BookTalk.org

I shouldn't let anything surprise me anymore. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to read a news site or two before having my first cup of coffee. Here's how I woke up today:



My question would be this: How common is this kind of attitude (insanity) where you live? Here in Canada it happens, but it's not common and many many people share varying degrees of agnosticism and atheism.

I think what surprises me more in the picture above is not the attitude of the person who wrote it, but the fact that a newspaper would print it. Depressing.

But I think MORE letters like this SHOULD be printed. Of course rebuttals should be printed as well. When I see something like this, it makes me laugh because of the ultra-apparent idiocy of the author. More of this vitriol should be before the public eyes rather than the fallacy of love and acceptance that fronts most religious organizations and people.

Mr. P.

It's a pisstake surely?

Niall001 wrote:It's a pisstake surely?

More likely a pissant!

I agree with Mr. P (by golly that rhymes). I've got no problem with newspapers publishing this sort of drivel. I've responded to quite a few such missives over the years in my local newspaper. Although this one seems especially inane.

Ah well ... at least it gives the mentally challenged something to do.

George

I disagree. (and this is the third time I've cut down and rewritten this post.)

I think it would be a very different story if every instance of "atheist" were replaced by "gay", "jew", "muslim", etc.

In fact, in those cases I don't think this article ever would have been published.

What does that tell you?

I disagree with the idea of rebutting. To engage a letter like this in anything resembling its own terms to is to justify those terms. One person uses a particular language to address an issue, someone else responds, and a third person sees both and thinks those are the natural terms in which to couch a discussion on the matter. You can see the same thing happening in any number of public debates. The controversy over abortion, for instance, is entrenched in the terms pro-life and pro-choice; both terms are polemical, and relying on them as the primary vehicle for discussing the issue distorts any attempt to cut through the crap.

MadArchitect wrote:To engage a letter like this in anything resembling its own terms to is to justify those terms.

Who said anything about responding in the terms used by the original author? In my experience, most rebuttals to things like this are thoughtful and concise. The main point, which you may be missing, is that we would probably never see the rebuttal. Now if an atheist wrote somthing like Indie (I think it was Indie) mentioned, if it did see print, would get crucified by the media and every religious moron out there.

You can see the same thing happening in any number of public debates. The controversy over abortion, for instance, is entrenched in the terms pro-life and pro-choice; both terms are polemical, and relying on them as the primary vehicle for discussing the issue distorts any attempt to cut through the crap.

The thing is, CHOICE is a more immediate consideration because the person who is sentient and able to live on their own trumps something that can not. It is not LIFE at conception in any real way, for it cannot even hope to be sustained outside the person who has the CHOICE. And of course the issue is polemical, but only because of the hard press by the religious to impose beliefs and make decisions for others.

To force someone to have a child they may not want is dangerous to the person, the child and our whole society. IMO.

Mr. P.

Mr. P wrote:Who said anything about responding in the terms used by the original author? In my experience, most rebuttals to things like this are thoughtful and concise.

If it really is a rebuttal, then it would almost have to respond to the terms of the original message. The moment you say that you're responding to "Alice Shannon's" message, you mark that message down as worth responding to in the first place. I'm almost certain that it would be more profitable to find another avenue of opposing that point of view.

The main point, which you may be missing, is that we would probably never see the rebuttal.

I doubt that. Unless the periodical the original message appeared in is some sort of fundamentalist polemic, they have a vested interest in having their opinion articles rebutted. That's part of how they maintain readership -- through the perception that they're a platform for public debate. I doubt they ever would have bothered to print the original letter had they not expected some sort of printable response.

The thing is, CHOICE is a more immediate consideration because the person who is sentient and able to live on their own trumps something that can not. It is not LIFE at conception in any real way, for it cannot even hope to be sustained outside the person who has the CHOICE.

I hate to point the finger, but haven't you just illustrated the tendency to use exactly the terminology dictated by polemical sides of debate? As a thought experiment, why don't you try framing the debate in terms that are not identical or synonymous with "life" and "choice".

