Paul Fair III

@abbythelibb_ @SammyTherese Yeah. Sounds horrible lol.

@SammyTherese Yeah how dare she read the Bible aloud from home

Go home !!!!!! Raise your children like Charlie wanted. My GOD! Th is is insane! We reject you!

Saying he did not lose at all is perhaps even a better way of saying it. Which you can see how that bolsters the point -- losing is not some sort of moral good, at least not one found, ever (in your framing), in Jesus. I appreciate the "lose to the world but win the broader fight" concept, but it can taken far out of context, and has. The same book also noted that if one can't be trusted with earthly things, they shant be trusted with heavenly ones. I think you're being fair in your philosophical treatment, but in practicality, it's pretty absurd for someone to win, and then for others to shame them if they are supposedly on the same side. It's unclear what is being lost, and to the degree you think it is, it seems a better *means,* if sincere, would be to simply and quietly heal those wounds, not shout at the one making progress on the battle field.

@PaulFairIII Jesus never lost the world. He was still Lord of all when he was hung on a cross by the most powerful empire of the time. But to earthly men who only understand earthly power, he was a loser and killed like a slave. The problem is Rufo et al think only like those earthly men

Whatever you think about any of this, it’s clear there’s a lack or morality in conservative academics: they’ve forgotten that winning itself is moral. Winning is an end to itself that embodies goodness. Is there more to the story? Yes. But winning is not a trivial or secondary pursuit. It is the primary mission. In times of war, those who forget that are forgotten by history, as they should be. Not only does the end justify the means, it defines them: you set the end, and then you work backward. I appreciate that she is questioning, “To what end?” Because that is the ultimate question. And as long as that end is good and is accomplished, the means should be explored freely. The problem is not when people use the wrong means to achieve an end. It’s when the end was misguided — if the end is well-defined, you will know what not to do (you don’t try win a war by going scorched Earth (unless you’re a lunatic), because you are smart enough to define the end well: the goal is not *simply* to win a war, but to have an existence). Likewise, the goal is to have academic institutions that disseminate truth or at least don’t call truth by the most vile of names so that truth becomes verboten, and all of that is simply a sub-goal of the primary one: that our society will continue, as America is the greatest political force for good for Earth and its inhabitants. Some will argue, (many academics) and that shows how evil our institutions are, that basic facts are considered problematic. Without our county existing as the political, scientific, technological, and defensive beacon, millions (or more), across the world, 2will return to the death, disease, and starvation that once reined across all continents. Winning the war in academia is not a trivial pursuit. The end goal is continued existence, so whatever achieves that, is not only justifiable, but righteous. A failure to win is in fact a moral failure.

@creation247 No. This is absurd.

CHRISTIANS ONLY - Should women be forced to wear head coverings in church?

@MbProfesora Jesus did not lose. I think perhaps a re-read may be helpful. A summary is this: Jesus created the world, he lost it temporarily, then he won it back. If he had lost, evil would have reined over everyone, hence why losing is so reprehensible.

@PaulFairIII It’s not me you have to take it up with. It’s Jesus, Socrates and any one who has “lost” in the terms the world uses for winning or losing.

Plato's argument portended primarily to self-mastery, and not winning *over others.* To the degree that Plato's philosophy been extrapolated to failing to defend society, it is incorrect: Winning is a moral good, and it's obvious, to me now, why the conservatives have lost in academics to this point: Apparently, you all believe there is some virtue in losing. losing is not a moral good. Martyrs are not good because they lost, but because of what they gain. Cinderella is not celebrated simply because she was treated poorly, but because her virtues won, in the end, the throne. Doubtless, there were countless other women who were also mistreated. We don't celebrate them. It would do well for you to remember, that cowards are not compared to second-rate citizens, but to murderers, and God permits neither the former coward nor the latter murderer in his kingdom, by his words. And therein we find the two guardrails: Do not kill another human, but be as bold as a lion.

@PaulFairIII Winning in itself, going back to Plato, isn’t something that can be considered essentially moral. Nobody who disagrees with you that there cannot be moral victories. It’s just that the western tradition has powerful figures who taught us that winning is not the supreme good

Ineffective: patently false (dictionaries are helpful in these scenarios) Blowback: I’m curious, do you think when one is attempting to root out evil there will be no blowback? Warp the soul: equally as in wrong (if not more so) is cowardice. In Revelation, cowards are compared to murderers, and it’s noted they won’t find themselves in the Kingdom of Heaven.

@millerman The attacks on Rufo are an indication that some of us are fed up with being told that we should win by any means necessary. The worries come from the fact that some ways of "winning" are ineffective, create blowback, and warp the soul.

Attacks on Rufo are proof that some conservatives just love to lose! A good name for them is "losers"

@kvallier @christopherrufo There’s a reason Alexander Hamilton is on the $10 bill, we made a musical about him, and the main thing history immortalizes Aaron Burr for is that he shot Hamilton.

I want to clearly state where I think @christopherrufo has been harmful for American civic life. He has certainly done some good. My concern is that his tactics are a kind of civic poison. They salt the social earth, making trust hard to rebuild and polarization hard to reduce. I'm part of the Ohio civics project. I left an ordinary academic job to throw myself into the work of academic reform, building institutions that serve as a counterweight to left-wing overreach. The academy is in deep need of reform. I am not a beautiful loser asking conservatives to disarm. But this work requires being charitable to people we disagree with, and Rufo's rhetoric is not uniformly welcome among those of us doing it. Consider his own words: "We will eventually turn [critical race theory] toxic, as we put all of the 'various cultural insanities' under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something 'crazy' in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.'" This isn't arguing that a view is false. It isn't trying to remove it from a curriculum. It's category construction. It has always read to me as engineered so the public can't distinguish thoughtful people who draw on CRT from crazy ones. That's not necessary to win the argument, and it corrodes the civic ground any future reform has to be built upon. I'm not tone-policing. I'm saying what Rufo gives with one hand, he takes with the other. Many of us are doing the hard daily work of academic reform, and we do not uniformly welcome his efforts, because his tactics are too bare-knuckled and, frankly, unkind. So to be clear: the academy needs reform. I am giving my career to that project. But I will not thank Rufo for anything as long as his rhetoric salts the earth for rebuilding trust with the left.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do, either. "Freedom from religion" is not in the Bill of Rights (which is part of the Constitution)? I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you've just read some stuff online w/o reading this stuff yourself. "Freedom from religion" (nor even "Freedom of religion") is written nowhere in the Constitution, though the concept about freedom *of* religion is noted in the very first amendment. "Freedom from religion" is written literally no where in relation to any of this. It's a modern-day delusion? Stop listening to what anyone (including me) says. Just read it yourself.

@PaulFairIII @notpopbase @Phil_Lewis_ So do you think the amendments are not constitutional rights because they came later? Lol

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Texas can require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, US appeals court rules.

@code_mom_ @notpopbase @Phil_Lewis_ I should like to know where you read this "explicit" idea in any of the Founding Forefathers' writings? Or even their wives?

Thank you. I did read it, and the superior doctrine, also, which does not say that. Never once was this silly notion "freedom *from* religion" ever brought up by our Founders, because they did not intend to bring it up, because they are not so ridiculous. Only later did self-inculcated people try to sneak this concept, which was a total aberration, into the context.

"Separation of church and state": The most mis-quoted, misunderstood, and least studied concept by at least half the country. The point was, to sum it up, to ensure the state didn't tell the church what to do, that was literally the point. It had nothing to do with limiting the church's authority in the state, but instead, was to ensure the government did not interfere with churches. . . . people have literally twisted it *backward*

@Phil_Lewis_ so much for freedom of speech and the seperation of church and state

@rwoods0427 @megbasham It does not say you should not lie, it says you should not bear false witness. I would actually argue Christians do a much better job at that than anyone I know.

@megbasham Ya but don’t “lie”, don’t “covet”? Tiny amount of Christians live like that. Makes it seem silly.

The same thing that the rainbow flag displays are meant to accomplish. Indicate allegiance to a set of governing principles.

@JohnOleske @megbasham That's a great question. . . what do you think the answer is?

@megbasham What governing principles does the pride flag indicate one has allegiance to?

@Murmurs16477916 @emzanotti @janecoaston Until a Jewish kid goes, "You're actually both slightly wrong, (and FWIW, the Protestants are less so), and they're not 'commandments.'" That's how I would hope it goes anyways lol

@emzanotti @janecoaston They're still 10 and they cover the same ground. But I want Catholic kids to say, "The numeration is incorrect..."

I still want to know exactly what people think the Ten Commandments would do here.

@athenaeumbc Is this a real SAT question? Honestly, do we know that? if so, it's absurd.

Insane to think this is a real SAT exam question. Attention spans are now so bad that some "reading passages" are just 24 WORDS. We are becoming an illiterate society. Why is nobody talking about this?