1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Atheists Steal Rights From God

BuzWeston Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 4:29 PM
Using reason as a basis for determining rights has its merits, but it also has its limitations. Humans have a nature. Anything that is really good for me is also really good for everyone (for example, life). Anything that is really good for someone is something they need. Anything that someone needs is something they have a right to (pursue). I can list all of the human rights based on this argument. But there's an ultimate problem. The problem is that it is pragmatic. Building a foundation on pragmatism only shows us what works (in a practical sense). But it doesn't show us what is ultimately true. So, for instance, reason may show that we have a right to life based on my human nature. But there is nothing in this that shows that the big guy and his thugs down the street have any moral obligation not to kill me and steal my stuff. It boils down to whoever has the biggest stick. And without God, all the pragmatism in the world doesn't do anything but support Friedrich Nietzsche's essential thesis that life on earth is ultimately a big game of King of the Hill (will to power). The ultimate authority of God is the only basis for a real foundation for human ethics. Everything else is shifting sand.
In response to:

Atheists Steal Rights From God

BuzWeston Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 4:15 PM
You're a confusing fellow. On the one hand you seem to be arguing for the power of logic, which is about proving something. But then you fall into rhetoric by saying that you find something persuasive. A personal decision based on reason? That sounds like subjectivism. Logic is about finding objective truth. You're trying to hide your subjectivism behind logic. That dog won't hunt.
In response to:

To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate?

BuzWeston Wrote: Feb 05, 2015 6:08 PM
You're missing key points. Parents who don't want their children immunized believe the immunization might harm them. They are doing their best to ensure their welfare. Parents who abort their children do not have their children's welfare in mind. They are killing them. Your comparison fails. The only logically consistent and justifiable position is that parents have an obligation to make the best decisions regarding their children's welfare. There is a legitimate disagreement about that regarding immunization. Here is no legitimate disagreement about that when it comes to abortion.
In response to:

Devaluing Education in America

BuzWeston Wrote: Jan 16, 2015 7:14 PM
I am a community college professor in California. The standards are already compromised. For purely selfish reasons, this will be good for me, because I'll get more classes. But I'll also get many more poor students. There will be pressure to make the classes even less rigorous than they already are. This will result in seriously lowering the quality of education for the serious and excellent students.
In response to:

Black Abortions Matter

BuzWeston Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 6:50 PM
Should be "legal," not "level."
In response to:

Black Abortions Matter

BuzWeston Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 6:42 PM
The mother doesn't die because of her discomfort. One who is brain dead will never regain consciousness. Unborn children become conscious. Something that is dead stays dead. You can't seriously think that a fetus is dead. If it's not dead, then what does that leave? It is necessarily alive. And if it is "terminated" it is killed. Anyone who passed high school biology knows that at the moment of conception a living human being exists. Abortion is currently level in the United States, so it is not murder. However, there is absolutely no question that it is homocide. No assumptions. Just straightforward biology.
In response to:

One Nation Under Godlessness

BuzWeston Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 11:28 AM
The problem with the comments section is that anyone can write anything, no matter how obviously false it is. "No philosophy, theology (sic) or religion..." Find a copy of the Syntopicon, a two volume topical index of the Great Ideas. By far the largest section is on the topic of God. Every great author wrote intelligibly about that subject. One doesn't even need to be well read to know this. Start with Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. In the twentieth century Dr. Mortimer Adler wrote several volumes on the subject of God, as did many other contemporary philosophers. Richard2666 has the timerity to accuse Michelle Malkin of dumping reason.
Larry King was the greatest talk radio host ever. But the Peter Principle worked its magic, and he rose beyond his best skills to TV. If you only know Larry King from his TV days, you don't know Larry King. On the radio he was the master and no one has ever come close. He knew enough about everything to make him interesting. He knew sports, politics, movies,literature, music..., you name it. He knew how to make calls entertaining. He was a great conversationalist, a great interviewer, and he was funny. This all worked well in a multi-hour late night radio format. His failure to translate the magic of his radio skills to television probably tells us more about the weaknesses of that medium than it says about Larry King. I miss radio Larry.
In response to:

Why I Oppose Liberalism

BuzWeston Wrote: Oct 11, 2014 10:16 PM
There you go, confirming the article. For liberals, pointing out the truth equals hatred.
Yes. I'm a college professor at a state institution. I guarantee that if they figure out that you're a Christian or a conservative that you will not get the job.
1 - 10 Next