Bill H said ´I know I said I wouldn’t respond to idiots, but I’ll respond to this one.
First off, you’re a idiot.
Second, anyone who uses the terms pro-choice and pro-life are implicitly lying.¨
Well, first off right back atcha:
My post wasn´t adressed TO you, it was ABOUT you. Even some idiots can tell the difference; if you insist, I can include you among those that can´t.
Second, even most idiots recognize that ¨pro-abortion¨ is antiabortion code for pro- choice. Again, if you don´t know that I´ll be glad to include you among the other group of idiots.
Third: Pro anything means you´re in favor of something. So, what, you LIKE abortions? You think everybody should have more of them? There´s something in your little mind that gets off on the idea of killing fetuses?
And fourth, changing the subject a bit, you´re in favour of¨green stuff¨ when it´s free. You mean you´re among the select group of idiots that think that pollution doesn´t entail very large costs to the community? Somehow I´m not surprised.
I disagree. pro and anti are also used to differentiate between opposites. If we’re talking about “choice”, it would be wise to say pro-choice and anti-choice. If we’re talking about life, it would be good to say pro-life and anti-life. Consequently if abortion is the topic at hand, it should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion and then each party is free to explain whether pro-abortion is indeed “getting off on teh idea of killing fetuses”.
As I outlined above, I hardly find it outlandish to be pro-life in general, but still in favour for necessary abortions. Trying to label the debate about abortion with pro-choice and pro-life is political corectness talking and doesn’t help the debate. On the contrary I believe it muddies the waters as both terms are imprecise renditions of positions. We should stick with an issue, divide it into camp A and camp B and then start the talking instead of inventing other terms labeling them as pro-whatever (because we don’t want to be mean and be anti-something) and dodging the debate.
Whereas my issue with much of politics is that there is far too much “camp A” and “camp B” and not enough capacity for people who want to express nuanced, detailed positions to get heard. Black-and-white thinking benefits only those who want to divide people up into screaming, antagonistic factions who are unable to think with anything other than their knees.
Bike lanes…We here in the U.S. dream of bike lanes, let along “huge” ones!!! And, of course everything can be taken to extremes…But certainly here in the U.S, and I would venture to say there in Europe too, bike lanes are a negligible contributor toward traffic congestion and pollution. And, in fact, in congested areas, widening roads just seems to lead to a vicious cycle of creating more sprawl and cars to fill them again.
Well, what we have in the U.S. is one major party whose environmental policy consists of balancing the demands of environmentalists and industry and another whose policy consists of letting industry write the bills.
To be fair, the division is not completely along party lines, as Northeast Republicans can be quite good on the environment and Democrats from states like Louisiana can be atrocious. But, it is largely along party lines…and much more so than it was, say, 15-30 years ago. After all, it was during the Nixon era that the EPA was created and much of the original landmark environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act was past. The Sierra Magazine recently had a chart showing the average League of Conservation Voters rating in the House and Senate for Republicans and Democrats since 1980. The Dems generally got scores around the 60-70% mark through much of the 80s and that has edged up a little to ~70-80% today. The Republicans were generally in the 30-40% range in the 80s and have dropped down to about the mid-teens today. Here is a group of Republicans who want to try to take the Republican Party back to its more environmentally-responsible past.
