Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Further to “When You Scratch a Progressive, You Will Find a Fascist Underneath”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Democrats’ platform committee says they have a “Final Draft To Advance Progressive Democratic Values.”

Among those progressive values, criminalizing scientific dissent.  A plank calling for criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s from “the scientific reality of climate change” was adopted with unanimous consent.  Progressives do not tolerate dissent even from calling for the persecution of dissenters.

UPDATE:

Predictably, progressives ( wd400 @ comment 3 and rhampton7  @ comment 12) come in and apologize for the brown shirts.

No, WD, it is not like the tobacco company cases at all. Those cases were civil cases in which the goal was a civil money judgment against companies that sold products that killed people.  In this case the plank calls for criminal securities fraud investigations (notice the emphasis on misleading shareholders) against people who have harmed no one.

Both WD and R7 suggest that if the criminal defendants are ultimately found not guilty after spending millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours defending themselves, they will have nothing to complain about. Of course they are wrong.  The investigation is itself a punishment, no matter the outcome.

The mere prospect of the having to defend against a criminal investigation for the crime of thinking differently will chill speech.  You know, there was a time when you progressives championed free speech. Now you stomp on it.  Well did you learn from Maud’dib:

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

 

 

 

Comments
DFO, spirit of antichrist manifest in political messianism can come from right or left. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were from the left -- Stalin was the one who cast Fascism as right wing. From the right, the pose is often, ill-founded economic salvation. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Daniel 2: 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.” [ESV]kairosfocus
July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder, and his name shall be called[e] Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. [ESV]kairosfocus
July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
F/N: I want to make a suggestion, on the shifting to a focus on political messianism as a descriptive term. generally, I do not like to speak in terms of blanket (and often loaded) labels such as Fascism, Communism, Capitalism etc, but instead to shift focus to key dynamics and driving forces. Yes, we may recognise the labels at some point, but the issue is the underlying dynamics. In this case the particular pivot is political messianism and would-be messiahs riding on ideologies of political salvation or utopianism. This, joined to over-concentration of power in the hands of unaccountable government. Often, courts, policing agencies and regulatory bureaucracies. When such are multiplied by ruthless agit prop, media message dominance tactics and silencing or ruthless marginalisation of dissenting voices, with lawfare [an act of 4th generation war] backed by evolutionary materialistic scientism and its inherent might and manipulation make 'right' - 'truth' -'justice' amorality, things get even more dangerous. Those are trends at work in our day, and the historical lessons of fascist and communist states over the past 100 years, provide sobering insights. We need to wake up and recognise the matches we are playing with, and the conflagrations we may ignite. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
The typical liberal--we'll substitute progressive here for liberal since they want to run from that word---when confronted with an informed and capable opponent, and realizing the argument has been lost, then turns to his "ace up his sleeve": make your opponent define terms. You see, it all depends on "what the meaning of 'is' is."PaV
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
SS, you raised the question of definition of fascism, and I responded to it. The core issue as I noted already, is Nietzschean superman lawless politically messianistic statism and total control in some claimed unprecedented crisis where the man of destiny is viewed as rescuer of a core identity group. Mob rule is a common feature, militarisation and ideological, lawless corruption of policing powers and courts [ponder the fate of the White Rose . . . think also Gestapo and SS], and more are common. If you are not addressing these facets, you are not dealing with the core issues. I note, for our civilisation as a whole, that the ongoing abortion holocaust is a major case of corruption of government, law and policing. A dimension that must not be under estimated is enmeshing people in enabling behaviour. The economic dimension typically leaves nominal ownership in the hands of the business class but control comes through the door of regulation and cartelisation in the claimed social interest; the fate of Professor Hugo Junkers in Germany is especially telling here. For convenience, Wiki:
Upon the 1933 Machtergreifung the new Nazi government interfered, and the new Reichskommissar of Aviation Hermann Göring (who allegedly had unsuccessfully applied as a test pilot in the early 1920s) aimed to make Junkers a tool of German re-armament. The Nazi authorities immediately demanded ownership of Hugo Junkers' patents and the majority of shares of his remaining companies. Under threat of imprisonment he eventually acquiesced, to little avail; a year later he was under house arrest and was finally forced to leave Dessau. He died on 3 February 1935 in Gauting near Munich.
His family felt he had been hounded to death and were utterly enraged at the Nazis in the context of his funeral. Individual liberty and conscience are squelched, as the White Rose movement so clearly indicates as does the fate of Niemoller. It is worth pondering the Barmen Declaration of 1934 to understand the attempt to subvert the Christian faith and seduce it into politically messianistic heresy. And more. That which significantly tends in that direction can also legitimately be pointed to as fascistic or neo-fascistic. Fascism itself was a deliberate reworking of classic marxism (which was itself prone to many sub-ideologies and variant forms), so onward reworking is to be expected. There are in fact many very dangerous trends in our civilisation that point to lessons we need to learn from the classic cases of fascism. BTW, modern progressivism is often radical cultural marxism tied to Alinski's ruthless methods and agit prop. Latterly, lawfare has been added. Inject a bit of lawless political messianism, manufactured hysterical reaction to perceived crisis and some some bully boy mob tactics [they don't have to go all the way to SA type violence to be dangerous], and we are looking at an all too familiar pattern. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
This OP and the comments that advocate for it can be summed up in two small words: crude slur. The claim of the OP is that the ideas and attitudes of fascism are pervasive among progressives; but the OP did not even define what fascist means much less did it make any effort to show that progressives are like fascists; it relies on innuendo and prejudices to do that work. I asked for a definition of fascism; it’s clear that request caught you all off-guard because you’ve been muddling through ever since trying to provide what turns out to be a poor, sloppy definition. KF goes off at great length about the evils of fascism (which are documented and never disputed by me) but he is oblivious to the point of the OP. The point of the OP is to claim that Progressive are fascists, but none of you make any meaningful effort to show that progressives think like fascists or have much in common with fascists at all. You rely on your hateful prejudices to make that link. Hence, I conclude this OP is nothing but a long, drawn-out and contemptable slur, and no longer worthy of attention. I’ll conclude with a quote from KF (from #31), who once again unthinkingly contradicted his own claims.
“Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.”
Emphasis added. This clearly distinguishes progressivism from fascism. Progressivism is about interventionism and a regulated, mixed (or hybrid) economy. sean s. Over and out.sean samis
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
wd400 (@23#)
What is it about this topic that makes people lose their minds so readily. The question for any investigaton would amount “did directors have evidence for the likely impacts of fossil fuels on climate, which they knowingly witheld”. It’s not about wether director though climate change was not real.
So we're not talking about "known" impacts, but "likely" impacts. According to whom? And how well have they documented their case? This is the "thought police" at work here. Why do you defend this fascist activity?
I did have to laugh at this though
Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a “scientific reality”? Aren’t all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what “reality” is?
I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer, no?
When you're finished laughing, here are some quotes that I lifted from the CDC (Center for Disease Control): First these numbers:
Current smoking has declined from nearly 21 of every 100 adults (20.9%) in 2005 to nearly 17 of every 100 adults (16.8%) in 2014.
And then these:
The rate of new lung cancer cases decreased among men and women in the United States from 2005 to 2009, according to a report in this week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The study also found that lung cancer incidence rates went down 2.6 percent per year among men, from 87 to 78 cases per 100,000 men and 1.1 percent per year among women, from 57 to 54 cases per 100,000 women.
We'll normalize these numbers for 100,000 individuals, while adding 150% to the numbers of the 2005-2009 period. The numbers say---the government's own numbers---that between 2005 and 2014, 4,000 people stopped smoking (per 100,000) and 16 people got lung cancer (again, per 100,000). According to these numbers, is it a "scientific reality" that smoking causes lung cancer? BTW, I don't know that I've heard an interview with the "world's oldest person" that didn't include the fact that they smoked.PaV
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
F/N: On the original post, please read this including comment exchanges: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/ KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
DFO, right now, our civilisation as a whole is under indictment by the ghosts of at least 800 million unborn children killed through abortion in the past 40 years, and going on at 50+ millions per year. We stand condemned, utterly and inexcusably guilty of the worst holocaust in history. Our bloodguilt easily explains how our thinking has become so utterly warped and incompetent. Let us have the good sense to repent and seek mercy for what we have done. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
PPS: Since you mean to implicitly condemn by painting a lurid caricature and have targeted objective morality [the alternative is one form or another of will to power . . . ], it is appropriate to place on the table what I have actually argued about manifestly evident first principles of morality:
>> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>>
I put it to you that principles like this are foundational to modern liberty and democracy, as say the US DoI 1776 directly states or implies. If you have a sound alternative, let us hear it: ___________ . Otherwise, your sharp words above are little more than an ill advised sneer meant to taint and dismiss. (And on the main topic it should be clear that the resort to lawfare in a party platform is a very dangerous sign indeed.)kairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
SS, Nietzschean superman will to power lawlessness and integral nihilism are defining characteristics of the sort of political messianism involved in fascism. The man beyond law comes to the rescue in the face of the alleged unprecedented crisis, so the mass-group unifies around him in utter solidity and blind following, as fasces are tied in a bundle. The crisis justifies the lawlessness and subsuming one's will and individuality in the will of the superman, who is the focus of the all encompassing state. Do you think I spoke of political messianism and demonic idolatry lightly? KF PS: This is what the White Rose had to say about what I am speaking of:
WR, I: Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest German is ashamed of his government. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes - crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure - reach the light of day? If the German people are already so corrupted and spiritually crushed that they do not raise a hand, frivolously trusting in a questionable faith in lawful order of history; if they surrender man’s highest principle, that which raises him above all other God’s creatures, his free will; if they abandon the will to take decisive action and turn the wheel of history and thus subject it to their own rational decision; if they are so devoid of all individuality, have already gone so far along the road toward turning into a spiritless and cowardly mass - then, yes, they deserve their downfall. Goethe speaks of the Germans as a tragic people, like the Jews and the Greeks, but today it would appear rather that they are a spineless, will-less herd of hangers-on, who now - the marrow sucked out of their bones, robbed of their center of stability - are waiting to be hounded to their destruction. So it seems - but it is not so. Rather, by means of gradual, treacherous, systematic abuse, the system has put every man into a spiritual prison. Only now, finding himself lying in fetters, has he become aware of his fate. Only a few recognized the threat of ruin, and the reward for their heroic warning was death. We will have more to say about the fate of these persons. If everyone waits until the other man makes a start, the messengers of avenging Nemesis will come steadily closer; then even the last victim will have been cast senselessly into the maw of the insatiable demon. Therefore every individual, conscious of his responsibility as a member of Christian and Western civilization, must defend himself as best he can at this late hour, he must work against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system of totalitarianism. Offer passive resistance - resistance - wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this atheistic war machine before it is too late, before the last cities, like Cologne, have been reduced to rubble, and before the nation’s last young man has given his blood on some battlefield for the hubris of a sub-human. Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure! . . . . WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
kairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
KF @65; The tendency to lawlessness is too ubiquitous to define fascism with. Libertarians are particularly prone to it. I did discuss the superman canard; it’s telling that you didn’t notice or acknowledge that. Statism and socialism are also characteristics of too many ideologies to assign them to fascism. The more I read here, the more convinced I am that the term fascism is being used as an unthinking epithet disguised with post-hoc rationalizations
The ghosts of the White Rose martyrs have something to say to you.
I’m sure they would, they’ll encourage me continue to think independently; to continue resisting your ill-conceived, broad-brush stereotypes and to resist all those who pose as moralists while blanketing themselves in folly. sean s.sean samis
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
KF, I suppose in the context of this thread, it's enough for us to agree that it is known that smoking increases the risk of cancer. But if a particular person gets cancer, surely it's true that there were causes for this event, agreed? Not that we can determine them with certainty, but you must agree that no case of cancer is uncaused?daveS
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
DS, I spoke to causing enhanced risk in a probability distribution for incidence of cancer. Where cancer can happen without smoking being involved at all and where smoking does not inevitably cause cancer. A secondary causal effect -- increased risk -- is what fits those facts. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
KF,
DS I spoke to smoking as a second order cause, of increased risk of cancer.
If by this you mean that smoking is a cause of a cause of cancer, then we are on the same page.daveS
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
SS, you set up and knocked over a strawman caricature -- e.g. leaving off the significance of tendency to lawlessness in the context of Nietzschean superman will to power as a material factor in Fascism, as well as suppressing the significance of statism and specific commitment to socialism -- and now hope to double down. The ghosts of the White Rose martyrs have something to say to you. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
DS I spoke to smoking as a second order cause, of increased risk of cancer. In short, I have an underlying context of sufficient conditions for a probabilistic distribution to occur, and then for factors that increase or decrease risk within that distribution. A similar thing obtains for use of say condoms with STD's, reduced risk, which then can be affected by degree of exposure. (Simplistically if a protective factor is 90% effective, 10 cumulative exposures will imply the probability of being protected all ten times is only about 30% . Would you play Russian Roulette with two live rounds or even one?) Similarly, degree of exposure to smoking seems correlated with proportionately increased risk, but not certainty of outcome. So we see a second order effect. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
It's an antioncogene, a gene that encodes a protein involved in controlling cellular growth; inactivation of this type of gene leads to deregulated cellular proliferation, as in cancer.rhampton7
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
rhampton
How does smoke cause some cancers? G to T transversions in p53 mutations:
Since P53 induces apoptosis and not cell division its mutation is not directly causing cancer (excess cell division of undifferentiated cells) but teamed with low blood vitamin d levels it can certainly contribute by not inducing cell death when excess cell division occurs.bill cole
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
How does smoke cause some cancers? G to T transversions in p53 mutations: The mutational pattern for the TP53 tumour suppressor gene in lung tumours differs to other cancer types by having a higher frequency of G:C>T:A transversions. The aetiology of this differing mutation pattern is still unknown. Benzo[a]pyrene,diol epoxide (BPDE) is a potent cigarette smoke carcinogen that forms guanine adducts at TP53 CpG mutation hotspot sites including codons 157, 158, 245, 248 and 273. We performed molecular modelling of BPDE-adducted TP53 duplex sequences to determine the degree of local distortion caused by adducts which could influence the ability of nucleotide excision repair. We show that BPDE adducted codon 157 has greater structural distortion than other TP53 G:C>T:A hotspot sites and that sequence context more distal to adjacent bases must influence local distortion. Using TP53 trinucleotide mutation signatures for lung cancer in smokers and non-smokers we further show that codons 157 and 273 have the highest mutation probability in smokers. Combining this information with adduct structural data we predict that G:C>T:A mutations at codon 157 in lung tumours of smokers are predominantly caused by BPDE. Our results provide insight into how different DNA sequence contexts show variability in DNA distortion at mutagen adduct sites that could compromise DNA repair at well characterized cancer related mutation hotspots. http://m.nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/22/nar.gkv910.fullrhampton7
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
This reminds of the pre-1980 widely held medical view that bad diet and stress caused ulcers. Now we know better. Yet, if this discussion was held in the 1970's, the question could as easily be one of whether or not we would agree that bad diet and stress were "two of the causes" of ulcers. Sloppy language = sloppy arguments.William J Murray
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
KF daveS Low levels of vitamin d in your blood causes cancer. Vitamin d down regulates the beta catenin protein that causes cells to divide.bill cole
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Re #42:
What you left off ... is telling. KF
It is telling; I plead guilty to separating the wheat from the chaff. It is telling; I endeavor to ignore irrelevancies and focus on what matters. It is telling that you do not. It is telling that you get so lost in your own prose that you miss obvious contradictions. It is telling indeed. sean s.sean samis
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
FYI: smoking is not just a factor, but sometimes a cause: What Causes Lung Cancer Anyone can get lung cancer. Lung cancer occurs when cells in the lung mutate or change. Various factors can cause this mutation to happen. Most often, this change in lung cells happens when people breathe in dangerous, toxic substances. Even if you were exposed to these substances many years ago, you are still at risk for lung cancer. Talk to your doctor if you have ever been exposed to any of the substances listed below. http://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/symptoms-causes-and-risk-factors/what-causes-lung-cancer.htmlrhampton7
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, I have spoken of various kinds and degrees of causal influence. Obviously, independent of cigarette smoking, people can and do get cancers including lung cancer. Such smoking seems to heighten risk, where that heightening of risk would be an effect, as distinct from absent smoking no cancer [necessary factor] or present smoking then inevitably cancer [sufficient factor]. I trust this further extension of what was already said will help. KF
Hm, I don't see any extension in this post. As I stated above, to the best of my knowledge, smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause cancer. It's trivially not necessary, of course. We are in agreement on that. But it seems you are unwilling to affirm that any factor is a cause for cancer. If that's the case, I would think there's no chance of you determining whether changes in climate are caused (in part) by human activity.daveS
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
DS, I have spoken of various kinds and degrees of causal influence. Obviously, independent of cigarette smoking, people can and do get cancers including lung cancer. Such smoking seems to heighten risk, where that heightening of risk would be an effect, as distinct from absent smoking no cancer [necessary factor] or present smoking then inevitably cancer [sufficient factor]. I trust this further extension of what was already said will help. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
VS, by pronouncing "reality" over a scientific controversy and going after funders under RICO or the like, we are dealing with closure of science and intent to resort to lawfare. Where, given that law enforcement is backed up by the sword, such clearly crosses into the territory of using means of force to advance policy and political/ideological ends, a sobering development. When, too, there is in fact diversity of serious scientific view and of linked phil of sci/ epistemology issues; not to more than mention that computer models/ simulations are not to be equated to empirical reality, and that there are significant concerns on limitations of observations and proxies -- for just one instance ponder the warming "pause" since the late 1990s question. I also mention that the shifts in a moving average are one thing, predominant attribution to human cause is quite another. For relevant instance, sea level rise trends of several inches per century [not the up to 10 m I recall as popularly suggested in past years] need to be matched against 19 year Saros and other similar cycles that affect sea level, tides and the like. As well, we need to speak of how for land slopes 1 in 1,000 -- very flat -- say 15 cm shift (about 100 years worth) moves shoreline 15,000 cm, i.e. 150 m. Sounds like a lot. However this scale is comparable in magnitude to several other factors -- ice age rebound of land, subsidence/ emergence, erosion and deposit etc, at work -- factors, that are not portrayed as catastrophic. And, many coast forms are dynamic, they would adapt to such shifts, as they do around the sun-moon-earth system 19 year tidal forces cycle without our even particularly noticing. I just pick one simple instance that happens to have been raised in the connexion of Exxon. Such resort to lawfare as we are seeing and the like are very serious matches to be playing with, and I am not at all confident that it is safe or prudent to be raising issues of prosecution under laws on fraud and the like. I strongly suggest a major calming down of the intensity, tone and polarisation of the debates and policy moves. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
velikovskys asks:
At what level does risk enhancing factors become causative? 100% ?
Considering that 1 in 10 smokers get lung cancer, I'd say the threshold for claiming causation should be closer to 100% than 10%. Perhaps a more accurate claim would be that smoking significantly increases one's risk of getting lung cancer.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Surely you agree that when trillions of dollars in worldwide monies including salaries, funding, subsidies, research, carbon offsets, etc. are directly tied to the premise that not only does human activity significantly impact climate change, but that we can significantly predict the results of that impact, this motto equally applies to the other side of the argument?
Not exactly, the plank does not close scientific inquiry, it merely requires corporate fiduciary responsibility to owners of the corporation.
Corporations are already lawfully prevented from defrauding shareholders; why make this particular "fraud" a plank, then, of the Democratic platform? Why refer to the "scientific reality" of climate change, if not to evoke a certain view as "settle science', and thus imply that any characterizations of climate that devaite from the "scientific reality" would be criminally fraudulent?William J Murray
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, there are influence factors of broadly causal nature that may amplify risks or promote or amplify or accelerate or broadly contribute to an effect, but are neither necessary [on/off enabling] nor sufficient [once a given cluster is present the effect always follows]. Not all smokers or even heavy smokers get cancer. It is possible for non smokers to get cancer. But smoking is reasonably strongly correlated with increased risks, likely in connexion with other factors [such as heredity, general condition, one’s immune system etc, perhaps unknown ones] leading to a case of the final straw breaking the camel’s back. KF
This again seems quite reasonable. Smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient factor for cancer. Yet you seem reluctant to affirm that smoking is a cause for cancer. Is there any factor X such that X is a cause for cancer? I assume you would have to say yes, based on our discussion of the PSR. If someone develops a case of lung cancer, there must have been a (or most likely several) cause(s) right? Out of all the people who developed lung cancer worldwide in 2015, for some, smoking was indeed a cause, correct?daveS
June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply