That is logical!

God didn't protect Christchurch in the earthquake.

2010-11-07T18:26:00.000-08:00

This topic may be slightly controversial to you; but frankly, this is a topic I feel I need to write about.

Often I hear in church or from my Christian friends that it was a miracle that the earthquake happened at 4:00 am or that God was looking after Christchurch so that no one got seriously hurt or killed.

However, when people say that it irritates me tremendously.

Do these people realize that natural disasters happen all over the world? When I hear statements like "God was watching over Christchurch", I always squirm; What about Haiti, Indonesia, Pakistan, Chile, China and the many other countries that have suffered through natural disasters and have had a much greater detrimental impact and many lives lost? Does God not care about them? Are the people of Christchurch worth more to save?

The answer is of course emphatically NO: the inhabitants are no better than any other people in the world; no matter what they might name their city.

The reason for the earthquake happening was that tectonic plates occasionally move or shift resulting in quakes: most people learnt this in school hopefully. As to the 'miracle' of no loss of life; the earthquake happened at 4:00 when almost all dangerous places were uninhabited: earthquakes are quite random in choosing their time to strike. Furthermore, us in Christchurch have built solid houses that don't fall down easily it was that fact that prevented many people getting killed: I DO NOT believe that God supernaturally intervened in protecting the people of Christchurch. He may have intervened in individual cases, He may have intervened in individual cases in Haiti or China also.

In the bible it says that the rain fall upon the good and the wicked alike: This means that God doesn't designate what the natural world does; He has created it to work a certain way.

People say God has a purpose in the Christchurch earthquake. I think you must be careful in saying that: God did not intend for the devastation caused by the Christchurch earthquake (or any other natural disatser), but God 'has a purpose for it' in the sense that He can use it for good in spite of the evil.

Thus I implore you to be careful when talking about God and the earthquake. God did not send the earthquake nor did he intervene to thwart what would naturally have occurred: this world that we live in is a dangerous place that has many natural disasters happening seemingly at random.

Why the Germans lost World War Two

2010-09-18T20:35:00.000-07:00

When American industry had fully warmed up to the war effort they didn't bother to paint their warplanes. Painting takes time and effort; the painting takes up precious man-hours and paint takes up to a day to fully dry. The only painting they did was to do the insignia for identification.

The Germans in making their V-1 and V-2 rockets, solely designed for a one-way trip, painstakingly painted each and every one.

What Obama Does Not Know - Part 2 of 3

2010-08-25T02:11:00.000-07:00

What Obama Does Not Know - Part 1 of 3

2010-08-25T02:08:00.000-07:00

Juris Naturalism

2010-08-25T01:54:00.000-07:00

I want to explain my political belief...

I subscribe to Juris Naturalism; a incredibly unique political philosophy and method of looking at the world, society and history. The founder of this philosophy is a little-known economist named Richard Maybury.

Here I wish to state and explain what I call the 'Four tenets of Juris Naturalism'.

Be aware that this is as yet still a rudimentary definition of this radical and new political worldview.

_________________________

1. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: An abuse of power, either in its allocation or application, is at the source of all societal evil.

2. The law is a science: There is a natural law higher than any government's law, that if followed will make society run better, however if not followed will make society fail and lead to the abuse of power in 1.; natural law is essentially contained in two fundamental laws: 1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

3. Government, inevitably leads to 1.

4. The supply of money is essential in understanding how the world works; fiat money (paper money or government printed money) is the source of almost all economic woes.

____________________________

Juris Naturalism draws upon the ideas of; Thomas Paine, Ludwig Von Mises, Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin. However Juris Naturalism is distinct from conservatism or even libertarianism. Conservatism, to a Juris Naturalist, is no different then liberalism or mild-socialist parties that dominate the political atmosphere. Libertarianism fails to recognize the importance of the monetary supply on economics and also fails to acknowledge Natural law and its role in the world.

Jurist Naturalists do not look at politics in the same way as other political theorists; we don't use the conventional 'political spectrum'. Rather, instead of left to right, it's a scale of statist to non-statist. Statism is the idea that government can solve any problem and that all power should be vested in the state i.e. the government. Statism is, if you like the antithesis to Juris Naturalism.

________________
Our way of looking at history is incredibly unique also. But that is for other posts.

Abortion

2010-08-20T19:39:00.000-07:00

Abortion is something I feel strongly about.

Abortion in this society is the continual killing of innocent human beings simply because they are unwanted.

Unborn babies are no less human than you and me; the baby itself produces a chemical to prevent the mother's immune system from attacking it, thereby negating the "it's a part of the mother" argument.

Abortion is not for women's choice: The 'real' feminist movement considered abortion something that was used to devalue women .

Anti-abortion laws in Great Britain were created due to the bravery of the early feminist groups.

Anti-abortion and pro-life movements is not limited to the christian demographic.

Nor is it limited to the socially-conservative.

Abortion is the killing of a human being read into any of the links I've provided and you will find excellent proof of this.

Join prolife at UC!!!!

Humans are special

2010-08-18T02:08:00.003-07:00

What is it that separates us from the animal kingdom? As a christian the answer is plain. We are created in the image of God As it is written; "Let us create man in our own image".

But what does it mean to be created in the image of God? Earlier I thought that this must mean that God has a head, arms, legs etc all the physical characteristics of a human's physical form. However that was a naive assumption on my part on the real meaning of this verse. Instead of referring to our physical form, the scripture of course applies to our mind/spirit/soul.

One of the main qualities which we have inherited from God is our creative ability. Look around, we have created new ideas, new mechanisms and new structures. Wisely said in the movie Ratatouille; "There's something about them [Humans], they don't just survive they create". Our God is the creator God and we his creations are also creators.

Creativity certainly isn't the only attribute given to us but it is one of them. Animals may go along as they always have but humans will always endeavour to express their creativeness.

Dinosaurs and Humans.... Together?

2010-08-03T01:19:00.000-07:00

Now we get controversial.

I will make a statement and now defend it:

Not only did Humans coexist with Dinosaurs, but Dinosaurs have only ever been around when Humans have existed; that is there never was a time when Dinosaurs existed and humans did not.

Woop woop; I can feel the antagonism through the computer screen.

This is such a strange proposition to many people that they can not even comprehend it. We have been told for our entire lives that dinosaurs lived in a world way before humans; this has mostly been perpetrated by the media. If I ever took a mass comms. paper I would write on the indoctrination of the media about this issue.

People also think that humans wouldn't be able to survive with dinosaurs. We'd get eaten! However, there are already many animals in the world that would like to eat us.

Now I was going to write more but I then found an incredible article here which can do it far better than I can in this current state of tiredness. I recommend reading the article!!!

I will write more on this topic.

Cain's Wife and incest.

2010-07-29T04:52:00.000-07:00

I believe that the first humans were Adam and Eve. From those two human beings the entire human race descended.

However, there is an obvious problem to whom did their sons wed?

Well we know first that, besides Cain and Seth, Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters".

Therefore, and dare I say this, the only option for the children of Adam and Eve, was to marry their own siblings...

Two things arise:

Today not only is it illegal and immoral to marry our sisters or even our cousins, but unhealthy for any offspring. That is because we each carry in our genetic code, genetic 'mistakes' making it more likely that those mistakes would be passed to our children if we married a close relation. However, Adam and Eve would have had a perfect genetic code.

Also it is considered immoral to marry ones sister. However, on what basis do we say that incest is immoral? The bible of course! The bible strictly forbids incest in the book of Leviticus; ever since that point it has been immoral, and just plain gross to even think about it: but the point is there once was a time when it was allowed.

So much evil in the world..

2010-07-28T01:56:00.000-07:00

Abortion, the holocaust, the slave trade, the gulags, the cultural revolution, wars, hiroshima and many other horrible events, not deserving of a capital letter, have happened and are happening all around the world.

People are, murdered, killed, abducted, beaten, slaughtered, terrified, degraded and forced to do horrible things against their will; these people don't get choices.

One wonders where God is in all that.

Recently I got asked a question in a similar vein: Why didn't God let all these things happen? How could He be omniscient and omnibenevolent if atrocities are permitted to carry on?

I answered like I had been told to answer: "It comes down to man's free will and continual rebellion from God."

I wasn't expecting the cynical reply: Those people in the Soviet gulags had no free will; they were just rounded up and sent to their deaths.

How to answer better?

Well, where I went wrong was the fact that I had not been clear enough in my answer: God will judge each by their actions based on what they knew, therefore those who have suffered and not given opportunity to be saved will be shown mercy. Also those perpetrators of evil will be judged likewise; they will be judged. Furthermore the existence of love necessitates the existence of evil; if we had no choice to do evil, we would not be able to love.

So, there I can answer better. The problem with myself is that, I am not a debater or a confrontational person, rather I am an alliance-maker; I am a diplomat not a politician.

