EclecticIdealist

The only necessary thing is the realization of self-determination. You are either at liberty to direct your actions (sovereign) or you are not (subservient/slave). Everything else comes from this ideal. A society that is formed on the basis of Universal Individual Sovereignty or Liberty must of necessity support universal, individual property rights as well as the non-aggression principle. The same cannot be said of a society which holds universal, individual property rights as its supreme virtue. Property is derived from the mutual agreement to respect the sovereignty of others. It is why Liberty, not property, must be the supreme virtue for those desirous of liberty and peace. If property were the supreme virtue or ideal to found government upon, then virtually any kind of society that respects property rights could be considered moral, including absolutely despotic societies which approve of and support rape, slavery, and murder; since if a person may be another's property, then whatever their owner wishes to do with their property must be considered moral. Those who suggest that Universal Individual Property Ownership includes self-ownership must establish the rational basis of self-ownership. When does self-ownership begin? Most would argue that the parents, or at least the woman, owns the embryo or fetus which gestates in her body. At what point does ownership transfer from the woman to the fetus or child? If it occurs at birth, what is the basis of such transfer of ownership? How is the woman compensated for the loss/transfer of ownership? If the assertion is that anything that is autonomous owns itself, then one has just conceded that Universal Individual Sovereignty is the basis of property rights.

Why? Why do you think she cited this? What is it that you disagree with in this quote? Do you believe: a) It IS the burden/responsibility of the brutalized to comfort the bystander? b) Black people have not been/are not now brutalized? c) Jesse Williams is not a victim of “brutality”? d) Recipients of Police brutality deserve what they get because of how they behave? e) It’s unfair for someone to ask people who don’t have a history or track record of speaking out against racism and police brutality against Blacks and other minorities to keep their one-sided criticisms to themselves. If you were to take the opposite position, how would you defend or strengthen Jesse Williams’ quote? How might this bias your position? How might you convey this information to her in a way that your mother can understand and relate to? Might there be more to it than this? Might there be anything in your attitude or behavior towards them that sets them off? Is 100% truly accurate, or is it a distortion? How might genuinely listening to her concerns and acknowledging the validity of her concerns before attempting to change her mind about them change your discussion with her? If sentimental story-telling and feelings matter so much to her, how can you use these to reach her with your own position? Is there any way you can make your own position “sound good” to her?

I don't personally know anything about it, but a simple search online produced this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India While the brief entry suggests some cross-pollination between the West and India, I did not find it surprising at all. Also, keep in mind, Marxism is an import from the West as well.

I forgot tidal energy (i.e., the result of rising and falling tides).

Examples of "free energy": Solar Power, Wind Power, Geo-thermal Power, River Power, Nuclear Power... it all depends upon your definition. Anti-gravity: Hellium in a Standard atmosphere, Helicopter and Airplane, Rockets, Ion drive, something else? ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052 )

How indeed? Why should anyone have been confused when you used the far less commonly used definition for “objectively” in conjunction with the term “Christian”? I’m certain you would have people equally confused if you posted to a Christian Business forum that Jesus was objectively Socialist and followed that up by saying he was objectively Socialist just like Charles Dickens. Later you could explain that they weren’t actually Socialist per se, they were simply concerned about helping the poor and the wickedness and lack of generosity of so many who are wealthy, No. It was not ritually killed by being driven off a steep cliff. It is true that the goat winds up being driven off a cliff, but that was only to ensure that it didn’t return to the community. Being pushed off a cliff is not part of the ritual. Also your depiction of ever decreasing violence throughout the Bible is incorrect and unwarranted. Yahweh commands animal sacrifice and forbids human (particularly child) sacrifice. Violence is practiced by Israel to greater or lessor degrees according to their fatefulness to Yahweh after leaving Egypt. Animal sacrifice for Yahweh’s followers only ends with the culminating final sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. And yet, the God of the Bible promises to destroy the world by fire and cast all sinners and non-believers into the lake of fire in an ultimate, final act of violence and destruction against evil and sin. That runs rather counter to Girard’s theory. Your comparison of Stefan to Proust (whom doubtless few on this board are familiar, much less so with what you apparently would term is “objectively Christian” perspective) was hardly illuminating, especially when you insisted in a post just prior to mentioning Proust that Stefan believed in the existence of the Abrahamic God and the Divinity of Christ. Furthermore, you’re complaining about how I’m suggesting you should have begun the thread in which you didn’t even refer to Proust until two days later, nor did you clearly explain what you meant by “objectively Christian” I’m suggesting there would have been less pointless discussion of terms you used in a muddled attempt to convey your thoughts and ideas. But whatever, you’re clearly not interested in any constructive criticism; so i’ll just leave it at that, regardless of any further attempts you might make to justify your in-artful use of the term “objectively”. Donnadogssoth, you are of course correct that unless Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi where murdered in an equally horrifically brutal way, the iconic imagery they might lend to the collective subconscious of the world would hardly be as impactful on the human soul. Such is the nature of such a brutal and violent way to die; that’s why the Romans utilized it. Of course had the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi been murdered in as equally horrific a manner (yes, I know Gandhi was murdered, but being shot at close range is not the same as being tortured to death for hours), then you’d likely be making some other argument.

 As to your question about the NAP arising in a non-Christian culture: Confucius - “Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you.” Buddha - "All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death: Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill. All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear; Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill." Hinduism - This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." Yup, I do.

Actually, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. Even an act of homicide is presumed to be justified and the perpetrator innocent until proved guilty. A defense of one's actions are only necessary when the prima facie evidence indicates that the homicide was not in fact justified. Only then, does it become necessary for the accused to mount a defense against a prosecution. Simply asserting that the homicide was necessary and therefore justified is sufficient defense when there is an absence of prima facie evidence that contradicts the claim. Juris prudence in other countries will often require the individual to prove that the homicide was justified even when there is an absence of evidence to the contrary. It's simply not the case in the US, except in the court of public opinion and the media.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8368197/walter-scott-police-shooting

I'm not going to address the problems I see with respect to the Atonement of Christ to reconcile man with God in this thread. However, with respect to the idea of Christ's atonement reconciling man with man, I would say that Jesus' teachings or philosophy of love, mercy, and forgiveness alone would be sufficient to do that with all but the most intractable, just as the teachings of others like the Buddha, or the Dalai Lama, or Gandhi would equally be sufficient if they were followed. I do not believe the submission of Jesus in the garden, or his beating and subsequent crucifixion at the hands of the Roman soldiers did anything to reveal or bring further illumination of man's covetous nature, nor provide a solution for it. In short, I don't believe it does anything to reconcile man with man at all.

For the sake of clarity, if I were to re-title the thread, I would write: René Girard would say, "Stefan is anthropologically Christian". I would then explain the basis of my assertion lies in René Girard's mimetic theory of the origin of conflict and the Anthropological resolution of the Scapegoat scenario of Archaic religions by Christianity. I would suggest that Girard's theory has parallels to Stefan's philosophy of anti-statism and non-violence. I would further opine that Stefan has adopted his ethical philosophy from modern, Western, libertarian values which were largely informed by the Enlightenment era of Europe and which values were in turn informed by the values of Christianity which permeated throughout Europe with the spread of Christianity and its resurgence in opposition to the state. THAT's what I would have done were I Junglecat in starting this thread. It would have avoided weeks and pages of pointless discussion about the meaning of the terms which were used. At that point, no one would suppose that JungleCat was ever asserting directly or otherwise that Stefan was Christian in any traditionally conventional sense of the term, but merely from the standpoint that most atheists who retain many Christian ideals and values might be termed "secular Christians" or "Anthropological Christians" or some other such term that clearly delineates between a belief in the supernatural divinity claims (even if unconsciously) and one who harbors no such beliefs.

Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, and consequently, individuals of such races should be treated differently. Bigotry: Intolerance of people who are different. Racism is a form of bigotry, as is colorism (prejudice based on the shade of one’s skin), sexism, agism, anti-semitism, etc. Prejudice: A preconceived idea or point of view about a person(s), typically a result of stereotyping or pigeonholing the individual or group based on superficial observation and classification into a larger group of people one is biased toward or against. This term is sometimes mistakenly used in place of bigotry which is a persistent idea about a group or a member or members of a group, often despite empirical contra-indicatory data which is discounted or otherwise dismissed or ignored. Whether a person is acting in a prejudiced manner cannot be determined through observation of a single event. Further information must be obtained to determine whether any perceived bias is incidental, categorical, or entirely misperceived. Example: A shop keeper, new to a neighborhood, opens his store for the first time. may closely scrutinize the behavior of Black people who enter his store. One might assume he is prejudiced against these visitors based on his behavior, but one cannot be confident of such an assessment yet. One observes other Black people enter his store and one becomes increasingly confident that the shop keeper is behaving in a prejudiced manner towards these visitors and is indeed bigoted against Black people. Then one observes people of other races enter the store and the shop keeper equally scrutinizes the behavior of each person entering his store. One discerns that the previous assessment of prejudice was entirely misperceived. Many accuse others of racism for issues that have nothing to do with race, and which may or may not involve other forms of prejudice, simply as a means of poisoning the well against what they might say. In the case you cited, I believe Trump’s desire to build a wall likely has nothing to do with racism on his part, and has everything to do with pandering to his potential constituents on the Right who believe that building a wall on our Southern border will significantly curtail or stop a societal and cultural threat and a financial burden on our education and medical systems believed to be caused or exacerbated largely by Illegal immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics. I am sorry that your friendship has been challenged by your differences in social and political issues. One thing I believe is important to realize is that there are many groups of people involved in BLM. Some of those groups are violent, radical, anti-American, Anti-White, Nation of Islam types responsible for the recent police shootings in Dallas. Others, however, are rightfully appalled by and vehemently opposed to these murders and merely want the triple-standard of justice ended when it comes to police and the criminal justice system’s treatment of Blacks and other minorities vs Whites, and the all too frequent refusal on the part of governments to hold police to the same standard as civilians when it comes to the unjustified escalation of the use of force resulting in the injury or death of others especially Blacks; and also the larger society’s refusal to hold the Police and State Prosecutors accountable because of the perception (justified or not) that as far as the rest of society is concerned, Black lives simply don’t matter, or at least not as much. Apparently for the majority of society, it seems, if the person is Black and has a criminal record, their lives simply don’t matter, or they matter so little as to not warrant any regard whatsoever. You definitely have a different and in my opinion misguided view of how privilege works than I and many others. Privilege does not require a majority of society to treat you better than those who are not privileged. In fact, in requires only a small number of individuals in key positions of power to treat you better than they treat the rest of society for you to enjoy privilege over the rest of society. One can easily see this in the manner that celebrities are treated with privilege by some, but certainly not by most of society. Few will dispute that celebrities enjoy a privileged status in our society. Many celebrities are given free clothes, free lodging, free meals, and extra gratuities not afforded the average person. Such celebrities often incur special treatment with regard to their professional career as well when it comes to trials and sentencing for misdemeanors and certain felony convictions on the part of prosecutors and judges. When given by merchants, such treatment is often given in an attempt to curry the favor of such celebrities in exchange for public notoriety, but this does not change the fact that such celebrities are treated better than the rest of society. Nevertheless, not all of society treats celebrities as privileged, nor do all prosecutors or judges, nor does most of society need to for these celebrities to lead a privileged life. Nevertheless, privilege is not the same as negative discrimination. Discriminating in favor of one person or group above all others is privilege. Discriminating against one person or group above all others is the opposite of privilege. When there are only two groups involved, the result of both positive and negative discrimination will be identical and privilege will be indiscernible from negative discrimination. When more than one group is involved, only then one is able to distinguish between privilege and negative discrimination. This can be seen in the case of hiring practices which screen out applicants of specific racial or ethnic backgrounds for interviews unless one or two are needed to meet a hiring quota. Black Lives Matter is based on the premise that for the majority of society, the lives of Black people simply don’t seem to matter, or are significantly less important than the lives of White people and cops. This conclusion is based on the perceived difference in treatment in the news and by government of White and Black victims of crime, especially by agents of the state; and the perceived difference in treatment in the media, but most especially by agents of the government, of White and Black perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of crime. Whether such perception is substantially nothing more than the result of a very effective race-baiting campaign on the part of the left in capitalizing on a few exceptional cases that have gained nationwide notoriety, as some have suggested, or simply the result of greater awareness and dissemination of information about how the justice system actually works to systematically oppress people of lower socio-economic status and means, for whom a significant portion of the Black population are members is a matter of debate. Add to this the very real, but usually denied, dismissed, or minimized reality of covert and unconscious racism that persists in the American workplace against Blacks and minorities, and you’ll begin to understand why many Black people feel (even if unjustifiably so) just as persecuted today as their parents or grandparents were during the Jim Crow era and after the success of the Civil Rights movement in ending Jim Crow. It is suggested that it cannot be shown that government is racist against Blacks and other minorities, and yet time and again, when evidence is put forth, it is simply dismissed or excused as being caused by other factors. Evidence showing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped and interrogated than Whites and other minorities in a manner disproportionate to their presence in the population is routinely dismissed as simply being effective policing where the problem is. Statistics which show a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions of Blacks and Hispanics for minor drug infractions skew the results of criminality by race not because they inherently commit more crimes, but because they poor and cannot afford bail, to spend time in jail, or a lawyer to make an adequate defense. It is often easier for such persons, including those who are innocent, to plead out to a lesser charge and go home, than to make bail and/or stand trial with an attorney that will effectively represent them and get their case dismissed. This has the effect of inflating crime statistics against Blacks and other minorities not due to racism, but due to poverty and a corrupt policing and criminal justice system. Are these policies intentionally racist? Probably not. They simply are most impactful against poor minorities who can ill afford the time or money necessary to defend themselves, making them suitable targets for meeting stop and arrest quotas by officers. It’s not personally or deliberately racist, it’s simply socio-economic classist and merely happens to oppress Blacks and Hispanics more because of the high percentage of their community being members of this class. The net result is effectively racist, even if the cause is not. If an array of factors not specifically targeting Whites, but having the statistically verifiable net effect of disproportionately adversely affecting Whites existed in government policy, would you consider the policies to be racist? Probably not individually; but collectively, what other conclusion can you draw if Whites are disproportionately adversely affected above others? This is not to suggest that each policy, or all the policies as a whole are intentionally racist; only that they have the same net outcome and are therefore perceived to be racist. As previously mentioned, it does not take a majority of people to be intentionally, overtly, or even covertly racist. It can be completely unconscious, and completely unintentional or both. Furthermore, even if only a small minority of cops and judges are racist, if they consistently engage in racist behavior which goes unchecked (which is demonstrable in some cases), then it WILL have a net negative effect despite the lack of racist attitudes and behaviors of the majority of officers and judges. When good officers and judges do nothing about the bad officers and judges, can you still consider them to be good? Are some members or believers in the BLM movement racist? Unquestionably so. These are the aforementioned anti-white radicals which the Right-wing Conservative media is attempting to paint as the heart and soul of the BLM movement. Are some members of or believers in the BLM movement misguided by lies and misrepresentation, or blinded by in-group preferences to their own short-comings? Undoubtedly, but not any more so than opponents to the BLM movement are. Does White privilege exist? You’re naively ignorant of the facts if you think that it doesn’t. Is its prevalence and impact over-reported by the left? Again, you’re naively ignorant if you think that it’s not; it clearly is—problems exist on both sides. Furthermore, much of what is considered to be White privilege isn’t, it’s the privilege of the wealthy and socio-politically connected, or negative discrimination against minorities, usually socio-economic minorities (i.e. the poor and socially unconnected). Additionally, must of what is considered White privilege is in fact not privilege at all, but discrimination against minorities. While it’s true that most people are not overtly racist, harbor strong racial biases against particular races, or engage in strong racially prejudiced or motivated behaviors; there are nevertheless unconscious racial biases and in-group preferences on all sides which serve to perpetuate unconscious and covertly racist or racially biased behavior. To think you are immune to such biases and behaviors or that everyone you know and are friends with are is unwarranted unless you are consciously aware that you do not have any unconscious in-group preferences or biases against others and neither do any of your friends. In truth, most Whites tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, and most Blacks tend to have such biases in favor of their in-group, with a few exceptions. The things you cited about affirmative action (more specifically, racial quotas in educational and hiring policies), gun control, the drug war, the criminal justice system’s statistical bias against minorities and welfare (all possibly explicable by socio-economic factors alone) are definitely a part of institutional racism. Another part is economic policies intended to increase home ownership by minorities (seen as a stepping stone to generational wealth and a means of transitioning to higher socio-economic classes) which have the opposite effect. Add to that, however, the unconscious or covert racism among many American corporations which pass up minorities for interviews to hire, merit/performance increases in pay commensurate with their equally or lesser performing peers, and promotions within companies and organizations, as well as the areas and roles in fashion and entertainment that have only recently begun to change in any significant way (e.g.., the very gradual increase of leading men and women played by Black actors, the more proportionate representation of fashion models and advertising depicting Blacks, etc.) If you suppose by my arguments that I believe a strong majority of people are overtly racist because you believe it must be so in order to rationally believe any of the claims made by BLM to have any merit, then perhaps you’re the one who has been drinking lead acetate; but a more likely scenario is that just as many have been deluded by many of the more absurd claims, and blinded to many of the faults in the BLM movement due to their own in-group preferences and personal experiences, you’ve been misled or misguided by some of the counter-claims and in-group biases against such claims. I believe the problems are much less “Black and White” than either side makes them out to be.

I would hate for you to make a simple mistake on a turn of phrase. The term is "burr under the saddle". Just remember that next time, you wouldn't want to pull a Biff Tannen. Also, your dazzling intellect has completely baffled and befuddled me. Perhaps you would be so kind as to walk me through how you took the higher road and expressed "the fact that your conclusion was flawed" in a form that gave me the "chance to exhibit integrity" rather than not. Clearly, I am unworthy of your magnanimous beneficence, so I am asking you to be gracious. Also, please explain to me how I should have responded that would have exhibited integrity as it is my desire to do so going forward. That must be exactly what I was doing without realizing it.Thank you so much for explaining that to me, because all this time I have obviously had it completely backwards. I never realized that the Constitution actually placed rulers over me, not servants beneath me. I see now that I have been completely wrong in my thinking this whole time. Thank you for enlightening me on this matter. Additionally, thank you for correcting me about inalienable rights. All this time I was thinking rights were synonymous with the authority that comes from Universal Individual Sovereignty, not actual physical entities subject to physical forces like gravity. I'm glad you cleared that up for me. Since you must be right about all these things, you can't possibly believe in Universal Individual Sovereignty as the concepts unalienable rights or authority and Universal Individual Sovereignty are inalienable from one another, which leaves me wondering, if you don't believe that each person has the authority of self-rule, and you obviously don't believe in the authority of anyone else ruling over you individually or collectively, does this mean that you are an absolute anarchist who doesn't believe in any rule at all, or have I misunderstood something you've stated? How does the notion of anarchy square with the idea of morality? You've indicated in other posts that you believe moral rules to be binding, but how does that work? How are morals binding if there are no rulers to enforce these rules? How can they possibly be binding at all? Are moral rules inescapable forces of nature like gravity? Do moral rules or laws actually prevent people from stealing, raping, assaulting, and murdering the same way that gravity causes masses to accelerate towards each other? That doesn't seem to be the case; I'm just so confused now, and I need your dazzlingly brilliant intellect to enlighten me and show me what and how I should think in order to think and act with integrity, because clearly I have no idea on my own.

I would say that your question is disingenuous, insipidly stupid, and below the quality one should expect from a person of your intellect. I will defer to your judgement as to whether or not it is a question that was asked with integrity. Supposing however that it was, I would say: The Constitution for the United States of America is no mere piece of paper or document, it is an idea. It is the contractual obligation upon the federal government instituted to protect the unalienable rights of the People of the united states of America from infringement by powers both foreign and domestic. As an idea, it only has the power it is imbued with by the belief and will of the People. It represents the hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers of a Nation built upon the principles of Universal Individual Sovereignty in a manner they hoped would best guarantee the protection of such Sovereignty to all. It was enacted by imperfect individuals in an imperfect manner. It only has the power we give it by our consent and demand from our elected and appointed representatives and officers. It also, unfortunately, is as weak as the apathy, indifference, and ignorance of the People required to give such consent and make such just demands of those delegated with power and authority to act on our behalf. I recognize that you do not esteem the Constitution to be of any value, that you consider it to be nothing more than a piece of paper, so discussing it any further with you would be utterly pointless.

Ad Hominem attack to Poison the Well, Intellectual laziness - NOT AN ARGUMENT!

Actually, the Constitution affords protection to non-US Citizens; however, non-US Citizens do not have an unalienable right to immigrate or enter the country at will. US Citizens do have an unalienable right to property and self-defense, and the provision in the Second Amendment guarantees against the Federal (and the State Governments actually) from infringing upon these rights by depriving the people of their right to their property (to keep arms), and the ability to bear such property in self-defense.

That you do not recognize that it IS significantly different and precisely HOW it is significantly different is the problem. As you are aware, there are two dictionary definitions for the word "objective". This is usually the first definition listed as it is an adjective. It is defined as describing a fact or facts, or the knowledge of such a fact or facts (truth, or truths) which exist independent of subjective bias (i.e., personal feelings, opinions, perspective, and so on). The other dictionary definition is for a noun. It is defined as a purpose or goal to be obtained as the result of action. The adverb form of the word "objectively" is almost always a usage of the adjective definition of the word; whereas you unconventionally used the noun definition of the word suggesting a common or shared purpose or goal, not a fact existing independent of subjective bias (in this case, your perspective on Christianity informed by the anthropological theories of Rene Girard). At one point throughout the month-long discussion, you go on to use a secondary definition of "subjective" indicating that which is subordinate to, which, while related to the more common usage of the term when relating to philosophical ideals--"biased by personal feelings, perspective, opinion, etc.", only served to suggest further usage of the less common definition or meaning of terms in a philosophical context. Had you simply used the expected or proper terminology, or properly explained upfront rather than having to have it dragged out of you, that you were using the less common definition, you might have avoided all the confusion and circular discussions and actually enabled people to focus on the more interesting points you had to make regarding Rene Girard's Mimetic theory and the supposed resolution of the scapegoat scenario by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The modern, western, secular individual's ethics do share many of those ethics espoused by Christianity; however to call this "objectively Christian" is probably not the best choice of terminology. A more clear turn of phrase might be "The modern, western, secular individual espouses many traditionally Christian virtues and ethics." Of course making such a claim would hardly be controversial. One could say the same thing about the ancient and modern practitioners of Buddhism, of the modern, western, cultural Jew, and modern, western, moderate Muslim, and the modern, western, etc. Having read and re-read the most clear explanation you gave on 25-Jun-2016 @ 4:31p, I believe I understand what you are attempting to convey as "the anthropological truth of the gospel". I nevertheless find the term "truth of the gospel" applied to what you claim more than a bit presumptive, but typical of religious claimants. Nevertheless, I do find Girard's mimetic theory interesting, as well as his unorthodox exegesis of the passion as a resolution to the scapegoat scenario to be interesting as well. What I do not agree with (and I don't know whether this is because you misunderstand Girard's claims, or whether Girard simply misunderstands the Bible's claims), is his notions of the Jewish sacrificial tradition; what is clear is that the Jews, from the time of Moses until the destruction of the Temple and Diaspora were practicing ritual sacrifice of that which was deemed perfect, unblemished, and pure as a penal propitiation to the violent God Jehovah for their sin and uncleanliness; not that which was deemed unclean or unholy; with the exception of the scapegoat ritual (in which a goat is "sacrificed" in the sense of being offered, but it is not killed; rather all the sins of the community are transferred onto it and it is then led out of the community and the allowed to "escape" in the wilderness). For Christians, Jesus is considered the ultimate penal sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices for sin and uncleanliness. Paul makes this abundantly clear; yet Girard appears to reject the notion that the passion should be seen as a penal sacrifice of the pure and innocent for the corrupt and guilty; but rather as a means of shocking society into realizing the immorality of sacrificing the innocent for the sake of the guilty, the pure for the sake of the impure... that the so-called "scapegoat sacrifice" is not a divine mandate from a perfect and just God, but a lie used by archaic religions as a safety valve to release the conflict caused by our innate covetous nature which arrises out of our mimetic brain. Girard instead views Christianity as a repudiation of scapegoating and the providing of an alternative course for society to follow in order to break the cycle of violence-- a pacifistic rather than confrontational approach to conflict resolution, and a discipline of avoiding the covetous thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are so natural, carnal and combative, and instead striving to embrace a "divine" or ideal mindset of omni-benevolence. As to how I got my "bad reputation", I vehemently disagreed with a particular individual over what I considered to be invalid or unsupported assertions, and what I perceived to be logical contradictions and fallacious reasoning. Rather than only attempting to refute my assertions and arguments, they (and apparently another one or two confederates) additionally negged my posts, insulted me, and asserted a lack of personal integrity. Foolishly, I returned in kind from a position of weakness (not having the ability to neg them as they did me, and not having a currently unassailable positive reputation).

What you are saying here is, "objectively Christian" means something significantly different from "Christian, according to a standard "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." In fact, you have a very particular definition in mind as: "Christian from the anthropological truth of the gospel" (What precisely is the "anthropological truth" of the Christian message?) "the explanation of the Christian decoding of myth, of the archaic sacred." (whatever that means). That's because that is precisely what rational means: reason-able- able to be reasoned, as contrasted to "emotional" or "spiritual". No, the problem is you are using familiar terms and inventing unique, new meanings for the conjunction of these terms and pretending that you're not doing precisely that. That is why you're sowing nothing but confusion. If you were to simply use the established meanings of words as they are currently and consistently used, rather than resorting to wordplay with archaic meanings and multiple definitions, you'd at least succeed in getting your point across.

Axioms are not knowledge. Axioms are assumptions we make because it is necessary to do so. What we believe to be axiomatic may prove otherwise as we gain further understanding and more information justifies a rejection of such an assumption. Such has not been proven necessary (and seems unlikely ever to be so) when it comes to the axioms of identity, existence, and consciousness, and the fundamental principles of informal logic or reasoning (such as the syllogism).

Here's the disconnect you're having Junglecat. You understand the term "objectively" correctly. It means (as previously mentioned) "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The problem lies when you tie this to the term "Christian". To say that something is "objectively Christian" is to suggest that something may be classified as Christian without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The trouble is, you have a subjective definition of Christianity which differs markedly from other subjective definitions of Christianity. In point of fact, Christendom as a whole has yet to come to a consensus of what it means to be Christian, so we cannot even point to an objective definition of Christianity as a standard or reference. You're attempting to claim that Stefan is objectively (subjective definition). That makes as much sense as trying to nail jello to a wall to keep it from falling to the ground.

I think a large reason is that Stefan has had a number of podcasts and youtube videos where he talks about IQ and how it relates to morality, criminality, propensity for violence, birth-rates, etc., particularly by racial classification.

Thanks for the inspiration.

It will not stop police brutality in the future, you are correct. It may even serve to heighten it against minorities in general and Blacks in particular. It was almost certainly borne out of frustration over the perceived and real injustices perpetrated by the police and the "authorities", particularly against marginalized groups, especially those regarded poorly. It is tragic for those whose lives were lost, and those who will be directly affected by their absence in their lives going forward as a result of the sniper's actions. This is a generalization that is obviously not universal. Violence achieves the goals of the successful rapist and murderer. Violence achieves the goals of the successful despot and tyrant. Violence achieves the goals of the police in subduing a suspect. Violence achieves the goals of the homeowner defending his property from robbery. Violence achieves the goals of the potential rape victim in fighting off his or her attacker. Of course, under all these situations, the violence must be successful in overcoming the resistance or persistence of the other through force. A more precise way of expressing the idea would be: Initiating violence rarely serves the long-term goals of those pursuing universal liberty and peace.

I share the opinion of Rene DeCartes on that one. I believe reason alone leads one to the inexorable conclusion of one's existence and cognition. On the other hand, it does not inform one of any absolute certainty of anything more than this, including the nature of such existence, or the reliability of one's cognition or reasoning. Well that really all depends upon what one considers reasonable justification. From what you have stated, by your absolutist standard of justification, I cannot. The absolutist perspective renders the term knowledge an unobtainable, theoretical abstract; whereas a less precise requirement of justification renders knowledge a term describing a rationally justified belief in that which is almost, but not absolutely, certainly true. When one considers justification, one is ultimately considering the reliability or confidence in the accuracy of the sources of information, and the logical reasoning (if any) which creates the conception or idea that is believed. We obtain such confidence by eliminating or at least striving to minimize the subjectivity of the observations through multiple views over time, and multiple, independent observers. When the multiple views from multiple sources consistently result in the same information, our confidence increases in the reliability of the information. Similarly, when multiple individuals arrive at the same conclusions as a result of adherence to the principles of logic and reason, our confidence in the accuracy of the reasoning increases. We are never able to fully eliminate the subjectivity of observations and reasoning, and so we are never able to arrive at absolute, objective justification for belief, and thus, pragmatically, we cannot have any objective knowledge of anything outside of our own internal realization of our own existence and cognition. Yeah, some people lack the ethical integrity, or intellectual honesty to handle others disagreeing with him intellectually or ethically without seeking to muffle them. It's childish really.

Rationality is objectively definable. Evil, is not. Evil is largely a matter of sentiment. One can certainly be both rational and what some or even many would consider evil. Most consider murder to be evil, and yet many who commit murder do so after rationally evaluating the pros and cons of murder (including the likelihood of succeeding in the murder and escaping the societal consequences). Some serial rapists and murderers were rational and what most would also consider to be evil. I would suggest precisely the opposite, that what is rational is not very subjective at all. Support of Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be rational, and even if it is rational, that does not mean it is sound (i.e., any rational support may not be founded upon correct premises.) There are a great many things which some consider evil and others do not to suggest that evil is many respects very subjective. Some consider abortion to be evil, others do not. Some consider subjecting babies and young children to genital mutilation to be evil, others do not. Some consider spanking to be evil, others do not. Some consider subjecting children to superstitious religious beliefs is evil, whereas others, even those who consider the beliefs to be nothing more than superstitions, do not. The Non-Aggression Principle is NOT subjective. Principles are objective. Adherence to principles is mostly objective. Whether it is good or not to adhere to, or under what circumstances it may be violated and still be considered good is subjective. Sanity is generally regarded as adherence to rationally justifiable behavior, not the presence of deviations of sexual orientation or desire. It would generally be considered sane for a person who identifies as homosexual to pursue a voluntary homosexual relationship in a culture which does not stigmatize such relationships. It would generally be considered insane for a person to pursue a mutually voluntary sexual relationship with a person or thing incapable of a voluntary sexual relationship (e.g. pursuing a mutually voluntary, sexual relationship with deceased author and philosopher Ayn Rand). Irrelevant. Your belief or others' beliefs may have no rational basis for such an assessment of insanity (or sanity).

I believe, like DeCartes, that self-existence can be rationally deduced from the experience of self-reflection. What our existence entails (are we a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming of being human, etc.), however, cannot be known with absolute certainty. I am of the opinion that most beliefs which directly follow most perceived sensory experience are justified to a reasonable degree that they may be considered knowledge. The incidental conceptions which arise from such perceptions, not so much. Non-incidental conceptions which arise from repeated, similar perceptions more so. For example, I feel heat the sensation of heat upon my skin. I look at my skin and I see that it is illuminated by an external light source. I cast my gaze up and see the sun. I have knowledge of heat and light and what appears to be a very bright source of light and heat in the sky. These I believe can be reasonably considered knowledge. I have memories of having lived in my home with the same woman for approximately 9 years. I have knowledge that I am living with the same person for these 9 years. I have a reasonable belief but not knowledge, that the earth is round and orbits the sun. While I agree that when one gets down to the granular level, one must assume that our perceptions are approximately accurate (relatively precise) and valid mental projections of reality mapped upon our consciousness, one cannot really know such to be the case. Nevertheless, I do not regard this as an ultimate non-starter for the reasonable basis of knowledge. Strict reasoning demands that I cannot know anything outside of my own mind with absolute certainty; and even that which is in my own mind and reasoning must rationally be considered potentially suspect. However, I nevertheless maintain that it would be unreasonable to suppose, given the apparent (not certain) consistency which I seem to recall, that my mind is not generally untrustworthy when it comes to reasoning upon fundamental percepts and concepts; and that therefore it would be unreasonable to assume that my senses are generally unreliable sources of sensory data or something other than what they appear to be. Yes, this means that I believe that reasonably certain knowledge can be had beginning from reasonably certain assumptions about our mind and senses. I understand; however, if you do not agree with this position.