Africa Asia Australia Education Ethics Europe Films Health Justice Music Politics Sex and sexuality the Church USA

Quantum 124 – China, Australia, Indonesia, Jesus College, North Korea, Indonesia, West Papua, Biden on Abortion, Carl Lentz, France, Africa, the Titanic and Dylan

This weeks Quantum looks that trade war between China and Australia,  Jesus College in Cambridge and China, North Korea and Covid, Indonesia and West Papua, Biden on abortion and trans, Carl Lentz, Homeschooling in France, African Apologetics, The Titanic and Bob Dylan.

You can listen to it here.

https://theweeflea.podbean.com/e/quantum-124-china-australia-indonesia-north-korea-and-covidbiden-lentz-france-africa-the-titanic-and-dylan/

This weeks links are below.

China, Australia and Coal 

 

North Korea executes Covid rule breaker. 

 

Indonesia and West Papua

 

 

The fake Indonesian Reporter

 

Biden promises to reverse Trans laws. 

 

Great Article on Carl Lentz

French Ban on Home Schooling

African Apologetics.  

 

 

 

Why does Harper Memorial Church have to do with the Titanic?

 

Catch up with Quantum here – Quantum 123 – Are you a Belieber? Including China, the Crown, Covid, Dylan and Dolly

Support Quantum here – https://patron.podbean.com/theweeflea

 

 

 

22 comments

  1. I’ve mentioned this before: A number of your links consistently require the reader to ”sign up” before they can read the article.
    Again, perhaps you should reconsider your source material for links?

    1. “It was difficult to find an actual question within you comment but this seems as close as it gets.”

      And there you go with the Ad hominem Arkenaten. I rest my case about that.

      For your information, what is implicit within that is a claim of incompetence or of not communicating clearly rather than primarily showing logical engagement and willingness to engage with reason. Anything after that is not going to be a logical discussion made with treating someone you might not agree with, with dignity, and it is manna from heaven for a comedian when a heckler does this kind of thing in a comedy gig for the comedian to make fun and get the crowd laughing at the heckler’s expense.

      But since this is not the context for such a thing, instead, I’ll not dignify your comment by engaging with it further.

      Have a nice day.

  2. Your Tweet.
    New York politicians on abortion ‘my body, my choice’. New York politicians on Covid vaccine ‘we will make it illegal for you not to have this vaccine’. Any one spot the problem?

    Sorry, no I don’t see the problem. What am I missing?

    1. Logic and hypocrisy. If it is my body and I get to choose what I do with it….why then would the State compel me to put a vaccine I don’t want into my body? Is it not really my choice?

      1. Do you honestly need to have the reason explained why you should be obligated to vaccinate against a possible deadly transmittable disease? Are you serious?

      2. Let’s try logic Ark….I know it’s difficult but you can do it! Is it or is it not a principle that ‘it’s my body and I can do what I want with it?’. If its not then don’t use that argument re abortion. If it is then you cannot compel people to be vaccinated against their will. There are a lot more questions both about vaccines and the rights of individuals to refuse them. There are also lots of questions about whether these vaccines prevent transmission…and if they are safe. (by the way re abortion – it’s not just one body and one human being). What a strange twisted illogical world you live in – where you defend the right to kill an unborn child – a 100% death rate, but insist on everyone being compelled to use a vaccine for an illness that has a 0.03% death rate…..

      3. Yes, let’s try logic, David.

        And let’s see if you have the integrity to see this conversation through to it’s conclusion, shall we?

        First, and let’s make this point abundantly clear. I stated in my first reply which you refused to publish that it is important that any vaccine is thoroughly tested before being rolled out.
        I for one would not accept any vaccine that medical authorities were wishy-washy or unsure of.
        That said, one should be able to have autonomy over one’s body.

        However, unlike many other bodily abuses, while secondary consequences could and can be attributed to things such as tobacco and alcohol, a transmittable disease such as Covid, if left unchecked, can and has caused a pandemic of such proportions it has caused major issues for health services across the globe.
        Would you object with a similar degree of vehemence for any other virulent disease?
        How would you feel if one of your loved ones died and their death was traced back to someone who had refused to be vaccinated?

        So, yes, one should be obliged to be vaccinated, providing all protocols regarding the vaccination are observed.

        As for abortion,
        I raised the fact there are atheists who are very much against abortion but yet you still frame your reply as if I am all for it, especially with your as-per- usual sarcastic retort about the illogical twisted world I live in.

        Tens of thousands of children die each year from preventable diseases/illness and yet, as far as I am aware, you have never once raised this issue, or suggested even a halfway solution to combat this.

        Maybe it’s time that you acknowledged that praying to your god has had zero effect on such issues and instead of continually slating me and others like me, roll up your sleeves and do something meaningful with your hands for the children who are out there without little or no sustenance and minimal chance of survival?

        Just a thought.

        Now let’s see a reply from you with a halfway decent answer and without your usual condescension and sarcasm.

      4. The point about logic is that you stick to the point and don’t wander off on a dozen different paths. Everything starts from the premise “it’s my body and I can do with it as I please – including having an abortion”. Do you agree with that statement?

      5. |The point about logic is that you stick to the point

        Fair enough. So, just to ensure we are in agreement on the topic at hand , and at the risk of sounding pedantic; there are two points on the table.

        1. Autonomy regarding whether an individual be legally allowed to refuse to be vaccinated against a proven deadly transmittable disease and,
        2. Autonomy regarding whether a woman be legally allowed to have an abortion.

        Is this correct?

      6. The point is about the mantra ‘ “it’s my body and I can do with as I please – no one has a right to tell me what to do with my body”. Do you agree with that?

      7. I have never heard such a ”mantra” – do you have a source?
        It is not one I personally would likely use carte blanche, and I am sure there are probably certain exceptions/extenuating circumstances, as there are with most things.

        Certainly someone who is diagnosed as mentally, or emotionally unstable or simply appears to be in such a state should not be allowed to do what ever they wanted, and for one to simply walk away and allow such an action I am sure you would agree would be regarded as irresponsible and quite likely callous.

        As you are somewhat of a stickler regarding logic and staying on point could you please acknowledge if I am correct about the topic at hand: autonomy re: Covid vaccination and autonomy re: abortion, then we can move the discussion on?

        Thanks.

      8. It is the basic mantra of the ‘pro choice’ movement. “my body, my choice’. I am delighted to hear that you don’t accept that mantra – so the discussion is over. Because we are agreed – and that is what we are discussing.

      9. Actually we are not agreed as I disagree that this is the basic mantra of pro choice as the only claim is the one made by you without providing a scrap of evidence to support it.

        Is this a version of the ad hominem that Adrian was trying to accuse me of?
        It seems apparent that whenever you Christians end up on the ropes you always resort to whining and flinging metaphorical faeces.
        It must be because your arguments have more holes that a Galilean fisherman’s net.

      10. Ark – its really not wise to comment on things if you know nothing about them. Denying that the pro choice argument is ‘my body, my choice’ is like denying that the earth is round or God doesn’t exist!

      11. Its generally not a good idea to comment on something if you don’t know what you are talking about! Denying that the mantra of the pro-abortion movement is ‘my body, my choice’ is equivalent to denying that the world is round, or God is real!

        But the question is whether you agree with the statement ‘my body, my choice’? Do you?

    2. I like the way these conversations go – yes I am being sacrastic.

      So – aside from David’s not infrequent toxic engagement that may have been a contributor to being “Persona non grata” (his words) in Scotland Arkenaten there is something to consider here.

      You don’t have a problem with “New York politicians” abortion stance on abortion or making it illegal not to have the vaccine. OK that’s your choice.

      Then you argue “how would you feel if one of your loved ones died and their death was traced back to someone who had refused to be vaccinated?” and use this as an attempt at justification for your claim that prayer has “zero effect” and then launch into ad hominem.

      The “if” you write is significant of course here. We are in so much uncertainty at the moment. Do you remember thalidomide being prescribed for morning sickness leading to babies being born with deformed limbs? It is interesting you bring up prayer because there is a significant amount of faith being placed by some in this vaccine being the cure for Covid and it being safe without evidence of it being so. So, for arguments sake, where is your evidence for your faith in the vaccine not being a delusion?

      Also, in response to your “if”, what if there is something found out later on that has not yet been discovered about the vaccine that leads to health consequences and a significant number of people die as a result of something that has not yet been discovered yet, and one of them happens to be a loved one that you have compelled to take the vaccine. How would you feel if that happens?

      Please do respond with some ad hom – personal attacks. I love it when people do that while claiming to pursue logic. It’s like a heckler trying to have a go at a comedian and not realising what they have just taken on :).

      “Ad Hominem
      (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.” https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html#:~:text=(Attacking%20the%20person)%3A%20This,in%20a%20group%20or%20institution.

      1. It was difficult to find an actual question within you comment but this seems as close as it gets.

        So, for arguments sake, where is your evidence for your faith in the vaccine not being a delusion?

        I don’t have faith. But if there is reliable evidence for the efficacy of the vaccine and it has passed all the appropriate standards then I see no reason not to trust it.

        Also, in response to your “if”, what if there is something found out later on that has not yet been discovered about the vaccine that leads to health consequences and a significant number of people die as a result of something that has not yet been discovered yet, and one of them happens to be a loved one that you have compelled to take the vaccine. How would you feel if that happens?

        I would feel devastated. Wouldn’t you?

        Then you argue “how would you feel if one of your loved ones died and their death was traced back to someone who had refused to be vaccinated?” and use this as an attempt at justification for your claim that prayer has “zero effect” and then launch into ad hominem.

        Other than a possible feel good response there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that intercessory prayer has any positive results.
        The largest test to date for the effects of intercessory prayer was carried out by the Templeton Foundation among patients in several hospitals.

        No positive results were returned. In fact, some patients who were aware they were being prayed for show a marked decline in their health/recovery.
        If prayer worked then there would be no need for doctors.

        And nowhere in my dialogue with David have I levelled any ad homs.

        Perhaps you should read the comments a little more carefully, Adam?

  3. Two years ago Target stores in Australia were using Bob Dylan’s ” Must Be Santa” as their Christmas song. It was played on a loop. A member of staff in a Melbourne store said to me that if she heard it one more time she would scream. By way of gently pulling her leg, I said I was disappointed that she was not a Bob Dylan fan. She gave me the most withering of looks and totally refused to believe it was the man himself. My then 4 year old grandson loved it.

    I take your point about the Van Morrison song. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. While never being a fan of his music or politics, I like this one. However, it got me thinking about the number of times I have criticised celebrities for using their status to push particular views on many current issues. Is my reaction simply because I do not agree with them? I do not feel as moved to criticise Van Morrison. Is it because I feel he is less hypocritical than say Prince Harry, or is it just that he is saying something I am happier to hear?

    You have done it again, made me think. Perhaps I should stop reading your blog 🙂

    God bless.

  4. “It was difficult to find an actual question within you comment but this seems as close as it gets.”

    And there you go with the Ad hominem Arkenaten. I rest my case about that.

    For your information, what is implicit within that is a claim of incompetence or of not communicating clearly rather than primarily showing logical engagement and willingness to engage with reason. Anything after that is not going to be a logical discussion made with treating someone you might not agree with, with dignity, and it is manna from heaven for a comedian when a heckler does this kind of thing in a comedy gig for the comedian to make fun and get the crowd laughing at the heckler’s expense.

    But since this is not the context for such a thing, instead, I’ll not dignify your comment by engaging with it further.

    Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: