Feb 172019
 

“Pushing limits” once meant pushing the limits of knowledge, science, understanding, and human potential. But to the Left, pushing limits means pushing the limits of social and moral tolerance of the Left’s offensive ideas and behavior.

“There are no limiting principles to Leftism – none whatsoever. So once you allow this thing, you’ve got to allow the next thing. You’ve got to allow the next thing after that.” (Steven Green, Right Angle, Feb 6/19) Green’s observation was inspired by the state of Virginia’s proposed Bill HB-241 allowing late-term abortions up to the point of birth and, warns Danielle, to “what amounts to infanticide.”

“The Left is a train wreck of competing ideas that one day will fall in upon itself like a house of cards,” predicts Robert. With competing interests all vying for ‘victimhood status’, the inevitable power struggle between victim classes will self-destruct in clashes similar to the one between ‘Black Lives Matter’ and organizers of Toronto’s gay pride parades. Continue reading »

Jan 172019
 

Excalibur

‘Democracy’ is a deeply philosophical concept, not just a process of voting or holding elections. In fact, the idea that democracy is simply ‘majority rule’ is an idea destructive to the concept of democracy, while the practice of unlimited majority rule results in consequences that do not lead to anything democratic.

To understand why this is demonstrably so, one must consider the wisdom drawn from the ancient Greeks and Romans whose lexicon of political terms form the roots of the words we use today when discussing politics and government.

It may surprise most people to learn that, despite the popular and accepted use of the terms, words like ‘bureaucracy,’ ‘meritocracy,’ ‘aristocracy,’ ‘plutocracy,’ and ‘minarchy’ (among others) are false and inaccurate concepts. These are ‘garbage words’ explains Paul McKeever in his conversation with Bob, as they review several recognized terms that would be found in an accurate and proper Lexicon of Government.

Bob and Paul bend, twist, and stretch the political concepts of the day in an effort to demonstrate how many of the popular political terms being used today are a major source of political impasses and misunderstanding. And with tongue in cheek, they agree that a ‘minarchy’ is not a kingdom of short people, nor is an ‘idiocracy’ – a society governed by idiots – a literal possibility, despite what many might consider evidence to the contrary. Continue reading »

Dec 062018
 

Selfless

Altruism is repeatedly confused with charity, and yet the two very differing concepts continue to be used interchangeably to the detriment of both individuals and society at large.

‘Charity’ is defined as: “1. the providing of help to the poor; 2. that which is given to help the needy; 3. an institution, organization, or fund to aid those in need; 4. tolerance; leniency; 5. an act of good will; 6. brotherly love.” (Funk & Wagnalls) These are in fact among the acts and values associated with charity.

In contrast, ‘altruism’ is defined as “selfless devotion to the welfare of others.” (Funk & Wagnalls) That’s not charity; that’s activism disguised as charity. It is the Left’s virtue signal for political causes that are far from anything that could be considered ‘selfless.’

Warned Ayn Rand: “Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self sacrifice – which means, self immolation, self-abrogation, self-denial, self-destruction – which means: the self as the standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of good.” Continue reading »

Sep 272018
 

Contemplation

As faith-based religion continues to lose its monopoly on morality, the source and nature of mankind’s morality is finally being openly questioned and discussed. In fact, that discussion has been drawing unprecedented audiences to both social media and to live venues, where the likes of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris have essentially established the popular – and incorrect – framework of this public debate.

It’s not surprising in the least that these debates have never produced a resolution; one cannot resolve a philosophical dilemma without confining oneself to the discipline of philosophy itself. In attempting to resolve issues of ‘free will’, determinism, choice, and morality, neither ‘faith’ nor ‘pragmatism’ offer any solutions.

Morality has but one source and one standard: the preservation of human life itself. That is the ‘good.’ The destruction of human life is the ‘evil.’ Morality has no other application or purpose. Like any discipline, the development of an objective moral code is fundamentally a science, and as such, must be based on evidence and reason, not on faith or intuition.

As the third branch in the hierarchy of philosophy (the first two being metaphysics and epistemology), the development of any moral code will necessarily be based on whatever conclusions have been drawn from the first two. This is why the discussion about morality has largely become hijacked by a needless and meaningless debate over atheism versus religious faith. Continue reading »

Sep 202018
 

The New York Times

That there are those who would regard the New York Times’ anonymous admission of a crime to be an ‘op-ed’ is astounding: “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” reads the Sept 5, 2018 headline.

How is it possible that an admission of this sort can be considered ‘opinion’?

This is no ‘opinion.’ It is an assertion of fact on the part of its writer. It is not possible to argue that claiming to be part of a ‘resistance’ is an ‘opinion.’ Nor does the blind rage and hatred expressed against Trump in the same editorial qualify for ‘opinion’ status since it is utterly baseless and presented without a single example or referent on which that ‘opinion’ is based. It is not opinion; it is hate speech.

All participants in this crime, including the New York Times, which has admitted knowing who the criminal is, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that US law allows. Continue reading »

Sep 092018
 

“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”

That’s the slogan being promoted by Colin Kaepernick and Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ ad campaign.

While at first glance, both the slogan and campaign name sound inspiring and uplifting, a second glance reveals that they are equally applicable to both positive and negative values.

Known as the ‘kneeling millionaire’ for choosing to kneel on one knee in advance of a 2016 NFL game (as a political protest against killings of blacks by police), Kaepernick rose to celebrity status – by not rising to the national anthem playing at the time. Continue reading »

Aug 232018
 

god

“God is the Supreme Being.” True or false?

Remarkably, this question can result in four acceptable responses, depending on one’s perspective: 1. TRUE; 2. FALSE; 3. BOTH true and false; 4. NEITHER true nor false. What makes this apparent paradox possible is a matter of definition and context (i.e., literal or allegorical).

Presented by Pangburn Philosophy and chaired by Bret Weinstein, the June 23 Vancouver BC debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on the nature of God and morality offered a classic illustration of this epistemological phenomenon, and is the focus of our look at the ‘God problem.’

To complicate matters, even the use of the words ‘true or false’ can present ambiguity. Though most agree on what ‘false’ means, the meaning of ‘true’ is another matter entirely, especially when confused with ‘Truth.’ Continue reading »

Aug 122018
 

No matter its legal status, abortion continues to generate a polarized debate that will never be aborted. Which ‘right’ is the valid right? The ‘right’ to an abortion or the ‘right’ to life? Given polarized views of life, death, and individual rights – the abortion controversy is perpetual.

Whatever one’s view on the subject, the idea of ‘celebrating’ abortion as one might celebrate life has forced the issue back into the spotlight. In a skit that has arguably ‘crossed the line,’ comedienne Michelle Wolf’s recent ‘celebration of abortion’ (The Break / Netflix) was not particularly funny in the view of many.

Wolf’s skit reflects the Left’s nihilistic view of life, suggest Danielle and Robert in their consideration of the moral and ethical issues involved: “normalizing abortion by making it heroic.”

Calls for the outright prohibition of abortion have long been associated with the Right, particularly since those calls have been seen to originate from the so-called ‘social’ conservatives. In contrast, ‘fiscal’ and ‘pragmatic’ conservatives prefer to leave the abortion issue off the political table entirely – while ‘progressive’ conservatives would fully support a Leftist agenda. Continue reading »