The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It

[fix]

Okay, I’m just following a logical train here. You are claiming that those who call for better language are dead to the truth.

No, I am saying there are some who refuse to accept what is true as in abortion is always wrong.

I call for better language, can you explain how you are not implying that I am dead to the truth? Also, I notice that you’re Catholic, thus to you the truth is Jesus. Could you please explain to me how it is kind or civil to imply that I am dead to Jesus?

I was not speaking about you specifically. There is a mindset that can be numb to what is true. Please see the CCC as reference.

No, my real argument is that I counsel pregnant teenagers who are at risk of getting an abortion. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) These girls cannot get past the language used, by both sides, in this discussion to actually learn the facts. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) So, they are left out in the cold and feel very alone. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) When I tell people this, they ignore it. (Like you) They want to talk about classic works of fiction written about communism. (Like you) They want to talk about how claiming offense is not enough to prove offense. (Like you) I’m not talking about ideals, I’m not talking about philosophy, I’m talking about real women, with real babies, who are pushed closer to killing their babies because of this language. Like it or not, see it or not, this is the TRUTH!

Sounds like blackmail. Basically, you claim they say they will abort because of strong pro life language? Is that it?

The moral truth is not in some dusty old book. In fact, truth is a Person. The culture, right now, uses euphemisms to describe what it is. If your argument is certain people will not listen, or threaten abortion, because some pro life groups state the facts plainly then your argument should not be with the pro life groups.

 

[Drawmack]

Are you asking if one can sin through using certain words or tones? The answer is yes and that depends on the speakers intention and what is being said.

The test is the usual test for sin. Does it violate a commandment.

So, you’re claiming that someone can only give offense with their speech if that speech is intrinsically sinful (i.e. breaking a commandment) correct? If this is what you’re saying then is it fair to say that every time speech breaks one of the commandments, in any way, that speech is offensive? Additionally, are you claiming that so long as what someone says is not intrinsically sinful, then it cannot be offensive?

 

[Drawmack]

No, I am saying there are some who refuse to accept what is true as in abortion is always wrong.

Okay, we are in agreement on this – what we disagree about is how to tell people about it. So why would you place insinuations in your response to me that I am among those who are dead to the truth?

I was not speaking about you specifically. There is a mindset that can be numb to what is true. Please see the CCC as reference.

Are you insinuating that I am of this mindset?

Sounds like blackmail. Basically, you claim they say they will abort because of strong pro life language? Is that it?

Nope, you should take some classes in reading comprehension and debate. They come to me completely confused about abortion because of the language they read, by both sides. They come to me unable to distill the truth from the propaganda. They read pro-life literature and it makes some factual points but it mixes them in with slurs against pro-choice (including something as simple as calling them by the right name) so they cannot tell truth from propaganda. They read pro-choice literature and it makes some factual points but it mixes them in with slurs against pro-life (including something as simple as call them by the right name) so they cannot tell truth from propaganda. They are left feeling like they can’t trust what anyone says because everything they read is only interested in pushing an agenda rather than giving them good, reasonable, fact-based advice.

Stop trying to blame the poor girls who are victimized by the fact that neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice communicate properly about the topic.

The moral truth is not in some dusty old book. In fact, truth is a Person. The culture, right now, uses euphemisms to describe what it is. If your argument is certain people will not listen, or threaten abortion, because some pro life groups state the facts plainly then your argument should not be with the pro life groups.

Are you saying that, if someone is proclaiming the truth then they cannot possibly do so in an offensive and off putting manner?

 

[RSD]

So, you’re claiming that someone can only give offense with their speech if that speech is intrinsically sinful (i.e. breaking a commandment) correct? If this is what you’re saying then is it fair to say that every time speech breaks one of the commandments, in any way, that speech is offensive? Additionally, are you claiming that so long as what someone says is not intrinsically sinful, then it cannot be offensive?

I have been following this thread, and I truly appreciate your work. I want to put this in context when I say I have no idea what you mean here.

 

[Drawmack]

I have been following this thread, and I truly appreciate your work. I want to put this in context when I say I have no idea what you mean here.

RSD,

I was talking with fix about not using uncivil, unkind speech. They claimed, the same thing I have heard a million times, that just because someone claims offense does not mean the language was offensive. I responded to this, the same way I have a million times, I asked fix for a litmus test to let me know what was offensive language. Fix responded by talking about sinful language. Thus you have what sounds like an extremely discogent response from me where I’m asking if the only way to be uncivil or unkind is to be sinful with your language. Hopefully the simple absurdity of my post makes my point though.

Drawmack

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but when I see pregnant girls quote pro-life writings that use terms like pro-death, baby killer, etc. and flat out tell me that they view this as disrespectful and therefore the author is a hypocrite when they say that they respect all life I will argue against using such words.

While the words are inflammatory, they are technically correct. One who kills a baby is a baby killer. One who promotes abortion is pro-abortion (and yes, I always use the term anti-abortion to describe my postition).

