Stanek weekend Q: Can one have an otherwise great legacy if pro-abortion?
Even the Pope and Cardinal Dolan have been lauding South African leader Nelson Mandela following his death earlier this week of natural causes at age 95.
But I can’t.
Nelson Mandela has the blood of preborn children on his hands… lots of them. According to The Examiner on December 6:
Serving as the Republic of South Africa’s president from 1994-1999, Mandela not only signed the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996, he was also one of the most ardent supporters of what the openly pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute calls “one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.”
As cited, the law “allows abortion on demand up to the 20th week; after it and up to birth for ‘serious medical reasons’; and, as amended in 2004, allows registered nurses and midwives to perform abortions as well before the 12th week.”…
Since the legalization of abortion in the RSA, there has been 1 million legal abortions reported to the government, with the overwhelming number being that of racially black African unborn children as cited by Spero News on Jan. 31, 2012.
I cannot get past this and cannot view Mandela as any other than a leader who engaged in mass genocide of his own innocent people.
Others are noting additional blemishes on Mandela’s record, but even if he were an otherwise all-around hero, I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to say a positive word to say about him other than, “I pray he repented.”
Am I wrong?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I didn’t realize all this. No wonder he is being so lauded. Thank you for educating us. That makes me very sad.
So it wasn’t the racist white gov’t that advocated for the killing of unborn black children, but Mandela?
People aren’t ever perfect. The good things they do and the bad things are all part of their legacy. Killing unborn babies is part of Mandela’s legacy. Along with this vile thing he also did some great things. It is just a mixed bag
I too struggle with this news. It’s hard to imagine someone who fought so much for freedom, would believe abortion was a good thing, but he was human and therefore imperfect. Reading through the Bible, every single person God used for great things and to bring about his own Son, committed some kind of sinful act, some even seemingly unforgivable in our human eyes. I hate abortion and so does God, but he also hates other forms of murder, idolatry, slander, gossip, adultery, prostitution, lying, etc. etc. yet he uses every one of us to do His will and every one of us could put ourselves in at least one of those categories. Ultimately Mandela’s heart condition matters to God and only God knows that and where he is spending eternity. The birth, death and resurrection of Christ brings forgiveness for ANY sin no matter how horrendous. I realize others who read this without faith in Jesus will demonize me and Mandela for entirely different reasons, but it is what I believe to be true and if I believe Jesus died for and forgives my sins, then it is true for all. It is a challenge for me to believe this in moments like these, but the truth is the truth and it does not change no matter what my human mind feels.
The children are with God – the bigger problem is how the man and his promoters deluded so many into thinking he was a good Christian, and so taint the work of Christ.
Until Christ’s church is able to discern and drive out the wolves among us, we, and I’m sure Christ, will be grieved by their actions.
I don’t consider Mandela a believer in Christ, any more than think Obama believes. Both more than likely heard the gospel, but were too focused on themselves to bow a knee and repent.
“You’ll know them by their fruit” was the advice re: false prophets. We can see that when given a time to blossom, they chose self-agrandizement over humility and service to Christ’s cause. Additionally, the sternest condemnation was reserved for those who attempted to wear the clothing of Christ, without being truly obedient to him or even knowing him at all (Matthew 7:21)
We don’t do a soul any favors pretending they are born-again, when almost every action they take indicates they are not. Truth in these matters is very painful, and undesired, but failure to be truthful only enables further delusion and leads to death and misery.
So no Jill, I don’t think you’re wrong.
I thought the same thing when I heard the news.
@Laura..it is not gossip to expose the errors of world leaders when necessary. Christians are obligated to expose the errors when necessary for the sake of souls not perishing.. read the Catholic Catechism
Mary–Mandela himself advocated abortion. It wasn’t a “racist white gov’t”. And Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. He advocated killing whites and burning alive those who disagreed with him. Do your research. He was not some saintly man fighting for racial equality. Stop getting information from the news media. We already know they doctor their scripts.
Excuse me Sydney M,
About doing my research. I remember this man and his actions very well in my own lifetime. Please don’t put words in my posts that aren’t there.
I remember Apartheid and the sanctimonious liberals in this country with their “feel good” cause.
I was remarking on the irony of Mandela advocating for the killing of unborn black children when that is something one would expect from a racist white gov’t., not from a supposed champion of black people and equality.
This news makes me so sad that the world has lost such a brilliant man. Not only to lead the people of South Africa after being imprisoned there but to then stand for a woman’s right to choose…wow it just goes to show you who is on the right side of history on this issue. I wonder if the antichoice people would scream at and show signs of aborted babies in protest of Nelson Mandela just as they do to women seeking abortion….honestly I wish they would have, I think it would have shown a pretty clear picture on who is right on this issue.
Steven,
You have a point.
The racist white gov’t made a mistake in not sanctioning the killing of millions of unborn black children. Thankfully Mandela thought of it. In fact, I would bet they regret not thinking of it themselves a lot sooner. Don’t you agree?
Nelson Mandela was a treasure to the world. Mary I do agree. Unborn black, white purple or pink babies are not my concern. A woman’s rights are my concern.
Too bad you can’t find a way to love them all, Steven.
This is the problem with the proabortion side- they love some people at the expense of others.
Mandela is not a hero for everyone. Mother Theresa was.
I didn’t ask if Mandela was a treasure to the world.
