Category Archives: Polemics

Polemics

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples

12 Comments

A fine article by Aaron, who writes at Please Convince Me.

Excerpt:

A self-defeating (or self-refuting) statement is one that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria. Imagine if I were to say,

I cannot speak a word in English.

You intuitively see a problem here. I told you in English that I cannot speak a word in English. This statement is self-refuting. It does not meet its own standard or criteria. It self-destructs.

The important thing to remember with self-defeating statements is that they are necessarily false. In other words, there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. This law states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. So if I were to say, “God told me He doesn’t exist” you would see intuitively the obvious self-refuting nature of this statement.

Aaron goes on to explain how to deal with self-refuting statements in the article.

Here are 20 examples of self-refutation, just to encourage you to click through and read it:

1. There is no truth.

2. You can’t know truth.

3. No one has the truth.

4. All truth is relative.

5. It’s true for you but not for me.

6. There are no absolutes.

7. No one can know any truth about religion.

8. You can’t know anything for sure.

9. You should doubt everything.

10. Only science can give us truth.

11. You can only know truth through experience.

12. All truth depends on your perspective.

13. You shouldn’t judge.

14. You shouldn’t force your morality on people.

15. You should live and let live.

16. God doesn’t take sides.

17. You shouldn’t try to convert people.

18. That’s just your view.

19. You should be tolerant of all views.

20. It is arrogant to claim to have the truth.

Aaron explains how to respond to each of those! Read them all – it’s important to know, because you hear these all the time. Like from that Susan Stone person who comments here.

By the way, anyone with a Twitter account, the best person to follow on Twitter is J Warner Wallace (@plsconvinceme). He tweets about 10-15 apologetics items per day.

Polemics

New study: relationship quality diminished by early sexual activity, especially for women

2 Comments

Regarding the studies on the consequences of sexual activity that Mathetes wrote about before on this blog, I had something to add.

I thought these comments from Stuart Schneiderman about those studies were interesting. He writes about the response of feminists to the paper’s finding that women are more affected by early sexual activity, (the paper calls it “relationship tempo”), than men.

Excerpt:

As you might have guessed, feminists are torqued by this study. Witness the bilge offered by Amanda Hessat the DoubleX blog.

To her confused mind, a woman who has a happy marriage might, in her heart of hearts be unhappy. Because it does not satisfy her personhood!

In her words:

What the Daily Mail doesn’t say is that half-year stretches of celibacy may make a woman more satisfied in a long-term relationship, but they don’t necessarily make her a more satisfied person.

In the feminist life plan women are supposed to find happiness on their jobs, not in their relationships. This is convenient for feminists since an ideological commitment to their cause tends to be a relationship killer.

Hess points out, correctly, that not all women want long term relationships. Some don’t even want to get married.

If she is suggesting that women who sleep around are perfectly contented with their love lives, she is, as I see it, deluded.

Besides, if women are being pressured into having sex before they want to—which is a main reason why women have sex too early—then one reason is that a sufficient number of their sisters have been giving it away for free, thus skewing the marketplace.

Why don’t writers like Amanda Hess recommend that the women who are giving it away for free change their ways? Why do they always assume that women who want to get married need to act in a way that is not going to help them achieve their goals?

Feminism is the denial of gender differences. What follows from women thinking that they are no different from men when it comes to sex? Pain. Just so everyone knows, I was appalled that everyone was having sex so early according to that study. I’m in my mid-thirties and have not so much as kissed a girl on the lips. The research just doesn’t support rushed physical intimacy as a legitimate pathway to marital stability and a high quality relationship. That’s my goal, so I don’t rush physical intimacy. We should all make an effort to make relationships more about communication and co-operation. If we care about the next generation, then we will do what it takes to provide them with a stable environment in which to grow up.

Related posts

Polemics

Police threatened to charge man who defended his wife with attempted murder

3 Comments

From the UK Daily Mail, the latest on the story about the couple who was arrested for wounding four burglars who invaded their home with a legally-owned shotgun. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

The couple held by police over the shooting of two intruders at their isolated cottage spoke yesterday of their ‘living nightmare’.

Andy Ferrie said he ‘plumbed the depths of despair’ when police told him he could face a charge of attempted murder.

Tracey Ferrie said being kept in a police cell away from her husband had ‘petrified’ her and she was haunted by the ‘stomach-churning’ experience.

Mr Ferrie, 35, and his 43-year-old wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after he called police to report that he had discharged a shotgun, hitting two of four men who had broken into their home.

They were held in separate cells and handcuffed for a court appearance where detectives sought more time to hold them for questioning.

Mrs Ferrie, a saleswoman, said: ‘I was completely petrified. Being locked up in a police cell just yards from my husband, but banned from talking to him, was agony.

‘When I can get some sleep now I wake up with a start and think I’m back in the cell. It’s mortifying and stomach churning.’

She said their cottage at Welby, near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, looked like ‘something out of CSI’ as police swarmed around the hamlet following the incident early last Sunday.

Mr Ferrie, who runs a mobile home repair business, said being told he could ultimately face an attempted murder charge had left him too anxious to eat during almost three days and nights in custody.

[…]‘I was petrified, scared stiff,’ Mr Ferrie told The Sun. ‘I only did what any other bloke would have done given the situation. I’m no hero or hard man. I did what I did to protect my precious, lovely wife.

‘I was only a few feet away, I could have shot to kill but I didn’t. I was relieved later when I was told the injuries I had caused were not life-threatening. The events of the last few days have scarred us for life.’

Mr Ferrie, who plans to emigrate to Australia with his wife next year, said that during his time in custody he was ‘told my case had been upgraded to attempted murder’.

He added: ‘I just crumpled. I saw myself being sent to prison for a long, long time. I was offered food but didn’t eat for the whole 66 hours we were held.’

Last week, a court heard how the couple were woken by the sound of banging and breaking glass as the intruders forced their way inside just after midnight. Mr Ferrie confronted one of the alleged raiders in their bedroom.

If there were any justice in the world, the police and Crown lawyers responsible for this tragedy would all be sacked, right up to the top of the police force. A civil suit by the victims of the crime would make a nice end to it. Too bad the liberal pro-criminal politicians who criminalized self-defense in the UK won’t be forced to spend a few years in jail. That wouldn’t even be enough to punish them for what they did to those law-abiding citizens right after they were traumatized by a home break-in.

We have to be very careful in this country about politicians on the left who oppose property rights, gun ownership and self-defense. Politicians on the left are always moaning about the rights of criminals and the need to ban guns and prohibit self-defense. This story from the UK shows what their plan does to ordinary people. Why would any man get married and start a family in a country run by feminist leftists who put a man in jail for taking up the role of protector of his family and his home?