Progressive Ignorance and Bigotry Pt. 2

A few days after my previous post, we have another example of the kind of ignorance fueled slander I wrote about before. In a conversation on precisely the same topic, a friend of a friend on Facebook attempted to list why she thinks pro-life conservatives don’t truly care about all life. We’ll take it line by line.


“Their pro-gun and pro war stance for one,”

Regarding guns and the 2nd amendment, I assume the only question at play here is whether or not restricting fire arms is a positive decision that will save lives. She assumes that it will. Conservatives disagree. Conservatives don’t disagree without cause. While gun crimes are down in, say the U.K. which by-and-large doesn’t allow personal firearms, overall violent crimes are much higher than the U.S. You are 2.5x more likely to be the victim of a random violent crime in the U.K. Similarly in Australia, since their forced gun confiscation, they brag about how they haven’t had a single additional “mass shooting”, but don’t bother mentioning that their total homicide rate has been unaffected, making the distinction meaningless. Meanwhile, other places like Switzerland have very high gun ownership rates and very low crime rates. Globally, there isn’t much of a correlation between legal gun ownership and overall levels of violence. We can argue the point, but that’s not at issue. What’s at issue is that the reason conservatives oppose gun control legislation isn’t because they don’t care about people getting shot, it’s because they don’t think the proposed solution is effective, but will violate constitutional rights. Here, she is morally condemning someone not because they hold different values than her, but because they have a different analysis of the facts.

As for being pro war, I would ask exactly how she is measuring this? There are huge portions of conservatives who are isolationists on foreign policy and insist we almost never get physically involved in conflict. Ron Paul, modern cult celebrity of the far right, is quite well known for this. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is the first president in history to be at war every single day of his 8 years in office. He bombed 7 countries, funded terrorists, toppled governments without provocation, and attempted to interfere in the election of the leader of one of our closest ally nations. Foreign wars, it seems, are of deep interest to the left……..when they can blame someone else for it.

“Their stance on BLM, immigrants, and LGBT communities”

Concerning Black Lives Matter, suppose I agree with their underlying concern, that too many black kids get shot without consequences for the shooter, but I disagree with their methods? Does that make me pro or anti Black Lives Matter? I’m not sure this is a valid complaint because I’m not sure she quantified it very well. You’ll be hard pressed to find conservatives who are just fine with Chicago’s 18.5% murder conviction rate, but does that mean that we have to cheer when BLM advocates chant “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like Bacon” and then last July a madman takes it to heart and starts murdering white police officers at random? I find it odd that a political movement that is so opposed to Trump inciting “Islamophobia” would find this kind of rhetoric acceptable. Anyway, the complaint is too poorly defined to address, so we move on.

I think she missed a word here. “Illegal” to be specific. The Republican party is exceedingly pro legal immigrant. You’re hard pressed to go to a party event and not find first generation immigrants welcomed with open arms who themselves are quite frustrated with illegal immigrants abusing the system. Claiming that conservatives at large are opposed to immigration in general has no basis in reality. It is a lie.

What about their stance on LGBT communities is inconsistent with their stance on life? Did National Review run an article endorsing the death penalty for gay people when I wasn’t looking? I already covered both gay marriage and transgenderism in my previous article, neither of which are moral stances nor condemnations of any behavior. This really is just open bigotry now. “You don’t agree with me on the nature of biological sex, a purely scientific issue, therefore you’re a bad person and you can be disregarded on everything else you say”. It’s petty, irrational, and has no place in adult conversation.

“Their solution to help the impoverished just harms them”

This is a perfectly acceptable (though entirely incorrect) opinion to hold. If she admits though, that they HAVE a solution that THEY think will work, you can not justifiably argue that they don’t care. It’s just a difference of opinion on the method.

“The only plan I’ve seen to change up welfare is to make it even more strict so that fewer people are able to receive help. If they were to come up with real solutions that actually helped, then I would believe them.”

Here, she admits that she comes to her conclusions based on her lack of knowledge of what conservatives think. She doesn’t find that ignorance to be something to research though, she’ll just jump straight to being holier than thou. I’ve addressed some thoughts on welfare in “Ignorance and Bigotry part 1”, so here I’ll just point her to the life’s work of Dr. Thomas Sowell. I’ll be happy to personally buy her a copy of “Basic Economics” and “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics” on the condition that she read them and have a conversation about them afterward. Suffice to say, there’s a long and storied history of conservative theory about poverty that is easily searchable on youtube to refute her assertion. Conservatives advocate for these policies on a regular basis, and are typically shouted down by the same kind of intellectual bigotry she is using here.

