So then the feminists concerned about how many abortions are performed in Asia, particularly in China and India, are done for the purposes of sex selection “hate women.”
Furthermore, you’re the guy who said he’s so concerned about false accusations of rape that he believes that it might be advisable to videotape all your sexual encounters to protect yourself.
Now many, perhaps even most, would consider that stronger evidence of animosity towards women than someon saying they’re oppposed to abortion.
In fact, I’d venture most women I know would be far more likely to classify that suggestion as sexist than the notion that abortion in some circumstances(I.E. sex selection, 3rd Trimester) should be illegal.
It’s the only way to shout 'em down like they should be shouted down. Never let the religious right out-demonize you! Always top 'em! Follow them into the churches and shame them there!
Acting as if you don’t take them serious is a sign of contempt. That sort of tone comes across as hostile and causes you yourself to appear childish and not worthy of being taken serious. As an example, look at Der Trihs’s posts and ask yourself if that’s what you want to be associated with.
It’s entirely possible to show respect for someone’s position, while disagreeing with them, and require that they prove justification why laws should be enacted based on their pet project.
Like with evolution, the abortion and SSM debates have very easily winnable paths. If you can’t be arsed to learn them it’s not The Right’s fault.
Starting off by saying their position is unreasonable and you refuse to take them seriously doesn’t end well. You make yourself look like an unreasonable bigot.
Could it be the best approach yet? Is it anything like ignoring the neighborhood bully, until he just gives up and goes away for lack of attention? Because the bully is not even worth getting worked up over, as he is so wrong, and beyond wrong? Because this approach IMO did not guarantee an end to bullying in our neighborhood, although it is what our elders told us to do. So there must be merit in that approach. But we usually preferred just to kick their asses.
Not an option for anyone who doesn’t want to be run over by them.
As if there is any chance at all that they’ll take anyone who doesn’t agree with them seriously, or with anything other than hatred. The non-Right (there really isn’t a Left anymore) has been trying your “suck up to the Right” strategy for ages; the only result is that the Left is gone and the nation drifts ever further to the right.
And they are contemptible. And one reason they only get worse is that almost no one is willing to point it out to them.
Why give their positions false respect? It just strengthens their position, makes them look more reasonable than they are while hobbling any arguments you make against them.
And those would be? The Right is irrational, bigoted and dishonest; you can’t win over someone like that with reason. Among reasonable people, the argument is long since over.
So then people objecting to all the abortions of baby girls in China and India are irrational, bigoted, dishonest, and unreasonable?
Please explain.
Thanks
Taking humans in a certain stage of development from their very mothers, intentionally killing them, disposing of them as nameless non-humans will always be controversial.
I want to thank the OP for the thread.
There’s nothing like declaring your enemies defeated and/or always wrong. It shows whom you should bother debating and whom not.
That looks like advocating violence.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: You’ve never heard of the right of self defense?
Again, that’s an entirely different group of people with an entirely different agenda. You might as well call someone who opposes bashing people on the head and stealing their organs “anti-surgery”.