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

[fix]

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.

But, the quote stands alone. Either it is true or not. That it is from a Catholic book does not mean it is inauthentic or should be rejected. This is a perfect case of seeking to be offended. The problem is not the one offering the quote the problem is the receiver refuses to hear. So, is the answer to retreat from what is true? No, the answer is to keep speaking what is true.

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

You can reword some item, but that does not change the essence of that item. So, if one is looking to be offended then they are going to be.

 

[fix]

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.

This makes no sense. Any person reading anything can draw erroneous conclusions. We would be unable to communicate if we only spoke as if the audience was one particular subset of the population. That is not a license to be mean or intentionally rude. It, also, does not mean every single word may not cause inadvertent offense to many who are too easily offended.

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

That cannot be an absolute rule because if that were always true then you would allow others to control the debate and control how reality is viewed.

 

[kbrigan]

What is horrible is trying to control the debate by claiming pro life folks, like that holy priest, are too strident. Do the babies think that?

And, there it is again. We love babies; we’re good. They hate babies; they’re bad.

What’s your goal? Do you want this fight to go on forever just so that you can feel heroic? Or, do you actually want to change someone’s opinion? Calling people “murderers” when they absolutely do not believe they are killing anything other than a “few cells” only serves to keep the war going forever. If you want to wallow in self-righteousness and that oh-so-delicious “horror” fine. I’ve rather find a new way, and get this issue settled once and for all.

The first requirement for finally ending abortion is for those fighting to stop abortion to stop indulging in inflamatory, self-rightous slang (i.e. all clinics MUST be called “abortion mills”; all abortionists must never be called “doctors”). The second requirement is to remember the people who are currently in favor of abortion are human beings, and many are people of great integrity willing to risk their lives for what they believe is right. Yes, they are wrong, but they are also frequently unselfish, frequently brave, frequently generous, and far, far from “evil”. Until you get that, this war will never stop.

 

[fix]

And, there it is again. We love babies; we’re good. They hate babies; they’re bad.

What’s your goal? Do you want this fight to go on forever just so that you can feel heroic? Or, do you actually want to change someone’s opinion? Calling people “murderers” when they absolutely do not believe they are killing anything other than a “few cells” only serves to keep the war going forever. If you want to wallow in self-righteousness and that oh-so-delicious “horror” fine. I’ve rather find a new way, and get this issue settled once and for all.

The first requirement for finally ending abortion is for those fighting to stop abortion to stop indulging in inflamatory, self-rightous slang (i.e. all clinics MUST be called “abortion mills”; all abortionists must never be called “doctors”). The second requirement is to remember the people who are currently in favor of abortion are human beings, and many are people of great integrity willing to risk their lives for what they believe is right. Yes, they are wrong, but they are also frequently unselfish, frequently brave, frequently generous, and far, far from “evil”. Until you get that, this war will never stop.

I think I will let your words hang out there as proof of what the link in the OP is saying.

 

[WillieWonka]

Any organization has internal and external rhetoric. Successful organizations use both, and they are very different.

Internal rhetoric is often very extreme with a loose connection to reality. It rallies the troops and generates group cohesion. The internal rhetoric is rarely challenged internally since it is very often an emotional appeal.

For example, ever been to a sales meeting? The rhetoric is way over the top, but it’s purpose is to rally the troops and it works well.

External rhetoric is designed to get outsiders to do what you want. It is far less extreme than the internal version. Think of a sales call versus the sales meeting.

With the internet, we see a very interesting phenomenon. Like-minded groups gravitate to certain sites and engage in internal rhetoric, just like they would in a face-to-face meeting. The rhetoric tends towards the extreme on these sites because like-minded members don’t challenge each other very much on internal rhetoric. Use of such rhetoric also marks the speaker as one of the group.

However, the rest of the world is watching. So, now the internal rhetoric is loosed on the general population. The opposition gleefully picks up quotes and uses them to its advantage. What was once the private jargon of the group is now in the public domain.

A great example is the Daily Kos. Republicans picked through that site assembling the most vile and nutty quotes they could. Then they used them against democrats.

