Calm vs Chaos

This video above will be what I'm outlining this post about.

Here is the what I think is the essence of the free market place of ideas that has some people so worried: "Its best to let the unreasonable opposition speak, because they manifest themselves as unreasonable."

This is true. Yet, some are going to be, and are attracted to the unreasonable, and this is the price we pay for freedom to ring. We have to risk that bad will win, hopeful that good will win in the end. I think that it will, I think we must be reasonable. Being otherwise leads to madness, as it can be seen. These people chanting are so afraid, so deluded at what might be said, they do not bother to hear what will be said.

They want some speech to be censored. Yet, here they are, not even protesting against the speech that is the speech that they want censored. That should tell you something. It should tell you that they have no idea what it is they are fighting for, or why, they have no leadership, no coherent ideas, they are robots - the term "NPC has been rightly flung at them, and is far more apt then SJW - but they are simply not moving anything forward, but everything back.

They can not hope to understand reality, nor face or cope with it. They are so busy being "activists" that they stopped learning, stopped growing. What will they do in life, how will they cope? One wonders.

If only they had stopped there chanting they could hear, they could see that, they are facing down the wrong person. They are opposed to someone they shouldn't be. Yet, they are so desperate for someone, anyone to go after, that they find it, then do it. They have not grown up, and perhaps, never will.

In the face of this, Jordan stays calm, something I want to do, something I want to gain. To stay quiet, still speaking, but not speaking back - he said to remain calm. Keep your head. A few counter protested, that was in error, perhaps. Simply face the insanity with calm and love. Something the NPCs can not stand, they want hate and anger. Do not let them have what they want.

Are they using free speech to protest? I suppose, but in the most disgraceful way possible. They are the ones promoting hate and chaos. Lets not be like them.

Rise above. Speak what you think is true. Learn logic and be willing and able to debate all the ideas.
Let those speak who have bad ideas - so we can see just how bad they are. They did - those chanting have bad ideas. This is clear.

Be better. Use logic.

Late term Abortion

This video will be what launches my post here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXX9IJu_4pg


Abortion. I've looked at this from a very pragmatic view, it seemed that having abortion legal was good for the place it was legal in whole. Where its legal, those that partake are less:

Rates go down?

Is there a case to make for aborting lowering crime? Crime Case? Case for crime?

Can we even try to analyze the impact upon society with how many factors there are involved?
Do the numbers lie?

I'm all about the data, and the logical argument that can be made for or against (X). The video that kicks this off has some logical fallacies - showing the baby's heart beat - appeal to emotion. Is that invalid though, only if that was the whole of the argument, they also appeal to emotion by showing that baby's can be born early - and that is true. Something about them being in the tummy makes them invisible as people, so perhaps, they are trying to show that yes, they are human, just not outside yet.

Still, I could do without the emotional factor - but that sells. The fact is that the baby is in every way that counts, human. I value life. What do we do? A case-by-case basis might be the answer, rather then an over arching law.

This late in the game though, is just too far for me, but again if I (or anyone) draws the line broadly for the whole nation at (X) time, that will not cover every case. Its a problem of law needing to be simple enough to enforce without clogging up courts. Complex laws that are set for case-by-case might crowd the court. Perhaps so be it.

Certainly we should push for more birth control access, sex ed, and perhaps ways to turn off the ability to give birth and then, latter turn it back on, if we could develop drug or mechanism that was safe and effective, then we would simply use that.

The adoption system can not be left out of this, as it seems that the focus is "get the baby born" then worry about the life latter - but the fact is, the adoption system sucks bane in a jar, the worst kind of bane, its over flooded its terms to adopt are strict, they are run by church more often then not meaning that some couples or single people can't adopt not due to anything other then the church doesn't want them to.

Okay, so if we get some more kids in the adoption system at least we saved lives someone might say, but the quality of life has to be a factor right? But, if the baby is born, and the mother doesn't want it, could they still "abort" the child? Once its out - its murder - but when its in, its not. Right now its not because murder is only illegal killing.

For after term (X) that I'm not sure of the baby has a mind. So, we shouldn't end that, right? Or maybe we shouldn't end it at all. Or well, only in extreme cases. Yet... we pushed to far, and now what?

What about the father? His DNA is in there. Yet he gets no say? The "my body my choice" well... it is your body, but that human is not "yours" you do not own it and part of it is due to the man's DNA - yes you must carry it, but that doesn't mean you get to decide if it lives or dies. That seems to be the crux - that the freedom to abort must be tempered with the fact that this is a life. It should be harder to do, it should be on a case by case basis... yet it isn't.

So, I went from a simple clear stance to one where I'm not so sure anymore.

The slow march towards censorship?

I've been reading and hearing some disturbing things of late. It seems that people are worried that the free market of ideas has failed. That, because people can join up in groups on the net, and make echo chambers, that, they will never see the reasonable side of things.

Its been said that there is no punishment to producing fake new-stories - the damage is done, so to speak, they get the click, they do not care if its exposed as fake latter, as they can run that story as well, and get that click, the more clicks the more chance for ads to make them money.

In a similar way, there is not any deterrent for those of like-minded people to group on twitter, facebook, and/or any other social media. Yet those that say its bad to have echo chambers can and do also seem to lean towards getting rid of those echo chambers.. thus the slow march towards censorship.

People being banned of pateron/twitter/youtube for views and or ideas that are somewhat mundane and mild, perhaps politically charged - but yet they are banned for seeming non-offense. Meanwhile more and more strong arm against "racist" posts or anything that targets people's identity (sex/race/religion) is a no no. So, when will we no longer be able to say "blah" to religion? Or anything else for that matter?

Yes, people will go to groups and those groups and echo chambers will exist no matter if you ban them off the big platforms or not, in fact, doing so might make them more eager to go into hiding. I'd rather know who is a racist then for that person to be in hiding.

Yet, because we must "protect people" (because like, the block button is just so hard to find) more censorship is being mandated by if not law, then common practice of big name platforms across the board.

The free market of ideas is said to lose to the "bad" ideas, the fear that humans will go to the bad ideas, rather then the good. Yet, in every past civilization having a free market of ideas lead to a golden age... however that was always followed by something bad, so perhaps people are afraid of making the same error?

All I know is that I want a free market of ideas, and that I must hold out hope that logic in the end will prevail, that truth will win. If we censor, we do so at the risk of doing it to our own ideas as well.

That does not bode well in my book.

Jesus was eaten by his followers.

So I'll begin with this gem: https://twitter.com/joel_edmund/status/1097589910121447426

"Again the point is that (A) the early Christians claimed resurrection, (B) none of their opponents could produce the dead body.
If you want to go to the "there was no historical Jesus" thing, you can. You should know you are venturing into tinfoil hat conspiracy theory territory"

This come from Joel Edmund Anderson a PHD in the Old Testament, so you can bet that he is an expert in the New Testament... uh, well, anyway the point is, he is a very smart person and has a PHD something you don't. So when he makes a dumb argument that is full of holes its up to me, a lowly amateur logician to explain that, in fact, the only way to resolve this mystery is to say that clearly, Jesus was eaten by his followers.

Now, I know that isn't what Joel might want us to think, nor I dare say other Christians, but there is scripture that would support this. Besides, its far more plausible then Jesus RETURNING FROM THE DEAD.

Man the Walking Dead really missed out on having Jesus come back as a walker, its been 2-3 days since he died, its not too late guys!


Leave it to Quora to produce good enough numbers -Nom nom! - so it would take a single person 3 months. But they had more followers (not just talking about the 11, remember one of them offed himself, so he can't eat Jesus) (It would take one week for 11 people to eat him up)

John 6:56 "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him."Well there you go! That is what Jesus himself said! Why wouldn't they eat him? Okay okay, so they CLAIMED that he came back from the dead - and he did! In them! Because once you eat him, he dwells in them, can't say that they are lying at that point, they consumed his flesh (oh nom nom) and there you go - no body! Bones can be made into stew. Yum. So, the only possible answer that isn't zombie Jesus is that his followers ate him. Can't disprove it. Its in line with what the story says! So, next time some apologist says "THERE WAZ NO BODY" just say that Jesus's followers ate him. 



Don't forget to go "Oh nom nom." after you say that and wink. ;)