The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hillary Should Have Invited This Murdered Young Man's Mom to Address DNC
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From The Forward:

We Still Don’t Know Who Killed Seth Rich 10 Days Later
by Ari Feldman July 19, 2016

Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C. slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.

Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.

Police told Rich’s parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery. Though Rich’s killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald said that “there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the morning” at a community meeting on Monday.

The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared with July 2015.

If Rich’s mother had been invited, she could have brought to the first night of the convention his American flag. The Democrats could have used one.

 
• Tags: Crime, Homicide 
Hide 119 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thanks to Dave Pinsen for the idea.

  2. Only Black Lives Matter.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    > Only Black Lives Matter

    Perhaps when Martin O'Malley speaks to the Convention on Wednesday night, he will point out that All Lives Matter.

    On the other hand, maybe that isn't the time or place for thoughtcrime. CNN, July 19, 2015, O'Malley apologizes for saying 'all lives matter' at liberal conference. Backsliding after a public self-criticism session would demonstrate incomplete rehabilitation. [O'Malley] could be a prime candidate to replace DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  3. Joy Division – She Lost Control

  4. Speaking of declining moral standards:

    A few months ago, I presented the following scenario to my junior English students: Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?

    The class immediately erupted with commentary. It was obvious, they said, that loyalty was paramount—not a single student said they’d “snitch.” They were unequivocally unconcerned about who was harmed in this hypothetical scenario. This troubled me.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Would you turn in a family member?
    , @Anon
    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That's why spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.
    , @Rob McX
    He should've asked them if they'd turn in a racist.
  5. @syonredux
    Speaking of declining moral standards:

    A few months ago, I presented the following scenario to my junior English students: Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?

    The class immediately erupted with commentary. It was obvious, they said, that loyalty was paramount—not a single student said they’d “snitch.” They were unequivocally unconcerned about who was harmed in this hypothetical scenario. This troubled me.
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

    Would you turn in a family member?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.I'm Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.
  6. #1 I would turn in a family member for a violent crime.

    #2 Maybe Seth was the leak. Or knew who was.

  7. @syonredux
    Speaking of declining moral standards:

    A few months ago, I presented the following scenario to my junior English students: Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?

    The class immediately erupted with commentary. It was obvious, they said, that loyalty was paramount—not a single student said they’d “snitch.” They were unequivocally unconcerned about who was harmed in this hypothetical scenario. This troubled me.
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That’s why spouses can’t be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That’s why spouses can’t be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.
     
    The question involved a boyfriend/girlfriend, not a spouse:

    Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?
     
    , @SPMoore8
    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.
  8. I try not to waste time watching conventions, so I was surprised to hear this flag deficit accusation. Two minutes on Google dispelled the notion, making me wonder why Steve is not capable of spending his own two minutes on Google:http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Ahhh, another Internet SuperIntelligence quoting Snopes. Well done, sir.
    , @A Erickson Cornish
    Uh, that Snopes article is just a series of pictures and coverage from other media sources, including a clip from Fox discussing the presence of flags. Are the pictures doctored? Were the Fox News anchors forced to say it wth guns to their heads? A mere internet superintelligence is incapable of figuring it out, so I may need your help.
  9. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Some people seem to expect minorities to put the Hillery over the top this year, but I wonder how rational that point of view is?

    Firstly, as you have pointed out, Steve, and as other have pointed out, Hispanics just do not seem to turn out in large numbers during elections.

    Secondly, what incentive is there for blacks to turn out this year around? Hillary? Kaine? I have a hard time seeing it.

    Finally, what about all the other minorities? The Hmong? The Turks? The Gulenists? How many such voters are there?

  10. Who scheduled a community meeting for 4:30 Monday morning? Is that the only time DC strivers have to interact with their neighbors?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Please see quotation marks. Like other punctuation, they were invented so stupid people could read. Now we're all lazy.
  11. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @A Erickson Cornish
    I try not to waste time watching conventions, so I was surprised to hear this flag deficit accusation. Two minutes on Google dispelled the notion, making me wonder why Steve is not capable of spending his own two minutes on Google:http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/

    Ahhh, another Internet SuperIntelligence quoting Snopes. Well done, sir.

    • Replies: @grapesoda
    This is coming from the guy who broke the story about how Guccifer was killed in prison by the Clintons. Funny I haven't heard much about that story lately.

    At least you were first though. You're a complete idiot, but at least you were first.
  12. Any relation to Marc?

  13. @JohnnyWalker123
    Would you turn in a family member?

    Would you turn in a family member?

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.
     
    I'm surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.,
     
    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    There are actually some Anglos who'd never turn in a family member.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdcSXqwb48

    The Anglos in Winter's Bone, for example.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.
    , @tomv
    So even proud "anglo" like you limits your judicial duty to "serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury," eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff's crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough? What about drug-dealing? Tax evasion?

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn't fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty). Over time, however, I've come to appreciate the virtue of loyalty. Loyalty doesn't mean standing by your man when he's innocent, because that's what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he's guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.

    Strict adherence to "justice" is celebrated in other cultures, too, not just the Anglo-Saxon one. The Chinese paragon of justice is supposed to have meted out a harsh sentence to a relative. One version has it that it was his favorite nephew and the punishment was harsher precisely because of that. But how is that fair? Is it even possible for the justice to have been fair in this case? The right thing to do in my book, which comports with the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, is not to try to be fair, but to recuse oneself.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned and try to prevent commission of future crimes for his sake as well as society's. Tom Wolfe explores the question of loyalty versus justice from the opposite angle in A Man in Full. There, too, the protagonist basically recused himself.

    Before Conrad Black went to prison for fraud, Donald Trump offered to testify on his behalf. No recusal here because Trump didn't know that Black was guilty, but then he didn't really know that he was innocent, either. I think Trump a better man for it, as does VDare.

    In your eagerness to extol your own "Anglo" virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus along with the "Hispanics," you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.
  14. CCZ says:

    July 18, 2016 By William Wilcoxen
    [Bring Me The News.com]

    “Clinton meets Castile family, tells teachers ‘We cannot let this madness continue’

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came to the Twin Cities Monday [July 18] and told a national teachers union she’d met with Philando Castile’s mother, uncles, and sister.”

    I guess that you need to pander very selectively when you are the Democratic Party nominee for President.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came to the Twin Cities Monday [July 18] and told a national teachers union she’d met with Philando Castile’s mother, uncles, and sister.”

    Why didn't she meet with his father, too? Is he dead? In prison? Does the mother not know who the father is? Is one of the uncles the father?

    Interesting that Hitlery didn't choose to bring any of the mothers of the Pulse Nightclub victims to the convention. She could've had double cred from them - mothers of gay, Hispanic sons. But that would've meant pissing off Muslims. Don't wanna do that - you might need their votes in Virginia and Florida.
  15. This guy was clearly Assange’s source. He was even in tech.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Proof!

    After all, how many guys are in tech

  16. @JohnnyWalker123
    Would you turn in a family member?

    Would you turn in a family member?

    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    The Unabomber was absolutely right in his ideology (not tactics). Each year that passes proves him more right than the year before.

    Tech is destroying humanity and replacing it with wet robots. I used to think this was sci-fi but we are living it and the process has only just begun. The insane pokemon hysteria is a tiny taste of the future. Tech addiction is now everywhere and in no instance is it healthy.

    Bottom line is the Unabomber Manifesto is chilling because it is a bizarrely lucid premonition. Look for it to be cleansed from the internet and classified top secret over the few decades because it is genuine crime think.
  17. @Anon
    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That's why spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.

    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That’s why spouses can’t be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.

    The question involved a boyfriend/girlfriend, not a spouse:

    Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn't mean that the same dynamics aren't in play.
  18. @WGG
    This guy was clearly Assange's source. He was even in tech.

    Proof!

    After all, how many guys are in tech

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    You don't need proof that Seth was the leak to Assange, it's just a great concept by itself: Here's this murder which has no explanation whatsoever, and then, ten days later, there's a flash of recognition .....

    Too bad Law and Order is off the air, because you know it would be the first episode next season. As it is, I'm sure there are a dozen screen writers and thriller writers who are sketching out treatments as we type.
    , @WGG
    You can't be Steve Sailer and Michael Shermer at the same time (the latter is a walking bedpan.) Inductive and deductive reasoning pretty much cancel each other out. Be Steve.
  19. @Anon
    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That's why spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.

    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.
     

    Communications privilege
    The spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure. The privilege applies in civil and criminal cases.
    Both the witness-spouse and the party-spouse hold the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the other from testifying about a confidential communication made during marriage.
     

    Testimonial privilege
    Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[3]
    Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[4] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege
    , @EriK

    Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.
     
    This reminded me of that Chris Rock bit where a lovely but upset woman turns in her man at a traffic stop. HE GOT WEED! HE GOT WEED!
    Starts at about the 3:07 mark.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zXlytv01c
  20. @syonredux
    Speaking of declining moral standards:

    A few months ago, I presented the following scenario to my junior English students: Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?

    The class immediately erupted with commentary. It was obvious, they said, that loyalty was paramount—not a single student said they’d “snitch.” They were unequivocally unconcerned about who was harmed in this hypothetical scenario. This troubled me.
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/students-broken-moral-compasses/492866/

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.
     
    According to the PC moral compass, being a racist is worse than being a pedophile serial killer
    , @Yak-15
    Well played
  21. @Rob McX
    He should've asked them if they'd turn in a racist.

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.

    According to the PC moral compass, being a racist is worse than being a pedophile serial killer

    • Replies: @syonredux

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.

    According to the PC moral compass, being a racist is worse than being a pedophile serial killer
     
    Or perhaps that would read better as "pedophiliac serial killer?"
  22. I’m sure the perp is the Oberlin KKK. That would be way beyond a twofer I cannot believe the perp is not hanging from a tree yet. It must be those raciss DC PoPos.

  23. Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee

    What’s the DNC doing analyzing Jewish data?

    Mining for donors?

  24. @SPMoore8
    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.

    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.

    Communications privilege
    The spousal communications privilege or confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication that protects the contents of confidential communications between spouses during their marriage from testimonial disclosure. The privilege applies in civil and criminal cases.
    Both the witness-spouse and the party-spouse hold the spousal communications privilege, so either may invoke it to prevent the other from testifying about a confidential communication made during marriage.

    Testimonial privilege
    Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code (“CEC”) §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[3]
    Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[4] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege

  25. @A Erickson Cornish
    I try not to waste time watching conventions, so I was surprised to hear this flag deficit accusation. Two minutes on Google dispelled the notion, making me wonder why Steve is not capable of spending his own two minutes on Google:http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/

    Uh, that Snopes article is just a series of pictures and coverage from other media sources, including a clip from Fox discussing the presence of flags. Are the pictures doctored? Were the Fox News anchors forced to say it wth guns to their heads? A mere internet superintelligence is incapable of figuring it out, so I may need your help.

    • Replies: @wren
    The Daily Caller is saying Snopes lied.


    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/

  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    The Unabomber was absolutely right in his ideology (not tactics). Each year that passes proves him more right than the year before.

    Tech is destroying humanity and replacing it with wet robots. I used to think this was sci-fi but we are living it and the process has only just begun. The insane pokemon hysteria is a tiny taste of the future. Tech addiction is now everywhere and in no instance is it healthy.

    Bottom line is the Unabomber Manifesto is chilling because it is a bizarrely lucid premonition. Look for it to be cleansed from the internet and classified top secret over the few decades because it is genuine crime think.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The Unabomber Manifesto is a rehash of stuff that has been said ever since the evolution of modern sociology in the late 19th Century. The idea that modernity and in particular urban and/or industrial society robs humans of their fundamental human nature has also been a common notion since at least the Napoleonic wars: Father Jahn, the Boy Scouts, etc. as well as countless back to nature movements. Moreover the Manifesto is largely a crib of several books written in the late '40's and early '50's that recapped these ideas to show the remarkable similarity of western democracies and Soviet communism in form if not in content.

    However, the rectification of this is not to try and blow up people who you dislike. Ted Kaczynski was basically an Elliot Roger type 20 years later down the road who turned his own inability to have a relationship into an indictment of society as a whole, and then sought to punish society for failing him. The solipsism and cruelty in both cases -- to which we might add some of our more recent broke dick killers -- boggles the mind of anyone sane.
    , @Former Darfur
    Ted K was nuts, but he was not stupid. His writing was very lucid in many places. But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.
    , @rod1963
    You can find modern critiques of the technological society on Amazon. Try "Idisorder", "Rewired", "The Manufacture of Evil" or John Taylor Gatto's "Underground History of Education".

    I guess the bottom line is this. People had to be shaped into obedient consumers and docile cube drones and factory worker if we wanted to have a modern society. There are always costs involved.

    Look at how public schools drug male students into a stupor because they're bored and impatient or are bright enough to see through the idiotic curriculum taught by dolts and buffoons. Basically any form of independence is squashed.

    Now that's a fine system to produce drones who will sit for decades in a Herman-Miller cube until they get sick, go insane or be off-shored. However these humans are damaged goods because of it and their damage manifests in a myriad of ways.

    Professor Carroll Quigley in his last lecture went into quite a bit of the damage it was causing modern Western peoples.
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

    He didn't expressly state it, but he figured the West was already on it's last legs due to self-inflicted damage it did to it's own peoples in the name of progress and power. He advocated dropping out and just enjoying life while we can.

    As he said, Rome fell because it deserved to, if we fall, it's because we deserved it.
  27. @syonredux

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.
     
    According to the PC moral compass, being a racist is worse than being a pedophile serial killer

    He should’ve asked them if they’d turn in a racist.

    According to the PC moral compass, being a racist is worse than being a pedophile serial killer

    Or perhaps that would read better as “pedophiliac serial killer?”

  28. Ann Coulter’s anti-Semitic tweet tonight:

    • Replies: @wren
    What is anti-Semitic about that?

    So every dem and pundit who compares Trump to Hitler is anti-Semitic?

    Hillary has certainly had more people killed than Trump has.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    I never understood why so many have a negative reaction to Sanders. Other than race/immigration (on which even 95% of Republicans seem to be worthless on), his policies seem pretty good to me.

    Sanders would be a far better president than Bush.

    America is an oligarchy in which a tiny percentage of parasites (financiers, war profiteers, cheap labor pushers) are stealing the national wealth. Sanders is one of the few who speak up about this. He's trying to raise the minimum wage and build a national healthcare system, while most of our politicians (Democratic and especially Republican) have wasted trillions of dollars on the nonsensical "War on Terror."

    The workingman can't catch a break in this country and Sanders is one of the few who will talk about this.
  29. OT: Chris and Peter Weitz’s grandmother, actress Lupita Tovar, the world’s oldest living celebrity, is about to turn 106.

  30. @Anonymous
    Ann Coulter's anti-Semitic tweet tonight:

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/758138047938502656

    What is anti-Semitic about that?

