This is True Conservatism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

philosopher
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by philosopher » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:47 pm
philosopher wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:17 pm
That's Conservatism for you, right there!

Conservatives are monsters.
Here's the problem for that claim.

"Conservative" is not a particular ideology, but rather an answer to the question, "How do things need to be changed?"

Conservatism's answer is "Slowly and carefully, so as to preserve what we have -- to 'conserve' what we've got, all the goods from the past."

In contrast Radicalism, in its various forms, says, "We need to change quickly, radically and even sometimes violently (by revolution), in order to achieve the level of change we need. Anything less is not radical enough."

And there are times when each one is right.

But yesterday's radicals become tomorrow's conservatives. Because once the radical revolution has achieved its goal, it only has two choices: push for another revolution, and thereby put at risk its own achievements, or preserve the gains of the last one. Pushing for a new revolution every time is destructive: nothing lasts, nothing is stable, everything is in constant upheaval, overturn and flux. It's unliveable and destroys society. But conserving the gains of the revolution requires becoming a force for conservation...a conservative.

Consider the Marxists. They push for a revolution. But no sooner is it achieved (as in Russia or China or everywhere else it's been tried) than the same forces that produced the revolution have to convert to become the defenders of the new status quo...but being radicals, they don't just "conserve": they radically repress. They become hyper-conservatives for the new regime, bullying their political dissenters, putting their perceived enemies into gulags and "re-education camps," or shooting them in lines.

And they have to; because the people they fear now are really themselves -- they fear that the new potential "revolutionaries" will be just as bad and violent as the radicals know themselves to be. So they have to suppress them with extreme prejudice, or risk becoming the victims of radicals like themselves. In fear, they "conserve" their revolution with violence.

So you don't like today's "conservatives." Okay. What change are you pushing for; and when you get it, how do you plan to keep it without becoming "conservative" about it?

As the band The Who wrote, "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss." It should have been, "Meet the new boss / More violent and deadly than the old conservatives ever dared to be."
Had it not been for the fear of the revolutionaries, many European welfare states would never become welfare states in the first place.

It was the Social-Democrats who invented the modern welfare state (the social-democrats were once radicals too).

In the early 20th century it was customary and legal for the boss to beat up his slaves... I mean workers, and guess who opposed making that illegal?

THE CONSERVATIVES!

Also, the ones in current modern day western countries demanding the most radical changes, especially in regards to cutting on welfare expenditure and give tax cuts, are the conservatives. What's all that about "slow changes"?

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:06 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:22 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:12 am
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:05 am


I don't think you know what I mean.
Well tell me what you mean, and also tell me what I mean.
I know what I mean. Black faces don't go down too well in Southern courts.
The charges were dropped against the shooter in this instance though, and she was also black. So, didn't seem to have that much of a disposition for her; The 'privilege' only seems to be part of a conversation when it's convenient.
I don't know if you had noticed that.
I actually haven't; I'm not of the belief that there's some systematic oppression of black people still going on.

I think they certainly still have disadvantages in many social settings (particularly black men) but I don't think the courts are largely harder on them just because they're black.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Sculptor » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:41 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:22 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:12 am
Well tell me what you mean, and also tell me what I mean.
I know what I mean. Black faces don't go down too well in Southern courts.
The charges were dropped against the shooter in this instance though, and she was also black. So, didn't seem to have that much of a disposition for her; The 'privilege' only seems to be part of a conversation when it's convenient.
I don't know if you had noticed that.
I actually haven't; I'm not of the belief that there's some systematic oppression of black people still going on.

I think they certainly still have disadvantages in many social settings (particularly black men) but I don't think the courts are largely harder on them just because they're black.
Keep your head in the sand white boy. You're safer there.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

It bears repeatin’: “Black faces don't go down too well in Southern courts.

Post by henry quirk » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:16 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:22 pm
Yeah, I live and work in South Louisiana. I self-employ as a civil/criminal researcher. in the course of a month, I make the rounds through eight different parish courthouses. I’m a regular viewer of civil and criminal proceedings, large and small.

