Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ten Biggest Lies of My Lifetime
Rational Review ^ | September 27, 2009 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman

The Ten Biggest Lies of My Lifetime
by J. Neil Schulman

This is my short list of “Big Lies” — propaganda which is promoted by major movements, and which denying often gets one tagged as a lunatic, denier, hatemonger, or simply irrelevant.

If you’re looking for me to put the Holocaust of European Jewry or Jihadis being responsible for 9/11 on this list, look elsewhere.

I’m 56 years old, born in April 1953. So I’m limiting myself to Big Lies present in my own lifetime.

Here we go, not in any chronological order.

1. The biggest threat to the human race today is man-caused global warming.

Every assumption behind this statement is either provably false or unproven. It’s uncertain whether the long-term climate trend is towards global warming rather than global cooling. It’s false that carbon dioxide and methane are the major “greenhouse gases.” (The major greenhouse gas is water vapor.) The most reliable climate-change models on planet earth don’t track with production of greenhouse gases as closely as they do with changes in solar radiation, and measurements of climate change on other planets in this solar system tend to match up with our own planet’s climate change. Industrial particulate air pollution reduces solar radiation so would produce global cooling rather than global warming. And the global warming crowd reveal themselves as a subset of the Zero Population Growth movement when they advocate not having children as a method of reducing global warming. Which brings us to Big Lie #2.

2. Human population growth must be curbed because it is increasing faster than the availability of resources needed to sustain itself.

No human being on planet earth is starving or sick because of the technological inability of the human race to feed, clothe, or treat most of their epidemic diseases. Third-world famines and epidemics of diseases no longer epidemic in the developed world are caused by warfare, theft of private property and relief supplies by warlords who sell them for personal luxuries and weapons, and anti-capitalistic policies which exterminate all attempts to invest or entrepreneur the creation of newly existing wealth. The assumption of a zero-sum game whereby one party’s gain is assumed to be stolen from another party is one major false premise underlying this cause of endless human tragedy; another is that technological advances caused by economic growth play no part in reducing demand on finite natural resources by multiplying the efficient use of these resources and creating artificial alternatives which also reduce demand on natural resources.

Nor is there any actual “limit to growth” when you bring in the virtually unlimited space, energy, and mineral resources available starting as close as earth’s own moon and asteroids in permanent earth-moon orbit, then expanding out to the entire solar system and eventually other solar systems. Star Trek got this, at least, right. The technology to harvest these resources is off the shelf and the cost would be less than what the United States has spent on the War in Iraq.

3. Abortion is murder.

The assumptions behind this statement require religious people to substitute the concept of eternal life with a secular biological one that defines life as mortal. The statement that a new human life begins with conception is biologically true but not true according to anyone who actually believes in the existence of an immortal soul. If one believes in an immortal soul then a new human life begins the first moment that an immortal soul exists within a human body. The Hebrews believed that the soul enters the body with its birth and first breath — thus the English word “inspiration” comes from roots meaning “intake of breath.” Christianity and modern Judaism often abandon the roots of their own religions and substitute the revisionist argument that the soul is present from the moment of conception — an absurd and actually horrible idea if you look at it from the point of view of an active conscious being imprisoned within a tiny cluster of cells.

Furthermore, the idea that an embryo or fetus has human rights can only go back to the beginnings of the concept of human rights with the English Leveller’s movement in the 17th century — a decidedly modernist development. Nowadays there are attempts to extend the idea of rights beyond the human species to all other living things (including microbes) and even to inanimate objects including the earth, itself. The self-named pro-life movement which attempts to extend human rights to the unborn use the same logic and arguments as the animal rights and Gaia-rights movements. Which brings us directly to #4.

4. Animals have the same fundamental rights as humans.

The concept of opposing cruelty to animals has morphed away from this noble and purely human esthetic concept into an attempt to make the idea of human rights absurd and deniable by forgetting their origins and meaning, debasing them like fiat money replaces mediums of exchange possessing intrinsic utility.

