Comments for Soliloquiae http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com A dialogue with personified Reason Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:00:55 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Pouring cold water on global warming by conjuice http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming/#comment-35 conjuice Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:00:55 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=51#comment-35 Yes, now they tried to destroy this evidence. Check my blog. Yes, now they tried to destroy this evidence. Check my blog.

]]> Comment on The Slippery Slope “logical” argument by Ben Hoffman http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/the-slippery-slope-%e2%80%9clogical%e2%80%9d-argument/#comment-34 Ben Hoffman Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:29:32 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-34 Pretzel logic. Pretzel logic.

]]> Comment on The Slippery Slope “logical” argument by Ken Kendall http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/the-slippery-slope-%e2%80%9clogical%e2%80%9d-argument/#comment-33 Ken Kendall Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:20:09 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-33 Great post. We all have to stand on truth. I write a blog about marriage and how men can better love their wives. I think you will like it. I hope you will check it out when you have a chance. http://whatsheneedsfromyou.wordpress.com Thanks Great post. We all have to stand on truth.

I write a blog about marriage and how men can better love their wives. I think you will like it. I hope you will check it out when you have a chance.

http://whatsheneedsfromyou.wordpress.com

Thanks

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by O. Braga http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-16 O. Braga Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:39:27 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-16 Dear Robert, there's no point discussing with you: your religion is different than mine... :smile: Dear Robert, there’s no point discussing with you: your religion is different than mine… :smile:

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by Robert http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-15 Robert Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:27:25 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-15 O. Braga, unfortunately you've failed to address the fact of judicial review in the U.S. The powers of the judiciary vary from country to country, but here, they possess the power to review legislative acts for conformity with the constitution. <blockquote>The natural logic of human family is the so called “basic family” </blockquote> You'll need to substantiate this claim with more than assertion, otherwise we're justified in dismissing it. And you've still failed to demonstrate how "the essence of nature" mandates the marriage of two humans of the opposite sex. O. Braga, unfortunately you’ve failed to address the fact of judicial review in the U.S. The powers of the judiciary vary from country to country, but here, they possess the power to review legislative acts for conformity with the constitution.

The natural logic of human family is the so called “basic family”

You’ll need to substantiate this claim with more than assertion, otherwise we’re justified in dismissing it.

And you’ve still failed to demonstrate how “the essence of nature” mandates the marriage of two humans of the opposite sex.

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by O. Braga http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-14 O. Braga Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:17:14 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-14 The latest comment would deserve a full post, but I am not in the mood right now. First, the “judicial review”. Jurisprudence means “philosophy of law” http://www.answers.com/jurisprudence?gwp=11&ver=2.4.0.651&method=3 Jurisprudence exists in all civilized countries, not only in America. In fact, America was one of the last countries to adopt it. But jurisprudence is not a altering ordinary laws. America was founded upon the ideas from Illuminism of power division (legislative, judicial and executive). In a State of Law, when a Supreme Court finds out that any law is unconstitutional, the SC informs the parliament (National Congress or State Parliament) accordingly and requires to the Parliament the immediate change of it based of legal analysis stated in the law alteration requirement. Then, the parliament has two ways to deal with the SC decision: make a referendum or change the law without a referendum. In any case, is up to the Parliament to deal with ordinary law changes, and it is not up to judges to replace the parliament. This is a no-brainer. The second statement: “Nature doesn't dictate what constitutes a family.” To understand this point of view, it would help the reader known that Robert IP shows that he comes from http://www.eop.com . Check the site before proceeding. Robert is an example of a follower of a metastatic faith (please google Eric Voegelin): he looks at nature and only sees what he want to see, even if what he sees is not according to reality. Once more, we are talking about mythology and a sort of religion. This prove that the Leitmotiv of this post (different religions ) has a point. The example of mother and daughter is an example of a non-rational synthesis. I said before; “constituting a family”. The natural logic of human family is the so called “basic family” (the woman, her husband, her son and her brother) which anthropologists symbolic use to characterize the primordial human family. So, the husband as the son are there. What Robert wants is to change the very fundamental nature of reality, and this is metastatic faith. The metastatic faith is a main characteristic of the revolutionary mind. Quote http://laiglesforum.com/2008/08/28/olavo-de-carvalho-on-the-revolutionary-mind/ <i>"The revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects: <strong>1-Inversion of the perception of time.</strong> Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it). Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it. One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral. While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist. <strong>2-The inversion of morality</strong> De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach. The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale. Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion. De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority! To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine). By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” theAmerican revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts.  <strong>3-Inversion of subject and object</strong> When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object. De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out."</i> The latest comment would deserve a full post, but I am not in the mood right now.

First, the “judicial review”.

Jurisprudence means “philosophy of law”

http://www.answers.com/jurisprudence?gwp=11&ver=2.4.0.651&method=3

Jurisprudence exists in all civilized countries, not only in America. In fact, America was one of the last countries to adopt it.

But jurisprudence is not a altering ordinary laws. America was founded upon the ideas from Illuminism of power division (legislative, judicial and executive). In a State of Law, when a Supreme Court finds out that any law is unconstitutional, the SC informs the parliament (National Congress or State Parliament) accordingly and requires to the Parliament the immediate change of it based of legal analysis stated in the law alteration requirement. Then, the parliament has two ways to deal with the SC decision: make a referendum or change the law without a referendum. In any case, is up to the Parliament to deal with ordinary law changes, and it is not up to judges to replace the parliament. This is a no-brainer.

The second statement: “Nature doesn’t dictate what constitutes a family.”

To understand this point of view, it would help the reader known that Robert IP shows that he comes from http://www.eop.com . Check the site before proceeding.

Robert is an example of a follower of a metastatic faith (please google Eric Voegelin): he looks at nature and only sees what he want to see, even if what he sees is not according to reality. Once more, we are talking about mythology and a sort of religion. This prove that the Leitmotiv of this post (different religions ) has a point.

The example of mother and daughter is an example of a non-rational synthesis. I said before; “constituting a family”. The natural logic of human family is the so called “basic family” (the woman, her husband, her son and her brother) which anthropologists symbolic use to characterize the primordial human family. So, the husband as the son are there.

What Robert wants is to change the very fundamental nature of reality, and this is metastatic faith. The metastatic faith is a main characteristic of the revolutionary mind.

Quote

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/08/28/olavo-de-carvalho-on-the-revolutionary-mind/

“The revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).
Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.
One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.
While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.
The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.
Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.
De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!
To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).
By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” theAmerican revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.
De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.”

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by Robert http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-13 Robert Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:44:00 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-13 <blockquote>First of all, judges are not supposed to make laws; judges follow the law. </blockquote> Here in the U.S., judges <i>interpret</i> the law, a fundamental principal of American jurisprudence known as "judicial review". In the case of the Iowa decision, the SC judges found that the "Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." <blockquote>Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex can constitute a family? Just answer to this question and your question would be answered.</blockquote> Nature doesn't dictate what constitutes a family. Even if it did, your question would suggest that a mother and her daughter are not a family. So I have the answer to my question. No, nature does not dictate that two humans of the opposite sex be married. Nature has nothing to say on marriage. Therefore, one cannot appeal to nature to suggest two homosexuals should not be married.

First of all, judges are not supposed to make laws; judges follow the law.

Here in the U.S., judges interpret the law, a fundamental principal of American jurisprudence known as “judicial review”. In the case of the Iowa decision, the SC judges found that the “Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.”

Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex can constitute a family? Just answer to this question and your question would be answered.

Nature doesn’t dictate what constitutes a family. Even if it did, your question would suggest that a mother and her daughter are not a family.

So I have the answer to my question. No, nature does not dictate that two humans of the opposite sex be married. Nature has nothing to say on marriage. Therefore, one cannot appeal to nature to suggest two homosexuals should not be married.

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by O. Braga http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-12 O. Braga Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:20:31 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-12 Notwithstanding the fact that English is not my native language, I did understand you quite well. As I told you on the previous comment, what you’ve asked is not in appreciation on this post. What this post is supposed to demonstrate is the bigotry of the actual American judicial system. First of all, judges are not supposed to make laws; judges follow the law. When judges replace the legislative power, the revolution has already began. America is under a revolution ― and not under evolution. Secondly, the SC argument is fallacious and completely disregards the reality, and reality is that even the states that persecute a specific religion have their own religion ― in sense of “religiousness” ― whatever their religions are (Marxist, occultist, gnostic, Wicca, or whatever ). For instance, Popper’s Falsifiability Principle demonstrated that Marxism is not part of science; it is though part of mythology, a kind of religiousness. On the other hand, arguments based on animal sociobiology intended to support the idea that “nature does not dictate marriage” aren’t reasonable, because only humans have reason and emotional intelligence. That´s why I’ve mentioned before the need to follow “the essence of nature” by adapting it to our Positive Law. Any comparison between ants behavior and a human behavior (or whatever animal you wish) are not to be taken seriously. Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex can constitute a family? Just answer to this question and your question would be answered. Notwithstanding the fact that English is not my native language, I did understand you quite well. As I told you on the previous comment, what you’ve asked is not in appreciation on this post. What this post is supposed to demonstrate is the bigotry of the actual American judicial system.

First of all, judges are not supposed to make laws; judges follow the law. When judges replace the legislative power, the revolution has already began. America is under a revolution ― and not under evolution.

Secondly, the SC argument is fallacious and completely disregards the reality, and reality is that even the states that persecute a specific religion have their own religion ― in sense of “religiousness” ― whatever their religions are (Marxist, occultist, gnostic, Wicca, or whatever ). For instance, Popper’s Falsifiability Principle demonstrated that Marxism is not part of science; it is though part of mythology, a kind of religiousness.

On the other hand, arguments based on animal sociobiology intended to support the idea that “nature does not dictate marriage” aren’t reasonable, because only humans have reason and emotional intelligence. That´s why I’ve mentioned before the need to follow “the essence of nature” by adapting it to our Positive Law. Any comparison between ants behavior and a human behavior (or whatever animal you wish) are not to be taken seriously.

Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex can constitute a family? Just answer to this question and your question would be answered.

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by Robert http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-11 Robert Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:23:22 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-11 It does not seem to me you've answered my question, so allow me to rephrase it. Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex be <i>married</i>? It does not seem to me you’ve answered my question, so allow me to rephrase it. Does nature dictate that two humans of the opposite sex be married?

]]> Comment on Marriage is always a matter of religion by O. Braga http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/marriage-is-always-a-matter-of-religion/#comment-10 O. Braga Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:00:50 +0000 http://soliloquiae.wordpress.com/?p=36#comment-10 The “essence of nature” is what keeps it moving and evolving (Natural Law and Natural Right). The two types of religiousnesses mentioned above face the “essence of nature”differently. Humans have instinct (like other animals) and reason (unlike other animals). We have to follow Nature in its the basic aspects (Natural Law and the Principle of Equity) and build our own Positive Law in respect of what nature dictates as rational and right. When our Positive Law radically dissociates itself from natural law, the society would crumble sooner or later ― check what happened with former USSR. This post does not make any moral or value judgment about the homosexual act. It simply implies that there are different religions ― in the sense of “religiousness” ― associated to different ways of facing the reality. The “essence of nature” is what keeps it moving and evolving (Natural Law and Natural Right). The two types of religiousnesses mentioned above face the “essence of nature”differently.

Humans have instinct (like other animals) and reason (unlike other animals). We have to follow Nature in its the basic aspects (Natural Law and the Principle of Equity) and build our own Positive Law in respect of what nature dictates as rational and right. When our Positive Law radically dissociates itself from natural law, the society would crumble sooner or later ― check what happened with former USSR.

This post does not make any moral or value judgment about the homosexual act. It simply implies that there are different religions ― in the sense of “religiousness” ― associated to different ways of facing the reality.

]]>