A Fact About Women

In the post before last I wrote that Harvey Mansfield introduced me to this idea, or argument, called the Fact-Value Distinction. I haven’t yet read about it because reading about it is going to take some time. There are several old authors to have read on the subject before I can claim to say anything informed about the Fact-Value Distinction; David Hume for example. (Right now I’m reading Antifragile…finally.) Regardless of my ignorance, I keep thinking about the fact-value distinction because there are some deep implications. I mean: There are fundamental pre-thought assumptions that influence my thoughts before I consciously think about anything!

Basically, if I understand it from Mansfield’s brief explanation, whenever we observe (see, hear, touch, etc.) something, we either accept it as a brute, naked fact (This is the Fact side of the F-VD) or we make a judgement what we observe (This is the value side.). The Fact side is the realm of mathematics and science. The best example I can think of at the moment is “2+2=4”. No judgement can or should be made about that. (Mostly. More in a bit.) The Value side is the realm of religion and philosophy: What ought to be, and what ought to be observed.

Our worldview, modernity, is possessed with an obsession of the Fact view of life, and deeply discounts Values–judgements. When Science! (the collective institutions of politically influential scientists) declares on a subject it is declared in a way that we are to accept it like we should accept 2+2=4. Any divergence or dispute from what Science! has decreed is taken as an expression of insanity as looney as disputing that 2+2≠4.

But if you think about it for a moment, Science! is hiding the ball. Even if they do not mean to deceive they have because before they present an observation as Fact, they’ve already made a judgement that the observation has Value as a Fact, and that the Fact is good for them (and us) to know, and to make decisions based upon them. In other words: The way of Science! and of the whole modern world is to make one Value distinction to say that every thing and every observation is a Fact. Since every Fact is True like 2+2=4, and since every observation becomes a thought, then every thought is True. But we observe different things; even contradictory things. Collectively, then, we moderns observe that 2+2=∞, and go about making Fact of it.

Anyone who recognizes this then has a choice:

  1. Degrade all observations, thoughts, and knowledge as insane and random. Then wonder what you, an insane person, means by insane.
  2. Commit an incoherent doublethink by accepting the idea of moral relativism while ignoring the fact that moral relativism is destroyed by the basic value assumption that facts exists.
  3. Recognize that you make Value judgements about every single observation you have, and then wonder in terror what you are to do next.

Let me give a more concrete example of what I believe is an improper Fact-Value Distinction. It is from the very same video of Mansfield where he taught me of the F-VD, and who is in favor of Value distinctions. It’s said clumsily as often happens in conversation, but if you watch the section of the video on Manliness you understand that Mansfield disagrees with the idea that men and women are the same, or even think the same. But then he goes on to make an assertion of Fact when a judgement of Value is more correct. He says:

[W]e reason differently. It just isn’t the case. This is the most important thing that men and women think the same. We have different outlooks. So, to have a different body somehow goes with having a different soul.

And, so for example, women are more pacifistic. Well, they have children, that’s a big investment, nine months – nine months of your life for each one of them. You’re not going to go throwing away human life recklessly.

Well, maybe that’s comical, but I think that’s – that kind of thinking is very common and even wise. There is a kind of wisdom in that correspondence of roles and ways of thinking.

That’s slightly, but importantly, wrong. It would have been right to say because women have to make a huge investment of nine months, they ought to recognize that investment and not throw away human life recklessly. It’s not a fact that women aren’t reckless with human life, or that they are pacifistic because of the term of pregnancy. Women abort their babies. Women kill their children. Women go to war. Women fight and start fights. Women do all kinds of things which are anathema to human life and pacifism.

The importance of this particular error is this: Once we make a Value judgement that women ought not throw away human life recklessly, then we have to make another Value judgement about whether we ought, or ought not, impose that expectation of on them. Modern men don’t want to do that. We’d rather pretend women are Facts, and we’d rather pretend that if we imagine them to be pacifists of factual reason, that too is a Fact.

No Mercy for the Functionally Perfect

When the question is posed “If abortion were illegal, should women who get abortions be punished?” and the answer comes back “No, because…” you should disregard everything that follows. The truth isn’t in that person. If it were, then they wouldn’t make up a litany of excuses that wouldn’t pass the muster of third-grade education.

Understand that what Pro-Life groups and other abortion apologists are seeking is a way to keep women from having to ask for mercy. Instead they demand it. Anyone guilty of any crime can ask for mercy. It’s legal and everything. No one–not myself, not Zippy, not Trump–have spoken against mercy for women who killed their children in ignorance, or under duress. But demanding mercy destroys the opportunity for mercy to do its work because anyone in a position to demand mercy can’t actually use it.

That’s it, though. That’s why Pro-Lifers refuse to even discuss theoretically, if abortion was hypothetically illegal, whether women who murder their children should be punished. It is is the plank of the Pro-Life movement which codifies their belief that women are above the need for asking for mercy. To be above the need for mercy is to be functionally perfect, and that is a characteristic of the divine.

Poles Tell Us Confronting Women Ineffective

Pro-Lifers[1] tic neurotically about doing what is politically expedient. Namely, if a woman is heading into an abortion clinic then you shouldn’t warn her that she is about to solicit murder, or plead with her to reconsider the murder of her baby. They’ll tell you, if you do that, what will happen is that the woman will defiantly march into the clinic and have her baby murdered. In other words: The hostage-taker will bolt and kill the hostage. And, I am inclined to believe that this is true. But there are at least three big problems with taking this tack.

The first problem for the Pro-Lifer is that we’re not at a sidewalk demonstration. Whether it is me writing on the Internet, you talking amongst friends and family, or a politician’s answer to a talking head: There is no hostage-taking pregnant woman immediately on the scene to woo with soothing words. It’s not politically expedient here to say, as Ted Cruz did

Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

As I said towards the end of my last post:

Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic.

Lies like that don’t save a single baby. Maybe, sometimes, such pandering to would-be murderesses just before they walk into a baby-slaughtering facility is effective in saving the hostage’s life. Outside of that context, such worshipful terms are only that: Worship. The worship is rendered lest some unknown goddess of life and murder out there feels insufficiently served.

The second problem is that giving in to hostage-takers’ demands is a very good way to incite the taking of more hostages. Everyone, including Pro-Lifers, knows that is true, but they do it anyway. WHY? If you want to stop the killing of hostages then the thing to do is make taking hostages at least unprofitable. Even better is to make is punishable. That they don’t (And when the stakes are so high!) leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that the real point of joining a Pro-Life group is that it is the sanctioned method for social-conservatives to bow before women as goddesses. It is a way to pretend to tradition while practicing feminism. As several commenters have rightly noted: They are bowing to the Asherah poles which have been erected in the Temple.

Here’s the biggest problem and here is where it is unavoidably a matter of worshipping the false idol of women: Pro-Lifers are blaming the Lord for abortion. If it were true that telling a woman not to do something–that it is a sin and a crime to commit sins and crimes for which breakers of the law should be and will be punished–pushes women to commit sins and crimes, then it would be the Lord’s fault for bringing sin into the world because He told Eve, through Adam, that if they eat of the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge they would surely die.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Ten Commandment’s are broken because He gave them to us and warned us of sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites perpetually broke the laws that were given to them through Moses, and that they made and worshipped a golden calf.

It would be the Lord’s fault that the Israelites ignored, mocked, and killed the prophets He sent to warn them, and the Lord’s fault that the Israelites bowed to other gods.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many ignore the Bible because He gave it to us chock full of warnings against sin and death.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many shun the Holy Spirit because He sent Him to us, and bade us listen to Him lest we die forever.

It would be the Lord’s fault that many don’t accept Jesus Christ as their rightful King and Savior because He warned that Hell awaits those who don’t.

All this should sound familiar because it’s been said for a very long time.

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

It’s time to get up from among the Pro-Life goddess worshippers, you sleepers.

[1] Can I say too many times that I am anti-abortion?

Throwing Out the Baby to Conserve the Bathwater

A commenter at Dalrock’s tires of explaining the reason for all the lies that were exposed when Donald Trump make the amateur mistake of joining the Pro-Life movement in earnest…

I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision. As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.

I, like Zippy and GKC, was surprised at the scorn which was poured on Donald Trump by Pro-Life groups and leadership. I would have previously confessed to be Pro-Life[1], Amateurs, the lot of us. Personally, it is embarrassing to contemplate my rube-ness regarding the Pro-Lifer movement. Days later it would dawn on me that the filthiness Pro-Lifers bathe in is even worse than what prompted my initial shock!

I take it as fact that Donald Trump switched his allegiance from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life and that this was a matter of political prudence for him. I have no problem with that. If someone does the right thing for personal reward, then he has at least worldly wisdom and deserves reward as long as he actually does the right thing.

Having said that: It’s possible that Trump, should he become President, has no intention of changing one dot of abortion law in the US. My suspicion is that Trump has no personal convictions either way. If that’s true, then it should be easier for “real” Pro-Life politicians to entice him to sign-off on some anti-abortion legislation in exchange for support from them on other policies. But I simply don’t know. Regardless, here’s what happened:

  1. Trump decides to run for President as a Republican and claims to be Pro-Life.
  2. Ted Cruz, “Socially Conservative” groups, and the whole breadth of media call bullshit on Trump and accuse him of mere politicking. Another way to explain Trump’s conversion would be to call it adopting an intellectual position rather than naked emotional response. For whatever reason: He thought about it, and changed his mind (correctly) to anti-abortion
  3. Trump, because his conversion was intellectual and not instinctual, got harassed into a logical corner by an openly pro-choice Roman Catholic journalist[2] and confessed the inescapably true argument that the commission of crime is itself a crime, and therefore hypothetically it should be met with “some form of punishment”.
  4. Cruz and Co. pounce on Trump out of both instinct and political expediency; trashing truth and justice in the process.

To me, that is pure monstrosity. They disgust me. Understand that no babies are saved from abortion by ridiculing Trump for his submission to unavoidable logic. What’s important to the Pro-Lifers is conservation of the politically feminist pro-choice bathwater in which they’ve become comfortable; no matter that it’s a tepid 98.6 degrees and red as the Nile on the Passover.

[1]That is to say that I have always been against abortion and thought it to be murder. And, yes, I have fought it personally; against some other Roman Catholics, no less.

[2] Welcome to the whorehouse of mirrors.

Yes, I Meant Worship

Some people have taken exception to my pronouncement that “Pro-Lifers” (who are really and essentially pro-choice) worship women. But I am just using the language we all accept because we all understand (even when we don’t want to) that to say and do worshipful things is worship whether we confess the gods or not.

So When Lydia at What’s Wrong with the Girl writes of the legalization of assisted suicide in Canada she says

Choice devours itself. Every time. Make death your god, and death will make sure that a little thing like “choice” doesn’t get in the way. I predict there will be plenty of outright murders under this new law in Canada.

I doubt Lydia believes that there are little idols of robed and scythed skeletons in the homes of Canadian officials. Nevertheless: She can (rightly, I should add) see what and who those officials truly serve with their deeds.

Likewise, when Doug Wilson wrote of government officials’ efforts to make us bow to every kind of perversion he said:

 First, notice that to make “secularism” the approved religion is to establish a religion. The religion you have established has no candles, altars, or pulpits, but it remains the reigning worldview, the one that reserves to itself the authority to sit in judgment on all other religions. Thus, a secularist magistrate reserves to himself the right to pronounce that Ahmed the Jihadist is not a “true Muslim.” Good to know, good to know. I didn’t know that the State Department was issuing fatwas now. Well, they are. And when the Bible tells me not to love the world, the secularist tells me that I must applaud the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. In fact, when the pride of life in a codpiece swanks out in front of us all, I am now required to applaud like a North Korean at a missile parade. If I don’t applaud the courage! the courage! I am guilty of hate. And, come to think of it, I am. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov. 8:13). Unfortunately for me and my verse, a gent named Marcion at the Department of Justice has recently determined that Proverbs is “in the OldTestament

So while secularism claims not to be “a” religion, they do claim to be the arbiter of all religions — the faith of faiths, the religion of religions, the king of ki . . . better not go that far yet. Let’s give a few more months.

Lest anyone accuse me these of quote-mining these instances where Wilson and McGrew attributed spiritual reality to the material acts, or otherwise missing context: Please note that both McGrew’s and Wilson’s essays were both posted April 22nd. The date I posted on the worship of women by feminists and Pro-Lifers? April 20th.