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.

 

Advertisements