Author Topic: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral  (Read 2097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #195 on: October 21, 2017, 11:05:08 pm »
Translation: his religion only matters if it means he supports ideas that you disagree with. IOW: Christians who support higher taxation to 'defend the rights of the poor and needy' are good. Christians who oppose abortion because of the 'sanctity of life' are bad.

Which Biblical verse instruct Christians to collect "higher taxes to defend the rights of the poor and needy"?   Unless there is one of which I am unaware, I think your comment completely misses whatever mark you were aiming for. 

Quote
Both groups of Christians seek to impose their beliefs on others and any attempt to rationalize why one is good and one is bad will create double standards.
What Christian belief is Trudeau attempting to impose on us?   


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #196 on: October 22, 2017, 01:15:46 am »
Which Biblical verse instruct Christians to collect "higher taxes to defend the rights of the poor and needy"?
Proverbs 31:9 "Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.". Note that it does not talk about taxes specifically but the Bible does not talk about abortion either. There are many other places in the bible where a Christian's obligation to help to poor is clear and in today's society that can mean taxes. I am assuming you would have no issue that a devout politician that made helping the poor a priority because of their religious beliefs. You only have a problem with religious beliefs when they disagree with your politics.

What Christian belief is Trudeau attempting to impose on us?
Trudeau is an ideologue in many ways. I know nothing of his religious beliefs so I can't know how much of his ideology is rooted in his understanding of Christianity. However, if he is devout there cannot be much difference because the devout usually look to religion to answer questions of morality.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 08:53:51 am by TimG »

guest4

  • Guest
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #197 on: October 22, 2017, 10:05:28 am »
Proverbs 31:9 "Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.". Note that it does not talk about taxes specifically but the Bible does not talk about abortion either. There are many other places in the bible where a Christian's obligation to help to poor is clear and in today's society that can mean taxes.  You only have a problem with religious beliefs when they disagree with your politics. 
This is a stretch, in my opinion.  I believe the bible also specifically advises against becoming in involved in politics, though I'm not going to try to find scripture to prove it.  Helping the poor and needy is considered something you do privately, of your own will, and not through taxes.

Quote
I am assuming you would have no issue that a devout politician that made helping the poor a priority because of their religious beliefs.
Yes, you are assuming.  I would not want a devout politician in the PMs office.  I would not want a 'devout' politician deciding who among the poor and needy would be most deserving of help.  I would want such decisions made by people who are objective. 

Quote
Trudeau is an ideologue in many ways. I know nothing of his religious beliefs so I can't know how much of his ideology is rooted in his understanding of Christianity. However, if he is devout there cannot be much difference because the devout usually look to religion to answer questions of morality.
I do not believe he is devout, though speaking for him seems risky.  But more importantly, I don't see any evidence that his decisions are driven by a "Christian" imperative, beyond what Canada has, as a nation, already chosen as part of our values. 


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #198 on: October 22, 2017, 10:39:29 am »
Helping the poor and needy is considered something you do privately, of your own will, and not through taxes.
The question here is what a Christian could interpret the scripture to mean. Not what it literally means. Many Christians do feel they have an obligation to "defend the rights of the poor" which is our society means advocating for government spending.

I would not want a 'devout' politician deciding who among the poor and needy would be most deserving of help.  I would want such decisions made by people who are objective.
No one is objective and most decisions can't be made objectively even if someone was inclined to. I see no difference between someone advocating a policy because of their interpretation of scripture or because of a self-defined humanist moral framework. Both are philosophical constructs that humans need to function in society and inevitably lead to subjective decision making where facts and evidence that conflict with the moral framework are ignore or minimized which evidence that supports the framework is given priority. The end result is an "objective" decision based on evidence that was filtered with someones personal moral framework.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 10:54:21 am by TimG »

guest4

  • Guest
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #199 on: October 22, 2017, 11:05:19 am »
The question here is what a Christian could interpret the scripture to mean. Not what it literally means. Many Christians do feel they have an obligation to "defend the rights of the poor" which is our society means advocating for government spending.
In Canada, due to our Christian heritage, we have determined that helping those who are less fortunate than we are is part of the proper job of the Canadian government.  The decision to follow this particular religious belief has already been made, collectively.  It is not one particular PM imposing that on us due to his/her religious belief. 

However, a devout Catholic, or devout Muslim or devout Hindu may decide that organizations belonging to his/her religion are more deserving of such help than similar groups from other religions.  That is what I would see as a problem. 

Quote
No one is objective and most decisions can't be made objectively even if someone was inclined to. I see no difference between someone advocating a policy because of their interpretation of scripture or because of a self-defined humanist moral framework. Both are philosophical constructs that humans need to function in society and inevitably lead to subjective decision making where facts and evidence that conflict with the moral framework are ignore or minimized which evidence that supports the framework is given priority. The end result is an "objective" decision based on evidence that was filtered with someones personal moral framework.

I think humanism provides a more objective context to make decisions that affect many people.  A religious person is likely to default to his/her 'group' as more deserving - so, for example in a place like in Egypt, Muslims are considered "better" than other religious minority groups and it shows in the legislation and even in the way laws are interpreted in that country.  A non-religious humanist has a better chance of making a decision based on actual evidence - they can start with an assumption that each group is equally 'deserving' and then look at evidence to determine which group needs the most help. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #200 on: October 22, 2017, 12:38:12 pm »
A religious person is likely to default to his/her 'group' as more deserving
Human tribal instincts exist whether religion is involved or not. Look at how so many "humanists" denigrate people who are not from their "tribe" (e.g. Trump voters).

A non-religious humanist has a better chance of making a decision based on actual evidence
I see no evidence of that. I can think of numerous examples where "humanists" are feel a moral imperative to support any number of non-nonsensical policies (e.g. almost any policy connected to CO2 reductions which have no chance of achieving the stated objective). 

If you want to be more objective which zealot causes more harm: a zealot who insists gays should not be allowed to marry or a zealot who supports programs which increase the cost of energy and drive people in to energy poverty?

« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 12:46:29 pm by TimG »

guest4

  • Guest
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #201 on: October 22, 2017, 02:06:45 pm »
Human tribal instincts exist whether religion is involved or not. Look at how so many "humanists" denigrate people who are not from their "tribe" (e.g. Trump voters).
True enough, but I still maintain that people who believe "God is in their side" tend to create more injustice than people who are motivated by an internal moral compass.  Many Trump supporters also consider themselves Christians and support Trump because they think he's also 'Christian', and therefore worthy of support no matter how many stupid things he says or does.

Quote
I see no evidence of that. I can think of numerous examples where "humanists" are feel a moral imperative to support any number of non-nonsensical policies (e.g. almost any policy connected to CO2 reductions which have no chance of achieving the stated objective). 
Its hard to take this seriously when the person claiming it also declares that climate change is an overstated risk, based on reports that have been thoroughly debunked.  Energy poverty is going to be the least of our worries, soon enough.

Quote
If you want to be more objective which zealot causes more harm: a zealot who insists gays should not be allowed to marry or a zealot who supports programs which increase the cost of energy and drive people in to energy poverty?
I consider the most harmful are those zealots who deny the problem of climate change, and the devastation that we are likely to experience as a result.   I'm not looking forward to food poverty, water poverty or energy poverty, but that seems to be the direction we're headed at this point, even if the most benign models are the reality.  It's probably too late to do much about it now, other than mitigation and hope that the models are accurate at the lowest level of destruction and not the highest.   The next few decades should be interesting.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #202 on: October 22, 2017, 04:04:40 pm »
based on reports that have been thoroughly debunked.
Objectively speaking this statement is false since there is no way to establish this so called "debunking" as a fact. At best it is an opinion. At worst is is simply a lie you choose to believe because it makes you feel better (in that sense it is no different than Christians believing than Christ "died for their sins").

FWIW, I expected you to respond with something like that and it nicely illustrates how slippery the concept of "objectively deciding based on evidence" is. In the climate change example, your opinions are not based on any evidence you understand but based on what you have been told the evidence is. To make that decision you instead choose to outsource the evaluation of evidence to people you choose to trust which is fine for you. But what happens when different people disagree  with your choices? Are they "ignoring the evidence" or simply saying they don't trust the people that you choose to trust? Why do you think "evaluating evidence" means "trust the people/institutions I tell you to trust"?

I consider the most harmful are those zealots who deny the problem of climate change, and the devastation that we are likely to experience as a result
Again this is a perfect illustration of your "moral framework" in action. You have chosen to place more weight on the hypothetical harms caused by "climate change" than the harms caused by policies. This is a trade off that can only be made with a reference to a moral framework. It is why we all need one.

Furthermore, you don't even question of whether the policy of making energy more expensive is the best policy given the available evidence. That is a position is not a "fact", it is an opinion that comes entirely from your "humanist" moral framework and you just admitted you don't care if people are harmed as long as you get to feel good because governments are "doing something" about CO2. Why do you think that framework is superior to one that says that abortions are wrong because "all life is sacred"?

« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 04:46:21 pm by TimG »

guest4

  • Guest
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #203 on: October 22, 2017, 04:58:47 pm »
Objectively speaking this statement is false since there is no way to establish this so called "debunking" as a fact.
Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.  Therefore, there is no way to objectively state that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.   

Quote
FWIW, I expected you to respond with something like that and it nicely illustrates how slippery the concept of "objectively deciding based on evidence" is.

So you prefer decide based on faith instead of evidence?

Quote
In the climate change example your opinions are not based on any evidence you understand but based on what you have been told the evidence is. To make that decision you instead choose to outsource the evaluation of evidence to people you choose to trust which is fine for you.
Yes.  This is how we avoid having to 'discover' fire every generation, or recreate the wheel.  Which is about as far as we're going if we have to redo everything the previous experts did, just to be sure they aren't misleading us.

Quote
But what happens when different people disagree  with your choices? Are they "ignoring the evidence" or simply saying they don't trust the people that you choose to trust? Why do you think "evaluating evidence" means "trust the people/institutions I tell you to trust"?
Certainly you can choose to trust those who disagree with what the majority of experts say.  This is what the anti-vaxers do - and as a result, children have died.   Maybe that movement has lost that momentum now, but for those who have lost children, ignoring what the experts said because they 'work for big pharma' and 'are paid off', while the little guy who is ignored and mocked must have it right, certainly paid the price for their decision to trust themselves and non-experts instead of experts.

Quote
Again this is a perfect illustration of your "moral framework" in action. You have chosen to place more weight on the hypothetical harms caused by "climate change" than the harms caused by policies. This is a trade off that can only be made with a reference to a moral framework. It is why we all need one.
The people who are already losing their homes and livelihood would disagree with climate change being a hypothesis.

Quote
Furthermore, you don't even question of whether the policy of making energy more expensive is the best policy given the available evidence.
It may not be, but I am unaware of a better proposal.  And it does work to some degree and any improvement is better than none at all.

Quote
That is a position that comes entirely from your "humanist" moral framework and you just admitted you don't care if people are harmed as long as you get to feel good because governments are "doing something" about CO2. Why do you think that framework is superior to one that says that abortions are wrong because "all life is sacred"?

I did not say I didn't care if people are hurt; I said the alternative is worse. 

What is your moral framework that inspires you to deny the science behind climate change? 


Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh goes viral
« Reply #204 on: October 22, 2017, 05:29:36 pm »
The people who are already losing their homes and livelihood would disagree with climate change being a hypothesis.
Except this is a completely false statement. You choose to believe that people dealing with weather events have been "harmed" by climate change. Unfortunately, the facts are weather events have always occurred and will always occur. The assertion that these events are some how "worse" because of climate change is not a fact but rather something you choose to believe because of your "faith".

Certainly you can choose to trust those who disagree with what the majority of experts say.
Who says I trust anyone? What I choose to do is make decisions based on premise that we do not/cannot know what will occur and we must make policy choices that make sense even if the entire risk has been grossly exaggerated. I see this as evidence based decision making. What you do is "faith based reasoning" where you place way to much faith in certain flawed institutions and the humans that run them and are willing to cause harm to people today for no reason other than your "faith" in these people.

What is your moral framework that inspires you to deny the science behind climate change?
Another fallacy. We are talking policies, not science. A policy can be effective or ineffective no matter what the science says. A policy can cause harm today that could be greater than the harm it seeks to prevent even if there is agreement on science. More importantly the decision to cause harm to prevent a greater future harm is a *moral* decision - it is not and cannot be a question of science.

The fact that you insist on framing a policy discussion as a question of "science" is a good illustration of how you have turned "science" into an irrational religion - which is the point of this thread. You are quick to condemn people who push policies based on their "faith" in a old book but you do the same thing we it comes questions of climate change policy. You even use the same language (denier/infidel/apostate) as your more traditional compatriots. It is like you want to make my argument for me.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 06:20:57 pm by TimG »