Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.
Thanks for reduction to essentials. The same old arguments carried over from other threads about who's forcing whom, and hypocrisy, and the righteous necessity of providing contraceptives (or rubbers, as Jim calls them), or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . . the fog got to me and I rambled and pontificated. I guess that signals the end of the thread. Good night.
|
you are right, there's serious chasm in the views regarding the "rules of the game"....if a batter strolls to the plate today in one of the MLB games and watched three pitches go down the middle of the plate and then stands there after being called out by the umpire and objects saying that he ought(has a right to) to have 4 strikes and the umpire because he's also felt that way for sometime agrees and the catcher argues and points out that the rules clearly state 3 strikes and the pitcher joins him at the plate with the manager who has the rule book in his hand but fans who are rooting for the batter crowd around in a threatening fashion and the reporters begin reporting that the catcher and pitcher and manager are obstructing the game and are probably doing so because of their hate for the batter and the opposing team and when the batter and umpire are asked to clarify if they believe the game should be played under MLB rules they refuse to answer the "got cha" question.......well....that's pretty much where we're at...
Williamson has had some very good articles recently, you should check out his archive if you've not already done so...
he recently referred to
Antithought,
As Orwell put it, using “language as an instrument for concealing or preventing thought.” "a phrase or expression that is intended to prevent understanding rather than to enable it. Antithought includes elements of the linguistic meme, question-begging, and attempts to change the subject."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson
and also described the competing views this way in another article...
"Progressives like to talk about what government ought to do; conservatives are inclined to immure that conversation within an architecture of skepticism about what government can do. The paraphrase of Immanuel Kant — ought implies can — is fundamental to the conservative view of government. James Madison famously observed that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But he also understood that men do not become angels once they win elections, become police, or are appointed to positions of power. Our constitutional order strikes an elegant balance between policing the non-angels outside of government and constraining the non-angels within government, setting the ambitions of the three branches against one another and subdividing the legislative branch against itself. The founding generation, being more philosophically sophisticated and biblically literate than our own generation, understood something that often eludes us:
Angels are in short supply, but all the devils are here, and our best chance of surviving the avarice and cruelty that exists at least potentially in every human heart is to set our appetites in opposition.
Adam Smith’s formula for prosperity — “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice” — is the very modest ambition that conservatives aim for. Limited government is the tool by which government can be made to do good without necessarily being good, or being composed of good men.
The progressive state, on the other hand, is a state infused with moral purpose. If politics is to be a jihad, then the state must be invested with extraordinary power to achieve its moral mission. There is no way to invest the state with extraordinary power without also investing those powers in the men who hold its offices and staff its bureaucracies, which hold ever more nearly absolute power over our property and our lives. (And given that the Obama administration has made a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens without legal process, we might as well call that power “absolute.”) But if those elective offices and regulatory fortresses are to be staffed with men who are corrupt and corruptible, then the progressive vision of the morality-infused state must falter.
And they — we — are all corruptible.
When a conservative suffers from a moral failing, it is taken as an indictment of conservatism itself, even though conservatism in the Anglo–Protestant tradition is founded upon the expectation that moral failing is universal. In that sense, every Scott DesJarlais tells conservatives what we already know: that man is a fallen creature, and that, contra the Obamacare regime, there are no exemptions to be handed out from that condition, no waivers from human nature. The progressive view, on the other hand, is that our politics and our institutions could be channels of moral action and reliably ethical arbiters of such ill-defined standards as “fairness” and “social justice,” if only we put the right people in power.
But there are no right people."
seems to me that for the most part religious minded choose to have faith in what they believe is a perfect being and are hoping for a miracle
seems to me that for the most part the secular minded choose to have faith in imperfect beings and are expecting miracles
the founders understood that these are natural human conditions and made accommodations but as Spence likes to say..."it's all moot"...if we can't agree on the number of strikes that the batter is allowed despite what is written in the rat hole of MLB rules