Religions > Bible > DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2005 08:59:20 AM |
| Object: |
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
1. "Moral Relativism" --- What is it, REALLY?
Klusendorf had THIS to say about it:
"Don't force your morality on me."
A student at a Southern California college said this to
me after I made a case for the pro-life position in her
sociology class. She was in effect saying, Morality is
relative; it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong.
We call this moral relativism, the belief that there are no
objective standards of right and wrong, only personal
preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views
as being equal to our own.
His FIRST mistake. MIS-identifying, and in effect (and
probably literally) LYING about that which can properly be
called "moral relativism."
Much of that which BIGOTS like to think are "moral
absolutes" are anything BUT. The notion that there's any-
thing at all wrong (or "immoral") about abortion is a good
example of such flawed thinking.
Scott said, in so many words, that moral relativism is "the
belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong."
That is incorrect. People who practice moral relativism
know that the BOTTOM LINE of morality is whether or not
a person's (or group's) actions do -- or are likely to do -- overt
harm to other people. And it can be summed up very
succinctly by the Golden Rule. (Which happens even to be
Biblical, by the way. For the benefit of those to whom the
Bible in meaningful, myself included, it occurs three times in
the Bible, in various wordings. And even more importantly,
most of what the Bible teaches ALIGNS with that most basic
of all precepts.)
So much for Klusendorf's very SKEWED and narrow view
of moral relativism.
ACTUAL moral relativism is more commonly called by
different terminology: COMMON SENSE.
Let's continue, and watch Scott dig himself even deeper.
Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three
reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live
by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say
that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is im-
possible to live as a relativist.
1) Relativism is self-refuting -- it commits intellectual
suicide. The student said it was wrong for me to
force my views on others, but she could not live
with her own rule. Although our dialogue was
pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
Wrong. She did no such thing. But the dialogue that
follows provides us with an EXCELLENT example of the weasel-
wording and conniving that the more ADEPT Anti-Choicers --
such as the RRR cult's oligarchical leaders -- employ to CON
the gullible... and sometimes even relatively-intelligent people
who either DESIRE to think they are right, or who don't
bother to scrutinize what they say carefully enough.
Student: You made some good points in your talk, but
you shouldn't force your morality on me or anyone
else who wants an abortion. It's our choice, isn't it?
Me: Are you saying I'm wrong?
Student: I'm not sure. What do you mean?
Me: Well, you think I'm wrong, don't you? If not,
why are you correcting me? And if so, then you're
forcing your morality on me, aren't you?
Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling
people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Me: Are you saying I shouldn't do that? That it's
wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I
can and cannot do? Why are you forcing your
morality on me?
Student (regrouping): I'm confused. Look, the simple
fact is that pro-choicers are not
forcing women to have abortions, but you want
to force women to be mothers. If you don't like
abortion, don't have one. But you shouldn't force
your beliefs on others. All I am saying is that pro-life
people should be tolerant of other views.
Me: Is that your view?
Student: Yes.
Me: Why are you forcing it on me? That's not very
tolerant, is it?
Student: What do you mean? I think women should
have a choice and you don't. It's your view that's
intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Me: Okay, so you think I'm wrong. What is it you
want pro-lifers like me to do?
Student: You should let women decide for themselves
and tolerate other views.
Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Student: We believe everyone should decide for them-
selves and tolerate other views.
Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become
pro-choicers.
NOTICE that tactic! She had done NO such thing. A
Pro-Choicer defends women's right to access **either** the
option of gestating-to-term OR the option of obtaining an
abortion, FREE of outside interference or coercion in either
direction. She was not even remotely asking him to do that.
She was doing no more than asking him NOT to interfere
with others as they make that personal and PRIVATE (as in,
NONE of his business) decision.
Around 1/3 of all Americans in their teens and older disagree
with abortion. But only 5% of them are actually Anti-Choice in
their actions. Using those figures (of which I've documented
the accuracy in many other posts) that's around 73,000,000
people who are sensible enough to mind their own business
while disagreeing with abortion, and 4,000,000 actual Anti-
Choice busybodies.
The student was simply asking him to have enough
common sense NOT to be a busybody.
Student: What?
Me: With all due respect, here's what I hear you
saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not
tolerate my view.
See that? She said NO such thing. She was simply
asking him NOT to be publicly intolerant of the rights of
others. A very legitimate request. The same thing that the
blacks (and their allies from other races) had to say to the
active segregationists, 40+ years ago.
Privately, you'll let me think whatever I want, but you
don't want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you
think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with
you.
No. She clearly regarded INtolerance of the rights of
others NOT to be a virtue. And she was right!
One more example of this tactic of TWISTING fair-mind-
edness to make it look like intolerance:
While driving my sons to a recent baseball game at Dodger
Stadium, a young woman in a white pickup truck began
tailgating me. Visibly angered by a pro-life sticker on my
rear window, she stayed on my bumper for a mile or so.
Finally, she pulled beside me and extended a certain part of
her anatomy skyward as she passed. She then cut in front
of me.
At that moment, I noticed a bumper sticker on her truck. It
said, "Celebrate Diversity." The message was clear: In a
pluralistic society, we should tolerate the views of others.
Ironically, the driver saw no contradiction between her
unwillingness to tolerate (or celebrate) my point of view
and her bumper sticker that said we should tolerate all
points of view. That is what I mean when I say that
relativism is self-refuting.
Celebrating diversity does not mean accepting hatefulness
as a portion of that which comprises diversity, any more than it
would mean accepting Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Her bumper
sticker defended the right of people NOT to be subjected to
discrimination and intolerance, and *yours* advocated INtoler-
ance, and supported an agenda that overtly seeks to FORCE
millions of women to gestate-to-term against their will. So you got
the Fickle Finger of Fate Award from her for that. You deserved it.
It was as though a black person in Alabama in 1958 had
had a bumper sticker that read, "Fairness Now!" and a
segregationist had a bumper sticker that said, "Keep Ni***rs
in their Place!"
Would the black person have been wrong for opposing
bigotry? Would the segregationist have been right for seeking
to continue the bigotry? Of course not. And it was the same
with that woman's liberty-defending sticker, and your bigoted one.