Rights are a moral concept, and morality is meaningless if split off from the concept of moral actors. Unless one is ready to accept dogs, cattle, and fish as having the mens rea to be held accountable for their actions, the concept of animal rights is an absurdity, and the animal rights movement is a criminal racket that relies on the empathy of human beings to attack the individual property rights and civil liberties of other human beings.

5. Disarmament promotes peace and security.

From disarming the airline passengers who flew on September 11, 2001 to the disarmament by both the Nazis and Soviet Union of the Estonians, there is no policy which has directly enabled more genocide, holocausts, and mass murders than reducing the general supply of weapons that can be used to resist and combat armed and aggressive statists, gangsters, terrorists, madmen, and free-lance predators than the unilateral disarmament of civilians and defense forces. I’m not even going to argue the point. I simply challenge anyone to study history, note how disarmament universally precedes mass violence, and challenge anyone disputing this statement to find me a counter-example where a disarmed population suffered less than the armed one which preceded it.

6. Police forces are necessary to prevent crime and keep the peace.

Going back to the prefects of ancient China and the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire, police forces have always been extensions of imperial power, providing despots internal domestic control while traditional military forces conquered and controlled foreigners.

The framers of the American system of government were well aware of the millennia-long history of police forces and rejected the concept in favor of civilian self-defense. Local criminals were to be apprehended by raising a “hue-and-cry” whereby the civilian population formed themselves into temporary law-enforcement units under the concept of “posse comitatus” (translation from Latin is “power of the county”) to arm themselves and bring suspected criminals to a magistrate for trial. How these posses functioned can be seen in western movies and TV shows, where an elected sheriff or U.S. marshal had no forces of their own to enforce law or keep the peace, but had to rely on deputizing the local population to maintain law and order. This reliance by government officials on civilians tended to act as a brake on criminal gangs taking over frontier towns, and also prevented organized criminal gangs such as the Black Hand from extending their reach beyond the borders of cities like Chicago and Kansas City, whose police forces were agents of the local power brokers.

Today’s police forces are better trained, more professional, and less reliant on direct bribery than earlier police forces, and in private life are often good neighbors, but when on duty they are still enforcers of political power who shake down the civilian population through draconian fines for parking and minor traffic infraction (for example, $100 fines for failing to feed a parking meter 25 cents), eminent domain abuses, asset forfeiture laws, and the unconstitutional war on the individual’s right to determine one’s own self-medication, mood alteration, and state of consciousness on private property.

Common myths about police are that they have a duty to protect you (they don’t; all states immunize police for failure to protect); that police will save you when you phone 911 (if you’re being held hostage by an armed criminal the police will set up a perimeter outside and not go in until it’s safe for themselves, no matter what’s being done to you by your captor); and that violent crime rates are lower the more police there are per population unit (the opposite is true; rural areas with fewer police per population unit commonly have a lower violent crime rate per population unit than urban areas with more police per population unit).

One can’t argue that increasing legal availability of civilian firearms automatically decreases violent crime (to do that one would have to explain how one city with identical laws to another city can have five times its sister city’s violent crime rate) but one can show that increasing the cop-to-criminal ratio is no more effective than increasing the civilian-gun-to-criminal ratio — and the latter is a whole lot cheaper and far less injurious to civil liberties.

7. Gay couples should be treated exactly the same as straight couples.

Beginning in the 1930’s, Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking studies of human sexuality showed human sexual behavior to be almost infinitely varied. I carefully say “sexual behavior” rather than “sex,” because only human acts which have the potential of reproduction actually qualify as “sex.” Perpetuation of the species demands that all other behavior be called something else. I favor the anthropological term “pair-bonding,” the sociological term “coupling,” and the informal terms “sex play” and “love play.”

Human beings who engage in same-sex coupling have the exact same rights as human beings who engage in opposite-sex coupling: the natural fruits of their coupling. Since biology requires opposite-sex coupling to produce offspring, same-sex coupling is naturally discriminated against for this purpose, and social institutions like monogamous heterosexual marriage that have evolved to protect and encourage the perpetuation of the human species must either reflect this biological reality in custom and language or devalue human reproduction. It’s obvious to me that the agenda to equate same-sex coupling with opposite-sex-coupling in movies, television, and other mass media is at least as much to discourage human population growth as it is to oppose the hateful bigotry against same-sex couples which results in denying same-sex couples the right to enjoy their lives together in a free and tolerant society.

I am not a partisan for monogamous heterosexual marriage. I’d be perfectly happy if marriage laws and customs were entirely divorced from both state and church. I have no personal objection to norming any and all partnering or group affiliation between or among consenting adults of any sexual persuasion. Gays have no more right to pride in their sexual lifestyle than a completely heterosexual degenerate like myself, who wants only adult women to do perverted things with me. We’re still hiding in the closet, thank you very much.

But to lie about biology, history, anthropology, sociology, and all other attempts to quantify and classify the human experience in order to promote a narrow and ephemeral minority political agenda is wrong and I will continue to expose these lies when they deny that social customs, language usage, and economic institutions should reflect the biological truth that making a baby requires at least one participant from each of the two sexes.

8. The Holocaust of European Jews is unique in human history.

I’m Jewish, and I can’t think of any idea quite as absurd to me as the idea that my kin are superior to the rest of the human species. That’s an ancient Jewish meme that got turned around by the Nazis, with devastating results just before I was born.

I’m not going to argue that Jews and Judaism haven’t made unique and valuable contributions to the human experience. That would be equally false and absurd. But it’s illogical to extrapolate from this that the Jewish contributions to human history are uniquely valuable. The Greeks contributed as much. So did the Chinese. So did the Arabs. So did the English. So did the Americans. The Irish. Can I stop now before this essay turns into a roster of the ethnicities seated in the United Nations?

Nor is the Jewish experience for being discriminated against, enslaved, and massacred unique. Blacks got it as bad. So did the Estonians, the Tutsis, the Kulaks, the Gypsies, the Pariahs, the Christians, the Irish, the English, the Armenians, the Native Americans, the Sicilians, the Cherokee – again, I’d find it hard to find an ethnic group that hasn’t had the crap kicked out of them one time or another.

Having the crap kicked out of your own kind is probably the one most common bond that each of us has with everyone else.

The maximum estimate for the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis is six million. That’s dwarfed in the twentieth century alone by mega-exterminations in the Soviet Union and China, with seven-figure ethnic genocides in Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda trailing not far behind.

My people: Good job. You gave the world Torah and many more non-Jews than Jews follow its teachings — and that includes our historical enemies. But enough already with the chosen people crap. It’s gotten old and pisses off others, which makes it hard to have friends.

9. America is a Christian country.

This one won’t take very long to refute at all. Draw a Venn diagram. A big circle with the population of the United States. In that circle a smaller circle with Christians. Inside the big circle another circle with everyone else — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccens, Odin-worshippers, atheists, agnostics, etc.

Doesn’t matter how large the circle containing Christians is. America is founded on the idea of individualism, not collectivism. That the majority should be able to impose its values on the minority is un-American even if it were down to half a billion Christians and a single non-believer. And Christians might consider that a turn of the wheel might make them a minority, and a record for tolerance might be useful when dealing with a new majority.

Your ancestors came here for freedom of worship. Honor them by extending the same freedom to everyone else. Keep your peanut butter away from my chocolate unless I specifically ask to make a Reese.

10. America is the last superpower and runs the world.

I’m not even sure I need to refute this one anymore, although it’s been the general assumption in most places for most of my life, both by Americans and foreigners.

By now it should be obvious this isn’t true.

Remember the Doolittle Raid in World War II? A few army planes stripped down to the bone manage to fly off an aircraft carrier and bomb Japan? It was mostly a symbolic attack because there were far too few planes to damage Japan’s war effort. But the reason for the raid was that America’s war “ally,” Josef Stalin, refused President Franklin Roosevelt permission to use Russian soil to launch a sustained bombing attack on Japan.

At the end of World War II when both the Nazis and Imperial Japan were defeated, and even though the United States had a monopoly on atomic bombs until 1949, the Soviet Union managed to occupy half of Europe and foment communist revolutions throughout the world creating a worldwide opposition to the power of the United States and its allies.

This standoff continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when there was a brief illusion that the United States was the last remaining superpower. But during that period, Cuba remained communist and though any agreement President Kennedy might have made with Premier Khrushchev would have died with the USSR, the United States made no attempt to take the island.

