The Fix Trump Falsely Claims — Again — That He Coined the Term â€ëœfake News

Keble said:

This has reached the "proof past exponential growth of responses" stage of the argument, and then I'yard going to cut dorsum to a few key points:

Agreed on the "proof by exponential growth of responses" bit.  In keeping with that, the word has to end onetime, and then I'll respond to this mail service, do the aforementioned for GiC's postal service, and bow out.  Later all, we can't let this become on forever (although, of course, if you choose to become a last word in, I volition read information technology)

I think you're being rather facile hither. In the first identify, I'yard betting that once you leave Simone de Beauvoir out of the picture, the vast majority of what you have fifty-fifty heard of comes from American and some British sources.

A biographical point, I'm Canadian, so my main knowledge is of Canadian developments.  My second-all-time knowledge would probably exist of British sources, then continental.  My knowledge of the American state of affairs is probably sketchiest of all.

These all look back to the supression of slavery (US) and the slave trade (British). 2nd, "socialism" really doesn't mean anything in this broad a context.

I'll confess that it's a bit "broad", merely I don't think in that location's any questioning that the evolution of utilitarianism socialism (exemplified most of all by JS Mill) was one of the heavy hitters in British developments, and most developments in 19th century Canada (in this as in much else) were largely following on Britain's tail.  To exist honest, when I typed the response, de Beauvoir never crossed my mind.  I was thinking of 19th century developments.

Trying to put the American suffragettes, Virginia Woolf, and de Beavoir into the same political pigeonhole isn't the least bit convincing; it'due south only a kind of intellectual blacklisting.

Nor did I wait information technology to exist.  I was just saying that, as a whole, the unlike "feminisms" of the earlier years were at least every bit influenced past early socialism and utilitarianism as they were by any considerations of slavery.  Simply this does bring upward an interesting point, that the "feminisms", especially those which are separated by large amounts of time, should be treated separately.  Speaking as someone who has found all but nix to agree with in the statements of mod feminists (ca. 1970 on), I observe many things in the works from the 19th century I do concur with, although fifty-fifty then I don't concur with everything.

I'll (sort of) concede the betoken on slavery. Only on the opther hand at that place is certainly a consensus achieved across the West apropos slavery.

Agreed that there is now.

And if information technology is so, so it stands to reason that consensus should be approached as to the recognition of what truth is. What you've given me is an argument for making up one's mind so refusing to listen to whatever further arguments. Here we stand: I have one truth and y'all another and someone else a thrid truth, and none of us must heed another's criticism.

That wasn't my intent.  My argument was more intended to bespeak out that mere numbers don't mean annihilation in themselves.  By all means we should listen to genuine criticism, but to get dorsum to the original betoken of all this word, I was merely saying that a lack of consensus IN ITSELF does non show that a matter is not clear.  What I said was clear is that St. Paul, in certain writings of his in the New Testament, laid out a generally bourgeois view of gender relations, and that the reasons he gave for doing so give no indication that he meant to limit the relevance of his statements to his own place and time.  In my ain personal experience, those who can originally seem to exist denying this either are arguing that St. Paul actually did believe his statements to be permanently valid, but was incorrect (as, I gather, both you and GiC are arguing), which gets into a separate argument, or don't really have any argument at all to support their view.  In the second grouping I mainly observe evangelical Protestants who volition never acknowledge to disagreeing with St. Paul, but who practice not wish to admit all his statements on this upshot.  Tin can you lot arraign me if, having tried again and over again to find any argument that St. Paul knew he was speaking just "culturally" which has whatever even remote possibility of support in the text, and having searched unsuccessfully for such an argument myself, I conclude that either no such statement exists, or, if information technology does, no 1 has discovered it however?

Sorry, that won't do. You speak for yourself; yous present your assay of scripture and church tradition, and ultimately you are accountable for that analysis.

