The participation of two Trump-obsessed newcomers, one now banned and the other self-suspended, swelled last week’s Forum to one of the most active ever. This has been an equally momentous week in the ethics universe if not more so: I’ll be interested to see if we can get both quality and quantity this time around.
On your mark….get set…
21 thoughts on “Friday Open Forum!”
There is a LOT more in that article!!
Jonathan Turley also wrote about this this morning.
Ham’s absurd statements throughout her article are the signature significant statements of a psychological snowflake that’s snowflaking very hard.
Hyerim Bianca Nam is welcome to her opinion even when it shows that she’s a bigot¹ advocating for persecution².
Nam, and those with a mentality like hers, are the primary problem with discourse in the 21st century. Ignorant fools, like Nam, have their heads buried so far up their ideological ass that they cannot see the absolute absurdity of what they’ve become – pure Orwellian totalitarians that use the same kind of social tactics that actual fascists used in 1930’s and 1940’s Germany. People that think like Nam will likely never become very productive members of society, their obsession will drive them to always be in search of something to demonize, they are unofficial members of a lunatic fringe woke cult and needs psychological deprogramming.
¹Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
²Persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs.
What’s happening in our society right now is absolutely absurd. Please forgive me for stripping a few excerpts from my own blog to share, but I think it’s relevant.
Seriously, how the hell did we get to these levels of absurdity driving our society and culture into the abyss of totalitarianism?
I wonder if she realizes she exhibits the he very behaviors she is complaining about. Why should anyone attempt to engage with her civilly if she has no use in hearing alternative perspectives and only her beliefs are the correct ones. Yup, with people like her just abort the conversation because her mind is closed to anything that prevents women from assuming responsibility for their own actions.
See Steve’s opus in the ethics of babies post.
Thanks for referring me to Steve’s awesome thought provoking comment in that thread.
When absolute drooling hate is the permanently attached industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders (#Cornelius Gotchberg) that clouds the view of the world around the wearer, rational thinking is impossible in a very absolute way.
“No one can argue with a barking dog, you can’t appeal to reason where there is none”; our 21st century social justice woke warriors, like Hyerim Bianca Nam, are the human equivalent to the barking dog.
I thought the most telling line was when she said that if people planning to come to Yale had seen a prolife table, it would have potentially convinced them to go somewhere else for college.
This says to me that I do not want to deal with students from Yale if they cannot deal with other opinions, and if she’s teaching them that debate is worthless, so is their “education”. I’d like an educated person or even an uneducated one for my professional needs rather than one who is indoctrinated, uneducated but firmly believes they are educated.
Here’s some unedited evidence of the social justice woke’s “tolerance”.
These assholes demand tolerance for them and show absolutely no tolerance for any they oppose.
Hunter Bide flies with Joe Biden on Air Force One to Ireland. Why? How can that be allowed to happen? What kind of scam are the Bidens running? The media is silent or even laudatory. Go figure. And the taxpayers are funding a trip for Joe to visit where his ancestors lived? And he can’t attend a coronation in England? But he can go to Ireland, that historic ally who was “neutral” during WWII?
Hilarious headline: Biden tells Irish hosts he doesn’t want to go back to the U.S. Wants to stay in Ireland. Don’t say it ain’t so, Joe!
Yeah, but he celebrated the Black and Tans. Oh my.
Not to worry; unlike in any normal father-son relationship, Joe and Hunter never discuss anything on hours long overseas airplane trips together. In fact, it’s quite possible that Joe, as he moved about the plane between naps, was repeatedly surprised to find that Hunter was aboard.
Can we talk about child marriage? Especially as it pertains to parental rights?
Setting aside that fool in Missouri who thinks parents should have the right to let their underage kids marry other underage kids – that should be self-evident idiocy and anyone with a brain the size of a walnut can see how ridiculous that is – marriage should not be a parental rights issue.
It only becomes one when the participants are children. Back in the day, a girl got pregnant, her parents had to give consent for the girl to marry the father which many did to due to social pressure and economic factors and the kids went off to play house in the hopes that they were compatible enough to make it last.
I believe in marriage. I believe that some marriages can work even if the participants are under 18. It’s just not likely. And it’s also not healthy.
With the Great American Melting Pot becoming the DEI Tribal Sectioned Plate instead, how do we handle cultures forming whole communities in which child marriage is practiced as part of their religious, social and cultural heritage? How do we handle FLDS communities that push young teens into marriage and keep them at home under lock and key until they do?
On the other hand, I read an article about one of those FLDS teens who escaped that community by marrying a like-minded cousin of hers so they could both move away, establish lives separate from the control and then divorced. Without the parental consent factor allowing them to be married, they’d have been stuck for much longer. Of course, they wouldn’t have been in that situation in the first place were it not for the parents.
What is the solution here?
Marriage is a contract, isn’t it? A legal contract? Aren’t children considered too young to sign contracts because they don’t have the wisdom or experience to know what the long-term ramifications are? Is it time for a national minimum age for marriage law to be set at 18?
Doing this will eliminate, ideally, forced marriages that are little more than human trafficking. It will stop underage persons from attaching themselves legally to another person before adulthood has even started. It will take parents out of the equation completely as no parent should have the right to approve a marriage.
Unfortunately, children have to choose their parents well. We assume parents will always and only do what is in the best interests of the children. Not every parent is smart enough or ethical enough to see that what they want is not in the best interests of the child. Where ethics fail, the law steps in.
What do you think? Is a national minimum marriage age law too much control by the Federal government? Should each state raise its minimum marriage age to 18? If not, what role, if any, should parents play in the ability of their children to get married? Any arguments in favor of why this should be a parental rights issue? Or does cohabitation without marriage make this whole thing moot?
Speaking of child marriage, here is a post from a local progressive blogger about that topic.
Republicans Must Stop Supporting Child Brides, Child Rape
Ironically, I doubt the Dems would be in favor of an eighteen years minimum age. They want to lower the voting age to sixteen years and they’d probably be delighted with fourteen years. They want twelve-year-olds to be able to undergo sex change surgery. I just don’t see this “age of [fill in the blank]” thing going in the right direction.
I think government ruined the institution of marriage first by licencing (racist motivations), converting it into a contract (tax and employment law motivations), then dictating unbalanced terms for dissolution (feminist) and finally divorcing it from its original purpose of providing a social structure for the raising of children by claiming all the above distortions apply to pairings who cannot biologically conceive children.
If there’s a way to fix marriage, I don’t think government has the track record to succeed.
It was just a little over twenty-nine years ago today that Judge Wayne andersen made his ruling.
The arguments used in the Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck apply with equal force here. One could argue that Judge Andersen has blood on his hands, that he cares more about privacy than the lives of kids.
Did his ruling actually enable the murder of children?
Once again, David Brooks (one of the New York Times “conservatives”) demonstrates the same two defining characteristics we have come to associate with him; 1) he is a talented scribe, and 2) he has absolutely no understanding of fundamental political, business, or constitutional processes. In other words, he’s book smart, willingly trapped inside a Left-liberal bubble, and worldly-ignorant.
Consider his most recent effort for the Gray Lady, Why People Are Fleeing Blue Cities for Red States. The premise is true and fine as far as it goes, but this is how Brooks justifies the migration:
So can we tell a simple story here: Republican policies work, Democratic policies don’t?
Well, not quite. When you look inside the red states at where the growth is occurring, you notice immediately that the dynamism is not mostly in the red parts of the red states. The growth is in the metro areas — which are often blue cities in red states. A study from the L.B.J. Urban Lab, for example, found that Austin, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth accounted for 71 percent of the jobs created in Texas in 2019.
Ah, well, that’s the perfect position for the country-club Republican Brooks. It’s “bipartisan,” don’tcha know — both liberal and conservative policies work together to create a desirable climate for businesses! Hooray for both sides! See, it can be done! Yay!
He goes on:
If you look at these success stories you see they are actually the product of a red-blue mash-up. Republicans at the state level provide the general business climate, but Democrats at the local level influence the schools, provide many social services and create a civic atmosphere that welcomes diversity and attracts highly educated workers.
Well, David, that’s a great argument. Wrong, but great.
The reason businesses go mostly to the Blue zones in Red states is not because of the schools, social services and civic atmosphere. They go to the cities (more correctly, the suburbs of those cities) because of the infrastructure. In the case of manufacturing and distribution, you go to places near interstate interchanges, preferably where several interstates intersect in order to reduce transportation costs. Rail hubs are also found within or near cities, as are airports, freight company terminals, warehouse districts, and the power and telecommunications infrastructure to support big business. Infrastructure like that is just not something you can create overnight in Hazard, Kentucky or Shelbyville, Tennessee.
Smaller businesses and tech companies find more available office space and the aforementioned power and communications infrastructure to support their ventures in larger cities, which are universally governed by Democrats — not because of their policies, but rather because of the partisan make-up of urban areas. The much more Republican rural and rural-adjacent areas that are not bedroom communities of larger cities simply can’t support most of the businesses interested in moving to the Sun Belt unless they are smaller concerns with far less need for mature and robust infrastructure.
And of course, it wouldn’t be Brooks without a dig at Donald Trump:
Once upon a time you could squint and imagine the George W. Bush/Mitt Romney Republican Party morphing in that direction. No longer. The G.O.P. is a working-class populist party that has no interest in nurturing highly educated bobo boom towns. The G.O.P. does everything it can to repel those people — and the Tesla they drove in on.
Well, that’s too stupid to rebut, so I’ll just leave it there for others to whack on. Brooks, once again proves Jack’s oft-repeated observation about the inevitability of Stockholm Syndrome when forced to live among the most rabidly activist Leftist journalists in America. I feel a bit sorry for the guy.
But not too much. He could always move, say… south, maybe a few hundred miles?
I thought that Brooks article was hilarious. I think it was Jack who spoke of Brooks succumbing to Stockholm syndrome. Unfortunately, Brooks may be onto something. The masses of people moving to Arizona from California and elsewhere are turning metro Phoenix and Maricopa County into Democrat bastions. The City government of Phoenix has long been dominated by Democrats who have assembled a coalition of black, Hispanic and gay and lesbian voters. Which seems to work in most urban areas throughout. The local paper is super lefty. The people who leave places like New York bring their enlightened lefty preferences with them. Californication really is a thing. So the people fleeing places like New York and California infect their new homes with the very conditions they are attempting to escape. Morons.
Soon, there will be enough people in the major hubs voting blue for all the states to vote blue. They’ll swing policies to bolster and buy and build up thier cities. And then we’ll all starve. Wasn’t it soylent green which was predicated on much that idea?
Let’s see, people move from blue states and don’t become rural farmers in red states? Wow, must mean they’re not “escaping”, just trying to spread the blue gospel of high taxes, crime, gender lunacy, …. Great analysis, Brooks!
So it seems more likely now that 4 or 5 months ago that we will be blessed in 2024 with another Trump v Biden contest. We would have the choice of one man in the Oval office whose very presence there causes grown men to devolve to the intellectual level of cats and dogs, against the other man who is already on the way to gerbilhood and who has embraced all the progressive memes and ideas he swore to use during his campaign that he would eschew.
What a miserable choice! I continue to believe in the United States, but God may have His hands full watching out for children and drunkards, leaving us Americans to fend for ourselves.
I also continue to be skeptical of the current polling showing Trump running away with the nomination. I mean, why should we suddenly believe that these polls are revealed truth when they’ve been trending strong in the garbage direction. I think DeSantis still has a real shot, I’m a bit more impressed with Haley than I was, so I don’t think Trump is a done deal. Biden, now, if he decides to run has to be pretty much a shoo-in for the nomination — who else is there?
So, if TvB Mark II comes to pass, here is the question I think we are obliged to ask.
Who is the less damaging person to win the presidency?
I don’t think there is an obvious answer, always assuming that the Democrats don’t control both houses of Congress. In 2020, I thought Biden might be an existential threat to the country. However, bad as they’ve been, things have not been as bad as I thought they might be, and Republican control of the House provides a solid bulwark (I fervently hope) against total insanity.
As bad as a second Biden term would be (and let’s not kid ourselves), would it actually be worse than a second Trump term? I am not sure that it would — again, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress.
Electoral zugzwang. Ugh.