Nor did the United States have universal success in staving off communist coups in Central and South America … or even in its own universities.

If anyone thinks that situation fundamentally changed any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, ask yourself how Turkey got away with telling the United States to piss off when President Bush wanted to invade Iraq via Turkey.

When the United States was most influential was not when the United States was most aggressive militarily but when its goods were most craved by foreigners: when a luxury car in Japan was not a Lexus but a Pontiac, when Russians drank Pepsi and the Chinese drank Coca Cola, when the gold standard of cigarettes was Old Gold and other American brands.

The United States was once the world’s shopping mall. Not anymore. Not for a long time. The path back to the glory days is when the American people get shut of the debt its government and corporations have run up in their name, and instead use their money to invent and make new things the rest of the world wants.

—–
J. Neil Schulman is author of the classic novel of agorist revolution, Alongside Night, which can be downloaded free from www.alongsidenight.net, and writer/producer/directer of the comic thriller, Lady Magdalene’s (www.ladymagdalenes.com). Full bio information can be found on Facebook, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, IMDb, Amazon.com, and his personal website at www.jneilschulman.com/.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; humanrights; libertarian; populationgrowth; propaganda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last
To: Cvengr
Technically, swinging an unbreathing baby’s body against a tree, vice one that is breathing, makes an enormous difference.

So, if the baby has an obstruction in his throat you can kill him?

The argument that life begins with breath hence abortion is acceptable is one of convenience not one of rigor or reverence.

101 posted on 09/27/2009 11:03:17 AM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

How about joining in on the forum you started, instead of posting and running?


102 posted on 09/27/2009 11:22:28 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (If Dick Cheney = Darth Vader, then Joe Biden = Dark Helmet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not

I posted then went to bed. Woke up to find 100 messages in reply, which manage to debate the article nicely in my absence.


103 posted on 09/27/2009 11:32:31 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Every stillborn baby starts that way as well.


104 posted on 09/27/2009 11:42:05 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Maybe Turkey (Ottoman Empire)>Armenian genocide? I think the O Empire was mostly Islamic. Also the french Revolution, except it has the stench of leftism also.
You are right that whenevr Leftism gets power the possibility of Democide is much, much higher.


105 posted on 09/27/2009 11:50:20 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I do not advocate abortion.

I also find the argument against abortion based upon human life beginning at conception to be erroneous, based upon Montanist Traducianism, rather than the Scriptural position of Creationism.

This is based upon an argument supporting creationism rather than traducianism. Jerome and Augustine favored the Creationist position. Tertullian as a Montanist favored traducianism, but he also didn’t think the soul was separate from the material, evolving from the idea that even the material didn’t exist.

Tertullian advanced some great doctrine (Trinitas, Hypostatic Union), but on the note of the soul being transferred mediately by third parties, instead of directly from God is not on track.


106 posted on 09/27/2009 12:37:40 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
All historic tyranny has been leftist including monarchy and any other authoritarian format.

Right wing, freedom loving Americanism is pretty unique to the US and a few other nations that try to emulate us.

107 posted on 09/27/2009 12:41:27 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, nothing more than bald haired hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Regarding your statement on abortion, I have two questions for you concerning the unborn child:

1. If it isn't human, what is it?

2. If it isn't alive, what is it?

And before we get sidetracked into a fruitless discussion of soul, I'd like to point out that those two questions were asked by a prominent atheist who came to his own inescapable and rather uncomfortable (to him) conclusion about abortion. You must either redefine "murder" as something other than the taking of a human life or you must concede the point.

108 posted on 09/27/2009 12:56:12 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
2. If it isn't alive, what is it?

Inconvenient.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

109 posted on 09/27/2009 1:00:03 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Regarding your statement about when a fetus is a person (based upon your religious beliefs regarding souls) does this mean that the atheists among us have freedom to murder anyone at all since they don’t believe in the concept of a soul?


110 posted on 09/27/2009 1:01:26 PM PDT by carmody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carmody

Everyone has the freedom to commit murder, whether they are atheist or theist, and to stand before God’s judgment afterward.