You're one very CLEVER cookie, Klusendorf. But not
nearly clever enough, when your arguments are subjected to
scrutiny. NOR are the RRR cult's leaders.
The only problem is that **not enough** people are looking
that closely at their weasel-worded but vacous rhetoric. And
hopefully, that is changing.
[[[ The writer of the above article may never see my
rebuttals of it. But that's not important. What IS
important is that many people can see a bright
spotlight being shined on the unscrupulous con-
artist tactics that are employed by people who
are -- unfortunately -- both astute, but bigoted. ]]]
Scott Klusendorf is Director of Bio-Ethics
at "Stand to Reason." www.str.org
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 2. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 2 |
16 Jan 2005 10:46:59 AM |
|
|
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 2
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
2. "Moral Relativism" vs. MIS-perceived "Moral Absolutes"
Klusendorf said:
When pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong
because it takes the life of a defenseless child, they are
making a particular type of claim. Specifically, they are
making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of
abortion.
No -- they are merely stating an OPINION of what they
THINK is a moral claim. In reality, abortion has NO effect
on *any* children -- "defenseless" or otherwise.
(Note Klusendorf's employment of a widely-used tactic
of the Anti-Choicers: a lame attempt to elicit an emothional
response from the gullibel people that their propaganda
targets. In this case twofold -- referring to a mere, NON-
sentient fetus that couldn't care less about anything any more
than could the embryo, zygote, or gametes that preceded it,
one, two, and three stages earlier, respectively... as being
"defenseless" and a "child.")
And when it comes to the "rightness" and 'wrongness"
of abortion, the reality is that there is NOTHING wrong with
it. Abortion is nothing more than a harmless, but hugely-
beneficial REMEDY for the unwanted medical condition of
ill-timed pregnancy for all girls and women who CHOOSE to
access it.
FACT: Gametes are the entities that comprise Stage One
of the reproductive process. Each is human (adj.),
and alive.* Each represents a unique person who will never
be born if it dies. And the other three stages of the repro-
ductive process -- zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses -- share
those SAME characteristics. But Anti-Choicers selectively
defend around 4,000 potential people of the later three
stages (per day, in the USA) that are aborted -- while
hypocritically IGNORING the more than **quadrillion**
potential people at Stage One that are electively aborted
daily, worldwide, by men. Can the gametes BE defended?
Of course not. SHOULD unwanted zygotes, embryoes,
and fetuses be defended? Of course not. NOT at the
the expense of the well-being, rights, and future oppor-
tunities of the millions of women that Anti-Choicers seek
to FORCE full-term gestation upon. That would be tanta-
mount to an agonizingly-prolonged, 9-month-long form of
**rape.**
* So much for the oft-spoken but incorrect notion
that "life begins at fertilization." Not unless one
can bring about a LIVE zygote by combining
DEAD gametes. And if any given living person is
mentally reverse-engineered, we find that there
was a period of time when the entities that ultimately
became him was a pair of gametes that hadn't yet
met. Whose DNA, **summed**, was the SAME as
his own DNA as a person.
For those to whom the Bible is meaningful (myself included),
it NEVER defends reproductive-process entities as "people,"
and does so just *once*, as PROPERTY. In a passage that
**condones** SLAVERY. (Ex. 21:20-25).
ALL human entities that the Bible defends have been BORN.
And the Bible makes it clear that **personhood** begins at
*birth* in its passages dealing with "first-BORNS" and "BIRTH-
rights."
Moral claims ... can be evaluated as true or false based
on the evidence.
They most certainly CAN, Scott. And while NO relevant
FACTS support **forcing** women to gestate-to-term against their
will, the facts that support the ensuring that they will forevermore
NEVER be denied ACCESS to the remedy of safe & legal abortion,
upon request, are ABUNDANT! As can be seen in the outline,
below ---
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensible to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
"Moral relativism" is actually better defined as being COMMON
SENSE, Scott. And it's based on the Golden Rule -- which is the
underlying theme of the bible. No relevant facts argue against
ready access to safe & legal abortion upon request.
[[[ The writer of the above article may never see my
rebuttals of it. But that's not important. What IS
important is that many people can see a bright
spotlight being shined on the unscrupulous con-
artist tactics that are employed by people who
are -- unfortunately -- both astute, but callously
bigoted. ]]]
Scott Klusendorf is Director of Bio-Ethics
at "Stand to Reason." www.str.org
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 3. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 3 |
16 Jan 2005 09:53:54 PM |
|
|
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
3. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 3
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
This is the concluding portion of my debunking of his arguments
against moral relativism. In his article Klusendorf said:
It is impossible for a moral relativist to say that anything
is wrong, including intolerance.
WRONG. Instantly and immediately, right out of the gate!
God didn't create us as a race of automatons. He made it
possible for MOST people to be born with pretty effective cognitive
abilities. Thus, based upon what the Bible says, it's a good bet that
He wanted His race of human beings to use their heads for more
than hat racks. And THAT means weighing a complex range of
factors all the time, and making the best decisions that we can.
There ARE some moral absolutes, and those are detailed in the
Ten Commandments. Most of those are still relevant today, with the
possible exception of the one about the Sabbath -- which *may* be
applicable to only the Jews. And most of those deal specifically with
the way that people interact with each other in society.
But all of *those* Commandments have a very distict common
denominator, that can be paraphrased thusly: "Don't mistreat your
neighbor, any more than you would like to be mistreated by him."
In other words -- the Golden Rule.
And THAT is the underpinning of the "moral relativity" that most
people practice. Some better than others. But MOST try to live by
it. Keep that in mind as we proceed.
If morals are relative, then who are you to say that I should
be tolerant?
All sensible moral relativists function in accordance with the
Golden Rule. Those who don't are not moral relativists; they are
renegades. Moral relativism, which is both honorable and sensible,
should never be wrongly painted by the brush that only the rene-
gades deserve.
Perhaps my individual morality says intolerance is just
fine. Why, then, should I allow anyone to force tolerance on
me as a virtue if my preference is intolerance?
