Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jun 22, 2006 16:16:53 GMT -5
The only thing even remotely close to name calling was shallow and/or naive . Bingo. So that justifies the name calling. You did not respond to what was said but instead responded to a strawman to get your viewpoint out. CAHoya07's post neither stated nor implied anything about 'rounding up' etc. Very true that the wackos are not the mainstream (thankfully), but I never said nor implied that all pro-lifers are like that. All I was doing was countering your blanket statement that ended in a condescending tone -- "The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best." - by pointing out that there are factions of the pro-life group who are even more extreme, so the suggestion was not silly (and again, is was not even a suggestion. Another strawman.).
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 23, 2006 7:54:26 GMT -5
Great posts, Filo and CA07.
The only thing I'll add is that, uh, actually a substantial minority of pro-lifers do go around pointing fingers. Just an observation based on experience, not scientific fact.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 23, 2006 14:20:47 GMT -5
Hifi, I think you missed the entire point of my post. In no way do I suggest that pro-lifers believe that women and abortion doctors should be arrested and put to death. In fact, my point is that almost no one believes this, and yet I've seen many pro-life signs that proclaim, "Abortion is Murder." Abortion simply is not murder, it's far too complex of an issue to label it as that. If it really was murder, then abortion doctors and the women who choose to have them could and would be tried for it. And as you said, that's not what pro-lifers want to do. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of such a statement that I believe many pro-lifers espouse without really thinking about what it entails. Abortion is a complex and polarizing issue, and to sort of bring it back to the original theme of the thread, I feel that people at both extremes of the debate are out of touch with what we really should be discussing: how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and how to cope with unwanted pregnancies if and when they occur. And finally, to put another spin on this whole thing, I believe that both political parties in America, and probably most Americans, are out of touch with what is happening throughout the rest of the world. Though I do not justify it, this is probably the biggest reason why anti-Americanism occurs. You make some great points and we pretty much are in agreement when you word it that way. Like I said, those who call out pro-choicers as being murderers are wrong, just as those who liken pro-choicers to the handful of nutcases who react with vigilanteism. Your middle paragraph is especially dead on and not surprisingly very similar to what I wrote earlier on the topic. I think I even used the term "polarizing" as well. Furthermore it is a highly emotional topic. Those on both sides have very strong ties to their beliefs for various reasons. And as you suggest, education and other effective means to serve as alternatives to terminating unwanted pregnancies should be a primary goal.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 23, 2006 14:23:39 GMT -5
Fido, I am not sure why you are jumping into the fray with all four paws trying to stir up trouble. We are in relative agreement for the most part. There was one misunderstanding which has been clarified. And as far a "shallow" being "name calling," I would have to say that you are too thin skinned. No, I didn't say that it "justified" name calling but rather that it isn't name calling, especially now since the point has been clarified.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jun 26, 2006 17:50:19 GMT -5
Hifi - I "jumped into the fray" because you are one annoying dude who threw out terms like "shallow," "naive" and "silly" based upon what I thought was some type of fictitious sinister implication you created. It turns out that you were simply too dense to understand what the poster meant and now that you have received the explicit "connect-the-dots" explanation, you are in agreement. So the original post was not shallow naive or silly, I guess.
Have the last word. I am sure it will be as meaningless as your others.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 27, 2006 15:09:55 GMT -5
Fido barked this out:
Very true that the wackos are not the mainstream (thankfully), but I never said nor implied that all pro-lifers are like that. All I was doing was countering your blanket statement that ended in a condescending tone -- "The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best." - by pointing out that there are factions of the pro-life group who are even more extreme, so the suggestion was not silly (and again, is was not even a suggestion. Another strawman.).
You say that you never said nor implied that "pro-lifers" are "like that" and then you say that you were merely "pointing out that there are factions of the pro-lifers who are even more extreme" ... WHAT? You say that you didn't suggest/imply that pro-lifers are like that ... but "some are." That was my point initially. I condemned the nutcases who carry out such heinous acts as bombing clinics while pointing out that they compose far less than a mere minority. Furthermore, they command a disproportionate amount of attention from the pro-choice crowd. That is wrong and I would hope we would both agree that such characterizations and generalizations are fallacious at best.
Fido then bow-wowed these gems:
Hifi - I "jumped into the fray" because you are one annoying dude who threw out terms like "shallow," "naive" and "silly" based upon what I thought was some type of fictitious sinister implication you created. It turns out that you were simply too dense to understand what the poster meant and now that you have received the explicit "connect-the-dots" explanation, you are in agreement. So the original post was not shallow naive or silly, I guess.
You don't get to play judge and jury in this case. There was an implication whether intended or not which was clarified. Once there was a ... to use a legal term ... "meeting of the minds" then our viewpoints were not that far off. Yet you ... not involved in the misunderstanding to start with ... jumped in and blindly stated the edict that such a difference of opinion was invalid. You are the twit ... not me.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jun 27, 2006 17:19:46 GMT -5
Hifi – I said I was not going to respond again but I can’t resist. You are just too damn amusing.
Wow. You left out “all” in my quote. So see if you can follow: 1. Not all pro-lifers are wackos (you know, the type who bomb abortion clinics). (In fact, most are not wackos at all.) 2. However, there are some pro-lifers who are such wackos. 3. So, your original blanket statement -- “The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best." -- was incorrect. There are some (a minority, but still part of the "pro-life crowd") who are running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions. In fact, as you have agreed, some are even more extreme.
It’s really a simple point. I am glad you back-tracked from that original statement by acknowledging that there are “nutcases who carry out such heinous acts as bombing clinics.”
And I agree that they are a minority (but far less than a minority? Huh? Less than a minority is zero.) that commands a disproportionate amount of attention. But that’s what they are after, anyway.
Give me a break. There was no implication. You are the only one who came up with the implication just so you could throw out your opinions.
Meeting of the minds? What the hell are you talking about? You were struggling to understand what someone posted and finally came to understand it and agree with it (after first calling it silly). How is that a meeting of the minds?
By the way, nice job throwing out a “legal term” there, especially when it is a contract law term, which is so appropriate here. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Did not realize you were trying to have a private discussion on a public bulletin board (on a thread that I started, of all things).
Sorry for barging in. It is sort of like a UF basketball fan coming over to another team’s message board and posting his asinine opinions and making a general fool of himself. I am glad that has never happened around here...
Also – those dog references are actually pretty clever and funny…if you are about 8 years old. Come clean, there really is no Hifi, right? You really are a group of grade-schoolers playing practical jokes, right? I mean, semi-rational grown-ups wouldn’t come up with stuff like this.
So, OK kids, this time I really am going to try to stop responding to you and your practical joking. You get back to your homework now since bedtime at 9 pm is fast approaching, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2006 18:09:38 GMT -5
What is your obsession with dogs, hifi? His name is F-I-L-O. Forget how to read? Oh, and Filo just crushed you with that last post. Boom. Goes. The. Dynamite.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 28, 2006 11:05:07 GMT -5
Wow. This conversation is still going on, huh? How about that? Just kidding. Talk about whatever you want. I just hope I don't have to wait too much longer for the much-overdue "Best 80s Movie Sidekick" poll. Yes, Buffalo, I am looking in your direction. Help us out. Is Mitch Taylor the sidekick (in which case he is a really bad one) ? Or is he the main protagonist (in which case Chris Knight wins the poll hands down) ? Or is neither the case and it is Lazlo Holyfield who is the sidekick? Who is the sidekick in Running Scared? Hughes? Costanzo? Snake? I DON'T KNOW!!! These are issues that need to be resolved dammit!!!
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 7, 2006 12:16:37 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't believe gay marriage is an issue in mid-America doesn't know mid-America. It's huge and the reason why it's huge is that most of mid-America thinks it's immoral. And that's not homophobia, it's a belief based on the faith that most adhere to. You may not agree with that but it's a fact and you will find it plays a big part in coming elections. McCain, Hillary, others who effectively cast their votes against the amendment will see it raised again and again in the coming presidential election, not to mention in Congressional elections for those who also voted against it. As long as Democrats (and McCain and others) continue to back gay marriages (or "leave it to the states" knowing some court will declare it unconstitutional), and abortion on demand they will make no headway with very large numbers of religious people. I once saw a map in Harpers that overlayed the populations most concerned with gay marriage and terrorism and the areas most prone to terrorist strikes and home the majority of gay americans. To be frank, there was little to no overlap. Those most exposed to the "threats" were much less concerned than those who had a better chance of being struck by lightening than by Al-Queda or Ken and Ken nuptials.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2006 16:19:30 GMT -5
Bridge - I'm not sure what your post says.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 7, 2006 16:55:19 GMT -5
Alright, one last time just in case you are legitimately confused and not merely being obstinate.
Fido or Filo or Bedo (Eastwood reference) or Gumbo (Hank Williams play on file') ... whatever the name wrote this:
Wow. You left out “all” in my quote. So see if you can follow: 1. Not all pro-lifers are wackos (you know, the type who bomb abortion clinics). (In fact, most are not wackos at all.) 2. However, there are some pro-lifers who are such wackos. 3. So, your original blanket statement -- “The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best." -- was incorrect. There are some (a minority, but still part of the "pro-life crowd") who are running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions. In fact, as you have agreed, some are even more extreme.
It’s really a simple point. I am glad you back-tracked from that original statement by acknowledging that there are “nutcases who carry out such heinous acts as bombing clinics.”
1. Not all pro-lifers are wackos (you know, the type who bomb abortion clinics). (In fact, most are not wackos at all.)
I agree. I made that very point in the beginning.
2. However, there are some pro-lifers who are such wackos.
I agree. I made that very point in the beginning.
3. So, your original blanket statement -- “The pro-life crowd is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions, trying to have them arrested. To suggest such is silly at best." -- was incorrect. There are some (a minority, but still part of the "pro-life crowd") who are running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions. In fact, as you have agreed, some are even more extreme.
Herein lies the problem. I made no "blanket statement" and you know it. The "pro-life crowd" is trying to have the laws changed. They aren't running around pointing fingers at those who have had and given abortions trying to have them arrested. That is correct. You can't possibly be so obtuse as to suggest otherwise can you? When we say "we are for this that or the other" there is a clear context implied. "Republicans" are strong on defense. Most would not argue that as being an accurate statement and yet there are some Republicans who would not fit that mold. That doesn't changed the validity and accuracy of the initial statement. When we say the "such and such" crowd is doing ...... the clear implication is that as a whole the group sentiment is in a certain direction. If you are trying to suggest that statements like these can never be stated then we cannot communicate at all. Of course you are well ahead of us in that department already.
Now lastly, forgetting about the semantics for a minute ... my second point was that the comparative few (the nutcases who bomb clinics for example) receive a disproportionate amount of "attention." There is rarely an explicit statement that such individuals are in fact representative of all pro-lifers but the lack of such attention towards the vast majority of peaceful pro-lifers gives some that idea implicitly. In any case, rarely does any coverage expressly point out that this or that nutcase is any sort of aberration. In fact he or she is routinely merely called a "pro-lifer." Are you really going to try to argue that?
Buff, what in the hell are you talking about? He didn't in any way "win" an argument with such trivial rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 7, 2006 23:17:44 GMT -5
First of all - Hifi, he won the argument. You're talking in circles, dude. <fizzle goes the bottle rocket>
Second - Ed (please don't jump down my throat for what you're about to read) I think what he's saying mid-America is out of touch with those two issues and is freaking out over something it doesn't actually have any experience with. C'mon man, telling someone that they can't marry because it's (a) bad for families, (b) bad for society, and (c) categorically morally wrong sounds pretty "phobic" to me. And anyway, isn't adultery worse for families, marriages, and society than gayness? And before you hit me with the "it's about faith and belief" argument, isn't there an actual COMMANDMENT that says no adultery (and nothing about man love)? Why isn't the anti-gay marriage crowd talking about that at all?
Third - I have no third. Except to say that whoever invented the Bar Exam was sadistic.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2006 11:28:19 GMT -5
c2c wrote:
First of all - Hifi, he won the argument. You're talking in circles, dude. <fizzle goes the bottle rocket>
No, I am not talking in circles. Let's simplify this to see if you really disagree with my point or are just choosing to be difficult for no reason.
My point is that by and large the pro-life crowd are peaceful and not remotely represented by the wackos who bomb clinics. Furthermore, not only do they not condone the actions of the wackos, in fact they almost universally condemn them. Yet often the pro-life crowd gets "characterized" by this minute handful. Ironically you could parallel this very easily with those of the Islamic faith. Yet for some "unknown" (or "unadmitted") reason, we are constantly reminded that the terrorists are "Islamic extremists" or "Radicals." Surprisingly, this same distinction is often omitted with respect to the pro-life crowd. Feel free to disagree if you wish, but please back your position with some kind of support.
As to the semantics of the issue, if what I said above is correct -- and I believe it is -- then my original statement is a logical progression. The pro-life crowd is not trying to criminalize those who participate in abortions, but rather trying to persuade people to their views that abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent life. Effectively they are trying to change the laws of the land in a progressive sense, not a regressive one.
Be sure to take note that I have not tried to convince anyone in either direction with regards to the morality of the abortion issue here in this thread or any other. I just point out the obvious insincerity often slung in the direction of the "pro-life" crowd, sometimes because of the actions of a few and sometimes as a result of political posturing.
No, once and for all, I didn't lose this argument. My points are very sound, but if you wish to counter, please support your position with some kind of evidence, no matter how futile it may be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2006 16:59:29 GMT -5
Wow... everyone's a tough guy on the internet, huh?
The name-calling, chest-puffing machismo has gotta go, boys... you all sound like a bunch of little bitches.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 10, 2006 9:51:02 GMT -5
Wow... everyone's a tough guy on the internet, huh? The name-calling, chest-puffing machismo has gotta go, boys... you all sound like a bunch of little bitches. Oh snap, he called you a bitch! You gonna take that?
|
|