111 posted on 09/27/2009 1:19:02 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Billthedrill wrote:

“Regarding your statement on abortion, I have two questions for you concerning the unborn child:

“1. If it isn’t human, what is it?”

You use the word “human” in your first question as an adjective. Using the word “human” as an adjective to modify other nouns, there are human beings, human artifacts, human events, human corpses. The “unborn child” in your question
is either a human embryo or a human fetus. Using the modifier “human” does not answer the question of whether terminating the growth of a human embryo or fetus is murder. That question requires additional information within a fully-defined context.

“2. If it isn’t alive, what is it?”

Being alive is a necessary but not sufficient condition to being a creature endowed by its Creator with human unalienable rights.

By the way, my argument that the statement “Abortion is murder” is a lie means that those who argue that “all abortions are murders” is a lie. I have not argued, nor have I eliminated the possibility, that some abortions — such as the termination of a fully-formed viable fetus — may constitute a homicide.

JNS


112 posted on 09/27/2009 1:36:27 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

I posted it first as plaintext and it posted too small for me to read without oversizing the screen text of everything else. I increased the type size to one comfortable to me and others who need reading glasses, so as not to require oversizing the screen text for everyone else.


113 posted on 09/27/2009 1:52:48 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

Destroying the avenue by which a soul would have come into the world may well cause the ref to impose a penalty and hand the ball to the other team.


114 posted on 09/27/2009 1:57:07 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thanks much! :-)


115 posted on 09/27/2009 1:58:06 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Cordoning off a crime scene for collection of forensic evidence, and analysis of the collected evidence, could be conducted by any number of NGO job descriptions. Legal standards for chain-of-custody can exist in a market-based system the same way other technical standards exist in any number of industries.


116 posted on 09/27/2009 2:04:33 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Repeal The 17th wrote:

“Shilling for your book here on FR?”

It’s a free download.


117 posted on 09/27/2009 2:05:54 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

ROCKLOBSTER wrote:

“Reason #1 why most Jews are RATs!”

That’s an acronym for “Refuting Arrogant Twits”?


118 posted on 09/27/2009 2:10:23 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Thank you! :-)


119 posted on 09/27/2009 2:12:14 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Admin Moderator

All I know is that I reviewed your posting history.
You signed up a few years ago to shill a book...
A year or so later you posted to shill another book...
6 months or so later you posted to shill another book...
No posts in between and no commentary in between.
It makes it look like you are using FR
as a resource to shill books.
Correct me if I am wrong.


120 posted on 09/27/2009 2:13:19 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Thank you! :-)


121 posted on 09/27/2009 2:13:37 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
I do not advocate abortion.

I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out that it is not the breathing that makes the baby a living baby.

122 posted on 09/27/2009 2:14:34 PM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Welcome :-)


123 posted on 09/27/2009 2:15:41 PM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Tribune7 wrote:

“What would be the difference between that and killing it in the womb i.e. an abortion 61-minutes earlier?”

What’s the difference between shooting someone before they take out their gun and point it at you, shooting someone an instant before they pull the trigger, or shooting them after they dropped their gun and are running away?

Timing is sometimes everything.

JNS


124 posted on 09/27/2009 2:16:26 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
There is more than a bit of sophistry there, I'm afraid. Slippery definitions won't help you out of this very simple question. They will lead you to the anomalous position that while a foetus is human life (what else could it be? I notice you prefer not to answer that), it isn't a human being. That is, essentially, your argument. In which case we're dealing with the arbitrary - you may certainly set the standard of the birth event as the criterion but that is a political definition, not a biological one. The foetus has a heartbeat, a separate immune system, it is provably cognitive and it respires. Requiring that it transit the birth canal in addition in order to be considered a human being strikes me as a little silly, (not to mention problematic for those born by caesarian section).

Concentrating, then, on the definition of murder - are there instances where this is not simply the taking of a human life, but the unjustified taking of a human life? In this case you must find a justification. The life of the mother has been used as such a justification. The "quality of life" of the child once born has been used as a justification, however presumptuous that bit of prophecy might be considered. Inconvenience has been used as a justification. But in any of these cases, a deliberate decision has been made to end a human life.

So redefine "murder" if you like to make it fit the occasion, but please do not presume to redefine what is human.

125 posted on 09/27/2009 2:22:13 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

I write precisely. The statement “Abortion is murder” is the assertion that all abortions are murders. I did not argue that no abortion can constitute a homicide.


126 posted on 09/27/2009 2:23:06 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
What’s the difference between shooting someone before they take out their gun and point it at you, shooting someone an instant before they pull the trigger, or shooting them after they dropped their gun and are running away?

The first and last examples would both be murder but If the baby had his finger on the trigger and was ready to kill you, you would be in your rights to take him out.

127 posted on 09/27/2009 2:24:32 PM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

rlmorel wrote:

“Please describe to me a genocidal event in history where people were systematically rounded up throughout an entire continent using modern communication and mechanization, shipped like commercial product to multiple centralized hubs to be processed as cattle in meat packing and slaughtered by the millions in a matter of a few short years.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn calculated the death count of Soviet victims who were shipped to gulags and labor camps at 60 million — ten times the number of Jewish victims of Hitler. The events overlap so similar “modern communication and mechanization” were used in both cases.

JNS


128 posted on 09/27/2009 2:30:12 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier

Codeflier wrote:

“The reactions to your list demonstrate all that is wrong with contemporary debate of issues. Everyone is looking for 100% agreement without discussion. If people disagree on just one topic - that’s it! Finished! No more discussion.”

Excellent point well said.


129 posted on 09/27/2009 2:31:21 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull

You also want to enforce Exodus 21 17 and Exodus 22 17-19?


130 posted on 09/27/2009 2:35:50 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
You lied on #3.
131 posted on 09/27/2009 2:40:03 PM PDT by Manic_Episode (Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

aruanan wrote:

“41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”

So your argument to me is that the proximity of Jesus to Elizabeth’s fetus certainly and in no event could have produced anything extraordinary, divine, or miraculous? Or is the point of this passage precisely that?

JNS


132 posted on 09/27/2009 2:47:58 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

Republic of Texas wrote:

“If this man is going to convince me the he alone knows when the soul enters the body, I’m gonna need a miracle as proof.”

I don’t need to assert that I know for my statement to be true. I merely need to assert that the charge of murder requires knowing ... and I note a great deal of debate and theological disagreement on that point within this forum’s discussion.

JNS


133 posted on 09/27/2009 2:51:14 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Brugmansian

Brugmansian wrote:

“No one is denying freedom or religion to anyone. No one except those who claim Christians are out to get people. As you just suggested they are.”

I make no such claim regarding “Christians” since as an individualist I would not make such a collectivist generalization.

But some individual Christians certainly have. It is to them I addressed my remarks.

JNS


134 posted on 09/27/2009 2:54:56 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

That is ten million people over how many years? 1918 to, say, 1974 when he left the Soviet Union? Well, that isn’t the point anyway.

The Soviets weren’t putting everyone on those trains to kill them. The Nazis were, after they used whatever resources were left.

People left the Gulag with the blessings of the Soviet government. People weren’t released from concentration camps except by death or liberation.


135 posted on 09/27/2009 3:02:18 PM PDT by rlmorel (You cannot reap the benefits right now of the planning ahead you didn't do in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
That’s an acronym for “Refuting Arrogant Twits”?

No. That's their own chosen name after complaining about a campaign commercial which had the word "democrats" scroll across the screen. Of course the last part of the last syllable (rats) was the final word fragment to exit the screen.

So since I had to explain it to you: Reason #1 why most Jews are democRATs!

And, I will remember to add this time, with apologies to our pro-life conservative Jewish friends.

136 posted on 09/27/2009 3:04:16 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, nothing more than bald haired hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Repeal The 17th wrote:

“All I know is that I reviewed your posting history.
You signed up a few years ago to shill a book...
A year or so later you posted to shill another book...
6 months or so later you posted to shill another book...
No posts in between and no commentary in between.
It makes it look like you are using FR
as a resource to shill books.
Correct me if I am wrong.”

You’re wrong. The book I linked for free downloads is not new. It was first published in 1979.

