Bullshit truisms and the decline and fall of civilized debate

The BBQ Pit
1

Our first contestant, giving a rendition of an old classic, is Newark, Ohio Councilman Don Ellington, talking abut a new law aimed at sex offenders (the site may require registration; the key passages come from this article.)

*In addition to a state law barring registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, the legislation in Newark also prohibits them from making their homes within 1,000 feet of a licensed daycare center, city park, playground or swimming pool. Those restrictions take effect in 30 days.

“If this just saves or helps one child, we’ve done the right thing,” Councilman Don Ellington said before council voted 10-0 in support of the legislation.*

Note that I am not saying that communities shouldn’t have the right to place some restrictions on where sex offenders may live. What I find pit-worthy is the pandering about “saving or helping one child”, a.k.a. “You can’t put a price on a child’s life.”

This mantra has been used to justify any number of regulations and laws, and it is stunningly, glurgifically moronic. Our society is full of trade-offs and balances. If you’re all fired up to save a single child’s life, Mr. Ellington, how about dropping the city speed limit to 20 mph? That’s bound to save a few children’s lives. Or maybe ban cars altogether. Or household cleaners. Or school sports. After all, you can’t put a price on a child’s life, can you?

This argument is really intended to stifle debate by shaming opponents. How dare you argue that it might be unfair to force some minor one-time lawbreaker out of his home, when it conceivably could save a child’s life?
One other steaming pile of argumentation designed to shut down debate is heard whenever proposals are made to curb abuses affecting a particular profession or lifestyle, and it runs like this: “But most _____ are honest/considerate/law-abiding.”

Um yeah, most cellphone users are considerate, most smokers don’t litter, most pit bull owners have lovable well-trained animals, most doctors are dedicated and ethical, most chiropractors don’t claim to cure asthma, most politicians don’t take money from lobbyists for golfing trips to Scotland, most lawyers are non-lawsuit abusing, most TV evangelists aren’t money-grubbing, most used car salesmen…OK, let’s not get carried away here. :dubious:

The point, O apologists for your particular group, is not that most of you are simply lovely people who don’t deserve to be inconvenienced. The issue is whether the cost to society posed by the piss-headed minority among you needs to be addressed via new regulations or laws. And while the majority may be virtuous as all hell, it may deserve restrictions on its activities if it is insufficiently proactive to root out the troublemakers in its midst.

Nominees for other bullshit truisms are welcomed.

2

For some reason, “When people commit crimes, it makes the victims and their families feel just awful, and sometimes angry,” is justification for killing people who’ve committed crimes.

The whole reason we have judges and juries is so that justice can be applied according to specific rules, rather than logic such as “He killed my son! I want to see him dead!”

3

Wow. I felt pretty awful that time my car got vandalized. I never knew I could demand such a thing. I’d have settled for a caning.

4

No argument here. Life ain’t fair. Sucks, but what are ya gonna do?

5

My nomination: “It is in our national interest…” as sole justification for an action.

I cannot justify an action solely by saying “It is in my personal interest, or our family’s interest, or our party’s interest …”. Yet somehow countries seem to get a complete bye on any moral consideration of their actions whatsoever. Just because there’s no police around …, and all that.

6

My nomination is that of the absolute moral authority of a mother who has lost her son in war.

So if you disagree with her, you’re not just wrong, you are by definition immoral and evil. How’s that for a debate stopper.

7

Solid pitwork. The ridiculous laws that get foisted upon us in the name of protecting the kiddos have gone on quite long enough. Janet Jackson’s tit is not going to destroy some bratling’s mind, Halloween candy does not have razorblades in it, and, sadly, molestation by strangers is considerably less likely than molestation by a family member. If a sexual offender is so close to reoffending that the mere sight of a kid walking by is liable to make him lose control, why is he out of jail in the first place?

8

Well said. Sadly though, you don’t even need to point out such a specific example. Our fine democratic tradition of debate versus left and right sides of politics is usually these days reduced to the type of argument you raised. I am a conservative (mostly). I do, however, like to cling to the belief that there are people on the left side of politics who are decent and intelligent, and who have arrived at their own personal political viewpoint through rational thought and a sense of wanting to better the world. These days though - take the opposite side of politics to me, and you are not only wrong, but you are a thoroughly vile, wicked, evil person, and your are doubtless exceeding stupid as well.

It’s a shame.

9

Well in that case why don’t we remove children from their families to save them from this possible danger?
Seems to make sense according the councilman.

10

I agree with you.

The problem is that plenty of people who make a similar argument in one case are also willing, in other cases, to trot out the “absolute moral authority of a mother who has lost her son in war” when that mother happens to support their own particular viewpoint.

Some of the people arguing that Cindy Sheehan had no absolute moral authority were also, earlier in the war, telling protesters that their opposition to the war was a “slap in the face” or “disrespectful” to people who had lost family members. The underlying philosophical position is pretty much the same in each case.

11

So, so true. Sadly, this is the sort of straight-talk that has been devoid from the public square since, well, as long as I can remember being aware of it.

12

A truism that drives me up the wall is when an inane, repetitive, annoying and completely tune-inept song is composed and played endlessly on every radio station and in every shopping center until it drives you batty. Whenever you complain how idiotic the song is, you are told… “But is has a really good message.”

I have no problem with songs that carry a good message. I have big problems with bad, annoying inept songs, regardless of the message they carry. The fact that any numbskull with enough brain cells to combine the words “Don’t Do” with the word “Drugs” can compose a song with a ‘good message’ should show that having a ‘good message’ is valueless when judging whether the song has any actual merit as a peice of music. It’s not enough to have a good message, the music must be good as well. Yet it seems some people feel we ‘must’ listen to such songs.

Michael Jackson is perhaps the worst offender here with songs like “Man in the Mirror” and “We are the World” both of which (to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper) had the all the redeeming musical qualities of a 70’s era Pepsi commercial.

Mark Wahlberg (aka ‘Marky Mark’) deserves a slap for throwing the line “Drug free, so get the crack out” into the “song” “Feel the Vibration”. With that single line, the song suddenly became moral and “had a good message” despite the fact that it’s performer went everywhere in his underwear, brawled frequently and bragged in the press about copulating with every women in his proximity.

Let the refutation “But it has a good message” be dropped from any further discussions regarding musical merit.

Note: “But it has an awful message” is still acceptable, as it is rarely (if ever) used.

13

I’ll second that, Leviosaurus and add “Jesus take the wheel” what intolerable crap.

14

My husband works in a prison, and one of his jobs used to be helping to get inmates settled in the community once they served their sentences and were released.

Sometimes, it was extremely difficult to find sex offenders places to live. In my hometown, there are very, very few places that are not within 1,000 feet of a school or other forbidden zone because it’s so small of a town. (Where my house sits, I’m within 1000 feet of three schools and two daycare facilities.) Since the number of forbidden zones is growing, it’s becomming harder and harder each day.

Probably, if you asked most people, they’d be glad that their communities are so difficult for sex offenders to live in, but they don’t understand the results of it. If a sex offender gets too frustrated trying to find a “legit” place he can live, he may just decide to skip the registration process all together, and then we have no way of knowing where he went until it’s too late.

Of course people don’t want convicted sex offenders living in their neighborhoods, but they’ve got to live somewhere, and it’s better that we know where they are and who they are so people can keep an eye on them. If we make it too difficult for them to rejoin the community, we run the risk of having offenders go “underground”. You can make all of the registration laws you want-- it’s unlikely it willl do any good, since you’re unlikely to catch them unless they offend again.

15

Don’t be too sure! Seeing Tara Reid’s dress fall off scarred me for life.

16

Dittos on that “But most _____ are honest/considerate/law-abiding.”

If a group has an official policy that is vile, why should not that group be vilified? Even if members of that group are for the most part, " honest/considerate/law-abiding"? This technique has repeatedly been used to stifle debate in GD. You cannot say anything about any group without some twit piping up to say, “Sure __________ advocates ___________, but most _____ are honest/considerate/law-abiding, so saying anything about the whole group except bland compliments is unfair.”

17

Yeah, but Tara Reid’s tits are freaky-looking.

::shudders::
She should have her plastic surgeon killed.

18

I realize this is a general rant about phony rationalizations (or truisms), but unless I’m completely misunderstanding the use of the adjective minor to describe certain predators, that one word may serve to derail your argument.

19

I’m speaking of a hypothetical protester of this law who in effect is silenced because he/she does not want to appear insufficiently dedicated to saving a single child’s life.

I’ll need clarification before I can respond to whatever it is that you’re asking.

20

I would submit the truism of, Because god/the bible/my minister/religious guy on tv said so. IE creation theory is true, it’s in the bible! Gay people are evil and going to hell, god said so! Drives me fucking nuts.