I asked if you think the white racist Apartheid gov’t regrets not having sanctioned the killing of millions of unborn black babies? Like you, I’m sure they would have agreed that the lives of unborn black children would have been of no concern.
Mary Annie, it is too bad. Oh well.
This is the problem with the antichoice side- they love nonpeople more than real people.
Mandela should be a hero for everyone, unless you’re an overly zealous ideologue who only cares about one issue in american politics.
Sorry Mary–I didn’t catch the facetious tone of your previous post. My apologies.
Steven, you have got to be kidding. South Africa is one step above a 3rd world nation. The whites of that country are targeted for genocide and live in poverty. Mandela traded one kind of injustice for another! He advocated terrorism. Read his words. He lauded Castro. He was a communist.
Please tell me you were being facetious like Mary or I’m gonna have to bang my head against a wall.
With people like Steve do you see why I took your original post in all seriousness, Mary? So many are blind to truth.
That’s my problem, Steven. I can’t separate my heart.
I’m a mother who has seen lots of children in ultrasounds. I can’t pretend they’re non persons. Sometimes I wish in could be like you and be fine with ignoring the injustice of so many million little girl and little boy fetuses killed in the name of women’s rights.
“Men” who support abortion under the guise of women’s “rights” support neither women nor women’s lives but rather their own selfish sexual desires so they can continue to treat women like sperm receptacles,then “freeing” themselves of the responsibility of these “nonpeople” who were conceived.
Yes, sadly you can be wrong about abortion and have an otherwise good legacy. He was wrong about this one issue, but nobody is right about everything.
The pro-aborts have a heavy propaganda campaign demonizing pro-life people. They really do portray us as monsters. They even tell people not to talk to pro-life people (lest people find out we aren’t the monsters pro-aborts say we are). All this does have an effect. A person may have an uncomfortable feeling about abortion, but when they remember how these feeling prove you want women to die on the floor in agony and that people against abortion just want to torture women, they don’t dare admit their discomfort with abortion, even to themselves.
So, yes, he may have been a great guy in most respects, even though he screwed up on the abortion issue. It is sad, good people end up with blood on their hands from this.
Hi Sydney M,
Not a problem. I shouldn’t have reacted so defensively. I’ve misinterpreted what people were saying myself more than once.
I agree with Sydney M, Nelson Mandela was no hero. As a Communist he was not fighting for freedom per se, he was fighting to replace a bad system with a worse one. Communists are traitors by definition because they care more about Workers of the world unite! fantasies than about their nation’s interests and their countrymen’s lives, they are fine with slaughtering whole categories of people who stand in the way of progressive ideals and they consistently pit social classes against each other, they even pit women against their own children (abortion) and against men (through feminism). Communists invented mass legal abortion, so I am not at all surprised that Mandela would support it. Pro-lifers should simply realize that his hero image is just that, an image.
Sweet Marmot, are people really told that? I am used to insults like backwards, weird or fanatic (in my case at least they can’t go with stupid and ignorant because I’m of the intellectual type, he-he), but claiming pro-lifers want to hurt women is insane. Maybe it’s because in America the pro-life movement is so strong it’s actually visible and manages to achieve big things.
To answer your question, in secular terms, yes. In terms of the media (who want to sell newspapers, advertising time, and, apparently their souls), yes. I do have to question how seriously one should take the appellation “great legacy” when it is given by media to a media favorite days immediately upon that person’s death. Newspaper archives are full of similar praise given to people we hardly remember five years later, or people whom reflection and discovery over many years show to have been horrible human beings.
God judges rightly, with mercy and justice. That’s the one thing we can be confident about.
Yes. Mandela left every pro-life activist a sterling example of how persistence and determination can change a culture. It’s ironic that he renounced so much violence only to keep embracing abortion. Even so, his example of tenacity through more than a quarter-century of imprisonment is something from which I could learn.
Steven, whether you accept it or not, unborn children are NOT “nonpeople”. But keep that thought on the back-burner.
Let’s reword Jill’s question a bit to “Can one have a great legacy while being pro-Aryan”? I refer to Adolf Hitler. At the time of his ascendency, Germany suffered under severe constraints in addition to the Great Depression. He led the Germans from being a beleagered people to those who almost conquered Europe. Is he remembered for that? Of course not, and rightly so. What he’s remembered for is mass extermination of Jews. He constantly proclaimed that they were “nonpeople”. Sound familiar?
Jill is correct. In 1996 he nullified South Africa’s legal protection for tiny children. That is a legacy worthy of a monster.
Well, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that extended abortion legality when he was governor in California. No one is perfect or leads a perfect life.
I think it’s fine to praise people what they did well in life while condemning what they did badly.
And half this thread sounds like Joseph McCarthy, lol.
This is Mandela’s legacy –> https://generationswithvision.com/broadcast/abortion-homosexuality-and-pornography-in-south-africa-meeting-with-nelson-mandela/
Javk, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Or, in my people’s case, if they already got you and now you live with the consequences. The highest abortion rates in the world are in countries who are or were in the past ruled by communist regimes.
Anyway, I fail to see how sitting in a jail cell necessarily makes someone a good person.
Don’t get me wrong, Dejected Embryo, I don’t like communism. My mother’s family fled Cuba after Castro took over to get away from the human rights violations going on. I just think tarring everyone who belongs to a group with a broad brush is rarely accurate. And McCarthy caused a lot of pain for a lot of innocent people with his witch hunt. The “red scare” here wasn’t a good thing.