    So every dem and pundit who compares Trump to Hitler is anti-Semitic?

    Hillary has certainly had more people killed than Trump has.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sanders is Jewish.
  31. WRT to the overall question, I am skeptical if the classroom is the proper forum for moral or ethical education, particularly in high school.

    In the first place, I am suspicious if teachers are qualified, by training, not merely for moral or ethical teaching, but for laying down appropriate moral and ethical teachings. The Ten Commandments are not phrased in the form of speculative questions: “Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we didn’t kill?”

    I can see, perhaps with some college students once they have gotten their feet wet to propose to them some moral dilemmas, because, after all, history is full of these. But posing the dilemma is not the same as proposing to answer it, and that is no teacher’s job. That is the job for a rabbi or a priest. (OK, an imam or whatever, too.)

    Otherwise you are just using class time to indulge your preferred moral order on the students, which is bound to affect the more objective elements of the curriculum. (“I’m not going to give this guy an A, because he opposes SSM!”)

    If there is a lack of morality in American society it is because we have lost touch with the religious and moral traditions that stipulated moral rules. They didn’t have bull sessions about them. The argument has been made since the ’60’s and at least since McIntyre’s “After Virtue” (there are many others on this) that our morality has been living on the capital of Christianity used up by the Enlightenment, and that secular humanism is incapable of providing any such moral order, since it provides no real purpose, goal or judgment for human life. Instead, we are only told by modern atheists that altruism exists because it is in our selfish genes, and it is successful.

    In saying this I am not questioning the role that ingrained “custom” plays in our morality. Nor am I advocating any particular religious or philosophical approach, since, clearly, moral people and moral societies can come in all sorts of flavors. But I do think that we have lost a lot of our moral groundedness as a nation. However, the remedy for that is church, temple, what have you, and parents. It cannot be done in schools, not least because any such gesture will involve a deliberate attempt to inculcate moral values, which on some level must violate the established religion clause.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Great comment. Since Christian faith has been pushed out of the public square, something has to move in and takes its place. Others have noted that we humans seemed programmed to need some sort of spiritual moral compass (in the past filled in by some type of religious order). So the left, and increasingly most on the right, have attached themselves to politics, or political movements as the new vehicle for developing and expressing their morals and ethics. So we have a proliferation of cargo cults with their own versions of original sin, good and evil, paths to redemption, and Armageddon-like scenarios if we stray from the One True Faith. It’s almost like a reversion back to a kind of polytheism, but instead different blocks of Roman citizens following their own Gods in cult-like fashion, we have different blocks of Americans following their preferred political faiths (Feminism, Environmentalism, Marxism, etc.).

    In the past we could count on our politicians to check themselves because they would remember their church/Sunday school teachings about the consequences of violating the Commandments; or succumbing to the 7 Deadly Sins instead of practicing the 7 Cardinal Virtues, and etc. Admittedly, this is a Christian-centric critique, and I’m the last person to take Christian religious advice from, but I think all the great religions teach some variations on these central moral/ethical themes.
    , @David
    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can't morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor. The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people. If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you're embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others..., maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    , @Formerly CARealist
    Yes. From what I've seen these HS bull sessions are mainly used to confuse traditionally-minded students and make them doubt their parents' authority. This is why people shouldn't send their kids to schools that don't agree with their basic worldview.

    Plus, teenagers are already feeling the hormones and pull of rebellion. This is not the time to have them do rationalizations of potentially immoral behavior. Sometimes right and wrong are only a razor's edge apart and it takes more life experience than 16 years to make such judgments.

    Your SSM example is, of course, perfect. My friend's son, in the 8th grade, stood opposed on this question and had the entire class (and the teacher) attacking him. What the heck? He's a great guy (now 15) but the future of America is doomed with this sort of approach.
  32. @Anonymous
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    The Unabomber was absolutely right in his ideology (not tactics). Each year that passes proves him more right than the year before.

    Tech is destroying humanity and replacing it with wet robots. I used to think this was sci-fi but we are living it and the process has only just begun. The insane pokemon hysteria is a tiny taste of the future. Tech addiction is now everywhere and in no instance is it healthy.

    Bottom line is the Unabomber Manifesto is chilling because it is a bizarrely lucid premonition. Look for it to be cleansed from the internet and classified top secret over the few decades because it is genuine crime think.

    The Unabomber Manifesto is a rehash of stuff that has been said ever since the evolution of modern sociology in the late 19th Century. The idea that modernity and in particular urban and/or industrial society robs humans of their fundamental human nature has also been a common notion since at least the Napoleonic wars: Father Jahn, the Boy Scouts, etc. as well as countless back to nature movements. Moreover the Manifesto is largely a crib of several books written in the late ’40’s and early ’50’s that recapped these ideas to show the remarkable similarity of western democracies and Soviet communism in form if not in content.

    However, the rectification of this is not to try and blow up people who you dislike. Ted Kaczynski was basically an Elliot Roger type 20 years later down the road who turned his own inability to have a relationship into an indictment of society as a whole, and then sought to punish society for failing him. The solipsism and cruelty in both cases — to which we might add some of our more recent broke dick killers — boggles the mind of anyone sane.

  33. @Steve Sailer
    Proof!

    After all, how many guys are in tech

    You don’t need proof that Seth was the leak to Assange, it’s just a great concept by itself: Here’s this murder which has no explanation whatsoever, and then, ten days later, there’s a flash of recognition …..

    Too bad Law and Order is off the air, because you know it would be the first episode next season. As it is, I’m sure there are a dozen screen writers and thriller writers who are sketching out treatments as we type.

    • Replies: @wren
    My internal narrative has been telling me that it is a disgruntled FBI agent who was PO'd that his boss dropped the ball for political reasons.
  34. @Anonymous
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    The Unabomber was absolutely right in his ideology (not tactics). Each year that passes proves him more right than the year before.

    Tech is destroying humanity and replacing it with wet robots. I used to think this was sci-fi but we are living it and the process has only just begun. The insane pokemon hysteria is a tiny taste of the future. Tech addiction is now everywhere and in no instance is it healthy.

    Bottom line is the Unabomber Manifesto is chilling because it is a bizarrely lucid premonition. Look for it to be cleansed from the internet and classified top secret over the few decades because it is genuine crime think.

    Ted K was nuts, but he was not stupid. His writing was very lucid in many places. But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps

    I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.
     
    Agree. Almost all Radical Environmentalists have a fantasy-like understanding about their Garden-of-Eden view of life before industrialization and advanced technology.

    I always like asking them if they would prefer to return to pre-electricity America of 1870. You know, the one where 1/4 of all kids died before adolescence because of all the diseases we conquered in the 20th century, or where people drank beer because the water was so full of bacteria that people were always suffering from some type of dysentery, or no sanitation existed in our cities and horse/human waste ran openly in the streets and gutters. Or you could only work from sun-up to sundown because we had no electricity, and the only night lights were candles or oil lamps. And if you lived in the country (where the vast majority of Americans lived), life from your earliest memories was an unending (except for Sundays, relatively) series of backbreaking physical labors to build and maintain your house, collect and store water, plant/reap your main harvest, maintain your garden, remove waste, raise children (those who survived anyway), cut trees/chop firewood, keep the house relatively free of rodents and insect pests (even so, many of the poor still were lice-ridden), and etc. That they did all that and still found time to gather in town to debate politics and elect their local officials, found and build churches, schools and other common public works is simply amazing. I have a few pictures of some of my 19th/early 20th century ancestors, and they all have stern, gaunt faces of determination; and then I contrast that with all the Internet selfies of the millennials; wow.

    I'll take 21st century America any day, thank you very much (with undying appreciation/respect for what my ancestors endured so that I have all this).
    , @tbraton
    "But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy."

    Well, Henry David Thoreau would, as long as there was an ant hill (preferably two) to study and no taxes to pay. I would note that he also graduated from Harvard.
  35. @Anonymous
    Ann Coulter's anti-Semitic tweet tonight:

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/758138047938502656

    I never understood why so many have a negative reaction to Sanders. Other than race/immigration (on which even 95% of Republicans seem to be worthless on), his policies seem pretty good to me.

    Sanders would be a far better president than Bush.

    America is an oligarchy in which a tiny percentage of parasites (financiers, war profiteers, cheap labor pushers) are stealing the national wealth. Sanders is one of the few who speak up about this. He’s trying to raise the minimum wage and build a national healthcare system, while most of our politicians (Democratic and especially Republican) have wasted trillions of dollars on the nonsensical “War on Terror.”

    The workingman can’t catch a break in this country and Sanders is one of the few who will talk about this.

    • Replies: @PapayaSF
    On economic issues, Sanders is a '60s hippie freshman after a dozen bong hits. Raising the minimum wage, federal control of healthcare, and "free" college are all terrible ideas. He thinks that having "too many" choices of deodorant somehow causes child poverty. Every now and then he stumbles across a truth, but overall he's an economic dunce who would turn us into Venezuela if he had the chance.
    , @biz
    Sanders is an unabashed 60s airhead socialist who would gladly have Americans wait in bread lines all day if it meant that he could reduce "inequality." That's isn't me insulting him - it is his actual stated position:
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/04/06/oh-my-bernie-sanders-thinks-bread-lines-are-a-good-representation-of-economic-stability-n2144137

    Free this, free that, even "free" college, which of course means six free years of partying for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the tax payer's teat. Sanders policies are shit and he would have been the worst President in American history.
  36. @SPMoore8
    You don't need proof that Seth was the leak to Assange, it's just a great concept by itself: Here's this murder which has no explanation whatsoever, and then, ten days later, there's a flash of recognition .....

    Too bad Law and Order is off the air, because you know it would be the first episode next season. As it is, I'm sure there are a dozen screen writers and thriller writers who are sketching out treatments as we type.

    My internal narrative has been telling me that it is a disgruntled FBI agent who was PO’d that his boss dropped the ball for political reasons.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  37. @wren
    What is anti-Semitic about that?

    So every dem and pundit who compares Trump to Hitler is anti-Semitic?

    Hillary has certainly had more people killed than Trump has.

    Sanders is Jewish.

    • Replies: @wren
    I know that of course, but are all his supporters?

    Is comparing Hillary to Hitler anti-Semitic?

    She is a cold blooded killer, as far as I am concerned.

    If she had said something like "Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Bernie have them all go out to get some Christian blood for the matzoh" or something, I could see it.
    , @syonredux

    Sanders is Jewish.
     
    Hence the black humor about Hillary gassing his supporters
  38. @JohnnyWalker123
    I never understood why so many have a negative reaction to Sanders. Other than race/immigration (on which even 95% of Republicans seem to be worthless on), his policies seem pretty good to me.

    Sanders would be a far better president than Bush.

    America is an oligarchy in which a tiny percentage of parasites (financiers, war profiteers, cheap labor pushers) are stealing the national wealth. Sanders is one of the few who speak up about this. He's trying to raise the minimum wage and build a national healthcare system, while most of our politicians (Democratic and especially Republican) have wasted trillions of dollars on the nonsensical "War on Terror."

    The workingman can't catch a break in this country and Sanders is one of the few who will talk about this.

    On economic issues, Sanders is a ’60s hippie freshman after a dozen bong hits. Raising the minimum wage, federal control of healthcare, and “free” college are all terrible ideas. He thinks that having “too many” choices of deodorant somehow causes child poverty. Every now and then he stumbles across a truth, but overall he’s an economic dunce who would turn us into Venezuela if he had the chance.

    • Agree: Barnard
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea. Ron Unz has endorsed this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5ih3aU4S8

    As for healthcare, much of the industrialized world receives higher-quality, lower-cost healthcare than the U.S. They spend less and get more value in return. For example, we outspend all the other Anglo nations substantially on healthcare, but White-Americans still have lower life expectancy.

    His ideas have been implemented pretty successfully in places like Denmark. Unfortunately, we don't have the privilege of having Denmark's race demographics, but there is much to be learned from that type of system. Though it'd need to be customized for this country.

    George Bush's utterly insane war in Iraq cost $5 trillion, but we're supposed to suck it up and pay for it. However, when it comes to something that'd help an ordinary person (like healthcare or a fair wage), Republicans suddenly become tightwads. What a bunch of useless bastards.

    Then they talk to us about Christianity and how they're pro-life/pro-family. I'm not sure how they can claim to be the party of Christian family values when you don't even support giving people a wage to feed their family. They're pro-life, but if you can't afford exorbitant healthcare costs......... tough. They have no problem emptying the national coffer in Iraq because (as we all know) Iraqi terrorists are a threat to America.

    Trump, to his credit, supported a national healthcare system. For some reason, he then backed off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Raising the minimum wage for foreigners would be an excellent idea. $50/hrs would ensure that they subsidize the rest of us, rather than the opposite as is the case now.

    It would also smaller, more selective stream.
  39. @syonredux

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.I'm Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.

    I’m surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.,

    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    There are actually some Anglos who’d never turn in a family member.

    The Anglos in Winter’s Bone, for example.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    These Anglos also wouldn't turn in their relatives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUIapa-U0bY
    , @syonredux

    I’m surprised people would turn in their own family member.
     
    For crimes like rape and murder? Family loyalty should only go so far.

    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.
     
    Rather sad that they have the same moral values as Hispanics....

    There are actually some Anglos who’d never turn in a family member.

    The Anglos in Winter’s Bone, for example.
     
    Yeah. White Trash.
    , @Kylie
    "@syonredux
    'If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.'

    I’m surprised people would turn in their own family member."

    I'm surprised people wouldn't mind having a violent criminal in the family. At the very least, it would make holiday dinners somewhat awkward, Thanksgiving in particular.

    "Our family has so many things to be thankful for this year. We live in the best country in the world. We are all healthy. Dad got a promotion. Tiffany won a scholarship. Josh only raped two women. ..."

    I turned in two good but misguided friends of my family, one for burglary, one for arson. (My family tended to take in strays.) One went to prison, one was cleared.

    But I also refused to aid someone injured and at risk of losing his life after he assaulted a friend of mine. He hurt a buddy, I didn't give a flip about his survival.

    Loyalty is a weird thing.
  40. @JohnnyWalker123

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.
     
    I'm surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.,
     
    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    There are actually some Anglos who'd never turn in a family member.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdcSXqwb48

    The Anglos in Winter's Bone, for example.

    These Anglos also wouldn’t turn in their relatives.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    These Anglos also wouldn’t turn in their relatives.
     
    There's a reason why the term "White Trash" was invented.....
  41. Douthat is now turning your “coalition of the fringes” idea on its head, calling the Democrats the “normal party.”

    Is he right? Maybe, and maybe that’s a good thing. America certainly wasn’t “normal” by Western standards for a long time after its inception. Maybe today’s normal is really pretty lame for people who don’t have Douthat’s gig or its equivalent, and maybe he knows that. Still I always suspect the guy of making value judgments when he writes this stuff.

    Whatever the case, he’s obviously riffing on your 2012 observations re: fringe vs. normal.

  42. @syonredux

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.I'm Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.

    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    It's not high minded, it's a combo of common sense and social responsibility.

    If the family member commits a violent crime, they will continue to escalate and commit. So it then becomes a question of how much violence you can excuse before you drop a dime.

    At best, a violent criminal in a family needs help, even if in prison. At worst, they will turn their violence on you, either just because or to shut you up.

    The social responsibility argument is also obvious, but only if you feel you are a part of it. Minorities typically feel alienated, parents are in denial, that's why family criminals are not turned in. But I would bet that most are.
    , @syonredux

    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.
     
    Perhaps. But I just can't lower myself to the level of a Mexican

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.
     
    Not even if the friend killed a small child? That's quite sad.
    , @Wilkey
    Most violent people ultimately turn their violence against their own family or at least their own race/ethnicity. Very few criminals have drawn elaborate distinctions between their own kind and others.

    The mafia was more than happy to target Italian-owned businesses. 85% of black murderers kill other blacks, not whites. 97% of white murderers kill other whites. The vast majority of Islamic terrorism targets other Muslims. Clannish white groups, like polygamists, are shitty to their own, not just to outsiders, kicking out their sons (because they're sexual competition) and forcing their daughters into marriages with old men.

    Anglos are losing out in the sense that we don't have much ethnic loyalty to one another, but ethnic loyalty and criminality have little if anything in common. Anglo countries are still the most admired and desirable countries in the world, and a lot of it has to do with our low tolerance (in relative if not absolute terms) for corruption and criminality. That's changing thanks to mass immigration, and eventually it will probably permanently deform us, but tolerating criminality by our own ain't gunna fix it.

    Would I turn in a relative who maybe cheated on his taxes? Hell no. Would I turn in a relative who caused others "great harm"? You bet I would - even if that relative was my own mother.
  43. @JohnnyWalker123
    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.

    It’s not high minded, it’s a combo of common sense and social responsibility.

    If the family member commits a violent crime, they will continue to escalate and commit. So it then becomes a question of how much violence you can excuse before you drop a dime.

    At best, a violent criminal in a family needs help, even if in prison. At worst, they will turn their violence on you, either just because or to shut you up.

    The social responsibility argument is also obvious, but only if you feel you are a part of it. Minorities typically feel alienated, parents are in denial, that’s why family criminals are not turned in. But I would bet that most are.

    • Replies: @Bill P

    It’s not high minded, it’s a combo of common sense and social responsibility.
     
    When collective punishment is the rule, people don't turn family members in for obvious reasons. From what I saw in China, the cops don't only punish the perp. Other members of his family/community are typically punished in some manner as well, even if only symbolically (for example making the family pay for the bullet used in the execution of the condemned). The idea is that people then learn to police their own.

    This is how it works in most of the world. Without an efficient justice system and well-behaved people with a sense of individual responsibility (i.e. guilt), collective punishment is pretty much all that works.

    But of course then you have the family collusion in hiding felonies, honor killings, etc. Westerners totally misunderstand honor killings, thinking they are carried out only by enraged fanatics. They are actually an act of expiation of family guilt, and the killer is usually distraught and overcome with shame over exposure of some scandal. It looks barbaric to us, but people truly sympathize with those that carry them out in shame based cultures. I heard one story in China about a girl who was mentally ill and would do scandalous things, for example stripping naked in public. Her father eventually had more than he could stomach and killed her, and he was spared severe punishment because people genuinely felt sympathy for him (that was one of the stories that contributed to the pretty rough case of "culture shock" I got after learning Chinese pretty well and starting to understand the mentality).

    I'm not defending this stuff, but there's been some talk about collective punishment on this site as a solution to Muslim violence, so we ought to have a clear understanding of what that leads to.
  44. It’s a dilemma for Hillary:

    Either she murdered this young staffer (a computer dude) because he was doing something bad for the GOrgon Queen (maybe he leaked some of the emails to Wikileaks/Putin)

    or

    The black violent crime increase caused by her party/president’s policies got him killed.

    Either way, this story is bad for him.

    P.S. love how the official crime stats say crime is down, but the reporters found it was actually up. It’s like reporters should be a check on TPTB!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe he was murdered by UVA fraternity pledges as part of their initiation? I hear that's a thing.
  45. @Anonymous
    Sanders is Jewish.

    I know that of course, but are all his supporters?

    Is comparing Hillary to Hitler anti-Semitic?

    She is a cold blooded killer, as far as I am concerned.

    If she had said something like “Where are the Bernie supporters tonight? Did Bernie have them all go out to get some Christian blood for the matzoh” or something, I could see it.

  46. @whorefinder
    It's a dilemma for Hillary:

    Either she murdered this young staffer (a computer dude) because he was doing something bad for the GOrgon Queen (maybe he leaked some of the emails to Wikileaks/Putin)

    or

    The black violent crime increase caused by her party/president's policies got him killed.

    Either way, this story is bad for him.

    P.S. love how the official crime stats say crime is down, but the reporters found it was actually up. It's like reporters should be a check on TPTB!

    Maybe he was murdered by UVA fraternity pledges as part of their initiation? I hear that’s a thing.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Haven Monahan lives!

    And is on the run! And is wearing blackface! And is anti-Semitic!
    , @tbraton
    Well, it was actually UVA SORORITY pledges who did the dirty deed. There was a reason the woman president of UVA suspended fraternities AND sororities after the rape incident two years ago. Those UVA sororities are a raunchy bunch.
  47. @PapayaSF
    On economic issues, Sanders is a '60s hippie freshman after a dozen bong hits. Raising the minimum wage, federal control of healthcare, and "free" college are all terrible ideas. He thinks that having "too many" choices of deodorant somehow causes child poverty. Every now and then he stumbles across a truth, but overall he's an economic dunce who would turn us into Venezuela if he had the chance.

    Raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea. Ron Unz has endorsed this.

    As for healthcare, much of the industrialized world receives higher-quality, lower-cost healthcare than the U.S. They spend less and get more value in return. For example, we outspend all the other Anglo nations substantially on healthcare, but White-Americans still have lower life expectancy.

    His ideas have been implemented pretty successfully in places like Denmark. Unfortunately, we don’t have the privilege of having Denmark’s race demographics, but there is much to be learned from that type of system. Though it’d need to be customized for this country.

    George Bush’s utterly insane war in Iraq cost $5 trillion, but we’re supposed to suck it up and pay for it. However, when it comes to something that’d help an ordinary person (like healthcare or a fair wage), Republicans suddenly become tightwads. What a bunch of useless bastards.

    Then they talk to us about Christianity and how they’re pro-life/pro-family. I’m not sure how they can claim to be the party of Christian family values when you don’t even support giving people a wage to feed their family. They’re pro-life, but if you can’t afford exorbitant healthcare costs……… tough. They have no problem emptying the national coffer in Iraq because (as we all know) Iraqi terrorists are a threat to America.

    Trump, to his credit, supported a national healthcare system. For some reason, he then backed off.

    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage.

    The number of universities is limited by the state. The number of students is also (more or less) controlled by the state. That is very different from a situation where the state will pay and private (and semi-private) universities are free to let as many of them "study" as they physically manage.
    , @Barnard
    The idea of having a national minimum wage given the wide disparity in the cost of living across the country is destructive and idiotic. Bernie thinks you can recreate a Scandinavian economic model in a country with a population twenty times larger, much different demographics and a much lower level of social trust. He is a fool.
    , @PapayaSF
    The minimum wage was invented by the original Progressives a racist, sexist eugenics plot to disemploy blacks, women, and the disabled, and it still disemploys people.

    Our healthcare system has been crippled by nearly a century of government meddling. The fix is less government meddling, not more.
  48. @Steve Sailer
    Proof!

    After all, how many guys are in tech

    You can’t be Steve Sailer and Michael Shermer at the same time (the latter is a walking bedpan.) Inductive and deductive reasoning pretty much cancel each other out. Be Steve.

  49. @Anonymous
    Sanders is Jewish.

    Sanders is Jewish.

    Hence the black humor about Hillary gassing his supporters

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Wait... Ann Coulter is black??!!
  50. @JohnnyWalker123
    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.

    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    Perhaps. But I just can’t lower myself to the level of a Mexican

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.

    Not even if the friend killed a small child? That’s quite sad.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    You'd never get them convicted for abortion anyway.
  51. @JohnnyWalker123
    These Anglos also wouldn't turn in their relatives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUIapa-U0bY

    These Anglos also wouldn’t turn in their relatives.

    There’s a reason why the term “White Trash” was invented…..

  52. @JohnnyWalker123

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.
     
    I'm surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.,
     
    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    There are actually some Anglos who'd never turn in a family member.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdcSXqwb48

    The Anglos in Winter's Bone, for example.

    I’m surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    For crimes like rape and murder? Family loyalty should only go so far.

    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    Rather sad that they have the same moral values as Hispanics….

    There are actually some Anglos who’d never turn in a family member.

    The Anglos in Winter’s Bone, for example.

    Yeah. White Trash.

  53. @Anonymous
    David and Linda Kaczynski did.

    The Unabomber was absolutely right in his ideology (not tactics). Each year that passes proves him more right than the year before.

    Tech is destroying humanity and replacing it with wet robots. I used to think this was sci-fi but we are living it and the process has only just begun. The insane pokemon hysteria is a tiny taste of the future. Tech addiction is now everywhere and in no instance is it healthy.

    Bottom line is the Unabomber Manifesto is chilling because it is a bizarrely lucid premonition. Look for it to be cleansed from the internet and classified top secret over the few decades because it is genuine crime think.

    You can find modern critiques of the technological society on Amazon. Try “Idisorder”, “Rewired”, “The Manufacture of Evil” or John Taylor Gatto’s “Underground History of Education”.

    I guess the bottom line is this. People had to be shaped into obedient consumers and docile cube drones and factory worker if we wanted to have a modern society. There are always costs involved.

    Look at how public schools drug male students into a stupor because they’re bored and impatient or are bright enough to see through the idiotic curriculum taught by dolts and buffoons. Basically any form of independence is squashed.

    Now that’s a fine system to produce drones who will sit for decades in a Herman-Miller cube until they get sick, go insane or be off-shored. However these humans are damaged goods because of it and their damage manifests in a myriad of ways.

    Professor Carroll Quigley in his last lecture went into quite a bit of the damage it was causing modern Western peoples.
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

    He didn’t expressly state it, but he figured the West was already on it’s last legs due to self-inflicted damage it did to it’s own peoples in the name of progress and power. He advocated dropping out and just enjoying life while we can.

    As he said, Rome fell because it deserved to, if we fall, it’s because we deserved it.

  54. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe he was murdered by UVA fraternity pledges as part of their initiation? I hear that's a thing.

    Haven Monahan lives!

    And is on the run! And is wearing blackface! And is anti-Semitic!

  55. You mean nobody has blamed Vladimir Putin yet?

  56. @JohnnyWalker123
    Raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea. Ron Unz has endorsed this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5ih3aU4S8

    As for healthcare, much of the industrialized world receives higher-quality, lower-cost healthcare than the U.S. They spend less and get more value in return. For example, we outspend all the other Anglo nations substantially on healthcare, but White-Americans still have lower life expectancy.

    His ideas have been implemented pretty successfully in places like Denmark. Unfortunately, we don't have the privilege of having Denmark's race demographics, but there is much to be learned from that type of system. Though it'd need to be customized for this country.

    George Bush's utterly insane war in Iraq cost $5 trillion, but we're supposed to suck it up and pay for it. However, when it comes to something that'd help an ordinary person (like healthcare or a fair wage), Republicans suddenly become tightwads. What a bunch of useless bastards.

    Then they talk to us about Christianity and how they're pro-life/pro-family. I'm not sure how they can claim to be the party of Christian family values when you don't even support giving people a wage to feed their family. They're pro-life, but if you can't afford exorbitant healthcare costs......... tough. They have no problem emptying the national coffer in Iraq because (as we all know) Iraqi terrorists are a threat to America.

    Trump, to his credit, supported a national healthcare system. For some reason, he then backed off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

    Denmark doesn’t have a minimum wage.

    The number of universities is limited by the state. The number of students is also (more or less) controlled by the state. That is very different from a situation where the state will pay and private (and semi-private) universities are free to let as many of them “study” as they physically manage.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Denmark also has a state church. It takes a lot more social coherence to support a state church, coherence that is absolutely necessary to hold a welfare state together.

    In a diverse population, each group feels like it's being cheated by the others. And they all have a point.

    If we ever have a "nation" again, then we can discuss Johnny's "national" health-care system.
  57. The Daily Mail has a photograph of this cavalcade or thug mamas and it occurred to me how much money the DNC had to pay for that photo op. While Traymom might still have some money left over from the garbage cans she and Traydad held out at black churches during their time in the limelight, no way could the rest of them self financed their way to Philadelphia and been cleaned up for national TV. We’re talking about a day at a spa to get the stench of the hood and lice off of them, then to Macy’s to get them something beyond sweat pants and a tee shirt to wear, have their hair and nails done plus airfare and hotel rooms. Reminds me of that old TV game show Queen for a Day! where contestants would tell a sob story and the sorriest contestant would ‘win’ and be crowned.

  58. @SPMoore8
    It's not high minded, it's a combo of common sense and social responsibility.

    If the family member commits a violent crime, they will continue to escalate and commit. So it then becomes a question of how much violence you can excuse before you drop a dime.

    At best, a violent criminal in a family needs help, even if in prison. At worst, they will turn their violence on you, either just because or to shut you up.

    The social responsibility argument is also obvious, but only if you feel you are a part of it. Minorities typically feel alienated, parents are in denial, that's why family criminals are not turned in. But I would bet that most are.

    It’s not high minded, it’s a combo of common sense and social responsibility.

    When collective punishment is the rule, people don’t turn family members in for obvious reasons. From what I saw in China, the cops don’t only punish the perp. Other members of his family/community are typically punished in some manner as well, even if only symbolically (for example making the family pay for the bullet used in the execution of the condemned). The idea is that people then learn to police their own.

    This is how it works in most of the world. Without an efficient justice system and well-behaved people with a sense of individual responsibility (i.e. guilt), collective punishment is pretty much all that works.

    But of course then you have the family collusion in hiding felonies, honor killings, etc. Westerners totally misunderstand honor killings, thinking they are carried out only by enraged fanatics. They are actually an act of expiation of family guilt, and the killer is usually distraught and overcome with shame over exposure of some scandal. It looks barbaric to us, but people truly sympathize with those that carry them out in shame based cultures. I heard one story in China about a girl who was mentally ill and would do scandalous things, for example stripping naked in public. Her father eventually had more than he could stomach and killed her, and he was spared severe punishment because people genuinely felt sympathy for him (that was one of the stories that contributed to the pretty rough case of “culture shock” I got after learning Chinese pretty well and starting to understand the mentality).

    I’m not defending this stuff, but there’s been some talk about collective punishment on this site as a solution to Muslim violence, so we ought to have a clear understanding of what that leads to.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    This is probably part of the reason why crime in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, etc is very low but when you import citizens of the same into Europe their crime rate jumps.
  59. Or the mother of Sarah Root:

    ICE: Street-Racing Illegal Alien Arrested for Killing Iowa Woman ‘Did Not Meet ICE’s Enforcement Priorities’

    U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chose not to honor a request for an immigration detainer after Omaha police arrested illegal alien Eswin Mejia after he struck and killed 21-year-old Sarah Root while driving drunk and street-racing the night of January 31. Mejia vanished shortly after posting bond.

    Sarah Root: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

    2. In a Congressional Testimony, Root’s Mother Said Mejia’s Bond Was Less Than the Cost of Her Daughter’s Funeral

  60. @SPMoore8
    I think spousal exception has more to do with marital trust, and only concerns testimony. Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.

    Spouses turn spouses in for crimes all the time.

    This reminded me of that Chris Rock bit where a lovely but upset woman turns in her man at a traffic stop. HE GOT WEED! HE GOT WEED!
    Starts at about the 3:07 mark.

  61. @pepperinmono
    Only Black Lives Matter.

    > Only Black Lives Matter

    Perhaps when Martin O’Malley speaks to the Convention on Wednesday night, he will point out that All Lives Matter.

    On the other hand, maybe that isn’t the time or place for thoughtcrime. CNN, July 19, 2015, O’Malley apologizes for saying ‘all lives matter’ at liberal conference. Backsliding after a public self-criticism session would demonstrate incomplete rehabilitation. [O’Malley] could be a prime candidate to replace DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    In his interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Martin O'Malley feverishly explained that what was in the leaked DNC emails is NOT important, what IS important is that the Russians did it to get their man Trump elected. He really sounded deranged (or perhaps just a shameless partisan hack).
  62. @CCZ
    July 18, 2016 By William Wilcoxen
    [Bring Me The News.com]

    “Clinton meets Castile family, tells teachers ‘We cannot let this madness continue’

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came to the Twin Cities Monday [July 18] and told a national teachers union she’d met with Philando Castile’s mother, uncles, and sister.”

    I guess that you need to pander very selectively when you are the Democratic Party nominee for President.

    “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came to the Twin Cities Monday [July 18] and told a national teachers union she’d met with Philando Castile’s mother, uncles, and sister.”

    Why didn’t she meet with his father, too? Is he dead? In prison? Does the mother not know who the father is? Is one of the uncles the father?

    Interesting that Hitlery didn’t choose to bring any of the mothers of the Pulse Nightclub victims to the convention. She could’ve had double cred from them – mothers of gay, Hispanic sons. But that would’ve meant pissing off Muslims. Don’t wanna do that – you might need their votes in Virginia and Florida.

    • Replies: @CCZ
    A Google search finds no references to Philando’s father, but Ancestry.com has a 1993 birth certificate reference for his sister Allysza Monique Castile; mother is Valerie Castile and father is Calvin Lee Anderson.

    Better known is Diamond Lavish Reynolds, who live streamed the incident after Philando was shot. Her previous live streams (below), with her words about guns (“put the guns down”) and images of smoking “weed” (or “blunts”) would seem to raise some serious concerns about her character and credibility.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR8v9JdmeSw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwoKlyiiL4E&list=PL2bvgxSzPP5GbWoj4-6MHszRItNumCzX5


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlVkZ96D3Xc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSblGwbMxJc
  63. @JohnnyWalker123
    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.

    Most violent people ultimately turn their violence against their own family or at least their own race/ethnicity. Very few criminals have drawn elaborate distinctions between their own kind and others.

    The mafia was more than happy to target Italian-owned businesses. 85% of black murderers kill other blacks, not whites. 97% of white murderers kill other whites. The vast majority of Islamic terrorism targets other Muslims. Clannish white groups, like polygamists, are shitty to their own, not just to outsiders, kicking out their sons (because they’re sexual competition) and forcing their daughters into marriages with old men.

    Anglos are losing out in the sense that we don’t have much ethnic loyalty to one another, but ethnic loyalty and criminality have little if anything in common. Anglo countries are still the most admired and desirable countries in the world, and a lot of it has to do with our low tolerance (in relative if not absolute terms) for corruption and criminality. That’s changing thanks to mass immigration, and eventually it will probably permanently deform us, but tolerating criminality by our own ain’t gunna fix it.

    Would I turn in a relative who maybe cheated on his taxes? Hell no. Would I turn in a relative who caused others “great harm”? You bet I would – even if that relative was my own mother.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @Randal

    Would I turn in a relative who maybe cheated on his taxes? Hell no. Would I turn in a relative who caused others “great harm”? You bet I would – even if that relative was my own mother.
     
    These are issues of conflicting loyalty, and not amenable to sweeping statements, imo.

    I tend to agree more with JohnnyWalker123's primacy of family loyalty over external loyalty, but there are probably situations where I would turn in a family member for a serious crime. In reality, I'd have to weigh all the particular circumstances - motive, justification, likelihood of reoffending etc - very carefully.

    Of course, just because something is a crime doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong, anyway.

    Such decisions are particularly difficult for those also having divided higher loyalties, of course, such as wives or family members of muslim immigrant terrorists.
  64. @JohnnyWalker123
    I never understood why so many have a negative reaction to Sanders. Other than race/immigration (on which even 95% of Republicans seem to be worthless on), his policies seem pretty good to me.

    Sanders would be a far better president than Bush.

    America is an oligarchy in which a tiny percentage of parasites (financiers, war profiteers, cheap labor pushers) are stealing the national wealth. Sanders is one of the few who speak up about this. He's trying to raise the minimum wage and build a national healthcare system, while most of our politicians (Democratic and especially Republican) have wasted trillions of dollars on the nonsensical "War on Terror."

    The workingman can't catch a break in this country and Sanders is one of the few who will talk about this.

    Sanders is an unabashed 60s airhead socialist who would gladly have Americans wait in bread lines all day if it meant that he could reduce “inequality.” That’s isn’t me insulting him – it is his actual stated position:
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/04/06/oh-my-bernie-sanders-thinks-bread-lines-are-a-good-representation-of-economic-stability-n2144137

    Free this, free that, even “free” college, which of course means six free years of partying for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the tax payer’s teat. Sanders policies are shit and he would have been the worst President in American history.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SPMoore8
    WRT to the overall question, I am skeptical if the classroom is the proper forum for moral or ethical education, particularly in high school.

    In the first place, I am suspicious if teachers are qualified, by training, not merely for moral or ethical teaching, but for laying down appropriate moral and ethical teachings. The Ten Commandments are not phrased in the form of speculative questions: "Don't you think it would be a good idea if we didn't kill?"

    I can see, perhaps with some college students once they have gotten their feet wet to propose to them some moral dilemmas, because, after all, history is full of these. But posing the dilemma is not the same as proposing to answer it, and that is no teacher's job. That is the job for a rabbi or a priest. (OK, an imam or whatever, too.)

    Otherwise you are just using class time to indulge your preferred moral order on the students, which is bound to affect the more objective elements of the curriculum. ("I'm not going to give this guy an A, because he opposes SSM!")

    If there is a lack of morality in American society it is because we have lost touch with the religious and moral traditions that stipulated moral rules. They didn't have bull sessions about them. The argument has been made since the '60's and at least since McIntyre's "After Virtue" (there are many others on this) that our morality has been living on the capital of Christianity used up by the Enlightenment, and that secular humanism is incapable of providing any such moral order, since it provides no real purpose, goal or judgment for human life. Instead, we are only told by modern atheists that altruism exists because it is in our selfish genes, and it is successful.

    In saying this I am not questioning the role that ingrained "custom" plays in our morality. Nor am I advocating any particular religious or philosophical approach, since, clearly, moral people and moral societies can come in all sorts of flavors. But I do think that we have lost a lot of our moral groundedness as a nation. However, the remedy for that is church, temple, what have you, and parents. It cannot be done in schools, not least because any such gesture will involve a deliberate attempt to inculcate moral values, which on some level must violate the established religion clause.

    Great comment. Since Christian faith has been pushed out of the public square, something has to move in and takes its place. Others have noted that we humans seemed programmed to need some sort of spiritual moral compass (in the past filled in by some type of religious order). So the left, and increasingly most on the right, have attached themselves to politics, or political movements as the new vehicle for developing and expressing their morals and ethics. So we have a proliferation of cargo cults with their own versions of original sin, good and evil, paths to redemption, and Armageddon-like scenarios if we stray from the One True Faith. It’s almost like a reversion back to a kind of polytheism, but instead different blocks of Roman citizens following their own Gods in cult-like fashion, we have different blocks of Americans following their preferred political faiths (Feminism, Environmentalism, Marxism, etc.).

    In the past we could count on our politicians to check themselves because they would remember their church/Sunday school teachings about the consequences of violating the Commandments; or succumbing to the 7 Deadly Sins instead of practicing the 7 Cardinal Virtues, and etc. Admittedly, this is a Christian-centric critique, and I’m the last person to take Christian religious advice from, but I think all the great religions teach some variations on these central moral/ethical themes.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  66. Only one problem.

    It doesn’t fit The Narrative.

  67. @ic1000
    > Only Black Lives Matter

    Perhaps when Martin O'Malley speaks to the Convention on Wednesday night, he will point out that All Lives Matter.

    On the other hand, maybe that isn't the time or place for thoughtcrime. CNN, July 19, 2015, O'Malley apologizes for saying 'all lives matter' at liberal conference. Backsliding after a public self-criticism session would demonstrate incomplete rehabilitation. [O'Malley] could be a prime candidate to replace DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    In his interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Martin O’Malley feverishly explained that what was in the leaked DNC emails is NOT important, what IS important is that the Russians did it to get their man Trump elected. He really sounded deranged (or perhaps just a shameless partisan hack).

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Yeah the establishment went into overdrive to blame Russia in order to distract from the emails' contents
    , @wren
    I enjoyed seeing Trump asking Russia for some of Hillary's missing 30,000 yoga emsils today.

    I sure hope they release something. Assange says he has lots more coming.

    I hope he has a dead man's switch or something.

    And now the IRS says they are going to investigate the Clinton Foundation? But will they really?
  68. @Former Darfur
    Ted K was nuts, but he was not stupid. His writing was very lucid in many places. But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.

    I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.

    Agree. Almost all Radical Environmentalists have a fantasy-like understanding about their Garden-of-Eden view of life before industrialization and advanced technology.

    I always like asking them if they would prefer to return to pre-electricity America of 1870. You know, the one where 1/4 of all kids died before adolescence because of all the diseases we conquered in the 20th century, or where people drank beer because the water was so full of bacteria that people were always suffering from some type of dysentery, or no sanitation existed in our cities and horse/human waste ran openly in the streets and gutters. Or you could only work from sun-up to sundown because we had no electricity, and the only night lights were candles or oil lamps. And if you lived in the country (where the vast majority of Americans lived), life from your earliest memories was an unending (except for Sundays, relatively) series of backbreaking physical labors to build and maintain your house, collect and store water, plant/reap your main harvest, maintain your garden, remove waste, raise children (those who survived anyway), cut trees/chop firewood, keep the house relatively free of rodents and insect pests (even so, many of the poor still were lice-ridden), and etc. That they did all that and still found time to gather in town to debate politics and elect their local officials, found and build churches, schools and other common public works is simply amazing. I have a few pictures of some of my 19th/early 20th century ancestors, and they all have stern, gaunt faces of determination; and then I contrast that with all the Internet selfies of the millennials; wow.

    I’ll take 21st century America any day, thank you very much (with undying appreciation/respect for what my ancestors endured so that I have all this).

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "I have a few pictures of some of my 19th/early 20th century ancestors, and they all have stern, gaunt faces of determination; and then I contrast that with all the Internet selfies of the millennials; wow."

    Pitted against each other in an even battle, which side would you bet on?
  69. there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the morning

    Disagreement over money or pleasures in a sexual transaction after a late night at the office.

  70. @JohnnyWalker123
    Raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea. Ron Unz has endorsed this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5ih3aU4S8

    As for healthcare, much of the industrialized world receives higher-quality, lower-cost healthcare than the U.S. They spend less and get more value in return. For example, we outspend all the other Anglo nations substantially on healthcare, but White-Americans still have lower life expectancy.

    His ideas have been implemented pretty successfully in places like Denmark. Unfortunately, we don't have the privilege of having Denmark's race demographics, but there is much to be learned from that type of system. Though it'd need to be customized for this country.

    George Bush's utterly insane war in Iraq cost $5 trillion, but we're supposed to suck it up and pay for it. However, when it comes to something that'd help an ordinary person (like healthcare or a fair wage), Republicans suddenly become tightwads. What a bunch of useless bastards.

    Then they talk to us about Christianity and how they're pro-life/pro-family. I'm not sure how they can claim to be the party of Christian family values when you don't even support giving people a wage to feed their family. They're pro-life, but if you can't afford exorbitant healthcare costs......... tough. They have no problem emptying the national coffer in Iraq because (as we all know) Iraqi terrorists are a threat to America.

    Trump, to his credit, supported a national healthcare system. For some reason, he then backed off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

    The idea of having a national minimum wage given the wide disparity in the cost of living across the country is destructive and idiotic. Bernie thinks you can recreate a Scandinavian economic model in a country with a population twenty times larger, much different demographics and a much lower level of social trust. He is a fool.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    He's spent the last half-century in Vermont. What would he know of demographics?

    I'll bet the Brooklyn of his childhood was whiter than the America of today.
  71. @Wilkey
    Most violent people ultimately turn their violence against their own family or at least their own race/ethnicity. Very few criminals have drawn elaborate distinctions between their own kind and others.

    The mafia was more than happy to target Italian-owned businesses. 85% of black murderers kill other blacks, not whites. 97% of white murderers kill other whites. The vast majority of Islamic terrorism targets other Muslims. Clannish white groups, like polygamists, are shitty to their own, not just to outsiders, kicking out their sons (because they're sexual competition) and forcing their daughters into marriages with old men.

    Anglos are losing out in the sense that we don't have much ethnic loyalty to one another, but ethnic loyalty and criminality have little if anything in common. Anglo countries are still the most admired and desirable countries in the world, and a lot of it has to do with our low tolerance (in relative if not absolute terms) for corruption and criminality. That's changing thanks to mass immigration, and eventually it will probably permanently deform us, but tolerating criminality by our own ain't gunna fix it.

    Would I turn in a relative who maybe cheated on his taxes? Hell no. Would I turn in a relative who caused others "great harm"? You bet I would - even if that relative was my own mother.

    Would I turn in a relative who maybe cheated on his taxes? Hell no. Would I turn in a relative who caused others “great harm”? You bet I would – even if that relative was my own mother.

    These are issues of conflicting loyalty, and not amenable to sweeping statements, imo.

    I tend to agree more with JohnnyWalker123’s primacy of family loyalty over external loyalty, but there are probably situations where I would turn in a family member for a serious crime. In reality, I’d have to weigh all the particular circumstances – motive, justification, likelihood of reoffending etc – very carefully.

    Of course, just because something is a crime doesn’t mean it is necessarily wrong, anyway.

    Such decisions are particularly difficult for those also having divided higher loyalties, of course, such as wives or family members of muslim immigrant terrorists.

  72. Pretty much says it all:

    If you are a White man that votes for Hillary, you are either being paid or you have serious psychological issues. https://t.co/FOrXEYDtjz— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) July 27, 2016

  73. @SPMoore8
    WRT to the overall question, I am skeptical if the classroom is the proper forum for moral or ethical education, particularly in high school.

    In the first place, I am suspicious if teachers are qualified, by training, not merely for moral or ethical teaching, but for laying down appropriate moral and ethical teachings. The Ten Commandments are not phrased in the form of speculative questions: "Don't you think it would be a good idea if we didn't kill?"

    I can see, perhaps with some college students once they have gotten their feet wet to propose to them some moral dilemmas, because, after all, history is full of these. But posing the dilemma is not the same as proposing to answer it, and that is no teacher's job. That is the job for a rabbi or a priest. (OK, an imam or whatever, too.)

    Otherwise you are just using class time to indulge your preferred moral order on the students, which is bound to affect the more objective elements of the curriculum. ("I'm not going to give this guy an A, because he opposes SSM!")

    If there is a lack of morality in American society it is because we have lost touch with the religious and moral traditions that stipulated moral rules. They didn't have bull sessions about them. The argument has been made since the '60's and at least since McIntyre's "After Virtue" (there are many others on this) that our morality has been living on the capital of Christianity used up by the Enlightenment, and that secular humanism is incapable of providing any such moral order, since it provides no real purpose, goal or judgment for human life. Instead, we are only told by modern atheists that altruism exists because it is in our selfish genes, and it is successful.

    In saying this I am not questioning the role that ingrained "custom" plays in our morality. Nor am I advocating any particular religious or philosophical approach, since, clearly, moral people and moral societies can come in all sorts of flavors. But I do think that we have lost a lot of our moral groundedness as a nation. However, the remedy for that is church, temple, what have you, and parents. It cannot be done in schools, not least because any such gesture will involve a deliberate attempt to inculcate moral values, which on some level must violate the established religion clause.

    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can’t morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor. The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people. If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you’re embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others…, maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can’t morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor.

    We're talking about a situation in which someone will at minimum assault, and at maximum rob or even kill one's neighbor, and that someone who knew the criminal would not turn them in. And what that means is that those actions are comparatively "moral" because of the emotive or affective attachment of the other person to the criminal.

    As I said, you may not need religion but you do need some kind of metaphysical system as to what humans are and what they should be doing. MacIntyre, referring to the West, held that religion provided this. Essentially, if there is no particular reason you are here, if there is no overall concept of why you are here, and what you should be doing with your life, then it's very hard to come up with any kind of moral rules that will have any force aside from an emotional appeal. But once we start basing morality on emotions, we are also subjectifying morality, and once we do that, to each his own.

    Outside of a metaphysical or religious context I don't see how someone can say that any of the itemized acts is necessarily "wrong", except that they are against the law.

    The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people.

    No, morality may reflect changing cultural mores, but ethics has to reflect some concept of right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. And that conduct has to have a purpose. It can't just be, "don't you think that's wrong?" or "how could you ever do that?" Again, those are subjective and emotional arguments.

    If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you’re embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    If you want to stipulate that the American people are not a people if they do not all share the same ethical precepts, then you are right, we are not a people. But this was built in by the establishment clause: it is not the job of government (and, by extension, schools) to tell us why we are here, what we are here for, and how we should (therefore) act. That was formerly the purpose of religion, or simple common mores. The point that people like MacIntyre and many others have been making for many years now, however, is that we have been living off the former models of conduct derived from religion (this is where Hume's "custom" comes in) for over two centuries now, and the only real replacement is self-interest and greed.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others…, maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    The Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, Tat Tvam Asi, and many other principles of ethics do tend toward a similar end, but the first cannot be taught because it is "religious" and so is the third, while Kant can be presented as his take on the matter but it has no legislative power.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    Are you stating this as the "ethical" purpose of the USA? if the "purpose" of the life of a citizen in the USA is maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then all you've got there is a life devoted to hedonism. I don't know how harming "innocent" "civilians" has much to do with this, but innocent civilians do get shot by cops (for example) because we have laws, and the purpose of those laws is to maximize the rights of the majority to acquire property and to maintain the property they have.

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    By what criterion? Veterans serve as tokens for all of us, I would argue therefore that they should receive the best we can provide. Of course we know they do not receive that, given the complaints about the treatment of our servicemen after they leave the service, lack of medical and psychological help, and so on.
  74. @JohnnyWalker123
    Raising the minimum wage is an excellent idea. Ron Unz has endorsed this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5ih3aU4S8

    As for healthcare, much of the industrialized world receives higher-quality, lower-cost healthcare than the U.S. They spend less and get more value in return. For example, we outspend all the other Anglo nations substantially on healthcare, but White-Americans still have lower life expectancy.

    His ideas have been implemented pretty successfully in places like Denmark. Unfortunately, we don't have the privilege of having Denmark's race demographics, but there is much to be learned from that type of system. Though it'd need to be customized for this country.

    George Bush's utterly insane war in Iraq cost $5 trillion, but we're supposed to suck it up and pay for it. However, when it comes to something that'd help an ordinary person (like healthcare or a fair wage), Republicans suddenly become tightwads. What a bunch of useless bastards.

    Then they talk to us about Christianity and how they're pro-life/pro-family. I'm not sure how they can claim to be the party of Christian family values when you don't even support giving people a wage to feed their family. They're pro-life, but if you can't afford exorbitant healthcare costs......... tough. They have no problem emptying the national coffer in Iraq because (as we all know) Iraqi terrorists are a threat to America.

    Trump, to his credit, supported a national healthcare system. For some reason, he then backed off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

    The minimum wage was invented by the original Progressives a racist, sexist eugenics plot to disemploy blacks, women, and the disabled, and it still disemploys people.

    Our healthcare system has been crippled by nearly a century of government meddling. The fix is less government meddling, not more.

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    First of all, opposing the minimum wage by saying it was conceived in racism is lame, it makes me want to support it and I'm, in principle, kind of, an anarcho-captialist.

    Secondly, you are wasting your time. The principle that minimum wage laws must cetus paribus increase unemployment is such a trivial and obvious consequence of the principle of supply and demand, that people who do not know this only do so because they don't want to know.
  75. Last Presidential election, it was Alex Okrent. Maybe the DNC always makes a ritual sacrifice of a young Jewish male in the July before a Presidential election, and nobody’s noticed so far.

    Or maybe they’re ferreting out Putin’s moles.

  76. OT: Would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley Jr. to be freed after 35 years

    John W. Hinckley, Jr., will be released from a government psychiatric hospital more than 35 years after he attempted to assassinate president Ronald Reagan and shot three others outside the Washington Hilton on March 30, 1981, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

    Hinckley, 61, no longer poses a danger to himself or others and will be freed to live full-time with his mother in Williamsburg, Va., effective as soon as Aug. 5 subject to dozens of temporary treatment and monitoring conditions, U.S. District Judge Paul L Friedman of Washington wrote.

    If Hinckley adheres to all restrictions, they could begin to be phased out after 12 to 18 months, removing him from court control for the first time since he was confined to St. Elizabeth’s hospital after the shooting, according to the order.

    Hinckley lived at hospital full time until the 1990s, when he was permitted supervised visits with family members that gradually have been extended to 17 days a month at the home of his 90-year-old mother in a gated golf course development.

  77. @Lugash
    Who scheduled a community meeting for 4:30 Monday morning? Is that the only time DC strivers have to interact with their neighbors?

    Please see quotation marks. Like other punctuation, they were invented so stupid people could read. Now we’re all lazy.

  78. @syonredux

    Sanders is Jewish.
     
    Hence the black humor about Hillary gassing his supporters

    Wait… Ann Coulter is black??!!

  79. CCZ says:
    @Wilkey
    "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton came to the Twin Cities Monday [July 18] and told a national teachers union she’d met with Philando Castile’s mother, uncles, and sister.”

    Why didn't she meet with his father, too? Is he dead? In prison? Does the mother not know who the father is? Is one of the uncles the father?

    Interesting that Hitlery didn't choose to bring any of the mothers of the Pulse Nightclub victims to the convention. She could've had double cred from them - mothers of gay, Hispanic sons. But that would've meant pissing off Muslims. Don't wanna do that - you might need their votes in Virginia and Florida.

    A Google search finds no references to Philando’s father, but Ancestry.com has a 1993 birth certificate reference for his sister Allysza Monique Castile; mother is Valerie Castile and father is Calvin Lee Anderson.

    Better known is Diamond Lavish Reynolds, who live streamed the incident after Philando was shot. Her previous live streams (below), with her words about guns (“put the guns down”) and images of smoking “weed” (or “blunts”) would seem to raise some serious concerns about her character and credibility.

  80. @syonredux

    There is an expectation that people will show extreme loyalty to their romantic partners. That’s why spouses can’t be compelled to testify against one another. Trivial non issue from a person lacking even a passing knowledge of the law or its foundations, sounds like.
     
    The question involved a boyfriend/girlfriend, not a spouse:

    Your boyfriend or girlfriend has committed a felony, during which other people were badly harmed. Should you or should you not turn him or her into the police?
     

    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn’t mean that the same dynamics aren’t in play.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn’t mean that the same dynamics aren’t in play.
     
    But not the same legal principles, dear fellow. Which indicates that most people do not regard boyfriend/girlfriend status as being equivalent to that of husband/wife. The spousal bond is a special thing:

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
     
  81. @The most deplorable one
    Ahhh, another Internet SuperIntelligence quoting Snopes. Well done, sir.

    This is coming from the guy who broke the story about how Guccifer was killed in prison by the Clintons. Funny I haven’t heard much about that story lately.

    At least you were first though. You’re a complete idiot, but at least you were first.

  82. @Harry Baldwin
    In his interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Martin O'Malley feverishly explained that what was in the leaked DNC emails is NOT important, what IS important is that the Russians did it to get their man Trump elected. He really sounded deranged (or perhaps just a shameless partisan hack).

    Yeah the establishment went into overdrive to blame Russia in order to distract from the emails’ contents

  83. Oh why, oh why, oh why does Hillary have it in for good ole’ white guys?
    Why can’t she just be like Sarah Palin with the glassy poodle eyes?

  84. @SPMoore8
    WRT to the overall question, I am skeptical if the classroom is the proper forum for moral or ethical education, particularly in high school.

    In the first place, I am suspicious if teachers are qualified, by training, not merely for moral or ethical teaching, but for laying down appropriate moral and ethical teachings. The Ten Commandments are not phrased in the form of speculative questions: "Don't you think it would be a good idea if we didn't kill?"

    I can see, perhaps with some college students once they have gotten their feet wet to propose to them some moral dilemmas, because, after all, history is full of these. But posing the dilemma is not the same as proposing to answer it, and that is no teacher's job. That is the job for a rabbi or a priest. (OK, an imam or whatever, too.)

    Otherwise you are just using class time to indulge your preferred moral order on the students, which is bound to affect the more objective elements of the curriculum. ("I'm not going to give this guy an A, because he opposes SSM!")

    If there is a lack of morality in American society it is because we have lost touch with the religious and moral traditions that stipulated moral rules. They didn't have bull sessions about them. The argument has been made since the '60's and at least since McIntyre's "After Virtue" (there are many others on this) that our morality has been living on the capital of Christianity used up by the Enlightenment, and that secular humanism is incapable of providing any such moral order, since it provides no real purpose, goal or judgment for human life. Instead, we are only told by modern atheists that altruism exists because it is in our selfish genes, and it is successful.

    In saying this I am not questioning the role that ingrained "custom" plays in our morality. Nor am I advocating any particular religious or philosophical approach, since, clearly, moral people and moral societies can come in all sorts of flavors. But I do think that we have lost a lot of our moral groundedness as a nation. However, the remedy for that is church, temple, what have you, and parents. It cannot be done in schools, not least because any such gesture will involve a deliberate attempt to inculcate moral values, which on some level must violate the established religion clause.

    Yes. From what I’ve seen these HS bull sessions are mainly used to confuse traditionally-minded students and make them doubt their parents’ authority. This is why people shouldn’t send their kids to schools that don’t agree with their basic worldview.

    Plus, teenagers are already feeling the hormones and pull of rebellion. This is not the time to have them do rationalizations of potentially immoral behavior. Sometimes right and wrong are only a razor’s edge apart and it takes more life experience than 16 years to make such judgments.

    Your SSM example is, of course, perfect. My friend’s son, in the 8th grade, stood opposed on this question and had the entire class (and the teacher) attacking him. What the heck? He’s a great guy (now 15) but the future of America is doomed with this sort of approach.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  85. @Harry Baldwin
    In his interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Martin O'Malley feverishly explained that what was in the leaked DNC emails is NOT important, what IS important is that the Russians did it to get their man Trump elected. He really sounded deranged (or perhaps just a shameless partisan hack).

    I enjoyed seeing Trump asking Russia for some of Hillary’s missing 30,000 yoga emsils today.

    I sure hope they release something. Assange says he has lots more coming.

    I hope he has a dead man’s switch or something.

    And now the IRS says they are going to investigate the Clinton Foundation? But will they really?

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Way way back he released a huge coded file that he claimed was a scrutible via a password that would function as a dead man's switch, or insurance, should anything lethal happened to him.

    To be honest though, I have a hard time believing that he can actually produce something that would affect the people in power.

    One interesting thing about his recent activities is all of the leftists on Facebook calling for him to be killed by drone strike. To be fair though, Assange is not necessarily a friend of the American people, while Edward Snowden is a greater Patriot then all of the presidents since 1960 combined and Donald Trump wants him murdered.

    Before people disagree too violently with my criticism of Trump's view on this subject let me point out that I distinctly do not care about the views of people who view this as a personality contest rather than a policy one.

    It would be hard for anyone to be more in favor of ceasing immigration almost entirely than myself. That being the case, combined with Hillary's odiousness, is a fine argument in favor of supporting Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there are also numerous arguments against the coronation of Emperor Trump.

    Anyone who can't see the faults in their preferred candidate obviously doesn't have an opinion worth hearing. Happily, as the recent thread on the Florida shooting revealed, the majority of commentators here are not of the my side is 100% pure persuasion. More than most sites, from both the left and the right, a good 60-70% of the people writing here have an interest and engaging in critical thinking. The others have opinions as worthless as those expressed on dailykos (does that still exist)?
  86. @Rob McX
    He should've asked them if they'd turn in a racist.

