Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’

That Devastating Argument against Pro-Lifers

November 6, 2017

Patrick S. Tomlinson has come up with what he considers to be the argument that will silence the people who are against abortion once and for all. He puts forth his argument on Twitter, not, perhaps the best place to find reasoned debate, but here it is.

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the “Life begins at Conception” crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It’s a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You’re in a fertility clinic. Why isn’t important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos.” The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no “C.” “C” means you all die. In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is “A.” A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true. No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don’t let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don’t, slap that big ol’ Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9

I wonder just how many people on the pro-life side Tomlinson has actually talked to, because it seems to me that almost everyone would agree to save the five year old child. I don’t think that anyone would dispute that the life of a child who can think and feel pain is worth more than the life of an embryo who has not yet developed a nervous system. After all, everyone, no matter how strongly pro-life, agrees that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother precisely because the life of an adult women is considered to be worth more than the life of an unborn embryo or fetus. A great majority of people who oppose abortion concede that abortion is acceptable is cases of rape or incest. This does not mean, however, that the life of an embryo is worth nothing at all or that it is acceptable to abort an unborn baby for trivial reasons or for no reason at all. Mr. Tomlinson actually addresses this in a follow up tweet.

Because a lot of people are missing the point, it is not being argued the embryos are not alive. Nor is it being argued they are without value. All that is being demonstrated is their value is not equal to that of a human child. That’s it. That’s the point.

Good, then we are in agreement. However, it does not follow that if an embryo is of lesser value than a child that it is acceptable to abort or destroy the embryo for any cause short of preserving the life of a more fully developed human being. Nor does it mean that somehow arguing against abortion is lying or being hypocritical. It is possible to concede the relative lesser worth of an embryo while still being concerned to protect the life of that embryo. Notice,also, that Tomlinson uses the adjective human to modify child but not embryo, a subtle  suggestion that the embryo is somehow not really human.

Tomlinson also misses, probably deliberately,  the distinction between a difficult decision between two evils and  decision to commit an overt act which may be considered evil. To illustrate the difference, consider these two scenarios.

First, suppose there is a mother at home with her five year child and their cat. Suddenly a fire breaks out and engulfs the house. The mother only has time to save either her child or her cat. She cannot save both. I think that everyone but the most fanatic animal rights lunatic would agree that she should save her child. Why? Because the life of a human child is worth more than the life of a cat. This does not mean, of course, that the life of the cat is not worth saving, or that the woman is lying when she expresses concern for the life and well being of her cat.

Now for the second scenario. Suppose that a mother is at home with her five year old child and their cat. The child tells his mother that he is bored so to amuse the child, the mother takes the cat outside, lights it on fire, and they both have a good laugh as the cat runs around the yard burning to death. I think everyone would agree that such behavior would be reprehensible. Why? Because even a person who is not sentimental about animals would recognise that torturing a living thing for no reason is an evil act.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both cases the cat suffers a painful death by being burned alive. The cat suffers the same level of pain in both scenarios. Does it make any difference? I think it does. The difference is between a regrettable choice and a deliberate act. In the first scenario the woman is blameless. In the second scenario the woman might be a psychopath. The end result is comparable, as far as the cat is concerned, but the motive is different and that is what makes the difference. It is one thing to allow an embryo or even a thousand embryos to perish while saving a child, it is quite another to deliberately destroy a human embryo who, if left alone, will develop into a human child

That is the core of the controversy about abortion, whether or not abortion is the destruction of a human being, the one thing that no one on the pro-choice side wants to discuss. They prefer to use euphemisms like “women’s health” or impugn the motives of pro-lifers by suggesting they are not interested in preserving life but oppressing women or establishing a Christian Theocratic patriarchy, anything to change the subject. My advice is don’t let them get away with it.

Advertisements

Republican Stockholm Syndrome

March 8, 2017

I have always rather liked George W. Bush. He has seemed to be a decent enough guy who really tried to be a good president. I wouldn’t say that he was one of the best presidents that we have ever had, but he wasn’t the worst either. He certainly didn’t deserve the hatred and abuse heaped upon him by the left and the media. That is why it is sad to see that George W. Bush has come down with Republican Stockholm Syndrome, that mysterious malady that causes Republicans to defend their tormentors in the media while attacking their fellow Republicans. Bush has remained silent throughout the administration of his successor, Barack Obama, but has offered some criticism of Donald Trump in recent interviews, as noted in this article from Fox news.

