Let’s not be delusional here. The central principle in GD is “Attack the post: don’t attack the poster.” Broadsides against ideological groupings are permitted. DT’s post was entirely within those parameters.
But there’s a new Sheriff in town and his name is Jon Chance. Sheriff Chance doesn’t take kindly to over-the-top rhetoric and he has an itchy keyboard for issuing warnings. Entertainment value doesn’t cut it any more.
Let’s deconstruct Der’s post. I think the middle paragraph was fine. The first and last were unhinged of course. The way to get across his point without violating SJC (Sheriff Jon Chance) standards is to pose them as questions and to consider other hypotheses. Another tact would be to use the word, “Misogyny”. Such a word is permissible in company that is both polite and trendy: “They hate women”, is acceptable in neither. See? That’s how it’s done.
Here’s one presentation:
[INDENT]The fact is that conservative concern for human life begins at conception, ends at birth and is indifferent to pre-natal care. There are exceptions (programs in Pennsylvania as well as the Catholic doctrine of the seamless garment) but those aren’t really part of mainstream modern conservatism: a Republican who espoused such views would be primaried out. So the issue is why? One hypothesis is that conservatives hate women and are the gender targeted equivalent of the KKK. Other explanations involve cognitive limitations arising from ideological addling. I cannot evaluate such views in this GD forum.
Perhaps there are others, but the reader should be cautioned not to take conservative pretzel logic at face value. That would be wrong. [/INDENT]