system.
So every time Trump says something objectionable, Doug has to point out he opposes them all individually or he’s signalling that he’s complicit? How often exactly would that require he write an article about Trump? 4, 5 times a day?
Malik, I haven’t seen you post about Turkey and its dictator Erdogan at all. Am I to take this to mean you don’t have enough of a back bone to speak against him?
We already talked about this, a long time ago
Yes, and you keep utilizing a double standard for yourself and Doug. So long as you behave immorally, people are going to point it out.
You’re so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You’re so vain,
I’ll bet you think this song is about you
Don’t you?
Don’t you?
Quit talking about me.
Hey Clay! Couldn’t stay away? ; – )
Anyway, I think Carly Simon was right! Mick Jagger is pretty vain, or at least he was at the time!
; – )
I thought it was supposed to be about Warren Beatty!
“In November 2015, Simon, promoting her about-to-be-published memoir, said, “I have confirmed that the second verse is Warren (Beatty)” and added that while “Warren thinks the whole thing is about him,” he is the subject of that verse only, with the remainder of the song referring to two other, still unnamed men.[2]”
So,……I wonder if one of the two other men is Doug Wilson? ; – )
Clay seems to think so! : – )
I’m thinking some things should remain a mystery, stay hidden behind the curtain as it were. Mick Jagger and Beatty are identifiable in the song…but to reveal the other’s would ruin the songs affect.
“…your horse “naturally”, won.” Who’s that?)
Good advice. We don’t want to end up playing Beatles’ songs backwards to find out if Paul is dead!
He’s not, the other day I saw a picture of him on the internet him, walking next to Elvis on Abby Road.
Happening to agree with hypocrites from the left on an issue = having a backbone? I’ve heard it all now.
In the not so distant future, Christians will be quite sure that the definition of “marriage” includes gay marriage. They’ll be no more interested in how people in the past defined marriage than you are in how people once defined adultery. They’ll be under the same pressure to be seen as moral people. They’ll be just as suspicious of the motivations of any oddball that says otherwise. They’ll have tweaked translations of the Bible and they’ll employ CRISPR tier skill at snipping out bits to confirm the moral consensus.