F
fix
Guest
This is called misdirection and has been tried often on these fora. Two apples and two others apples always makes four apples. In real life they never become 16 apples.
Round and round…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fix
Guest
We do disagree. That much is true.We disagree on whether or not the term pro-choice is obfuscation.
D
Drawmack
Guest
What are you attempting to imply?We do disagree. That much is true.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Yes, every time you decide to make the same circular argument I respond in the same way.Round and round…
D
Drawmack
Guest
If I have four apples that each weigh 4 ounces, then I have 16 ounces of apple. If you have four apples that each weight 5 ounces, then you have 20 ounces of apple. I would need a fifth 4 ounce apple to have the same amount of apple as your four 5 ounce apples. Thus 2 + 2 = 5 for arbitrarily large values of two. It was not misdirection – it was advanced mathematics which you apparently did not understand. Simply stating 2 + 2 = 4 does not indicate the fullness of the truth any more than in the above example we both have the same amount of apple even though we both have the same number of apples. Your statement was an attempt at reducing a complex problem to black and white thinking.This is called misdirection and has been tried often on these fora. Two apples and two others apples always makes four apples. In real life they never become 16 apples.
P
pnewton
Guest
I thought the thread was on abortion, not produce. Apparently abortion is far more black and white that 2+2. Always evil. Always murder.Your statement was an attempt at reducing a complex problem to black and white thinking.
D
Drawmack
Guest
I agree 100% that abortion is always wrong. However, I do not believe that simply yelling that at people will convince anyone of anything, but it may make them question the yeller’s intelligence and sanity. So, I think that taking a look at the issue from the other person’s view point and rationally, calmly, and nicely showing them the inconsistencies in their logic stands a better chance of getting through to people.I thought the thread was on abortion, not produce. Apparently abortion is far more black and white that 2+2. Always evil. Always murder.
So, while abortion as murder is black and white – how we convey that truth is certainly not black and white.
F
fix
Guest
More misdirection. We are talking about the number of apples, not the weight. When can we find placing two apples next to two apples will give us 16 apples?If I have four apples that each weigh 4 ounces, then I have 16 ounces of apple. If you have four apples that each weight 5 ounces, then you have 20 ounces of apple. I would need a fifth 4 ounce apple to have the same amount of apple as your four 5 ounce apples. Thus 2 + 2 = 5 for arbitrarily large values of two. It was not misdirection – it was advanced mathematics which you apparently did not understand. Simply stating 2 + 2 = 4 does not indicate the fullness of the truth any more than in the above example we both have the same amount of apple even though we both have the same number of apples. Your statement was an attempt at reducing a complex problem to black and white thinking.
Also, please do not claim I do not understand as that would be incorrect. Perhaps a better way to express all this is that you want to disassmble my fundamental point for your own reasons.
F
fix
Guest
Yes, every time you decide to make the same circular argument I respond in the same way.Yes, every time you decide to make the same circular argument I respond in the same way.
F
fix
Guest
Sometimes it is called disassembling.I thought the thread was on abortion, not produce. Apparently abortion is far more black and white that 2+2. Always evil. Always murder.
F
fix
Guest
This is another straw man argument. No one favors simply yelling at some person.I agree 100% that abortion is always wrong. However, I do not believe that simply yelling that at people will convince anyone of anything, but it may make them question the yeller’s intelligence and sanity. So, I think that taking a look at the issue from the other person’s view point and rationally, calmly, and nicely showing them the inconsistencies in their logic stands a better chance of getting through to people.
So, while abortion as murder is black and white – how we convey that truth is certainly not black and white.
F
fix
Guest
Just what I wrote.What are you attempting to imply?
D
Drawmack
Guest
Thus is the crux of the issue. You call what I’m saying misdirection because you think we are talking about the number of apples. I call what you are saying incorrect because I think we are talking about the quantity of apple. This is the communication problem I have been talking about.More misdirection. We are talking about the number of apples, not the weight. When can we find placing two apples next to two apples will give us 16 apples?
Perhaps we should both not make accusations about one another – especially not in the sentence after we ask the other person no to do this very thing. Which points out another problem with not toning down the rhetoric.Also, please do not claim I do not understand as that would be incorrect. Perhaps a better way to express all this is that you want to disassmble my fundamental point for your own reasons.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Very matureYes, every time you decide to make the same circular argument I respond in the same way.
D
Drawmack
Guest
The entire purpose of a debate is to disassemble each other’s arguments.Sometimes it is called disassembling.
D
Drawmack
Guest
All quotes below are from the original article this thread is about:This is another straw man argument. No one favors simply yelling at some person.
I am not impervious to these criticisms. I don’t like being thought of in these terms, though I confess I sometimes accept their judgment with a touch of mischievous relish. I don’t know anyone on the Catholic or Christian right who wants to be thought of as using language that is counter-productive, divisive and spiteful.
He states that he, and no one else, wants to be though of as using language that is counter-productive, divisive and spiteful. However, in the very next sentence, he blesses someone who does want to be though of this way.Okay, maybe Ann Coulter, bless her.
So the only conclusion a priest, a spiritual director, can draw about me, a fellow pro-lifer who simply thinks that his language choice is overly abrasive, is that I do not see some type of symmetry between abortion and other issues. This is clearly an negative allusion to the level of my intelligence and / or common sense. He is insulting members of his team in order to make a point about his rhetoric being acceptable?!I am forced to conclude that they just don’t see the symmetry between the abortion issue and other moral tragedies in recent history, such as the Holocaust and racial segregation.
What I see in the above paragraph is him insisting on labeling people who disagree with him about the issue, but think his language is too harsh. Labels, by their nature, are divisive. Didn’t he say earlier that he doesn’t want to be divisive? Then he goes on to say that “For liberals, pro-lifers are”. In the beginning of the piece he was talking about other pro-lifers who think that he should tone down his rhetoric. In this paragraph (remember that a paragraph is a series of interconnected ideas) he has inferred that liberal Catholics are pro-choice. In the first sentence he talks about liberal Catholics, in the second sentence he drops the Catholic and says how they see pro-lifers. This is a clear implication that he is talking about people who are not pro-life.By the way, they hate to be called “liberals” or “left-wing” Catholics; they think of themselves as just plain, ordinary Catholics. We aren’t to label them, but they freely label us. This is what “liberal” now means. For liberals, pro-lifers are “single-issue Catholics” or “single-issue voters”, a label intended to accuse us of ignoring all the other life issues in the “seamless garment” that makes up their precious “consistent life ethic.”
When was the last time you saw a “consistent life ethics” Catholic instead of simply assuring you that, yes, they too oppose abortion, actually speak out loudly against abortion? Do you know any “consistent life ethic” Catholics who seriously weigh a candidate’s position on abortion when deciding how to vote in an election?
Granted, I no longer identify as Catholic, but I used to. And, I was a consistent life ethic Catholic who worked at least 12 hours a week for pro-life. Maybe you wouldn’t call what I do speaking out loudly, but I think all those babies who were born, instead of aborted, as a result of my work would tell you I’m screaming. He is assuming what I consider when voting too. Never mind that I did not vote for Obama purely because he is pro-choice. I voted third party, because I wasn’t about to vote for McCain either. I’m sorry but he is making broad, and not always correct, assumptions about the people he is talking about to attempt caricaturization of them as fitting into a specific mold, we have a word for that type of mentality – prejudice.
At the beginning of the article he was admitting that the people he is talking about were pro-life, now he is separating the groups and only calling one of them pro-life, this is a clear assertion that everyone who thinks he should tone down the rhetoric is not pro-life.I suspect that behind this “peace and justice” Catholic vs. pro-life Catholic tension is the divide between Democrat and Republican Catholics.
This is a blatant appeal to emotionalism.My third reason for not wanting us to tone down the rhetoric is a sense I have, a feeling not easy to pin down.
Is he aware that any venue where the president speaks is surrounded by a kill line? Do you know why they call this a kill line? There are government employed sharp shooters who site in on this line. If anyone, ANYONE, crosses this line without proper approval the orders are shoot to kill. This paragraph appears next to images of the police arresting, what appears to be, an elderly priest. (I know he is, but those sharp shooters probably didn’t.) He neglects to inform his readers that this priest was warned, THREE TIMES, by the police that if he did not stop he would have to be arrested. He neglects to inform his readers that this priest was walking towards the, clearly marked, kill line. Should those police officers have neglected their duties and let this priest die?I’ve been told by my progressivist Catholic friends that people today are turned off by the kind of angry, abrasive, “us v. them” rhetoric that reached a fever pitch during the Notre Dame controversy. Just think! American bishops were publicly critical of Notre Dame’s president. Pro-life protesters disrupted the graduation ceremony while President Obama was present, and some of them – “outsiders” as they were called – were arrested for trespassing on Notre Shame’s property.
(to be continued)
D
Drawmack
Guest
So, if we speak diplomatically we are grinding down and silencing the pro-life movement. [sarcasm]Boy, I guess I should stop educating young women about the horrors of abortion since I do it diplomatically, I’d hate to be silencing the pro-life movement.[/sarcasm]But the net effect of this unrelenting censorship from the left is that the pro-life (yes, read: anti-abortion) message is ground down, silenced under the rubric of “it’s all right that we agree to disagree about this issue.”
Actually I think that the Catholic left would agree with this. Those who advocate “toning down the rhetoric” will tell you that they do not think that type of rhetoric is likely to be heard.Homosexual activists have a saying, “silence equals death.” What they know, what the Catholic left doesn’t, is that all rhetoric aimed at effecting social and political change must, above all, be heard.
It is clear that this priest is not only harshly reprimanding those who think we should speak diplomatically and civilly, but he is implying that those who hold this view are not even pro-lifers. So, maybe he’s not yelling with the volume of his speech, but he is definitely yelling with the content of his speech.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Right! But, I’m the one using misdirection.Just what I wrote.
F
fix
Guest
It is misdirection. My analogy using everyday math stands.Thus is the crux of the issue. You call what I’m saying misdirection because you think we are talking about the number of apples. I call what you are saying incorrect because I think we are talking about the quantity of apple. This is the communication problem I have been talking about.
I call 'em as I see 'em.Perhaps we should both not make accusations about one another – especially not in the sentence after we ask the other person no to do this very thing. Which points out another problem with not toning down the rhetoric.
F
fix
Guest
I made my point.Very mature
- Status
- Not open for further replies.