Politics

[wizards8507]

A very long list of canonized monarchs and nobles says otherwise.

For flipping real, my parish's patron is a King of France

Very long list? That's like 100 people in 2000 years. There have been 61 billion people since then. Even if we take EVERY saint and presumed that any one of them could have been a virtuous monarch, that's 810 saints out of 61 billion people.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Maybe this is a more concise way to state my objection to the positioning of state authority as an outgrowth of parental authority:

Children are naturally children. Grown men and women are naturally parents. Maybe I'll even concede that people are naturally citizens. But nobody is naturally a governor. Everything you're laying out is fine with a hypothetical "benevolent dictator" or "virtuous sovereign" or however you want to frame it, but such a leader is no more real than the libertarian utopia you mock so readily.

See my post above the many canonized monarchs and nobles throughout history. Since masonic republics swept away the ancien regime a few hundred years ago, there hasn't been a single canonized Congressman, President, judge, etc. Pretty solid evidence that our current form of government selects for ambition over virtue, and quickly corrupts the few good men that get elected anyway. But it'd be a mistake to note the weaknesses inherent to liberal governing structures and apply them to state authority as such.

And I don't see how your statement above clarifies things. Children do not come into being without parents. Men and women do not become parents without children. Similarly, there are no citizens without a polis, and a polis requires a government. All of these things have natural relationships to one another, and each role can either be performed well or poorly. It makes no sense to say that families are natural, and cities/ empires are natural, but governors and emperors are an unnatural but necessary evil since we live in a fallen world. Might as well say the same of parents.

 

[Irish YJ]

That's gonna be a no for me, dawg. Cite that, provide the syllogism or something, because I want to see your reasoning on it.

As far as not all men desiring community, how many legit hermits do you know? They're very much the exception, an extreme outlier. All men desire a common good because they desire good and the common good is that which can be shared.

My intent is not to bash Aquinas, I'm just being a purist about Natural Order. Sorry for the long post, but you said you wanted to understand my reasoning....

If we accept the definitions of natural order (which i quoted earlier, below too), natural order is simply what happens in the absence of human or supernatural law.

Wiki
Natural order encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.

Webster
the orderly system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws

Specific to Aquinas, he intermingles talk of the "soul" (which is a supernatural construct) with "natural". By definition, he just muddied the waters.

My take on this (and can also be applied to natural law), is that everything starts with a need or instinct. The need for food, shelter, etc. The instinct of curiosity, to have sex, fight or flight, etc. Need and instinct leads to action, and then learning from that action (rinse repeat). In short, reason.

All people have basic needs (food, shelter,etc.). Most people (but not all) have the same or similar instincts. Resulting actions to those needs and instincts can be different. Learning can be different. Therefore, reasoning can be different.

So, need/instinct > action > learning/experience > reason > output or return to "action" and do something different. Needs/instincts for the most part do not change. Actions available can change. Learning/experience can change (advancement), reasoning can change. All that leads to evolved output.

Specific to community, one could say that community behavior is based on the historic need for shelter/safety (safety in numbers), and to an extent food. The action/learning/reasoning/output is to move closer to other people. When you put a lot of people together, because not all people reason alike, rules are made. Keep in mind, that some don't care about the common good, but are only there for the food and safety elements. This is the simplistic history of cities/community popping up and laws being formed.

But what happens when technology for instance makes basics needs independent of community?

On common good. IMO, Its a construct derived from people succumbing to their current reality that they must live together to satisfy needs. Some don't buy into the construct, but abide by it in order to satisfy needs.

As to government or the "state", and the earlier dialog.... The current "state" is just one output/possibility of current reasoning. It may change based on available actions, new learning, or improved reasoning. There is nothing natural about it, as it's just a construct based on current need and available output.

 

[ACamp1900]

Natural Ice is flipping awful,....

/thread

 

[Ndaccountant]

Natural Ice is flipping awful,....

/thread

Bud Ice on the other hand.....

<iframe width="780" height="585" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7itlj1yM9l4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishLax]

For those on here who have talked at length about voter fraud — https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article225094315.html

 

[zelezo vlk]

My intent is not to bash Aquinas, I'm just being a purist about Natural Order. Sorry for the long post, but you said you wanted to understand my reasoning....

If we accept the definitions of natural order (which i quoted earlier, below too), natural order is simply what happens in the absence of human or supernatural law.