A person whose preference would be for intolerance
would not be a moral relativist. He would be a renegade.
And you, as an Anti-Choicer, have first-hand, up-close-and-
personal experience with being one of those. Because as
much as you may try to deny it, your stance against abortion
is supported by NO facts. NO "absolutes." (If you think the
Bible supports yo on that, check out Part 2 of my response
to you with respect to moral relativism.) Thus, you are
Anti-Choice on your OWN hook. Which makes you a giant
step worse that the "moral relativists" you criticize. Because
your Anti-Choice stance, UNsupported by relevant facts,
makes you a renegade. A sociopathic renegade whose
agenda seeks to FORCE women to gestate-to-term whether
they want to or not.
The truth is, a moral relativist cannot legitimately say
that anything is wrong or truly evil.
Wrong again. He certainly can. If he regards actions that
do intentional and overt harm to others to be wrong, and actions
that defend others from being harmed to be right, and acts
accordingly, he will be a valuable contribution to the human
race pretty much ALL of the time.
If it is up to us to decide (rather than discover) right and
wrong, then there is no difference between Mother Theresa's
morality and Adolf Hitler's morality. Hitler was not evil,
he just had preferences different from our own.
Adolf Hitler was not a moral relativist. He lived in violation of
the Golden Rule most of the time, almost with impunity, thanks
to his bodyguards. He was the diametric OPPOSITE of a moral
relativist: an IMmoral relativist. An extremist renegade.
It is impossible to live as a moral relativist.
Wrong. MOST people are, and they survive just fine.
As C.S. Lewis points out, a person who claims there
is no objective morality will complain if you break a promise
or cut in line. And if you steal his stereo, he will protest loudly.
If I were a crook, I would reply to the relativist, Do you
think stealing stereos is wrong? Well, that's just your
view. My morality says it's perfectly acceptable. Who are
you to force your views on me? Simply put, moral relativists
espouse a view they cannot live with.
You (and apparently C.S. Lewis did as well) have Golden
Rule-based moral relativists confused with renegades.
Apples and oranges. Neither renegades nor purposeful
outlaws are anything at all like moral relativists. Golden Rule-
based moral relativism, you see, is popularly known by a
MUCH more easily-recognized term:
COMMON SENSE.
Ever heard of "what goes around comes around?"
People having common sense don't SEND something
around that will come back later to bite them in the butt.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 10:45:05 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41ed7a29.38480276@netnews.mchsi.com...
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 10:53:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:45:05 -0500,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
<Previous post RESTORED, below.>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
1. "Moral Relativism" --- What is it, REALLY?
Klusendorf had THIS to say about it:
"Don't force your morality on me."
A student at a Southern California college said this to
me after I made a case for the pro-life position in her
sociology class. She was in effect saying, Morality is
relative; it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong.
We call this moral relativism, the belief that there are no
objective standards of right and wrong, only personal
preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views
as being equal to our own.
His FIRST mistake. MIS-identifying, and in effect (and
probably literally) LYING about that which can properly be
called "moral relativism."
Much of that which BIGOTS like to think are "moral
absolutes" are anything BUT. The notion that there's any-
thing at all wrong (or "immoral") about abortion is a good
example of such flawed thinking.
Scott said, in so many words, that moral relativism is "the
belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong."
That is incorrect. People who practice moral relativism
know that the BOTTOM LINE of morality is whether or not
a person's (or group's) actions do -- or are likely to do -- overt
harm to other people. And it can be summed up very
succinctly by the Golden Rule. (Which happens even to be
Biblical, by the way. For the benefit of those to whom the
Bible in meaningful, myself included, it occurs three times in
the Bible, in various wordings. And even more importantly,
most of what the Bible teaches ALIGNS with that most basic
of all precepts.)
So much for Klusendorf's very SKEWED and narrow view
of moral relativism.
ACTUAL moral relativism is more commonly called by
different terminology: COMMON SENSE.
Let's continue, and watch Scott dig himself even deeper.
Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three
reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live
by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say
that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is im-
possible to live as a relativist.
1) Relativism is self-refuting -- it commits intellectual
suicide. The student said it was wrong for me to
force my views on others, but she could not live
with her own rule. Although our dialogue was
pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
Wrong. She did no such thing. But the dialogue that
follows provides us with an EXCELLENT example of the weasel-
wording and conniving that the more ADEPT Anti-Choicers --
such as the RRR cult's oligarchical leaders -- employ to CON
the gullible... and sometimes even relatively-intelligent people
who either DESIRE to think they are right, or who don't
bother to scrutinize what they say carefully enough.
Student: You made some good points in your talk, but
you shouldn't force your morality on me or anyone
else who wants an abortion. It's our choice, isn't it?
Me: Are you saying I'm wrong?
Student: I'm not sure. What do you mean?
Me: Well, you think I'm wrong, don't you? If not,
why are you correcting me? And if so, then you're
forcing your morality on me, aren't you?
Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling
people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Me: Are you saying I shouldn't do that? That it's
wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I
can and cannot do? Why are you forcing your
morality on me?
Student (regrouping): I'm confused. Look, the simple
fact is that pro-choicers are not
forcing women to have abortions, but you want
to force women to be mothers. If you don't like
abortion, don't have one. But you shouldn't force
your beliefs on others. All I am saying is that pro-life
people should be tolerant of other views.
Me: Is that your view?
Student: Yes.
Me: Why are you forcing it on me? That's not very
tolerant, is it?
Student: What do you mean? I think women should
have a choice and you don't. It's your view that's
intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Me: Okay, so you think I'm wrong. What is it you
want pro-lifers like me to do?
Student: You should let women decide for themselves
and tolerate other views.
Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Student: We believe everyone should decide for them-
selves and tolerate other views.
Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become
pro-choicers.
NOTICE that tactic! She had done NO such thing. A
Pro-Choicer defends women's right to access **either** the
option of gestating-to-term OR the option of obtaining an
abortion, FREE of outside interference or coercion in either
direction. She was not even remotely asking him to do that.
She was doing no more than asking him NOT to interfere
with others as they make that personal and PRIVATE (as in,
NONE of his business) decision.
