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

[fix]

The entire purpose of a debate is to disassemble each other’s arguments.

No, I do not agree. If you have a legitimate refutation you would not need to misdirect the argument off onto a tangent.

 

[fix]

All quotes below are from the original article this thread is about:

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.

He is using sarcasm to make his point. That can have a place in discussions. Context and circumstances matter as I have said multiple times.

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?!

Does his quote characterize you? If you think it does he may not meant you specifically. I think he is saying many who claim to be pro life reject fundamental comparisons because they really do not accept the gravity of abortion. I cannot speak for him.

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.

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.

This is a blatant appeal to emotionalism.

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?

(to be continued)

I do not have the time to parse every point here and I bet many do not care to read our responses either.

If you are offended by what he wrote would it be fair for me to claim I am offended at your being offended? I mean where does it end? No one can say anything that some person will not claim is harsh or mean.

 

[fix]

Right! But, I’m the one using misdirection.

What I wrote is plain. You want to infer all types of things. Seeking offense at every possible turn. Where does it end?

 

[Drawmack]

It is misdirection. My analogy using everyday math stands.

And the second problem with any type of discussion on abortion – at least one of the sides completely refuses to deal with the other side with any thing even resembling rational dialogue.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Whatever man. I let you prove to everyone just how rational and level headed you are.

 

[Drawmack]

I made my point.

Yes you did, you’re maturity speaks for itself.

 

[Drawmack]

No, I do not agree. If you have a legitimate refutation you would not need to misdirect the argument off onto a tangent.

If you had a legitimate groundwork to base your arguments on you would not have to accuse my refutation of being misdirection.

 

[Drawmack]

He is using sarcasm to make his point. That can have a place in discussions. Context and circumstances matter as I have said multiple times.

Oh, so now it’s okay for priests to proclaim a sarcastic God Bless you. Glad I understand that now – thanks for pointing it out. I’m so happy the Catholic Church has decided it is okay to apply the doctrine of binding and loosing sarcastically.

Does his quote characterize you? If you think it does he may not meant you specifically. I think he is saying many who claim to be pro life reject fundamental comparisons because they really do not accept the gravity of abortion. I cannot speak for him.

He did not say many, he left out any type of qualifying language. That implies all. This is the problem with those who project this type of rhetoric. They make sweeping generalizations and when you call them on it they claim they meant something different than what they said.

I do not have the time to parse every point here and I bet many do not care to read our responses either.

I bet your right about people who support vile rhetoric not caring to read anything that is actually presenting a logic based argument.

If you are offended by what he wrote would it be fair for me to claim I am offended at your being offended? I mean where does it end? No one can say anything that some person will not claim is harsh or mean.

Look everyone another circular argument! Should I type that twice so you don’t have to copy and paste it back at me?

 

[Drawmack]

What I wrote is plain. You want to infer all types of things. Seeking offense at every possible turn. Where does it end?

I wrote that we agree about abortion being murder but disagree about how to approach the issue. You wrote that we definitely disagree. This implies that we do not agree that abortion is murder. So, either you’re saying that you think abortion is not murder or you are implying that I do not think abortion is murder. I would simply like you to clarify this in plain English so everyone can see if you are making baseless accusations against me or telling us about yourself. Why do you refuse to clarify what you wrote?

 

[fix]

And the second problem with any type of discussion on abortion – at least one of the sides completely refuses to deal with the other side with any thing even resembling rational dialogue.

Whatever man. I let you prove to everyone just how rational and level headed you are.

My words, and yours, are here for all to read.

You ask for rational dialogue and then go off on a tangent about math.

 

[fix]

Yes you did, you’re maturity speaks for itself.

I placed your own words back on you. As I said let all read them.

 

[fix]

If you had a legitimate groundwork to base your arguments on you would not have to accuse my refutation of being misdirection.

You seek to misdirect the argument because my point was correct.

 

[fix]

I wrote that we agree about abortion being murder but disagree about how to approach the issue. You wrote that we definitely disagree. This implies that we do not agree that abortion is murder. So, either you’re saying that you think abortion is not murder or you are implying that I do not think abortion is murder. I would simply like you to clarify this in plain English so everyone can see if you are making baseless accusations against me or telling us about yourself. Why do you refuse to clarify what you wrote?

I try not to be pedantic. You pick at each word because you want either to fight or because your position is weak.

Everyone who reads this thread knows we both think abortion is murder. What I reject is your characterization of pro life groups.

 

[fix]

Oh, so now it’s okay for priests to proclaim a sarcastic God Bless you. Glad I understand that now – thanks for pointing it out. I’m so happy the Catholic Church has decided it is okay to apply the doctrine of binding and loosing sarcastically.

You really are overly sensitive. Why do you seek to be offended so easily? You complain about his sarcasm and then respond in kind. Perhaps the problem you chase so hard is not these vigorous pro life folks but some other thing?

He did not say many, he left out any type of qualifying language. That implies all. This is the problem with those who project this type of rhetoric. They make sweeping generalizations and when you call them on it they claim they meant something different than what they said.

Perhaps you can read things in context and consider the audience rather than constantly seeking a fight or to be offended.

I bet your right about people who support vile rhetoric not caring to read anything that is actually presenting a logic based argument.

I bet your right about people who support vile rhetoric not caring to read anything that is actually presenting a logic based argument.

Look everyone another circular argument! Should I type that twice so you don’t have to copy and paste it back at me?

Let me guess…you are offended? Surprise.:whacky:

 

[miguel]

:slapfight:

 

[Drawmack]

You ask for rational dialogue and then go off on a tangent about math.

You used a mathematical example as a example of intrinsic truth. I used my expertise in the topic area to prove that this was not a valid example of intrinsic truth. Like I said, I will let your words prove how rational and logical you are.

 

[Drawmack]

You seek to misdirect the argument because my point was correct.

Wow!

 

[Drawmack]

You really are overly sensitive. Why do you seek to be offended so easily? You complain about his sarcasm and then respond in kind. Perhaps the problem you chase so hard is not these vigorous pro life folks but some other thing?

I’m not Catholic! I could really care less what Catholic priests do, or do not do, with blessings and sacraments. Why do you seek to find offense in my words so vehemently? I guess only Catholics are allowed to be sarcastic. I respond in kind. I simply assume that those who claim to be Catholic are treating others the way they want to be treated. So, I treat them the way they want to be treated.

Perhaps you can read things in context and consider the audience rather than constantly seeking a fight or to be offended.

On the internet your audience is everyone. I’m not seeking to be offended, I’m not even offended, why do you keep insisting on finding offense where there is none?

I bet your right about people who support vile rhetoric not caring to read anything that is actually presenting a logic based argument.

Let me guess…you are offended? Surprise.:whacky:

I am in no way offended. Why do you insist on proclaiming my offense? I’ll proclaim my own offense. When I am offended I will tell someone they are offensive. I simply said that I thought you were correct because I think that those who support vile rhetoric are not interested in logic. Do you keep proclaiming my offense to mask your own?

 

[Drawmack]

I try not to be pedantic. You pick at each word because you want either to fight or because your position is weak.

Everyone who reads this thread knows we both think abortion is murder. What I reject is your characterization of pro life groups.

So, you’re refusing to clarify the implication you intended to present?

 

[kbrigan]

Q: Again, I ask, what’s the goal?

A: To stop abortion.

We have three options:

1. Declare war against the United States, pass the ammunition, and start shooting.
2. Become terrorists who do things like shoot people who perform abortions in the back while they’re at a church service. (Maybe build a few fire bombs, too.)
3. Remain Americans, not sink to the level of terrorism, and fight the fight in the courts, the media and Congress.

Option 1 could possibly be ethical, but it does require much sacrifice. I’ve not seen any pro-life people willing to take this step. This means, by definition then, that the only options left are either being a terrorist or working within the system. The Church clearly condemns terrorism at all times, so Option 2 is out.

Option 3 requires getting dirty. It requires communicating with people who disagree with us. It requires using “external rhetoric” as was delineated nicely above. External rhetoric is frustrating, feels smarmy and requires that one continually hold one’s temper. We also must forego indulging ad nauseum in “internal rhetoric” (which is encouraging and flattering and feels oh-so-good). Option 3 also requires a lot more charity toward one’s enemies, since, in order to be able to talk to opponents effectively, you first have to acknowledge their humanity. What a shame we’re not in a religion that encourages that sort of thing.

I don’t want endless Obama-style “dialogue”, but I don’t want to waste time being “horrified” in my beer all day, either. People do horrible things of all sorts all day, every day. Welcome to Earth. Even if abortion disappeared tomorrow, we’d still be up to our ears in “horrors”. Every minute we waste indulging in they’re-so-horrible-we’re-so-great rituals, another couple of babies are killed. If we need to debate and discuss and explain and talk and talk and talk and respectfully, passively resist to get this done, then let’s do it. Malcom X may have made more noise, and made frustrated Black America feel better, but ultimately it’s King who lead us to the biggest changes.

 

[WillieWonka]

Q: Again, I ask, what’s the goal?

A: To stop abortion.

We have three options:

1. Declare war against the United States, pass the ammunition, and start shooting.
2. Become terrorists who do things like shoot people who perform abortions in the back while they’re at a church service. (Maybe build a few fire bombs, too.)
3. Remain Americans, not sink to the level of terrorism, and fight the fight in the courts, the media and Congress.

Option 1 could possibly be ethical, but it does require much sacrifice. I’ve not seen any pro-life people willing to take this step. This means, by definition then, that the only options left are either being a terrorist or working within the system. The Church clearly condemns terrorism at all times, so Option 2 is out.

Option 3 requires getting dirty. It requires communicating with people who disagree with us. It requires using “external rhetoric” as was delineated nicely above. External rhetoric is frustrating, feels smarmy and requires that one continually hold one’s temper. We also must forego indulging ad nauseum in “internal rhetoric” (which is encouraging and flattering and feels oh-so-good). Option 3 also requires a lot more charity toward one’s enemies, since, in order to be able to talk to opponents effectively, you first have to acknowledge their humanity. What a shame we’re not in a religion that encourages that sort of thing.

I don’t want endless Obama-style “dialogue”, but I don’t want to waste time being “horrified” in my beer all day, either. People do horrible things of all sorts all day, every day. Welcome to Earth. Even if abortion disappeared tomorrow, we’d still be up to our ears in “horrors”. Every minute we waste indulging in they’re-so-horrible-we’re-so-great rituals, another couple of babies are killed. If we need to debate and discuss and explain and talk and talk and talk and respectfully, passively resist to get this done, then let’s do it. Malcom X may have made more noise, and made frustrated Black America feel better, but ultimately it’s King who lead us to the biggest changes.

I predict many would grab their guns and pitchforks and jump at option #1 above if a million four-year-olds were being thrown into wood chippers each year. Anyone agree? If so, why the different reacations to the four-year-old vs the fetus?.