I tell you plainly: black folks aren’t treated any more poorly than white folks. Demeanor (and evidence), not color, is a far better indicator of what kind of treatment a body gets from jury or bench.

So, Sculptor, old buddy: you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:11 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:41 pm
Keep your head in the sand white boy. You're safer there.
...But I'm a white boy. Isn't your whole point that I am safe?

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Dachshund » Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:47 pm




So you don't like today's "conservatives." Okay. What change are you pushing for; and when you get it, how do you plan to keep it without becoming "conservative" about it?



Immanuel,




That's just it. The socialists are not pushing for any one permanent change/reform or set of permanent changes/reforms. What they ideally want is open - ended, ongoing change, as much as is possible and on a non-stop basis until they achieve their goal, namely - the realization of a glorious, global utopia that is perfectly good in every respect. They seriously believe, like Voltaire, Helvetius and certain other 18th century philosophes that human reason has the capacity to literally create "heaven on earth". Their problem is that they are arrogant and self-deluded; and have consequently acquired a pathological, religious -type faith in the notion of: PROGRESS !, PROGRESS !, PROGRESS ! I say "religious - type faith", because it is, strictly speaking, irrational. Not rational in the same sense that ultimately one cannot acquire genuine religious faith ( for example, Christian faith) through the exercise of mere human reason/rationality alone. The socialist personality is innately vulnerable to acquiring a robust"faith" that continuous reform of the state by the implementation of whatever innovative policies for change (typically large-scale social/economic change) are deemed necessary, will hasten the arrival of a utopia for humankind on this planet. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that utopist, socialist radicalism always has, and always will end in tears, they simply refuse to listen. No matter how many times you explain to them that: Mao's Cultural Revolution in Red China; Leninism, the Stalinism and then Dialectical Materialism in the USSR; Pol Pot's primitive, agrarian, Marxist regime in Cambodia , etc; were catastrophic disasters for humanity, they stubbornly refuse to pay any attention .They are like cockroaches, no matter how many times you try to exterminate them in your house, they just keep coming back. As they are doing in the American Democrat party right now. Correct me if I am wrong, but the current front runners in the 2020 Presidential candidate contest, people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders





The best example of this were some of the high falutin' Western Marxists in the academy during the 1960's, especially intellectuals like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Co. The story is that by 1956 Marxism was really "on the nose", around the world, some of the main reasons for this were: (1) the promised world-wide workers' revolution that Marx and Engels had confidently predicted in the "Communist Manifesto" (1844) was now over 100 years past due; (2) America's capitalist economy which Marxist scholars around the world had said would implode had not imploded, in fact, not only had it survived the Great Depression and World War II, but in the mid 1950's there was plenty of hard empirical evidence published by economists showing that the US economy was booming; (3) then in 1956, Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, openly confessed that his predecessor, Joseph Stalin, had been a genocidal monster; (4) 1956 was a bad year for the Soviets because it was also the year they sent in the Red Army to crush a people's uprising (against communist rule) in Hungary; and crush it they did - very brutally. What they seemed to have forgotten is that in 1956 many people around the world had television sets at home and were watching - in horror - as live footage of the Kremlin's bloody clampdown on the streets of Budapest was beamed into their living rooms.





Now you would think that most Marxists in the West in the late 1950's, by that stage, have been saying to themselves, "Well, it looks like I backed a loser, Marxism doesn't work, in fact is toxic." and torn up their party cards. Some - quite a lot - did. But others like Derrida and Foucault and the rest of the Marxist faithful - the "true believers" simply could not accept that their cherished ideology was rotten to the core. So what they did was invent a new philosophy based on Marxism's core precepts, but disguised - by sleight-of-hand - to look like something new and innocuous - it was called deconstructionism by Derrida and Foucault called his new theory post-structuralism, but the bottom line is that they formed the foundation, of what most people today know as postmodernism. Postmodernism was a disaster for America, it utterly destroyed the quality of the teaching and learning in the non-STEM departments of all US Universities. It wreaked havoc in lots of other ways too, but this post is intended to be an in-depth critique of the course of postmodernism in the US and other Western nations, so I'll leave that for another day and to grips with what I wanted to discuss with you about conservatism.