Anne Coulter uses internal rhetoric in her books with great success. She certainly doesn’t win over the opposition, but she does get the converted to keep buying her books.

A classic example is Obama’s comment in San Francisco about clinging to guns. He was talking to like-minded folks, but when the rest of the world heard it, it hurt him badly.

 

[j2c99]

fix has definitely proven to be the winner in this conversation. All the other people in opposition, which have been non-Catholic or “undefined” in religious classification, have been attacking fix and the Catholic Church on personal levels, aka AD HOMINEM, and not maturely.

Truth is Truth. There is One Truth. Not twenty, or thirteen, or two. If you refuse to accept the truth, then judgment will be wrought after your death, if not in this life. The argument here is not stemming from whether abortion is wrong or worded harshly or whatever nonsense people are babbling about. It’s about defending the truth that abortion IS wrong and not being “effete or callow” as ‘fix’ has used earlier.

Grow a backbone, defend the truth with firmness and conviction. Have humility, accept correcting where need be and gracefully change. This message goes to all the liberal Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Drawmack]

fix has definitely proven to be the winner in this conversation. All the other people in opposition, which have been non-Catholic or “undefined” in religious classification, have been attacking fix and the Catholic Church on personal levels, aka AD HOMINEM, and not maturely.

If you’re going to accuse me of that please provide references to where I have done this. In the absence of such proof it is you who is conducting the Ad Hominem attack.

Truth is Truth. There is One Truth. Not twenty, or thirteen, or two. If you refuse to accept the truth, then judgment will be wrought after your death, if not in this life. The argument here is not stemming from whether abortion is wrong or worded harshly or whatever nonsense people are babbling about. It’s about defending the truth that abortion IS wrong and not being “effete or callow” as ‘fix’ has used earlier.

Are you saying that one cannot speak kindly and civilly and still proclaim the truth about abortion?

Grow a backbone, defend the truth with firmness and conviction. Have humility, accept correcting where need be and gracefully change. This message goes to all the liberal Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.

What about those of us who are not liberal but simply think we should treat all people with respect and dignity?

 

[Drawmack]

That cannot be an absolute rule because if that were always true then you would allow others to control the debate and control how reality is viewed.

No, because when I am the one who claims offense at the other person’s language I also insist that they change it. This argument about controlling the language is simply fallacious; it’s a red hering. If you insist on defining the terminology used to refer to your opponent then you must accept whatever terminology they use to refer to you. You cannot refuse to use their terminology and insist that they use yours because they will simply use your arguments against you; as I have done in this thread. However, if you allow your opposition to define the terminology used to refer to them then you can maintain ownership of the language used to refer to you. Thus, each party only “owns” half the language used in any debate, it’s a matter of choosing which half of the language you want to own. I would rather own the terminology used to talk about me than the terminology used to talk about them. It is more respectful. On top of that, I can then insist they do not use terms to refer to my camp which intrinsically weaken my arguments. They will have to construct arguments without the rhetoric of name calling and I will do the same.

 

[fix]

No, because when I am the one who claims offense at the other person’s language I also insist that they change it. This argument about controlling the language is simply fallacious; it’s a red hering. If you insist on defining the terminology used to refer to your opponent then you must accept whatever terminology they use to refer to you. You cannot refuse to use their terminology and insist that they use yours because they will simply use your arguments against you; as I have done in this thread. However, if you allow your opposition to define the terminology used to refer to them then you can maintain ownership of the language used to refer to you. Thus, each party only “owns” half the language used in any debate, it’s a matter of choosing which half of the language you want to own. I would rather own the terminology used to talk about me than the terminology used to talk about them. It is more respectful. On top of that, I can then insist they do not use terms to refer to my camp which intrinsically weaken my arguments. They will have to construct arguments without the rhetoric of name calling and I will do the same.

You are going in circles. You can insist on whatever you want but that does not make it consistent with an objective moral order. If you want to acquiese to the demand that it is inflammatory to accurately describe the horror that abortion is you are free to do so, but that does not make your position correct.

This argument mostly turns on the lie that abortion is a mere “choice”. There is a reason that type of word is used by the pro abortion camp. It is about desensitizing people’s consciences to what is going on. When this is pointed out then the daggers come out. The charges are “uncivil”, “inflammatory”, “unkind” and all the rest.

The truth is abortion is murder. If that is too much to grasp by a certain segment of society that does not change the truth. If you find that unappealing it would be because it is unappealing. Not untrue. Not unkind. Not uncivil.

 

[pnewton]

aka AD HOMINEM, and not maturely…

Grow a backbone,…

If one is going to accuse one of a personal attack, it is best not to include on in the samepost. In fairness to the poster you directed this at, he/she never showed any hesitancy to stand against abortion, especially if your read back to the earlier posts. It is the prudence of some activities he/she objected to. I do not agree with this person (completely), but there is no evidence that a lack of fortitude is an issue.

While all of us are quoting Catholic teaching, it should be noted that there even Catholics among themselves can disagree with whether certain actions are prudent.

 

[Drawmack]

You are going in circles. You can insist on whatever you want but that does not make it consistent with an objective moral order. If you want to acquiese to the demand that it is inflammatory to accurately describe the horror that abortion is you are free to do so, but that does not make your position correct.

Using inflammatory, unkind, uncivil language and claiming that you are pro-life because you respect all life is inconsistent with an objective moral order too. I never acquiesced what you claim I have acquiesced. Go back and reread my posts. I clearly state, ad nauseium, that I call it pro-choice while making an apology for it being a choice to murder. How am I not accurately describing the horror of abortion? You keep making this red herring claim that I am some how not properly presenting the horrors of abortion, but you seem to have overlooked what I said about my workshop called It’s Your Choice. Just because I use the term pro-choice does not mean that I am not giving abortion its due and proper.

This argument mostly turns on the lie that abortion is a mere “choice”.

I never used the word mere – YOU DID. Abortion is not a mere choice, it is a grave and life changing choice. It is an immoral choice. It is a choice to end your child’s life before that life ever begins. But, it is a legally allowable choice in the United States. It should not be, but it is. Unless someone is compelling women to get an abortion (and let’s leave China out of this I’m clearly not talking about China) then it is a choice. It’s an immoral, unjust choice but a choice none the less.

There is a reason that type of word is used by the pro abortion camp. It is about desensitizing people’s consciences to what is going on. When this is pointed out then the daggers come out. The charges are “uncivil”, “inflammatory”, “unkind” and all the rest.

You can make the case that abortion is murder without calling people murderers. You can make the case that the choice to abort is immoral without refusing to use the term choice. Refusing to use the term pro-choice and insisting on using the term pro-life is uncivil, inflammatory, and unkind. I am pro-life and I am telling you that. If you use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion that is fine. But, if you insist on using the term pro-abortion and then refer to yourself as pro-life that is uncivil.

The truth is abortion is murder. If that is too much to grasp by a certain segment of society that does not change the truth. If you find that unappealing it would be because it is unappealing. Not untrue. Not unkind. Not uncivil.

I’m not arguing with any of that. I’m simply saying that you can use the term pro-choice and still speak the truth. You do not need to use inflammatory rhetoric to make your case. Insisting on using inflammatory rhetoric, insisting that inflammatory rhetoric is not inflammatory, insisting that people cannot be offended because you didn’t intend to offend them will hurt your cause and not help it.

How can you look someone in the eye tell them they are not offended when they say they are and then say you respect all life and have a serious expression on your face?

There is one question you keep refusing to answer. Is it possible to speak the truth and be inflammatory, uncivil, or unkind at the same time: yes or no?

 

[fix]

While all of us are quoting Catholic teaching, it should be noted that there even Catholics among themselves can disagree with whether certain actions are prudent.

And that is the exact point. It is a matter of prudence.

 

[fix]

Using inflammatory, unkind, uncivil language and claiming that you are pro-life because you respect all life is inconsistent with an objective moral order too. I never acquiesced what you claim I have acquiesced. Go back and reread my posts. I clearly state, ad nauseium, that I call it pro-choice while making an apology for it being a choice to murder. How am I not accurately describing the horror of abortion? You keep making this red herring claim that I am some how not properly presenting the horrors of abortion, but you seem to have overlooked what I said about my workshop called It’s Your Choice. Just because I use the term pro-choice does not mean that I am not giving abortion its due and proper.

The red herring is calling what you disagree with as inflammatory. Again, we all agree we should not seek to be rude.

I never used the word mere – YOU DID. Abortion is not a mere choice, it is a grave and life changing choice. It is an immoral choice. It is a choice to end your child’s life before that life ever begins. But, it is a legally allowable choice in the United States. It should not be, but it is. Unless someone is compelling women to get an abortion (and let’s leave China out of this I’m clearly not talking about China) then it is a choice. It’s an immoral, unjust choice but a choice none the less.

Calling it a choice is minimizing it. No amount of pedantic parsing changes that.

You can make the case that abortion is murder without calling people murderers. You can make the case that the choice to abort is immoral without refusing to use the term choice. Refusing to use the term pro-choice and insisting on using the term pro-life is uncivil, inflammatory, and unkind. I am pro-life and I am telling you that. If you use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion that is fine. But, if you insist on using the term pro-abortion and then refer to yourself as pro-life that is uncivil.

This is your opinion. I say it is wrong. Words should be based in reality. Again, for the hundreth time, claiming incivility does not make it so.

I’m not arguing with any of that. I’m simply saying that you can use the term pro-choice and still speak the truth. You do not need to use inflammatory rhetoric to make your case. Insisting on using inflammatory rhetoric, insisting that inflammatory rhetoric is not inflammatory, insisting that people cannot be offended because you didn’t intend to offend them will hurt your cause and not help it.

It is not inflammatory. You can keep saying it is but that will never make it so.

How can you look someone in the eye tell them they are not offended when they say they are and then say you respect all life and have a serious expression on your face?

They may “feel” offended. That does not mean they should be. We need to separate out all this moral relativism.

There is one question you keep refusing to answer. Is it possible to speak the truth and be inflammatory, uncivil, or unkind at the same time: yes or no?

I have answered you plenty of times. You refuse to accept the answer. The truth needs to be linked to charity. It is possible to use the truth in an unkind way. It is also possible to be kind and sinful.

But, none of that gets to the heart of the matter. The “test” you seek was given you before. Does it violate any commandments. You rejected the CCC because it is Catholic.

Here are the questions you should answer…Is your way the only correct way? Are you the sole authority? Is your limited experience the only thing the pro life community ought to proceed on?

 

[Drawmack]

The red herring is calling what you disagree with as inflammatory. Again, we all agree we should not seek to be rude.

I’m not calling things I disagree with inflammatory. If the language inflames a person’s emotions then it is inflammatory whether you like it or not, whether you think they should be inflamed or not, whether you intended to inflame or not – none of that matters. The term is one that describes what happens.

Calling it a choice is minimizing it. No amount of pedantic parsing changes that.

Refusing to call it a choice is denying reality. No amount of pedantic parsing changes that either.

This is your opinion. I say it is wrong. Words should be based in reality. Again, for the hundreth time, claiming incivility does not make it so.

According to you the only person who can decide if something is unkind or uncivil is the one making the statement and not the multitudes hearing it – how does that even make sense.

It is not inflammatory. You can keep saying it is but that will never make it so.

If it inflames people it is inflammatory. You can keep refusing to admit this but it just shows your lack of an adequate English lexicon.

They may “feel” offended. That does not mean they should be. We need to separate out all this moral relativism.

If someone feels offended, they are offended. I say it does not matter if they should be. If you accidentally hit me and break my nose it doesn’t change the fact that my nose is broken. But, you should be more careful with the way you swing your arm in the future.

I think that everyone can agree that offending people is not polite or respectful. I also think that everyone can agree that a major claim of the pro-life movement is respect for all life. How is being disrespectful to the person your talking to while claiming to respect all life not moral relativism? How is refusing to speak kindly to people not rude?

I have answered you plenty of times. You refuse to accept the answer. The truth needs to be linked to charity. It is possible to use the truth in an unkind way. It is also possible to be kind and sinful.

So, Yes then. Okay, since you have admitted that it is possible to be both truthful and offensive please stop using the argument that truth cannot be offensive either explicitly or implicitly in your discussion with me as you yourself see this as an invalid argument.

But, none of that gets to the heart of the matter. The “test” you seek was given you before. Does it violate any commandments. You rejected the CCC because it is Catholic.

Yes, it violates the commandment to love others when you insist on using terminology they find offensive, unkind, or uncivil.

Here are the questions you should answer…Is your way the only correct way?

No, there are a multitude of correct ways but: uncivil, unkind, hurtful, rude language is not a correct way.

Are you the sole authority?

No more than you are.

Is your limited experience the only thing the pro life community ought to proceed on?

No, but the experience of where uncivil, unkind, hurtful, rude, inflammatory language leads should be the guiding light as to what type of communication is appropriate.

For example, Stone Temple Pilots have a song that is an anti-rape song. In the song they often quote the things said by rapists to explain why they raped a woman. A couple years ago a group of rapists sang this song while they raped a woman. Scott Wyland made a public statement that he should have put more thought into the way he phrased his song so that it couldn’t be twisted in this way. What I’m saying is the same is true of the propagandist rhetoric used by the pro-life and pro-choice communities in this discussion.

Take the murder of Dr. Tiller. A mentally unstable man was reading pro-life literature that he agreed with. The language in that literature inflamed his emotions and he murdered someone. I am not blaming the literature, but couldn’t the authors, at least, make an effort to provide their message in a more socially conscious manner?

 

[pnewton]

I’m not arguing with any of that. I’m simply saying that you can use the term pro-choice and still speak the truth.

The term, however, is inaccurate. The pro-choice position is not that one should have the right to choose anything absolutely. It is not even that one should have the right to terminate any human life that one finds inconvenient. The pro-choice postition is only advocating choice in one area: abortion. That makes the term inaccurate, or a poor reflection of the truth. I do not believe in reducing rhetoric at the expense of the truth.

 

[Drawmack]

The term, however, is inaccurate. The pro-choice position is not that one should have the right to choose anything absolutely. It is not even that one should have the right to terminate any human life that one finds inconvenient. The pro-choice postition is only advocating choice in one area: abortion. That makes the term inaccurate, or a poor reflection of the truth. I do not believe in reducing rhetoric at the expense of the truth.

And everyone knows that the debate is about abortion. We are not speaking in general terms. That is why pro-life can also be pro-death penalty when that is clearly and anti-life stance. We are being specific to abortion in this debate and speaking specifically about abortion they are pro-choice while we are pro-life. If we are going to insist that terms which cannot have any other meaning, in any context, are used then the sides should be referred to as pro and anti abortion. Those are the only completely correct terms when removed from context of the debate.

 

[WillieWonka]

It seems pretty simple. Inflamatory and extreme language makes people feel good. They like it. It’s an emotional release.

 

[Drawmack]

It seems pretty simple. Inflamatory and extreme language makes people feel good. They like it. It’s an emotional release.

It is a release valve, and it should be used as such – but not in a public forum.

 

[pnewton]

. We are not speaking in general terms… If we are going to insist that terms which cannot have any other meaning, in any context, are used then the sides should be referred to as pro and anti abortion. Those are the only completely correct terms when removed from context of the debate.

I agree, but that is because pro-choice and pro-life are too general, nonspecific and inaccurate.

 

[Drawmack]

I agree, but that is because pro-choice and pro-life are too general, nonspecific and inaccurate.

When used within the constraints of the abortion debate we all know what they mean and that is really what is important for a debate. If we called abortion supporters GHVPT and abortion detractors BKGRY it wouldn’t really matter, so long as everyone knew what they meant. The problem happens when someone insists that GHVPT is not an appropriate name and decides that they will call them ZQPFT instead.

If you want to use terms which can never be misunderstood, within or without the context of the abortion debate, then use pro and anti abortion.