Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[Immanuel Can]

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus". If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok. Calling fetuses ^teenagers" is ludicrous. Calling them "babies" involves the same lexicagraphical error.

Does THIS help?

It changes nothing, of course. Morally, the act is the same: the "prevention" (the preferred propaganda term, i.e. murder) of a human being.

It is not a zygote that the aborter fears. It's not even an embryo or a fetus. It's what happens after both. Abortion is the deliberate creation and then murder of an entity which human, and is made in the image of God, and rightfully belongs to Him, not to the aborter. What the aborter most desires is that such an individual should be eliminated, so as to free the aborter to do what seems attractive to the aborter...at the expense of murder, of course.

We all know this. Some try not to say it, but we all know it. So you're right: the discussion always goes nowhere, because aborters will not speak the truth they know.

[phyllo]

Can it be shown that "a thoughtful elite" makes better decisions than "the people"?

I don't doubt that there are some who have great skill and ability in specific fields.

And certainly some decisions coming from the masses are idiotic.

However, are we really better off being ruled by "thoughtful elites"?

Are you saying that you oppose Abraham Lincoln’s radical intervention in our nation’s major and still defining crisis to defend the union? His decision was classically executive and embodied a counter-democratic manoeuvre to defend a Higher Principle. (I am not being entirely ironic either).

Similarly, do you oppose the FBI’s paramilitary war against the revolutionary Black (and other) liberation movements of the 1960s?

Essentially these are manifestations of the same ruling power acting counter-democratically for “the good of the nation”.

You mean that you can find some examples of what you judge to be good decision/actions by "the elites"?

No doubt you can.

But is "the good" of the people, the nation, the world being attained or even being approached?

What is "the good"?

How do you know that "the good" would not have been achieved democratically ... in some cases, in most cases?

[Alexiev]

Now THAT's a typical propaganda move: redefine those you plan to kill as "subhuman," and you'll never feel bad when you abuse or murder them. And it works, sort of. Although you always know you're lying to yourself. The Nazis made a whole career of that. So did the Stalinists and Maoists. Congratulations: you're in famous company.

But what would you claim they are? What species are they? And at what point do they become human?

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus".

Abortion's whole purpose is not to prevent "fetuses." If it were a matter of a mere "cluster of cells," then nobody would care. The whole POINT is to kill a baby, so that that baby can never seem real, or need care, or have to be raised, or make claims on the love of his/her mother. So abortion is the baby-killing business, and everybody knows it is.

If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok.

Well, it's not an elephant, or a dog, or a fish. Everybody knows that, too. And the word "fetus" means "an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)." [Oxford] Since we're not talking about another mammal, we know exactly what this "fetus" is: it's a human being, who, left to his/her own natural development, would be every bit as much a complete, adult human as you and I are. And it is THAT eventuality that abortion is designed to destroy.

This we all know. Calling the child something else is the same strategy as when the Nazis called the Jews "vermin." It's nothing but a tawdry attempt to dehumanize those who are human, so we can kill them without compunction. And it's totally immoral.

But one who has participated in such a murder will never, never admit it: because to do so would require her to admit she has done the most wicked sort of act a human being can possibly perform. And since secularism knows nothing of forgiveness or restoration of the moral state, the only ruse possible is to deny she has done it at all. Why would somebody who fears she cannot be healed ever admit to something so hideous?

Therefore, if you have advocated or participated in any such murder, I can't expect you to agree, though I know you know I speak the truth.

MY point is not a moral one. It is a lexicographical one. If you want to call abortion "murder" you are using a legal term incorrectly, but your error is not as egregious as that of calling fetuses babies, If you call fetuses "babies" you are abusing the language just as if you were calling "babies" "teenagers" or "toddlers" "senior citizens". This is obvious and inarguable. However, it has nothing to do with the argument about whether abortion is immoral.

You simply refuse to admit the obvious because it weakens the emotional impact of your propaganda.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you ask, thr word educated people, like Daniel Webster, use is "fetus".

Abortion's whole purpose is not to prevent "fetuses." If it were a matter of a mere "cluster of cells," then nobody would care. The whole POINT is to kill a baby, so that that baby can never seem real, or need care, or have to be raised, or make claims on the love of his/her mother. So abortion is the baby-killing business, and everybody knows it is.

If you want to say "human fetus' that's Ok.

Well, it's not an elephant, or a dog, or a fish. Everybody knows that, too. And the word "fetus" means "an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)." [Oxford] Since we're not talking about another mammal, we know exactly what this "fetus" is: it's a human being, who, left to his/her own natural development, would be every bit as much a complete, adult human as you and I are. And it is THAT eventuality that abortion is designed to destroy.

This we all know. Calling the child something else is the same strategy as when the Nazis called the Jews "vermin." It's nothing but a tawdry attempt to dehumanize those who are human, so we can kill them without compunction. And it's totally immoral.

But one who has participated in such a murder will never, never admit it: because to do so would require her to admit she has done the most wicked sort of act a human being can possibly perform. And since secularism knows nothing of forgiveness or restoration of the moral state, the only ruse possible is to deny she has done it at all. Why would somebody who fears she cannot be healed ever admit to something so hideous?

Therefore, if you have advocated or participated in any such murder, I can't expect you to agree, though I know you know I speak the truth.

MY point is not a moral one.
If you want to call abortion "murder" you are using a legal term incorrectly,

No, a moral term applicably. See the Ten Commandments, #5. In terms of authority, morality comes first, and law second; never the other way around. If it were otherwise, then anything you made legal would automatically become moral... and slavery, prostitution, child abuse and genocide have all been legal in some jurisdiction at some time.

If you call fetuses "babies"

You don't know what the word means. It's from the Latin, and means "offspring." And it's human "offspring." So calling it a "fetus" is admitting it's the "offspring" of a human being...which is a baby.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How do you know that "the good" would not have been achieved democratically ... in some cases, in most cases?

It is an interesting speculative exercise. What if the Confederacy had successfully seceded and the North accepted the existence of a seceded state controlling the entranceway to the Mississippi …

There have been historians who have speculated on the question. It may well have fared better in the long-run in the South (they say) because slavery was being replaced by segments of emancipated labor (by way of apprenticeship). The emancipation of the Blacks would have occurred as a result of social transformation of attitude, not the imposition of a pseudo-emancipation by way of Northern conquest (which stymied on-going and natural processes and set things back 100 years).

Now, what about the radicalism of the Sixties? The revolutionary race war would have been successful, and the POC revolution would have taken over the US and then aligned with the decolonization wars in the Global South. We’d be living in a People’s Utopia, brother! We’d have statues of Angela Davis in most cities and we’d all speak Ebonics. White people would most likely want Afros and straightening of kinky hair would be frowned on. Women would rule and they would have eliminated toilet seats altogether so you’d have to pee sitting down by national decree …

“Death to the fascist insect who preys upon the life of the people!” would replace E Pluribus Unum on our coins …

There’d be 400 varieties of granola and a tie-dye flag …

Promethean would never have been incarcerated …

Newscasters all sounding like Acellafine …

Oh my …

[MikeNovack]

You mean that you can find some examples of what you judge to be good decision/actions by "the elites"?
No doubt you can.
But is "the good" of the people, the nation, the world being attained or even being approached?
What is "the good"?

How do you know that "the good" would not have been achieved democratically ... in some cases, in most cases?

You don't. When I have been saying not the point of democratic systems to produce good, moral, just, etc. results I am not saying the won't, sometimes, or even most of the time. I am simply saying not the design criteria. I am saying we are to judge the goodness (good for purpose) of a democratic system by how well the decisions reflect the will of the people and not by how good the resulting decisions might be or not be. We would be judging "dictatorship* by the elite" by the results, how good the decisions.

The question of choosing a system based on how well it can deliver good, just, moral, etc. decisions is at the heart of the Plato vs Aristotle debate. Plato is arguing for an "elite", Aristotle for democracy. But note that this also a matter of theory vs practice. Usual arguments against the "elite" solution are usually along the lines "theory looks good but HOW do you establish and maintain this "elite" and what is the error correction mechanism, if any << IF the "elite" goes bad, how does this get fixed**? >> Many/most democratic systems are designed to be self correcting.

But do note that when we compare democratic systems, some DO incorporate elements of an "elite" to temper momentary fluctuations in the will of the people and constitutions that limit what the will of the people ca do quickly.

<< aside -- you cannot properly understand the trial (on trumped up charges) and condemnation of Socrates without understanding the debate and the defeat of Athens by the Sparta (and terms of the surrender). It was not really "corruption of the youth" in general but corruption of one specific student, Alcibiades. That's why the vote was the way it was, barely convicted but overwhelmingly condemned to death/exile. Some of the jury were unhappy with the trumped up charges (to get around the surrender terms) but most considered Socrates worthy of condemnation as the source of Alcibiades' elitist ideas.

* Of course a loaded word. Please understand here meant in the classical sense without the modern associations. In the classical usage, might be for some defined limited term and might be democratically chosen. Thus Cincinnatus chosen by the Senate, for short terms during emergency, nothing like the later emperors. A crew of pirates choosing who would be captain for the next venture similar.

** IF we take up a separate topic "forms of democracy" (pro and con) this question will arise with some of the forms. For example, the main problem with "democratic centralism" is that it lacks a correction mechanism.

[phyllo]

How do you know that "the good" would not have been achieved democratically ... in some cases, in most cases?

It is an interesting speculative exercise. What if the Confederacy had successfully seceded and the North accepted the existence of a seceded state controlling the entranceway to the Mississippi …

There have been historians who have speculated on the question. It may well have fared better in the long-run in the South (they say) because slavery was being replaced by segments of emancipated labor (by way of apprenticeship). The emancipation of the Blacks would have occurred as a result of social transformation of attitude, not the imposition of a pseudo-emancipation by way of Northern conquest (which stymied on-going and natural processes and set things back 100 years).

Now, what about the radicalism of the Sixties? The revolutionary race war would have been successful, and the POC revolution would have taken over the US and then aligned with the decolonization wars in the Global South. We’d be living in a People’s Utopia, brother! We’d have statues of Angela Davis in most cities and we’d all speak Ebonics. White people would most likely want Afros and straightening of kinky hair would be frowned on. Women would rule and they would have eliminated toilet seats altogether so you’d have to pee sitting down by national decree …

“Death to the fascist insect who preys upon the life of the people!” would replace E Pluribus Unum on our coins …

There’d be 400 varieties of granola and a tie-dye flag …

Promethean would never have been incarcerated …

Newscasters all sounding like Acellafine …

Oh my …

Colored by your subjective ideas on "the good".

[phyllo]

What is currently "the good"?

Having money, power, possessions.

If you have some money, then the goal is to get more money. More power. More possessions.

This concept of "the good" is a path straight to the cliff and over it.

The end is the consumption and destruction of everything.

The only hope is the resetting of "the good" to something sustainable. A shift from away from consumption and material possessions. A shift away from the goal of always more.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is why after a long intellectual journey I now believe that Communism of the most radical type is our better option. IC always frets over the millions and millions murdered. First it is kind of bloody, I admit, a lot of pruning is necessary, but then the rainbows will appear — and the blossoms. I actually had an epiphany while watching Mamdani in the White House with Trump. It’s time people!

[Impenitent]

pruning...

we will make the perfect communist...

-Imp

[phyllo]

This is why after a long intellectual journey I now believe that Communism of the most radical type is our better option. IC always frets over the millions and millions murdered. First it is kind of bloody, I admit, a lot of pruning is necessary, but then the rainbows will appear — and the blossoms. I actually had an epiphany while watching Mamdani in the White House with Trump. It’s time people!

As I expected.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are manifestations of what you might call ‘democratic thinking’ : selfish and narcissistic thinking of people who are of a given nation (false identity), who ‘built’ it and all that, who have recently appeared on the cultural horizons.

These people, obviously, are not going to be of much use when finally the genuine end of history gets here, as it is now. Unfortunately, but necessarily, these democratic manifestations are misguided. In fact they are fascistic and must be resolutely culled. (If I may speak freely here). First by cutting out the possibility of conceiving thought along such lines (this points to the importance of getting the right people to serve in our education centers) and later isolating them. The means will occur naturally and need not be outlined here.

[Alexiev]

You don't know what the word means. It's from the Latin, and means "offspring." And it's human "offspring." So calling it a "fetus" is admitting it's the "offspring" of a human being...which is a baby.

I know the Latin root (although I, unlike you, am speaking English). The "offspring of a human being" is only a "baby" during a particular portion of its life (as I've tried to explain, but you are too dense to understand). The "offspring of a human being" is sometimes a child, or a teenager, or an adult, or (in your case) an age-addled geriatric. Or a fetus. To call such an offspring a "baby" is correct only when it is a certain age.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are manifestations of what you might call ‘democratic thinking’ : selfish and narcissistic thinking of people who are of a given nation (false identity), who ‘built’ it and all that, who have recently appeared on the cultural horizons.

These people, obviously, are not going to be of much use when finally the genuine end of history gets here, as it is now. Unfortunately, but necessarily, these democratic manifestations are misguided. In fact they are fascistic and must be resolutely culled. (If I may speak freely here). First by cutting out the possibility of conceiving thought along such lines (this points to the importance of getting the right people to serve in our education centers) and later isolating them. The means will occur naturally and need not be outlined here.

Are you proposing some sort of night of long knives, or some more generalised holocaust today?

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know what the word means. It's from the Latin, and means "offspring." And it's human "offspring." So calling it a "fetus" is admitting it's the "offspring" of a human being...which is a baby.

The "offspring of a human being" is only a "baby" during a particular portion of its life (as I've tried to explain, but you are too dense to understand).

Of what is it the "offspring"? What kind of being does it "spring off"?

The "offspring of a human being" is sometimes a child, or a teenager, or an adult, or (in your case) an age-addled geriatric. Or a fetus.

And every last one of them is a human being in the full moral sense. Even if you think a fetus is only a "pre-human," then it's still most definitely a human being you're extinguishing if you abort him/her. That same life you're ripping out of existence is that which most certainly would have become baby, teenager, adult and geriatric...everything that you, yourself have become. Except you killed the child.

However if you've done it, or supported it, then you'll never admit to yourself what you've done. There's no win in it for you if you do; because then you'd be a murderer, but being secular, without means of repentance and forgiveness. And that's not a win for anybody. So perpetuating the lie that you haven't killed a human being is the only thing that can appear to you to be in your interest. I get that. And I expect you to persist, even though you know you're wrong.