Former President George W. Bush offered what appeared to be a thinly veiled critique of his Republican successor on Monday, as he defended the importance of the media and immigration policies that are “welcoming.”

Bush, during an interview on NBC’s “Today” show to promote a new book of military portraits, addressed a range of President Trump controversies, specifically when asked about the executive order to temporarily restrict travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. That order stalled in court, though Trump is expected to issue a new — but similar — order this week.

He doesn’t seem to wholly approve of Trump’s combative relationship with the media.

Until now, Bush largely has remained mum about the policies not only of Trump, but of former President Barack Obama. Bush’s comments Monday stopped short of a reprimand, but highlighted differences between his and Trump’s respective approaches to common challenges.

While Trump has repeatedly lambasted media organizations and termed numerous negative reports “fake news,” Bush applauded the same media that often derided him during his Oval Office tenure.

“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said. “That we need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive.”

Bush is right in that we do need an independent media to hold people in power to account. Too bad we don’t have such an independent media. What we do have, as Bush ought to know, is a media determined to advance the careers of Democrats and destroy Republicans at any cost, including the use of fake news.

For eight years the media pummeled George W. Bush with fake news after fake news for the express purpose of destroying his presidency. Does he not remember, “Bush lied, the troops died”,  misreporting on Hurricane Katrina to imply that Bush wanted Blacks to die, and much, much else. For eight years the media refused to report on anything that might reflect poorly on their anointed Lightworker, and then praised him for having a scandal free administration. Well, if a tree that falls in a forest makes no noise if no one is there to listen, than a president is scandal free if no one bothers to report on any of his scandals.

Bush is probably the last person to comment on anyone’s handling of the press. He refused to fight back, even when the most egregious slanders were reported as facts. Maybe he was too much of a gentleman to get into such fights. Maybe he thought it was more dignified to remain silent. I think that his presidency would have been more successful and the country better off if Bush had fought back against the purveyors of fake news.

There is a lot not to like about Donald Trump. He is not a conservative. He is only nominally a Republican. Trump’s instincts seem to favor the sort of big government solutions conservatives deplore. Trump can be undisciplined and too inclined to shoot off his mouth when silence would be more appropriate. But Trump has one saving grace that makes me inclined to forgive his many faults. Trump fights. He does not stand silent when he is attacked as so many Republicans do. He fights back. Trump seems to understand that being nice to the mainstream media simply doesn’t work. Trying to be presidential and refusing to dignify media attacks with a response only results in a damaged and ineffective presidency. Trump may be crude and undignified, but he does seem to know how to handle the media. I wish other Republicans would learn from him. At the very least, I wish other Republicans would learn not to attack each other in the hope of a few nice words from the media that despises them.

Richard Dawkins and Abortion

August 23, 2014

It seems that biologist and atheist leader Richard Dawkins has caught a bad case of foot in mouth disease, or perhaps he should think a little more before he tweets. His latest thoughts on abortion and Down’s Syndrome have attracted some measure of controversy which I read about in this article in the Independent.

Budding atheists wondering whether Richard Dawkins is in need of a little time away from Twitter to reflect on the past few weeks are about to have their (lack of) prayers answered.

The philosopher has managed to go one step further than his controversial comments on ‘date rape versus stranger rape’ to voice his opinions on what it would be ethical for a mother who is informed that her unborn child has Down Syndrome to do.

He started off his conversation with followers ethically enough, highlighting the plight of women in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, in light of the recent reports of the country’s refusal toprovide a safe abortion to a suicidal rape victim. She was forced to give birth.

“Ireland is a civilised country except in this 1 area,” he tweeted, adding “You’d think the Roman Church would have lost all influence,” to caption a link to a similar article.

But after engaging in conversation with a number of users, his ethical values appeared to come a little unstuck.

“994 human beings with Down’s Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.

“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.

“I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.

Naturally, his reasoning prompted a slew of further comments – and subsequent commentary:

@kerryhood@RichardDawkins It is an interesting dilemma. What about people on the autism spectrum (which I am)? Where would u draw the line?

@InYourFaceNYer People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute, Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respects. DS not enhanced.

My first thought upon reading this was to quote Dickens.

`Man,’ said the Ghost, `if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die. It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God. to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust.’

Who does Richard Dawkins think he is to decide who is worthy of life and who is not? There are many reasons why one might be an atheist. I begin to think that Dawkins is an atheist because he covets God’s job. He wouldn’t be the only one who doesn’t worship any divinity because they are too busy worshiping themselves. He thinks that it is immoral not to kill a baby with Down’s Syndrome before it is even born because they do not contribute as much. How would he know? I do not know anyone with Down’s Syndrome, but I have been told that while they do suffer from intellectual disabilities, they are, for the most part amiable people and they can and do contribute to the happiness of the people around them. They can learn skills, hold jobs, and form loving relationships. It may well be that people with Down’s Syndrome, in their simplicity, are closer to the Kingdom of Heaven than those who believe them unfit to live will ever be.

Boy with Down Syndrome using cordless drill to...

Someone was immoral and allowed this boy to live.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wonder if Richard Dawkins has really thought through his comments. If we are going to decide that every human being is not a creature created in the image of God and endowed by that creator with the inalienable right to life, but merely an evolved ape whose right to live depends on how useful he is and how much he can be expected to contribute, than Sarah Palin was right all along and we can expect to see those death panels in the not too distant future. If so, than Dawkins had better be careful. The panels might decide that an aging biologist has contributed all he can expect  to science and society would be better off with him making room for the next generation of scientists.

Richard Dawkins is Right

August 15, 2013
English: Richard Dawkins giving a lecture base...

Right for once (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I never thought I would write that sentence. Well, I imagine that he is right about many things in his field of expertise, evolutionary biology. It is when he abandons his field to become a spokesman for atheism that I think he is often very wrong. Still, I have to give him credit for courage for his infamous tweet about Muslim scientific accomplishments, and of course, I think he is right. It is easy enough to bash Christians. Bashing Muslims could get you killed. Here is the story as told by the Guardian.

The outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins was involved in an online Twitter row on Thursday after tweeting: “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”

As users piled in to criticise him, the scientist continued: “Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.”

His other posts included: “You can attack someone for his opinion. But for simply stating an intriguing fact? Who would guess that a single Cambridge College” and “Muslims aren’t a race. What they have in common is a religion. Rather than Trinity, would you prefer the comparison with Jews? Google it.”

With the debate escalating, Dawkins, who has more than 777,000 followers, said: “Many are asking how many Nobels have been won by atheists. Needs research. I’d love to know. I suspect the proportion is v high, and growing.”

Owen Jones, the left-leaning commentator and author of Chavs, told Dawkins: “How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment.” Legal blogger Jack of Kent added: “Following @RichardDawkins tweet, Trinity Cambridge has presumably also produced more Soviet-supporting traitors to the UK than Islam.”

The row also drew in historian Tom Holland and Channel 4’s economics editor Faisal Islam who commented: “I thought scientists were meant to upbraid journalists for use of spurious data points to ‘prove’ existing prejudgements”.

@jptoc chipped in: “A similar (and infuriating for Dawkins) ‘fact’ is that Islam has more recipients of Nobel Prizes than Dawkins. It’s bad scientific method.”

But some users appeared more forgiving. @Chriss_m, said: “Dawkins spent the best part of 10 years attacking Christianity and not raising an eyebrow. He now turns that same eye on Islam and uproar.”

Trinity College, Cambridge, has 32 Nobel laureates, as against 10 Muslims listed in Wikipedia. When the Guardian contacted Dawkins by email to ask whether he was surprised by the uproar, he replied: “Prompted by exasperation at hearing boasts of (a) how numerous Muslims are in the world and (b) how great is their science.

“This prompted the thought that if they are all THAT numerous, shouldn’t they have more to show for it in terms of achievement? The comparison with Trinity Cambridge I judged less offensive to Muslims than the even more dramatic comparison with Jews (who have garnered an ASTOUNDINGLY large number of Nobel Prizes).”

He continued: “Am I surprised? Only at the number of people who seem to think Islam is a race, rather than a religion. I regard that view as racist. Anything you can convert to, or convert from, is NOT a race.

Dawkins has previously been involved in acrimonious Twitter exchanges over Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, prompting Owen Jones to comment “If atheism means being bigoted about Muslims or wanting to drive people of faith from public life, then I am not an atheist.”

Dawkins is obviously thinking more clearly than his detractors. Of course Muslims do not constitute a race. These people are panicking and throwing whatever they can at Dawkins and hoping it sticks.

Actually, I am not sure whether I would give the Muslims, as such, much credit for any scientific accomplishments during the middle ages. When the armies of Islam burst forth from the Arabian peninsula, their first waves of conquest included most of what we now call the Middle East. This region includes Egypt and Mesopotamia, the sites of two of the oldest civilizations in the world and both prosperous and advanced regions. It should be no surprise that the momentum continued for several centuries. Also, many of the scholars and scientists of the Arab Empire were Christians, Jews, or heterodox Muslims, including the sect of the Mutazilites. As the people ruled by the Arabs converted more and more to Islam and the societies became more Islamized, scientific progress slowed and then stopped. These days, the Middle East is one of the poorest and most backward regions in the world. This is a testimony of the influence of 1300 years of Islamic rule.

The thing that bothers me about people like Dawkins, though, is that they are determined to erase the influence of Christianity in the West. You can’t fight something with nothing and thoroughly secularized societies, like Western Europe seem to be increasingly unable to defend themselves against their enemies. They don’t even seem to want to reproduce. If Dawkins is concerned about the growing influence of Islam in Britain and the West, perhaps he ought to encourage belief in Christianity, or something. As it is, I fear he is unwittingly helping the enemies of civilization.

 

The Zimmerman Verdict

July 14, 2013

I must say that I am a little surprised that the jury found George Zimmerman not guilty. It was the right decision as far as I can tell from the way the trial went, but I was sure the jury would be intimidated by the threat of riots into finding Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, at least. I guess our criminal justice system still works, sometimes.

I am not at all surprised by the comments of idiot celebrities who obviously are unaware what a disaster the prosecution made of this case.

Celebrities took to social media Saturday, expressing shock, outrage and sadness that neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the death of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

Some Twitter users – such as Russell Simmons, Sean “Diddy” Combs and Solange Knowles – posted a solid, black square for their Twitter avatar, a showing of support for the victim.

“Say a prayer for Trayvon Martin’s family,” Simmons wrote.

Donald Trump wasn’t surprised by the verdict.

“Zimmerman is no angel but the lack of evidence and the concept of self-defense, especially in Florida law, gave the jury little other choice,” he wrote.

New York Giants wide receiver Victor Cruz wrote an anti-Zimmerman Tweet but quickly deleted it.

“Thoroughly confused,” he wrote. “Zimmerman doesn’t last a year before the hood catches up to him.”

Rapper Talib Kweli expressed hope that Martin’s family will receive justice.

“The way this Zimmerman case divides us shows how far we still have to go as a country,” he wrote.

Here are some stupid tweets as recorded by Twitchy.com

Maddow Blog         @MaddowBlog

.@TheReidReport Message has been sent to black boys and their families that they prob should be worried about their child

If he is committing crime, they should be worried.
mia farrow         @MiaFarrow

Today,like many parents of black sons, I will remind them to watch their backs, be deferential if stopped by white men,stay out of Florida.

Or, not push a man to the ground and pummel him.

Toni Braxton         @tonibraxton

Today I am embarrassed to be an American…my heart goes out to the Martin family.

Feel free to leave any time.
I am also not surprised by politicians making use of this to further their own agendas.

President Obama called on the nation to honor Trayvon Martin a day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of his murder by asking “ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence.”

His comments came as family members of Zimmerman and Martin, as well as pundits, celebrities, and court observers had strong reactions to Saturday’s not guilty verdict, with those reactions taking various forms — from joy and outrage to Shakespearean references and calls for peace.

“I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities,” Obama said in a statement on Sunday.

“We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”

That is actually what George Zimmerman was trying to do, reduce crime and violence in his community. Considering what he went through, why would anyone take steps to stop crime in their neighborhood if they are the one who will be punished. Meanwhile in the President’s home town of Chicago, where they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, the murder rate is at record highs. Most of the victims in Chicago are young black males, just like Trayvon Martin. Since there are no political points to be made about their deaths, nobody cares about them.

Al Sharpton thinks the verdict is a slap in the face. I can’t think of anyone who deserves a slap in the face more that Sharpton.

“Well, I think that this is an atrocity,” said Sharpton. “I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed and someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies. … Even at trial when he is exposed over and over again as a liar, he is acquitted. This is a sad day in the country. I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts. Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. But this is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.”

The man who was behind the Tawana Brawley hoax, the Crown Heights riots, attacks on Jewish owned New York businesses, and other despicable and racist acts of violence does not have the right to say anything about justice. His whole career is based on injustice. It says something that this man is taken seriously by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party.

 

Rule of Thumb

December 21, 2012

I notice that at Professor Loomis’s group blog there has been a movement of sorts to defend his right to free speech against those awful conservative wingnuts who have taken note of some of his more offensive statements. Evidently saying bad things about the good professor is tantamount to an insidious campaign of hate and intimidation.

The worst mistake to make with regards to Erik’s battle with accumulated wingnuttery is this: If I’m careful, it won’t happen to me. Erik employed an emotional-but-common metaphor to describe his feelings about a major public figure in the wake of a tragedy; the response has amounted to a Two Minutes Hate. The first purpose of this Hate is to intimidate Erik and people like Erik into never again speaking forthrightly about American politics. The second purpose is to distract from the fact that twenty children were massacred with weapons that no civilian should be allowed to possess.

Let’s be clear: If you are a progressive interested in writing about politics, this will happen to you. The only question is how you deal with it.

No. The intent is to discourage people from fantasizing on the Internet about assassinating public figures. Anyway Loomis reactivated and then deleted his Twitter account. Again, we may be thankful that Twitchy has preserved his words. A quick overview of the tweets he made before deleting his account again indicates that this is not just a matter of one or two badly worded posts but that this is a man with some anger management issues. I apologize for the language.

Dear The Avery in Providence. Fucking forgive me for working on my book while drinking a beer in your empty bar. Laptops banned!!!!!

Quick! Grab screencaps before the mad professor deletes them again:

I was just ordered by ownership to close my laptop in an almost totally empty bar. If you ever wanted to see me in full anger, see me now.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) November 14, 2012

Nothing makes me more angry than being ordered what to do. Usuallly good at checking emotions, am now in towering rage at laptop-banning bar—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) November 14, 2012

@drfarls You have no idea how much I wanted to break my glass over that guy’s head.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) November 14, 2012

Erik Loomis, as most Twitchy readers know, is the hypocritical University of Rhode Island professor who retweeted a tweet advocating murder of certain gun rights proponents.

His bio used to note his position as assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island. Not anymore.

Anyway, after deleting his Twitter account on Tuesday, Mr. Angry is back today. We can look forward to many more tweets like these:

I love teaching books on the history of sexuality. I talked about dildos in a completely appropriate way in class today.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) November 20, 2012

This I Believe: Corporations are run by greedy, rapacious assholes who deserve long prison sentences. lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/11/this-i…
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) November 16, 2012

Dear subtitle people, white subtitles on a white background means I CAN’T FUCKING READ THE SUBTITLES. Seriously, have you heard of yellow?—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) October 23, 2012

@speechboy71 I would personally like to punch Matt Stafford for single handedly destroying my fantasy team this year.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) October 23, 2012

Dear right-wing morons, saying you “want someone’s head on a stick” is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life. #nraterrorism
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

I am bringing all this up because I thought it might be a good way to introduce my rule of thumb regarding blogging, tweeting, writing, or saying anything that is likely to become public. If Professor Loomis and his colleagues happen to be reading this, I hope they will pay attention.

My rule of thumb is this; before hitting the return or send button, take a quick look at what you have written and consider how a complete stranger might take it. If what you have written comes across as angry, hateful, or deranged, you might want to rewrite or delete it. If there is anything in what you have written that could even remotely be construed as a threat of violence, then you should definitely rewrite or delete it. You may feel that this would cramp your style or restrict your free speech rights but I would say that the right of free speech comes with the responsibility to use that right conscientiously. In other words, if you don’t want people to jump all other you, you might try to express yourself with some degree of civility and respect. I think you might find it easier to persuade people to come around to your point of view if you didn’t start off by calling anyone who disagrees with you a moron.

Something similar could be said regarding foul language. If you have a problem expressing yourself without using the f-word, imagine your mother standing in front of your computer. You wouldn’t talk like that in front of her, would you? If you have a limited vocabulary, as so many seem to these days, invest in a thesaurus. You might also try reading the classics. Those writers like Shakespeare and Dickens, etc. really knew how to express themselves. Learn from them.

I think that if we all try to be calmer and more rational and not just write whatever happens to be on the top of our heads at any given moment, we would all be a lot better off and , who knows, we might just be able to find things we agree on.

Oh,and Professor Loomis, if by chance you do happen to be reading this, please get counseling. You’ll find it does a world of good in dealing with your issues.

Exceptions

December 18, 2012

I am generally opposed to any new gun control laws, and really I am opposed to any legislation enacted in the immediate aftermath of any crisis. The worst time to act is when emotions are high and easily manipulated, while it is better to wait a little while for everyone to cool down and consider the matter rationally. This, of course, is why the gun control proponents are insisting we do something right this minute. The last thing they seem to want is to consider the problem of violence in America rationally. Someone might come up with a solution that doesn’t empower the federal government, after all.

Still, in the interests of compromise and holding the conversation, I am willing to make an exception to my principles. There are some people who should never have access to firearms,or any weapon. I would go so far as to suggest that some people, who have made violent threats against others, should perhaps be taken into custody until they are proven to be no threat to themselves or others. One person who should definitely be watched might be University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis. Professor Loomis has made some tweets which could be considered, well, violent if not to say somewhat deranged. Loomis has since deleted his Twitter account, but luckily for us Twitchy has preserved his words for posterity.

erik-loomis-rt

That was a retweet. It is possible that Loomis did not agree with the sentiment, but here are his own words.

@rmccrory I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 15, 2012

Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

@fmanjoo There are words. Fuck the National Rifle Association and its policies to put crazy guns in everyone’s hands.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy. Fuck the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

Wayne LaPierre is a criminal and should be in prison for complicity with murder. 27 counts.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

Dear Republicans, Do you know the definition of family values? It’s not having our kids FUCKING SHOT AT SCHOOL!! Fuck the NRA.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

It’s harder to buy Sudafed in a pharmacy that high-caliber rifle bullets. Fuck the NRA.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 14, 2012

I bet terrorist NRA head Wayne LaPierre will sleep well tonight.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 15, 2012

Larry Pratt and the group Gun Owners of America are terrorists and should be dealt with as such. thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1…
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 15, 2012

Idiot of the day: Eugene Volokh, for arguing we should arm school teachers. volokh.com/2012/12/14/a-t…
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 15, 2012

The NRA pushes for policies that make it complicit in mass murders in the US and Mexico. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

Another day, another NRA facilitated terrorist attack. This morning at an Alabama hospital. abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/p…
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 15, 2012

Your daily NRA-facilitated terrorism. San Antonio this time. thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/12…
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 17, 2012

He calls it an “intimidation campaign” when websites such as Campus Reform, quote what he said about Wayne LaPierre:

The right-wing intimidation campaign against me for saying the NRA was a terrorist organization continues. Will not succeed.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

@NeilAnAlien Indeed they will not. In fact, I’d like to write up my story of right-wing intimidation for a magazine.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

The Venn diagram between those who are trying to intimidate me and those who think Obama is the Kenyan usurper is sizable.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

He backs away from his “head on a stick” comment but doubles down on his view that Wayne LaPierre should be imprisoned:

Dear right-wing morons, saying you “want someone’s head on a stick” is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life. #nraterrorism
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

Even when not addressing guns,  Loomis seems to have significant anger and anxiety issues:

@jacremes Bad TV makes me angry.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 17, 2012

How do people relax after writing without alcohol? Am trying, failing. A jumble of nerves, determined no one will ever publish the book.—
Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 17, 2012

Of course Loomis did not really mean he wanted to see anyone murdered. That was just a metaphor as he explained to the police. I will take his word for that, but it is fairly obvious he has some anger issues.

On a larger note, I think that I can honestly say that I have never advocated violence on this blog, or on any other forum, either metaphorical or actual. In general, though I am sure there are exceptions, I have found the most expressions of hatred and threats of violence have come from the Left, the very people who are always accusing those who are opposing them of being of being violent haters. I am not sure of the reason for this. Perhaps it is a sort of projection by some on the Left. They are prone to anger and violent talk, so they assume others are. Perhaps this is a good subject for a psychiatrist to study.

 

Nick Romney

October 21, 2012

I mentioned, not too long ago that I think we really do need to suppress voter turnout among the ignorant and ill-informed. I think these tweets, courtesy of Twitchy, go a long way towards proving my point.

 

PhoZzie ♥ @iamPhoZzie

The lack of analysis in the content that Nick Romney provides is laughable….

DJ Mastermix @dj_del_b313

If Nick Romney win he canceling porn lol

Scott Berty @ScottBerty

Too bad Nick Romney isn’t applying to be a car salesman because he would be a great one

marvin tate @niked_up_marvin

Nick romney lieing

@LiamJCurran

If Nick Romney is elected I guarantee that the U.S.A will be on the war path before this decade is out.—
Liam Curran (@LiamJCurran)

Jam Cris Martinez @JAMillionaire_

Did anyone see the debate between Nick Romney & Borack Obama?

I am not sure who Nick Romney is. Could he be somehow related to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney? And, who is Borack Obama? Was that Barak’s Kenyan half-brother?

There are a lot more of these tweets over at Twitchy and I have to say that they are a little depressing. These people are too ignorant to even know who is running and too illiterate to be able to write a grammatical sentence. They cannot even express the simplest point without profanity. I guess this is Obama’s base.

 

 

Stacy Dash Endorses Romney

October 8, 2012

 

 

I actually have no idea who this actress is, but she has managed to commit the one unforgivable act in Hollywood. She has expressed her support for Romney. To make matters worse, she is black.

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Of course, the Liberals responded in their usual classy and respectful way.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

As news of Dash’s treatment spread, however, First Amendment-lovers nationwide began voicing their support for the actress using the hashtag #ISupportStaceyDash.

And here are some of the best/worst responses, courtesy of Twitchy.

And

Of course, it is the Conservatives who are the hateful racists.

She has stood firm by her opinion and has had much support from those who actually believe in that archaic concept called freedom of speech. Maybe I should go and watch something she has acted in.

 

Swedish Tweeter

June 13, 2012

In Sweden, they allow ordinary citizens to have control of the country’s official twitter account for a week at a time. I simply cannot imagine how that could be a good idea. According to this report in Yahoo News, it isn’t.

Sonja Abrahamsson, describing herself as a “low educated” single mother of two from Goteborg, in Sweden’s west, provocatively asked what makes a Jew a Jew, and used crude language.

“What’s the fuzz with Jews” she asked in one tweet on the @sweden account, suggesting it’s hard to tell them apart from other people and then went on to joke about Jewish circumcision.

In another, she said not even the Nazis could tell the difference: “In Nazi German(y) they even had to sew stars on their sleeves. If they didn’t, they could never (k)now who was a Jew and who was not a Jew.”

She also asked whether the Nazis sought to find the difference in the Jewish religion, or whether it was a “blood-thing” for them.

The reactions were immediate. One tweeter wrote “in one day @sweden went from global Twitter superstar to PR embarrassment.”

Another suggested the Swedish chef from the Muppet show might as well assume control over the account, while others defended Abrahamsson’s courage to raise her voice in such a frank way, politely answering her questions and sending her links to read more. One tweeter, who said she was Jewish, said she hadn’t been offended at all.

Later, Abrahamsson apologised if she had offended anyone, saying that was not her purpose. “I just don’t get why some people hate Jews so much,” she added.

Maria Ziv, marketing director at Visit Sweden – a Public Relations agency that set up the project – said the Twitter account would not be shut down just because some people had been provoked.

If Abrahamsson’s comments had been racist “we would have taken them down,” she added.

The project allows different citizens from various walks of life to curate the account each week. Tweeters have so far included both a female priest and a lesbian truck-driver.

The tweets are not pre-read or censored, but personal political opinions are to be followed with the hash-tag myownopinion.

Maybe they should let him handle their twitter account

In her defense, I suppose Ms. Abrahamsson’s statements did not seem particularly hateful, especially when you consider the very real anti-Jewish hatred in some portions of the population in Sweden. I suppose if she were a Muslim and had advocated burning down synagogues, no one would have said anything.

Still, Sweden is lucky in that it is a country with a small, homogeneous, mostly sensible population. Imagine what kind of nut cases would turn up if we tried something like that here in the US.

 


%d bloggers like this: