Expanding our reach

[Doug Loss]

Actions have consequences. Facing the consequences of one's own actions is hardly a loss of a "right".

The case can certainly be made that by choosing to have sex and knowing that she could become pregnant (assuming that having sex was her choice), the woman had taken on the moral responsibility of protecting the life of any child that came from that act.  But in the roughly 500 word format I was given for these columns, it's difficult to explore all the nuances and possibilities inherent in the situation.

[Smokin Joe]

The case can certainly be made that by choosing to have sex and knowing that she could become pregnant (assuming that having sex was her choice), the woman had taken on the moral responsibility of protecting the life of any child that came from that act.  But in the roughly 500 word format I was given for these columns, it's difficult to explore all the nuances and possibilities inherent in the situation.

I think that sums it up nicely. The creation of a life assumes some responsibility for the welfare of that life until it is able to care for itself, or until someone else embraces that responsibility. With the myriad methods of preventing conception available, although none is 100% effective, the use of murder as a method of contraception is not acceptable. 

[bigheadfred]

Fate vs. destiny.

I think people today have lost their sense of destiny and are more aligned to thinking they are fated. trump's MAGA restores that sense of destiny somewhat in people. But doesn't necessarily define it.

What defines a generation? How to give back, or restore a sense of destiny? Destiny in the sense that you have the power to change things vs a sense of fatalism.

The Constitution/Conservatism as a destiny and its demise a well deserved fate.

Just throwing this out there. I have to get to work. Putting the thought down before I forget it.

[Doug Loss]

My next piece on ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/01/20/these-are-my-people/

These Are My People

You have the moral right to associate with anyone you would like to, and the moral right to not associate with those you find undesirable.  No one may force you into associations you don't desire, or forbid you to associate with others at your discretion.  We’re not just talking about physical association here; the right to privacy also comes from this fundamental right, as well as the right of security of your personal information.  If you don’t want to associate with someone, you most likely also don’t want that someone to have access to personal and private information about you.  You also have the right to refuse entry to your property to anyone, including agents of the government.  If you’re a business owner or service provider, the right to decide what services or products you provide and the conditions under which you provide them are also derived from this right.

Since this is a universal right possessed by every human being, you must not try to force an unwanted association on others, or try to prevent a desired association.  As with so many things, it comes down to the Golden Rule.  If you wouldn’t like someone to do something to you, you shouldn’t do it to them.  When others attempt to force someone to associate with others they don’t want to or to prevent them from associating with others they do want to, it is your responsibility to support those being targeted.  This includes both individuals and businesses—businesses may not be forced to provide products or services they don't wish to provide, or prohibited from providing products or services they wish to.  You must support such businesses' right to choose how to operate even if you disagree with their decisions about these products or services. This doesn’t mean you must patronize those businesses yourself if they violate your principles, only that you must support their right to operate as they desire.  This is similar to the old saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  You can disagree with their decision, but you have to defend their right to make the decision.

Individuals and businesses may not be forced to provide information they don't wish to provide unless required to by formal legal proceedings.  You must support these individuals and businesses if they refuse to do so.  The right to privacy is just another form of the right of association if you think about it.  Associating with others involves sharing with them, sharing your location, your information, your efforts in whatever you decide to do.  Deciding not to associate with someone means that you may also be deciding not to share information with them or to assist them in whatever they’re doing.  This is basically what privacy means.

It all boils down to three rules I tell people are my political philosophy:

1.   I’m not bothering anyone.
2.   It’s none of your business.
3.   Leave me alone!

And of course, the complements of these:

1.   He’s not bothering anyone.
2.   What he’s doing isn’t my business.
3.   Leave him alone!

[Doug Loss]

After a slight pause, my most recent piece on ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/05/if-not-me-who-if-not-now-when/

If Not Me, Who? If Not Now, When?

In earlier columns I’ve talked about the natural rights that every person has, from birth. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life. The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so; you also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can’t be taken from you, and you can’t give it up. You always possess it.

“Attack” doesn’t refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.

We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.

When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can. As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault. You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion. This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked. The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own. However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.

All of this is to say, for rights to mean anything they must be protected and defended. But protecting and defending your rights (and those of people unable to defend themselves) doesn’t give you the right to infringe on the rights of others yourself.

It boils down to us all having to take responsibility for our own lives and our own rights, and for those of others unable to defend themselves. This responsibility lies with each of us individually, but we can exercise it together in concert with other liberty-loving people to the furtherance of a truly civil society. As Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address (under somewhat different circumstances):

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

[Sanguine]

After a slight pause, my most recent piece on ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/05/if-not-me-who-if-not-now-when/

If Not Me, Who? If Not Now, When?