WHAT IS THE PRIMARY, FOUNDATIONAL PRECEPT OF CONSERVATISM ?




I think it's fair to say that as far as "conscious conservatism", in the modern age is concerned, it first manifested itself in 1790, which was the year that Edmund Burke published "Reflections on the Revolution in France." After that essay was published, the notions of conservatism and innovation became fixed in the public consciousness by virtue of Burke's prophetic genius. In "Reflection", he had predicted the disastrous fall-out from the Jacobin insurgency with astonishing accuracy.




Burke understood that change may not be salutary reform and that precipitate innovation may become a devouring inferno rather than a luminous torch of progress. When Abraham Lincoln once inquired, "What is conservation" - "Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried ?" The answer is "Yes it is", but the desire to preserve the status quo, and the conviction that when reform is necessary only cautious, gradual and incremental change out be implemented. WE are all familiar with this principle of conservatism, but the question arises what is its underlying doctrine ? In other words what ultimate principles did Burke refer to in formulating the conservative precept of cautious, incremental and gradual change of the the status quo ? In my opinion, the ultimate source of Burke's beliefs was the Natural (moral) Law Philosophy; this, I think, was his primal theoretical foundation.




Burke understands that society must alter, because prudent (wise-circumspect) change is a means of social preservation; but a statesman he says must take Providence into account. In his writings, Burke's refers to a "higher law" which is, an essence eternal and universal ethical norm ordained by God, and apprehended through human reason and instinct. It is valid at all times and in all places, independently of man's will. So I think what grounded all of Burke's political theory was belief in a transcendent or and a corpus of Natural (moral) Law ordained by God, which rules society as well as conscience. Burke understood that political problems were, at bottom, religious and moral problems. Our narrow human rationality - "understanding - is , Burke say, "feeble and weak", it cannot therefore satisfy human needs. It seems to me that every bone fide Tory must be a realist. A Tory is a person who knows that there are vast, incomprehensible forces on this Earth, and also in Heaven - (just looking up into the astonishing boundlessness and splendour of a starry night sky confirms this) - and there is no way that our human rational faculties will ever plumb or fathom these phenomena. I mean, just consider YOURSELF, IC, how could I or any other man -even the most brilliant of persons - ever begin to provide an exhaustive rational account of what, precisely, you are ? Such an attempt would represent the height of folly, because you the human being/human person are so infinitely complex. The same thing applies for human society, Burke knew this, and it is why he held the "sophisters, calculators and economists" - the "metaphysicians, speculators and abstract theorists" of the Europe's "Age of Reason" like Voltaire, Rousseau and Helvetius, in such utter contempt. Not for no reason did he earn a reputation as the "gravedigger of the Enlightenment" (!)




Anyway, that's my tuppence worth. I think the fundamental canon of conservatism in the modern era is the Natural (moral) Law(?)



What do you think ?



Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:31 pm

philosopher wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:55 pm
Had it not been for the fear of the revolutionaries, many European welfare states would never become welfare states in the first place.
This is plausible. Though we'll never know.
It was the Social-Democrats who invented the modern welfare state (the social-democrats were once radicals too).
Of course. That's the point.

The radicals become, in their new regime, the new conservatives.
In the early 20th century it was customary and legal for the boss to beat up his slaves... I mean workers, and guess who opposed making that illegal?

THE CONSERVATIVES!
Well, nobody wants to answer for the Conservative Party, I suspect. But other kinds of conservatism have definitely been hugely helpful in public welfare.

We could point to the work of evangelical Christians particularly, in prison reform, child labour reform, poverty relief, addiction treatment and mental-illness reforms, public education, public health...and the historically monumental work of evangelical abolitionists in America and the very earnest Christian William Wiberforce in the elimination of slavery from the British Empire...these were no small "conservative" achievements of reform, to be sure.

