Author: Papa Giorgio

Forcing Morality (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted August 2010 (Conversation was from 2001 via SPACEBATTLES)
Updated in January of 2017, and again today (July 2023)

Susan said:

“No SeanG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice.  NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)

Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.

Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted it. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents.

Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least. >> UPDATE TO THIS PART BELOW | JUMP

(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)

If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?

Question:

  • “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?”

Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.

An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.

An Update via Gay Patriot:

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s…

(read the rest)

Via Life Training Institute:

  • Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion.  It’s our choice, isn’t it?
  • Me: Are you saying I’m wrong?
  • Student: I’m not sure.  What do you mean?
  • Me: Well, you think I’m wrong, don’t you?  If not, why are you correcting me?  And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
  • Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
  • Me: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that?  That it’s wrong?  If so, then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do?  Why are you forcing your morality on me?
  • Student (regrouping): I’m confused.  Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers.  If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.  All I am saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
  • Me: Is that your view?
  • Student: Yes.
  • Me: Why are you forcing it on me?  That’s not very tolerant, is it?
  • Student: What do you mean?  I think women should have a choice and you don’t.  It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
  • Me: Okay, so you think I’m wrong.  What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
  • Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
  • Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?
  • Student: What? No way.
  • Me: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying.  Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view.  Privately, you’ll let me think whatever I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true.  It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you.

(More Media)

UPDATED VIDEO ADDITION:

Pro-Life Man Hilariously Trolls Women’s March

See more on this at LIFE NEWS.

 

J6 Crowd Was Filled With Federal Agents | Per Capitol Police Chief

Published by Papa Giorgio

(SHORT VERSION) Tucker Carlson Reveals Capitol Police Chief Told Him J6 Crowd Was ‘FILLED With Federal Agents’

(LONGER INTERVIEW SNIP) Tucker Carlson exposes the falsehoods surrounding January 6th, unveiling that Fox News declined

Our Maker “Weaves” Our Story On His Loom of Grace

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted Nov 2011)

I have used this audio to teach a men’s class when filling in at church (when the regular teacher was on mission). As part of this update I just wanna note a post detailing my acknowledgement and position on the entire Ravi “fallout.” My old tribute to Ravi has a new intro that explains the entire thing. I still confidently say enjoy the MESSAGE, not the deliverer:

UPDATE
Which itself is actually an old video from 2010’ish

I wanted to add this update with a sermon excerpt noting another “miracle” of God imprinted on us. It has ta do with what  is called “laminim.”

Here is a basic rundown of Laminim:

What Is Laminin?

Laminin is a protein that is part of the extracellular matrix in humans and animals. The extracellular matrix (ECM) lies outside of cells and provides support and attachment for cells inside organs (along with many other functions). Laminin has “arms” that associate with other laminin molecules to form sheets and bind to cells. Laminin and other ECM proteins essentially “glue” the cells (such as those lining the stomach and intestines) to a foundation of connective tissue. This keeps the cells in place and allows them to function properly. The structure of laminin is very important for its function (as is true for all proteins). One type of congenital muscular dystrophy results from defects in laminin.

(Answers In Genesis – AIG)

Yes, I know all the “rebuttals” of this amino acid.

You hold it sideways, it looks like a sword.

It isn’t always straight like a cross. Sometimes it looks like a “shot put Olympian.”

Yada, yada.

Remember, it ISN’T being used as “evidence” to prove God exists. Rather, it is an evidence to those who already believe in God. It is similar to Protestant’s views on good works. Good works come after you are saved, not that good works save you or assist in your salvation. One view pre-dates, the other post-dates.

It is being used analogously to bring home a Biblical truth, and, a visual one at that. Here is a multiple micron-microscope of the laminim, for the record:

AIG, even though the article is a mixed bag of caution, goes on to note the following:

  • One of the early papers on the structure and function of laminin said this: “Globular and rodlike domains are arranged in an extended four-armed, cruciform shape that is well suited for mediating between distant sites on cells and other components of the extracellular matrix” (emphasis mine).

K. Beck, I. Hunter, and J. Engel, “Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein,” The FASEB Journal 4 (1990): 148–160, doi:10.1096/fasebj.4.2.2404817.

Here is a great two paragraph explainer that sets the skeptic and the Christian who misinterpret the presentation as a “proof” of God rather than a beautiful picture of God’s grace and sacrifice.

Having watched Louie’s video several times over the years, I believe he is saying laminin [cross-shaped proteins] is an illustration, a signpost pointing to the reality of Colossians 1:17, Jesus holding all things, including us, together, and he’s not saying that laminin is literally the meaning of that verse. But I could see how someone could take his words that way.

I found this short analysis helpful. Here’s an excerpt: “The structure of laminin is only an image which by itself does not necessarily prove anything. However, when this image is considered as a parallel to the symbolic aspect of the cross and the religious significance therein, a resounding message appears: laminin is to our bodies as Jesus is to our souls. No proofs or support, nor debates, just a beautiful picture.”

With all that in mind (and my inane thought after the video), the presentation is still excellent!

After seeing the mixed micron microscope of the various laminim pictures above, I suppose you could say it also resembles the DRI guy.

Lol.

What is my “inane,” humorous thought? I am thinking of the Biblical passage that says,

  • Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. (CSB, Lk 14:27)

Does this mean I have this “box” checked?

Why I Use Signal and NOT WhatsApp

Published by Papa Giorgio

(When my son was out of country [military], Signal was preferred by the Dept. of Defense as a way to text with him. In fact, that was the only text app they could use… that sold me, #1 — but here is why the military prefers it over other messaging apps.)

In this episode, we explore why it’s time to drop WhatsApp and switch to Signal.

  • Signal has more than 40 million monthly users, according to its website. Signal is most popular with privacy-focused people, including journalists, activists, governments, cybersecurity experts, and high profile tech leaders like Twitter CEO Jack Dempsey and Tesla’s Elon Musk. (Signal vs. WhatsApp: How Are They Different and Which Is Right For You?)
  • Facebook does, however, enhance its ad targeting profiles using information gained through the app. In other words, with the gathered WhatsApp information, Facebook is able to better sell ads on its other products. (What Does WhatsApp Know About Me?)

Via BERNIE’S TWEETS:

SURVEILLANCE – Listen carefully to the CEO of Signal explain the depth of the Online harms bill Ofcom and the WEF have specified.

It would mean Ofcom has the power to force all UK citizens to download Spyware that checks their messages before they are sent against a database of what is permissible to say!

Authoritarian invasions of your privacy will be mandatory in the new world order they didn’t ask you to vote for.

How secure is WhatsApp?

Facebook cannot access chats due to the end-to-end encryption, but the firm can take user data. 

Facebook has access to WhatsApp user phone numbers, IP addresses, mobile network, length of time using the messenger, payment data, cookies, and location data, according to WIRED.

Some users had chosen to opt-out of allowing Facebook to access personal data back in 2016. But WhatsApp said if all users do not agree to share information by February 8, they will lose access to the app. 

Insider’s Rob Price reported that outside apps can track WhatsApp users’ online activity, including who they’re talking to, when they’re using the app, and even when they’re sleeping.

How secure is Signal?

Signal says it does not obtain user messages, groups, contacts, or profile information. The only two pieces of information Signal collects are how long users have had Signal installed and the last date it was installed.

The company also open sources all of its software, meaning the public can view how the tech was made inspect the code themselves. 

Signal has received a vow of confidence from many security experts, including Edward Snowden. Journalists at Vice and The Intercept recommend using Signal over WhatsApp to ensure your messages remain private.

What’s causing the furor over WhatsApp’s new policy? Updates terms of service & privacy for users, users have to accept it if they want to continue using the app. Changes in the way user data are handled. More information & data may be shared with Facebook. The new policy comes into effect from Feb 8th. Is Signal the alternative to WhatsApp? It is the most secure of all messaging apps in terms of privacy.

Non- profit organization with privacy tech at its core. Edward Snowden & Elon Musk swear by it. Watch the full debate with Amit Somani, Managing Partner, Prime Ventures, Pavel Naiya, Senior Analyst, Counterpoint Technology Market Research, and Aditya Chunduru, Journalist, Medianama with Tamanna Inamdar.

This large excerpt is from VPN OVERVIEW:

WhatsApp has been the go-to instant messaging app for many years, with two billion people using it each month to exchange messages with colleagues, friends, and families. But, as people began looking for more privacy-focused alternatives, the debate between Signal vs. WhatsApp continued to heat up.

Users like WhatsApp because it is free, most of their connections already use it, and it doesn’t require you to have a social media account to use it. (Hello, Facebook Messenger, we’re talking to you.)

But WhatsApp isn’t always the perfect way to chat, as recent events have shown. It also has its share of privacy issues. Add to this the fact that WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, and it isn’t surprising so many WhatsApp users are considering a change to how they instantly communicate with friends and family.

Signal, a privacy-focused messaging alternative to WhatsApp, has surged in popularity dramatically over the past year or so.

But as you weigh Signal vs. WhatsApp, you need to understand what each side brings to the table (and doesn’t) to determine which messaging app is best for you. To help, we’ve put together this short Signal app review and included how WhatsApp stacks up in key areas of functionality, privacy, and security.

