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

[fix]

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

No more than you are.

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?

There is an objective aspect to this issue and a subjective aspect. One person can be offended, subjectively, even though objectively there is no reason to be. We should be more concerned with offending our Lord then with our fellow man illegitimately being offended.

Your defense is based on subjective emotionalism not moral truth.

According to you simply declaring offense means we must stop saying what is true or we can only speak in certain ways. IOW, control others.

Again, no one should seek to intentionally inflame another. That does not mean every single word used, or idea portrayed, or anything else may not give rise to some person claiming offense.

This is very much like other issues that are making Western society a type of tyranny. Canada has hate speech laws now that go in the direction your thought would send us. Quoting the bible could inflamme, Church documents can be called “hate”. All types of propaganda tools are being used.

I will pray for you and ask the blessed Mother to cover us both with her mantle.

God Bless.

 

[fix]

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

Nonsense. Is Calling murder murder making people feel good? The point is calling murder as it is makes people realize the magnitude of their position. That makes them feel bad and thus claim offense.

The problem is the children killed have no way to claim offense.

 

[fix]

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

Pro choice is not specific. It is a code word for a ceratin type of killing.

 

[fix]

I do not believe in reducing rhetoric at the expense of the truth.

That is the point and that is why there is this program aimed at getting people not to oppose it.

 

[Drawmack]

There is an objective aspect to this issue and a subjective aspect. One person can be offended, subjectively, even though objectively there is no reason to be. We should be more concerned with offending our Lord then with our fellow man illegitimately being offended.

But, when someone is subjectively offended, what do you feel is an appropriate response?

Your defense is based on subjective emotionalism not moral truth.

According to you simply declaring offense means we must stop saying what is true or we can only speak in certain ways. IOW, control others.

I am not saying to stop proclaiming the truth. What I am saying is that you (and many others in the pro-life movement) hold certain things as objective moral truths when others to not hold these same ideals as objective moral truths. If one group. or person, holds something as objectively true and another group, or person, does not hold that same precept as objectively true, doesn’t that make this a subjective truth because it is subject to a person’s world view?

Again, no one should seek to intentionally inflame another. That does not mean every single word used, or idea portrayed, or anything else may not give rise to some person claiming offense.

I understand what you’re saying here. Where I think we differ is that I find certain things objectively inflammatory, unkind, and uncivil and you do not. I think that calling someone a baby killer or a murderer is objectively inflammatory. When someone is using terms like that it is difficult to perceive them as someone who actually wants to hold a civil discourse on the topic. I think that refusing to use the term pro-choice is also uncivil. The movement is for the woman’s right to choose abortion. Therefore they are pro-choice. Most of the well reasoned cases I have read against using this term remove the term from the abortion debate. That doesn’t make any sense to me because we are using the term within the abortion debate. I see no problem with using the term pro-choice while I make my case that abortion is murder. You seem to think that simply using the term pro-choice will weaken your argument. I do not understand this. I find that the scientific case for abortion being murder is so well supported that one can use any kind of politically correct language and still prove that abortion is murder with just the scientific facts.

This is very much like other issues that are making Western society a type of tyranny. Canada has hate speech laws now that go in the direction your thought would send us. Quoting the bible could inflamme, Church documents can be called “hate”. All types of propaganda tools are being used.

Okay, let me make something very clear. I am not advocating for limiting free speech. I am not advocating taking away people’s right to peaceful protest. I am saying that I think the pro-life movement should take the higher moral ground and police ourselves in regards to how we speak publicly and what types of things we display publicly.

I will pray for you and ask the blessed Mother to cover us both with her mantle.

God Bless.

Thank you, you are in my prayers as well.

 

[Drawmack]

Nonsense. Is Calling murder murder making people feel good? The point is calling murder as it is makes people realize the magnitude of their position. That makes them feel bad and thus claim offense.

The problem is the children killed have no way to claim offense.

