A shallow Facebook commenter decided to post an equally shallow video at Oklahoma State Rep Lisa Billy's Facebook page today (
This video is little more than a string of irrelevant data wherein the speaker complains about:
1) issues unrelated to whether it's OK to murder tiny babies in the womb
2) corruption or bad ideas put forward by the OK Legislature (which only the ignorant or seriously biased would deny happens all the time).
So... let me get this straight. Oklahoma educates its children badly (according to the speaker). Therefore it should be legal to murder children. Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children.
Help me understand this logic. It would seem there's a missing premise or two.
"War on women's stuff" - what an ignorant and stupid statement. Just a waste of space. So...saying that it's not OK to murder children is a war against women? In what universe?
"So much more for the legislators to work on" - right, because baby murder is just a teensy tiny side issue.
Also, you'd think that since the speaker is so concerned that the OK legislature legislates badly, he'd want the legislature to legislate LESS so that they'd mess less stuff up. He probably meant that they should agree with him more when they pass laws, but why didn't he SAY THAT?
Probably it's b/c he's a shallow thinker and is therefore imprecise in his communication. That should give us a reason not to take him seriously.
"hard work of advancing our state" - yes, let's definitely advance our state. And shall we murder our children to do so? Great!
"#1 in taser deaths... b/c we're such a pro-life state" - Again, just irrelevant! There's a huge difference between a policeman tasering a suspect and systematically murdering tiny babies in the womb. Why is this so hard to figure out?
And how many does it take to achieve a #1 ranking in taser deaths?
"Seven people have died at the hands of OKCPD Taser-wielding officers since 2001" (Source).
Wow! So... 0.63 people have died every single year from the wildly violent OKC Po-Pos and this guy is all upset about it? Does he know how many children have been butchered in the abortuaries of Oklahoma since 2001?
Sin makes you stupid.
It's a sad commentary on your intellect that the lady who posted this found it compelling enough to post. It's really poorly-reasoned and foolish.
21 comments:
Does it occur to him that his logic is EXACTLY backwards and that it's the devaluation of children that is the cause of the social ills he is so concerned about? It's obvious that a society which does not flinch from brutally murdering children is not going to make caring for them a high priority.
I see that my comment (as well as yours, Rho) was deleted from the YouTube meta...
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not. It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings, and (2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb. Your remarks avoid both of these points, leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda while complaining that I express my own ideas and not yours. (If I ever do make a video about abortion, I'll let you know so you can come back and criticize it for not being about tax policy or the price of cheese.)
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
Two minor points of language: (1) I said "War on women stuff," not "War on women's stuff," and (2) "wreaked" is, indeed, the past tense of "wreak," as you might have bothered to confirm before placing such undue emphasis on it.
I see that the link to the Facebook page is broken. Perhaps Rep. Billy was so ashamed of what she had wreaked that she deleted the post.
All,
It would appear that the referenced Facebook thread has been deleted from Rep Billy's page.
The original post in that thread was by the aforementioned shallow Facebook commenter, so the one responsible for the deleting the thread could have been her or could have been Rep Billy's Facebook page admin; it's impossible to know which. I don't think Rep Billy's admin has been in the habit of deleting threads that contain controversy or debates, though, so my money's on the shallow commenter. And Rep Billy certainly has no reason to be ashamed of what was posted there, so DEFishback should be himself ashamed of that foolish and much-premature attribution.
Also, DEFishback is correct - "wrought" is apparently a more archaic English than "wreaked"; both are correct but I was wrong to criticise the usage of "wreaked", which I shall now indicate in an edit to the post.
> Although you pretend my video is
> about "baby murder," it is not.
So the video was NOT about abortion, then? But the term "pro-life" was repeatedly used throughout the video in association with a litany of unfortunate statistics that are frankly unrelated to abortion. If the unfortunate statistics are in fact the point of the video and are not irrelevant, then the use of "pro-life" is irrelevant.