“But right now, I see them trying to force women to have babies when they can’t take care of them, and then not helping them take care of them.”

Conservatives don’t want to force women to have babies. Conservatives want to prevent women who already have babies from becoming murderers. As all Pro-abortion arguments do, she’s sidestepping the real argument by starting out with the presumption that it isn’t a baby. We’re talking about Pro-Lifers now though, who DO think it’s a baby. If it’s a baby, it has rights. If it has any rights at all, the right to not be cut into little pieces is at the top of the list. For two articles now I’ve avoided actually arguing abortion here but since she brought it up, I would like to invite her to a test. If she is reading this and has the stomach for it (and ONLY if she has the stomach for it. Very graphic imagery involved), I would like her to Google image search “Gosnell baby boy A” and give me a reason why that child and other children at exactly the same level of biological development, get to be butchered because they are an inconvenience. Some might argue “What about cases of rape?” or “what about medically necessary abortions?” Ok, let’s set those aside for now. Let’s just talk about the easily avoidable ones. Why should children like “Baby Boy A” be dismembered alive without anesthetic for being a nuisance? Because the person making the argument doesn’t like government handouts? Am I the only one who feels like this argument makes her out to be the bad guy here?

And do you really wanna ask the Pro-Life community “If you give single moms welfare for not killing their kids, we’ll agree to a constitutional amendment against abortion”? Because I think welfare rewarding single parenthood destroys families and creates poverty at every turn but I would make that deal in a heartbeat. It just isn’t a deal that’s really on the table. She’s just pretending like it is to condescend to those with which she disagrees.

“In an ideal world, no baby would ever be aborted. But we live so far from an ideal world and every circumstance is different.”

Wait, hold on, stop the presses. What?

Am I crazy or did she just admit that they’re babies? Babies are the thing that is being aborted, yeah she said it. Ok, so she doesn’t think babies have rights. Babies are, in essence property. She has literally, not figuratively, just joined the side of slavery.

And yet, I’m the bad guy right? I have all these ideas she’s unaware of and blindly assumes must not exist.  I sincerely pray that by the time my children reach the age of awareness at church that we will have exited this dark age of intellectual discussion we seem to find ourselves in.



The overwhelming domination of ignorance and bigotry in progressives.

So I came home this evening to my wife showing me a Facebook post from a friend who was linking a blog entry and wanting to start a dialog about it. Is really fascinating in its near magical ability to be so profoundly ignorant and intolerant, whilst complaining so sincerely about those perceived faults in others. My wife was incapable of letting this go without a response but is quite busy so I am relieving her burden by cleaning up this insanity on her behalf. You can read the article itself, but I’ll be quoting much of the content here for the purpose of rebuttal.

The overall message of this condemnation of Christian conservatives, is that they can’t really be considered pro-life at all when they oppose so many other things that democrats are in favor of later on in life. This is a more and more popular argument amongst modern progressives, as “you can’t be pro-life because you oppose government mandated healthcare” is a far more comfortable argument to have then “Let’s talk about the defenseless baby I’m dissecting alive.” So a proper response could just be “you’re wildly changing the subject” but I’ll indulge in the digression because it gives an extremely valuable opportunity, to strike down the constant barrage of slander that has been executed against conservatives for decades. Now, from the content of the blog post:

I actually don’t believe you’re pro-life, I believe you’re anti-abortion, which is a far more selective and convenient defense of Humanity. From where I’m standing it seems as though “Life” for you, comprises a very narrow demographic—one that bears a striking resemblance to you. The unborn are easy to advocate for because you can idealize them into something palatable to you, something benign and comfortable, something in your own image.

You see, it’s not that you’re really pro-life, you’re pro-straight, white, Christian fetuses.”

So right off the bat Mr. Pavlovitz is presuming racism on the part of those that disagree with him. He is directly stating here against the facts that pro-lifers only care about unborn white children. In fact, the largest sufferers of the horrors of abortion are in nonwhite communities. Planned parenthood founder Margeret Sanger founded the organization to “exterminate the negro population” (her words, not mine) and she’s been largely successful. Over 75% of black babies in Harlem are killed before birth. Over on the eastern side of the planet, gender selective abortions have decimated the female population as parents in various cultures don’t want to have girls, so they kill them. Now what evidence is here to suggest that Pro-lifers only care about white infants? Is there any? He seems to be concluding that Pro-lifers simply MUST be lying about caring for all the unborn given that they disagree with him on civic policy later in life. In reality, he is directly slandering those he disagrees with completely without evidence.