But still, it is good for me to always be prepared to give an answer for why I believe.

On Democracy

2010-01-20T00:19:00.000-08:00

I wish to claim that democracy’s gravest defect has little or nothing to do with the defects traditionally ascribed to it. I maintain that its severest defect, indeed, a flaw so critical that it gives democracy the potential to destroy civilization, pertains to its effect in corrupting the people’s moral judgment...

If you or I were to threaten a neighbor with violence unless he handed over a specified sum of money, we would be universally recognized as engaged in extortion or attempted robbery.... Likewise, if I were to send a private Predator drone to Pakistan to fire explosive missiles into villages, killing women, children, and other innocent persons, I would be seen as a monstrous mass murderer, and demands would be made that I be apprehended and “brought to justice” or killed.

Yet when President Obama causes deaths in this way, no such demands are made. How did Barack Obama come by the right to kill innocent people? By democratic election to the presidency of the United States, of course. Most people actually believe, and act on the belief, that mere election to a political office can endow a person with standing to disregard the moral requirements applicable to people in general.....

Everybody understands, however, without any advanced instruction in the matter, that murder and robbery are wrong, and that no one has a justifiable right to bully his neighbors simply because he does like the way in which they are conducting their lives..... (yet) most people give a moral pass to such criminal actions when democratically elected functionaries take them. This presumed moral immunity by virtue of election to public office is... a montrous mistake in moral reasoning....

Robert Higgs on Democracy’s Most Critical Defect.

Not only democracy but government in general. I am forced to buy (Through taxes) the government's services (roads, police, ACC etc.) whether I want to or not. It would be like The Warehouse forcing me to buy a t-shirt. But then again I am not a complete follower of the anarchist movement.

On War

2010-01-20T00:09:00.000-08:00

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering, President of the Nazi Reichstag

A very cynical quote in my view. Is there no time when war is justified? When it is right to go to war and wrong to stay neutral?

A recommended article by David Farrar

2009-10-11T04:03:00.000-07:00

As I do not yet know how to do as some place recommended links down the side of my blog I am forced to write a new post.

I stumbled across quite by accident a very thought-provoking and interesting article written by David Farrar for the National business review concerning John Key's actions on the infamous issue of 'smacking'. I find myself heartily agreeing with him as he mirrors my own opinion on the subject.

So what are you doing still on here? Go read it. And then come back. ;-)

Review: A government for the People: The value of representative democracy by Richard Ekins

2009-10-11T03:28:00.000-07:00

The other day I went and printed of the 14 page essay written as a guest paper for the Maxim Institute (you can get it here). The author is Richard Ekins of the Auckland Law School, a highly intelligent guy who has recently defended his philosophy doctorate thesis in Oxford on 'The nature of legislative intent'. Certainly one of my heroes.

His paper "A government for the People: The value of representative democracy" draws upon his thesis a lot but nevertheless is quite complete in itself. Remaining awake until late at night, I decided to read his paper then, instead of my plan of reading it on the next day, and was immediately drawn by his logical argument.

Although I will never be able to accurately summarize his views this is 'what I got' from his paper.

His paper has two main points:

1. Contrary to popular opinion legitimate government should be a representative democracy and not direct democracy.

2. Citizens initiated referendum (CIR) should not be legally binding.

Ok now I must define some terms.

Representative democracy: is what we actually have in New Zealand, that is when we elect representatives to represent us in the acts of governance.

Direct democracy: This is what many people think democracy is, when everyone votes and discusses the issues and legislate accordingly.

Many people believe direct democracy is what democracy should be, Richard Ekins however disagrees.

Richard Ekins says;

The apparent superiority of direct democracy over representative democracy trades on the assumption that the legitimacy of the state requires that it enjoy popular consent or that it be responsive to, that is that it act in accord with, popular preferences. This is a widely held assumption, but it is false.... The state exists for the good of the members of the community, specifically for their common good.

His premise is that a legitimate government is not necessarily one that always does what people want but instead legislates to promote the common good of all. However this should not be taken to mean that he is an extreme statist (one who believes that the government is the answer to all problems):

There is of course a standing risk that representatives will act unreasonably. This makes competitive electoral politics and ongoing public scrutiny very important.

His second point was that Citizens initiated referendum (the 'smacking' referendum was a CIR) should not be legally binding. And I agree! Richard Ekins argues that, voters are not well enough informed, voters are not accountable for laws that they do make, voters are not generally practiced or qualified in the area of writing and voting on laws and voters may vote for inconsistent, contradictory or incompatible legislation. An example cited is the American state of California where a CIR is legally binding.