And of course the issue is polemical, but only because of the hard press by the religious to impose beliefs and make decisions for others.

The pro-life side of the debate (which, incidentally, is not uniformly religious) is not the only side engaging in polemic. As I've tried to point out above, "pro-choice" is an equally polemical term. Just as "pro-life" is intended to indicate that any opposition is "anti-life", "pro-choice" is a term intended to indicate that any opposition is "anti-choice". You're free, if you want, to blame pro-lifers for setting the tone of that debate (although, some historical documentation to back that up would be nice) -- my point is only that it's a mistake to take your cues from polemicists because the alters, perhaps irrevocably, the circumstances of debate.

Beyond that, I have no intention of engaging in a debate over the moral and political value of abortion. Particularly since it looks as though you're going to insist on very terms that I find so hostile to a rational consideration of the issue.

As I've tried to point out above, "pro-choice" is an equally polemical term.

You know, Mad, I was going to stay out of this until you wrote the above. I agree that "pro-choice" can be used, and is often used, polemically. I disagree that pro-choice is "an equally polemical term" as pro-life. The term pro-life does not illustrate or inform the debate. There is no group of people who are anti-life that the pro-lifers can engage in discussion. However, the term pro-choice represents that group's ideals that the abortion question should be left to the privacy of a woman. So should they go with pro-privacy? Pro-9th and 14th Amendments. Pro-doctor/patient confidentiality and freedom to perform medical procedures based on independent choices.

Pro-choice resists the anti-choice movement, the desire to remove from the woman the ability to make her own medical decisions. Certainly not all of those who are pro-life are anti-choice. But there is overwhelming anti-choice influence that makes pro-choice efforts necessary, and clearly defined by the term they have adopted. Note, also, that the term pro-choice does not illustrate a person's perspective on abortion itself, just her perspective on the woman's right to choose.

MadArchitect wrote:

Mr. P wrote:Who said anything about responding in the terms used by the original author? In my experience, most rebuttals to things like this are thoughtful and concise.

If it really is a rebuttal, then it would almost have to respond to the terms of the original message.

That is utter hogwash. The fact that you are responded to my post and accuse me of using 'polarizing' language about the topic of abortion, does that mean you are also using polarizing language by responding? That you condone polarizing language?

Does anyone responding to Bush when he starts talking nonsense thus fall into his childish manner of thinking and speaking? Come now. There can be an intelligent response to a moron...thus making the moron look like the moron they are.

The thing is, CHOICE is a more immediate consideration because the person who is sentient and able to live on their own trumps something that can not. It is not LIFE at conception in any real way, for it cannot even hope to be sustained outside the person who has the CHOICE.

I hate to point the finger, but haven't you just illustrated the tendency to use exactly the terminology dictated by polemical sides of debate?

No. YOU decided that "Pro-Choice" is polemical. I am just rejecting your definition of what is polemical. I do not see anything in the term "Pro-Choice" that holds any stigma.

And of course the issue is polemical, but only because of the hard press by the religious to impose beliefs and make decisions for others.

The pro-life side of the debate (which, incidentally, is not uniformly religious) is not the only side engaging in polemic. As I've tried to point out above, "pro-choice" is an equally polemical term. Just as "pro-life" is intended to indicate that any opposition is "anti-life", "pro-choice" is a term intended to indicate that any opposition is "anti-choice". You're free, if you want, to blame pro-lifers for setting the tone of that debate (although, some historical documentation to back that up would be nice) --

And where is your documentation? Say what you will, but even though EVERY pro-lifer may not be religious, the main thrust of that side of the coin is heavily couched in religious considerations. Mad, sometimes a topic IS polemical and there is no way to bridge a gap. It is either the choice of the parents or it is not.

Is pro-choice also a naughty word/concept when you go to the library and want to choose what to read? Dont cast this off as trivial...because we KNOW there have been books burnt and banned before in our history. Would you be ok with things if people were telling you that you CANNOT read any works by any of your respected authors?

Mr. P.[/quote]