I agree with you that abortion is murder. Where I think we differ is in our estimation the response others will have to using that language. I have trouble accepting that yelling a slogan (really any slogan but especially one) that has terms which make people cringe like “Abortion is Murder” and “Pro-choice is pro-murder” and “Doctors don’t kill” will really help anyone see the reality of abortion. I think that yelling things like that will simply put someone off and is very likely to get them to stop listening at all.

I think that we’ll have more success if we say, let’s talk about abortion. And then take the time to explain exactly what is going on with fetal development at the various stages and what not. I think that science is on the side of pro-life and that we’ll have more success and a better chance at changing the laws if we simply use that.

 

[Drawmack]

Pro choice is not specific. It is a code word for a ceratin type of killing.

Pro-life is not specific either, when it is removed from the abortion debate. To truly be pro-life, in a general sense, one would have to fight against any and all types of taking life including not just humans but animals and plants as well. This is the problem with claiming that pro-choice isn’t really pro-choice. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, pro-choice is pro the choice to murder. But, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a choice.

 

[WillieWonka]

Nonsense. Is Calling murder murder making people feel good? The point is calling murder as it is makes people realize the magnitude of their position. That makes them feel bad and thus claim offense.

The problem is the children killed have no way to claim offense.

Sure it makes them feel good. It is an emotional release. It allows a fit of good outrage and marks the speaker as one of the group. The pro-abortion people are more likely to be amused than offended.

 

[fix]

Sure it makes them feel good. It is an emotional release. It allows a fit of good outrage and marks the speaker as one of the group. The pro-abortion people are more likely to be amused than offended.

I am sorry that is how you perceive reality.

 

[fix]

Pro-life is not specific either, when it is removed from the abortion debate. To truly be pro-life, in a general sense, one would have to fight against any and all types of taking life including not just humans but animals and plants as well. This is the problem with claiming that pro-choice isn’t really pro-choice. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, pro-choice is pro the choice to murder. But, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a choice.

It is not about being pedantic or semantics. It is about moral truth and obfuscation.

 

[fix]

But, when someone is subjectively offended, what do you feel is an appropriate response?

It depends on the circumstance. If an immature teen is pregnant and needs special counseling that is addressed in one way. If it is a college debate that gets addressed in another way and so on…

I am not saying to stop proclaiming the truth. What I am saying is that you (and many others in the pro-life movement) hold certain things as objective moral truths when others to not hold these same ideals as objective moral truths. If one group. or person, holds something as objectively true and another group, or person, does not hold that same precept as objectively true, doesn’t that make this a subjective truth because it is subject to a person’s world view?

Reality and moral truth are objective. We each can misperceive this for a variety of reasons, but the truth is unchanged. If 2+2=4 and many hold it is really 16 that cannot change what is objectively true no matter how many hold that or how deeply they hold that.

I understand what you’re saying here. Where I think we differ is that I find certain things objectively inflammatory, unkind, and uncivil and you do not. I think that calling someone a baby killer or a murderer is objectively inflammatory. When someone is using terms like that it is difficult to perceive them as someone who actually wants to hold a civil discourse on the topic. I think that refusing to use the term pro-choice is also uncivil. The movement is for the woman’s right to choose abortion. Therefore they are pro-choice. Most of the well reasoned cases I have read against using this term remove the term from the abortion debate. That doesn’t make any sense to me because we are using the term within the abortion debate. I see no problem with using the term pro-choice while I make my case that abortion is murder. You seem to think that simply using the term pro-choice will weaken your argument. I do not understand this. I find that the scientific case for abortion being murder is so well supported that one can use any kind of politically correct language and still prove that abortion is murder with just the scientific facts.

It must be case by case. As you have read my position is the term pro choice helps desensitize our collective mind to what is true. They chose that term for a reason.

Okay, let me make something very clear. I am not advocating for limiting free speech. I am not advocating taking away people’s right to peaceful protest. I am saying that I think the pro-life movement should take the higher moral ground and police ourselves in regards to how we speak publicly and what types of things we display publicly.

All I am saying is that it is a matter of prudence.

Thank you, you are in my prayers as well.

God Bless.

 

[Drawmack]

It is not about being pedantic or semantics. It is about moral truth and obfuscation.

It is about what people perceive to be moral truth, you and I agree on what that moral truth is but others do not. We disagree on whether or not the term pro-choice is obfuscation.

 

[Drawmack]

Reality and moral truth are objective. We each can misperceive this for a variety of reasons, but the truth is unchanged. If 2+2=4 and many hold it is really 16 that cannot change what is objectively true no matter how many hold that or how deeply they hold that.

Anyone who has studied collegiate level calculus will inform you that 2+2=5 for arbitrarily large values of 2.

It must be case by case. As you have read my position is the term pro choice helps desensitize our collective mind to what is true. They chose that term for a reason.

I agree with this, however I do not see it as a reason not to use the term. I see it as a reason to construct a well written, fair, and balanced apology explaining exactly what it is a choice to do.

 

[WillieWonka]

What is “objective truth” and how does it differ from “truth?”

If something is objectively true is it also true?

If something is true is it also objectively true?

 

[Drawmack]

What is “objective truth” and how does it differ from “truth?”

If something is objectively true is it also true?

If something is true is it also objectively true?

Objective truth is terminology used to indicate that something is true regardless of whether or not one accepts that truth. There are debates in the philosophy room you can read about this topic.

 

[miguel]

We disagree on whether or not the term pro-choice is obfuscation.

I agree with fix that the term is obfuscation, although it never fooled me. As with all euphemisms, it’s more a form of self-deception than anything. But I do agree with your point, that within the context of the abortion debate, there is little doubt what a person who claims to be pro-choice is for. And that’s what’s offensive. And they’re offended that we’re offended. But we can’t stop being offended until they stop supporting what’s offensive.:whacky:

 

[Drawmack]

I agree with fix that the term is obfuscation, although it never fooled me. As with all euphemisms, it’s more a form of self-deception than anything. But I do agree with your point, that within the context of the abortion debate, there is little doubt what a person who claims to be pro-choice is for. And that’s what’s offensive. And they’re offended that we’re offended. But we can’t stop being offended until they stop supporting what’s offensive.:whacky:

That makes sense, but why create even more offense? Why present our case in a manner that, intrinsically, gives them an excuse to stop listening?

 

[miguel]

That makes sense, but why create even more offense? Why present our case in a manner that, intrinsically, gives them an excuse to stop listening?

I think the goal is to try to reach people to save babies. And there are all kinds of people. From the kids you serve who benefit greatly from the way you present your message. To hardened pro-choice politicians. Do you think there is a place for heated rhetoric in their case? Not necessarily to convince them. Hardened types don’t want to be convinced. But to keep the heat on. They’d much rather talk about the weather.

 

[Drawmack]

I think the goal is to try to reach people to save babies. And there are all kinds of people. From the kids you serve who benefit greatly from the way you present your message. To hardened pro-choice politicians. Do you think there is a place for heated rhetoric in their case? Not necessarily to convince them. Hardened types don’t want to be convinced. But to keep the heat on. They’d much rather talk about the weather.

Yes I do think that there is a place for the type of heated rhetoric that is likely to engage hardened pro-choice activists, be they politicians or not. However, I also think that there is a huge call for level headed discussion of the issue. The pro-life position is supported by science when one understands and properly presents that science. It is very difficult to find outlets which present this in a fair and balanced manner, on either side. That is why I advocate for more fair and balanced presentations on this issue.

 

[miguel]

Yes I do think that there is a place for the type of heated rhetoric that is likely to engage hardened pro-choice activists, be they politicians or not. However, I also think that there is a huge call for level headed discussion of the issue. The pro-life position is supported by science when one understands and properly presents that science. It is very difficult to find outlets which present this in a fair and balanced manner, on either side. That is why I advocate for more fair and balanced presentations on this issue.

Very good. Enjoyed your discussion with fix.