For the nearly function I would usually agree that there is an inevitable element of interpretation in reading, just this can just exist taken then far.  Certain statements are only really capable of being understood in i fashion.  For instance, when St. John Chrysostom says to the husbands in his congregation, "You are the head of the woman; then let the head regulate the rest of the body.  Do you not run across that it is non and then much above the rest of the torso in that it is located at the peak of the body, as in forethought, directing like a steersman the whole of it?  For in the head are the eyes both of the torso and of the soul, and hence both the kinesthesia of seeing and the power of directing.  And the rest of the trunk is appointed for service, but the head is prepare to command," I don't run into any intellectually honest way to merits that he is not supporting the idea that a husband is the head (leader, guide) of his wife and family.  And of course, if I look to the Western fathers, I find many statements even stronger than that.  Add to this the fact that, effort equally I might, I can't find any statements in the fathers which even seem to incline the other way, and, no, I don't think I'grand "interpreting" at all.  You accept to "translate" when a text could conceivably be taken more than than one way.  This is not the instance with this issue, where anybody who'due south studied the question has agreed that the tradition of the Church throughout the ages is for the married man to be considered the head of the family unit.  Certainly I accept even so to meet anyone who volition try to claim that this has not been the Church building's tradition.

But once again and over again, this begs the question. The unspoken assertion here is "and Paul'southward pressupositions are right, and yours are incorrect." We both concord that those presuppositions aren't arbitrary; indeed, I'yard not really happy with the word because it implies that these principles are the starting point of thinking hither, when in fact they are not. They may lack "proof", but they are derived from more bones principles.

I have not yet attempted to fence for the truth of St. Paul'south presuppositions; I've only said that yours are not necessarily truthful or self-axiomatic.  I don't think it's necessary to argue whether the assumptions in question are "presuppositions" in the sense of being the very first stages in a chain of reasoning; it's sufficient to note that they are the unproven bounds of farther deduction.

What's missing hither is the proof that what yous claim to be Paul'south presuppositions are superior to what I merits are my presuppositions. Hither nosotros are running into a lot of problems. In the offset place, the basis for Paul's thinking is deduced; it is being worked out from his manner of argument and from the cultural milieu. (The latter is how Aristotle got into this argument.) You and I are non coming to the same conclusions nigh this, and then already there is a problem. Indeed, this is really where the crux of the argument lies, just I need to become a chip further. The next problem is that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that I am the skilful on my presuppositions (and indeed the simply source of data). You keep going back to the cultural relativists equally though they are the only opposition to your position. That simply isn't and then, and it's most fourth dimension you quit harping on them.

This specific discussion hasn't had anything to do with the cultural relativists.  It's had to practice with the question of whether a thing's "nature" can exist determined solely by studying what information technology is empirically, what most it can be observed and noted based on its electric current state or past history, or whether a full definition of a thing'south "nature" requires i to discern what God "meant" when He "meant" that thing, what was the end state He desired it to attain.  This second view was espoused widely right through to the eighteenth century; it'due south the idea that underlines the "natural rights" theories of that time.  The thought substantially is that nature is inherently moral; and that moral reasoning is just as much a matter of "nature" every bit is empirical observation.  This view really merely started to reject post-Kant, largely due to his division of phenomena and noumena, placing morals in the noumenal realm, and empirical observations in the phenomenal.  As another example of St. Paul's (and the aboriginal generally) utilize of the concept of nature, I'll employ his discussion of homosexuality in the book of Romans, when he says, "For this reason God gave them up to passions of dishonour.  For both their females exchanged the natural use into that reverse to nature, and in similar manner besides the males left the natural use of the female, and were burned up in their lust one toward another, males with males working out that which is unseemly..." (ane:26-27).  In both cases, this and the statement that "nature itself" teaches that a woman should have long hair, and by extension that her head should exist covered, an empirical scientist, who looked but at the phenomena as they can be observed, would not see that nature teaches either of these 2 lessons.  He could point to homosexual action in the animate being kingdom, or the fact that a adult female'due south physical hair isn't necessarily whatsoever more given to growing long than a human's, and say, "Nature does not teach these things."  But, both the concept of "natural utilise" in Romans or the discussion of pilus in 1 Corinthians are moral, not empirical, concepts.  A man who engages in homosexuality is acting confronting his "masculine" nature; a woman who does not cover her head is acting against her "feminine" nature.  Of grade the bases of this inference are that a) these natures do in fact have some sort of independent existence and b) it is morally right for a person to deed in such a way every bit not to become confronting their nature.
These "natures" are abstract concepts, not empirically verifiable things, so their being or lack thereof is a matter for philosophy, not science.  The fact that a scientist, as a scientist, would not run across them, is immaterial.

Yeah. And since we are that audience now, and we do not universally believe it, at that place is a trouble. "Dovetailing" hither is a euphemism for playing to his audience'south misconceptions. I do not mean that he intended this as a deliberately misleading argument, but he vicious into the trap of a shared viewpoint. That viewpoint has since fallen apart because the ancient approach to empiricism has failed and has rightfully been discarded-- or compartmentalized.

I disagree with this.  The basic pattern of idea that St. Paul is using in these passages is live and well today; people simply utilize unlike terms for it.  For example, when people call a certain activity "inhuman", they don't mean that humans do not, in fact, engage in this activity (if it were an activeness no one engaged in, they wouldn't bother speaking against it).  They mean that the person engaging in the activity is not living upward to a model, an ideal, of "humanity" which they have in their mind.  In CS Lewis's book The Abolitionism of Human, he uses the terms "Law of Nature" and "Moral Police force" interchangeably, because, in the finish, the difference is simply semantical.  The existent reason St. Paul's appeals to nature in these passages (and specifically in one Corinthians 11) tend to fall on deaf ears is that people at present have different moral ideas.  They tend to be suspicious of any idea of a "feminine" nature which women are called to alive up to, just this suspicion is not based on the idea of a normative "nature" in full general.  That's specifically what moral lawmaking is, a description of the "nature" of an platonic humanity.  And, as has been pointed out by numerous contempo writers (eg. Bertrand Russell, CS Lewis, AJ Ayer), disagreements on moral questions are only susceptible to rational analysis if they are differences about the awarding of usually-held moral intuitions.  About these intuitions themselves there is no possibility of rational statement.  St. Paul shared with the Corinthians the moral intuition that it is "unfeminine" and therefore "incorrect" for women non to embrace their heads.  If nosotros don't share that intuition, that's that; but we have no rational grounds for calling ourselves "right" and St. Paul and the Corinthians "incorrect".  I don't claim to have "proven" St. Paul's moral intuitions; I'm just pointing out that they aren't susceptible to proof or disproof, at least not by the methods of dialectical reason.

I retrieve you are putting words in his mouth. The passage simply doesn't say this, and in fact seems to say exactly the opposite: that anyone tin see this, without having to be taught information technology on someone else's dominance.

I disagree.  If he were saying that, he would not have appealed to the "Churches of God".  This entreatment shows that he is enlightened that his reasoning volition not necessarily convince everyone, even in his target audition, nevermind later readers.

Sorry; I retrieve you're deep in the "2d sex" fallacy and just don't understand that.

And I recall y'all're then tightly bound by your own positions that you tin only compare me to yourself, and neglect to come across that just as I fall on the "traditionalist" side of you lot, I fall on the "feminist" side of many others.  For example, I autumn to the "feminist" side of every aboriginal author who addressed these types of issues except for Plato.  My position is precisely that of St. Paul as expounded by the Church building fathers, especially St. John Chrysostom, recognition of absolute sameness in the relation of each individual soul to God, as well as in some aspects of our natural, earthly lives, while recognizes a certain "ordering" of our human being interrelations, sometimes along gender lines.  This division, along with its merit of taking account of all of St. Paul'due south statements, not just one side or the other, too has the merit of coinciding nicely with the fact that in Galatians, where St. Paul says, "There is neither male nor female," he is speaking near the direct relationship between people and God, whereas in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and the pastorals, where he draws distinctions, he is talking nearly the relation of different humans to each other.  The traditional view takes account of both sides of St. Paul's writings, while avoiding wrenching either into a context it was never intended for.

They may be scarred and disfigured, but the scars are real and the disfigurement is existent, and that reality has to be dealt with. You call information technology tyranny because you rebel against its legitimate authority. The biggest issue with the empirical isn't any of the things that you say hither: it's that people telephone call upon its authority to justify "conclusions" that it doesn't really support. That is precisely the case in the Pauline passage we've been discussing.

But this is precisely the problem with using "empiricism" against St. Paul.  He was never speaking empirically.  Could anyone honestly think that he didn't know that a man'due south hair could grow equally long as a woman's, or that homosexuality does indeed occur?  Of form not.  What he is proverb is that when people exercise these things, they are acting against their original and truthful nature, as given by God.

The exchange is as well long to quote again here, merely when pressed to point out differences yous hid behind some pseudo-science nigh testosterone and then brought up the issue of strength.

That'due south simply not what happened.  I will quote the first couple statements of the exchange to prove my point.

Obviously men are in a limited set of biological characteristics different from women-- all of them having to practice with reproduction.

This is factually incorrect.  For case, the prenatal male encephalon is bathed in testosterone, an experience which breaks a number of its internal connexion, leading to a different physical brain construction betwixt men and women.  Another divergence that is non a reproductive one is the physical strength of men.  Add to that the chemic and chromosome differences between men and women, and you have a whole set of differences, only a few of which are directly connected to reproduction.

So there yous have the reason I pointed out testosterone, forcefulness and other things, to contradict the statement that the biological differences created by gender all take to exercise with reproduction.  That empirical statement was false, and I was pointing that out.  Equally an aside, your (fair) statements most the standing flux of studies on this upshot do not render my statements "pseudo-science".  What exactly the nature and extent is of the differences in brain structure is a thing of scientific dispute; the fact that there is some difference that'due south affected by gender is not.  Similarly, it is non a thing of dispute that the boilerplate testosterone levels and force of men are much college than those of women.  I'thou pointing this out solely to bear witness that your statement, "...all of them related to reproduction," is inaccurate.  Don't apply my statement to contexts in which information technology did non take place and to which I did non intend it to relate.  My trying to avoid that confusion was the specific reason I divided your quote into two sections before responding to it, and then I could right the specific empirical error, then get on to explain why I thought, for the purpose of ordering our lives, the "archetypes" and "reason-principles" are more important than the empirical reality, the reason existence that the divinely revealed archetypes show united states what we're meant to be, whereas empirical report only shows what we are.

Well, yes, you did, and every bit an example it was roundly refuted.

Well, no, I didn't, every bit I just showed.

There's little or no indicate in talking virtually reality if the one reality y'all aren't going to heed is the one we can see and touch. It's exactly this kind of religion that earns the virtually cruel criticism of agnostics and atheists, because if religion is all about intellectualisms which are totally costless of any constraint by the physical earth and by its history, then it can be readily dismissed as fantasy. And that's basically the kind of religion yous're arguing for hither.

Fair enough.  1600 years agone Julian the Backslider's main complaint confronting Christianity was its (what he found) abrasive tendency to say, "But believe."  Christians are precisely those who, "walk by religion, not by sight," (2 Cor. 5:7) "while nosotros practice not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.  For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Cor. 4:18)  Information technology was specifically when he "believed God," not when he saw, that Abraham's faith was "accounted to him for righteousness." (Gen. fifteen:six)

wagnerhoper1981.blogspot.com

Source: http://forums.orthodoxchristianity.net/threads/7831/page-2

Share this post