But Mandela wasn’t solely a communist or a pro-abort. He was a human being who did a lot to bring awareness to the horrid things happening to black people under apartheid. He wasn’t perfect, but he was not solely a bad person.
Lol I was wondering why you were calling me “Javk” and then I realized I had my name wrong in my first comment. Stupid phone.
Mandela is not worthy of adulation. Our flags should not be flying at half-staff for him. I understand Obama is attending his funeral and he didn’t even send representation to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. ”Wasn’t solely a pro-abort”? Does that matter to the countless babies whose deaths he facilitated?
I don’t know, do you think Reagan was solely a pro-abort because he extended abortion legislation in California? Does it matter to the babies that died because of that, just because he apparently changed his mine years later?
People aren’t solely good or evil, for the most part. All I’m saying is that it’s okay to admit that Mandela did some good, while also acknowledging he was responsible for some evil as well. I can’t think of a single public figure that hasn’t done something bad.
Nobody is perfect, regardless of where we come from.
I greatly admire many of things Mother Theresa did even though I am not Catholic, nor do I agree with all of her opinions. I still think she did a great deal of good even though it shows a certain level of hypocrisy to fly around on private jets to access the best health care in the world while telling others about the glory of suffering and having many children regardless of the ability to feed them or how it impacted the health of the mother. Overall, I still think she did far more good than she did harm, and helped far more people than she hurt.
Regardless of what Mandela advocated regarding abortion or opinions on abortion, I think he did far more good than he harm. Nobody has been or ever will be perfect except Christ. I don’t even pretend to have the whole life and religion thing figured out but I know a lot of people who think they do. Maybe they are right, but they are certainly not any more perfect than I am.
Mandela was everything our mainstream media likes in a leader. Leftism really is hazardous to human life.
India, despite all its troubles, seems more adept at recognizing its saints.
What, like Gandhi? Gandhi is another one who did some great things, but also had some questionable or even flat out evil views. Like it said, I can’t think of a public figure (or person, really) who didn’t hold some bad beliefs or do something wrong. Humans are humans, no one is a saint.
Tenn, he certainly didn’t do good to the thousands (if not millions) of children that were butchered as a direct result of Mandela’s actions. No amount of “good” can assuage that kind of blood guilt. Please don’t compare Mandela’s butchery with Mother Teresa’s use of jets; that’s ridiculous on its face. Jack, it’s one thing “not to be a saint” but quite another to be an outright monster as was Mandela.
The people lauding Mandela as some sort of saint remind me of these goofy kids walking around wearing “Che” t shirts. Most likely most of them dont even know his last name, nor do they realize he did some pretty horrendous things. No one can deny how important it was to dismantle apartheid, but besides the abortion legislation he openly supported Castro, Gadaffi, and other dictators who oppressed their own people, as well as the Soviet Union, and we all know how their record was on human rights. His wife Winnie encouraged the horrible practice of “necklacing,” in which tires filled with gas were placed around the necks of opponents of the ANC and set on fire. Did the good he did outweigh the bad? I dont know, but just like Jill, I just cant join in all the adulation.
Wow! I’m officially shocked! Never knew or even suspected anything like this about Mandela! Oh dear! And well, I have a lot of mixed feelings now, I still respect what he did for his country in general, but how can someone be so compassionate and loving to people and at the same time support killing of innocent babies – I can’t wrap my head around this one!
Vita Bishop Desmond Tutu is also very proabortion which is also sad and disappointing.
Hi phillymiss,
I remember “necklacing” and Winnie’s role in it. Absolutely horrific.
Maybe Mandela was much more vindictive than was believed.
I have mixed feelings about Mandela. Will definitely do more research on him.
Yes, he broke down some white/black barriers, but shall we accept the purged and fake media version of him, or shall we forge a realistic view of his faults, sins, and good deeds?
Alas, since our media tend to draw with think crayons…we will get the mostly overidealized version.
Our flag will not be lowered.
My husband works for a local government and is usually the one told to lower the flags. If he is told to lower the flags at his job tomorrow, he is going to tell them that he refuses on principle to do so.
and having many children regardless of the ability to feed them
BS. Show me where Mother Teresa advocated women having children they could not feed.
I just want the truth.
I want the facts.
I want to believe the truth and not what our media passes of for truth.
I read about necklacing Mary. I looked through horrifying photos of what Mandela’s regime did to white people. Gads. Won’t see that on the evening news.
I was remarking on the irony of Mandela advocating for the killing of unborn black children when that is something one would expect from a racist white gov’t., not from a supposed champion of black people and equality. – he ‘advocated’ for it? You have evidence of this? And were whites not allowed to have abortions?
Mandela is not a hero for everyone. Mother Theresa was. – well that’s not completely accurate.
I understand Obama is attending his funeral and he didn’t even send representation to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. – a presidential delegation was sent. It was not an official state funeral.
It is irrational to be a pro-abort and otherwise be a good person. Oh yeah, this Mandela guy was great except for when he was advocating tearing babies from their mother’s wombs. Some how it just doesn’t seem plausible.
phillymiss, I too am very disappointed that Desmond Tutu is pro-abortion, as he was such an inspiring anti-apartheid leader. Unlike Mandela, Tutu encouraged non-violence in the struggle against apartheid and strongly denounced the ANC and their violent methods. Way back in 1990, citing Mandela’s defense of violence, the Chicago Tribune state “a lot of Americans seem suddenly disappointed to find that Nelson Mandela, the man they welcomed to this country as if he were a reincarnated Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is neither one.” Tutu is the type of man the media is now portraying Mandela as.
Tutu does seem to have more reservations about abortion than Mandela did, and has stated, “I agree that women must be the ones who make the decision. But you cannot have an absolute, extreme kind of individualism. When my wife is pregnant… [it] is something that affects all of us in the family, in the community” and “While it is her body, the foetus is not like a tooth — you can’t say I will just take it out like that.” I hope his conscience leads him to become pro-life and renounce abortion before his death.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people can be duped into celebrating the lives of those who promote the brutal genocide of the weakest among us.
The ease with which the human heart can be deceived is scary.
Er… “Steven” = “troll”, y’all (low substance, high on inflammatory rhetoric, refusal to engage on any reasonable level, choosing ever-more inflammatory words when challenged, etc.); do not feed!
Mandela was instrumental in the demise of apartheid only to order genocide through abortion of those that shared his skin color. Interesting.
RSA is to this date a country where racism rules, perhaps partly because Mandela thought that protecting preborn African babies was not relevant to his mission of freedom for his people.
We see the same in the US. Black leaders advancing the interests of black Americans and at the same time supporting abortions in their community. I can’t see the connection.
only to order genocide through abortion – I hold no great expectation that you can provide so much as a scintilla of evidence to back this claim.
of those that shared his skin color. – you have evidence that only blacks are allowed abortions in RSA?
“Unlike Mandela, Tutu encouraged non-violence in the struggle against apartheid and strongly denounced the ANC and their violent methods. Way back in 1990, citing Mandela’s defense of violence, the Chicago Tribune state “a lot of Americans seem suddenly disappointed to find that Nelson Mandela, the man they welcomed to this country as if he were a reincarnated Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is neither one.” Tutu is the type of man the media is now portraying Mandela as. ”
We’ll, I do think it is ridiculous to act as though Mandela was similar in methods to MLK Jr and Gandhi, he was far more Malcolm X about if than anything. I do think that non-violence is normally preferable when struggling against social inequity than violence is. But have you seen some of Gandhi’s opinions on WWII and the Holocaust? He said that it would have been better or the US and Britain to let Hitler invade and control any country he wanted, and the Jewish people and those that the Nazis invaded should have offered themselves up for slaughter and not resisted. I mean… Come on. Non violence is a great goal but sometimes you have to defend yourself (and I’m pretty pacifist but pacifism doesn’t always work). I’m not saying that Mandela’s support of or engaging in violence was right, really, but I do wonder where people think that line between “terrorism” and “defending yourself and your people” is.
“reality” Sir – whether the Caucasian population in RSA is affected by the abortion policy enacted by Mandela is not relevant. What matters is that abortion is the law of the land. Did Mandela think about how this will depopulize black Africans?
As a black African leader, Mandela signed a law that adversely affects his own people, that is “reality” the point. This is especially significant in light of the struggles black Africans endured during apartheid. This law defeats the hard won freedoms. I am sure you can understand the logical flaw here.
And yes, when the preborn life is aborted it is in effect a grand scale genocide. RSA is an African nation with ethnic South Africans but you obviously still think of it as a colony.
Thomas R., could you please stop feeding the troll.
Right-Wing Reaction to Mandela’s Death Exposes Link Between Racism and Misogyny
lol
Ugh. I think we’re about to be swarmed by trolls.
I can’t help it JDC – if noone presents counter-arguments than the only thing you will have left on these pages is misrepresenattions by pro-aborts. You see, “reality” and his people count on us shutting up and “not feeding” them as this gives them carte blanche to dictate their agenda and manipulate readers. Can we allow for that to happen?
Honestly, Thomas R., I think most of them only troll in search of a reaction. If everyone just ignored trolls, they would probably stop commenting and we would not have to deal with them anymore.
Can one have an otherwise great legacy if proabortion?
No.
How do you reconcile whether the Caucasian population in RSA is affected by the abortion policy enacted by Mandela is not relevant with What matters is that abortion is the law of the land “thomas r”?
Did Mandela think about how this will depopulize black Africans? – has it? To what extent? Are their numbers falling? I would have thought that a freedom fighter’s focus would have been on ensuring every persons freedom. Which is what he did.
As a black African leader, Mandela signed a law that adversely affects his own people – so are you still claiming whites aren’t permitted abortions? Or that white abortions are fine?
This law defeats the hard won freedoms. – the exact opposite is in fact the case.
I am sure you can understand the logical flaw here. - oh yes, your logical flaw is eminently clear.
And yes, when the preborn life is aborted it is in effect a grand scale genocide. – what, one? One percent? Five percent? What exactly constitutes ‘grand scale genocide’?
RSA is an African nation with ethnic South Africans but you obviously still think of it as a colony. – if it was a colony then the ethnic folk wouldn’t have the freedoms and rights that they have won. Those who would impede this are the ones with a colonialists outlook.
The fact that you don’t agree with my world view and get a dose of the grumps when I challenge or refute claims does not make me a troll JDC. If no one presents counter-arguments then the only thing you will have left on these pages is misrepresentations by anti-choicers. You see, if I just shut up and didn’t ‘feed’ them this would give them carte blanche to dictate their agenda and manipulate readers. For example – they would probably stop commenting and we would not have to deal with them anymore.
I don’t post comments with the intent of eliciting a reaction. I post them as a reaction. I respond to the fallacies, the inaccuracies, the misrepresentations and the unjustified and unsubstantiated. And opinions with which I disagree, like we all do. You will also note that I am quite prepared to be challenged and have ongoing discussions, unlike some. I do not scamper off, which is what I would do if I were merely trolling.
I look forward to next weekend’s question: “Can the Taliban really have a terrible legacy, since they were anti-abortion?”
He advocated killing whites and burning alive those who disagreed with him.
Mandela’s wife has been accused of this, but not Mandela. That is, of course, only relevant to people who believe that women are capable of acting of their own accord.
(*sigh*) The old “I’m not a troll simply because you disagree with me” canard…
Reality, a “troll” is recognised (among other things) by one or more of the following:
1) obnoxious behaviour (including snideness or mockery, especially when used IN PLACE OF a reasonable rejoinder to a question).
2) inflammatory rhetoric which directly contradicts the spirit/theme of the thread/blog (e.g. someone on an African-American blog saying (without a sarcasm tag), “David Duke… what a wonderful man, and how great a hero for our times! God bless him and his work!”… I think of “Steven” and his comments about the pro-abortion nurse of recent posts)
3) a marked and durable resistance to engagement on a logical/reasonable level (often by recourse to sophistries–especially when combined with rhetoric calculated to enrage the opponent)
4) apparent glee/enjoyment at making opponents angry/irritated
I have to admit, you’ve done all of the above, rather often… so it’s not unreasonable for people to start seeing you as a troll. You’ve been relatively civil and level-headed with me, as of late, so I’ve been continuing to engage you in conversation (when time permits), as opposed to writing you off as a troll (I’d made rather a name for myself in warning others on this forum against “feeding trolls”… JDC has taken the baton which I dropped, I think! :) )… but you really would help your case if you could avoid all of the four “troll markers”, above (which are not all-inclusive, but which will do for starters).
I really *do* need to write that “troll taxonomy” book I’ve been meaning to write!
N.B. “Scampering off” is not, I’m afraid, the “sine qua non” of a troll; would that more trolls would do so! But some trolls are quite happy to take residence under a forum’s bridge, as it were…
LisaC: the Taliban are not anti-abortion… at least, not until after four months (and many allowed for exceptions, even after that); very few Muslims are. Perhaps you might research these things, before making such sarcasm-laden claims? (I really do think I’ve said something of the sort to you before, yes?)
Good points, Paladin. I would also add that in an abortion related context anybody who uses the term “anti-choice” is automatically a troll no matter what. Seriously, the proper term is pro-life. People need to learn that before they can be taken seriously in any way, shape or form.
“Mandela’s wife has been accused of this, but not Mandela. That is, of course, only relevant to people who believe that women are capable of acting of their own accord.”
Or it’s more guilt by association, just like when people complain Obama’s former pastor or association with Bill Ayers. Unless you divorce someone and publicly distance yourself, you’re probably going to be associated with your spouse’s views.
Well Paladin, despite you having contributed some of your own opinion in relation to what constitutes a troll, let’s take a look.
1) this would make me but one a a large group. Observe and note some of the repeat offenders (hint – they’re not pro-choicers).
2) not something I do, not intentionally anyway. The form of example you supply can also be applied to certain anti-choicers. I’ve copped my fair share.
3) this is the whole ‘you don’t like or agree with what I’m saying and I don’t just accept your claims’ routine I was speaking of. The plethora of pre-suppositions and “I’m right because I say I’m right” arguments (which you have given a rather rousing demonstration of during recent discussions). And quite frankly, when it comes to sophistry, I find you to be quite the master.
4) ‘angry/irritated’ is not my aim. Demonstrating others to be wrong, unjustified, misleading etc., these are as near as I might get to ‘glee’. Not that I would class it as such. You may also note, if you peruse some of the history of comments, that there are a few anti-choicers who display the trait you describe.
Paladin, your writings display a great ability to write in a manner which appears erudite and factual. Quite a talent. But it isn’t always erudite, and it isn’t always factual. It is expressions of Paladin’s beliefs and Paladin’s philosophy. Beautifully structured prose masquerading as logic and wisdom. Which is perfectly fine. But don’t expect those with any level of acumen to lend it any authority. You are brilliant at constructing descriptives and lists which come across as fixed and unquestionable. But they’re not. They don’t come from any field of expertise, they come from Paladin. Stating “I have already told you this before” doesn’t make something factual, it’s merely repeating the same unsubstantiated claim in an attempt to have it accepted as verified.
anybody who uses the term “anti-choice” is automatically a troll no matter what. – uh huh, and what about the terms applied to pro-choicers by several of your cohorts JDC? Are you going to claim you haven’t seen some of the terms used against myself and others by some of your cohorts?
LisaC: the Taliban are not anti-abortion… at least, not until after four months (and many allowed for exceptions, even after that); very few Muslims are. Perhaps you might research these things, before making such sarcasm-laden claims? (I really do think I’ve said something of the sort to you before, yes?)
You’ve learned to parrot the word ‘research,’ yes, but not mastered the concept. Here’s a link. Let me know if it’s above your reading level.
Unless you divorce someone and publicly distance yourself, you’re probably going to be associated with your spouse’s views.
It’s pretty hard for someone in solitary confinement to do anything publicly. But the Mandelas did separate and then divorce after he was released from prison.
That’s right, I forgot he divorced and remarried again after prison, for some reason I thought he stayed married to Winnie. I don’t remember much if anything he said about her more interesting opinions though.
I’ll reply to you in a moment, Reality; let me catch this faster reply:
LisaC wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
LisaC: the Taliban are not anti-abortion… at least, not until after four months (and many allowed for exceptions, even after that); very few Muslims are. Perhaps you might research these things, before making such sarcasm-laden claims? (I really do think I’ve said something of the sort to you before, yes?)
[Paladin]
You’ve learned to parrot the word ‘research,’ yes, but not mastered the concept.
(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. Forgive me, madam, but I’ll let the reader be the judge of that, I think.
Here’s a link. Let me know if it’s above your reading level.
I don’t suppose you could stop being obnoxious, while chatting about these things? It makes you look rather desperate and thoughtless, in addition to being rude. (“Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.” -Thomas Jefferson)
As for your link (and I do wonder: why do you dismiss “anti-choice” sources such as this in all other situations, while cherry-picking it for this particular purpose? Are they reliable, or are they not?): the point to which you seem to be referring is the idea that “feminists are using abortion to fight against the Taliban”; you then (with nary a pause to consider logical validity) assume this to imply that the Taliban is against all abortion whatsoever.
A bit of research(!), in addition to studies which I made on the subject while at university, led me to find that the Taliban are Sunni (as opposed to Shi’ite, Sufi, etc.), and that the Sunni generally allow for abortion at least up to the 40th day. The following link may help, a bit:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?66665-is-abortion-haram
(Notes: “haram” = “forbidden by Shari’a Law”; and the Taliban adhere to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, which is one of the most “liberal” with regard to abortion, allowing abortion as late as 4 months [120 days])
So… what say you, LisaC? Does that clarify?
Now, then… I have another breather, and another moment to jot a reply!
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
Well Paladin, despite you having contributed some of your own opinion in relation to what constitutes a troll, let’s take a look.
Those are not my mere opinions (I’ll revisit the general idea of “opinion”, below); they are compiled from a number of online and off-line sources. I’d also gently invite you to ask all pro-lifers on this board to see if any of those criteria are “off-base” (who knows–perhaps even some pro-legal-abortion folk might even agree), if you don’t trust my word for it. More on that, below.
1) this would make me but one a a large group.
This really doesn’t help your case, friend. What profit is it to say that, while you are wrong, you have very many comrades in crime?
Observe and note some of the repeat offenders (hint – they’re not pro-choicers).
I’ll agree that obnoxious behaviour is not limited to those who condone legal abortion (and, as such, they really do not help the pro-life cause thereby). But do see point #2: an obnoxious “pro-choice” contributor is much more likely to be taken for a troll on a PRO-LIFE board than would be an obnoxious “pro-life” contributor. At any rate, I’m not at all interested in defending obnoxious behaviour on either side; and if you (without returning fire) call someone out for it, I will not object in the least.
2) not something I do, not intentionally anyway.
True enough, for the most part (so far as I’ve read); I was thinking especially of “Steven” and “Jake” (the latter of which actually followed me here from another forum–*sigh*), when I wrote that.
The form of example you supply can also be applied to certain anti-choicers. I’ve copped my fair share.
(?) Can you name a single instance of a pro-lifer who offered inflammatory rhetoric DIRECTLY AGAINST the pro-life, pro-Christian spirit of this blog?
3) this is the whole ‘you don’t like or agree with what I’m saying and I don’t just accept your claims’ routine I was speaking of.
Come now, friend. You, along with most other people, can tell the difference between a reasonable reply and a mere verbal/written sneer!
Example:
Pro-lifer: “Abortion is murder… period.”
Inflammatory: “I’m glad you’ve mastered the art of spelling out your punctuation marks! :P ”
Non-inflammatory: “No, it isn’t… and you’ll need to prove that it is, before any reasonable person would accept that.”
You’ve been rather notorious for the “pithy, dismissive one-liners” in your replies.
The plethora of pre-suppositions and “I’m right because I say I’m right” arguments (which you have given a rather rousing demonstration of during recent discussions).
I see. And your proof of this claim is… what? I hope you don’t expect me to accept this on your say-so?
And quite frankly, when it comes to sophistry, I find you to be quite the master.
:) Your personal opinion is noted and logged. (More on that point, below.)
4) ‘angry/irritated’ is not my aim.
Well… surely you agree that one (who is of that mind) can be gleeful at an opponent’s outrage/frustration, even if that outrage/frustration hadn’t been the original intent?
Demonstrating others to be wrong, unjustified, misleading etc., these are as near as I might get to ‘glee’.
Hm. I’m not quite sure you’re seeing such examples clearly; would it be clearer if I asked, “Do you ever remember being ‘snarky’ in your replies to pro-lifers?”
You may also note, if you peruse some of the history of comments, that there are a few anti-choicers who display the trait you describe.
That is (unfortunately) true; however, it does not excuse you, nor does it defend your own instances (cf. “tu quoque” fallacy).
Paladin, your writings display a great ability to write in a manner which appears erudite and factual. Quite a talent. But it isn’t always erudite, and it isn’t always factual.
“Isn’t always?” From a precise and mathematical standard, I’m sure that’s true (I never claimed to be infallible)… but I think you’re insinuating that my comments are more wrong than not, or more wrong than is proper, etc.? In other words, you seem to be suggesting that I’m wrong enough (while covering my “wrongness” with “apparent erudition”–whatever that means) to be unreliable. True? Or not true?
It is expressions of Paladin’s beliefs and Paladin’s philosophy.
All right. But you also seem to be insinuating (would you be so kind as to say clearly what you mean, one of these days?) that they are Paladin’s “mere” beliefs and philosophy… and that they are somehow inaccurate, unreliable, illogical, wrong, and so on, as a result. Do I understand you correctly? More on that, in a moment.
Beautifully structured prose masquerading as logic and wisdom.
And here, you seem to get a bit clearer: you suggest that my comments do not contain logic and/or wisdom, but that they only contain the “masquerade”, or false appearance, of them. That’s rather a bold claim, friend… and it also crashes head-long into your own standard. To wit: you claim that my comments are sophistry-laden masquerades–based entirely on raw opinion, while claiming truth and wisdom. And yet: you do not hold yourself to your own standard; do you not see that your own attempted denunciation of my comments is entirely and completely your own raw opinion? However can you make such bold, objective claims such as “Paladin is using a pseudo-erudite masquerade of fallacy and sophistry”, with nary a shred of objective proof (and, as a relativist, leaving yourself little room for *gaining* objective proof) for it, and at the same time leaving your own comments untouched by the same criticism?
In short: you claim that my comments are fallacious, sophistic, etc.; well and good. Now: PROVE IT. If you use a raw opinion to try to dismiss someone else’s comments as raw opinion, I hope you understand why no sane person will take you seriously, on that point. If the standard is good enough for me, it should be good enough for you–yes?
(As a side-note, before things go too far: I am not offended or emotionally upset, in the least; I’m actually a bit bemused by your comments, and I’m a bit annoyed that my efforts to communicate with you seem to be bouncing off a sort of invisible wall around your head… but I do want you to know that I’m not taking this personally, in the emotional sense. No need to worry about this being a quarrel, I think.)
Which is perfectly fine.
:) How magnanimous of you…
But don’t expect those with any level of acumen to lend it any authority.
Don’t you see that you’re doing exactly what you accuse me of doing? In one verbal sweep, you’ve opined that “those who regard Paladin’s comments as being authoritative have no acumen”… and that’s quite obviously your raw opinion. If you don’t live up to your own standard, then the self-contradiction can remove you from the seat of credibility; but mere dislike for my views (tres ironic!) does not justify such a claim.
You are brilliant at constructing descriptives and lists which come across as fixed and unquestionable. But they’re not.
I’ll be happy to discuss any specific points which you find to be questionable (or wrong); but I hope you understand why I can’t simply address such a sweeping generalisation (as you give, here) with anything but a general denial.
They don’t come from any field of expertise, they come from Paladin.
So… “Paladin =/= expert” (declared Reality, who has not proven his own expertise), “Paladin comment = wrong” (declared Reality, who has not proven his own comments to that effect). Do you not see the inconsistency in your comments and approach, here?
Stating “I have already told you this before” doesn’t make something factual,
That’s true… and I never intended such repetition to serve that purpose; I’d trust you to scroll back to my original comment, and read the defense posted there.
it’s merely repeating the same unsubstantiated claim in an attempt to have it accepted as verified.
(*sigh*) …says Reality, repeating the same unsubstantiated claim for the n-th time…
they are compiled from a number of online and off-line sources – so they are selected from a vast array of available descriptions to define a set which one feels most comfortable with, as with many things.
This really doesn’t help your case, friend. What profit is it to say that, while you are wrong, you have very many comrades in crime? – I think ‘crime’ is a bit strong, but if it is so, why is it only I who stand accused?
an obnoxious “pro-choice” contributor is much more likely to be taken for a troll on a PRO-LIFE board than would be an obnoxious “pro-life” contributor – true, bias is present. Yet wouldn’t it be nice if ‘obnoxious’ weren’t applied simply for disagreeing and pointing out fallacies etc.
Can you name a single instance of a pro-lifer who offered inflammatory rhetoric DIRECTLY AGAINST the pro-life, pro-Christian spirit of this blog? – that would have to be the biggest duck I’ve seen in quite some time. And I’m not talking of the quacking variety. I’m speaking of the anti-choicers who offer inflammatory rhetoric against pro-choicers and non-christians, even the anti-choice non-christians.
Come now, friend. You, along with most other people, can tell the difference between a reasonable reply and a mere verbal/written sneer! – yes I can, which is why I said what I did.
You’ve been rather notorious for the “pithy, dismissive one-liners” in your replies. – ahem. When someone claims abortion is murder I do not speak of their punctuation. I point out that abortion is not murder.
I see. And your proof of this claim is… what? I hope you don’t expect me to accept this on your say-so? – yet you expect me to accept what you say as true. Which rather proves my point.
Well… surely you agree that one (who is of that mind) can be gleeful at an opponent’s outrage/frustration, even if that outrage/frustration hadn’t been the original intent? – they can, but I’m not. Outrage/frustration won’t help their understanding/recognition/acceptance of the truth.
“Do you ever remember being ‘snarky’ in your replies to pro-lifers?” – sometimes as a response to received snark.
That is (unfortunately) true; however, it does not excuse you, nor does it defend your own instances (cf. “tu quoque” fallacy). – yet, again, I am the one standing accused.
but I think you’re insinuating that my comments are more wrong than not, or more wrong than is proper, etc.? - it would be easy to be nice and say no. But given that only a narrow amount of subjects have been touched on it’s hard to say.
In other words, you seem to be suggesting that I’m wrong enough (while covering my “wrongness” with “apparent erudition”–whatever that means) to be unreliable. – on the subject of morals at least, yes. To a lesser extent on what constitutes trolling. On a myriad of other things, who knows.
and that they are somehow inaccurate, unreliable, illogical, wrong, and so on, as a result. – some would be, others wouldn’t be. Some can be proven or disproven, others can’t. Some will only ever be your opinion or mine. To what extent can ‘beliefs’ and ‘philosophy’ be deemed ‘right’ or ‘correct’ anyway. This is where your claim of an objective moral code falls down.
In an earlier discussion you stated – The mere fact that I *believe* in objective moral standards allows me to be self-consistent in judging someone’s standards to be good or bad, noble or ignoble – yes, you can be ‘self-consistent’, but your judgement of someone’s standards can’t be objectively ‘right’ or objectively ‘correct’. I can also be self-consistent in judging someone’s standards.
you suggest that my comments do not contain logic and/or wisdom, but that they only contain the “masquerade”, or false appearance, of them. – oh I find some logical, and some wise. It’s a matter of opinion though. Few, some or many folk may agree with a few, some or many of your words.
That’s rather a bold claim, friend… and it also crashes head-long into your own standard. To wit: you claim that my comments are sophistry-laden masquerades–based entirely on raw opinion, while claiming truth and wisdom. And yet: you do not hold yourself to your own standard; do you not see that your own attempted denunciation of my comments is entirely and completely your own raw opinion? – now you’re getting the point. How does it feel?
However can you make such bold, objective claims such as “Paladin is using a pseudo-erudite masquerade of fallacy and sophistry”, with nary a shred of objective proof (and, as a relativist, leaving yourself little room for *gaining* objective proof) – nonsense, now you’re trying to spread this fallacious concept from morals to everything else! You are a relativist too, you have never proven your position to be objective - for it, and at the same time leaving your own comments untouched by the same criticism? – the point is that I’m open to mine being open to criticism if they lack objective proof. You claim, and indeed, use the techniques I have described, as a pretence of objective proof.
If you use a raw opinion to try to dismiss someone else’s comments as raw opinion,…..If the standard is good enough for me, it should be good enough for you–yes? – absolutely my friend, absolutely.
No need to worry about this being a quarrel, I think. – I’m finding it all far too….’positive descriptives’…to consider it a quarrel. I am taking learnings from our discussion.
“those who regard Paladin’s comments as being authoritative have no acumen”… and that’s quite obviously your raw opinion. – indeed, as are your comments. They are no more authoritative than mine, that’s the point.
I’ll be happy to discuss any specific points which you find to be questionable (or wrong); but I hope you understand why I can’t simply address such a sweeping generalisation (as you give, here) with anything but a general denial. – there’s Paladin’s precription for trolling. There’s your Three possible outcomes for moral relativism (1) solipsism, (2) insanity, (3) conversion away from moral relativism. and the whole “since I’m arguing that a certain thing is objective my argument itself is therefore objective” thing.
So… “Paladin =/= expert” (declared Reality, who has not proven his own expertise), – I’m not here to prove my expertise, I’m simply pointing out that your own claim of expertise is no more valid than mine.
“Paladin comment = wrong” (declared Reality, who has not proven his own comments to that effect). Do you not see the inconsistency in your comments and approach, here? – just giving you a taste of your own medicine.
That’s true… and I never intended such repetition to serve that purpose; I’d trust you to scroll back to my original comment, and read the defense posted there. – perhaps you could do so too.
(*sigh*) …says Reality, repeating the same unsubstantiated claim for the n-th time… – now you know how I feel :-)
Verdict:
Paladin: 20 percent cut-n-paste, 80 percent analysis. VS.
“reality” - 80 percent cut-n-paste, 20 percent analysis.
And the winner is Paladin :) :) :)
“And the winner is Paladin”
True, but he wasn’t exactly going up against a formidable opponent.
These debates are so useless. For some people ideals (choice, reproductive rights etc.) are worth sacrificing human lives. And to be able to do that guilt-free, said human lives will not be recognized as such or it will be concluded that they don’t matter yet.
If someone is determined to believe that a member of the human species in the early stages of development is not human enough or not wanted enough to deserve protection granted to human beings, what words could possibly convince them? Especially since to change from pro-choice to a universal-right-to-life view may mean accepting that you or loved ones did something horrible or supported others in doing something horrible. No one wants to accept it and no logic can succeed against that kind of denial.
I see your math is about as good as your logic “thomas r.”. Never mind.
You might want to look up words like ‘analysis’ and see what they mean. Compare it with words like ‘opinion’ and ‘belief’.
Then see if you can redress your errors.
Gee JDC, you’re so enlightning in your elucidation.
Hmm, it seems the troll swarm I predicted has not materialized. I suppose the racism/misogny website was not all that popular.