    Well played

  87. @Bill P

    It’s not high minded, it’s a combo of common sense and social responsibility.
     
    When collective punishment is the rule, people don't turn family members in for obvious reasons. From what I saw in China, the cops don't only punish the perp. Other members of his family/community are typically punished in some manner as well, even if only symbolically (for example making the family pay for the bullet used in the execution of the condemned). The idea is that people then learn to police their own.

    This is how it works in most of the world. Without an efficient justice system and well-behaved people with a sense of individual responsibility (i.e. guilt), collective punishment is pretty much all that works.

    But of course then you have the family collusion in hiding felonies, honor killings, etc. Westerners totally misunderstand honor killings, thinking they are carried out only by enraged fanatics. They are actually an act of expiation of family guilt, and the killer is usually distraught and overcome with shame over exposure of some scandal. It looks barbaric to us, but people truly sympathize with those that carry them out in shame based cultures. I heard one story in China about a girl who was mentally ill and would do scandalous things, for example stripping naked in public. Her father eventually had more than he could stomach and killed her, and he was spared severe punishment because people genuinely felt sympathy for him (that was one of the stories that contributed to the pretty rough case of "culture shock" I got after learning Chinese pretty well and starting to understand the mentality).

    I'm not defending this stuff, but there's been some talk about collective punishment on this site as a solution to Muslim violence, so we ought to have a clear understanding of what that leads to.

    This is probably part of the reason why crime in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, etc is very low but when you import citizens of the same into Europe their crime rate jumps.

  88. @AndrewR
    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn't mean that the same dynamics aren't in play.

    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn’t mean that the same dynamics aren’t in play.

    But not the same legal principles, dear fellow. Which indicates that most people do not regard boyfriend/girlfriend status as being equivalent to that of husband/wife. The spousal bond is a special thing:

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil's advocacy elsewhere.
  89. @syonredux

    Same principle, genius. Just because the law can compel someone to testify against their non-spouse romantic partner doesn’t mean that the same dynamics aren’t in play.
     
    But not the same legal principles, dear fellow. Which indicates that most people do not regard boyfriend/girlfriend status as being equivalent to that of husband/wife. The spousal bond is a special thing:

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
     

    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil’s advocacy elsewhere.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil’s advocacy elsewhere.
     
    Dear fellow, when the difference in degree grows sufficiently large, it becomes a difference in kind.

    A wife is not a girlfriend; a husband is not a boyfriend.

    Unless you're Black.....
  90. I saw Assange interviewed on democracy now and he went out of his way to reference all of the people working for the dnc who had access to the files, and that the media would have egg on its face once the source was revealed. He said this in such a confident way that I am betting either an fbi type employee or a DNC employee is the true source.

    The murder of a young, idealistic dnc staffer in a supposed robbery where nothing was stolen just a short time before the dnc leaks came out is a bit suspicious to say the least. Luckily, the clintons have not been involved or linked to other suspicious deaths in the past, so I am sure it is all just an unfortunate coincidence.

  91. @David
    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can't morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor. The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people. If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you're embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others..., maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can’t morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor.

    We’re talking about a situation in which someone will at minimum assault, and at maximum rob or even kill one’s neighbor, and that someone who knew the criminal would not turn them in. And what that means is that those actions are comparatively “moral” because of the emotive or affective attachment of the other person to the criminal.

    As I said, you may not need religion but you do need some kind of metaphysical system as to what humans are and what they should be doing. MacIntyre, referring to the West, held that religion provided this. Essentially, if there is no particular reason you are here, if there is no overall concept of why you are here, and what you should be doing with your life, then it’s very hard to come up with any kind of moral rules that will have any force aside from an emotional appeal. But once we start basing morality on emotions, we are also subjectifying morality, and once we do that, to each his own.

    Outside of a metaphysical or religious context I don’t see how someone can say that any of the itemized acts is necessarily “wrong”, except that they are against the law.

    The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people.

    No, morality may reflect changing cultural mores, but ethics has to reflect some concept of right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. And that conduct has to have a purpose. It can’t just be, “don’t you think that’s wrong?” or “how could you ever do that?” Again, those are subjective and emotional arguments.

    If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you’re embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    If you want to stipulate that the American people are not a people if they do not all share the same ethical precepts, then you are right, we are not a people. But this was built in by the establishment clause: it is not the job of government (and, by extension, schools) to tell us why we are here, what we are here for, and how we should (therefore) act. That was formerly the purpose of religion, or simple common mores. The point that people like MacIntyre and many others have been making for many years now, however, is that we have been living off the former models of conduct derived from religion (this is where Hume’s “custom” comes in) for over two centuries now, and the only real replacement is self-interest and greed.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others…, maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    The Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, Tat Tvam Asi, and many other principles of ethics do tend toward a similar end, but the first cannot be taught because it is “religious” and so is the third, while Kant can be presented as his take on the matter but it has no legislative power.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    Are you stating this as the “ethical” purpose of the USA? if the “purpose” of the life of a citizen in the USA is maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then all you’ve got there is a life devoted to hedonism. I don’t know how harming “innocent” “civilians” has much to do with this, but innocent civilians do get shot by cops (for example) because we have laws, and the purpose of those laws is to maximize the rights of the majority to acquire property and to maintain the property they have.

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    By what criterion? Veterans serve as tokens for all of us, I would argue therefore that they should receive the best we can provide. Of course we know they do not receive that, given the complaints about the treatment of our servicemen after they leave the service, lack of medical and psychological help, and so on.

    • Replies: @David
    The words ethical and moral essentially have the same meaning. Cicero translated Aristotle's Ethics with the word morals, ignoring some intermediary forms. That's why we have two words for the same thing. You have your distinction between them. I've heard others. They are rooted in an Ancient Greek word meaning custom. Ethnic shares the same root.

    To know what's excellence in a given context or project, you have to consider the purpose. You don't have to know the meaning of life or expect immortality to find it hard to reconcile unrevenged murder with the purpose of the US.

    There may be some aspects of morality not covered in being a virtuous citizen, but it gets you a long way. The majority of Americans easily agree that we're obligated to prevent our dearest family members being violent sociopaths if we can. The community should teach its children to be good citizens and our failure to do so shouldn't be blown off because we don't know what's right to the twenty-seventh decimal place.

    We just have to agree on the parts about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity, and from there we can build an environment where we securely disagree on the metaphysical stuff. If someone can't agree, he should move to Canada.


    they should receive the best we can provide... we know they do not receive that, given the complaints...
     
    Seriously... the very, very best? Should Trump vacate his tower to make way?

    Soldiers are great. But they don't deserve the best any more than other honorable citizens. Black people complain a lot too. Is that how we know they don't get what they deserve? There's no reason to promote the obviously unethical because the absolutely ethical is unknown.

  92. @syonredux

    Would you turn in a family member?
     
    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.I'm Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.

    So even proud “anglo” like you limits your judicial duty to “serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury,” eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff’s crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough? What about drug-dealing? Tax evasion?

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn’t fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty). Over time, however, I’ve come to appreciate the virtue of loyalty. Loyalty doesn’t mean standing by your man when he’s innocent, because that’s what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he’s guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.

    Strict adherence to “justice” is celebrated in other cultures, too, not just the Anglo-Saxon one. The Chinese paragon of justice is supposed to have meted out a harsh sentence to a relative. One version has it that it was his favorite nephew and the punishment was harsher precisely because of that. But how is that fair? Is it even possible for the justice to have been fair in this case? The right thing to do in my book, which comports with the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, is not to try to be fair, but to recuse oneself.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned and try to prevent commission of future crimes for his sake as well as society’s. Tom Wolfe explores the question of loyalty versus justice from the opposite angle in A Man in Full. There, too, the protagonist basically recused himself.

    Before Conrad Black went to prison for fraud, Donald Trump offered to testify on his behalf. No recusal here because Trump didn’t know that Black was guilty, but then he didn’t really know that he was innocent, either. I think Trump a better man for it, as does VDare.

    In your eagerness to extol your own “Anglo” virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus along with the “Hispanics,” you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    So even proud “anglo” like you limits your judicial duty to “serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury,” eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff’s crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough?
     
    Given the magnitude of his crimes, yes.


    What about drug-dealing? Large-scale?
    sure

    .Tax evasion?
     
    Large-scale (on the order of millions of dollars)? Sure.

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn’t fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty).
     
    That's a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.

    Loyalty doesn’t mean standing by your man when he’s innocent, because that’s what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he’s guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.
     
    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned
     
    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.


    In your eagerness to extol your own “Anglo” virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    along with the “Hispanics,” you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.
     
    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They've been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.
  93. @JohnnyWalker123

    If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.
     
    I'm surprised people would turn in their own family member.

    I’m Anglo; we have little truck with amoral familism. That kind of morality belongs to Hispanics.,
     
    and Eastern Euros, Italians, Greeks, Jews, East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Africans, and Native Americans.

    There are actually some Anglos who'd never turn in a family member.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdcSXqwb48

    The Anglos in Winter's Bone, for example.


    ‘If they committed a serious crime that caused others severe injury, yes.’

    I’m surprised people would turn in their own family member.”

    I’m surprised people wouldn’t mind having a violent criminal in the family. At the very least, it would make holiday dinners somewhat awkward, Thanksgiving in particular.

    “Our family has so many things to be thankful for this year. We live in the best country in the world. We are all healthy. Dad got a promotion. Tiffany won a scholarship. Josh only raped two women. …”

    I turned in two good but misguided friends of my family, one for burglary, one for arson. (My family tended to take in strays.) One went to prison, one was cleared.

    But I also refused to aid someone injured and at risk of losing his life after he assaulted a friend of mine. He hurt a buddy, I didn’t give a flip about his survival.

    Loyalty is a weird thing.

  94. @syonredux

    That type of high-minded morality is why Anglos are losing out.
     
    Perhaps. But I just can't lower myself to the level of a Mexican

    I can guarantee you that Trump would never turn in a relative or a friend.
     
    Not even if the friend killed a small child? That's quite sad.

    You’d never get them convicted for abortion anyway.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    You’d never get them convicted for abortion anyway.
     
    Under current law, no. But I think that it's still illegal to murder a 5-year old...
  95. @SPMoore8
    No reference to religion has to be made to arrive at the conclusion that one can’t morally kill, assault or rob his neighbor.

    We're talking about a situation in which someone will at minimum assault, and at maximum rob or even kill one's neighbor, and that someone who knew the criminal would not turn them in. And what that means is that those actions are comparatively "moral" because of the emotive or affective attachment of the other person to the criminal.

    As I said, you may not need religion but you do need some kind of metaphysical system as to what humans are and what they should be doing. MacIntyre, referring to the West, held that religion provided this. Essentially, if there is no particular reason you are here, if there is no overall concept of why you are here, and what you should be doing with your life, then it's very hard to come up with any kind of moral rules that will have any force aside from an emotional appeal. But once we start basing morality on emotions, we are also subjectifying morality, and once we do that, to each his own.

    Outside of a metaphysical or religious context I don't see how someone can say that any of the itemized acts is necessarily "wrong", except that they are against the law.

    The words moral and ethical are rooted in the idea of shared ways among a particular people.

    No, morality may reflect changing cultural mores, but ethics has to reflect some concept of right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. And that conduct has to have a purpose. It can't just be, "don't you think that's wrong?" or "how could you ever do that?" Again, those are subjective and emotional arguments.

    If you think every club gets to have its own general code, you’re embracing the idea that the American people are not a people.

    If you want to stipulate that the American people are not a people if they do not all share the same ethical precepts, then you are right, we are not a people. But this was built in by the establishment clause: it is not the job of government (and, by extension, schools) to tell us why we are here, what we are here for, and how we should (therefore) act. That was formerly the purpose of religion, or simple common mores. The point that people like MacIntyre and many others have been making for many years now, however, is that we have been living off the former models of conduct derived from religion (this is where Hume's "custom" comes in) for over two centuries now, and the only real replacement is self-interest and greed.

    Anyway, the more prominent moral precepts, like doing unto others…, maximizing universal happiness, and supposing your actions were universal law, tend to arrive an nearly identical ethical conclusions.

    The Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, Tat Tvam Asi, and many other principles of ethics do tend toward a similar end, but the first cannot be taught because it is "religious" and so is the third, while Kant can be presented as his take on the matter but it has no legislative power.

    What is the purpose of the USA? To preserve the life, liberty and happiness of its citizens. Is harming innocent citizens compatible with that purpose?

    Are you stating this as the "ethical" purpose of the USA? if the "purpose" of the life of a citizen in the USA is maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then all you've got there is a life devoted to hedonism. I don't know how harming "innocent" "civilians" has much to do with this, but innocent civilians do get shot by cops (for example) because we have laws, and the purpose of those laws is to maximize the rights of the majority to acquire property and to maintain the property they have.

    One might even be able to show that encouraging veterans to take as much as they can get is immoral, too.

    By what criterion? Veterans serve as tokens for all of us, I would argue therefore that they should receive the best we can provide. Of course we know they do not receive that, given the complaints about the treatment of our servicemen after they leave the service, lack of medical and psychological help, and so on.

    The words ethical and moral essentially have the same meaning. Cicero translated Aristotle’s Ethics with the word morals, ignoring some intermediary forms. That’s why we have two words for the same thing. You have your distinction between them. I’ve heard others. They are rooted in an Ancient Greek word meaning custom. Ethnic shares the same root.

    To know what’s excellence in a given context or project, you have to consider the purpose. You don’t have to know the meaning of life or expect immortality to find it hard to reconcile unrevenged murder with the purpose of the US.

    There may be some aspects of morality not covered in being a virtuous citizen, but it gets you a long way. The majority of Americans easily agree that we’re obligated to prevent our dearest family members being violent sociopaths if we can. The community should teach its children to be good citizens and our failure to do so shouldn’t be blown off because we don’t know what’s right to the twenty-seventh decimal place.

    We just have to agree on the parts about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity, and from there we can build an environment where we securely disagree on the metaphysical stuff. If someone can’t agree, he should move to Canada.

    they should receive the best we can provide… we know they do not receive that, given the complaints…

    Seriously… the very, very best? Should Trump vacate his tower to make way?

    Soldiers are great. But they don’t deserve the best any more than other honorable citizens. Black people complain a lot too. Is that how we know they don’t get what they deserve? There’s no reason to promote the obviously unethical because the absolutely ethical is unknown.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    To know what’s excellence in a given context or project, you have to consider the purpose. You don’t have to know the meaning of life or expect immortality to find it hard to reconcile unrevenged murder with the purpose of the US.

    The first sentence is exactly what MacIntyre would say. However, ethics applies to individual humans, it doesn't apply to states. As for "unrevenged murder", I don't know what you are talking about, you have to be more specific. The "purpose" of the US, and any other state, is to protect its citizens from the outside, and to protect its citizens and their property on the inside. How this ties into "unrevenged murder" requires specific details that you haven't yet provided. However, I will say that "revenge" is no longer a very popular concept. That is why we have (hopefully disinterested) justice.

    There may be some aspects of morality not covered in being a virtuous citizen, but it gets you a long way. The majority of Americans easily agree that we’re obligated to prevent our dearest family members being violent sociopaths if we can. The community should teach its children to be good citizens and our failure to do so shouldn’t be blown off

    First we need to know what are your criteria for being a "virtuous citizen". And by the way, I don't have any problem with the idea of virtuous citizens, I just don't see how it can be done outside of an ideology that basically tells you what a virtuous citizen is, and 90% that involves religion. Public schools are poorly equipped to tell students what "virtue" is.

    Second, I also have no problem in children being taught to be "good citizens". But again, what are the criteria? Obey the laws, I assume. But what if you feel it is an unjust law? This is where again I feel public schools are ill equipped to impart universally agreed upon values to students because first there no real universal agreed upon values outside of a specific school of philosophy or religion, and second because such teachings would violate the establishment clause.

    We just have to agree on the parts about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity, and from there we can build an environment where we securely disagree on the metaphysical stuff.

    That simply boils down to self-interest and greed, and that's OK as long as we never run out of stuff and as long as everyone feels that everyone is making equivalent sacrifices, because, make no mistake, living in society also involves sacrifices, obligations, and duties. But which ones? The basic problem is that all you have articulated is a pro-hedonism argument, not any of the obligations that goes with our rights. If that can be done on a secular basis, I'm all ears.

    Soldiers are great. But they don’t deserve the best any more than other honorable citizens. Black people complain a lot too. Is that how we know they don’t get what they deserve? There’s no reason to promote the obviously unethical because the absolutely ethical is unknown.

    The people in the armed services deserve better than ordinary citizens when they serve because by being in the service they sacrifice their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for what is in fact a pretty severe regimen, and, in so doing, they are acting as all of our agents. This is just for being in the service: the sacrifices of those killed, maimed, wounded, and afflicted with all sorts of other maladies are even greater.

    When I say that veterans should get "all they can", I say this because I know that what they actually get is much less than they deserve, and that is clearly on display with the post-Iraq scandals involving the VA. At minimum, they should get the service-related health care they require for the rest of their lives. The other side benefits, as per education, housing, etc. are well earned and well deserved.

    The complaints of Black people have nothing to do with the case. Again, I ask for specifics.
  96. @wren
    I enjoyed seeing Trump asking Russia for some of Hillary's missing 30,000 yoga emsils today.

    I sure hope they release something. Assange says he has lots more coming.

    I hope he has a dead man's switch or something.

    And now the IRS says they are going to investigate the Clinton Foundation? But will they really?

    Way way back he released a huge coded file that he claimed was a scrutible via a password that would function as a dead man’s switch, or insurance, should anything lethal happened to him.

    To be honest though, I have a hard time believing that he can actually produce something that would affect the people in power.

    One interesting thing about his recent activities is all of the leftists on Facebook calling for him to be killed by drone strike. To be fair though, Assange is not necessarily a friend of the American people, while Edward Snowden is a greater Patriot then all of the presidents since 1960 combined and Donald Trump wants him murdered.

    Before people disagree too violently with my criticism of Trump’s view on this subject let me point out that I distinctly do not care about the views of people who view this as a personality contest rather than a policy one.

    It would be hard for anyone to be more in favor of ceasing immigration almost entirely than myself. That being the case, combined with Hillary’s odiousness, is a fine argument in favor of supporting Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there are also numerous arguments against the coronation of Emperor Trump.

    Anyone who can’t see the faults in their preferred candidate obviously doesn’t have an opinion worth hearing. Happily, as the recent thread on the Florida shooting revealed, the majority of commentators here are not of the my side is 100% pure persuasion. More than most sites, from both the left and the right, a good 60-70% of the people writing here have an interest and engaging in critical thinking. The others have opinions as worthless as those expressed on dailykos (does that still exist)?

    • Replies: @BB753
    When did Trump say he wanted Snowden killed?
  97. @David
    The words ethical and moral essentially have the same meaning. Cicero translated Aristotle's Ethics with the word morals, ignoring some intermediary forms. That's why we have two words for the same thing. You have your distinction between them. I've heard others. They are rooted in an Ancient Greek word meaning custom. Ethnic shares the same root.

    To know what's excellence in a given context or project, you have to consider the purpose. You don't have to know the meaning of life or expect immortality to find it hard to reconcile unrevenged murder with the purpose of the US.

    There may be some aspects of morality not covered in being a virtuous citizen, but it gets you a long way. The majority of Americans easily agree that we're obligated to prevent our dearest family members being violent sociopaths if we can. The community should teach its children to be good citizens and our failure to do so shouldn't be blown off because we don't know what's right to the twenty-seventh decimal place.

    We just have to agree on the parts about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity, and from there we can build an environment where we securely disagree on the metaphysical stuff. If someone can't agree, he should move to Canada.


    they should receive the best we can provide... we know they do not receive that, given the complaints...
     
    Seriously... the very, very best? Should Trump vacate his tower to make way?

    Soldiers are great. But they don't deserve the best any more than other honorable citizens. Black people complain a lot too. Is that how we know they don't get what they deserve? There's no reason to promote the obviously unethical because the absolutely ethical is unknown.

    To know what’s excellence in a given context or project, you have to consider the purpose. You don’t have to know the meaning of life or expect immortality to find it hard to reconcile unrevenged murder with the purpose of the US.

    The first sentence is exactly what MacIntyre would say. However, ethics applies to individual humans, it doesn’t apply to states. As for “unrevenged murder”, I don’t know what you are talking about, you have to be more specific. The “purpose” of the US, and any other state, is to protect its citizens from the outside, and to protect its citizens and their property on the inside. How this ties into “unrevenged murder” requires specific details that you haven’t yet provided. However, I will say that “revenge” is no longer a very popular concept. That is why we have (hopefully disinterested) justice.

    There may be some aspects of morality not covered in being a virtuous citizen, but it gets you a long way. The majority of Americans easily agree that we’re obligated to prevent our dearest family members being violent sociopaths if we can. The community should teach its children to be good citizens and our failure to do so shouldn’t be blown off

    First we need to know what are your criteria for being a “virtuous citizen”. And by the way, I don’t have any problem with the idea of virtuous citizens, I just don’t see how it can be done outside of an ideology that basically tells you what a virtuous citizen is, and 90% that involves religion. Public schools are poorly equipped to tell students what “virtue” is.

    Second, I also have no problem in children being taught to be “good citizens”. But again, what are the criteria? Obey the laws, I assume. But what if you feel it is an unjust law? This is where again I feel public schools are ill equipped to impart universally agreed upon values to students because first there no real universal agreed upon values outside of a specific school of philosophy or religion, and second because such teachings would violate the establishment clause.

    We just have to agree on the parts about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our posterity, and from there we can build an environment where we securely disagree on the metaphysical stuff.

    That simply boils down to self-interest and greed, and that’s OK as long as we never run out of stuff and as long as everyone feels that everyone is making equivalent sacrifices, because, make no mistake, living in society also involves sacrifices, obligations, and duties. But which ones? The basic problem is that all you have articulated is a pro-hedonism argument, not any of the obligations that goes with our rights. If that can be done on a secular basis, I’m all ears.

    Soldiers are great. But they don’t deserve the best any more than other honorable citizens. Black people complain a lot too. Is that how we know they don’t get what they deserve? There’s no reason to promote the obviously unethical because the absolutely ethical is unknown.

    The people in the armed services deserve better than ordinary citizens when they serve because by being in the service they sacrifice their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for what is in fact a pretty severe regimen, and, in so doing, they are acting as all of our agents. This is just for being in the service: the sacrifices of those killed, maimed, wounded, and afflicted with all sorts of other maladies are even greater.

    When I say that veterans should get “all they can”, I say this because I know that what they actually get is much less than they deserve, and that is clearly on display with the post-Iraq scandals involving the VA. At minimum, they should get the service-related health care they require for the rest of their lives. The other side benefits, as per education, housing, etc. are well earned and well deserved.

    The complaints of Black people have nothing to do with the case. Again, I ask for specifics.

  98. @Moshe
    Way way back he released a huge coded file that he claimed was a scrutible via a password that would function as a dead man's switch, or insurance, should anything lethal happened to him.

    To be honest though, I have a hard time believing that he can actually produce something that would affect the people in power.

    One interesting thing about his recent activities is all of the leftists on Facebook calling for him to be killed by drone strike. To be fair though, Assange is not necessarily a friend of the American people, while Edward Snowden is a greater Patriot then all of the presidents since 1960 combined and Donald Trump wants him murdered.

    Before people disagree too violently with my criticism of Trump's view on this subject let me point out that I distinctly do not care about the views of people who view this as a personality contest rather than a policy one.

    It would be hard for anyone to be more in favor of ceasing immigration almost entirely than myself. That being the case, combined with Hillary's odiousness, is a fine argument in favor of supporting Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there are also numerous arguments against the coronation of Emperor Trump.

    Anyone who can't see the faults in their preferred candidate obviously doesn't have an opinion worth hearing. Happily, as the recent thread on the Florida shooting revealed, the majority of commentators here are not of the my side is 100% pure persuasion. More than most sites, from both the left and the right, a good 60-70% of the people writing here have an interest and engaging in critical thinking. The others have opinions as worthless as those expressed on dailykos (does that still exist)?

    When did Trump say he wanted Snowden killed?

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Do you not know how to user a search engine?
    , @Brutusale
    Trump said "if he's a spy, he should be killed" back in 2013.
  99. @PapayaSF
    On economic issues, Sanders is a '60s hippie freshman after a dozen bong hits. Raising the minimum wage, federal control of healthcare, and "free" college are all terrible ideas. He thinks that having "too many" choices of deodorant somehow causes child poverty. Every now and then he stumbles across a truth, but overall he's an economic dunce who would turn us into Venezuela if he had the chance.

    Raising the minimum wage for foreigners would be an excellent idea. $50/hrs would ensure that they subsidize the rest of us, rather than the opposite as is the case now.

    It would also smaller, more selective stream.

  100. @Peter Lund
    Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage.

    The number of universities is limited by the state. The number of students is also (more or less) controlled by the state. That is very different from a situation where the state will pay and private (and semi-private) universities are free to let as many of them "study" as they physically manage.

    Denmark also has a state church. It takes a lot more social coherence to support a state church, coherence that is absolutely necessary to hold a welfare state together.

    In a diverse population, each group feels like it’s being cheated by the others. And they all have a point.

    If we ever have a “nation” again, then we can discuss Johnny’s “national” health-care system.

  101. @Barnard
    The idea of having a national minimum wage given the wide disparity in the cost of living across the country is destructive and idiotic. Bernie thinks you can recreate a Scandinavian economic model in a country with a population twenty times larger, much different demographics and a much lower level of social trust. He is a fool.

    He’s spent the last half-century in Vermont. What would he know of demographics?

    I’ll bet the Brooklyn of his childhood was whiter than the America of today.

  102. @AndrewR
    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil's advocacy elsewhere.

    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil’s advocacy elsewhere.

    Dear fellow, when the difference in degree grows sufficiently large, it becomes a difference in kind.

    A wife is not a girlfriend; a husband is not a boyfriend.

    Unless you’re Black…..

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    These were high school kids. Were they even old enough to get married? A piece of paper from the state doesn't magically strengthen the emotional bond between a couple.
  103. @Pericles
    You'd never get them convicted for abortion anyway.

    You’d never get them convicted for abortion anyway.

    Under current law, no. But I think that it’s still illegal to murder a 5-year old…

  104. @tomv
    So even proud "anglo" like you limits your judicial duty to "serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury," eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff's crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough? What about drug-dealing? Tax evasion?

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn't fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty). Over time, however, I've come to appreciate the virtue of loyalty. Loyalty doesn't mean standing by your man when he's innocent, because that's what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he's guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.

    Strict adherence to "justice" is celebrated in other cultures, too, not just the Anglo-Saxon one. The Chinese paragon of justice is supposed to have meted out a harsh sentence to a relative. One version has it that it was his favorite nephew and the punishment was harsher precisely because of that. But how is that fair? Is it even possible for the justice to have been fair in this case? The right thing to do in my book, which comports with the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, is not to try to be fair, but to recuse oneself.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned and try to prevent commission of future crimes for his sake as well as society's. Tom Wolfe explores the question of loyalty versus justice from the opposite angle in A Man in Full. There, too, the protagonist basically recused himself.

    Before Conrad Black went to prison for fraud, Donald Trump offered to testify on his behalf. No recusal here because Trump didn't know that Black was guilty, but then he didn't really know that he was innocent, either. I think Trump a better man for it, as does VDare.

    In your eagerness to extol your own "Anglo" virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus along with the "Hispanics," you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.

    So even proud “anglo” like you limits your judicial duty to “serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury,” eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff’s crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough?

    Given the magnitude of his crimes, yes.

    What about drug-dealing? Large-scale?
    sure

    .Tax evasion?

    Large-scale (on the order of millions of dollars)? Sure.

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn’t fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty).

    That’s a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.

    Loyalty doesn’t mean standing by your man when he’s innocent, because that’s what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he’s guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.

    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.

    In your eagerness to extol your own “Anglo” virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    along with the “Hispanics,” you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.

    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They’ve been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.

    • Replies: @tomv

    That’s a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.
     
    So "the system" owes your family member a defense---a zealous one, I might add---but you don't?

    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.
     
    That's decency. That's all things good and moral. That could even be "loyalty to the system" as you put it, but where's loyalty to the person?

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.
     
    What's interesting (and telling) to me is your resorting to this extreme and far-fetched hypothetical. We're not talking about a generic "someone" here, but someone I know and love. Now, why would someone I know and love murder a child? The only possibility is that he or she has gone insane, and in such a case I have no trouble calling the authorities to take appropriate actions. At stake is no longer the person I know and love, and that makes it an easy decision.

    But enough with your strawman. In my more realistic hypotheticals, no, I would not call up the authorities and ask them to send my dad to prison were he a Bernie Madoff, a drug dealer, or a tax evader. I would be disappointed, pained, and shamed, but hypothetically I can imagine him being the same dad I know and love who found himself on the wrong course due to a lapse of judgment or the forces of circumstances. I would not have the heart to work actively to put him behind bars. On the contrary, I can see myself putting all the money I have into getting him the best lawyer available. It'd be painful, but I would not let myself be any less on this side than the hired lawyer.

    (To be perfectly honest, I can't work myself up too much about the tax evasion case. My dad versus the taxman? There's no contest! I'd be upset that my dad had put himself and his family in jeopardy for something so stupid, but a moral anguish it wouldn't be.)

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They’ve been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.

     

    This repeated invocation of all things "Anglo" is getting creepy! I thought you were trying to be an Wildean wit. Look, we're all Anglophiles over here on iSteve (with rare exceptions), but your constant refrain suggests you may be more in love with this "Anglo" ideal of yours (not necessarily shared by other anglos like Charlie Croker) than the idea of justice itself.
  105. @syonredux

    The difference is ome of degree not kind, undear fellow. Please take your Aspergian devil’s advocacy elsewhere.
     
    Dear fellow, when the difference in degree grows sufficiently large, it becomes a difference in kind.

    A wife is not a girlfriend; a husband is not a boyfriend.

    Unless you're Black.....

    These were high school kids. Were they even old enough to get married? A piece of paper from the state doesn’t magically strengthen the emotional bond between a couple.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    These were high school kids. Were they even old enough to get married? A piece of paper from the state doesn’t magically strengthen the emotional bond between a couple.
     
    No, but the fact that two people have obtained one signals the seriousness of their commitment to one another.
  106. @AndrewR
    These were high school kids. Were they even old enough to get married? A piece of paper from the state doesn't magically strengthen the emotional bond between a couple.

    These were high school kids. Were they even old enough to get married? A piece of paper from the state doesn’t magically strengthen the emotional bond between a couple.

    No, but the fact that two people have obtained one signals the seriousness of their commitment to one another.

  107. @Captain Tripps

    I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.
     
    Agree. Almost all Radical Environmentalists have a fantasy-like understanding about their Garden-of-Eden view of life before industrialization and advanced technology.

    I always like asking them if they would prefer to return to pre-electricity America of 1870. You know, the one where 1/4 of all kids died before adolescence because of all the diseases we conquered in the 20th century, or where people drank beer because the water was so full of bacteria that people were always suffering from some type of dysentery, or no sanitation existed in our cities and horse/human waste ran openly in the streets and gutters. Or you could only work from sun-up to sundown because we had no electricity, and the only night lights were candles or oil lamps. And if you lived in the country (where the vast majority of Americans lived), life from your earliest memories was an unending (except for Sundays, relatively) series of backbreaking physical labors to build and maintain your house, collect and store water, plant/reap your main harvest, maintain your garden, remove waste, raise children (those who survived anyway), cut trees/chop firewood, keep the house relatively free of rodents and insect pests (even so, many of the poor still were lice-ridden), and etc. That they did all that and still found time to gather in town to debate politics and elect their local officials, found and build churches, schools and other common public works is simply amazing. I have a few pictures of some of my 19th/early 20th century ancestors, and they all have stern, gaunt faces of determination; and then I contrast that with all the Internet selfies of the millennials; wow.

    I'll take 21st century America any day, thank you very much (with undying appreciation/respect for what my ancestors endured so that I have all this).

    “I have a few pictures of some of my 19th/early 20th century ancestors, and they all have stern, gaunt faces of determination; and then I contrast that with all the Internet selfies of the millennials; wow.”

    Pitted against each other in an even battle, which side would you bet on?

  108. @PapayaSF
    The minimum wage was invented by the original Progressives a racist, sexist eugenics plot to disemploy blacks, women, and the disabled, and it still disemploys people.

    Our healthcare system has been crippled by nearly a century of government meddling. The fix is less government meddling, not more.

    First of all, opposing the minimum wage by saying it was conceived in racism is lame, it makes me want to support it and I’m, in principle, kind of, an anarcho-captialist.

    Secondly, you are wasting your time. The principle that minimum wage laws must cetus paribus increase unemployment is such a trivial and obvious consequence of the principle of supply and demand, that people who do not know this only do so because they don’t want to know.

  109. @syonredux

    So even proud “anglo” like you limits your judicial duty to “serious crime[s] that caused others severe injury,” eh? What about, say, Bernie Madoff’s crime? Is that crime serious enough and the injury severe enough?
     
    Given the magnitude of his crimes, yes.


    What about drug-dealing? Large-scale?
    sure

    .Tax evasion?
     
    Large-scale (on the order of millions of dollars)? Sure.

    I used to believe in an unwavering commitment to justice, too. I couldn’t fathom how an attorney can ever represent a guilty defendant (and most defendants are guilty).
     
    That's a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.

    Loyalty doesn’t mean standing by your man when he’s innocent, because that’s what decency requires you to do anyway. If Loyalty means anything in this context, it must mean standing by him when he’s guilty or possibly guilty. The question then becomes, is loyalty still a good value to have? I think it is.
     
    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.

    If I witnessed a crime by someone I really care about, I would recuse myself, so to speak, as far as the committed crime is concerned
     
    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.


    In your eagerness to extol your own “Anglo” virtue and throw your hypothetical family member under the bus

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    along with the “Hispanics,” you came across as unsympathetic in more ways than one.
     
    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They've been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.

    That’s a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.

    So “the system” owes your family member a defense—a zealous one, I might add—but you don’t?

    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.

    That’s decency. That’s all things good and moral. That could even be “loyalty to the system” as you put it, but where’s loyalty to the person?

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.

    What’s interesting (and telling) to me is your resorting to this extreme and far-fetched hypothetical. We’re not talking about a generic “someone” here, but someone I know and love. Now, why would someone I know and love murder a child? The only possibility is that he or she has gone insane, and in such a case I have no trouble calling the authorities to take appropriate actions. At stake is no longer the person I know and love, and that makes it an easy decision.

    But enough with your strawman. In my more realistic hypotheticals, no, I would not call up the authorities and ask them to send my dad to prison were he a Bernie Madoff, a drug dealer, or a tax evader. I would be disappointed, pained, and shamed, but hypothetically I can imagine him being the same dad I know and love who found himself on the wrong course due to a lapse of judgment or the forces of circumstances. I would not have the heart to work actively to put him behind bars. On the contrary, I can see myself putting all the money I have into getting him the best lawyer available. It’d be painful, but I would not let myself be any less on this side than the hired lawyer.

    (To be perfectly honest, I can’t work myself up too much about the tax evasion case. My dad versus the taxman? There’s no contest! I’d be upset that my dad had put himself and his family in jeopardy for something so stupid, but a moral anguish it wouldn’t be.)

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They’ve been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.

    This repeated invocation of all things “Anglo” is getting creepy! I thought you were trying to be an Wildean wit. Look, we’re all Anglophiles over here on iSteve (with rare exceptions), but your constant refrain suggests you may be more in love with this “Anglo” ideal of yours (not necessarily shared by other anglos like Charlie Croker) than the idea of justice itself.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    So “the system” owes your family member a defense—a zealous one, I might add—but you don’t?
     
    If I "defend" my relative by not reporting his murders to the police, I'm abetting his criminal conduct. Again, as an Anglo, I feel a certain obligation to society as a whole.

    That’s decency. That’s all things good and moral. That could even be “loyalty to the system” as you put it, but where’s loyalty to the person?
     
    In Anglo society, loyalty to the person has limits. Would I turn in my sister for shoplifting a pricey bag from a high-end store? No. But I would turn her in if she murdered someone.

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.

    What’s interesting (and telling) to me is your resorting to this extreme and far-fetched hypothetical. We’re not talking about a generic “someone” here, but someone I know and love. Now, why would someone I know and love murder a child? The only possibility is that he or she has gone insane, and in such a case I have no trouble calling the authorities to take appropriate actions. At stake is no longer the person I know and love, and that makes it an easy decision.
     
    Let's provide a rational motive, then. A person you care about intentionally allows a medicine to be marketed that causes dozens of children to die. He puts profit over human life. You know that it wasn't an accident. Does "personal loyalty" trump dead children in that case?

    But enough with your strawman. In my more realistic hypotheticals, no, I would not call up the authorities and ask them to send my dad to prison were he a Bernie Madoff, a drug dealer, or a tax evader. I would be disappointed, pained, and shamed, but hypothetically I can imagine him being the same dad I know and love who found himself on the wrong course due to a lapse of judgment or the forces of circumstances. I would not have the heart to work actively to put him behind bars.
     
    Amoral familism in action.

    On the contrary, I can see myself putting all the money I have into getting him the best lawyer available. It’d be painful, but I would not let myself be any less on this side than the hired lawyer
     
    Why not discharge both obligations? Turn him in and and work zealously for his defense?Nothing stopping you from spending every penny that you have on his defense after you tell the authorities what you know....

    This repeated invocation of all things “Anglo” is getting creepy! I thought you were trying to be an Wildean wit. Look, we’re all Anglophiles over here on iSteve (with rare exceptions), but your constant refrain suggests you may be more in love with this “Anglo” ideal of yours (not necessarily shared by other anglos like Charlie Croker) than the idea of justice itself.
     
    Well, you see, different cultures have different notions regarding justice. My idea of justice is the Anglo one....
  110. @BB753
    When did Trump say he wanted Snowden killed?

    Do you not know how to user a search engine?

  111. @BB753
    When did Trump say he wanted Snowden killed?

    Trump said “if he’s a spy, he should be killed” back in 2013.

    • Replies: @BB753
    He also said he'd be a major fan of Snowden if he released Obama's records.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-hacking-edward-snowden-russia-226320
  112. @Former Darfur
    Ted K was nuts, but he was not stupid. His writing was very lucid in many places. But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.

    “But who wants to live the way Ted did, completely aside from the destructive aspects to others? I would find an idyllic life without technology pretty crummy.”

    Well, Henry David Thoreau would, as long as there was an ant hill (preferably two) to study and no taxes to pay. I would note that he also graduated from Harvard.

  113. @Brutusale
    Trump said "if he's a spy, he should be killed" back in 2013.

    He also said he’d be a major fan of Snowden if he released Obama’s records.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-hacking-edward-snowden-russia-226320

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Looks like he's learned the political expediency of "evolving"!
  114. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe he was murdered by UVA fraternity pledges as part of their initiation? I hear that's a thing.

    Well, it was actually UVA SORORITY pledges who did the dirty deed. There was a reason the woman president of UVA suspended fraternities AND sororities after the rape incident two years ago. Those UVA sororities are a raunchy bunch.

  115. @BB753
    He also said he'd be a major fan of Snowden if he released Obama's records.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-hacking-edward-snowden-russia-226320

    Looks like he’s learned the political expediency of “evolving”!

  116. @A Erickson Cornish
    Uh, that Snopes article is just a series of pictures and coverage from other media sources, including a clip from Fox discussing the presence of flags. Are the pictures doctored? Were the Fox News anchors forced to say it wth guns to their heads? A mere internet superintelligence is incapable of figuring it out, so I may need your help.
  117. @tomv

    That’s a matter of loyalty to the system. In the Anglosphere, people are entitled to a defense.
     
    So "the system" owes your family member a defense---a zealous one, I might add---but you don't?

    Hardly. There are many instances when the innocent suffer. Standing by them when it would be easier to leave is a fine example of loyalty.
     
    That's decency. That's all things good and moral. That could even be "loyalty to the system" as you put it, but where's loyalty to the person?

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.
     
    What's interesting (and telling) to me is your resorting to this extreme and far-fetched hypothetical. We're not talking about a generic "someone" here, but someone I know and love. Now, why would someone I know and love murder a child? The only possibility is that he or she has gone insane, and in such a case I have no trouble calling the authorities to take appropriate actions. At stake is no longer the person I know and love, and that makes it an easy decision.

    But enough with your strawman. In my more realistic hypotheticals, no, I would not call up the authorities and ask them to send my dad to prison were he a Bernie Madoff, a drug dealer, or a tax evader. I would be disappointed, pained, and shamed, but hypothetically I can imagine him being the same dad I know and love who found himself on the wrong course due to a lapse of judgment or the forces of circumstances. I would not have the heart to work actively to put him behind bars. On the contrary, I can see myself putting all the money I have into getting him the best lawyer available. It'd be painful, but I would not let myself be any less on this side than the hired lawyer.

    (To be perfectly honest, I can't work myself up too much about the tax evasion case. My dad versus the taxman? There's no contest! I'd be upset that my dad had put himself and his family in jeopardy for something so stupid, but a moral anguish it wouldn't be.)

    Well, see, Anglos have this thing called society. However sympathetic I may be to a family member who has murdered someone, I have an obligation to report the crime.

    Well, I am quite unsympathetic towards Hispanics. They’ve been the enemies of Anglos for nearly five centuries.

     

    This repeated invocation of all things "Anglo" is getting creepy! I thought you were trying to be an Wildean wit. Look, we're all Anglophiles over here on iSteve (with rare exceptions), but your constant refrain suggests you may be more in love with this "Anglo" ideal of yours (not necessarily shared by other anglos like Charlie Croker) than the idea of justice itself.

    So “the system” owes your family member a defense—a zealous one, I might add—but you don’t?

    If I “defend” my relative by not reporting his murders to the police, I’m abetting his criminal conduct. Again, as an Anglo, I feel a certain obligation to society as a whole.

    That’s decency. That’s all things good and moral. That could even be “loyalty to the system” as you put it, but where’s loyalty to the person?

    In Anglo society, loyalty to the person has limits. Would I turn in my sister for shoplifting a pricey bag from a high-end store? No. But I would turn her in if she murdered someone.

    So, if you saw someone you care about murdering a child, you would let them go free? Interesting.

    What’s interesting (and telling) to me is your resorting to this extreme and far-fetched hypothetical. We’re not talking about a generic “someone” here, but someone I know and love. Now, why would someone I know and love murder a child? The only possibility is that he or she has gone insane, and in such a case I have no trouble calling the authorities to take appropriate actions. At stake is no longer the person I know and love, and that makes it an easy decision.

    Let’s provide a rational motive, then. A person you care about intentionally allows a medicine to be marketed that causes dozens of children to die. He puts profit over human life. You know that it wasn’t an accident. Does “personal loyalty” trump dead children in that case?

    But enough with your strawman. In my more realistic hypotheticals, no, I would not call up the authorities and ask them to send my dad to prison were he a Bernie Madoff, a drug dealer, or a tax evader. I would be disappointed, pained, and shamed, but hypothetically I can imagine him being the same dad I know and love who found himself on the wrong course due to a lapse of judgment or the forces of circumstances. I would not have the heart to work actively to put him behind bars.

    Amoral familism in action.

    On the contrary, I can see myself putting all the money I have into getting him the best lawyer available. It’d be painful, but I would not let myself be any less on this side than the hired lawyer

    Why not discharge both obligations? Turn him in and and work zealously for his defense?Nothing stopping you from spending every penny that you have on his defense after you tell the authorities what you know….

    This repeated invocation of all things “Anglo” is getting creepy! I thought you were trying to be an Wildean wit. Look, we’re all Anglophiles over here on iSteve (with rare exceptions), but your constant refrain suggests you may be more in love with this “Anglo” ideal of yours (not necessarily shared by other anglos like Charlie Croker) than the idea of justice itself.

    Well, you see, different cultures have different notions regarding justice. My idea of justice is the Anglo one….

  118. […] his hometown and his father was president of the Beth El Synagogue, a large Conservative shul. (See Hillary Should Have Invited This Murdered Young Man’s Mom To Address DNC, Steve Sailer blog, 26th July […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS