I know Charles likes to keep the comment wars inside the comments section, but sometimes you just don't get a more telling remark from the other side that let's you know how seriously they consider the arguments. Here's Brian Nadler, a frequent troll on the blog, drawing an amusing parallel in response to David's post on abortion:
Well, I think there is a difference, if you're being sarcastic. I'm against abortions, but for a woman to have the right to choose.
It's kind of like how most Republicans are against gun violence/murder, but oppose gun control laws citing that we "have the right to bear arms".
Normally I'd have to wip Nadler for his inconsistent, Stephen Douglas-esque relativism as he tries to oppose abortion even as he favors choice. But let's set that aside for a moment and just laugh at the rest of the post.
You really can't pay someone expose their ignorance so freely. Nadler confuses the tool with the act itself. Perhaps a more apt comparison to the 2nd Amendment would be an attempt to ban surgical equipment. And just to be clear, most conservatives I know don't think you have a right to "choose" murder. We--and I may be drawing a broad brush here--tend to favor strict penalties, sometimes even death, for such use of your firearm.
Now speaking of payment, I'm against extortion but I'm for blogging, so if you'd ever like a political career, perhaps you could pay us a ton of money to take this post down.
(And if you want a career in writing, start putting the period inside the quotation mark.)
Subscribe in a reader
13 comments:
Yeah Brian Nadler, you asshole. If you ever want a career in writing, you're going to have to double check every single piece of punctuation in every single comment you leave on every single blog you read.
Do you know how many would-be NYT editors lost their careers for just that reason?
C'mon Tool. Don't be intentionally dense. You know that he was simply saying that you can support the right to an action(getting an abortion, shooting something) in some scenarios without supporting its abuse (using abortion as the only form of both control, gun violence).
Have a juicebox. I am right now, and the whole world seems brighter.
Love,
X
Nice try, Dan. I'd like to see you actually argue your point.
And, no, when you quote something, the period actually does go outside the quotation mark, but usually you just have the () parenthesis when you cite something.
So, you do put the period outside the quotations. Where do you learn your grammar from?
And trust me, I want no career in politics. It's not worth ending up selling my soul to my party, because apparently when someone differs, it's blasphemy.
Plus, trolling is a bit harsh. Just because I disagree? Trolling would be cussing you out and calling you rediculous names all the time. I just state my viewpoints, buddy.
But you could act intelligent and argue why supporting government involvement in one is different than not wanting the government in the other.
That would be some interesting clarification, buddy.
" I'm against abortions, but for a woman to have the right to choose."
I'd also like to point out that the second clause lacks a subject and forms a sentence fragment. The parallelism is also faulty because he's comparing many abortions to one right; he needs to either compare an action to an action or a concept to a concept.
Brian Nadler isn't inconsistent if he's talking about rights... He just needs some more freshman composition courses. It's not his fault that CMC lacks a good one.
In any event, how's this for a better (hypothetical) analogy: "As a Democrat, I am against the Republican party, but as an American, I cannot in good conscience be against its existence."
Keep in mind that he's coming from the perspective the abortion is not murder... Which is another argument unto itself.
I'd also like to add, that as a Texan, I reserve my right to choose... a target.
This blog would be a lot better if you guys weren't jerks.
Yeah, it would also be better if the people in the comment section left their real name. Sigh.
In any event, I just thought I would point out something that no one has yet brought up.
Second Amendment is in the Constitution, which is our political compact. You may not like it, but you are free to persuade your friends to get rid of it through the Amendment process.
There is no right to state-sanctioned infanticide in the Constitution. Sorry, it just doesn't exist.
Oh, and in the Declaration, what part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do liberals not understand? You can't make us all equal if you are aborting some 40 million of us since Roe.
I dunno. This blog would get a whole lot less traffic and be a whole lot less fun if you weren't jerks.
You're not at all treading new ground though, Charles. Regardless of your personal beliefs, the term "state-sanctioned infanticide" is just wrong.
Ok, fair enough on the second Amendment, Charles. In agreement with citizenx, I do believe in the right to an action without it's abuse. Much more can and should be done with contraception to prevent abortions in the first place, but in some cases, like incest, rape, etc, and not a late term/partial birth abortion, I think that right should still be available.
After all, what will banning abortions really do? You won't hear about them as much, but more will happen in dangerous and unsafe conditions, just without your knowledge.
Couldn't this be equated with gun violence, actually? Trying to have more control over it just leads to an increase in crime rates/gun violence....
Just a thought.
Hi Brian,
I'm glad you're not apathetic about engaging this issue. Have you left for CMC yet? I do in a few hours.
The claim is often made that banning abortion in the U.S. will not decrease their incidence, but simply make the same number of procedures more dangerous. However, this argument does not hold water.
First, even using estimates from pro-choicers of illegal abortion's pre-legalization incidence, the fact is that the abortion rate skyrocketed in just a few years after Roe v. Wade.
Next, in 1960 Planned Parenthood itself reported that 90% of illegal abortions were performed in physicians' offices. The phrase "back alley abortion" is really only correct in the sense that women would enter the doctor's office using the back alley entrance, not the front door. In fact, deaths from abortion decreased most sharply in the 1970s with the spread of more modern sanitation methods, NOT with the Roe v. Wade decision.
And if you want a career in writing, Dan, start putting the preposition inside the sentence.
"You really can't pay someone expose their ignorance so freely."
I guess that's why you aren't capable of editing the Independent anymore.
Hmmm....I guess I should not have commented on the original post. Look what you started, Dan! Anyway, I just want to say that I'm pretty sure that the evidence for gun control decreasing crime is scant at worst and mixed at best.
I believe there are very few places where you can determine what effect gun laws have had on crime when taking into consideration other environmental factors such as economic recession, etc.
In the late 1990s in Australia, however, as soon as they banned guns, violent crimes skyrocketed; and there was in fact robust economic growth in those years. I'm just throwing that out there, it's been a while since I've studied this question...but maybe someone has some studies up there sleeves?
Coming back to the analogies, though -- Candy, I think the "As a Democrat, I am against the Republican party, but as an American, I cannot in good conscience be against its existence" analogy isn't exactly accurate; I think to make it accurate you would have to say "I am against the EXISTENCE of the Republican party, but as an American, I cannot in good conscience be against its existence," which is contradictory.
But, I'll grant, it is indeed a perfect analogy if Brian does not in fact believe abortion is wrong. If he just doesn't "like" it and would never recommend it to someone, he could still be consistent and support a woman's right to choose.
As for the grammar talk, which I think is actually the more interesting point (=P), British English has it that you can put the periods inside or out; American English is pretty much standardized now with commas and periods inside quotation marks and semi-colons and colons outside, so Dan is correct, I think. You'll always find some mavericks out there, however, who will insist on breaking the rules even while knowing them, which I suppose can be an effective way to write sometimes....
Just think about it. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in this country, and I bet virtually none of them were Muslims. A similar statistic is true of Europe. Just think about the ramifications.
Post a Comment