Sometimes, the only thing more amusing than dimwits who lie to try to cover up their mistakes are ideologues who can't even comprehend the very idea of possibly being wrong in the first place.
Such would be the case with JJ, the crazed proprietor of Unrepentant Old Hippie, who recently offered up this amusing little gem:
"In marathoning it's called "hitting the wall". I don't know if there's a blogging equivalent, but after 10 days of frenzied blogging in the wake of Dr. M's OC appointment and the barrage of batshit bullshit that followed, I was suddenly exhausted. I couldn't stand to read or even think about one more word of the steaming loads of bullshit being dumped by the "busload" on blogs and in the media over this topic and the tangential abortion issue. I was tired, man.After taking a short time-out to trot out the latest "anti-choice outrage" she disagrees with, JJ ends her post with an invitation to any and all who would dare disagree with her. "Bring it!" she insists.
Normally bullshit is great incentive to blog -- it shouldn't be ignored because there's a chance that some unsuspecting person out there might believe it. Bullshit should be shot down whenever and wherever it's found and its sanctimonious, stupid and self-righteous propagators ridiculed with gusto. But these people are first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. In advertising we used to call it "Wearing down their resistance with repetition". The same kind of psychology is at work with anti-abortion propagandists -- knowing full well that the numbers aren't on their side, their only hope is to wear down resistance with an endless loop of lies. To literally exhaust people into seeing things their way."
Well, OK. Only if we really have to.
Because ironically, this could very much be treated as one of those instances in which a person, searching for that perfect epithet to hurl at their opponents, describes themselves most acurately.
In this case, it revolves around JJ's insistence that those who disagree with her are "first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them."
Considering that refusing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts her is a privilege JJ has indulged herself in at length, it's impossible to take her seriously on this particular point.
But despite all the extremist craziness that has transpired before -- such as defending an assault on a 69-year-old man for expressing anti-abortion views -- JJ deserves an opportunity to prove herself. The following is an email sent to JJ in response to her little diatribe today:
"JJ,Well, she did say to "bring it".
I read with some interest your recent blog post "On Bullshit and Breaks", and really couldn't help but agree that, yes, the whole Morgentaler controversy SHOULD be given a rest. After all, it isn't as if this is the nobel prize we're talking about here.
But I couldn't help but read, with some amusement, your comments regarding your anti-abortion opponents. Most notably:
"Bullshit should be shot down whenever and wherever it's found and its sanctimonious, stupid and self-righteous propagators ridiculed with gusto. But these people are first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. In advertising we used to call it "Wearing down their resistance with repetition". The same kind of psychology is at work with anti-abortion propagandists -- knowing full well that the numbers aren't on their side, their only hope is to wear down resistance with an endless loop of lies. To literally exhaust people into seeing things their way."
I found this statement to be rather ironic and amusing considering that, if anything, it describes yourself and your allies in the pro-abortion lobby as well as anyone else.
In particular, your characterization of them as "propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them".
In this vein, I'd like to "bring it" by positing the following facts, to see if we can get you, yourself, to budge from that precious script of yours:
1. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists opposed to bill C-484, insist that it's nothing more than a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion. Yet fetal homicide acts are in effect in numerous states in the United States. Yet in none of those states has abortion been declared illegal.
2. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, oppose any attempt to legislate when an abortion can or cannot be sought on demand (without relevant health-related concerns), often insisting that such legislation would be nothing more than a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion. Yet France, Germany, Norway and Sweden (amongst other countries) have legislated a 20-week limit after which a woman must have medical concerns in order to obtain an abortion. Abortion has yet to be criminalized in any of these countries.
3. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, insist that legislation such as that described in point number two is unnecessary because no doctor would perform a late-term abortion without sufficient medical reason due to the procedure being judged to be unethical. Yet you oppose legislation that would legally protect the right of such doctors to refuse to perform that procedure for ethical, moral or religious reasons.
4. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists continue to insist that you are not, in fact, pro-abortion, but rather pro-choice. Yet you, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, oppose the aforementioned legislation that would protect freedom of choice for doctors who hold opinions regarding abortion that differ from your own.
These are dilemmas that have never been addressed adequately by any member of the pro-abortion lobby, least of all yourself.
In fact you, like virtually all members of the pro-abortion lobby, have stuck very adamantly to the positions outlined here despite the fact they have never been adequately defended. Not much unlike "propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them".
Considering the position you've taken today, I'm hoping you'll finally find it in yourself to address these various dilemmas.
You may feel free to do so in a response email (but should understand before doing so that I intend to post such a response to a subsequent post on my own blog in order to outline your response), in a post on your own blog, or even in the comments section of The Nexus.
You've asked those who disagree with you to "bring it". I've done precisely that. Hopefully, you'll put your money where your mouth is.
Regards,
-Patrick Ross"
Now we'll have to wait and see if she's actually up to her own challenge on this one. Stay tuned.
That's it?
ReplyDeleteI presume you'll answer these questions then? Unscripted?
ReplyDelete"Unscripted?" LOL, I have to admit you are funny.
ReplyDeletePatrick, I've already answered those questions from you... over & over, ad nauseum.
You know, you seem like a fairly bright young man, and I used to think you were interesting to debate. But then you got stuck in this loop of arguing by twisting words and using weird pretzel logic, and I just don't know what to tell you. I give you an answer, you misinterpret it, I correct you, you misinterpret the correction. It's the very definition of debating in bad faith.
If you want an answer to the same old questions yet again, just search my blog for the answers I've already given you. (Search function is at top left of page.)
No, you haven't. Not in any satisfactory manner.
ReplyDeleteAnd who could blame ypu? You're so ideologically invested in the issue that it's in all likelihood psycholigically impossible for you to just admit you're spreading unwarranted hysteria and peddling hypocrisy.
Spouting your talking points over and over ad nauseum doesn't qualify as "unscripted".
"Not in any satisfactory manner"??? What, so any answer I give other than "You're right, Patrick Ross" is scripted?
ReplyDeleteWell, you already have my answers, unsatisfactory to you though they may be. If you're so interested in getting these questions answered by the "pro-abortion lobby", why don't you put them to Bread n Roses?
But you don't -- which means you're more interested in irritating me than you are in any real answers to your questions.
No, JJ. Any answer with anything resembling a shred of acknowledgement of these facts would satisfy me.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, JJ, I addressed these questions specifically to you because you're the one who said to "bring it".
Pro-choice is a misnomer. That leads on to believe those against abortion are anti-choice. They're anti-choice of only one thing, the choice that kills the baby. Otherwise every imaginable choice (keep the baby, have the dad or family member raise the child, adoption is on the table). It's pro-abortion and anti-abortion and then the larger middle ground that believes some restrictions are sorely needed. Unfortunately debate on this issue is shot down instantly as we've seen above. It's a done issue in their mind and decided Patrick and we're not to speak of it again. Didn't you get the memo?
ReplyDeleteWell, ironically, I fall into that middle ground that individuals like JJ won't even admit exists. Unfortunately they have a "with us or against us" mentality.
ReplyDeleteThey've constructed a rather pervasive dogma around their beliefs, and they've refined those beliefs into what I would describe as a virtual reality ideology -- not only are they convinced that nothing exists outside of that ideology, but they discourage people from even asking them questions that fall outside that ideology.
For example, the questions I've asked here -- not unreasonable by any means, but they simply won't answer them outside the confines of some talking points that, quite frankly, don't even address the questions, or even the principles underlying them.
I think there's something about an individual who's so offended by such questions that she won't even attempt to answer them. It's simply that dogatic point of view refusing to let a little logic out for air.
It's terribly typical.