So it's true that conservatism can produce reform. It just tends to do so by gradual, positive steps, instead of by violent overthrowing of the existing system, and total reconstitution of society. That latter procedure seems to be largely the vision of the Left.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:50 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:10 pm
That's just it. The socialists are not pushing for any one permanent change/reform or set of permanent changes/reforms. What they ideally want is open - ended, ongoing change, as much as is possible and on a non-stop basis until they achieve their goal, namely - the realization of a glorious, global utopia that is perfectly good in every respect.
I don't know that they've thought it through that far, in many cases. Usually, the radicals are responding to an immediate situation of some kind. They're notoriously short-sighted; and it's rare that they have any long-term vision of how a coherent society would be created out of all their revolt. When they do, it tends to be of the vague "triumph of the proletariat" sort, that actually has very few practical details worked out at all.

In other words, I think they're way better at hatred than love. They're way better at knowing what they DON'T want to tolerate than on knowing what sort of society they DO want to create. And they're way better at hunting out dissenters than they are at building anyone else up.

And this explains why their dreams of utopia are often such disasters. They swiftly turn into witch-hunts.
As they are doing in the American Democrat party right now. Correct me if I am wrong, but the current front runners in the 2020 Presidential candidate contest, people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders
Sanders seems to have faltered. But the frontrunner appears to be a fellow by the name of Trump. :wink:
The best example of this were some of the high falutin' Western Marxists in the academy during the 1960's, especially intellectuals like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Co...Now you would think that most Marxists in the West in the late 1950's, by that stage, have been saying to themselves, "Well, it looks like I backed a loser, Marxism doesn't work, in fact is toxic." and torn up their party cards...

Yes, I know about how the famed "Frankfurt School" tried to save Marxism from the consequences of its own disasters. And yes, we're still living with the bad effects of that decision.
I think it's fair to say that as far as "conscious conservatism", in the modern age is concerned, it first manifested itself in 1790, which was the year that Edmund Burke published "Reflections on the Revolution in France."
That's a strictly political conception of "conservatism." I was not speaking of such a narrow slice of the larger group. I was speaking of the larger impulses of radicalism versus conservatism.
Burke understands that society must alter, because prudent (wise-circumspect) change is a means of social preservation; but a statesman he says must take Providence into account. In his writings, Burke's refers to a "higher law" which is, an essence eternal and universal ethical norm ordained by God, and apprehended through human reason and instinct. It is valid at all times and in all places, independently of man's will. So I think what grounded all of Burke's political theory was belief in a transcendent or and a corpus of Natural (moral) Law ordained by God, which rules society as well as conscience. Burke understood that political problems were, at bottom, religious and moral problems. Our narrow human rationality - "understanding - is , Burke say, "feeble and weak", it cannot therefore satisfy human needs. It seems to me that every bone fide Tory must be a realist. A Tory is a person who knows that there are vast, incomprehensible forces on this Earth, and also in Heaven - (just looking up into the astonishing boundlessness and splendour of a starry night sky confirms this) - and there is no way that our human rational faculties will ever plumb or fathom these phenomena.

Of course.

Much of the caution that characterizes conservatism actually springs from a realistic view of mankind, as faulty and not perfectible. Consequently, change must be principled, cautious and guarded by checks-and-balances in order to prevent hideous excesses, violence and injustice from appearing along with change.

This is one thing that the secular radicals never seem to understand. They think conservatives are indifferent to justice. And there may be some who are; but it's not the primary motivator of conservatism. Instead, the primary motivator is a desire not to lose the value of that which already exists, in the wild pursuit of that which has-not-yet-and-may-never-be-able-to-happen. Radicals want to set fire to their own corn, then grow a different crop...a crop they can only barely even imagine. Conservatives want to replant year by year, until the whole field is different.
Anyway, that's my tuppence worth. I think the fundamental canon of conservatism in the modern era is the Natural (moral) Law(?)
What do you think ?
I think that if there is a Natural Law, then all people need to be able to refer to it. I don't mean insane or mendacious people, because they either can't or won't care what the Natural Law might be. But reasonable persons of basic goodwill toward each other ought to be able to see and interpret the Natural Law, if such is going to help us out.