And I have, without asking for compensation, cross-posted my professionally-published articles numerous times on Free Republic.

But thanks for revealing yourself as a communist who is opposed to anyone supporting their family as a professional writer.

JNS


137 posted on 09/27/2009 3:05:14 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Your logic is as twisted as a pretzel.


138 posted on 09/27/2009 3:07:47 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Good grief. With precise writing like that, you sounded like a former President there.


139 posted on 09/27/2009 3:07:50 PM PDT by rlmorel (You cannot reap the benefits right now of the planning ahead you didn't do in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

Ah. No wonder I didn’t get it. I’ve never been a Democrat.


140 posted on 09/27/2009 3:10:51 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
The book I linked for free downloads is not new. ..........................

. But thanks for revealing yourself as a communist who is opposed to anyone supporting their family as a professional writer.

Seems to be a dichotomy here, FREE DOWNLOAD and yet SUPPORTING THEIR FAMILY?

141 posted on 09/27/2009 3:18:44 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

If you have no sense in your heart and soul that abortion is morally wrong, nothing I will say here will change your mind.


142 posted on 09/27/2009 4:20:16 PM PDT by HalfFull ("Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -PHenry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

True. I should have phrased it another way: if the secular government determines that none of us have a soul (separation of church and state) what would keep the government from passing laws to kill old people who are sucking up resources and infants who are disabled? For that matter, why not forced abortions to keep the population in check?


143 posted on 09/27/2009 4:30:58 PM PDT by carmody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: carmody

Ah-ha!

You’re describing the CHI COMS!


144 posted on 09/27/2009 4:33:07 PM PDT by bannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: carmody

carmody wrote:

“True. I should have phrased it another way: if the secular government determines that none of us have a soul (separation of church and state) what would keep the government from passing laws to kill old people who are sucking up resources and infants who are disabled? For that matter, why not forced abortions to keep the population in check?”

You answered your own question. If the people delegate enough of their power to the government to forbid abortion, they have delegated enough of their power to the government to do all the rest of the things you list.


145 posted on 09/27/2009 5:49:19 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
The lies told by this hack:
10. America is the last superpower and runs the world.

9. America is a Christian country.

3. Abortion is murder.

He gets 7 out of 10 but misses on the big ones.
146 posted on 09/27/2009 5:55:03 PM PDT by narses ("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Cvengr; Brett66
So your argument to me is that the proximity of Jesus to Elizabeth’s fetus certainly and in no event could have produced anything extraordinary, divine, or miraculous? Or is the point of this passage precisely that?

The point of the passage is that it wasn't only Elizabeth who experienced joy at Mary's salutation, but the unborn John. The "it's not human until the soul enters when it draws its first breath" or the "it's not human until the soul enters it on 'quickening'," ie, when the mother is first aware of its movement is unsupported by anything. It relied more than anything on "out of sight, out of mind." But with sonograms and more careful study of preterm infants, it's become obvious that they are active and aware; they can distinguish between speakers outside the womb and can recognize. post-birth, speakers that they heard pre-birth. This is just the ordinary miracle of growth, development, and birth.

Here's something from F.R. nine years ago on the subject that touches on most of the points:
Are you asserting that it doesn't matter if a fetus has a soul, and that it is worthy because it has the potential to have a soul?

No. Though I will say that the talk about a 'soul' entering a fetus at some point thus making it human is most often a means people use to excuse their aborting of it since they just got in under the wire: Hey, it didn't have a soul so it wasn't human so I didn't murder it so I shouldn't have to feel bad about it.

The origin of this is probably the story of God breathing into Adam and Adam becoming a 'living soul'. Notice, though, God didn't breathe life into Eve. Her life was derived from Adam's. So does that mean that women (or Eve) have no soul?

Some would say (and I have heard them say it), well, it's when they start breathing that the spirit enters into them. If that's so, then they can't use God's breathing into Adam as the justification for the concept of breathing in air as the vehicle of soul delivery. God may have breathed into Adam, but he doesn't do it for anyone else. There is no such doctrine taught in the Bible.

For that matter, all air-breathing animals are described in Genesis as having 'the breath of life', but they are described as being qualitatively different than Adam and Eve. The animals having the 'breath of life' doesn't constitute their getting a soul and being human because of it. The word translated as 'living soul' isn't referring to the concept of an immortal spirit anyway. It's better translated as 'living being'.

Besides, as far as what the Bible teaches about the unborn, it is about as far as one can get from an idea of the unborn child not being human: "Lord, you knew me before I ever was; before I put on flesh, you knew me." The unborn John was said to have leapt in Elizabeth's womb for joy at hearing Mary's salutation. This doesn't support the unbreathing non-souled fetus hypothesis.

But maybe that happened after 'quickening', after the soul entered the fetus. "quickening" is another idea used to excuse abortions, as though before this point the fetus was inert and soulless, after which it was obviously active and living. This is merely a matter of phenomenology. Though there may be a point before which a woman can feel the fetus move, there is not a point before which the fetus isn't actively developing according to its own time table. Weird, though not surprising, that people should use some point where something about the fetus becomes obvious to them as the point before which they can feel comfortable in deciding to off it. If obviousness is the criterion, then the obviousness of the missed menstruation should be enough. And, also not surprisingly, it is enough for those who were anxiously hoping for conception. That point marks for them the beginning of their child.

Another interesting thing about people arguing for abortion is the issue of 'viability' by which they mean 'capable of living without relying on the mother'. Now, if someone throws a lazy, insolent 18-year-old out of the house, some would likely say that he had it coming and that the parent wasn't being particularly evil because an 18-year-old should be able to start fending for himself. The same action at earlier and earlier ages is progressively seen as more irresponsible on the parents' part, even leading to child protective service intervention, removal of the child, or jail. However, in the case of an unborn child anything goes. Some would argue that abortions shouldn't take place after the fetus is 'viable', but this simply is saying "You can't kill it if it is capable of being cared for by someone other than yourself, but if it's totally dependent on you for its life, you may kill it with impunity." "No, Judge. I didn't murder the guy by letting him drop six stories to his death because I was holding onto his hand and his life was totally dependent on me."

The 'lack of soul' argument is a variation on the 'it doesn't look human yet, so it probably isn't' argument. I call that ontogenocentrism. It's sort of like ethnocentrism. Many tribes' names for themselves translate as 'the people', 'the humans'. Those outside are considered to be outside the human classification, or at least outside 'true civilized humanity'. That thing living in dirt and filth with bones through its nose isn't civilized, though maybe with a lot of work it could be. That little 8 week old fetus doesn't look completely human, so it probably isn't, yet, though maybe it eventually could be. For that matter, if you were to scale up a newborn to adult size, it would look like some Hollywood horror. People categorize and make distinctions that don't necessarily have any ontological borders. So when people talk about a fertilized egg not being a hen or an acorn not being a tree, they are sidestepping the issue. A fertilized egg is not a hen, but both are equally chicken. An acorn isn't a tree, but both are equally oak. At conception, a genetically unique individual comes into existence and continues through time sometimes over a hundred years. At various stages it is called various names, but at all stages it is fully human.

The so-called 'abortion debate' is one place where one can see that which is one of humanity's defining characteristics--the ability to dream up a reason for anything it wants to do. The question so few people seem to go on to ask is why people feel so compelled to have a need for self-justification in order to offset self-loathing.

147 posted on 09/27/2009 6:27:07 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Sorry, abortion is murder—the killing of an innocent human person.


148 posted on 09/27/2009 6:31:33 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Repeal The 17th; Admin Moderator

>>But thanks for revealing yourself as a communist who is opposed to anyone supporting their family as a professional writer.<<

No one here is opposed to supporting one’s family,
Everyone here is against using FR as your free advertising.

That’s what Repeal The 17th and everyone here is against.
Those long time FReepers who post all the time can put in a plug but if you are using FR for just advertising, Uncool.


149 posted on 09/27/2009 6:58:23 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Killing a baby is not murder. You are a sick man.


150 posted on 09/27/2009 6:59:50 PM PDT by bmwcyle (We need more Joe Wilson's. OBAMA is ACORN ACORN is OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson