Infanticide

[RCSaunders]

... you've told us that it's (presumably objectively) "wrong" for me ...

You be hard pressed to find anywhere I say what is right or wrong for any other individual. It is not possible for me to know what is right for you, because everyone is different and has their own mind and must discover for themselves what talents, abilities, proclivities, and all other resources they are born with are, and how to best use them to live their life successfully.

All I can describe is what the nature of the world we live in is, and what human nature is, and what those natures require to achieve anything one chooses, but nothing determines what one must choose. What cannot be chosen are the consequences of one's chosen thoughts, beliefs, choices, and actions, because they are determined by the nature of reality itself. If one chooses to live a life that will be a full and rewarding as possible and to be and achieve all they can as a human being, they must choose to learn all they possibly can about as many things as they possibly can because they must choose all their behavior and knowledge is the only means of thinking and choosing, for example. But no one has to choose that objective, and most don't, for their own reasons, I suppose.

But no one can tell someone else what the right way is for them to live their life. It's one of the things Christians do all the time. "Please pray for our ministry and send us money to support this work of God." Good grief, what scam artists.

[Nick_A]

RC

But no one can tell someone else what the right way is for them to live their life. It's one of the things Christians do all the time. "Please pray for our ministry and send us money to support this work of God." Good grief, what scam artists.

Until a person evolves sufficiently so the universal quality of objective conscience functions in them, they can only rely on what society dictates by its laws. Once a person is capable of objective conscience they already have objective values and transcend all forms of idolatry and its imaginary man made Gods including the Great Beast

[Walker]

But no one can tell someone else what the right way is for them to live their life. It's one of the things Christians do all the time. "Please pray for our ministry and send us money to support this work of God." Good grief, what scam artists.

Well, consider reality.

There’s an old widow* who lives alone in the family home, or a group home with other old people, recently met. She occasionally hears from her grown children and their children, but doesn’t live with them, and she understands everyone is busy and making their way in the world. The people around her gossip, she often feels like she’s trapped in high school again. Her best friends are memories of dead people.

Then, on the television she gets to hear the impassioned, articulate, philosophy of Christianity applied to daily events, and current events. The energy and the clarity is like, none of the people around her. The poetry of the King James verses sounds so nice compared to the harshness of the world.

She wants to repay for this. It’s the type of person she is. Old school. Her need for all this is based on several very real factors.

- She knows her days are numbered. In fact, she has probably budgeted accordingly.
- Her children have everything anyone could want, much more than past kings, except they never have enough time.
- She now needs little from the world, and has lots of time.
- She already thinks kindly and does good.
- She wants to repay those, who make her feel good.

So she sends a check.

Should she be gambling in Vegas? Buying junk from the TV shopping network? Give it to some pet foundation? Do nothing so the next generation can blow what she didn’t spend?

She knows what she’s doing. She’s been through hard times. She knows who these people are. She knows what she’s getting, and what they’re getting …

If this is selling you something, what is it?


* Details vary.

[Immanuel Can]

... you've told us that it's (presumably objectively) "wrong" for me ...

You be hard pressed to find anywhere I say what is right or wrong for any other individual.

I really wouldn't. Two messages back you wrote:

It would be wrong for me to do so, just as it is wrong for you to do so.

So yeah, you did: and it was obvious.

So you believe in objective morality...it's just that you think you are yourself sufficient authority for it.

I doubt anybody else agrees.

[popeye1945]

I have a chess player's mind attracted to the big picture rather than becoming caught up in details. Where some are caught up in fighting over the trees, I prefer to contemplate the logic of the forest.qoute


Chess is very much caught up in details the rest sounds to me like babble.

I contemplate God, not as a personal God but as the ineffable ONE described by Plotinus which emanates the universe as a necessity through the logic of vibrations and the relative densities of matter creating levels of reality. Can it be proven logical? Here are two conceptions of mysticism:quote

Are you saying you believe in Spinoza's god, if you are it is a very roundabout way of doing so.

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St. Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"quote

If this knowledge is inaccessible to the intellect but it may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender what are you contemplating with? I think our dialogue is going to prove unrewarding to us both, so this will be my last two cents worth.

2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the above"

We are writing of two different concepts. You seem to suggest that mysticism is escapism into altered states of consciousness. I am suggesting that beginning with the ONE and verifying its logical involution into everything is possible through sound deductive (top down) rather than inductive reason (bottom up) normally used by science.

Since the ONE is not bounded by space and time and we are, it is impossible to contemplate it, but can a person contemplate the inner direction which leads to it in their need for "meaning" or is this just escapism? Are they drawn to the inner light much like a moth is drawn to the external light?
[/quote]

The above, you contradict yourself god/the absolute is impossible to contemplate, previously you stated this is how you acquire such knowledge. We have butted heads before over this stuff without making any headway, so I'll just wish you all the best.

[RCSaunders]

... you've told us that it's (presumably objectively) "wrong" for me ...

You be hard pressed to find anywhere I say what is right or wrong for any other individual.

I really wouldn't. Two messages back you wrote:

It would be wrong for me to do so, just as it is wrong for you to do so.

So yeah, you did: and it was obvious.

So you believe in objective morality...it's just that you think you are yourself sufficient authority for it.

I doubt anybody else agrees.

Just trying to make you feel better.

[Immanuel Can]

You be hard pressed to find anywhere I say what is right or wrong for any other individual.

I really wouldn't. Two messages back you wrote:

It would be wrong for me to do so, just as it is wrong for you to do so.

So yeah, you did: and it was obvious.

So you believe in objective morality...it's just that you think you are yourself sufficient authority for it.

I doubt anybody else agrees.

Just trying to make you feel better.

I'm feeling fine...but thanks for the concern.

[Nick_A]

I have a chess player's mind attracted to the big picture rather than becoming caught up in details. Where some are caught up in fighting over the trees, I prefer to contemplate the logic of the forest.qoute


Chess is very much caught up in details the rest sounds to me like babble.

I contemplate God, not as a personal God but as the ineffable ONE described by Plotinus which emanates the universe as a necessity through the logic of vibrations and the relative densities of matter creating levels of reality. Can it be proven logical? Here are two conceptions of mysticism:quote

Are you saying you believe in Spinoza's god, if you are it is a very roundabout way of doing so.

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St. Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"quote

If this knowledge is inaccessible to the intellect but it may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender what are you contemplating with? I think our dialogue is going to prove unrewarding to us both, so this will be my last two cents worth.

2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the above"

We are writing of two different concepts. You seem to suggest that mysticism is escapism into altered states of consciousness. I am suggesting that beginning with the ONE and verifying its logical involution into everything is possible through sound deductive (top down) rather than inductive reason (bottom up) normally used by science.

Since the ONE is not bounded by space and time and we are, it is impossible to contemplate it, but can a person contemplate the inner direction which leads to it in their need for "meaning" or is this just escapism? Are they drawn to the inner light much like a moth is drawn to the external light?

The above, you contradict yourself god/the absolute is impossible to contemplate, previously you stated this is how you acquire such knowledge. We have butted heads before over this stuff without making any headway, so I'll just wish you all the best.
[/quote]

I agree. It is useless. But this butting of heads helps to understand why. Chess explains it. When the great Cuban chess champion was asked how far he thinks ahead in chess he said "one move, and it is always the best." Chess is tactics which you know but it is also strategy for those who see the interactions of the whole board as ONE

Life is like this. Most are caught up with arguing the trees but cannot see the forest or the chess board as a whole. But the chess board has two dimensions while life has six dimensions so only perceptible for those who bypass dualism or associative thought and open to noesis so as to feel the inner direction leading to the whole but is beyond our senses

Those caught up in arguing the trees and limited to associative thought cannot understand how infanticide effects objective conscience. They have gone beyond subjective conditioned morality.

The thread proved its point. Those like RC and IC are into their own egoistic battles over the trees and the question of the wholeness of objective conscience is avoided for the joy of the fight. I need to find those able and willing to see the forest, the forms, at the expense of fighting over the many trees or opinions to do justice to philosophy or to find the best move in complex chess positions.

[Walker]

When the great Cuban chess champion ...

Jeopardy answer: Who is Capablanca?

[Nick_A]

When the great Cuban chess champion ...

Jeopardy answer: Who is Capablanca?

That was foolish of me not to include Capablanca's name but regardless, there is a minority open to consciously feel the big picture and a majority who are caught up with defending opinions. Sadly the majority cannot understand the minority. We can over the board experience its value through wins and losses. But in life there is no way to judge or what one of the minority feels is true by means of his awakening conscience.

Plato tried to awaken conscience by teaching us of the inner psychological direction leading to the forms or the source of opinions. In modern times though the obsession with fragments rules the day in modern education which must result in social decline.

We have an educated nominee for the Supreme Court who doesn't know what a woman is. Obviously then the educated cannot answer this question of infanticide. Without opening to the big picture or the domain of forms which enables a person to feel as a human being, what is understood? How many of the young have become incapable of finding the path to objective meaning and now find meaning in burning down buildings.

[henry quirk]

We have an educated nominee for the Supreme Court who doesn't know what a woman is.

Oh, she knows.

Her head, like so many, has been captured by a particularly corrosive line of thought, is all...and, like so many, it's made her as crazy as a craphouse mouse.

[Nick_A]

We have an educated nominee for the Supreme Court who doesn't know what a woman is.

Oh, she knows.

Her head, like so many, has been captured by a particularly corrosive line of thought, is all...and, like so many, it's made her as crazy as a craphouse mouse.

That is what happens when we sacrifice our potential for individuality for the sake of an ideology. We cannot even define a woman much less the reality of objective conscience. Is there anything more harmful for the young then parents paying to have them indoctrinated into Marxist ideology by universities at the expense of denying their potential for individuality? What else can be expected from educators who have lost their individuality and are now slaves to an ideology?

[Immanuel Can]

We have an educated nominee for the Supreme Court who doesn't know what a woman is.

Oh, she knows.

Her head, like so many, has been captured by a particularly corrosive line of thought, is all...and, like so many, it's made her as crazy as a craphouse mouse.

I think she should have been asked first, "Do you regard yourself as an advocate for women's rights?" And then, "What is a 'woman.'"

She can only pose as one or the other: an advocate for women, or somebody who doesn't even know what a woman is. She's trying to play both, and hoping we're too stupid to notice.

And you're totally right: she knows. In fact, she believes she is one. But she also knows that the members of her Neo-Marxist tribe will not forgive her if she gives a definition of "woman," so she cravenly refuses.

And is that what we want on the Supreme Court? A puppet for the Left who is so cowed, so PC, and so dead of conscience that she can't even stand up for a basic question of principle?

What happens to women when the Left has sold them out for trans rights? Welcome to the new world, where nobody is safe...least of all, those who have served the Left in its agenda.

[Nick_A]

Does it strike anyone here as absurd when a person is asked what a woman is and they reply 2 X chromosomes. A reply, though rather simple, is denied since by the left. The only true consideration is what a person believes they are. For the left, they create their own reality.

Now watch what happens when a person is asked "What is a Christian"? We create our own reality when we define a Christian by what we think we are. A woman is defined by what a person believes they are. A Christian is defined by what a person believes they are. The natural attraction to objective standards is denied as unfair or racist. Yet we can define a woman as having to 2 X chromosomes but deny this definition by social justice and creating our own reality. But a Christian is not a matter of Chromosomes. How do we define a Christian? What is a Christian? We don't know and yet expect to know why many think a newborn baby is objectively entitled to life but a fetus isn't.

[RCSaunders]

Does it strike anyone here as absurd when a person is asked what a woman is and they reply 2 X chromosomes. A reply, though rather simple, is denied since by the left. The only true consideration is what a person believes they are. For the left, they create their own reality.

Now watch what happens when a person is asked "What is a Christian"? We create our own reality when we define a Christian by what we think we are. A woman is defined by what a person believes they are. A Christian is defined by what a person believes they are. The natural attraction to objective standards is denied as unfair or racist. Yet we can define a woman as having to 2 X chromosomes but deny this definition by social justice and creating our own reality. But a Christian is not a matter of Chromosomes. How do we define a Christian? What is a Christian? We don't know and yet expect to know why many think a newborn baby is objectively entitled to life but a fetus isn't.

Isn't there a confusion of categories here? One has no choice over the characteristics (including genetic characteristics) one is born with. Religions and ideologies are chosen.