Recently I engaged in a debate with a muckety muck in the Church of Sam Harris regarding Jordan Peterson. The man is highly upset at my 'slander' regarding Harris.
Some people fancy themselves as the quintessential sons-of-Christopher-Hitchens. They have their profile photos permanently set as a cartoon of a cigarette smoking Hitch, and they never change that photo to something else, ever.
From my perspective the batons of Hitch have passed to several people, and several of those people are on the current right-side of the political spectrum, much the chagrin of fervent Church of Harris believers.
Partial list of people who've been the recipients of a Hitchian baton: Andrew Breitbart, Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, Gad Saad, and even Dinesh D'Souza.
List of people who're traitors to the legacy of Hitch: Sam Harris; Church of Sam Harris priests who get upset at 'slander' against Harris; and all atheists who voted for Her.
One person interviewed by Saad is Jordan Peterson. Peterson recently engaged in a discussion with Harris, and Harris could not wrap his brain around what Peterson was saying. Understandable for more reasons than one.
Peterson speaks valuably against social constructivism and Marxism (as does Saad). He also speaks valuably regarding the nuclear bomb level impact of artificial birth control upon the human animal. And even before I heard of Peterson, I wrote the exact same type of thing.
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/02/lies-present-in-conservative-religion.html
Regarding Peterson's religiospeak, it's important (and mostly required) to interpret the totality of it within an enlightened naturalistic framework.
Dennett's 'dangerous' idea regarding religion being natural cuts several ways. One way it cuts is that fully evolved human moral codes are couched within religious contexts. Another is that every single syllable emitted from the vocal orifice of Jordan Peterson needs to be interpreted within context.
A highly valuable project: more accurately (and without leftist SJW prejudice) describing the inherent, evolved, and high value to enlightened social conservatism, and naturalistically articulate evolutionary psychology.
Peterson approaches such a merging more than Gad Saad, in his own way Petersonian way.
Thus a great thanks to Peterson for opposing Marxism and social constructivism, on campus and off. And thanks to him for revolutionarily speaking the truth regarding one specific concern of social conservatives (widely available artificial birth control).
Valuable and fully natural scientific work.
-----------
The Harrisian (Sam Harris and his aficionados) brain has problems grasping many things. For example:
1.) That free will fully exists within the human animal, in a natural, reasonably adequate, and compatiblist sense. Dennett is right. Harris is a myopic hack on this front.
2.) That consciousness is not an ineffable humming glow.
3.) That male circumcision is highly abhorrent.
4.) That there was high utilitarian value to voting for Trump.
5.) That voting for Hillary was a huge betrayal to the legacy of Hitch. The crooked racketeering Team Rape versus a pro-American and thus pro-Enlightenment good-hearted businessman who used His Own Money to block the raping racketeering Clintons.
Also Harris engaged in malpractice regarding his psychological diagnosis of Trump, one which was petty, shallow, moronic, analy retentive, boring, stupid, and obtuse - and fully on par with most Harrisian projects and pronouncements.
So thanks to Peterson, Gad Saad, and others.
Saad is a social liberal. Peterson seems to be a moderate. When more scientists get some balls and brain cells, and finally see value to fully evolved social conservatism, then there'll be progress. But until then, the pro-eugenics pro-death nihilistic hacks aren't scientists but rather they're just worse than worthless nihilists.
At least Saad is willing to entertain conservative ideas without becoming an utter nutter. And Peterson is closer to the truth of the evolved situation, in his own Petersonian way.
What evolutionary process is involved when decidedly childfree denialist abusively permissive SJW leftists just want want want to import admittedly also abusive Muslims to breed on their behalf?
The SJW children of let-it-all-hang-out 60s hippies love forcibly-hijabbed women and abusive Islamic Puritanism and Islamic large families.
Whodatthunkit.
Yes Islam warps natural evolved processes in highly wrong headed ways.
A better course would be for children of the Enlightenment to wake up, reject baby killing and artificial birth control, and breed themselves rather than to import rapey barbarian savages to breed on their behalf.
In any case Harrisian logic is rather like a weak cog in a half baked pie, to mix a metaphor. Krausian logic isn't any better by the way.
------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from an exchange with a Church of Harris priest (COHP) on all the above:
"Peterson's ideas are only valuable inasmuch as one is willing to take his epistemologically foolhardy presuppositions for granted."
My response:
Hardly. No more than one must assume the god believer does everything in his life >because< his god is a 100% actual fact, as opposed to a perceived fact - one which exists within the required/knowledge support structure of the meme-gene system in which he exists.
Why do people do the things they do? A combination of biology, biological history, genes and memes, which all inseparably play off each other.
Biology, evolution, life, and ideas which are rooted in various aspects of being alive, and a processing machine which can (by happenstance and not) be used for other purposes also. But even those other purposes tie into the fundamentals of existence.
For example the mathematician and physicist usually want humanity to survive, and they can be driven to use their realms of knowledge for fully biological-imperative type purposes.
How does the world work, and thus by extension how do humans work.
Peterson is concerned about what happens when humans toss the baby of morality with the bath water of religion.
Since religion is a fully natural memetic-encasement of evolved morality, it's reasonable to add 'evolved' as a preface word to the terms 'religion' and 'morality.'
COHP: "Again, his epistemology is predicated on an exceptionally precarious conceptual foundation"
Response:
It's a fundamental fallacy and also myopic to assume that expressed-views are only valid if the person expressing them can articulately state a reasonable fully-scoped foundation for those views.
Peterson uses religiospeak which must be taken within a naturalistic context. There's no other context which is reasonable. And a lack of understanding on the part of the naturalistic evaluator can lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions.
Aside from the terms he uses, Peterson has concerns about the state of humanity, concerns which do directly relate to Dennett's dangerous idea regarding religion being natural, Peterson's concerns are highly relevant, telling, and apparently factual.
The baby of evolved human morality tossed with the bath water of evolved and fully natural mysticism.
There's big costs and impacts.
COHP: "His entire philosophy collapses beneath the weight of its own incoherence."
Response:
He seems pretty coherent to me. His concerns are highly valid and valuable to make note of.
The memetic bathtub he's in is interesting and nuanced, and must and can only be understood within an enlightened naturalistic context.
COHP: "an epistemology anchored to an ontological fact is conceptually unsustainable."
Response:
How does the world work.
How do humans work.
What is human nature.
Why do humans do what they do.
Why are we here.
How can we survive.
The noob atheist, the rebellious leftist and weed smoking libertarian, all assume that without (the concept of) a god everything is permitted. Such people, and their abusively permissive and denialist meme sets, simply do not understand how the world and humans work.
COHP: "It's based on essentially circular logic"
Response:
You're stuck in the weeds of philosophical word games and forced paths which fully fail to understand what's going on, with Peterson and with religious believers in general.
Idea sets which are inadequately contextualized need not be 100% self consistent nor 100% 'reasonable' to be 'valid.' 'Valid' meaning having naturalistic causes, and meme sets which can result in reasonable naturalistically-rephrased ideas and natural material useful facts.
As for circularity, humans are evolved animals, and many aspects of human nature circle back to this fact and the general facts of how the human animal works.
COHP: "any truth claim he makes atop that foundation instantly fails."
Response:
...only for those who lack a fully contextualized and enlightened materialistic understanding of what's going on.
COHP: "It's important that one's conception of truth can at least sustain itself."
Response:
Religions do sustain themselves via and for natural reasons.
COHP: "Peterson's truth eats its own tail in a million different ways."
Response:
Not that I've seen. And the truths within religions need to, and can only be, properly understood within natural contexts.
COHP: "If his definition of truth ultimately leads to the extinction of the human race..."
Response:
He wants us to survive, and rightly so.
COHP: "...does that mean that it was never true?"
Response:
Properly contextualized truth, yes.
COHP: "It makes absolutely no sense."
Response:
He makes sense to me.
Marxism: Peterson observed highly negative impacts. He doesn't like what he saw. He doesn't want a repeat.
One of Peterson's points is that rejecting traditional religion can lead to errors in thinking, and to incredibly high levels of abusiveness, denialisms, and moronity, as was and is the case with Marxism. The utter stupidity continues on campus today.
COHP: "The soviet union"
Response:
...was an anti-human-nature identitarian leftist utopian totalitarian evil corrosive human spirit destroying dead-end endeavor. Peterson knows this.
COHP: "It was the result of disillusionment in the church..."
Response:
...which led to something far worse. And the Soviet Union was a de facto religion, as is Marxism.
Visit most any atheist (or humanist or Unitarian Universalist) group in America.
State to them that you enjoy Duck Dynasty, and that you're a pro-life anti-gay-"marriage" atheist. See how long it takes for them to boot you: faster than a Mormon Bishop. A de facto religion with dogma, doctrines, heresy trials, and excommunication.
COHP: "Most Nazis were devout Christians."
Response:
Fascism is a left spectrum endeavor. National Socialism.
There is identitarianism in both Marxism and fascism. Group rights and group blames. Utopianism. De facto eugenics. Racism. Dogmas. Doctrines. Heresy trials.
Yes I see that Communism/Marxism and fascism all have corrosive tribalistic elements and religious ones too. Peterson rightly points out negative impacts.
COHP: "You've COMPLETELY misconstrued Dennett..."
Response:
Many hours listening to Dennett.
COHP: "Sam's positions."
Response:
Ditto.
Harris is a myopic hack.
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/sam%20harris
...on many fronts.
No Hitch-honoring Hitch-appreciator could or ever would vote for a Clinton.
The micro differentiations between spandrels and other effects are weedy sticky mud, regarding arguing about differences between what's one and what another. False choices based on myopathy. Why? Because here's the situation as previously noted:
Religion is a natural phenomenon which couches evolved traits.
There's synergies between memes and genes.
Not all religions are equal regarding positive and negative impacts.
Harrisian woo (Chamlers and Harris):
https://youtu.be/qi2ok47fFcY
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-woo-of-sam-harris-consciousness.html
Harris didn't learn from:
Dennett.
Hitchens.
Gad Saad.
Jordan Peterson.
Me, whom he censored.
------------------------------------------------------------ end of quote of direct exchange
Am I a quintessential 'son of Hitch?' Hitch isn't more important than my family & I don't claim he was correct on all issues. During his tenure I was partially swayed to the pro-Iraq-war side, but now I'm much more skeptical regarding the value of it. Moron Bush and even-worse moron Obama screwed up the place big time.
Time for Trumpian pragmatism now. But Hitch did free many brains from dogma, especially from leftist dogma.
Showing posts with label dinesh d'souza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dinesh d'souza. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
The Western Enlightenment versus Democrat leftist slavery
The Western Enlightenment versus Democrat leftist slavery:
Lies underpin rackets. The racket of the Democrat party for example.
The social justice warriors sit in their meeting houses (such as at Unitarian Universalist churches). They dream of who can be the top level victim next.
1. Muslims, and especially hijab/burqa wearing Saudi style Muslims.
2. "Childfree" third wave feminists with blue hair.
3. The gender dysphoric (transexuals).
4. The sexual orientation dysphoric (aka gays).
5. Mexicans.
6. 'Native' Americans AKA Amerindians.
7. Leftist black women.
8. Leftist black men.
9. Leftist white women.
10. Conservative black women.
11. Conservative black men.
12. Asian men & women.
13. Conservative white women.
14. Leftist white men.
15. Conservative white men.
16. Ex-Muslims.
It's a victimhood competition.
The only way for a pink skin (ie: white), to move up the list is to either a.) become Muslim, or b.) deny your 1.2 billion year evolved DNA coded gender, or c.) engage in the lie first hand that forcing yourself to (or 'catching' a stupid meme that you should) be a NON-inherently-reproductive outlier.
The left today only wants a diversity regarding superficial traits, but a monoculture regarding social theory - only their theory allowed.
The meme set known as the Democrat Party is responsible for slavery and booting Amerindians off of their land.
Vid to check 1: https://youtu.be/-SStdawtYFA
2: https://youtu.be/wp6yf5Rc6vw
As a reflexive naive chump noob atheist I too glommed onto the idea that the Democratic Party was for the common man and 'individual rights.'
But the right to do what?Historically: the right to be a slave or a master. The right to be lighter skinned, vs the right to be booted off of your land. The right to have your ancestors be from Europe, versus the right to have ancestors from Japan thereby resulting in your internment.
And today, the right to be a happy heathy normal female and male in a family with children, versus the right to be an abusive denialist unhappy suicidal forced outlier.
The right to be the master of your destiny, versus the right to be a slave in a current urban Democrat Plantation.
The right to be born once conceived, versus the right to he killed via a Margaret Sanger poor and black people hating eugenicist legacy group.
The right to be true to your heritage as a 1.2 billion year sexual history sexually dimorphic animal - one who's been to the moon and who crafted the best meme sets which help humans thrive: the Enlightenment and America. Versus the right to be a moron chump who believes a pack a lies so that a sociopathic elite can skate on top of your labor and support via indentitarian virtue signaling and having group rights versus individual rights.
I now choose to be with the moon walking people versus the belly button staring slaves.
Lies underpin rackets. The racket of the Democrat party for example.
The social justice warriors sit in their meeting houses (such as at Unitarian Universalist churches). They dream of who can be the top level victim next.
1. Muslims, and especially hijab/burqa wearing Saudi style Muslims.
2. "Childfree" third wave feminists with blue hair.
3. The gender dysphoric (transexuals).
4. The sexual orientation dysphoric (aka gays).
5. Mexicans.
6. 'Native' Americans AKA Amerindians.
7. Leftist black women.
8. Leftist black men.
9. Leftist white women.
10. Conservative black women.
11. Conservative black men.
12. Asian men & women.
13. Conservative white women.
14. Leftist white men.
15. Conservative white men.
16. Ex-Muslims.
It's a victimhood competition.
The only way for a pink skin (ie: white), to move up the list is to either a.) become Muslim, or b.) deny your 1.2 billion year evolved DNA coded gender, or c.) engage in the lie first hand that forcing yourself to (or 'catching' a stupid meme that you should) be a NON-inherently-reproductive outlier.
The left today only wants a diversity regarding superficial traits, but a monoculture regarding social theory - only their theory allowed.
The meme set known as the Democrat Party is responsible for slavery and booting Amerindians off of their land.
Vid to check 1: https://youtu.be/-SStdawtYFA
2: https://youtu.be/wp6yf5Rc6vw
As a reflexive naive chump noob atheist I too glommed onto the idea that the Democratic Party was for the common man and 'individual rights.'
But the right to do what?Historically: the right to be a slave or a master. The right to be lighter skinned, vs the right to be booted off of your land. The right to have your ancestors be from Europe, versus the right to have ancestors from Japan thereby resulting in your internment.
And today, the right to be a happy heathy normal female and male in a family with children, versus the right to be an abusive denialist unhappy suicidal forced outlier.
The right to be the master of your destiny, versus the right to be a slave in a current urban Democrat Plantation.
The right to be born once conceived, versus the right to he killed via a Margaret Sanger poor and black people hating eugenicist legacy group.
The right to be true to your heritage as a 1.2 billion year sexual history sexually dimorphic animal - one who's been to the moon and who crafted the best meme sets which help humans thrive: the Enlightenment and America. Versus the right to be a moron chump who believes a pack a lies so that a sociopathic elite can skate on top of your labor and support via indentitarian virtue signaling and having group rights versus individual rights.
I now choose to be with the moon walking people versus the belly button staring slaves.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.
Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions...
Today I started watching a debate between David Silverman and Dinesh D'Souza:
Peter Singer:
Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman.
And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.
Singer is a fucking nut, speaking frankly...
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.
There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...
Related links:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:
Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html
Hitchens on abortion:
So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?
It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.
Sam Harris quote:
1-8-12 addendum:
Video commentary added:
And another blog post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
Today I started watching a debate between David Silverman and Dinesh D'Souza:
Peter Singer:
"...human babies are not born self-aware ... they are not persons ... the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.
Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman.
And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.
Singer is a fucking nut, speaking frankly...
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.
There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...
Related links:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
''...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled..."http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-1
While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:
Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html
Hitchens on abortion:
So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?
It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.
Sam Harris quote:
“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”and another from Harris:
"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."-------------------------
1-8-12 addendum:
Video commentary added:
And another blog post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)