Around 1/3 of all Americans in their teens and older disagree
with abortion. But only 5% of them are actually Anti-Choice in
their actions. Using those figures (of which I've documented
the accuracy in many other posts) that's around 73,000,000
people who are sensible enough to mind their own business
while disagreeing with abortion, and 4,000,000 actual Anti-
Choice busybodies.
The student was simply asking him to have enough
common sense NOT to be a busybody.
Student: What?
Me: With all due respect, here's what I hear you
saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not
tolerate my view.
See that? She said NO such thing. She was simply
asking him NOT to be publicly intolerant of the rights of
others. A very legitimate request. The same thing that the
blacks (and their allies from other races) had to say to the
active segregationists, 40+ years ago.
Privately, you'll let me think whatever I want, but you
don't want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you
think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with
you.
No. She clearly regarded INtolerance of the rights of
others NOT to be a virtue. And she was right!
One more example of this tactic of TWISTING fair-mind-
edness to make it look like intolerance:
While driving my sons to a recent baseball game at Dodger
Stadium, a young woman in a white pickup truck began
tailgating me. Visibly angered by a pro-life sticker on my
rear window, she stayed on my bumper for a mile or so.
Finally, she pulled beside me and extended a certain part of
her anatomy skyward as she passed. She then cut in front
of me.
At that moment, I noticed a bumper sticker on her truck. It
said, "Celebrate Diversity." The message was clear: In a
pluralistic society, we should tolerate the views of others.
Ironically, the driver saw no contradiction between her
unwillingness to tolerate (or celebrate) my point of view
and her bumper sticker that said we should tolerate all
points of view. That is what I mean when I say that
relativism is self-refuting.
Celebrating diversity does not mean accepting hatefulness
as a portion of that which comprises diversity, any more than it
would mean accepting Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Her bumper
sticker defended the right of people NOT to be subjected to
discrimination and intolerance, and *yours* advocated INtoler-
ance, and supported an agenda that overtly seeks to FORCE
millions of women to gestate-to-term against their will. So you got
the Fickle Finger of Fate Award from her for that. You deserved it.
It was as though a black person in Alabama in 1958 had
had a bumper sticker that read, "Fairness Now!" and a
segregationist had a bumper sticker that said, "Keep Ni***rs
in their Place!"
Would the black person have been wrong for opposing
bigotry? Would the segregationist have been right for seeking
to continue the bigotry? Of course not. And it was the same
with that woman's liberty-defending sticker, and your bigoted one.
You're one very CLEVER cookie, Klusendorf. But not
nearly clever enough, when your arguments are subjected to
scrutiny. NOR are the RRR cult's leaders.
The only problem is that **not enough** people are looking
that closely at their weasel-worded but vacous rhetoric. And
hopefully, that is changing.
[[[ The writer of the above article may never see my
rebuttals of it. But that's not important. What IS
important is that many people can see a bright
spotlight being shined on the unscrupulous con-
artist tactics that are employed by people who
are -- unfortunately -- both astute, but bigoted. ]]]
Scott Klusendorf is Director of Bio-Ethics
at "Stand to Reason." www.str.org
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 10:56:06 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41ed9ad5.3739506@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:45:05 -0500,
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
[snip] the unnecessary part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 11:19:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:56:06 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts like you are the
**opposite** of hateful. Which is obvious to everyone but the
tunnel-visioned and ignorant bigots, themselves.
And what *you* call "insults" are merely ACCURATE descriptors
that you EARN for yourself in almost every swill-filled post that you
put up.
<Previous post RESTORED, below.>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
1. "Moral Relativism" --- What is it, REALLY?
Klusendorf had THIS to say about it:
"Don't force your morality on me."
A student at a Southern California college said this to
me after I made a case for the pro-life position in her
sociology class. She was in effect saying, Morality is
relative; it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong.
We call this moral relativism, the belief that there are no
objective standards of right and wrong, only personal
preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views
as being equal to our own.
His FIRST mistake. MIS-identifying, and in effect (and
probably literally) LYING about that which can properly be
called "moral relativism."
Much of that which BIGOTS like to think are "moral
absolutes" are anything BUT. The notion that there's any-
thing at all wrong (or "immoral") about abortion is a good
example of such flawed thinking.
Scott said, in so many words, that moral relativism is "the
belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong."
That is incorrect. People who practice moral relativism
know that the BOTTOM LINE of morality is whether or not
a person's (or group's) actions do -- or are likely to do -- overt
harm to other people. And it can be summed up very
succinctly by the Golden Rule. (Which happens even to be
Biblical, by the way. For the benefit of those to whom the
Bible in meaningful, myself included, it occurs three times in
the Bible, in various wordings. And even more importantly,
most of what the Bible teaches ALIGNS with that most basic
of all precepts.)
So much for Klusendorf's very SKEWED and narrow view
of moral relativism.
ACTUAL moral relativism is more commonly called by
different terminology: COMMON SENSE.
Let's continue, and watch Scott dig himself even deeper.
Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three
reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live
by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say
that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is im-
possible to live as a relativist.
1) Relativism is self-refuting -- it commits intellectual
suicide. The student said it was wrong for me to
force my views on others, but she could not live
with her own rule. Although our dialogue was
pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
Wrong. She did no such thing. But the dialogue that
follows provides us with an EXCELLENT example of the weasel-
wording and conniving that the more ADEPT Anti-Choicers --
such as the RRR cult's oligarchical leaders -- employ to CON
the gullible... and sometimes even relatively-intelligent people
who either DESIRE to think they are right, or who don't
bother to scrutinize what they say carefully enough.
Student: You made some good points in your talk, but
you shouldn't force your morality on me or anyone
else who wants an abortion. It's our choice, isn't it?
Me: Are you saying I'm wrong?
Student: I'm not sure. What do you mean?
Me: Well, you think I'm wrong, don't you? If not,
why are you correcting me? And if so, then you're
forcing your morality on me, aren't you?
Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling
people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Me: Are you saying I shouldn't do that? That it's
wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I
can and cannot do? Why are you forcing your
morality on me?
Student (regrouping): I'm confused. Look, the simple
fact is that pro-choicers are not
forcing women to have abortions, but you want
to force women to be mothers. If you don't like
abortion, don't have one. But you shouldn't force
your beliefs on others. All I am saying is that pro-life
people should be tolerant of other views.
Me: Is that your view?
Student: Yes.
Me: Why are you forcing it on me? That's not very
tolerant, is it?
Student: What do you mean? I think women should
have a choice and you don't. It's your view that's
intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Me: Okay, so you think I'm wrong. What is it you
want pro-lifers like me to do?
Student: You should let women decide for themselves
and tolerate other views.
Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Student: We believe everyone should decide for them-
selves and tolerate other views.
Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become
pro-choicers.
NOTICE that tactic! She had done NO such thing. A
Pro-Choicer defends women's right to access **either** the
option of gestating-to-term OR the option of obtaining an
abortion, FREE of outside interference or coercion in either
direction. She was not even remotely asking him to do that.
She was doing no more than asking him NOT to interfere
with others as they make that personal and PRIVATE (as in,
NONE of his business) decision.
Around 1/3 of all Americans in their teens and older disagree
with abortion. But only 5% of them are actually Anti-Choice in
their actions. Using those figures (of which I've documented
the accuracy in many other posts) that's around 73,000,000
people who are sensible enough to mind their own business
while disagreeing with abortion, and 4,000,000 actual Anti-
Choice busybodies.
The student was simply asking him to have enough
common sense NOT to be a busybody.
Student: What?
Me: With all due respect, here's what I hear you
saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not
tolerate my view.
See that? She said NO such thing. She was simply
asking him NOT to be publicly intolerant of the rights of
others. A very legitimate request. The same thing that the
blacks (and their allies from other races) had to say to the
active segregationists, 40+ years ago.
Privately, you'll let me think whatever I want, but you
don't want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you
think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with
you.
No. She clearly regarded INtolerance of the rights of
others NOT to be a virtue. And she was right!
One more example of this tactic of TWISTING fair-mind-
edness to make it look like intolerance:
While driving my sons to a recent baseball game at Dodger
Stadium, a young woman in a white pickup truck began
tailgating me. Visibly angered by a pro-life sticker on my
rear window, she stayed on my bumper for a mile or so.
Finally, she pulled beside me and extended a certain part of
her anatomy skyward as she passed. She then cut in front
of me.
At that moment, I noticed a bumper sticker on her truck. It
said, "Celebrate Diversity." The message was clear: In a
pluralistic society, we should tolerate the views of others.
Ironically, the driver saw no contradiction between her
unwillingness to tolerate (or celebrate) my point of view
and her bumper sticker that said we should tolerate all
points of view. That is what I mean when I say that
relativism is self-refuting.
Celebrating diversity does not mean accepting hatefulness
as a portion of that which comprises diversity, any more than it
would mean accepting Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Her bumper
sticker defended the right of people NOT to be subjected to
discrimination and intolerance, and *yours* advocated INtoler-
ance, and supported an agenda that overtly seeks to FORCE
millions of women to gestate-to-term against their will. So you got
the Fickle Finger of Fate Award from her for that. You deserved it.
It was as though a black person in Alabama in 1958 had
had a bumper sticker that read, "Fairness Now!" and a
segregationist had a bumper sticker that said, "Keep Ni***rs
in their Place!"
Would the black person have been wrong for opposing
bigotry? Would the segregationist have been right for seeking
to continue the bigotry? Of course not. And it was the same
with that woman's liberty-defending sticker, and your bigoted one.
You're one very CLEVER cookie, Klusendorf. But not
nearly clever enough, when your arguments are subjected to
scrutiny. NOR are the RRR cult's leaders.
The only problem is that **not enough** people are looking
that closely at their weasel-worded but vacous rhetoric. And
hopefully, that is changing.
[[[ The writer of the above article may never see my
rebuttals of it. But that's not important. What IS
important is that many people can see a bright
spotlight being shined on the unscrupulous con-
artist tactics that are employed by people who
are -- unfortunately -- both astute, but bigoted. ]]]
Scott Klusendorf is Director of Bio-Ethics
at "Stand to Reason." www.str.org
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 11:23:38 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41f0a03f.5125322@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:56:06 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
How many abortions you got on your record already?
And, that is not a racist question.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts
That is what I do.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 02:01:43 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote
on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:23:38 -0500
<rpxGd.18752$tF.16471@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41f0a03f.5125322@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:56:06 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
How many abortions you got on your record already?
And, that is not a racist question.
How many dead women denied abortions are on yours? :-)
Fair play and all that.
If there is a secular requirement that all women be required
to provide sustenance to a part of themselves that might,
Universe and woman willing, become a bouncing baby boy or girl,
I for one would like to see it.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts
That is what I do.
Well OK, but IMO, judging from what's left of this thread,
you're not doing all that well. :-)
For the record, Google shows that Scott Klusendorf is a
pro-life speaker who, among other things, points out the
following rather interesting argument:
A couple of students walk by and he asks them why they
aren't having more pizza.
"It'll make you fat," they said.
"And we know that fat people are less human than thin
people, right?" he responds. [-]
"That's just your view," they reply.
"See they're getting the point already," Klusendorf
said.
(from http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/1999/1101/scottklusendorf110199.shtml )
An interesting argument, but it doesn't appear all
that relevant. For starters, every dead skin cell is a
potential human; it need only be implanted in a neutered
egg and then the result implanted in the body of a woman,
as far as I understand biology at this time (I'm not all
that expert therein). Have you scratched or bathed today?
For shame.
One can then go into "naturalist defense mode": sex is
natural; cloning via insertion of genetic material into
a denatured egg is not. The only subargment that makes
any sense at all here is the unusualness of the latter;
hundreds of millions of sex acts are performed each year
in the United States alone. Even then, there are no
violations of physical laws -- assuming one can violate
a physical law anyway, since the situation is that humans
write the law based on observations, not what the humans
want to enforce.
Perhaps we should enforce anti-abortion notions for a
while, given this sort of logic; if so, I see dead people
-- about 60-80 women in the US, given current mortality
rates, and far more in other parts of the world with
medical care that's, to put it gently, not quite as good.
What's the exchange rate of dead people for live unborn
babies? How is this defined? Does it depend on location
(of the mother, that is, not the baby!)?
The other logical extension is that contraception denies
the right for sperm to meet egg (the ones that deny the
zygote the right to meet the uterine lining being generally
no longer in use, AFAIK). Should we ban it?
How about when a man gets an erection? Even during
urination, a few sperm are lost; given different
circumstances, they might very well have formed half
of a union with an egg which leads to a baby. No way
for me to know, and I for one need to ***** sometime.
Or should every male use dialysis instead of his kidneys?
Can't be too careful.
And of course for every sperm that successfully makes
its mark, a very large number of other sperm lose out.
My understanding is that it's in the quintillions (10^18).
Considering that we're straining the Earth's resources
now with 6.3 billion *born* people, that's an awful lot
of half-babies to put in the orphanage. [*] [+]
To a far lesser extent a woman's eggs have the same
problem.
One can tread even further afield; a man and a woman meet
in a bar/street corner/in her apartment, and one thing
leads to another and she winds up pregnant. Another man
and a woman go the more moral route, as he proposes his
undying love with a bouquet and a box of chocolates and a
ring, she accepts, and gets to wear white at her wedding
ceremony [%] in a proper church/synagogue/mosque/etc. and
throws the bouquet to one of her friends/sisters/cousins.
She gets pregnant some time later. Which baby's more
important to save? Who decides, and when?
And then there's the seccy who, for whatever reason,
flirts with her boss. Hopefully that's rare, but she
could get pregnant, too. Not to mention the poor woman who
happens to pass by the wrong dark alley at the wrong time.
Depending on country, the rapist might get away with it,
too; apparently in Italy there's at least one case of
an acquittal because the woman was wearing an outfit
(a pair of tight jeans, apparently) which could not have
been removed without her consent -- presumably obtained
under duress with a knife or a gun:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,312284,00.html
Were I a young woman I'd not want to travel to Italy,
at least not without a large escort. :-) And even
then, there might be problems if they decide to get
frisky.
In all cases, the woman should apparently be forced
to carry for 8 1/2 months a reminder of her encounter;
apparently, that's the "moral" thing to do, whether the
baby was conceived "morally" (after marriage, with the
lights down low, and a romantic evening at home/in a hotel
with one's loved one), or "immorally" (before marriage, in
the alleyway, in the bar, in the dance club's restroom, in
a number of other places considered improper by so-called
"bluenoses" -- if not outright illegal by current law).
I personally would question that logic, strawman or no.
[snip]
[-] This gets tricky to attack or defend properly. Given a
"normal" human being (say, 75 Kg male, 60 Kg female; the
actual values are highly age-dependent, admittedly:
http://www.diet-and-health.net/Nutrients/rdas.html
and there are a number of issues not addressed, such
as physical appearance [bust/waist/hip size?!], hair,
voice accents, general cleanliness), those that are
grotesquely obese -- they do exist! -- are considered
weird, and may not be able to participate in normal
human activities (such as actually getting out of
the house!). Also, if someone is not considered
"normal", they may not be invited to participate
in some of those activities. Some of them involve
sex. :-) Of course a z/e/f doesn't exactly have the
wits to understand an invitation; they just grow.
But there is an implicit metric.
As one radio spot amusingly put it: "there is a
term for those people who can't tie their shoelaces
properly, are unable to feed themselves, and wouldn't
function at all without our help -- they're called
children". (Or something like that; it's been awhile.)
[*] I am not sure what to recommend in cutting down population growth.
From a moral standpoint, eugenics is repugnant. The best
solution apparently is to decrease the death rate and educate
women on how best they can decrease their birth rate by giving
them tools, both physical (contraceptives) and non-physical
(instruction/self-esteem boosting). The rest is up to them,
and maybe their partners and the economy in general.
[+] If all of them were to line up, 0.5 meter per person, at the
equator, the resulting queue would stretch around the world
over 75 times.
[%] Modify as necessary for other customs.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 03:09:34 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:eqqqb2-6l8.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In talk.abortion, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote
on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:23:38 -0500
<rpxGd.18752$tF.16471@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41f0a03f.5125322@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:56:06 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
How many abortions you got on your record already?
And, that is not a racist question.
How many dead women denied abortions are on yours? :-)
None.
Fair play and all that.
Zero.
If there is a secular requirement that all women be required
to provide sustenance to a part of themselves that might,
Universe and woman willing, become a bouncing baby boy or girl,
I for one would like to see it.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts
That is what I do.
Well OK, but IMO, judging from what's left of this thread,
you're not doing all that well. :-)
Sorry, I am really not interested in the rest of the message.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
17 Jan 2005 01:08:58 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
every dead skin cell is a
potential human; it need only be implanted in a neutered
egg and then the result implanted in the body of a woman,
as far as I understand biology at this time
When does it become an actual human?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
17 Jan 2005 07:00:21 AM |
|
|
In talk.abortion, wp123
<WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 16 Jan 2005 23:08:58 -0800
<1105945738.777367.8370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
every dead skin cell is a
potential human; it need only be implanted in a neutered
egg and then the result implanted in the body of a woman,
as far as I understand biology at this time
When does it become an actual human?
When someone actually does what I've described and it is born,
of course. I know of no such experiments, but Dolly the sheep
was cloned from a living cell taken from somewhere.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wp123" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
17 Jan 2005 05:09:34 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In talk.abortion, wp123
<WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 16 Jan 2005 23:08:58 -0800
<1105945738.777367.8370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
every dead skin cell is a
potential human; it need only be implanted in a neutered
egg and then the result implanted in the body of a woman,
as far as I understand biology at this time
When does it become an actual human?
When someone actually does what I've described and it is born,
What changes occur at birth that transform it into an actual human at
that point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 12:08:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:23:38 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
Nope. (Is asking idiotic questions that you already know the
answer to the best you can do?)
How many abortions you got on your record already?
That's like asking a personn how many aspirins they've taken in
their lifetime. JUST as relevant to anything of significance.
And being a guy, I've had no abortions. But as a clinic escort,
I have suddessfully guided many DOZENS of patients into clinics such
that Anti-Choice protestors were never even able to get NEAR them.
One can't beat driving them right up to the door in a car having
shades on the windows. The loons couldn't even IDENTIFY the
women.
And, that is not a racist question.
Yes it was. Or else it was a STUPID question. Either way, you
didn't do any damage to your public standing as a total LOON.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts like you are the
**opposite** of hateful. Which is obvious to everyone but the
tunnel-visioned and ignorant bigots, themselves.
That is what I do.
Precisely. You're a hate-filled and bigoted lout. This,
fair-minded people shine a bright spotlight on your idiocy.
And what *you* call "insults" are merely ACCURATE descriptors
that you EARN for yourself in almost every swill-filled post that you
put up.
<Original post that you rabbit-pathed away from is RESTORED, below.>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot. From there on, **everything** he
writes can very reasonably be taken with a grain of salt the
size of the Rock of Gibralter.
Let's debunk his bigotry in a series of point-by-point posts.
1. "Moral Relativism" --- What is it, REALLY?
Klusendorf had THIS to say about it:
"Don't force your morality on me."
A student at a Southern California college said this to
me after I made a case for the pro-life position in her
sociology class. She was in effect saying, Morality is
relative; it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong.
We call this moral relativism, the belief that there are no
objective standards of right and wrong, only personal
preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views
as being equal to our own.
His FIRST mistake. MIS-identifying, and in effect (and
probably literally) LYING about that which can properly be
called "moral relativism."
Much of that which BIGOTS like to think are "moral
absolutes" are anything BUT. The notion that there's any-
thing at all wrong (or "immoral") about abortion is a good
example of such flawed thinking.
Scott said, in so many words, that moral relativism is "the
belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong."
That is incorrect. People who practice moral relativism
know that the BOTTOM LINE of morality is whether or not
a person's (or group's) actions do -- or are likely to do -- overt
harm to other people. And it can be summed up very
succinctly by the Golden Rule. (Which happens even to be
Biblical, by the way. For the benefit of those to whom the
Bible in meaningful, myself included, it occurs three times in
the Bible, in various wordings. And even more importantly,
most of what the Bible teaches ALIGNS with that most basic
of all precepts.)
So much for Klusendorf's very SKEWED and narrow view
of moral relativism.
ACTUAL moral relativism is more commonly called by
different terminology: COMMON SENSE.
Let's continue, and watch Scott dig himself even deeper.
Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three
reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live
by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say
that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is im-
possible to live as a relativist.
1) Relativism is self-refuting -- it commits intellectual
suicide. The student said it was wrong for me to
force my views on others, but she could not live
with her own rule. Although our dialogue was
pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
Wrong. She did no such thing. But the dialogue that
follows provides us with an EXCELLENT example of the weasel-
wording and conniving that the more ADEPT Anti-Choicers --
such as the RRR cult's oligarchical leaders -- employ to CON
the gullible... and sometimes even relatively-intelligent people
who either DESIRE to think they are right, or who don't
bother to scrutinize what they say carefully enough.
Student: You made some good points in your talk, but
you shouldn't force your morality on me or anyone
else who wants an abortion. It's our choice, isn't it?
Me: Are you saying I'm wrong?
Student: I'm not sure. What do you mean?
Me: Well, you think I'm wrong, don't you? If not,
why are you correcting me? And if so, then you're
forcing your morality on me, aren't you?
Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling
people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Me: Are you saying I shouldn't do that? That it's
wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I
can and cannot do? Why are you forcing your
morality on me?
Student (regrouping): I'm confused. Look, the simple
fact is that pro-choicers are not
forcing women to have abortions, but you want
to force women to be mothers. If you don't like
abortion, don't have one. But you shouldn't force
your beliefs on others. All I am saying is that pro-life
people should be tolerant of other views.
Me: Is that your view?
Student: Yes.
Me: Why are you forcing it on me? That's not very
tolerant, is it?
Student: What do you mean? I think women should
have a choice and you don't. It's your view that's
intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Me: Okay, so you think I'm wrong. What is it you
want pro-lifers like me to do?
Student: You should let women decide for themselves
and tolerate other views.
Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Student: We believe everyone should decide for them-
selves and tolerate other views.
Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become
pro-choicers.
NOTICE that tactic! She had done NO such thing. A
Pro-Choicer defends women's right to access **either** the
option of gestating-to-term OR the option of obtaining an
abortion, FREE of outside interference or coercion in either
direction. She was not even remotely asking him to do that.
She was doing no more than asking him NOT to interfere
with others as they make that personal and PRIVATE (as in,
NONE of his business) decision.
Around 1/3 of all Americans in their teens and older disagree
with abortion. But only 5% of them are actually Anti-Choice in
their actions. Using those figures (of which I've documented
the accuracy in many other posts) that's around 73,000,000
people who are sensible enough to mind their own business
while disagreeing with abortion, and 4,000,000 actual Anti-
Choice busybodies.
The student was simply asking him to have enough
common sense NOT to be a busybody.
Student: What?
Me: With all due respect, here's what I hear you
saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not
tolerate my view.
See that? She said NO such thing. She was simply
asking him NOT to be publicly intolerant of the rights of
others. A very legitimate request. The same thing that the
blacks (and their allies from other races) had to say to the
active segregationists, 40+ years ago.
Privately, you'll let me think whatever I want, but you
don't want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you
think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with
you.
No. She clearly regarded INtolerance of the rights of
others NOT to be a virtue. And she was right!
One more example of this tactic of TWISTING fair-mind-
edness to make it look like intolerance:
While driving my sons to a recent baseball game at Dodger
Stadium, a young woman in a white pickup truck began
tailgating me. Visibly angered by a pro-life sticker on my
rear window, she stayed on my bumper for a mile or so.
Finally, she pulled beside me and extended a certain part of
her anatomy skyward as she passed. She then cut in front
of me.
At that moment, I noticed a bumper sticker on her truck. It
said, "Celebrate Diversity." The message was clear: In a
pluralistic society, we should tolerate the views of others.
Ironically, the driver saw no contradiction between her
unwillingness to tolerate (or celebrate) my point of view
and her bumper sticker that said we should tolerate all
points of view. That is what I mean when I say that
relativism is self-refuting.
Celebrating diversity does not mean accepting hatefulness
as a portion of that which comprises diversity, any more than it
would mean accepting Nazism or the Ku Klux Klan. Her bumper
sticker defended the right of people NOT to be subjected to
discrimination and intolerance, and *yours* advocated INtoler-
ance, and supported an agenda that overtly seeks to FORCE
millions of women to gestate-to-term against their will. So you got
the Fickle Finger of Fate Award from her for that. You deserved it.
It was as though a black person in Alabama in 1958 had
had a bumper sticker that read, "Fairness Now!" and a
segregationist had a bumper sticker that said, "Keep Ni***rs
in their Place!"
Would the black person have been wrong for opposing
bigotry? Would the segregationist have been right for seeking
to continue the bigotry? Of course not. And it was the same
with that woman's liberty-defending sticker, and your bigoted one.
You're one very CLEVER cookie, Klusendorf. But not
nearly clever enough, when your arguments are subjected to
scrutiny. NOR are the RRR cult's leaders.
The only problem is that **not enough** people are looking
that closely at their weasel-worded but vacous rhetoric. And
hopefully, that is changing.
[[[ The writer of the above article may never see my
rebuttals of it. But that's not important. What IS
important is that many people can see a bright
spotlight being shined on the unscrupulous con-
artist tactics that are employed by people who
are -- unfortunately -- both astute, but bigoted. ]]]
Scott Klusendorf is Director of Bio-Ethics
at "Stand to Reason." www.str.org
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 03:06:16 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41f4ab4e.7956801@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:23:38 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
Nope. (Is asking idiotic questions that you already know the
answer to the best you can do?)
How many abortions you got on your record already?
That's like asking a personn how many aspirins they've taken in
their lifetime. JUST as relevant to anything of significance.
So, if it is as you say, would that mean you had taken over 100 aspirins?
And being a guy, I've had no abortions. But as a clinic escort,
I have suddessfully guided many DOZENS of patients into clinics such
that Anti-Choice protestors were never even able to get NEAR them.
One can't beat driving them right up to the door in a car having
shades on the windows. The loons couldn't even IDENTIFY the
women.
Not what was asking you.
I was asking how many you have impregnated that obtained an abortion.
And, that is not a racist question.
Yes it was.
It wasn't.
Or else it was a STUPID question.
What is so stupid about asking you how many abortions are in your personal
history of aborted pregnancies you caused?
Either way, you
didn't do any damage to your public standing as a total LOON.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts like you are the
**opposite** of hateful. Which is obvious to everyone but the
tunnel-visioned and ignorant bigots, themselves.
That is what I do.
Precisely.
I am telling you I do the things you think you do.
You're a hate-filled and bigoted lout.
Au contraire.
This,
fair-minded people shine a bright spotlight on your idiocy.
Fair minded people do not need such wimpy policies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,469 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
16 Jan 2005 03:51:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:06:16 -0500,
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky spewed:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf
1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part 1
Taking Klusendorf to task on his article:
"Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion"
by Scott Klusendorf
The FIRST bad way to do that is to put quotation marks
around the term, Pro-Choice, but NOT put them around the
term, pro-life.
Right off the bat, that IDENTIFIES the person doing that
as an ANTI-Choice bigot.
Are you a Choice bigot?
It sure seems so.
THANKS for once again making a public ***** of yourself,
Wentzky. It's very helpful for the fence-sitters to see these
constant reminders of just how very **clueless** and hateful
people like you really are.
They can not see that in me.
ROTFL!!!! There's nothing about you that is more OBVIOUS!
You are black, right?
Nope. (Is asking idiotic questions that you already know the
answer to the best you can do?)
How many abortions you got on your record already?
That's like asking a personn how many aspirins they've taken in
their lifetime. JUST as relevant to anything of significance.
So, if it is as you say, would that mean you had taken over
100 aspirins?
You're about a nanometer away from geting the Troll cartoon. And
I only award that to those who richly deserve it, and have earned it
out of displaybg GROSS idiocy.
And being a guy, I've had no abortions. But as a clinic escort,
I have suddessfully guided many DOZENS of patients into clinics such
that Anti-Choice protestors were never even able to get NEAR them.
One can't beat driving them right up to the door in a car having
shades on the windows. The loons couldn't even IDENTIFY the
women.
Not what was asking you. I was asking how many you have
impregnated that obtained an abortion.
None. I've *always* practiced contaception well. 99.999% of the
time, doing that will spare one from needing to seek the REMEDY for
unwanted pregnancy.
And, that is not a racist question.
Yes it was.
It wasn't.
Or else it was a STUPID question.
What is so stupid about asking you how many abortions are
in your personal history of aborted pregnancies you caused?
First of all, I was referring to your inan question about my race.
Secondly, asking a person about something as TRIVIAL as the
number of ANY type of **remedy** that have ever accessed is further
evidence of your abject stupidity.
Either way, you didn't do any damage to your public standing
as a total LOON.
They can see your hate and bigotry and insulting manner.
Fair-minded and sensible egalitarians who DEFEND personal
liberties against hate-filled and bigoted louts like you are the
**opposite** of hateful. Which is obvious to everyone but the
tunnel-visioned and ignorant bigots, themselves.
That is what I do.
Precisely.
I am telling you I do the things you think you do.
I KNOW what *I* do, as a sensible and fair-minded defender of
human rights and personal liberties, and I've never seen one WHIT
of evidence that *you* have a compassionate bone in your body.
You're a hate-filled and bigoted lout.
Au contraire.
And you live in denial, TOO.
Thus, fair-minded people shine a bright spotlight on your idiocy.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: DEBUNKING Scott Klusendorf: 1. "Moral Relativism" -- Part I |
| | | | | | | | | |