What is Signal?

If you’re not familiar with Signal, it is a free instant messaging app with a heavy focus on privacy. It is a product of the Signal Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The app is built on open-source software (meaning anyone can scrutinize the source code and test it for security purposes), and is entirely funded by grants and donations.

There are no ads, affiliate links, or any kind of tracking when you use the app. It is also not tied to, even indirectly, any major tech company. As such, concerns about data sharing are much less of an issue.

Signal is available on Android, iOS, Windows, and macOS. It’s one of the best encrypted messaging apps in the world right now.

What is WhatsApp?

WhatsApp is the world’s most popular messaging app, used by billions of people. It encrypts communication on both ends, but since it is owned by Facebook, there are quite a few privacy concerns.

WhatsApp doesn’t show any ads, and just like Signal, you don’t need to pay anything to use WhatsApp. WhatsApp also offers added features for business accounts.

 

 

 

J-Dubs Move a Comma (Luke 23:43)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The following is a section from David Reed’s

Paradise

Since its release in 1982 the Watchtower Society’s book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth has been the primary study text for prospective new converts. During its first fifteen months in print nearly 15 million copies were produced in 55 languages according to The Watchtower of January 1, 1984, page 28. As the book’s title indicates, it introduces readers to the hope that draws millions of people to become Jehovah’s Witnesses—the hope of everlasting life in a beautiful earthly paradise.

Such a promise is certainly attractive, especially for men and women who have not come to enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Not knowing anyone in heaven, why would they want to end up going there? In fact, coming face-to-face with God on his home turf can be a frightening thought for many. A subtropical paradise in an earth forever rid of poverty, sickness, and death proves more appealing to human nature. But is it truly biblical to proclaim this as the Christian hope?

The Greek word translated paradise appears three times in the New Testament—at Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4, and Revelation 2:7—but Jehovah’s Witnesses largely ignore the two later verses and instead hang their hope on Jesus’ words to the dying criminal nailed up next to him, as these words appear in the JW New World Translation: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) This constitutes Christ’s promise that the man would be resurrected more than two thousand years later to life on an earth transformed to a beautiful garden park, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.

Unfortunately, however, the meaning of the verse in the New World Translation is affected by the anonymous translators’ choice to punctuate Luke 23:43 differently from the way it appears in most other Bibles. Placing the comma after the word “today” instead of before it, the NWT gives Jesus’ words a unique twist. It has Jesus speaking “today” to the man about being with him in paradise some time in the future, whereas the customary rendering with the comma before the word “today” indicates that they arrive in paradise that very day. Since ancient Greek manuscripts do not feature any punctuation to break the sentence into two parts, the comma’s location in English depends on the translator’s understanding of what is meant.

Interestingly, the Watchtower Society’s Comprehensive Concordance of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (pictured to the right – click to enlarge) lists dozens of passages where Jesus uses the expression “Truly I say to you” or “Truly I tell you.” (The same Greek word is rendered both “say” and “tell.”) Comparing these verses reveals that the Society’s translators punctuated them consistently—except Luke 23:43. Why did they punctuate that one verse differently? Perhaps because to do otherwise would disprove the Watchtower Society’s teaching that the dead go nowhere—that those who die cease to exist. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that it would be impossible for the dying man to go to Paradise that day, because he went into nonexistence pending a future resurrection.

Logically, though, there would be no need for Jesus to use the word “today” to point out when he was speaking. Whenever we open our mouth to speak, we are speaking “today,” and the fact is so obvious that we need not mention it unless making a contrast with something spoken on a different day. Here the context reveals nothing of that sort that would call for Jesus to verbalize the obvious fact that he was speaking “today.” Rather, the only time factor under discussion was the matter of when Jesus would be in Paradise. The man dying next to him begged, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Luke 23:42 NIV) Yes, Jesus would remember him. When? Today!

Moreover, it would be reasonable to assume that the Paradise Jesus spoke of as his destination after death would be the same Paradise that Revelation speaks of Christian overcomers going to: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:7 KJV) According to the Watchtower Society’s own publications, this verse speaks of a heavenly paradise, not an earthly one:

“Hence, the reference here must be to the heavenly gardenlike realm inherited by these conquerors. There, ‘in the paradise of God,’ yes, in the very presence of Jehovah himself, these overcomers who have been granted immortality will continue to live eternally, as symbolized here by their eating of the tree of life.”

—Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! (page 37)

The Apostle Paul likewise speaks of paradise as heavenly rather than earthly. At 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 he speaks of being “caught up into paradise” which he also calls “the third heaven.”

Clearly, the earthly “paradise” Jehovah’s Witnesses are promised by their organization and the heavenly “paradise” the Bible promises for Christians are not one and the same.

David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).

Apologetics To The Jehovah’s Witness – Properly Rendering Luke 23:43 & John 10:18

Here are the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear grabs from all the “Trulies” boxed off in the graphic above:

LUKE 4:24 (no comma needed)

LUKE 12:37 (normal placement)

LUKE 18:29 (normal placement)

LUKE 21:32 (normal placement)

LUKE 23:43 (abnormal placement)

See more at these links:

The verse comparison below has 4 from the Jehovah’s Witness website, in burgundy:

  • And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (ESV)
  • And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” (New World Translation)
  • And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (KJV)
  • And he said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” (American Standard Version)
  • and he said to him “I tell you verily, today you shall be with me in Paradise.” (The Bible in Living English)
  • And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” (NASB)
  • Jesus said to him, “I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me.” (Good News Translation)
  • He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (New American Bible)
  • Then Iesus said vnto him, Verely I say vnto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. (Geneva Bible of 1587)
  • “I tell you in solemn truth,” replied Jesus, “that this very day you shall be with me in Paradise.” (Weymouth New Testament)

What Are the Origins of “Allahu Akbar”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Why in every terrorist attack, terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar”? Who was the first Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” before killing people?

Jihadis shout “Allahu Akbar!” during their attacks, while Western journalists insist that it’s a peaceful expression. “Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase that means “Allah Is Greater.” In Islam, the expression signifies that Allah is greater than anything else, especially the gods of unbelievers. Muhammad himself would shout “Allahu Akbar” when attacking non-Muslims, including the Jews of Khaybar. In this video, David Wood responds to attempts by CNN, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times to ignore the violent history of the phrase

Dr. Lawrence Krauss Is Clotheslined by Self-Refuting Statement

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is via a long interview of N.M. McCarthy by Lawrence Krauss.

  • “….there’s no direction to evolution, and, and people think , ‘oh yes things evolve to always get better,’ but it, they just evolve to circumstances – there’s no foresight, there’s no-we have foresight, but, but, but evolution doesn’t…..” – Lawrence Krauss

C.S. Lewis makes the relevant point/critique:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52–53.

A quick back-n-forth:

“The DeBunkers” Debunk Cost of Education/Student Loan Forgiveness

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Debunkers DESTROY Student Loan Forgiveness! (They debunk this video)

People always demand that the government should make some particular product or service more ‘affordable’. Thomas Sowell explores how the government can do that and if is it really even desirable to have the government manipulate the economy to make some things more affordable at the expense of others. This is an excerpt from the book ‘The Thomas Sowell Reader’

Why Is Education So Expensive In The United States?

(Stossel FLASHBACK) Politicians promise to help everyone go to college. But they just make college more EXPENSIVE. Did you know that the University of Missouri is proud to have a “leisure resort” on campus? Naomi Riley, author of The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For, explains how government aid led to massive tuition hikes.

Colleges get massive subsidies and tax breaks. They get rich. Taxpayers and many students are hurt.

Why is college tuition so high? Why are so many students in so much debt? Is it the fault of colleges, the government, or both? And can anything be done? Get the answers in this short video.

Tough Conversations vs The Easy Way Out (+ Atheist Morality)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A friend texted me the Jeff Daniel’s Newsroom video… and this was essentially my response. (Here it has links and videos as well as larger quotes, the real response was just in text form)

In my years of experience of talking about religion and politics (since 1999 on the WWW, Space Battles Forum), I have noticed the main impediment to people progressing in thinking on a matter. Not speaking of you, but a wider point I am making (Yoda). People will watch that clip and be convinced (This is referring to the Jeff Daniels “Newsroom” clip that occasionally makes it’s rounds).

There were a lot of things just spewed out as fact that many just accept as fact. But to dissect this clip even more work needs to be done than I did – linking articles, media, etc. (As I did: Newsroom’s Anti-America Scene Bitch Slapped!)

People would rather “just accept/believe” than do the hard work to challenge, properly their own beliefs by rightly contrasting two views. Well.

People want the easy way out.

Take for instance an oft used “evidence” against God. People will merely say, “well, what about this evil [insert any one you wish], doesn’t this disprove your God? This person to challenge their own position will have to respond to their own “bumper sticker position” by asking themselves what are the competing worldviews? What do they offer as explanations to said evils? Does theism offer a reasonable response?

These questions take more time than one sentence responses like the one sentence challenge.

But as before, people like the easy route versus thinking well.

Here is a truncated example, how the three big worldviews would respond to rape:

THEISM: evil, wrong at all times and places in the universe — absolutely.

ATHEISM: taboo, it was used in our species in the past for the survival of the fittest and is thus a vestige of evolutionary progress… and so may once again become a tool for survival — it is in every corner of nature.  

  • TWO BOOKS I read years ago that would undergird the evolutionary/atheistic [naturalism] foundation for explaining rape: Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence | Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion.

PANTHEISM: illusion, all morals and ethical actions and positions are an illusion (Hinduism – maya; Buddhism – sunyata). To reach some state of Nirvana one must retract from this world in their thinking on moral matters, such as love and hate, good and bad. Not only that, but often the person being raped has built up bad karma and thus is the main driver for his or her state of affairs (thus, in one sense it is “right” that rape happens).

— Atheist Morals Noted Below —

….Darwin thought that, had the circumstances for reproductive fitness been different, then the deliverances of conscience might have been radically different. “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering” (Darwin, Descent, 82). As it happens, we weren’t “reared” after the manner of hive bees, and so we have widespread and strong beliefs about the sanctity of human life and its implications for how we should treat our siblings and our offspring.

But this strongly suggests that we would have had whatever beliefs were ultimately fitness producing given the circumstances of survival. Given the background belief of naturalism, there appears to be no plausible Darwinian reason for thinking that the fitness-producing predispositions that set the parameters for moral reflection have anything whatsoever to do with the truth of the resulting moral beliefs. One might be able to make a case for thinking that having true beliefs about, say, the predatory behaviors of tigers would, when combined with the understandable desire not to be eaten, be fitness producing. But the account would be far from straightforward in the case of moral beliefs.” And so the Darwinian explanation undercuts whatever reason the naturalist might have had for thinking that any of our moral beliefs is true. The result is moral skepticism.

If our pretheoretical moral convictions are largely the product of natural selection, as Darwin’s theory implies, then the moral theories we find plausible are an indirect result of that same evolutionary process. How, after all, do we come to settle upon a proposed moral theory and its principles as being true? What methodology is available to us?

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering the New Atheists & Other Objections (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 70.

(SEE ALSO: Richard Dawkins Rejects Darwinism As It Relates to Ethics)

This is why I have this “legal statement” — for lack of a better descriptor when people hit me up online or through emmail to discuss issues:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford[a] the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. Or even striking up a conversation in a line at a grocery store. In other words, in public. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or social media sites. There seems to be more vulgarity and gratuitous responses than if you were to strike up conversation in line at a check stand in a grocery market.) You will see that often I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize a point (even at times noting this): *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So, in all my discussions I afford[a] the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects like the ones being discussed herein. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. I will not expect agreement, rather, clarity. So be prepared for a good thought-provoking discussion if you choose one with me.”

[a] DICTIONARY: 2. provide or supply (an opportunity or facility): “the rooftop terrace affords beautiful views”

SYNONYMS: provide, supply, present, purvey, make available, offer, give, impart, bestow, furnish, render, grant, yield, produce, bear

ORIGIN: late Old English geforthian, from ge- (prefix implying completeness) + forthian ‘to further’, from forth. The original sense was ‘promote, perform, accomplish’, later ‘manage, be in a position to do’.

Amish vs Covid and Autism

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Amish Died of COVID at a Rate 90 Times LOWER Than the Rest of America

“I did the calculation,” Steve Kirsch testified in front of the Pennsylvania State Senate. Given five Amish people died in Lancaster Country, PA, “the Amish died at a rate 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States of America.” “Now, how is that possible?” Steve Kirsch asked. “It’s possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated. And because the Amish didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC,” he answered. “They did not lock down, they did not mask. They did not social distance, They did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates in the Amish community to get vaccinated. They basically ignored every single guideline that the CDC gave us. Ignoring those guidelines meant a death rate 90 times lower than the rest of America.”

SLAY has this story: “Unvaxxed Amish Death Rates 90 Times Lower Than Rest of America” 

OFF THE PRESS bullet points the story:

  • A major study into the impact of the pandemic on Amish communities has found that Covid death rates among the traditionalist groups of citizens are 90 times lower than for the rest of America.
  • The main difference, the study revealed, is that Amish communities completely ignored the guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
  • Amish families did not get vaccinated or wear masks, nor did they engage in lockdowns, social distancing, or any other type of restrictions.
  • Speaking to the Pennsylvania State Senate this week, Steve Kirsch, the founder of the VSRF, testified on his study. Kirsch said the calculation reveals that the Amish died at a rate “ninety times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States of America.”

Steve Kirsch: “We Can’t Find an Autistic Kid Who Was Unvaccinated”

“The Amish are a perfect example of a large group of people who are largely unvaccinated,” Steve Kirsch testified to the Pennsylvania State Senate. “You won’t find kids with ADD, with autoimmune disease, with PANDAS, PANS, with epilepsy. You just don’t find any of these chronic diseases in the Amish.” “The US government has been studying the Amish for decades, but there’s never been a report out to the public,” Steve Kirsch denoted. “After decades of studying the Amish, there’s no report because the report would be devastating to the narrative. It would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades and saying nothing and burying all the data.”

No Pre-Licensing Safety Testing On All Childhood Mandated Vaccines?!

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Really, the reason behind this post is something RFK, Jr. said in a townhall. He said not a single mandated vaccine for children have ever gone through  pre-licensing safety trials. I had no-idea. — RPT

Before getting to that however, Jimmy Dore leads the way:

The whole premise of the COVID vaccine mandates was that everyone needed to be vaccinated because that would stop the spread of the virus. But it turns out that the CDC knew from the very beginning that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, so there was no need for mandates at all. As Jimmy points out in this video, that didn’t stop CDC head Rochelle Walensky from lying about the vaccines’ efficacy so she could continue pushing mandates.

Kennedy pushes back against critics that say he has anti-vaccine views. During a June 23 town hall hosted by WMUR-TV, Kennedy said if he were president, he would mandate pre-licensing safety trials for vaccines and “allow parents to make of their minds about whether they want to use vaccines for their children.”

“What I’ve said is I’m pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines…to at least the kind of rigorous placebo-controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine,” Kennedy told WMUR. (NEWSNATIONNOW)

Here is a helpful post via REDDITT:

Can anyone provide reliable sources substantiating RFKJr’s claim that “childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing”?

Any specific vaccines someone can list with supporting evidence that there were not placebo-controlled trails for? Is this really the case for all childhood vaccines on the vaccine schedule?

Here’s a link to the transcript from the All-In podcast [BELOW] where he mentions this.

SPEAKER ONE

your point of view specifically on COVID. My objective is not to vaccines. I’m not anti-vaccine. I’m fully vaccinated. My kids were fully vaccinated. I wish at this point that I had not done that because I know enough about them now, but my principal objective is that vaccines, the childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing. Of the 72, when I was a kid, I got three vaccines. My children got 72 doses of 16 vaccines. And the vaccines are the one medical product that does not have to go through placebo-controlled trials where you test and expose versus an exposed population prior to licensure. And there’s a number of historical reasons for that that come out of the kind of military beginnings. These vaccines were regarded as national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent,

SPEAKER FOUR

they could quickly formulate and deploy.

SPEAKER ONE

And that there’s a number of military vaccine at 200 million Americans with no regulatory impediments. So they call them biologics rather than medicines and exempted biologics from pre-licensing safety trials. I’ve litigated on the issue. Not one of them has ever been tested, pre-licensure against. So nobody knows what the, you know, you can say that the vaccine is effective against a target disease, but you can’t say that it’s not causing worse problems. Now, I’ll just summarize this story. In the vaccine schedule exploded in 1986, the vaccine industry succeeded in getting Ronald Reagan to sign a law. And my uncle was also, you know, a group that was pressured by Wyeth, which was losing $20 in downstream liabilities on every vaccine it made because of lawsuits for every dollar that it made. And they went to Reagan and said, oh, we’re going to get out of the vaccine business and you’re going to be left without a vaccine supply unless you give us full immunity from liability. And Reagan reluctantly signed that. And so today, no matter how good conduct, you cannot sue them. That caused a gold rush because now you’ve got a product that there’s no downstream liability.

You’re immune from that. There’s no upstream safety testing. So that’s a $250 million saving. And there’s no marketing or advertising costs. Because the federal government is going to mandate this product to 76 million American children whether they like it or not. And there’s no better product in the world. And so there was a gold rush. And instead of three vaccines, we quickly ended up with 72 and now we’re going to, toward 80 right now. And there’s no end in sight. And a lot of those vaccines were unnecessary. They’re not even for casual disease. It caused disease.

Here is the same topic on Bill Maher’s SHow:

Here is a great response in the same thread:

You have two separate questions:

Google “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986” for the immunity from liability question.

For the question about safety trials not being placebo-controlled, read “Turtles All The Way Down – Vaccine Science and Myth”. There is no single document that says “you don’t need placebo control”, so finding the answer to your question requires drilling down into the safety studies of every childhood vaccine. In some studies, they have what they call a “placebo”, but it is simply the vaccine under test, missing only the antigen-producing element. The adjuvant (aluminum?) is still in the placebo, the preservatives are there, everything except the one item. You need to do a lot of investigation to find the pattern. The author of “Turtles….” has done that investigation for you, and it is fully referenced.

(edit) As an example of how much drilling down is needed to answer question 2:

Look at the MMRII FDA Freedom of Information Request – it is 215 pages.

The summary that references the above FOIA is (from Turtles…)

The package insert for MMR II does not mention any safety trials. As with the polio vaccine (IPOL) described earlier, a FOIA request revealed that the vaccine was tested in the mid-1970s in eight small clinical trials.(Reference above) The control groups in all of the trials received either the predecessor vaccine (MMR), a measles-rubella (MR) vaccine, or a single-dose of the rubella vaccine. A total of approximately 850 children received MMR II. Some of the trials seem to have been randomized, but none were blinded. These trials, considered either singly or in combination, do not meet the current requirement of a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial, which might explain their complete absence from the package insert.

Here is the link to the website mentioned by RFK — click of pic:

Back in May this was published by EPOCH TIMES:

UK authorities are investigating an “unusual” surge in severe myocarditis which has hit 15 babies in Wales and England and has killed at least one, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has announced.

On Tuesday, the WHO issued an alert that there had been a rise in “severe myocarditis” in newborns and infants between June 2022 and March 2023 in Wales and England.

It said that this was associated with the enterovirus infection, which rarely affects the heart.

A UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that 10 babies have been diagnosed in Wales and five have been diagnosed in England.

The WHO said that “although enterovirus infections are common in neonates and young infants, the reported increase in myocarditis with severe outcomes in neonates and infants associated with enterovirus infection is unusual.”

IRS Whistleblowers and D.C. Rot

Published by Papa Giorgio

BOOM! THE FEDERALIST has a wise article here:

The former chief of the Justice Department’s tax division is calling on the federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors to reject the agreement.

Eileen O’Connor, who ran the DOJ tax division from 2001 to 2007, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday outlining why the plea agreement Hunter Biden struck with the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office ought to be dismissed.

“Judges can reject plea agreements,” O’Connor wrote. “That would be an appropriate disposition here.”

[….]

Federal prosecutors also concealed the FD-1023 form housed with the FBI that alleged a criminal bribery scheme between the Biden family and a Ukrainian energy titan……….

The discovery of a secret Joe Biden cellphone paid for by Hunter Biden’s Communist China-connected business, and new confirmation that Joe is indeed “the big guy” designated for a piece of Hunter’s shady overseas profits are developments that may imperil the Biden presidency, Peter Schweizer says in the latest episode of The Drill Down podcast.

THE FEDERALIST notes that the below testimony by Shapely is only the “dust-bunnies” of the real dirt [my words… we have all tile in our home so the dust bunnies come out to visit. Often.] This is the key part of their article:

  • And while corruption in the vastly left-leaning bureaucracy almost always benefits Democrats, the problem goes beyond partisan politics.

And this goes to “leaks” as well. Why do the leaks almost always help Democrats push narratives? At any rate, “enjoy” the below.

Following the sensational whistleblower testimony that dropped Thursday, revealing how the Department of Justice systematically blocked an IRS investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter and diverted agents from examining the incriminating evidence against his presidential father, House Republicans are threatening the overdue impeachment of Attorney General Merrick Garland — except most of the pro-Biden interference in the DOJ happened before Garland was installed, while President Donald Trump was still in office.

Does Garland still deserve impeachment for his assortment of abuses, such as sitting on his hands to avoid real accountability for the younger Biden (and his pop), while weaponizing the country’s top law enforcement agency to try to send Biden’s top presidential challenger to federal prison? Absolutely. Is it smart politically for Kevin McCarthy to use the current momentum to hold Garland to account? Probably. Is the alleged involvement in a foreign bribery scheme enough to merit Biden’s own impeachment? Most definitely.

[….]

After IRS agents discovered a WhatsApp message in which Hunter Biden purportedly threatened a Chinese business associate that “I am sitting here with my father” and that the Bidens could “hold a grudge” if a “commitment made” to them was not “fulfilled,” federal prosecutors rejected IRS efforts to look into the messages. That was around August 2020, when Trump had nearly half a year left in the White House.

In October 2020, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf acknowledged “probable cause had been achieved” for executing a search warrant on Hunter Biden but still refused to allow a search. In the meantime, the DOJ continued to block IRS investigators from accessing the laptop and openly cited the investigation’s potential to hurt Biden’s electoral chances as their reason for slow-walking it.

Wolf would also order IRS investigators not to ask about “dad” or about an email stating there would be “Ten held by H for the big guy.” That happened in December, more than a month before Biden’s inauguration.

That same month, IRS and FBI investigators planned to seek a consent search of Hunter Biden’s residence and interviews with Hunter and his associates, since the search warrant had been rejected. “FBI headquarters,” Shapley said, apparently notified the transition team of the plan, a move which “tipped off” the Bidens’ inner circle. Of the 12 interviews investigators sought, they got one.

All of that happened under Trump and his attorney general, William Barr. That’s not to make the absurd suggestion that it happened at Trump or Barr’s direction. Rather, it shows how monstrous the triple-letter leviathan and its grip on our political process are. The regime, the deep state, the bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it: Shapley’s testimony shows their ability to manipulate political outcomes is so entrenched that their own elected overseers are powerless to stop it.

Unsurprisingly, as Shapley noted, “This same sort of unprecedented behavior continued through” Joe Biden’s first year in the White House. When IRS agents finally sent their recommended charges against Hunter Biden to the DOJ, the agency — by then under Attorney General Merrick Garland — opposed the recommendation. Based on the deal offered to Hunter Biden last week, we know the DOJ dropped most of the charges. Shapley also testified that he has been subject to retaliation from the DOJ since speaking out…..

(READ IT ALL)

Gary Shapley IRS Whistleblower Part I

Gary Shapley IRS Whistleblower Part 2

The below Tweeted videos is via DAILY WIRE:

Who was one of the main “road bumps to the investigation that stymied Shapely? Lesley Wolf

Jim Jordan wants to speak to this “agent” of disruption! The DAILY CALLER has a bit more:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf of Delaware, accused of stonewalling federal agents building a criminal case against Hunter Biden, is a lifelong Democrat who previously worked for a major liberal law firm.

Wolf, who began working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Delaware District in 2006, told Biden and his attorneys that IRS agents wanted to search his storage locker in northern Virginia, IRS agent Gary Shapley and another whistleblower testified. She also allegedly shut down agents’ proposal to search a guesthouse on Joe Biden’s Delaware property where Hunter had been living off and on, and participated in a meeting where attorneys suggested departures from Justice Department protocol.

Before joining the DOJ, Wolf clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody, a George H.W. Bush appointee. She also worked as an associate at corporate law firm Ropes & Gray. Ninety-one percent of the firm’s political donations went to Democrats between 2017 and 2020, University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller found, making it the 39th-most liberal of the 100 biggest law firms in the country.

[….]

IRS Supervisory Agent Gary Shapley and another whistleblower named Wolf as the DOJ official who stonewalled investigations into Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings. According to their testimonies, Wolf denied requests to search a Northern Virginia storage locker belonging to Hunter Biden. She then allegedly alerted Biden’s attorneys that federal agents were eyeing the property, allowing him the opportunity to move evidence.

After agents viewed a text exchange showing Hunter Biden apparently threatening a Chinese businessman, they sought to search Joe Biden’s home in Delaware, where Hunter was then staying. Wolf again demurred, questioning “whether the juice was worth the squeeze,” according to Shapley. She also said that “optics” were against the search, the agent testified…..

The WASHINGTON FREE BEACON reminds us of other deep state corruption shown to be more lies to cover up for Democrats crimes:

….Morell recruited 50 former intelligence officials to sign the now infamous letter, which asserted the release of the younger Biden’s emails days earlier “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The missive, published by Politico, spurred public doubt about the authenticity of the laptop, which contained details of his foreign business dealings and taxes. Joe Biden cited the intel letter in his debate with Donald Trump days later, calling it a “Russian ruse.”

But unbeknownst to those operatives, the FBI had authenticated the laptop nearly a year earlier, according to Shapley.

Shapley, who oversaw an IRS investigation into Hunter Biden, told the House Ways and Means Committee that FBI agents authenticated Hunter Biden’s laptop in November 2019 and turned it over to the IRS the following month because it “likely contained evidence of a tax crime.” That claim was supported last week after the U.S. attorney in Delaware charged Hunter Biden on charges he failed to pay taxes on more than $3 million in income.

According to Shapley, the FBI obtained electronic evidence that placed Hunter Biden in the vicinity of the repair shop where he allegedly left his computer for repairs in April 2019. Hunter Biden has suggested that he may not have dropped the laptop off for repairs and that it may have been stolen, perhaps by Russians.

Shapley also testified that FBI investigators found no evidence that information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was manipulated or altered. “We have no reason to believe there is anything fabricated nefariously on the computer and or hard drive,” Shapley wrote in an Oct. 22, 2020, memo he gave the House Ways and Means Committee.

Morell and Shapiro have yet to weigh in on Shapley’s claims. They did not respond to requests for comment. Bates, who served as the Biden campaign’s rapid response director, did not respond to requests for comment. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment about Blinken’s views of Shapley’s testimony……