California's "Proposition 13" in 1978 froze property taxes and made it difficult to enact new taxes. Yet in a series of subsequent propositions, voters approved various new spending commitments (most notably in education), limiting legislative control over the budget.... California is now locked in an extreme budgetary crisis, in part for this reason.

Richard Ekins also puts new light upon the 'smacking referendum' with many people criticizing the fact that our CIRs are not legally binding. Earlier I too must confess that I lamented this however now I have a fresh perspective on CIRs. It is a more than shame but a tragedy that our government is not listening to the will of the people on the smacking issue. However I certainly feel that the answer does not lie through making citizens initiated referendum binding.

Quite! Logical Fallacy 2

2009-10-10T01:39:00.000-07:00

A particularly frustrating fallacy comes up in debates everywhere. People who should know better, politicians, statespeople and authors again and again use a fallacy called the straw man argument.

Here is a good example:

"Anti-abortionists are against women's rights"

This is a clear straw man argument since anti-abortionists are certainly not against women's rights at all. Of course if they were against women's rights then definitely it would make the anti-abortion standpoint far less credible. Just for the record many of the early feminists, the ones who marched for the right to vote, were also strongly anti-abortion (e.g. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman and so many more).

Here is a slightly harder one:

If evolution were true then why don't we see half monkey, half human animals running around?

This is a straw man argument and unfortunately I see this used waaaay too often. According to evolution both humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor not the former from the latter.

And this is a difficult one:

Evolution is 'just' a theory.

What is wrong with this? Well it is on the surface absolutely correct, evolution is a theory. However it is a mistake to use its status as a theory as an argument against it. A theory holds more weight in the academic community than everyday use of the word. Also merely because it is 'just' a theory (not a scientific law) does not disprove it.

A strawman argument is misrepresenting an opposing viewpoint and then proceeding to attack the misrepresentation.

____________________________________
Quite!

Quite! Logical Fallacy 1

2009-10-08T21:30:00.000-07:00

Every so often I will write and explain a logical fallacy. This is my "Quite!" series.

As a Christian and an internet debater I come along a certain argument once in a while.

I challenge God to a checkers game, if he doesn't show up I win by default. He didn't show up so I win and God doesn't exist.

This usually is a time for some facepalming because I know that this person is making a simple logical fallacy.

But how?

The above argument is a 'Formal fallacy' and can be hard to spot due to its similarity with the correct logic of Modus tollens (the method of denying).

If we simplify the 'God loses checkers game' argument it becomes this.

1. If God versus me in checkers, he exists.

2. He didn't versus me in checkers.

3. Therefore he doesn't exist.

Compared with a correct argument of Modus tollens.

1. If I am sick, I am tired

2. I am not tired.

3. Therefore I am not sick.

See the difference? The problem is that God doesn't have to versus me in checkers to prove he exists.

If A, B. Does not mean that; If A is false, then B is false. That is a formal fallacy.
If A, B. Does mean that; If B is false, then A is false. That is Modus tollens.
_________________________________________________

That is not the only from of Formal fallacies. Consider this example.

The existence of many rock layers around the earth proves that the earth is millions of years old so evolution is true.

Simplified.

1. If evolution is true, there would be many rock layers.

2. There are many rock layers.

3. Therefore evolution is true.

*Note how this is the exact opposite of the 'God loses checkers game' example earlier.

This fallacy is similar to Modus Ponsen (method of affirming) which is valid.
Example.

1. If it is raining, I will not go outside.

2. It is raining.

3. Therefore I will not go outside.

Remember that many layers of rock IS actually evidence for the earth being millions of years old, the problem is that there could be other reasons for there being many rock layers (a global flood for instance). At best the argument is inconclusive.

If A, B. Does not mean that; If B is true, then A is true. That is a formal fallacy.
If A, B. Does mean that; If A is true, then B is true. That is Modus ponsen.

_____________________________________________

Quite!

Why I am against Governmental foreign aid and our 0.7% GDP pledge.

2009-10-08T19:46:00.000-07:00

I am inspired in particular by the no more excuses campaign and more generally by certain left wing groups.

The plot of the story goes like this.

Over thirty years ago the UN held a council which stated, among other things, that developed countries should contribute at least 0.7% of their national GDP (Gross National Product, quite a sizable sum) for foreign aid. Today out of those developed countries only a handful of them have met the requirement of 0.7%. New Zealand is one of the 'other' countries, one which not only hasn't yet met the quota but not even set a schedule to spike up our overseas contributions.

In New Zealand where political activism is the national hobby, there are certainly enough people to 'get in behind the cause' and pressure our government to be less miserly with the national purse strings. For young people like those working for No More Excuses and campaigns like it, it is their chance to 'make a difference'.

However I have certain problems with the whole national emotion of philanthropy.

One is that the purpose of government is violated, and you don't necessarily have to be very far right of Jeannette Fitzsimons to agree with me. Government has one single purpose; to serve its own people. No one should pay for their government to shower money into third world countries. If I took your money to give to the homeless man down the street I couldn't justify my action by saying "he needs it".

The second is that it naively forgets the origin of the funds of government; from taxes taken from you and me. Never ever forget that the government does not have any money on its own, it is an organization which must return what it takes from the taxpayer. If even one person disagrees with sending tax dollars overseas then it is robbery.

I have read arguments concerning corruption, freeing up corrupt governments money to spend on military expenses and giving the UN too much power. While these are good arguments and very real problems, they are just the symptoms of the increasing number of words in the standard dictionary's entry 'government'.

In essence foreign aid is the philosophy of social welfare on a global scale which sounds not only nice but noble except that the government is not some wealthy philanthropist it must return what it takes to its own people.

The government is an institution charged with the governance of its citizens, nothing more.

Charity is a voluntary act and the UN should leave it as that. Robbing Peter to help Paul is a wrong and hopeless way to cure world poverty.

The Heartless Capitalist?

All this must make me seem quite cruel and heartless but please allow me to redeem myself.

While the government as an institution and not a person does not have any moral obligation to any people except its own taxpayers, private citizens do.

Organizations such as Tear fund and others have done heaps more help to the poor and destitute than government aid ever can. Each one of us has a responsibility within their own conscience to make a difference in this world.

Is the USA an Imperialist country?

2009-10-05T22:48:00.000-07:00

Definition of Imperialism:
1. Imperial government, authority, or system
2. The policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

__________________________

Yes.

Don't forget the acquisition of the Philippines in the 1800s (of course now has independence). Also the conquest of certain Carribean Islands. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California all conquered from Mexico ;-).

Look at a map of the Pacific you will notice many islands in the north-east pacific are US-owned. Have a look how far the Midway islands or Guam is from California.

Also the USA has a large number of bases in foreign countries and has its warships all around the world. There are aircraft carriers in the Persian gulf, Battleships in the Atlantic, Cruisers in the Indian and destroyers in the Mediterranean. Many countries owe the USA a large amount of money (read the Economic Assassin).

The Korean and Vietnam wars were motivated on Imperialism (building a larger democratic 'sphere of influence' than the Soviets communist one).

Now I am not against the brave men and women who gave their lives for freedom, but for it or against it the USA is an imperialist country although certainly unique from its predecessors.

This is also why the US president is regarded as the most powerful man in the world.

;-D

Want to comment? Please do

What this blog is about

2009-10-05T21:19:00.000-07:00

Well I have created my social issues blog.
This is where I comment and write stuff on history, politics, geography, social studies, current events, conspiracy theories, philosophy, economics, people, religion, science, and so much more. As you can see I consider myself quite the Renaissance man (taking an interest in many varying topics) ;P. I am welcome to criticisms and I am open-minded on my views. If you present a good argument, I am not so proud as to not admit I am wrong(it has been done before ;p). However any sign of ad hominen attacks and you will turn me away from your arguments ;-).

__________________________________

First of all there are two methods that I have in viewing all these issues.

1. Defining the definitions. Also avoiding labels as much as possible.

2. Never assume at all.

1.
This is a biggie for me. I can not count the number of times when I have been frustrated by unclear and vague terms and in this blog I will always define the terms as clear as possible. A couple of examples: The term 'imperialism' does this mean controlling an empire, settling colonies, having a 'shpere of influence' or having a widespread military presence? What is an 'empire'? Another example; the term 'evolution'. The gradual process by which single celled organisms changed a little in each successive generation to be the variety of life we see today? The breeding of dogs? Or simply 'change'? It is vital to define all terms in order to make a coherent argument. Otherwise what makes a convincing argument for one is utter baloney to the next person.

2. Ok ok also a biggie. Never assume at all. To assume is to be arrogant because your are assuming(;-P) that you are an authority on the subject.

Well hopefully that sets the tone for this blog.