tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post682869113598994342..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Lockdowns versus social justiceEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67699659618399968742021-01-27T18:47:49.016-08:002021-01-27T18:47:49.016-08:00Are you familiar with the case of Melbourne? The l...Are you familiar with the case of Melbourne? The lockdown there eliminated the virus!James Reveleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990288681553022206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49411446244605572302020-12-14T14:58:07.654-08:002020-12-14T14:58:07.654-08:00Apparently, Catholic social justice became so cont...Apparently, Catholic social justice became so controversial, that even traditionalists are terrified to talk about it:<br /><br />https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/censored-interview-injustice-lockdowns-fr-john-naugleFather John Nauglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01753559891670814767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47036760597064645382020-10-26T19:57:25.611-07:002020-10-26T19:57:25.611-07:00I consider publicly funded colleges and universiti...I consider publicly funded colleges and universities to be essentially over. This is just beyond belief---except that it's true:<br /><br />https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/tales-from-americas-covid-college<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17400914019500599362020-10-24T13:26:14.224-07:002020-10-24T13:26:14.224-07:00One of the best comments I've ever read said (...One of the best comments I've ever read said (I paraphrase) the word "social" in front of something means "not really." Social justice is not really justice. Social science is not really science. Social promotion is not really promotion, etc.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90011347039975521532020-10-24T00:25:07.365-07:002020-10-24T00:25:07.365-07:00At long last. Reason prevails. Justice prevails. ...At long last. Reason prevails. Justice prevails. Equity prevails. Common decency prevails. The Pope has endorsed same-sex civil unions. <br /><br />One small step for the Pope. One giant leap for humankind.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51142155356046902542020-10-23T18:26:46.942-07:002020-10-23T18:26:46.942-07:00Third, in addition to goods that nature provides o...Third, in addition to goods that nature provides on her own steam, there are goods <i>made by men</i>: a Stradivarius violin, or an electron microscope. These take labor and enormous investment of time, resources, and effort. There can only be enough of these to allow SOME people to have them: Stradivarius could not make a violin for every human being. The allocation of the effort, and of the output of the effort, will be more to some than to others, based on a COMPLEX of different factors, which (without being too silly) we can resolve to a combined "demand" function. But it will imply that some have access to a Stradivarius, some to an electron microscope, and some to a janitor's bucket. Goods will be distributed where they DO THE MOST GOOD, but not <b>evenly</b> among all people. <br /><br />And once you have that, you need <b>private property</b>. This is the necessary result. But private property implies that some having more of X, and others having more of Y, (to each's mutual benefit) is not wrong. Now, when you throw in sin, it is inescapable that it is necessary to allow people to feel <i>at least some</i> of the detrimental effects of their bad choices, or resources will be wasted far more on bad choices than is necessary, to the detriment of EVERYBODY. Therefore, given private property being rooted in human nature, and the effect of sin on people's use of resources, at most we could only EVER shoot for a <i>good balance of tensions</i> between sharing freely all goods, and allowing the immoral dissipation of evil men to ruin them and let them suffer the effects. We cannot actually attain the perfect state (utopia) short of the end of all times, and trying to is certainly a bad idea. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44981372665593145062020-10-23T18:26:37.524-07:002020-10-23T18:26:37.524-07:00While I don't completely object to the term &q...While I don't <b>completely</b> object to the term "social justice" in its original Catholic sense, and I quite thoroughly deplore the degenerate use to which it is put these days, I do harbor some very serious misgivings with respect to even its original meaning and intent. <br /><br />I think that if it is not THE original principle used for "social justice", the concept of the "<i>universal origin and destination of goods</i>" is at least ONE OF the most basic principles of social justice in its original sense. And speaking again at the most abstract level, I have no problem with both facets: (1) God alone is the origin of every good created. (2) And God is <i>per se</i> the "destination" of all created goods - but in (2), "destination" must be taken at best ONLY ANALOGICALLY, if not entirely equivocally. For God is the "destination" of rational beings in a vastly different sense and order than He is the end of non-rational beings. For rational beings, God is the ultimate final cause because we are made so as to know him and love him, constituting the two intellectual activities distinctive of the rational being - and we will be in union with Him in the Beatific Vision. Non-rational animals, and plants and rocks, only "attain to" God in the utterly diminished sense that by following their natures in operation, they achieve their good which has its exemplar good in God, though in God it is present in a transcendent way. <br /><br />Here is my main objection. The phrase "universal origin and destination of goods" is meant to convey the following idea: that God made the Earth and all the good things of the Earth for ALL mankind "together" or "without distinction", and God meant for all men to <i>participate</i> in the goods of the Earth without any greed, withholding, etc, so that all men would / should willingly share freely EVERYTHING so that (ideally) nobody would have more than another, share and share alike, all have as much of each good as all others. <br /><br />The problem is: it doesn't WORK. You cannot put forward a plan of <b>any sort</b> of complex society in which this picture works. (And I DON'T mean "due to sin", sin has nothing to do with the root difficulties.) First: men come with variation. Some are large, and some are small. Large men need more food than small women. You cannot share out food so that all have exactly the same amount and have a good order. <br /><br />Second, the goods of the Earth are scattered about unevenly. Over in Hawaii, there are plenty of pineapples, and in New Hampshire there are plenty of apples. For people in Hawaii who want as many apples as those in New Hampshire enjoy, WORK must be done to get the apples from one place to the other. How much work? How much work is it WORTH to Hawaiians to get apples? It cannot be known in advance, by mere theory, whether Hawaiians desire for apples is concomitantly equivalent in value to them to the work needed to get the apples there - and the same applies to the pineapples for New Hampshire. If not, then unequal goods will be the <b>norm</b> according to moral and economic order. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82188714658186148132020-10-23T09:34:45.447-07:002020-10-23T09:34:45.447-07:00How these "civil unions" differ LEGALLY ...How these "civil unions" differ LEGALLY from civil marriage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90569891227729451952020-10-22T16:37:56.901-07:002020-10-22T16:37:56.901-07:00Anonymous, please identify what you are referring ...Anonymous, please identify what you are referring to.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42016640490502704982020-10-22T14:38:03.009-07:002020-10-22T14:38:03.009-07:00A distinction without a difference.A distinction without a difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83533782834888918082020-10-22T13:12:33.741-07:002020-10-22T13:12:33.741-07:00UPDATE: Upon further investigation, it seems that ...UPDATE: Upon further investigation, it seems that the documentary was in fact maliciously edited and manipulated - see here:<br /><br />https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2020/10/pope-franciss-words-on-civil-unions-distorted-by-editing/Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82299483847203206102020-10-22T06:01:08.457-07:002020-10-22T06:01:08.457-07:00Kevin,
To my understanding, sexual reproduction a...Kevin,<br /><br />To my understanding, sexual reproduction across the animal kingdom features alternating generations of haploid and diploid generations. Sometimes the haploid dominates in terms of time/resources/etc., somtimes they are close to equal, and sometimes (as in mammals) the diploid dominates. In all cases, they are separate organisms. One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47001246784550386962020-10-22T04:04:41.392-07:002020-10-22T04:04:41.392-07:00Kevin,
“But I did what you so humbly suggested and...Kevin,<br />“But I did what you so humbly suggested and Googled "Republican court packing". On the first page,”…<br />…you found many references to “court packing” that do not involve expanding the court. If you did not find those references you did not read the results of the search.<br />Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except Where They Don't)nymag.com › <br /><br />Where Court Packing Is Already Happening - POLITICOwww.politico.com › <br /><br />The Republican Court-Packing Scheme - The American ...prospect.org › <br /><br />Court Packing? It's Already Happening at the State Levelwww.governing.com <br /><br />It's the Republicans who are packing the court | Columnwww.tampabay.com › <br /><br />Conservative Court Packing - Center for American <br /><br />Dems turn around accusation, say GOP is court-packing ...www.foxnews.com <br /><br />Republicans blatantly hypocritical with 'court-packing'<br /><br /><br />And on and on and on.<br /><br />It was the Republicans who accused Obama of “court packing”! And that use of the term by the Republicans had nothing to do with expanding the court.<br /><br />Equating “court packing” with “court expanding” is idiotic. Your assertion is easily disproved by looking at precedent from the Republicans themselves, and widespread common usage.<br /><br />Just look at the meaning of the word “packing” in general. Look at how “packing” is applied in similar terms such as “jury packing”.<br /><br />Anybody who equates “court packing” with “court expanding” is either an idiot generally, a liar, or so blinded by ideology as to be a selective idiot on this subject.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51615707332809599732020-10-22T02:26:19.260-07:002020-10-22T02:26:19.260-07:00@Anonymous
"It defies to think prohibition w...@Anonymous<br /><br />"It defies to think prohibition wouldn't reduce the rate here."<br /><br />It defies to think that mandating helmets for all NFL players would increase the incidence of serious head concussions, but it's true. The phenomenon even has a name: risk homeostasis.<br /><br />Similarly, when it comes to vices, there's risk antifragility: banning the vices (drugs, abortion, prostitution, etc...) causes them to proliferate, as there's no longer a feedback mechanism to keep these social behaviors in check.HolyKnowinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109864288446595298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2315265969468383392020-10-21T15:42:32.870-07:002020-10-21T15:42:32.870-07:00Read Dr. Feser giving some spanks to two kids on C...Read Dr. Feser giving some spanks to two kids on Capital Punishment: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/10/steve-skojec-pope-sez-death-penalty-is-intrinsically-evil.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89673122466557984342020-10-21T13:42:53.384-07:002020-10-21T13:42:53.384-07:00This is not good, because it causes more scandal a...This is not good, because it causes more scandal and confusion, but it is only a quote given in an interview listed in a documentary (and recall that as of yet there is no confirmation that the documentary isn't maliciously edited or manipulated to take the quote out of context). From what I've heard, as Bishop in Argentina Francis pushed for civil unions as a compromise to protect the special status of *marriage* (which is still a disagreement with the previous statements of the CDF, but still is not an endorsement of gay marriage). Even if the claim is 100% true, it would not be a falsification of Church teaching, but it would be the Pope privately expressing disagreement with his predecessors, which is still a bad thing, but not some kind of official teaching.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16867672542863882892020-10-21T12:21:37.048-07:002020-10-21T12:21:37.048-07:00It is long overdue and would be an amazing and ver...It is long overdue and would be an amazing and very welcome development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77003630356889274782020-10-21T11:58:23.071-07:002020-10-21T11:58:23.071-07:00Anonymous,
You didn't bother to read the repo...Anonymous,<br /><br />You didn't bother to read the report itself, did you? It answers your questions. I have little patience for lazy interlocutors.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922293511230395024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86094859682659309372020-10-21T08:36:41.426-07:002020-10-21T08:36:41.426-07:00As we have seen in the secular world, once civil u...As we have seen in the secular world, once civil unions are accepted, gay marriage follows within just a few years.<br /><br />If Pope Francis or his successor wants to have gay marriage in the Catholic Church, there will be a massive schism in the Catholic Church, much like the one in the Anglican Communion.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03526190736936223389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10296091043296518632020-10-21T07:52:19.538-07:002020-10-21T07:52:19.538-07:00Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this:
htt...Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this:<br /><br />https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462<br />DrYogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426423741048374038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90874534670178383222020-10-21T07:50:41.139-07:002020-10-21T07:50:41.139-07:00Edit to the above: Played too loosely with my wor...Edit to the above: Played too loosely with my words. The human life cycle in terms of the reproductive process does include the gametes which are necessary for reproduction to occur. But those gametes are cells of the parents, and not the beginning of a new human life as the zygote is.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89727299939622377502020-10-21T07:45:08.398-07:002020-10-21T07:45:08.398-07:00@Anon:
On this very site, I have been accused of ...@Anon:<br /><br />On this very site, I have been accused of being everything from a "leftist" to a "blind fundamentalist Protestant" (???), even though I am neither of these things.<br /><br />I would say something about stones and glass houses, but I'm afraid it would be a waste of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26046898868616341322020-10-21T06:34:05.728-07:002020-10-21T06:34:05.728-07:00Sir Edward Coke,
Tedious in the extreme. Why would...Sir Edward Coke,<br /><i>Tedious in the extreme. Why would you think this bs would expand my viewpoint exactly?</i><br /><br />Honestly, I don't think it would. You keep views in a tightly locked vault.<br /><br /><i>Anyway even if my allegation were in fact an uncharitable or hyperbolic statement, it would only be a single example, whereas your posts are littered with them. They include little else.</i><br /><br />Yes, it was one example, but there are easily a half-dozen more just in our exchange. Your entire approach has been that the Democrats/liberals are judicially principle-free, while the Republicans/conservatives are primarily concerned with principles. That is blatant nonsense.<br /><br /><i>Not only does Democratic and liberal discussion of SCOTUS appointments revolve almost entirely around outcomes and not judicial and legal philosophy, which is just not true of Republicans and conservatives,</i><br /><br />When is Republican is President, liberals discuss outcomes and conservatives discuss judicial philosophy for a SCOTUS appointment. When a Democrat is President, conservatives discuss outcomes and liberals discuss judicial philosophy. Perhaps you are so young you don't remember the discussions around Sotomayer and Kagan.<br /><br /><i>Originalism might have judicial utility, based on whether it satisfies criteria like stability, the rule of law, and so on, whether or not Republicans support it for solely self-interested reasons.</i><br /><br />Of course originalism has credibility. So does doctrinalism, structuralism, and more than a half-dozen other philosophies. You can always find a philosophy to fit the outcomes you think are right. One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88845701835172457732020-10-21T04:54:15.119-07:002020-10-21T04:54:15.119-07:00@Kevin:
"His posts indicate too high an inte...@Kevin:<br /><br />"His posts indicate too high an intelligence for simply being stupid, so that explanation is likely ruled out."<br /><br />They do? I must be a freakin' genius then.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28120139846406491202020-10-21T03:37:26.784-07:002020-10-21T03:37:26.784-07:00You have yet to demonstrate by any rational means ...<i>You have yet to demonstrate by any rational means even the slightest error in any of my arguments.</i><br /><br />I've proven you have no idea what you're talking about and that you don't actually engage with what is being said in every post I've made here.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br /><i>you come to the inane conclusion that you will try the all purpose pointless smear “troll”</i><br /><br />By the actual words that I actually wrote, the rational reader, utilizing reading comprehension, would see that I said trolling was but one of several possible explanations to account for your behavior. I did not conclude you were a troll, I said it was possible that you were. Can you admit that is what I wrote, and not what you said?<br /><br /><i>Because it isn’t</i><br /><br />That's amusing because the sources I have provided on numerous occasions were all of the mainstream or credible sources from the first five pages of a Google search for court packing. The only one that used it in your manner was the leftwing Center for American Progress.<br /><br />But I did what you so humbly suggested and Googled "Republican court packing". On the first page, there were a couple sites about Republicans wanting to have a constitutional amendment to block court packing by keeping the number at nine; several sites talking about Republican court packing at the state level because they are increasing the number of seats on those courts; a WaPo headline of "Republican Court Packing Is Really Court Stacking"; a few more that talk about expansing the number of seats when they talk about court packing...and a single site, the leftwing partisan American Prospect, that used it in your way.<br /><br />The facts, well, they just seem to support what I'm saying, which is why I've been saying it.<br /><br /><i>Because it wasn’t biology based, duh. It was just religious dogma</i><br /><br />Challenge: What in my argument is religious dogma? <br /><br /><i>Exactly, because what you said was nonsense on its face.</i><br /><br />Your failure or inability to engage with what I actually said is your fault, not mine.<br /><br /><i>I am serious as a heart attack, but you lack the capacity to absorb and understand that fact.</i><br /><br />Again you ignore what I wrote. You not being serious is but one hypothesis describing and attempting to explain your behavior on these forums. There were others that took into account the fact that you were serious.<br /><br /><i>Every cell in your body is an organism, and human, therefore a human organism</i><br /><br />Is this an argument? If so, please locate the nearest resource on "human life cycle" and see what you find. You'll learn that a sperm cell is in fact not part of it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.com