In modern American usage, "pro-life" has everything to do with abortion and not much else, (as does the term, "pro-choice"). Everybody knows that. That's why it's easy to see through the demagoguery when the term is used to impugn a certain group of political opponents by switching its standard meaning to something else.
> you only prove my point that too
> many pro-lifers refuse to think > about life outside the uterus.
It proves nothing. Suppose I went on a rant about the same unfortunate statistics, but associated them with the term, "rural farming." You would rightly write that off as irrelevant, and the fact that you did would in no way prove to me or anyone else that rural farmers refuse to think about anything outside the farm.
> It is about (1) Oklahoma's
> legislative priorities in the
> face of widespread shortcomings
The video goes on to whine about a person-hood amendment. I guess that has nothing to do with abortion, because the video is apparently not really about abortion. I wonder what the person-hood amendment is really about then?
> and (2) the proposition that a
> "pro-life" position should
> account for the quality of life
> outside the womb.
Again, you redefined terms here. A "pro-life" position is concerned with whether or not abortion is allowed. But, beyond that, you beg the question. What makes you think that the "pro-life" position is, or ought to be accountable for life outside the womb? Life outside the womb is a different issue than whether or not life ought to be allowed to exit the womb alive, which is what the "pro-life" position is concerned with. You might as well claim that the "rural farming" position should account for the quality of life outside the farm.
DEFishback,
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
You either read without much care or I didn't communicate well. I think I did, though, especially when I said:
"Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children."
But let me be more explicit.
Socialism is a foolish and evil system. It is only possible when built upon the foundation of heavy taxation of working people, and in the American case, it is accompanied by highly wasteful spending patterns and extremely inadequate accountability with respect to those expenditures.
If I am misinterpreting/misrepresenting what you were saying in your video about these statistics, let me know, but were not most of your complaints on the topic of the amounts the gov't spends in these various areas?
If so, it means that you built your entire objection based on the presupposition that socialism is basically good and that the gov't is the one responsible and the agent that should be putting forth the most money and effort to accomplish these goals you want to see accomplished - edjamakayshun of chilldrun, pre-/neo-natal care, etc. But you need to argue for this presupposition, not merely assume it as a given. The alternative and far more Constitution-friendly model is that individuals and families and churches are to be tasked with these things, not the gov't.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not
Then why did you keep saying "pro-life" and entitle the video "pro-life..."?
That's all on you, sir.
It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings
Again, what you see as a shortcoming, I laud as relatively commendable fiscal restraint. I don't want the gov't to steal tons of money from me, waste most of it, and then spend a lot of the rest propping up inefficient and failing structures.
(2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb
It does, but that is not equivalent to socialistic governmental spending.
And obviously, this is disingenuous. "Pro-life" is for all intents and purposes contrasted with "pro-choice" and inextricably tied to abortion in modern discourse. You know this as well as I.
leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda
You act like that's morally wrong or something. Why would that be?
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
How lame to make your point using a "#1 state in taser deaths" stat when achieving #1 requires seven deaths.
How irrelevant when pro-life people have nothing to do with taser policies of the OKCPD. What were you even thinking? What were you getting at?
Yes, I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life. (It's been surprising that this fact is immediately obvious to some viewers and almost incomprehensible to others.) Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care? Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born? Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.") "Life" is a huge concept, so I'm saying a truly "pro life" stance should incorporate a broad range of social commitments.
Now, if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth." Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth. Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here. Which is fine if that's their thing, but then they should at least be honest about it and stop pretending they're on some kind of holy crusade, because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the population. Pro birth.
Rho, I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good government. Suffice it to say we are on different ends of that spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism -- whether through government or through the workings of the private sector, churches, what have you -- Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life
Then you need to call it something else. Pro-socialist-utopia would probably fit your agenda better.
Someone's life can have low and high quality.
The legislation you referenced was a personhood bill whose obvious and stated agenda is to challenge the legality of abortion, and abortion is not a quality of life issue when it comes to children. It is a life/death issue. You're making a category error and bending the issue of abortion to try to pressure pro-life people, implying that a pro-life person is inconsistent if he is not also pro-socialistic-utopia.
You have yet to prove that this inconsistency exists beyond your own imagination, however.
Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care
Before I can answer that, I need you to be more specific. What does that ranking mean and refer to? Are you referring to #47 among all states in terms of gov't spending on early prenatal care?
Why is it necessary to spend loads of money on early prenatal care?
Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born?
1) People have lived in poverty since the dawn of humanity. I'm not all that happy about it, but I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work). can the gov't fix poverty?
It's been trying for decades and it hasn't been successful. Maybe we should try something else.
2) Again, why is it inconsistent for a pro-life person to think that even though 25% of children will grow up in poverty, it shouldn't be legal to murder children in the womb?
Where's the connection?
Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.")
Category error - a pro-life person is not in favor of premature deaths. Also, premature deaths are not intentional like abortion is.
Do you not realise the amazing irony of this? You're decrying premature deaths and yet you are complaining that the OK Legislature was considering outlawing abortions? Abortion is premature death caused by murder.
if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth.
Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. This is focusing in the wrong area. Rather, we are quite concerned that nobody be allowed to murder human beings with impunity just b/c of their age and level of development. That involves women since that's where very young humans live for their first 9 months.
And let me say this - duh. If you were really concerned with quality of life, you'd be concerned with the fundamental and necessary precondition for quality of life - LIFE.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to murdering their children.
Fixed it for you.
Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here
You have a long way to go before you substantiate this assertion. Just b/c I don't favor a socialistic utopia doesn't mean I don't care what happens to you once you're here.
because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the populatio
Is it controlling men to say that it's not OK to violate women's human rights (by raping them)?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
Is it controlling drivers to say that it's illegal to drive 140 mph in a school zone?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
The question is not WHETHER behavior will be proscribed, but WHICH.
As for running up the population, what are you concerned about? Ever been to west Texas? How about Kansas?
I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good governmen
That's probably a good move; you might have to justify the massive amounts of wasteful spending that the federal and state governments perform. That would be difficult I think.
Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
You need to be more specific, then. When you say #47 in prenatal care, you need to tell us:
1) what that is measuring
2) in what terms
3) what that encompasses
4) why it's necessary.
Good luck!
Your debate style involves pressing your interlocutor to establish all the terms and premises of his own position while you permit yourself wildly presumptuous moves -- e.g., disregarding the difference between outcomes rankings and spending rankings; equating public spending with "pro-socialistic-utopia;" and -- the main show -- characterizing abortion as "murder" -- a claim that has zero standing under U.S. jurisprudence. If you can keep me busy defining terms like "pre-natal care," then you can use the down time to rail on about baby murder. It's a clever tactic to sandbag your opponent, but I recognize it as such and, since you are not holding yourself to the same standard, politely decline your homework assignments.
As for particular statistics and what they mean, you can find links to my sources in my YouTube video description. This is where you would learn, for example, that United Health Foundation defines Early Prenatal Care as "Percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care during the first trimester," which, while borderline tautological, is by no means the measure of public spending that you are so ready to assume.
I understand your desire to maintain an exclusive association between "pro life" and "anti abortion," but I don't confine my ideas to your preferences. I reserve the right to re-appropriate these terms in my own way, if for no other reason than to prompt people to think about the extent of our obligations to each other and how they might best be fulfilled. If anything, the onus should fall upon those claiming to be "pro life" to justify such a broad label for such a singular concern; and, again, I propose that "pro birth" is the more accurate term.
I will sign off here, but thanks for the opportunity to post and for investing the time and effort in the conversation.
Hi DEFishback,
Your debate style involves pressing your interlocutor to establish all the terms and premises of his own position
LOL, yes, how dare I insist that an opponent define his own terms!
Perhaps you'd prefer that I define them for you? That's how strawmen are erected and it's hardly conducive to rational debate.
That said, you've done a lovely job of RE-defining the term "pro-life", so I wanted to try to get a handle on what else you'd want to re-define before we proceed.
disregarding the difference between outcomes rankings and spending rankings
I didn't disregard them. I asked you to tell us which one you were using, why, and what relevance it has. You made the video; you substantiate your points.
equating public spending with "pro-socialistic-utopia"
You're the one saying that more money should be spent by the gov't (aren't you?) to advance these levels of citizen-care. Tell me why I'm not right in calling it what I did.
the main show -- characterizing abortion as "murder" -- a claim that has zero standing under U.S. jurisprudence.
The astute reader will note that I have a long written history of using that terminology, and my meaning shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Indeed the entire enterprise of abolition revolves around making jurisprudence reflect morally upright ideas. If the jurisprudence is no good, let us change the jurisprudence.
Put DEFishback's argument in the mouth of a 19th century slaveowner:
<>
Now what do we have? We have an unjust elevation of jurisprudence to where it ought not be.
If you can keep me busy defining terms like "pre-natal care,"
Asking you to define your terms is "keeping you busy"?
You went to the trouble of uploading a video to YouTube; you made those little flashcards. Asking you to substantiate your points is "keeping you busy", though, eh? OK.
since you are not holding yourself to the same standard
1) Gosh, if only I had a blog wherein I described my thoughts on topics like this and defined my terms!
2) You need but ask me to define my terms. I can't read your mind.
United Health Foundation defines Early Prenatal Care as "Percentage of pregnant women receiving prenatal care during the first trimester," which, while borderline tautological, is by no means the measure of public spending that you are so ready to assume.
See, instead of whining, you could have just said that and we could continue.
Now, the whys and wherefores. Make the connection between that fact and Oklahoma not being very pro-life. What is your argument that this is an important statistic?
And why cite this stat when:
- your argument is that the OK Legislature has more important matters to attend to, and yet
- you deny that you're necessarily endorsing more gov't spending in this area?
See the problem yet?
I understand your desire to maintain an exclusive association between "pro life" and "anti abortion," but I don't confine my ideas to your preferences.
I won't deny that I have an agenda in that area, but surely you'd agree that "pro-life" has a specific meaning in modern American discourse, and it's always in the area of abortion?
Thus my insistence that you justify your re-definition.
to prompt people to think about the extent of our obligations to each other
1) You mean by not murdering them in the womb when they're helpless and have no voice?
2) What precisely is my obligation to a pregnant woman in Oklahoma who is receiving not very much prenatal care?
How about to all pregnant women (plural) in OK?
What is your argument that this obligation exists such that the gov't should spend more of my tax money on it?
What is your argument that it should be the gov't and not private enterprises such as family, individuals, churches, and other NGOs that deal with this issue?
thanks for the opportunity to post and for investing the time and effort in the conversation.
Anytime.
Oops -
the main show -- characterizing abortion as "murder" -- a claim that has zero standing under U.S. jurisprudence.
The astute reader will note that I have a long written history of using that terminology, and my meaning shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Indeed the entire enterprise of abolition revolves around making jurisprudence reflect morally upright ideas. If the jurisprudence is no good, let us change the jurisprudence.
Put DEFishback's argument in the mouth of a 19th century slaveowner:
--the main show -- characterizing slavery as "dehumanisation" -- a claim that has zero standing under U.S. jurisprudence.--
#1 OF 2 (Split due to length)
Well, on the strength of a good night's sleep and a cup of coffee, I am back at least this time, with no promises going forward.
I generally don't like the "excerpt and answer" style of debate because it tends to pull things out of context and shift the focus to quick, cheap points instead of sustained lines of thought. But since you favor that approach, I thought I'd return some of it to you.
I didn't disregard them. I asked you to tell us which one you were using, why, and what relevance it has. You made the video; you substantiate your points.
"Which one you were using?" The measures are stated in the video. Those are the ones I was using. I provided source links for those wanting to take a closer look, but I did not feel it necessary to perform deep exegisis on basic terms such as "bad roads" and "exports."
(By the way, I see that since I made my video, Oklahoma 21st Century has issued a new 2012 ACE Book. I haven't read it yet but will.)
See, instead of whining, you could have just said that and we could continue.
Or, Instead of asking me to define it, you could have paid attention in the first place.
Your use of the term "whining" is inaccurate and needlessly hostile, as are many of your rhetorical choices (e.g. "Duh"). You could raise the maturity level of your discourse by avoiding these.
The astute reader will note that I have a long written history of using that terminology, and my meaning shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
It's not the clarity I question, but the validity. You might have a long written history of being wrong.
[S]urely you'd agree that "pro-life" has a specific meaning in modern American discourse...
I agree that it has a conventional meaning. I am bucking that convention. But if these things disturb you, you should also question those who have appropriated "abolitionist" language and imagery out of their standard historical context.
Thus my insistence that you justify your re-definition.
I've explained my distinction between "pro life" and "pro birth" with enough clarity so that others may agree, disagree and/or offer refinements. Many I've talked to find this distinction useful. Getting you to like it is not a priority for me. (And again, for the sake of consistent principles, you should also insist that the new "abolitionists" justify their re-definitions.)
You're the one saying that more money should be spent by the gov't (aren't you?)...
Aren't I? You have faulted me on this repeatedly; were you not sure?
Since you failed to notice, I will point out that of the statistics I cite in the video, only two are expenditure rankings -- public education spending per pupil, and research and development spending. The 2011 Oklahoma ACE book does not define R&D spending, but judging from the underlying dollar values, this measure must be substantially or entirely comprised of private expenditures, not public.
Whether or not increased government spending is the best solution, I would like Oklahoma's leaders to spend some time and attention on the issues noted in the video and to offer ideas for improvement. I think an increasing number of my fellow citizens are feeling the same way.
Tell me why I'm not right in calling it what I did.
You must be kidding. You have not defined "pro-socialist utopia," much less justified your application of the term to what you perceive as my agenda, so it is erroneous to put the burden on me to prove you wrong. You need to justify your use of the term through an affirmative argument. This is what I was saying before: You give yourself free rein while trying to sandbag the other guy with the trench work. Pull your own weight. And to that point...
#2 OF 2 (Split due to length)
You need but ask me to define my terms.
If I were to take you up on the offer, I might ask the following, for starters:
1) Define "life."
2) Define "murder."
3) Justify your claim that abortion is murder.
4) In re. changing jurisprudence: Define "morally upright ideas." Delineate the criteria by which morally upright ideas are distinguished from other ideas, and justify those criteria.
5) Explain what types and levels of public spending are appropriate (if any), and why. (And if none, why not.)
6) Define what you mean by "socialism," and provide criteria to differentiate it from any legitimate public spending you may have noted above.
7) Justify the claim that "Socialism is a foolish and evil system." (Be sure to establish "foolish" and "evil.")
8) Define "pro-socialist utopia" and justify your suggestion that this is my aim.
9) Substantiate the claim "I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work)." Be sure to explain how you determine whether people are "willing to work," apart from the tautology of attributing unwillingness to work based on their status as economically uncomfortable.
10) Explain the way in which you "care," and why your type of "caring" seems to proscribe public expenditures.
11) Distinguish "edjamakayshun" from "education."
12) Justify your claim that "Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term" when this is a necessary condition of ending abortion.
We could turn this into an interminable undertaking, but I would not expect you to devote that much time, especially since I am not prepared to reciprocate, given the offline responsibilities that require my attention.
Shoot, I meant to include this, too, but missed it...
Put DEFishback's argument in the mouth of a 19th century slaveowner...
This is a common trick, and empty. If my statement (not argument) had substantive flaws, you should be able to address those without putting my argument into someone else's mouth.
This rhetorical move supports the following fallacious thinking:
1) Slavery was wrong.
2) Slavery was legal.
3) Therefore, "XYZ," which I consider wrong, should also not be legal.
I think of this as the "Hitler drank milk, too" fallacy.
To recap:
My video makes these points:
1) Oklahoma dramatically lags in several basic measures of economic development and quality of life.
2) The legislature should spend time on these issues instead of on reproductive bills that pander to the religious right.
3) A properly "pro life" stance should account for the quality of life outside the womb.
My video does NOT speak to:
4) The case for abortion as an element of reproductive choice.
5) Specific public spending targets.
The objection that you raise to my video is primarly based on #4 and #5, as shown by your emphasis on "murdering babies" and "pro-socialist utopia," and secondarily based on my use of terminology with #3. I've explained my position on #3. I have no need to engage you on #4 and #5, which you have imposed as strawmen while dismissing the actual substance of my video as "irrelevant." If it appears irrelevant to you, it is only because you have ignored what my message actually is in favor of what you pretend it to be. That is your "foolishness," not mine.
I generally don't like the "excerpt and answer" style of debate because it tends to pull things out of context and shift the focus to quick, cheap points instead of sustained lines of thought.
That might be true if the context weren't easily available by pressing Page Up a few times, or if I deleted comments. Neither are the case.
I did not feel it necessary to perform deep exegisis on basic terms such as "bad roads" and "exports."
That's part of the problem, though. One could legitimately complain to the OK Legislature about bad roads, since they're the ones responsible. The gov't doesn't export products, though.
So you make a video complaining that the OK Legislature is using its time unwisely, then complain about various things that the Legislature has very little control over. Ironically, although high taxation rates can stifle things like production of goods and export thereof, you also complained about a recent tax cut.
It's not the clarity I question, but the validity (of equating abortion with murder).
What I was trying to get at was that I have defended that claim elsewhere at great length, and refuted objections to that equation countless times and with little difficulty. The case against the equation is very weak.
But if these things disturb you, you should also question those who have appropriated "abolitionist" language and imagery out of their standard historical context.
See, I've argued for why you are wrong to appropriate the term "pro-life" for your own idiosyncratic purposes. You haven't really argued for why you're right to do so.
We've also argued at great length for our taking up the abolitionist appellation. Sure, those who think baby-murder is fine and legitimate will complain, but complaints are not arguments.
you should also insist that the new "abolitionists" justify their re-definitions
Done and done. For the sake of not wasting time, you should probably do some reading before making ignorant criticisms.
only two are expenditure rankings -- public education spending per pupil, and research and development spending.
R&D is gov't spending?
-You also cited roads - that's generally gov't purview.
-You decried bad tax policy and setting aside $ in the rainy day fund.
-Early prenatal care - a great deal of that is gov't funded.
-Children in poverty
Other things are more or less irrelevant to the OK Legislature, which is another thing that confuses me about your video:
-Child immunisations
-PC physician population
-Bachelor's degree attainment
-premature death
I would like Oklahoma's leaders to spend some time and attention on the issues noted in the video and to offer ideas for improvement.
This is where my (slightly hyperbolic) criticism of your position as desirous of socialist utopia comes into play. You look to the gov't to solve these problems (some of which are merely problems in your own mind). I say the gov't makes things worse most of the time. Let's solve our own problems and shrink the incompetency level in gov't by shrinking the gov't.
You have not defined "pro-socialist utopia,"
Not difficult to figure out my meaning, honestly, if one is familiar with a little history.
1) Define "life."
Already done in previous comments.
2) Define "murder."
Unjustified taking of human life.
3) Justify your claim that abortion is murder.
blog.abolishhumanabortion.com
rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/abortion
Been over that many, many times.
4) In re. changing jurisprudence: Define "morally upright ideas." Delineate the criteria by which morally upright ideas are distinguished from other ideas, and justify those criteria.
Morally upright ideas = that which agrees with the character of God as revealed in His WOrd.
They are that way b/c they come from God, Who is the very definition of good.
We can know that because of the impossibility of the contrary, and I've argued that very thing many times here on this blog.
5) Explain what types and levels of public spending are appropriate (if any), and why. (And if none, why not.)
This is better done on a case-by-case basis. I don't have time to try to write a book and you don't have time to read it.
6) Define what you mean by "socialism," and provide criteria to differentiate it from any legitimate public spending you may have noted above.
IN this case, I'm criticising your looking to the gov't to solve your problems and wanting the gov't to redistribute wealth. That's socialism.
7) Justify the claim that "Socialism is a foolish and evil system." (Be sure to establish "foolish" and "evil.")
David Chilton took care of that for me.
8) Define "pro-socialist utopia" and justify your suggestion that this is my aim.
Explained above.
9) Substantiate the claim "I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work)." Be sure to explain how you determine whether people are "willing to work," apart from the tautology of attributing unwillingness to work based on their status as economically uncomfortable.
Unwilling to work = ability and opportunity exist and yet the person does not take advantage of it.
Not very hard.
10) Explain the way in which you "care," and why your type of "caring" seems to proscribe public expenditures.
Via taxes, the gov't takes my money by force, wastes most of it, and then redistributes it as it sees fit.
Via DONATIONS, I give assistance to those who need it by my own free will.
Also not very hard.
11) Distinguish "edjamakayshun" from "education."
The former is my way of expressing contempt for a gov't school system that spends tons of money on students and yet achieves poor results.
12) Justify your claim that "Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term" when this is a necessary condition of ending abortion.
This may be surprising to you, but just b/c you think people who are different from you have singular (and evil) motivations for doing what they do does not actually make it so.
Our aim is to make sure that the rights to life of the weakest and smallest are protected. That is our obsession.
http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#youre-forcing-women-to-be-in-agony-for-9-months
We could turn this into an interminable undertaking
Interestingly, I just showed you what it's like to actually answer questions.
1) Slavery was wrong.
2) Slavery was legal.
3) Therefore, "XYZ," which I consider wrong, should also not be legal.
I think of this as the "Hitler drank milk, too" fallacy.
You missed the reason why I brought it up, actually, so that speaks poorly to your grasp of the flow of the conversation.
You had said: the main show -- characterizing abortion as "murder" -- a claim that has zero standing under U.S. jurisprudence.
You were dismissing the abortion=murder contention based on its legal status.
I rebutted it. You can call it a cute name, but you need to make an argument.
My video makes these points:
1) Oklahoma dramatically lags in several basic measures of economic development and quality of life.
a) And a lot of that is not the gov't's job to fix.
b) Yet protecting the lives of its citizens from murder IS the gov't's job to fix (thus, personhood).
c) A lot of that is outside the ability of the gov't to affect much.
d) Some of that would get better with lower taxes, but you're against tax cuts.
2) The legislature should spend time on these issues instead of on reproductive bills that pander to the religious right.
a) The legislature should spend less time on EVERYthing.
b) Except things that have to do with human rights violations. Those are kind of important.
3) A properly "pro life" stance should account for the quality of life outside the womb.
I agree. But that is not the same as saying, as you're saying in your video:
A properly "pro life" stance should complain until the gov't steps in and rights all the world's wrongs.
My video does NOT speak to ...specific public spending targets.
That may be even worse than what you did say.
You don't have targets, you just want MORE SPENDING. WE MUST THROW MORE MONEY AT THESE PROBLEMS!!
Wow. Sumbuddy's got sum MaD g00gel skilz.
I are impressificated.
Post a Comment