The good thing about dogma is that employed properly you can remove all traces of thought from a process.
I like the fact that this clip demonstrates just how little consideration you need to put into your position as long as you're convinced the big fella ordains it.
I have my own opinions on a lot of subjects, some more controversial than others. But I've got more respect for the person holding a polar opposite opinion that has a well reasoned position that stacks up, than somebody who agrees with me with a badly formed argument featuring holes you can drive a bus through.
But hey that's just me I enjoy the cut and thrust of the debate, and all the skills therein - I admire some people's skills even if I abhor their position (did somebody say George Galloway?)
In that spirit, sidestep the subject matter - one of the most divisive ever, and enjoy the amount of thought the protesters have put into their position.
4 comments:
Jebus, this one isn't loaded, is it, Chris?
The whole premise here, luring the protesters into making a snap call on illegality, then calling them on their lack of thought on the punishment issue doesn't seem terribly revealing. It seems more a semantic trick, designed to make the people look like fools.
As far as these people having little thought of the criminal consequence? That doesn't surprise me in the least. Fundamentally, the anti-abortion forces think of themselves as advocates for the children. The rights and responsibilities of the parents don't really factor in to their arguments.
And I don't see them making this argument on legal grounds, but on moral grounds. And when their response is that the punishment will be Divine, I think they're being consistent.
The subsequent logic leap, "if the punishment is mete by God, isn't the crime between them and God?" is specious.
I don't think most anti-abortion forces think of the women who choose abortion as evil. They think of them as being unenlightened. Trying to make it more difficult to access abortions, but not feeling a venality towards those who get them, seems genuinely Christian.
I don't agree with them, morally or scientifically. But I respect their right to hold their opinion. And I reserve the right to turn away.
It certainly is loaded...
Lured into a snap call on illegality?
They made banners calling for it to be made illegal and stood at the roadside for 2 years (five in one case). I think it is fair question to ask what result they want. He didn't have to drag them out blinking into the sunlight.
Blank looks, and "I never thought about that" are the result.
Every worthless idiot has got an opinion, usually quite loud. I reserve my respect for those that have given it a little thought, whether I agree with them or not.
ok.
agreed.
Poor choice of words on my part.
But the goal of these folks is to dissuade people from having abortions, through whatever means are at their disposal. As long as they're peaceable, i find it hard to harbor too much hostility.
I don't have particular beef with these peeps - I tried to write this post to ensure I didn't show any particular bias but I guess when THAT subject matter rears up people strap a tin hat on and dig in...
Perhaps it was the wrong subject matter to use as an illustration. What I'm saying is I'd rather have a book, film, debate etc from an intelligent thoughtful person even if I disagree with them. Hell especially if I disagree with them, rather than wooly ,ill-considered, or trite clichés from someone who is 'on my side'.
Example: I personally think Marijuana shouldn't be illicit.
However if I've learnt one thing over the years from listening to people who believe the herb should be decriminalised, it's that they are united in presenting tired boring arguments that if you hadn't heard them a dozen times before you'd knock down just for the sheer pleasure. But that's a discussion for a different day eh?
In conclusion: hone those rhetorical skills peeps, 'cause I love a word-ruck me.
Some call me the master debater.
Post a Comment