I think that this is the misunderstanding; Natural Law is not just "what humans do, have done, and always will do". For Aquinas, "The natural inclination of humans to acheive their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil."

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

Emphasis is my own. There can be no proper understanding of Thomistic Natural Law without mentioning man's proper end, telos, or his Final Cause (see here). I bring this up because, though it is a distinction, it is an important one that eliminates many common objections.

Specific to Aquinas, he intermingles talk of the "soul" (which is a supernatural construct) with "natural". By definition, he just muddied the waters.

On to this, I don't think you're correct in saying that the soul is a supernatural construct. At least not in the way that Aquinas and Aristotle speak of the soul and nature. Specifically here, we see that for Aquinas the soul the form of the body. Now with what was in the second link above about the 4 Causes, we see that the soul is not a supernatural (above nature) idea. Rather it is the formal cause of our being, with the body being the material cause.

But all of this ignores the fact that Aquinas' and Aristotle's ideas of the Natural Law are firmly rooted in metaphysics. Metaphysics gives the foundation for philosophy, which gives us the ability to reason things such as how to govern the polis.

But really I'm just making a fool of myself. Whiskey can explain this all much better than I can, and I've probably already made several mistakes in my explanation. But I could not let you say something as absurd as Aquinas' belief in God, which is contra Natural Law.

 

[ickythump1225]

And yet, we have with war, death penalty, etc.

War and the death penalty can both be just. Neither are inherently immoral.

 

[ickythump1225]

That's such a silly caricature. Statists love to dunk on libertarians by framing them all as anarchists.

How can we think otherwise when you go about quoting the imminently wise political philosopher, Loki, and go about arguing that political organization, AKA "government" is inherently a negative? Also how can we take libertarians seriously when you go about saying silly things like "statist?"

 

[ickythump1225]

Maybe this is a more concise way to state my objection to the positioning of state authority as an outgrowth of parental authority:

Children are naturally children. Grown men and women are naturally parents. Maybe I'll even concede that people are naturally citizens. But nobody is naturally a governor. Everything you're laying out is fine with a hypothetical "benevolent dictator" or "virtuous sovereign" or however you want to frame it, but such a leader is no more real than the libertarian utopia you mock so readily.

Except hundreds, maybe even thousands (or more) of virtuous governors of every level and sort have existed. A libertarian society has never once existed.

 

[ickythump1225]

Very long list? That's like 100 people in 2000 years. There have been 61 billion people since then. Even if we take EVERY saint and presumed that any one of them could have been a virtuous monarch, that's 810 saints out of 61 billion people.

It's hard to become a saint, indeed it is harder for a king to be a saint than you or I. Just because the list is short (I don't think it counts "blesseds" or other pre-canonized categories) doesn't negate the institution. Only 7 popes over the past 1000 years have been made saints, does that mean the institution is worthless? It's also interesting that Christ arranged a monarchy for his Church and it is only during these troubling times over the past 60 years that a more democratic or "collegial" Church has been introduced.

 

[Irish YJ]

I think that this is the misunderstanding; Natural Law is not just "what humans do, have done, and always will do". For Aquinas, "The natural inclination of humans to acheive their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil."

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

Emphasis is my own. There can be no proper understanding of Thomistic Natural Law without mentioning man's proper end, telos, or his Final Cause (see here). I bring this up because, though it is a distinction, it is an important one that eliminates many common objections.




On to this, I don't think you're correct in saying that the soul is a supernatural construct. At least not in the way that Aquinas and Aristotle speak of the soul and nature. Specifically here, we see that for Aquinas the soul the form of the body. Now with what was in the second link above about the 4 Causes, we see that the soul is not a supernatural (above nature) idea. Rather it is the formal cause of our being, with the body being the material cause.

But all of this ignores the fact that Aquinas' and Aristotle's ideas of the Natural Law are firmly rooted in metaphysics. Metaphysics gives the foundation for philosophy, which gives us the ability to reason things such as how to govern the polis.

But really I'm just making a fool of myself. Whiskey can explain this all much better than I can, and I've probably already made several mistakes in my explanation. But I could not let you say something as absurd as Aquinas' belief in God, which is contra Natural Law.

couple things. natural "order" and natural "law" are different, and not interchangeable. if you check back in post, I'm talking specifically about order for the most of the post.

second, the soul is absolutely a spiritual and supernatural construct. Catechism defines it as:

The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection.

again, going back to the definition that I posted, natural law attempts to drive it's authority from natural order. if natural order is truly a "system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws", then natural law can not rely on religion or human construct of law to derive its authority. if it does, it's not really natural, and has become divine or positive law.

i'm actually a big fan of TA, but he does obviously mix supernatural and natural.

 

[Legacy]

This seems like a good time to offer this:

Why Liberalism Failed (Patrick Deneen)

Much of Tucker Carlson's ideas sound like Deneen's in his Preface.

 

[zelezo vlk]

couple things. natural "order" and natural "law" are different, and not interchangeable. if you check back in post, I'm talking specifically about order for the most of the post.

Okay and Whiskey and I were talking about Natural Law, not Natural Order. You brought up Natural Order, not anybody else. Here are your posts where you conflate the two:

Aquinas' take is flawed in that much of opinion is based on his belief in God, which is counter to the definitions of natural law

My intent is not to bash Aquinas, I'm just being a purist about Natural Order.

I have no desire to debate about the merits of Natural Order or whatnot, but Whiskey and I were talking about NL. I think we're good here, it was just a simple misunderstanding.

But talk shit (about Aquinas) get hit (with a sed contra)

 

[Irish YJ]

Okay and Whiskey and I were talking about Natural Law, not Natural Order. You brought up Natural Order, not anybody else. Here are your posts where you conflate the two:


I have no desire to debate about the merits of Natural Order or whatnot, but Whiskey and I were talking about NL. I think we're good here, it was just a simple misunderstanding.

But talk shit (about Aquinas) get hit (with a sed contra)

While I was speaking mostly about natural order, natural law uses natural order to derive its authority. So in essence, if being a purist on natural order, natural law can not derive authority via natural order if supernatural is involved. But plenty of foolosophers have done the same. When you mix the supernatural (religion, God, etc.), you're really talking about divine, not natural.

I love TA.

 

[Legacy]

For those on here who have talked at length about voter fraud — https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article225094315.html

The next step is the verification by the County:
Some Texas voters are already being asked to prove their citizenship following state's announcement

Excerpt:

Past reviews of the voter rolls by other states ultimately found that a much smaller number of the thousands of voters initially flagged were actually non-citizens. Civil rights groups have pointed to Florida, where a similar methodology was used to create a list of approximately 180,000 registered voters that officials claimed were non-citizens — the number was ultimately reduced to about 85 voters. Amid a court fight, Florida eventually agreed to reinstate 2,600 voters who were mistakenly removed from the rolls because the state classified them as non-citizens.

We'll see.

 

[Irish YJ]

The next step is the verification by the County:
Some Texas voters are already being asked to prove their citizenship following state's announcement

Excerpt:


We'll see.

Another thing to note is that counties are being threatened by the Left with litigation for even investigating the people flagged. basically saying "the information is false, but we don't want you looking at it any deeper to confirm it" lol

So why wouldn't they want an actual investigation to take place if this is such BS ? Pretty much confirms that they know there are issues, and will do whatever they can to cloud things, slow things, etc...

 

[Irish#1]

Okay and Whiskey and I were talking about Natural Law, not Natural Order. You brought up Natural Order, not anybody else. Here are your posts where you conflate the two:





I have no desire to debate about the merits of Natural Order or whatnot, but Whiskey and I were talking about NL. I think we're good here, it was just a simple misunderstanding.

But talk shit (about Aquinas) get hit (with a sed contra)

NBC has a new show coming out "Natural Law & Order". Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[Irish YJ]

Dems to strike 'so help me God' from oath taken in front of key House committee, draft shows
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...om-oath-taken-in-front-of-key-house-committee

 

[IrishLax]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

This bill proposed in Virginia was to allow for "abortion" of a baby literally up to the second before it's born. Lady doing the talking just deleted her facebook and twitter.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Heartbreaking... This isn't in New York, this isn't in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia. <a href="https://twitter.com/VAHouseDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VAHouseDems</a> proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself. <a href="https://t.co/AxgPVyI6kU">pic.twitter.com/AxgPVyI6kU</a></p>— VA House GOP (@vahousegop) <a href="https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1090346857925144576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

This bill proposed in Virginia was to allow for "abortion" of a baby literally up to the second before it's born. Lady doing the talking just deleted her facebook and twitter.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Heartbreaking... This isn't in New York, this isn't in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia. <a href="https://twitter.com/VAHouseDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VAHouseDems</a> proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself. <a href="https://t.co/AxgPVyI6kU">pic.twitter.com/AxgPVyI6kU</a></p>— VA House GOP (@vahousegop) <a href="https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1090346857925144576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

To an extent, I'm pro-choice up to 8 weeks, and I could even hold my nose and support 18-20 if it would put the issue to bed permanently. But these people are F'ing disgusting and simply evil. If a person can be charged with murder X2 if he kills a pregnant mother, what kind of logic supports killing a fetus after it's viable outside of the womb. And then to celebrate this shit like NY and other places. Tell me again how morale and righteous the Left is.....

 

[Irish#1]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

This bill proposed in Virginia was to allow for "abortion" of a baby literally up to the second before it's born. Lady doing the talking just deleted her facebook and twitter.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Heartbreaking... This isn't in New York, this isn't in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia. <a href="https://twitter.com/VAHouseDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VAHouseDems</a> proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself. <a href="https://t.co/AxgPVyI6kU">pic.twitter.com/AxgPVyI6kU</a></p>— VA House GOP (@vahousegop) <a href="https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1090346857925144576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The left is supposed to be the caring party that wants to help everyone and treat everyone equal.

 

[Irish#1]

Dems to strike 'so help me God' from oath taken in front of key House committee, draft shows
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...om-oath-taken-in-front-of-key-house-committee

Sad, especially when they refuse to negotiate the budget and put a priority on rewriting an oath.

 

[ulukinatme]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

This bill proposed in Virginia was to allow for "abortion" of a baby literally up to the second before it's born. Lady doing the talking just deleted her facebook and twitter.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Heartbreaking... This isn't in New York, this isn't in California, this happened just this week right here in Virginia. <a href="https://twitter.com/VAHouseDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VAHouseDems</a> proposed legislation to provide abortions up to just seconds before that precious child takes their first breath. Watch for yourself. <a href="https://t.co/AxgPVyI6kU">pic.twitter.com/AxgPVyI6kU</a></p>— VA House GOP (@vahousegop) <a href="https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1090346857925144576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wow...2nd Trimester abortions are bad enough.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s00sXs-ibjM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

Sad, especially when they refuse to negotiate the budget and put a priority on rewriting an oath.

Dems prioritizing the removal of God from all things, abortion up to birth, and all the other silly shit. And they wonder why the right will hold their nose and put up with a buffoon like Trump.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

This bill proposed in Virginia was to allow for "abortion" of a baby literally up to the second before it's born. Lady doing the talking just deleted her facebook and twitter.

And they try and justify it with the ridiculous "health of the mother" argument, which is complete bullshit. There's no medical circumstance in which a late-term abortion is necessary for the health of the mother. None. There are cases where an immediate delivery might be needed, or a C-section. But there's never a case where the "correct" medical decision for the mother is an abortion.

The only "medically necessary" abortions are things like ectopic pregnancies, which cause spontaneous miscarriage and threaten the life of the mother, requiring surgery or abortion-inducing drugs to remove the (dead but growing) fetal tissue.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm pro choice... but like what the fuck are people thinking here? The moment you are "aborting" a "fetus" that can just as easily be delivered as a human baby that's just fucking murder by any rational definition.

There's no logically consistent reason that post-partum babies should remain protected now either. If a completely viable 6-pound baby can be aborted mid-delivery at 40 weeks to preserve the "mental health" of the mother, and such a decision is no longer tolerated as regrettably necessary but something to be positively celebrated in the name of feminist liberation... how different are we from the ancient cults who sacrificed their children to pagan gods?

 

[GowerND11]

There's no logically consistent reason that post-partum babies should remain protected now either. If a completely viable 6-pound baby can be aborted mid-delivery at 40 weeks to preserve the "mental health" of the mother, and such a decision is no longer tolerated as regrettably necessary but something to be positively celebrated in the name of feminist liberation... how different are we from the ancient cults who sacrificed their children to pagan gods?

We have iPhones...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">VA gov on abortion this morning: <br><br>“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother" <a href="https://t.co/cc15pVLjIQ">pic.twitter.com/cc15pVLjIQ</a></p>— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) <a href="https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">VA gov on abortion this morning: <br><br>“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother" <a href="https://t.co/cc15pVLjIQ">pic.twitter.com/cc15pVLjIQ</a></p>— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) <a href="https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What a fucking looney tune.