TexasCHLforum.com

So I was watching all the good folks speaking for or against the current abortion bill at the TX capital. There was a group of people which included some senators standing around with coat hangers.

Their premise is simple. If we make abortion illegal people who want them will simply rely on back alley and illegal means of obtaining them.

WHICH IS THE EXACTLY WHAT THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE ABOUT GUN CONTROL!


If we make guns illegal people who want them will simply rely on back alley and illegal means of obtaining them. Yet somehow this argument doesn't work for them.



Edited for spelling

steveincowtown wrote:If we make guns illegal people who want them will simply reply on back alley and illegal means of obtaining them. Yet somehow this argument doesn't work for them.

Turning that around --that is exactly why they don't use it. It doesn't work for them so they ignore it.

Most liberal arguments are emotion based, and thoroughly illogical. If you try to argue that the "coat hanger" argument is ridiculous, they try to drown you out with cries that you hate women, because they know their original point is foolish. They usually see-saw back and forth, trying to shame you into going away because they can't debate. Dennis Miller summed up liberal logic pretty well on his radio show when talking about the atheist bench monument placed next to the 10 Commandments monument in Florida:

I can remember the exact quote, but it was roughly:

"Anytime I bring up God or the Bible when having any kind of a debate with an Atheist or Agnostic, they scoff at me for being a fool, but when I switch to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, they scold me for not being more Christ-like. You can't win with these people!"

karder wrote:"Anytime I bring up God or the Bible when having any kind of a debate with an Atheist or Agnostic, they scoff at me for being a fool, but when I switch to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, they scold me for not being more Christ-like. You can't win with these people!"

It's got nothing to do with the original post, but it sounds like Dennis needs to talk to someone who understands evolution a little better.

JCole wrote:

karder wrote:"Anytime I bring up God or the Bible when having any kind of a debate with an Atheist or Agnostic, they scoff at me for being a fool, but when I switch to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, they scold me for not being more Christ-like. You can't win with these people!"

It's got nothing to do with the original post, but it sounds like Dennis needs to talk to someone who understands evolution a little better.

You're right, it has nothing to do with the original post. So, you should not have mentioned it. Now I'm curious what more Dennis needs to know beyond what he said to make his point.

O6nop wrote:It's got nothing to do with the original post, but it sounds like Dennis needs to talk to someone who understands evolution a little better.

You're right, it has nothing to do with the original post. So, you should not have mentioned it. Now I'm curious what more Dennis needs to know beyond what he said to make his point. [/quote]

Internet forum threads are often brought off topic, but I guess I'll accept your rebuke. I was just addressing the argument brought up by someone else. I was suggesting that informed atheists and agnostics might understand that natural selection has no moral implications (and is really survival of the fit-enough,) and doesn't need any one to emulate any religious figures to function properly.

JCole wrote:

karder wrote:"Anytime I bring up God or the Bible when having any kind of a debate with an Atheist or Agnostic, they scoff at me for being a fool, but when I switch to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, they scold me for not being more Christ-like. You can't win with these people!"

It's got nothing to do with the original post, but it sounds like Dennis needs to talk to someone who understands evolution a little better.

Steveincowtown noted in his original post that supporters of abortion use the argument, "make abortions illegal, and people will just get illegal abortions". His point, as I understood it, is that these same people would shun the exact same argument if one were to only replace the word "abortion" with "gun".

Miller's point, while cloaked in his comedic style is very much the same. Many times people, in Miller's case Atheists/Agnostics while in Steve's post Liberals, will argue a point using a specific series of arguments. Try, however, to flip around and use their own thought process against them while arguing a different subject, and they completely reject the line of reasoning they themselves relied upon earlier. If I misunderstood Steveincowtown's point, then my apologies to him.

I'm sure you didn't misunderstand, karder; and I understand the analogy. I was trying to make a different point about the specifics of Miller's straw-man argument. As an atheist myself, I would never try to use an argument like that. I apologize for the hijack.

steveincowtown wrote:If we make abortion illegal people who want them will simply rely on back alley and illegal means of obtaining them.

WHICH IS THE EXACTLY WHAT THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

Interesting comparison...

JCole wrote:

karder wrote:"Anytime I bring up God or the Bible when having any kind of a debate with an Atheist or Agnostic, they scoff at me for being a fool, but when I switch to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, they scold me for not being more Christ-like. You can't win with these people!"

It's got nothing to do with the original post, but it sounds like Dennis needs to talk to someone who understands evolution a little better.

i think dennis is talking about "social" darwinism. it partially inspired cetain nazi tendancies.

The problem is outlined in the title of the post. In most instances, IMHO Left and Logic don't tend to go together. Emotion not reason rules the day in many cases.