Because if that life you say you so treasure, one day converts to Islam, you label it dangerous, you see it as a threat, you applaud suggestions of its expulsion, you deny it open worship.”

Citation needed? Where exactly does anyone see a prominent Christian conservative voice or political group denying Muslims open worship? I mean, it’s a big world. I’m sure you can find someone, somewhere, but absolutely nowhere near mainstream conservatism. This is a direct lie to give his other assertion more credence. As for labeling an adherent to Islam “dangerous”, that is either true or false depending on what exactly you mean when you say “labeling”. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative, or anyone at all really, who refers to someone as dangerous JUST for being a Muslim. Even the disgusting, boorish, and idiotic Donald Trump (Who I would argue is not Christian, and he’s CERTAINLY not conservative) only labels Muslims coming from specific regions without background checks dangerous. Where a conservative might label Muslims dangerous is in analysis of their actual doctrine. There is more than enough aggressively violent behavior not just shown, but advocated for in the Quran to lend merit to the opinion that on some level it isn’t a healthy ideology. At no point though do conservatives advocate for any rights that are in the commonality of man to be denied to a Muslim. Mr. Pavlovitz is confusing disagreement, occasionally strong and emotional disagreement, for a disregard of humanity. He is doing so, presumably, because he can’t empathize with those who disagree with him.

If that life eventually comes out as LGBTQ, you condemn its soul, harass it in your workplace and church, try to prevent its marriage, tell it where and when it can use a public bathroom. You bully it and drive it to suicide.

This is the pettiest kind of gross generalization. I’m a Christian conservative and I haven’t done any of these things, neither have most all of Christian conservatives. Social conservatives don’t prevent its marriage, they argue that by definition it can’t be married under the terms it wants because that isn’t what marriage IS. If a man wants to declare himself a moose, that’s his business. I don’t care. If a man wants to legally declare himself a moose, suddenly everyone gets to be involved in the argument over what a “moose” is considered by the united states government. Personally, I and many other Christian conservatives don’t want the government to be involved in marriage at all, but if the government is going to be enforcing some people’s views over others (they still don’t recognize bigamy, polygamy, or incest, why not?) then why shouldn’t everyone get to argue their perspective? He’s twisting a difference in definitions to hatred of the person purely because it’s necessary to promote his bigoted rant. As for public bathrooms, Conservatives are only arguing that the exact same rules that apply to everyone else, also apply to Transgendered people.That is literally the exact opposite of discrimination. As for bullying and driving them to suicide? Another gross generalization just to vilify his opponents, but one showcasing the general ignorance he has on the topic. The CC (Christian conservative, I figured this would be easier) position on Transgenderism is that it is a mental disorder. This is why they have so many different policy descriptions. When treating a mental disorder, you do not indulge the delusion. This is why CC’s are unmoved on issues like say, bathrooms. When dealing with people with mental illnesses, indulging them is hurting them. We don’t want to hurt them. Anyway, one of the major reasons for concluding Transgenderism is a mental disease, is the suicide rates. The suicide rates amongst TG individuals is high, astonishingly high. His argument that bullying is the cause is blown away when you compare the rates to the most oppressed people in modern history. Black slaves had dramatically lower suicide rates. Jews during the holocaust had dramatically lower suicide rates. In fact, there’s only one demographic on planet earth that shares a similar suicide rate to TG’s, the mentally ill. In the end, 100% of the disagreements on this issue are a disagreement on the facts, not policy. If Mr. Pavlovitz agreed with the diagnosis, he would agree with CC’s on policy. It’s much easier to just slander your opponents as uncaring though isn’t it?


“If that life has brown skin and wears baggy pants and gets gunned down during a traffic stop, you not only have little grief over its loss, but readily blame it for its own execution.”

He’s not being specific enough here to respond with a great deal of content, but I assume he is criticizing CC’s for not immediately assuming racism in response to a questionable police shooting. I would respond by questioning why he’s so astonishingly racist as to assume who is at fault in scenarios with little to no evidence based solely on skin color. I’ll give an example.

Ramarly Graham was a young black man who’s apartment was raided by the police and during the raid, he was shot and killed. That’s basically……it. The police claim they thought he was reaching for a gun. No gun was found, but in order for it to be a valid shoot the officers need only to have legitimately believed he was going for a gun. There’s no evidence to support or contradict their claim. The grand jury found there wasn’t enough evidence to even indict (a very low burden of proof). Still, numerous organizations assuming the officer to be a racist murderer because he wasn’t black and shot a black man have demanded “justice” and by justice they mean “persecute him and ruin his life completely without evidence.”

Situations like this happen in the age of global media not infrequently and every time they do, CC’s say “wait and see. Let’s look at the evidence.” and friendly tolerant men like Mr. Pavlovitz shout in response (many in my Facebook feed) “You’re a racist if you want to weigh the case on objective facts!”

Assuming someone to be guilty or innocent of a crime based on the relative skin colors of the people involved is the height of racist ideology, and Mr Pavlovitz should be utterly ashamed.


If that life is strapped to a prison gurney and pumped full of drugs that will cease its lungs from expanding while its terrified mind comprehends it all, you celebrate the occasion as justice being served—after a last meal you resent having to pay for.

I’m pro-death penalty, I don’t celebrate it, and I have no problem paying for the last meal. This is 100% straw man. I will note however that on average conservatives aren’t very pleased with how the death penalty is executed in the US.


If that life has to endure its formative years in overcrowded, grossly underfunded public schools, you tell it to “pull itself up by its own bootstraps”, while nestled in the cloistered, privileged gated community of a Suburbia where bootstraps come with a birth certificate.”

CC’s don’t argue that they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they argue for school vouchers. They argue for school vouchers because they give impoverished students, especially minority students, the same opportunities as the wealthy. That is they get to go to a school they want to go to. It’s the left who insists that they be FORCED to go to those overcrowded underfunded schools because they care significantly more about protecting the jobs of incompetent teachers who couldn’t survive in a market with competition than they do about educating children. I suppose that’s not entirely fair. I assume Mr. Pavlovitz is only taking the position he is here out of deep seated ignorance, not a lack of caring. Assuming someone doesn’t care about a problem because they disagree on policy is a pretty lousy thing to do to someone.


If that life has working parents who can’t make a living wage, you label it a lazy, unproductive drain on society always looking for handouts and trying to work the system to its advantage.”

Again, point to any notable conservative mind or organization that has put forth this idea? What we can say fairly objectively, is that (according to the Brookings institute, a liberal, not conservative think tank) You only need to meet three criteria to avoid permanent poverty in the United States.

  1. Graduate High School.
  2. Don’t have kids before you’re married.
  3. Get a job, ANY job, and hold it.

The objections most CC’s have to the liberal approaches to poverty is they incorrectly assume three entirely different principles.

  1. That there is a predestinate amount of poverty. The above criteria cannot be expected to be met and any efforts to propone those behaviors are hateful.
  2. That any program is fundamentally helpful to the poverty equation so long as it spends a lot of money.
  3. That it is acceptable to take charity money for these people by force from the general public at gun point in the form of taxes.

Now I give more than the average American to charity. In fact, studies show that CC’s on average are more charitable than liberals ( Even if that weren’t the case though, the willingness to give to charitable causes isn’t at issue if I don’t believe the charity is helping or that the charity is violating an important moral on the way to achieving their goal. The welfare state in the US does both. Poverty is extremely highly linked to having an intact family and since the Johnson administration literally went door to door telling impoverished women (mostly black women) that they would be given free money from the government on the condition that there’s no father in the home, single parenthood has skyrocketed. 25% of black families were raised by a single mother at the time, the number is over 75% today. It isn’t physically possible to raise the inner cities out of poverty until that problem is fixed, and he’s telling me I don’t care about them if I don’t support it? This is astonishingly ignorant of the facts of poverty in America, and CC’s are being attacked for leftists being unaware of them.

If that life needs healthcare because its undeveloped heart can barely beat on its own, you’re suddenly empty of empathy and low on generosity—unless it can pull its own weight and pay the premiums.”

Again, Mr. Pavlovitz is either completely unaware of what conservatives actually think, or he’s just lying to slander them. To make a painfully long and dull argument unjustifiably short:

  1. Universal government healthcare is a disastrously ineffective system. It gets people killed.
  2. Even if it were perfect, it requires slavery, violating the constitution. A “right” isn’t a right if it infringes upon other people’s rights and a right to healthcare must by necessity mean that healthcare workers must serve you even if it is against their will.

The consistent theme of this response has become clear hasn’t it? Disagreeing with a liberal on solutions does not mean you are a more sinister person than the liberal.

If that life doesn’t eat enough fruits and vegetables because it lives in urban areas where such things are scarce and financially prohibitive, you ridicule its obesity and sickness as signs of cultural overindulgence and gluttony.”

For the 800th time, who says this? The National Review? Ted Cruz? Mark Levin? Ben Shapiro? The Federalist? The Blaze? Does anyone at all? It seems you’re just taking crude comments you hear in passing and placing the responsibility for those statements on conservatives in general. Personally, the most vile, hateful, racist, bigoted, evil things I’ve ever heard in my life have all come from liberals. Would it be fair for me to plant the responsibility for those things on all liberals?

If that life is sexually assaulted you want to blame it for its promiscuity and immodesty, and wonder why it didn’t just keep its legs closed and why it can’t just move on and why it is so easily offended by “locker room banter.””

The “what was she wearing” question to a rape victim is a straw man. Nobody of note (or anyone not using anonymity to troll message boards near as I can tell) on the right has ever suggested that promiscuity in the victim justifies rape. What they DO require, is some sort of evidence before they pass judgement on someone (as they should). Rape victims, as horrific of a crime as they have suffered, can’t be able to end the lives of others on accusation alone. The ability for a simple accusation to end someone’s life without evidence is not something a civilized society can stand for, hence the need for trials. What many CC’s are responding to though, is the political profiteering of rape that has become commonplace on the left. Have you heard the “1/4 women on college campuses are raped” statistic? Do you know how they arrived at that number? They gave a survey to college women, and any time a women had had either drunken consensual sex, or regretted the choice to consent to sex the next day, they counted that as rape. They then run ads promoting this fake number (the real number is about 1/40, which is more than bad enough) to fund either their own salaries or other political aspirations depending on who’s using the fake data. If the internet can find me a notable conservative belittling rape as a crime, please, inform me of it.

Regarding the “locker room banter”, Christian conservatives were consistent in being rightfully appalled and disgusted with it, just as they were consistent in being rightfully appalled in Hillary Clinton’s grossly unethical behavior. It’s easy now that Trump’s won to pretend those that voted for him did so in absence of a comparison, but that’s not honest or fair to Trump voters (I am not a Trump voter, for the record). Save for one, everybody I know who voted for Trump did so while mostly hating Trump, purely because they felt the alternative was even worse.

If that life is one day sent overseas to defend liberties here; separated from spouses, children, and parents and placed directly in harm’s way, you’re far more cavalier exposing its vulnerability and far less concerned about whether or not it is sacred.”

There’s a distinct difference between being Pro-National Defense and not caring about those who serve our country at their own jeopardy. Consistently, no group is more pro-veteran benefits and respectful for the armed forces than conservatives, this is shown pretty glaringly at nearly every conservative event ever as well as the military voting statistically around 2/3rds republican.

If that life doesn’t reside in the continental US or speak English and comes here fleeing oppression, poverty, and war you’ll never understand, you ask it to go back and “go through the proper channels”, instead of the barely sea-worthy makeshift raft or the stinking, stifling storage container it nearly died in trying to get here.”

He seems to be mixing his metaphors. Is this person a political refugee or the average migrant worker? Generally, the “proper channels” argument isn’t used for refugees. The VAST majority of illegal immigrants to the United States don’t fit your melodramatic description. For refugees that do, you’ll be hard pressed to find many traditional conservatives who want to turn them away……on the condition that they aren’t opposed to the fundamental American principles of individual liberty. Syrian refugees, the current hot button issue, have the distinct problem of containing both with us having no way to properly screen the difference between the two. As for the typical illegal migrant worker, I don’t see why it’s such a horrific thing for a law-abiding tax payer to expect his neighbor to also be law-abiding and tax paying. Illegal immigrants are by definition not the former which renders them incapable of honestly doing the latter. In either case, they don’t have anything to do with respecting their base right to exist, something the pro-choice movement denies.

From here, his article devolves into a list of generically positive things he blindly asserts conservatives must not care about. I won’t rehash the sheer ignorance all over again because he’s mostly repeating himself. There is one thing left worth paying attention to however.

I don’t celebrate when a woman terminates a pregnancy (I honestly don’t know anyone who does), but my advocacy for life also goes well beyond the womb, and includes a far more diverse swath of Humanity than only those who look, speak, or worship the way I do.”

He doesn’t know anyone who celebrates, but he certainly knows OF people who do. The biggest abortion advocates all treat it as something to celebrate. Lena Dunham (if you don’t know her, don’t google her. You’ll be sad) recently stated that she wishes she’d had an abortion. Naral and Planned Parenthood regularly give out buttons to people to brag about having an abortion. #shoutyourabortion was a trending topic on twitter. He’s better though right?  He advocates for life beyond the womb. He doesn’t stop caring or being empathetic towards people who don’t look or speak or worship the way he does. He CERTAINLY would never be an intolerant hateful bigot against anyone who disagrees with him on civic policy. Lies and slander to promote ignorance of his political opponents is beneath him.