Saturday, June 05, 2004
A Voice from Beyond the Grave
Hello.
Me again.
Not hanging about for long - this is still to all intents and purposes an 'ex-blog.' But just had to post this: I HAVE FEEDBACK! A month or so after closing this blog down, I've got a wonderful tirade, courtesy of Scott Hillard, who I blogged about some time ago. If you want to get the context, re-read that original post, then come back here to enjoy Scott's response, in all its full, fulminating glory!
Tim,
Seems you took exception to the underlying premise of my "pro-abortion" arguments in the New Herald. Also seems to be some fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
Specifically:
"... but then he may as well assert that there would be no passive smoking in the absence of respiration."
*True again.*
An entirely separate point to:
"Most people might well find it easier to give up breathing to avoid unwanted smoking."
*True yet again, but this is just repeating what he'd said in the previous sentence.*
Clearly my first point mocks Dunleavy's statement of the obvious - that if you don't "copulate", you don't "populate".
The second sentence you quote asserts that there is no way the vast bulk of people will be passing on copulation - whether it result in population or not.
Can you grok that?
You also seem to confuse "pro-abortion", with "pro-choice". Mindless anti-abortionists are opposed to CHOICE. I care not if a woman has an abortion or not, all that matters is that she is free to exercise that choice for herself. Anti-abortionists (like most 'ban-everything'
mindless anti-x/y/z types) really have a problem with empowered people making choices about their own destiny.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like guns? Don't carry one. Don't like 4WDs? Buy a station-wagon. Simple.
That's what lies at the core of my letter (made a little clearer in the sections inevitably edited by Tony Troughear and his cautious cohorts) - the notion that you only have the right to choose a course of action for yourself. If Margaret Tighe wants to pray to the Virgin Mary and pop out dozens of kids (assuming she can find someone desperate enough to bed her), good for her. What she does NOT have is the right to try and deny other people the right to choose a course of action that does not directly harm innocent parties, or their property.
So by my "own reasoning", I will say whatever the hell I want, and some blogger who has a problem with it can go back to blogging or go to hell.
Your pissweak disclaimer at the end of your little rant "I'm pro-abortion myself" does about as much to advance the cause as distributing coathangers at family planning clinics.
BTW: I suspect the "denizens of the steel city" had a voice before your blog came along.
Scott Hillard
I suppose I should make some sort of a response, or something but ... what the hey. Go read the original post and decide for yourself.
Oh, and one other thing - I LOVE YOU SCOTT!!!
Me again.
Not hanging about for long - this is still to all intents and purposes an 'ex-blog.' But just had to post this: I HAVE FEEDBACK! A month or so after closing this blog down, I've got a wonderful tirade, courtesy of Scott Hillard, who I blogged about some time ago. If you want to get the context, re-read that original post, then come back here to enjoy Scott's response, in all its full, fulminating glory!
Tim,
Seems you took exception to the underlying premise of my "pro-abortion" arguments in the New Herald. Also seems to be some fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
Specifically:
"... but then he may as well assert that there would be no passive smoking in the absence of respiration."
*True again.*
An entirely separate point to:
"Most people might well find it easier to give up breathing to avoid unwanted smoking."
*True yet again, but this is just repeating what he'd said in the previous sentence.*
Clearly my first point mocks Dunleavy's statement of the obvious - that if you don't "copulate", you don't "populate".
The second sentence you quote asserts that there is no way the vast bulk of people will be passing on copulation - whether it result in population or not.
Can you grok that?
You also seem to confuse "pro-abortion", with "pro-choice". Mindless anti-abortionists are opposed to CHOICE. I care not if a woman has an abortion or not, all that matters is that she is free to exercise that choice for herself. Anti-abortionists (like most 'ban-everything'
mindless anti-x/y/z types) really have a problem with empowered people making choices about their own destiny.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like guns? Don't carry one. Don't like 4WDs? Buy a station-wagon. Simple.
That's what lies at the core of my letter (made a little clearer in the sections inevitably edited by Tony Troughear and his cautious cohorts) - the notion that you only have the right to choose a course of action for yourself. If Margaret Tighe wants to pray to the Virgin Mary and pop out dozens of kids (assuming she can find someone desperate enough to bed her), good for her. What she does NOT have is the right to try and deny other people the right to choose a course of action that does not directly harm innocent parties, or their property.
So by my "own reasoning", I will say whatever the hell I want, and some blogger who has a problem with it can go back to blogging or go to hell.
Your pissweak disclaimer at the end of your little rant "I'm pro-abortion myself" does about as much to advance the cause as distributing coathangers at family planning clinics.
BTW: I suspect the "denizens of the steel city" had a voice before your blog came along.
Scott Hillard
I suppose I should make some sort of a response, or something but ... what the hey. Go read the original post and decide for yourself.
Oh, and one other thing - I LOVE YOU SCOTT!!!
