Some disassembly required.
*Sigh*
I can't figure out if you have been so deeply brainwashed by exposure to this liberal goo that you actually believe what you're writing. I hope not. I'm hoping there's a lot of devil's advocacy in what you're posting. But just in case, I have disassembled your argument for you so you can see where it is broken:
"First off , and to point out a reoccurring quirk in many conservatives' debating styles and one you've used here , it's almost impossible to convince reasoned thinkers of anything when over-simplified and 'right-or-wrong' absolutes are used as debate tools."
And there it is. Good old situational ethics. Once again, I have to take on the task of being the one to break some bad news to you. Most of us on planet Earth believe in a categorical imperative. Yes, that's right, there is absolute good and absolute evil. In the evil category, we can begin with situational ethics. A psychotic German in the 19th century tried to prove that there was no good or evil, that everything was relative to the moment. Fortunately for us, he is dead and mostly discredited. Turns out he was molested by his sisters as a child and grew up to be a twisted sociopath. Far from being a debating style, belief in a categorical imperative is something most of us on this old mud ball hold to be self-evident.
"You know, the old "I said it therefore it's true" thing. When such faulty debate ammo is used, it often backfires; the debator usually does a better job of revealing the contradictions and hypocrisy of refusing to see the intricacies of big picture issues, such as supporting and encouraging life."
What are you babbling about? If I committed a logic error in assuming a predicate, please point it out to me.
"For instance in this post, you used phrases such as "their message and their way of life" in an attempt to convince thoughtful readers that a group of thousands involved in a similar profession can possibly all share the same philosophies and lifestyles. C'mon. That sort of reasoning may be convincing to others elsewhere, but not here on the Bully Pulpit."
I'd like to ask you to re-read my post, this time for comprehension. Nice try at a diverting my point, but either you missed it, or you are purposely obfuscating. First, please point out to me a single artist or entrepreneur in the popular music world who promotes a message of abstinence, patience, ascetic spirituality, or introspection. What passes for popular music today either has no message at all, or the message is so completely hedonistic it gets an X rating when and if it can be understood. Rap and hip-hop are cesspools of sexual violence and hatred. Thrash, punk, and extreme are psychotic breaks set to music. Metal is rap for white people who don't like rap. All that's left after that is the has-beens from the sixties, seventies, and eighties who are retreading their glory days and the message ranges from the pure hedonism of the sixties to the nihilism of the eighties. Sorry, you'll have to sell that elsewhere.
"Well, I do believe that most folks don't really know how to help a cause unless they're given a way to do so. Unless a vehicle exists to help the public become more aware of the state of things and how they could possibly help, then most don't know how. It's not like they can hop in the car, drive over, and leave a bag of grain with someone who needs it."
With the exception of the last sentence, there is nothing there that doesn't apply equally well to abortion. Yes the public is aware of some of the issues on abortion, but most are completely unaware that 93% of all abortions are for the convenience of the mother. Most are completely unaware that over 40,000,000 babies have been butchered in the last 32 years. I do have to bridle a little at the elitist attitude of assuming people are too stupid to act on their convictions without help. Of course, that's what Messrs. Geldof and Bono are all about, isn't it? I also have to wonder why you would allows these jokers to condescend to you solely on the basis of their ability to sing and plunk.
"There are clear ways to support either side of the abortion issue already in existence, and people already do this: they vote for government officials that support their beliefs. You can't turn around without a politician being asked (or revealing, if they think it will help them gain votes) whether they stand with the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers. African aid doesn't have nearly the same level of visibility."
Still on track. We can interchange African aid and abortion in every sentence but the last one. The last sentence is untrue in either case, so we can discard it.
"In comparing the issues of African aid and abortion (by the way, nice job of working a hot-button issue into a non-related topic)..."
Sorry, you can't give it the brush-off that easily. Working in abortion, as you put it, was completely sequitur, you just don't agree with the premise. My original point was that it is egotistical in the extreme to believe that only Bob Geldof has the moral imperative to tell us what is important for us to act upon. Abortion in America is a far more important issue to me (and many, many others) than the self-inflicted wounds of Africa. So now who is playing "it's right because I said it is?"
"Just as they do on every hot-button, yet incredibly important issue, opinions of the validity of facts, figures, and theories widely vary, which makes a real conclusion to any argument impossible."
I'm assuming this is a sideways attempts at insinuating that the facts I posted are untrue or unverifiable. The source of those figures is National Right to Life who gets them, in turn, from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. It you want to imply they are unfounded, refute them with facts, not implication.
"Most importantly, though, those who feel one way or another rarely ever change their opinions, regardless of the brow-beatings they receive from the other side. I can't think of anyone with the mental capacity to comprehend the issue of abortion that doesn't already have a strong opinion on the subject. And if you've ever been present while one person attempts to sway another from their beliefs about abortion, I'll just tell you that it's a lesson in futility."
There is nothing true in any of those sentences. I used to be pretty firmly pro-choice. People started showing me the facts. I personally know of at least a dozen other cases like mine. That's why I brought the subject up. If popular icons used their powers of attention to make the facts known about abortion, hearts and minds would change. I guarantee it. Your assertion is subjective and indicates that because you personally are not open to persuasion on the issue, neither is anyone else.
"Now, your propensity to tag the supporting of abortion rights as "a particular little corner of liberalism" that "is morally bankrupt and utterly evil" is crap. I know plenty of self-professed liberals who are pro-life, and self-professed conservatives who are pro-choice. That's like saying true liberals can't be Christians or drive Hummers! Well, maybe the latter is true. (Just joking.)"
I think we went through this once before. Plenty can talk the talk, few can walk the walk. There are no pro-choice conservatives. Period. Anyone claiming conservatism and a pro-abortion stance is lying, both to themselves and to everyone else. The sanctity of life is at the heart of conservatism. They are inseparable. Nice try with the "liberals can't be Christians" insinuation, by the way. Oops, I exposed it, now it won't work. Sorry.
"Anyway, the reason why more liberal pro-choicers exist is simple; they realize that if abortion is made illegal, it won't stop."
Talk about crap! By your logic, then we should decriminalize murder, kidnapping, rape, and every other violent crime. They certainly haven't stopped because they are illegal. Good thinking. We should get on that right away.
"It doesn't mean that they think it's a good thing to do; they just know that it will simply become an illicit activity, except maybe a bit more out of sight to comfort those who think that only 'bad' people choose to do it. That's also quite convenient for those who like to have a very defined line in between 'bad' people and 'good' people; if abortion was illegal, then at least those absolutists can be 'right' about them. Like 'She's morally reprehensible and she's a criminal! Told you I was right!'"
Nice regurgitation of the Democrat Party line. Of course no one is buying that load of male bovine offal. So you think that people who defend abortion don't think it is a good thing to do, yet they defend it anyway. First, we can drop back to my earlier response and ask, then why don't they defend murder, rape, pedophilia, and kidnapping? Of course they think it's a good thing to do. Otherwise they are guilty of cupidity at best, abject stupidity at worst. Strother, 93%, NINETY-THREE PERCENT of abortions are performed for convenience. And your meandering into blue-sky fantasy about abortion being illegal to facilitate bigotry is either childish wishful thinking or desperation. Anti-abortion advocates want it to be illegal because it is murder, nothing more, nothing less. Once again, by your logic, murder, rape, and robbery are only illegal so that we can be sufficiently bigoted against murderers, rapists, and robbers.
"Of course, we can argue about this for days, and no one's opinion will change, so I won't continue except to say that I personally think that the act of abortion is a horrible thing, regardless of the circumstances."
Ah, then you agree with me that a little awareness will go a long way to end this scourge? Maybe we can write a joint letter to Mr. Geldof.
"So is killing via capital punishment. So is killing in the act of war. But I won't attempt to control the lives of others and the offspring that they choose , or choose not , to produce within their own bodies. I won't say that there's never an instance where the acts of one human justifies terminating their existence. I won't say that there's never an instance where deaths caused by war is justified."
Capital punishment and war are acts of society protecting itself, Strother. Abortion is infanticide to avoid inconveniencing a woman. I can't hold you responsible for knowing the difference because you are obviously submerged in the liberal waters. Maybe if you keep reading The Bully Pulpit...
But let me pose a question for you. What is the difference between abortion and killing a month old infant? Answer: there is no difference. Any other answer is rationalization and dishonesty.
"What I will do to support life is to support the ideas of better pregnancy prevention, sex education in public schools, abstinence, and government provided birth control, all of which are cheaper to come by than welfare, which should please those concerned about higher taxes. And I will always support equal educational opportunities for all so everyone can learn the value of life and how to best live it. Education is truly the key here."
Abstinence education, yes, the rest is just more of the social engineering that has landed us in our current state. I can never understand why liberals are so enamored of continuing to attempt that which fails every time it is tried. That is the classic definition of insanity, you know. If the public schools were to teach the sanctity of human life, we could go a long way toward getting middle schoolers to keep their underwear on.
"Being a true advocate of life is more than insisting that every embryo grows and is born."
Indeed it is, but your placement here is really intended to imply that being a true advocate of life is not insisting that every embryo grows and is born. Slick, but not that slick.
"It also means that once alive, your duty is to support that life that you felt so strongly should be born."
Indeed it does, but you are not-so-subtly throwing in a pitch for socialism here. Once again, not that slick.
"Does that mean the death penalty and all killing is wrong?"
Yes, it does. No need to digress here.
"Does that mean unwanted children should be cared and provided for by society, regardless of whether their parents can or not?"
There is that nebulous entity liberals love so much, "society." If I had a nickel for every time a liberal hangs something on society...
Society is us, Strother. We will care for unwanted children to the best of our abilities. Wanting any more than that is immature wishful thinking. Forcing me to take care of someone else's unwanted children at the point of a gun is not the answer.
"Life is life, and to support the criminalization of abortion yet support the death penalty, war, and/or to oppose governmental support of the same children you want the government to require to be born is contradictory and short-sighted at best, morally destitute at worst."
Bad news for you again. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Humanity survived for centuries without socialism. Charity has always and will always provide for the less fortunate. We were a Christian nation at one time. When government stepped in and forced charity on us at the point of a gun, real human charity died in this country. Government charity is no charity at all, it's just a form of serfdom. But there I go again, digressing...
I can't figure out if you have been so deeply brainwashed by exposure to this liberal goo that you actually believe what you're writing. I hope not. I'm hoping there's a lot of devil's advocacy in what you're posting. But just in case, I have disassembled your argument for you so you can see where it is broken:
"First off , and to point out a reoccurring quirk in many conservatives' debating styles and one you've used here , it's almost impossible to convince reasoned thinkers of anything when over-simplified and 'right-or-wrong' absolutes are used as debate tools."
And there it is. Good old situational ethics. Once again, I have to take on the task of being the one to break some bad news to you. Most of us on planet Earth believe in a categorical imperative. Yes, that's right, there is absolute good and absolute evil. In the evil category, we can begin with situational ethics. A psychotic German in the 19th century tried to prove that there was no good or evil, that everything was relative to the moment. Fortunately for us, he is dead and mostly discredited. Turns out he was molested by his sisters as a child and grew up to be a twisted sociopath. Far from being a debating style, belief in a categorical imperative is something most of us on this old mud ball hold to be self-evident.
"You know, the old "I said it therefore it's true" thing. When such faulty debate ammo is used, it often backfires; the debator usually does a better job of revealing the contradictions and hypocrisy of refusing to see the intricacies of big picture issues, such as supporting and encouraging life."
What are you babbling about? If I committed a logic error in assuming a predicate, please point it out to me.
"For instance in this post, you used phrases such as "their message and their way of life" in an attempt to convince thoughtful readers that a group of thousands involved in a similar profession can possibly all share the same philosophies and lifestyles. C'mon. That sort of reasoning may be convincing to others elsewhere, but not here on the Bully Pulpit."
I'd like to ask you to re-read my post, this time for comprehension. Nice try at a diverting my point, but either you missed it, or you are purposely obfuscating. First, please point out to me a single artist or entrepreneur in the popular music world who promotes a message of abstinence, patience, ascetic spirituality, or introspection. What passes for popular music today either has no message at all, or the message is so completely hedonistic it gets an X rating when and if it can be understood. Rap and hip-hop are cesspools of sexual violence and hatred. Thrash, punk, and extreme are psychotic breaks set to music. Metal is rap for white people who don't like rap. All that's left after that is the has-beens from the sixties, seventies, and eighties who are retreading their glory days and the message ranges from the pure hedonism of the sixties to the nihilism of the eighties. Sorry, you'll have to sell that elsewhere.
"Well, I do believe that most folks don't really know how to help a cause unless they're given a way to do so. Unless a vehicle exists to help the public become more aware of the state of things and how they could possibly help, then most don't know how. It's not like they can hop in the car, drive over, and leave a bag of grain with someone who needs it."
With the exception of the last sentence, there is nothing there that doesn't apply equally well to abortion. Yes the public is aware of some of the issues on abortion, but most are completely unaware that 93% of all abortions are for the convenience of the mother. Most are completely unaware that over 40,000,000 babies have been butchered in the last 32 years. I do have to bridle a little at the elitist attitude of assuming people are too stupid to act on their convictions without help. Of course, that's what Messrs. Geldof and Bono are all about, isn't it? I also have to wonder why you would allows these jokers to condescend to you solely on the basis of their ability to sing and plunk.
"There are clear ways to support either side of the abortion issue already in existence, and people already do this: they vote for government officials that support their beliefs. You can't turn around without a politician being asked (or revealing, if they think it will help them gain votes) whether they stand with the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers. African aid doesn't have nearly the same level of visibility."
Still on track. We can interchange African aid and abortion in every sentence but the last one. The last sentence is untrue in either case, so we can discard it.
"In comparing the issues of African aid and abortion (by the way, nice job of working a hot-button issue into a non-related topic)..."
Sorry, you can't give it the brush-off that easily. Working in abortion, as you put it, was completely sequitur, you just don't agree with the premise. My original point was that it is egotistical in the extreme to believe that only Bob Geldof has the moral imperative to tell us what is important for us to act upon. Abortion in America is a far more important issue to me (and many, many others) than the self-inflicted wounds of Africa. So now who is playing "it's right because I said it is?"
"Just as they do on every hot-button, yet incredibly important issue, opinions of the validity of facts, figures, and theories widely vary, which makes a real conclusion to any argument impossible."
I'm assuming this is a sideways attempts at insinuating that the facts I posted are untrue or unverifiable. The source of those figures is National Right to Life who gets them, in turn, from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. It you want to imply they are unfounded, refute them with facts, not implication.
"Most importantly, though, those who feel one way or another rarely ever change their opinions, regardless of the brow-beatings they receive from the other side. I can't think of anyone with the mental capacity to comprehend the issue of abortion that doesn't already have a strong opinion on the subject. And if you've ever been present while one person attempts to sway another from their beliefs about abortion, I'll just tell you that it's a lesson in futility."
There is nothing true in any of those sentences. I used to be pretty firmly pro-choice. People started showing me the facts. I personally know of at least a dozen other cases like mine. That's why I brought the subject up. If popular icons used their powers of attention to make the facts known about abortion, hearts and minds would change. I guarantee it. Your assertion is subjective and indicates that because you personally are not open to persuasion on the issue, neither is anyone else.
"Now, your propensity to tag the supporting of abortion rights as "a particular little corner of liberalism" that "is morally bankrupt and utterly evil" is crap. I know plenty of self-professed liberals who are pro-life, and self-professed conservatives who are pro-choice. That's like saying true liberals can't be Christians or drive Hummers! Well, maybe the latter is true. (Just joking.)"
I think we went through this once before. Plenty can talk the talk, few can walk the walk. There are no pro-choice conservatives. Period. Anyone claiming conservatism and a pro-abortion stance is lying, both to themselves and to everyone else. The sanctity of life is at the heart of conservatism. They are inseparable. Nice try with the "liberals can't be Christians" insinuation, by the way. Oops, I exposed it, now it won't work. Sorry.
"Anyway, the reason why more liberal pro-choicers exist is simple; they realize that if abortion is made illegal, it won't stop."
Talk about crap! By your logic, then we should decriminalize murder, kidnapping, rape, and every other violent crime. They certainly haven't stopped because they are illegal. Good thinking. We should get on that right away.
"It doesn't mean that they think it's a good thing to do; they just know that it will simply become an illicit activity, except maybe a bit more out of sight to comfort those who think that only 'bad' people choose to do it. That's also quite convenient for those who like to have a very defined line in between 'bad' people and 'good' people; if abortion was illegal, then at least those absolutists can be 'right' about them. Like 'She's morally reprehensible and she's a criminal! Told you I was right!'"
Nice regurgitation of the Democrat Party line. Of course no one is buying that load of male bovine offal. So you think that people who defend abortion don't think it is a good thing to do, yet they defend it anyway. First, we can drop back to my earlier response and ask, then why don't they defend murder, rape, pedophilia, and kidnapping? Of course they think it's a good thing to do. Otherwise they are guilty of cupidity at best, abject stupidity at worst. Strother, 93%, NINETY-THREE PERCENT of abortions are performed for convenience. And your meandering into blue-sky fantasy about abortion being illegal to facilitate bigotry is either childish wishful thinking or desperation. Anti-abortion advocates want it to be illegal because it is murder, nothing more, nothing less. Once again, by your logic, murder, rape, and robbery are only illegal so that we can be sufficiently bigoted against murderers, rapists, and robbers.
"Of course, we can argue about this for days, and no one's opinion will change, so I won't continue except to say that I personally think that the act of abortion is a horrible thing, regardless of the circumstances."
Ah, then you agree with me that a little awareness will go a long way to end this scourge? Maybe we can write a joint letter to Mr. Geldof.
"So is killing via capital punishment. So is killing in the act of war. But I won't attempt to control the lives of others and the offspring that they choose , or choose not , to produce within their own bodies. I won't say that there's never an instance where the acts of one human justifies terminating their existence. I won't say that there's never an instance where deaths caused by war is justified."
Capital punishment and war are acts of society protecting itself, Strother. Abortion is infanticide to avoid inconveniencing a woman. I can't hold you responsible for knowing the difference because you are obviously submerged in the liberal waters. Maybe if you keep reading The Bully Pulpit...
But let me pose a question for you. What is the difference between abortion and killing a month old infant? Answer: there is no difference. Any other answer is rationalization and dishonesty.
"What I will do to support life is to support the ideas of better pregnancy prevention, sex education in public schools, abstinence, and government provided birth control, all of which are cheaper to come by than welfare, which should please those concerned about higher taxes. And I will always support equal educational opportunities for all so everyone can learn the value of life and how to best live it. Education is truly the key here."
Abstinence education, yes, the rest is just more of the social engineering that has landed us in our current state. I can never understand why liberals are so enamored of continuing to attempt that which fails every time it is tried. That is the classic definition of insanity, you know. If the public schools were to teach the sanctity of human life, we could go a long way toward getting middle schoolers to keep their underwear on.
"Being a true advocate of life is more than insisting that every embryo grows and is born."
Indeed it is, but your placement here is really intended to imply that being a true advocate of life is not insisting that every embryo grows and is born. Slick, but not that slick.
"It also means that once alive, your duty is to support that life that you felt so strongly should be born."
Indeed it does, but you are not-so-subtly throwing in a pitch for socialism here. Once again, not that slick.
"Does that mean the death penalty and all killing is wrong?"
Yes, it does. No need to digress here.
"Does that mean unwanted children should be cared and provided for by society, regardless of whether their parents can or not?"
There is that nebulous entity liberals love so much, "society." If I had a nickel for every time a liberal hangs something on society...
Society is us, Strother. We will care for unwanted children to the best of our abilities. Wanting any more than that is immature wishful thinking. Forcing me to take care of someone else's unwanted children at the point of a gun is not the answer.
"Life is life, and to support the criminalization of abortion yet support the death penalty, war, and/or to oppose governmental support of the same children you want the government to require to be born is contradictory and short-sighted at best, morally destitute at worst."
Bad news for you again. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Humanity survived for centuries without socialism. Charity has always and will always provide for the less fortunate. We were a Christian nation at one time. When government stepped in and forced charity on us at the point of a gun, real human charity died in this country. Government charity is no charity at all, it's just a form of serfdom. But there I go again, digressing...
posted by Anonymous | 4:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home