Back to the article. I see no problem in showing the contradiction to those who decry the harsh rhetoric of their nemeses while thinking themselves tolerant. They are your true hypocrits. The only caveat I think needs to be placed on rhetoric is that one can not commit sin to stop another sin, even a greater sin. Take the blood incident. One can not damage the personal property of another in the process of proclaiming truth. Likewise, one can not lie to proclaim truth. Often the most severe rhetoric becomes more propaganda and thus damages the truth instead of proclaiming it. In addition to being wrong, such tactics are unfruitful as they erode the integrity of all. Those opposed to abortion must not cede the moral high ground for such trivial gain.

 

[Drawmack]

While the words are inflammatory, they are technically correct. One who kills a baby is a baby killer. One who promotes abortion is pro-abortion (and yes, I always use the term anti-abortion to describe my postition).

Yes, one who kills a baby is a baby killer. Has every member of the pro-choice movement killed a baby?

If you use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is those who are uncivil and unkind to the opposition in this debate. If you use the term pro-abortion but call yourself pro-life then you are being unkind (whether it is honest or not) don’t do that.

Back to the article. I see no problem in showing the contradiction to those who decry the harsh rhetoric of their nemeses while thinking themselves tolerant. They are your true hypocrits.

What about those who say that neither side (not individual people within the causes but the causes as a whole in most of the literature written on the topic) is using inappropriate language and claims that both sides should start using a more civil tone?

The only caveat I think needs to be placed on rhetoric is that one can not commit sin to stop another sin, even a greater sin.

Jesus said (paraphrasing) the greatest commandment is to love God and the second greatest commandment is to love each other. So, if the words and tone that one uses are unkind, uncivil, or disrespectful I would say that this is a sin as it is not showing love. Here is what I ask people to do (in a nutshell): every time you are debating the abortion issue (no matter which side you are taking) imagine that the person you are talking to is a pregnant 15 year old girl who is contemplating abortion. If you wouldn’t say something to her, don’t say it period.

Take the blood incident. One can not damage the personal property of another in the process of proclaiming truth. Likewise, one can not lie to proclaim truth. Often the most severe rhetoric becomes more propaganda and thus damages the truth instead of proclaiming it. In addition to being wrong, such tactics are unfruitful as they erode the integrity of all. Those opposed to abortion must not cede the moral high ground for such trivial gain.

Amen!

 

[fix]

So, you’re claiming that someone can only give offense with their speech if that speech is intrinsically sinful (i.e. breaking a commandment) correct? If this is what you’re saying then is it fair to say that every time speech breaks one of the commandments, in any way, that speech is offensive? Additionally, are you claiming that so long as what someone says is not intrinsically sinful, then it cannot be offensive?

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

you can read more here.

What do you mean by offensive?

 

[fix]

Okay, we are in agreement on this – what we disagree about is how to tell people about it. So why would you place insinuations in your response to me that I am among those who are dead to the truth?

I did not imply such. That is your inference.

Are you insinuating that I am of this mindset?

No.

Nope, you should take some classes in reading comprehension and debate. They come to me completely confused about abortion because of the language they read, by both sides. They come to me unable to distill the truth from the propaganda. They read pro-life literature and it makes some factual points but it mixes them in with slurs against pro-choice (including something as simple as calling them by the right name) so they cannot tell truth from propaganda. They read pro-choice literature and it makes some factual points but it mixes them in with slurs against pro-life (including something as simple as call them by the right name) so they cannot tell truth from propaganda. They are left feeling like they can’t trust what anyone says because everything they read is only interested in pushing an agenda rather than giving them good, reasonable, fact-based advice.

Stop trying to blame the poor girls who are victimized by the fact that neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice communicate properly about the topic.

You tailor your words to the audience when possible. You insist on saying pro choice when that is a pro abortion propaganda tool.

Are you saying that, if someone is proclaiming the truth then they cannot possibly do so in an offensive and off putting manner?

No, are you saying every time someone claims offense they are correct to do so?

 

[fix]

I see no problem in showing the contradiction to those who decry the harsh rhetoric of their nemeses while thinking themselves tolerant. They are your true hypocrits.

That is exactly the point.

The only caveat I think needs to be placed on rhetoric is that one can not commit sin to stop another sin, even a greater sin. Take the blood incident. One can not damage the personal property of another in the process of proclaiming truth. Likewise, one can not lie to proclaim truth. Often the most severe rhetoric becomes more propaganda and thus damages the truth instead of proclaiming it. In addition to being wrong, such tactics are unfruitful as they erode the integrity of all. Those opposed to abortion must not cede the moral high ground for such trivial gain.

Right again, the priest in the OP is not condoning and ends justify the means attitude. The pro death folks want to portray the pro life folks as unhinged, “uncivil”, and all the rest to delegitimize the message. That is not new.

 

[Drawmack]

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

you can read more here.

What do you mean by offensive?

Look up big guy, I’m not Catholic. However, I do have a copy of the CCC. Are you claiming that this, rather small, passage is the only way one can be sinful?

To be offensive is to give offense to another person. You said that just because someone claims offense does not mean that you actually did offend them. So, I just want you to tell me how I can know when I’ve offended someone else if I cannot trust them to tell me when I have offended them.

 

[Drawmack]

I did not imply such. That is your inference.

You are talking to me. You talked about people who do things like I do being dead to truth. That is a clear implication that I am dead to the truth. Maybe you were being uncareful with your words but it doesn’t change what you said and in what context you said it.

You tailor your words to the audience when possible. You insist on saying pro choice when that is a pro abortion propaganda tool.

I do not believe that it is a propaganda tool. I’ve stated repeatedly why it is not a propaganda tool. You have not adequately defended the position that it is a propaganda tool.

No, are you saying every time someone claims offense they are correct to do so?

I am saying that I believe we should treat others as we wish to be treated. I am saying that when I tell someone I am offended by what they have said I do not want them to tell me I am not or I should not be. I want them to apologize and try not to offend me again. Therefore, when someone tells me they are offended I react the way I would like someone else to react when I tell them I am offended.

 

[fix]

Look up big guy, I’m not Catholic.

How does that change the truth?

However, I do have a copy of the CCC. Are you claiming that this, rather small, passage is the only way one can be sinful?

I gave you the link to read more. What do you reject?

To be offensive is to give offense to another person. You said that just because someone claims offense does not mean that you actually did offend them. So, I just want you to tell me how I can know when I’ve offended someone else if I cannot trust them to tell me when I have offended them.

What I said was that simply because one is offended does not mean they are justified in being so.

 

[fix]

You are talking to me. You talked about people who do things like I do being dead to truth. That is a clear implication that I am dead to the truth. Maybe you were being uncareful with your words but it doesn’t change what you said and in what context you said it.

You are free to draw any conclusion you like, it does not make you correct. I gave you an explicit answer. If you reject that then so be it.

I do not believe that it is a propaganda tool. I’ve stated repeatedly why it is not a propaganda tool. You have not adequately defended the position that it is a propaganda tool.

I have adequately defended it, you reject the defense. That does not make my defense poor, it means you refuse to accept it.

I am saying that I believe we should treat others as we wish to be treated.

Agree

I am saying that when I tell someone I am offended by what they have said I do not want them to tell me I am not or I should not be.

So, if you are in error you wish to remain in error?

I want them to apologize and try not to offend me again. Therefore, when someone tells me they are offended I react the way I would like someone else to react when I tell them I am offended.

Great, so if you say hello to me and I say that is offensive am I justified in my position?

 

[Drawmack]

How does that change the truth?

But it does mean you can’t just quote the CCC at me and expect me to ascent to it. Didn’t you just say that you tailor your speech to the audience? A little hypocritical isn’t it?

What I said was that simply because one is offended does not mean they are justified in being so.

Justified or not, if they are offended shouldn’t we respond the way we want others to respond when we are offended?

 

[Drawmack]

So, if you are in error you wish to remain in error?

No, but I wish to be corrected gently and kindly.

Great, so if you say hello to me and I say that is offensive am I justified in my position?

Nope, but I wouldn’t insist on saying hello to you. Matter of fact, I wouldn’t talk to you anymore.

 

[fix]

But it does mean you can’t just quote the CCC at me and expect me to ascent to it. Didn’t you just say that you tailor your speech to the audience? A little hypocritical isn’t it?

How is quoting the CCC hypocritical? You claim to be Christian. I gave you an authentic Christian reference and I ask you what you reject.

Justified or not, if they are offended shouldn’t we respond the way we want others to respond when we are offended?

Sure, you can show why they should not be offended.

 

[fix]

No, but I wish to be corrected gently and kindly.

Ok, but each person is different. If you are talking to a pregnant teen you take one approach. If you are talking to a college professor you take another. Unequals need to be treated unequally.

Nope, but I wouldn’t insist on saying hello to you. Matter of fact, I wouldn’t talk to you anymore.

Ok, but at least you accept claiming offense is not enough to justify one being offended.

 

[Drawmack]

How is quoting the CCC hypocritical? You claim to be Christian. I gave you an authentic Christian reference and I ask you what you reject.

The CCC is a Catholic reference. Granted that Catholic’s are Christians, but not all Christians accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. The CCC is not a generically Christian reference, but a specifically Catholic reference. Therefore, quoting it to someone who is not Catholic and also saying you tailor your speech to the audience is hypocritical because you did not tailor your speech to your audience. You insisted on quoting Catholic literature as proof to a non-Catholic.

Sure, you can show why they should not be offended.

Only after you apologize and attempt not to create the offense again.

 

[Drawmack]

Ok, but each person is different. If you are talking to a pregnant teen you take one approach. If you are talking to a college professor you take another. Unequals need to be treated unequally.

But, when I post something on the internet I am talking to a pregnant teenage girl and a college professor. So, on the internet, if you wouldn’t say it to a pregnant 15 year old girl who is contemplating abortion – don’t say it period.

Ok, but at least you accept claiming offense is not enough to justify one being offended.

I never claimed that it was. I simply said that insisting on using language someone has told you offends them is not appropriate.