In earlier columns I’ve talked about the natural rights that every person has, from birth. The first and most fundamental of these is the right to life. The right to life would be meaningless without the inherent right to defend yourself against attack. You have the absolute right to do so; you also have the right to possess the means of defending yourself, both the objects necessary for that defense and the training and ability to employ those objects competently. This right is unalienable, meaning it can’t be taken from you, and you can’t give it up. You always possess it.

“Attack” doesn’t refer exclusively to physical assault. You can be attacked physically, verbally, socially, financially, and in other ways. You always have the right to defend yourself against attacks of any sort.

We all recognize that there are some who are unable to defend themselves (the young and the infirm are two examples) against attack. You have the right to defend others who are under attack just as you may defend yourself. Defending others against attack is one of the basic principles of civilized behavior. It is sometimes difficult not to attack the attackers yourself, but doing so is not defending others. Your right to defend others only extends to protecting them from attack and stopping the attack itself.

When you or others you are aware of are attacked, you must defend yourself and them in any way you can. As explained above, “attack” does not mean only physical assault. You must respond to any attacks in an appropriate fashion. This response must be measured, and intended to stop the attack and protect those being attacked. The original attack may not be used as an excuse for an attack of your own. However, if such a counterattack is the only to stop the provoking attack it is not only allowed, but required.

All of this is to say, for rights to mean anything they must be protected and defended. But protecting and defending your rights (and those of people unable to defend themselves) doesn’t give you the right to infringe on the rights of others yourself.

It boils down to us all having to take responsibility for our own lives and our own rights, and for those of others unable to defend themselves. This responsibility lies with each of us individually, but we can exercise it together in concert with other liberty-loving people to the furtherance of a truly civil society. As Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address (under somewhat different circumstances):

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Very good, @Doug Loss.  What kind of reaction are you getting over at that site?

[Doug Loss]

Very good, @Doug Loss.  What kind of reaction are you getting over at that site?

It's hard to say.  There aren't a lot of comments to the various posts over there.  Few of my columns get any; the ones that do, get one or two.  However, I've also been commenting on other columns there, either to compliment or correct the content of the column (although never angrily) or to respond to other comments on the column (trying to get some dialog going).  It's a work in progress, I guess.  Go over and take a look!

[Doug Loss]

The latest column:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/02/13/walk-it-like-you-talk-it/

Walk It Like You Talk It.

There’s an important part of being a responsible adult, a role-model for the young people we want to bring up to be good people who will think of others and do the right thing when presented with a difficult decision. That’s to make sure that however we advise them to behave, to act towards others, to care for the people and property around them, we ourselves actually do the things we promote to them.

This isn’t necessarily as easy as it sounds. That’s because exhorting others to be good people is a much easier thing to do than being a good person yourself. Sometimes you just want to rest, or do something other than what you know you should do. But living up to the standards you ask of others, particularly the young folks who look to you for guidance, is vital. Those young people are very sensitive to any instances of “do as I say, not as I do.”

It doesn’t hurt (in fact it probably helps) to let the young folks know that you want them to tell you any time they see you falling short of the standards you’re asking them to meet. Accepting criticism and changing your behavior to address it is another example of how to be a responsible adult, and one that is probably best taught by seeing the role-model doing it. If you want them to follow your example, be a good example to follow!

When the young people fall short of some standard and need correction, it’s best to give the correction calmly and quietly. Loud and angry words only embarrass and humiliate those receiving them, and often have exactly the opposite effect you want; they can make the receiver determined not to comply. But don’t mistake being calm and quiet with letting the unacceptable behavior pass unaddressed. You can be calm and still be an unmovable rock. When I was raising my son I found a good way to approach things was to explain what was expected and required of him, and what the consequences would be of failing to meet those expectations. It’s often the uncertainty about what will happen if you fail that is the biggest problem with trying something.

Role-models (you and I) don’t need to shoulder the burden alone, of course. Sometimes the best way to figure out a course of action when you’re having difficulty getting through to a young person is to talk to other role-models in the community, or even to your own role-model if he or she’s available. That’s something else it’s important to teach—you don’t have to do everything by yourself, it’s OK to ask for advice and help when you need it.

Just remember this, in the words of Christ from the gospel of John: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” The best way to make our young people be good, responsible adults is for us to be good, responsible adults ourselves and let them see us do it. And to let them know that this is what’s expected of them.

[Sanguine]

Doug, did you read Hillbilly Elegy?  A very interesting and well written window into the life of a currently young person living in a dysfunctional family and community, and who got past that.

[Doug Loss]

Doug, did you read Hillbilly Elegy?  A very interesting and well written window into the life of a currently young person living in a dysfunctional family and community, and who got past that.

I haven't read it yet, but I keep hearing about it, over and over.  I think it's insisting to be read. ;)

[Sanguine]

I haven't read it yet, but I keep hearing about it, over and over.  I think it's insisting to be read. ;)

It's actually enjoyable.   

[Doug Loss]

It's been a while, but here's another column for ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/

Why Can’t You Get It Through Your Head?

Sometimes it seems like we can’t talk to each other about anything sensitive because we don’t speak the same language. The words we use are the same, but they mean very different things to people on different sides of the argument. If we’re really interested in resolving problems and getting solutions everyone can live with rather than letting the issues linger and fester, we need to at least understand the positions the folks on the other side of the question are taking.

Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved. They get money and power from leading protests and ginning up outrage. If a problem actually went away, they’d lose all that. Those are the people who try to redefine words so that the two sides can’t agree on what is being said, and so that each side can’t understand what the other side wants or is upset by.

Here are some examples. We’re constantly told that we must be “tolerant” of others’ different lifestyles. “Tolerant” by the dictionary means “willing to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.” But now “tolerant” is used by one side to mean “completely approving and promoting” of something. So that side accuses those who don’t approve or promote that thing of being “intolerant,” while those being accused feel greatly insulted about behavior they accept but don’t approve of.

Another example is “discrimination.” By the dictionary, it means “the ability to see the difference between two things or people.” Discrimination, being able to distinguish between two things, isn’t by itself immoral. It’s when that discrimination is used to divide groups in such a way that one group can be disadvantaged that it becomes bigotry, a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

So when you see or are involved in a situation where there’s some major principle at issue, ask yourself, “Do both sides actually want to resolve the problem, or are one or both only interested in keeping it going?” If there’s real interest in resolving the problem, ask yourself, “Are one or both sides using language that inflames, insults, or confuses the other?” The last question to ask yourself is, “Will the side or sides using provocative language be willing to change the way they talk about the issue and about the other side, for the purpose of understanding and potential resolution?”

Only if all three of these questions are answered positively is there a real possibility of resolving the problem. Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to shout past each other, constantly insulting and irritating those we need to work with to fix what’s wrong.

Words have meanings. But unless we can all agree on what those meanings are we aren’t communicating with each other, we’re just “virtue-signaling” to those who already agree with us. That may feel good for a little while, but it doesn’t make anything better in the long run.

[Sanguine]

It's been a while, but here's another column for ThyBlackMan:

http://thyblackman.com/2017/03/13/why-cant-you-get-it-through-your-head/

Why Can’t You Get It Through Your Head?

Sometimes it seems like we can’t talk to each other about anything sensitive because we don’t speak the same language. The words we use are the same, but they mean very different things to people on different sides of the argument. If we’re really interested in resolving problems and getting solutions everyone can live with rather than letting the issues linger and fester, we need to at least understand the positions the folks on the other side of the question are taking.

Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved. They get money and power from leading protests and ginning up outrage. If a problem actually went away, they’d lose all that. Those are the people who try to redefine words so that the two sides can’t agree on what is being said, and so that each side can’t understand what the other side wants or is upset by.

Here are some examples. We’re constantly told that we must be “tolerant” of others’ different lifestyles. “Tolerant” by the dictionary means “willing to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.” But now “tolerant” is used by one side to mean “completely approving and promoting” of something. So that side accuses those who don’t approve or promote that thing of being “intolerant,” while those being accused feel greatly insulted about behavior they accept but don’t approve of.

Another example is “discrimination.” By the dictionary, it means “the ability to see the difference between two things or people.” Discrimination, being able to distinguish between two things, isn’t by itself immoral. It’s when that discrimination is used to divide groups in such a way that one group can be disadvantaged that it becomes bigotry, a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”

So when you see or are involved in a situation where there’s some major principle at issue, ask yourself, “Do both sides actually want to resolve the problem, or are one or both only interested in keeping it going?” If there’s real interest in resolving the problem, ask yourself, “Are one or both sides using language that inflames, insults, or confuses the other?” The last question to ask yourself is, “Will the side or sides using provocative language be willing to change the way they talk about the issue and about the other side, for the purpose of understanding and potential resolution?”

Only if all three of these questions are answered positively is there a real possibility of resolving the problem. Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to shout past each other, constantly insulting and irritating those we need to work with to fix what’s wrong.

Words have meanings. But unless we can all agree on what those meanings are we aren’t communicating with each other, we’re just “virtue-signaling” to those who already agree with us. That may feel good for a little while, but it doesn’t make anything better in the long run.

Very nice, Doug. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Of course, there are some who are invested in keeping issues unresolved.

@Doug Loss
Nailed it!

[Smokin Joe]

Well said.