But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by henry quirk » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:04 pm

Pretty damn clear it won't be by way of the ballot box.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:12 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:04 pm
Pretty damn clear it won't be by way of the ballot box.
:D Yeah, that's clear.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by henry quirk » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:12 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:04 pm
Pretty damn clear it won't be by way of the ballot box.
:D Yeah, that's clear.
"But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

sea change or war

the former, unlikely; the latter, probable

soma, however, comes in many forms, and is dirt cheap

could be folks just keep shufflin' into the abattoir, happy to (be) serve(d up)

life, liberty, property (and that from which those extend): just a fantasy from a time best forgotten


like hell

fight, you bastids

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:00 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:12 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:04 pm
Pretty damn clear it won't be by way of the ballot box.
:D Yeah, that's clear.
"But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

sea change or war

the former, unlikely; the latter, probable
How does war reveal Natural Law, Henry?

Or do you merely mean what, say, Darwin meant -- Natural Selection -- or did you mean what Tennyson called "nature red in tooth and claw"?

In contrast to those, Natural Law is usually associated with the philosophical tradition from Aristotle, Aquinas et al. Usually, it means the idea that some sort of "rights" and "wrongs" can be read from the order of natural things, and this might indicate some kind of persistent moral duty. So, for example, some actions are called "unnatural," and others "natural," with moral implications.

Personally, I think the idea that this gives us enough information to go on is highly suspect. I think it was Lewis who so pointedly said, "I have no objection to the idea that somehow the moral law is written on the face of Nature; my question is rather, 'Have we got the text'?"

Everybody thinks that they can tell you what Nature is expecting us to "read" from it, but nobody can, from that same source, prove they're right.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: "But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:31 am

"How does war reveal Natural Law, Henry?"

I don't think it needs revealin' (it's as plain as the nose on my face [big and crooked]). What it (the practical expressions of it) needs is defendin'.

#

"Or do you merely mean what, say, Darwin meant -- Natural Selection -- or did you mean what Tennyson called "nature red in tooth and claw"?"

What I mean is: a right sometimes has to be backed with a little might.

#

"In contrast to those, Natural Law is usually associated with the philosophical tradition from Aristotle, Aquinas et al. Usually, it means the idea that some sort of "rights" and "wrongs" can be read from the order of natural things, and this might indicate some kind of persistent moral duty. So, for example, some actions are called "unnatural," and others "natural," with moral implications."

I love reason, but some folks aren't reasonable. A commie, for example, would rather gulag me than debate natural rights.

#

"Personally, I think the idea that this gives us enough information to go on is highly suspect. I think it was Lewis who so pointedly said, "I have no objection to the idea that somehow the moral law is written on the face of Nature; my question is rather, 'Have we got the text'?"

Crom built the text into my soul, Jehovah built the text into yours. I think we're on solid footing.

#

"Everybody thinks that they can tell you what Nature is expecting us to "read" from it, but nobody can, from that same source, prove they're right."

Nature ain't the writer. Nature is just the context.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6413
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "But precisely how would that vision of the Natural Law come about?"

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:23 am

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:31 am
I love reason, but some folks aren't reasonable. A commie, for example, would rather gulag me than debate natural rights.
Oh, that's for certain. He's going to think that "moral" is a socially-constructed concept, so it is whatever the (approved) collective says is "right." That's how taking other people's stuff, putting people in "re-education camps," and shooting "counter-revolutionaries" the back of the head and then burying them in ditches can be "moral," in their view.
Crom built the text into my soul, Jehovah built the text into yours. I think we're on solid footing.
I think that's true, at least in a basic way. There are areas where it's hard to say what conscience is telling us, but there are far more in which it's really clear.

I don't think, for example, that anyone really doesn't know what's wrong with murdering preborn babies -- they just want to do it anyway. And I don't think that even the Marxists don't know that stealing people's property or mistreating them in the name of the next utopia is evil -- but again, they want to do it anyway. And I don't think there's a single soul on earth who doesn't know there are only two real, normal genders, and that they're fixed not optional -- but, in the interest of staying PC, we're pretending there are many, and that they're fluid.

I think it was Jay Budziszewski, professor of ethics at U. of Texas, who wrote a book called, "What We Can't Not Know." (With a title that good, one hardly needs to read the book. :wink: ) His focus was on Natural Law ethics. And he thinks there isn't nearly so much confusion about what good and evil are as people like to pretend there is. He also has interesting things to say about the psychological and moral effects that it has on people when they know what the right thing to do is, and they still lie to themselves so they can do the wrong thing.
Nature ain't the writer. Nature is just the context.
Hmm...good point.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: This is True Conservatism

Post by Dachshund » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:36 pm

philosopher wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:17 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... shae-jones

A pregnant women is jailed for having been shot so the fetus got killed... she didn't fire the gun, someone else committed the crime against her/the fetus. Yet, the woman is jailed.

That's Conservatism for you, right there!

Conservatives are monsters.


Dear Philosopher,




On the 5th July, 2019 Alabama dropped the charges against the pregnant woman who was shot in the abdomen and lost her 5 month old foetus.

Here are some facts I would like you to consider in the context of this incident before I put a question to you...

(1) The incident took place in the city of Birmingham, Alabama.

(2) The current census shows that Birmingham's population is 75% Black/African American.

(3) FBI statistics show that Birmingham currently has the second highest rate of gun deaths in America (!)

(4) In 2018, 99% of known criminal homicide suspects in Birmingham were Black/African Americans

(5) Of the 99 criminal homicides (mostly death by firearms) 75 of the victims were Black/African males and 14 were Black/African-American females.

(A) The shooter in the case you mentioned in your OP was a 23- year- old Black female, named Ebony Jemison who was a Birminham resident.

(B) The pregnant woman she shot was a 27- year- old Black/African-American Birmingham resident named Marshae Jones.




Jones is known to have initiated and then pressed a physical altercation between herself and Jemison regarding the paternity (that doesn't surprise me) of the child that she was carrying. IMO, that was extraordinary foolish, stupid and irresponsible behaviour for a woman who was 5 months pregnant to have been engaging herself in.




Given this physical altercation took place between two females (i.e; it was what we call a "cat fight" where I come from) and ,generally speaking, young females lack the muscular strength (both Jones and Jemison were, BTW, only slightly built) to do any kind of serious or potentially lethal harm with their fists or limbs (legs) in a fight, it was improbable that Jone's foetus would have been severely harmed or killed during the altercation. Sure, it was POSSIBLE, but , IMO, rather unlikely, given, as I say both of these young women did not have large , muscular physiques. But, one would expect that Jemison must have known for sure that firing a bullet from a handgun into Jone's abdomen would carry an extremely high probability of killing Jone's foetus. That is, that she used lethal force to defend herself in a situation ( a "cat-fight" between herself and Jones) that was very unlikely to taken her life or caused grievous bodily harm of any kind - a few scratches, cuts, bruises, maybe a sprain at most a broken bone or two etc; is probably all she would have received. (NB: A reasonably fit and strong young male can kill with one well-connected punch - women cannot do that. More generally, serious physical altercations between young/fit men can result to very substantial harms to both of the combatants. This is very rarely the case with women who are brawling with each other - they do a lot of shrieking and squealing, pulling each other's hair, scratching with their fingernails, and "bitch-slapping" but that's about it).



This incident was all-too-common, "black -on- black" gun homicide (the foetus was murdered) in Birmingham a 75% Black majority southern city; i.e; yet another example of one black/African -American shooting another to death with a firearm. "Interestingly", this is NOT a problem with the white population of Birmingham. The whites in the city do not go about blowing each other away with pistols/revolvers/rifles in order to settle disputes they are having.



Well, now. WHY is this the case, Philosopher? I know the reason, and I can back it up with empirical evidence. Let's see if you can work it out old sport? (It's not "rocket science !)



Look forward to hearing your explanation.



Toodle - oo !

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !!!! WOOF !!!!............(beware the dog)
Last edited by Dachshund on Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests