Responding to: How Dare You Compare Abortion to The Holocaust or Slavery?

[ChristianTrader]

Responding to: How Dare You Compare Abortion to The Holocaust or Slavery?

Responding to: How Dare You Compare Abortion to The Holocaust or Slavery? | LifeNews.com

Response:

Yes, How Dare You Compare Abortion to Slavery?! – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

I believe Rev. Anyabwile missed horrible in his response.

 

[seajayrice]

Hermonta - the "How dare you" link seems to be a reasonable position. When I go to the reponse link, my browser freezes. Has happened 3 times even at the GC site. Can you paste the response here?

 

[Zenas]

I think Rev. Anyabwile gave a very informative response. Something I've learned is that while you may feel someone's feelings on an issue to be misguided, ill-informed, or prejudiced, that doesn't matter. The plain reality of the situation is this: they still feel that way.

While I felt some of the Rev. Anyabwile's points were racially motivated or unfair, that's still how he feels. Knowing how he or others feel will help score points for being empathetic and/or winsome. No doubt, someone looking at me will think that my family owned slaves. Their assumption wouldn't be incorrect because we did. It helps to know that in reality, I'm dealing with that perception, or I ought to be dealing with that perception.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I believe Rev. Anyabwile missed horrible in his response.

Hermonta,

I read what he had to say. Afterward I felt what I often feel after reading something by a black writer on racial issues in America: confused. I'm glad I wasn't the only one less than impressed with his argument.

 

[jason d]

I beg to differ... his response was great and his post today was even better:

How I Would Talk About Abortion and Slavery to an African American Audience Were I a White Man – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

 

[seajayrice]

I beg to differ... his response was great and his post today was even better:

How I Would Talk About Abortion and Slavery to an African American Audience Were I a White Man – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

I could not read the original response but I find this one is powerful. I pray all pastors and all Christians would speak out in such fashion against the abortion deception and it's parallels to slavery and the Nazi Holocaust.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The Original Response by Rev. Anyabwile:

Yes, How Dare You Compare Abortion to Slavery?!

I love the way the internet helps you get around the world in minutes. For example, my man Zach links to a news and views round-up by Trevin Wax which links to an opinion piece by Bryan Kemper over at LifeNews.com called “Responding to: How Dare You Compare Abortion to the Holocaust or Slavery.” That’s around the world in about 8 seconds! Or at least around the evangelical blogger world in 8 seconds.

Information and opinions travel quickly on the internet. And that means we’re prone to gathering and absorbing views and opinions with far too much speed to carefully consider alternatives. I’d like to offer one to Mr. Kemper’s piece.

You see, I’m firmly pro-life and anti-abortion. And I’m also one of those persons who responds, “How dare you compare abortion to slavery?!” You can read an earlier post on this issue here. But here’s what I’d like to add as friendly fire to a soldier in a war I care about, who does not appear to understand how his rhetorical gunfire affects the one in the trench next to him. In other words, this is why I’d say “how dare you…” to my ally Mr. Kemper.

First, how dare you? In other words, the way most people make this comparison strikes me as essentially self-serving in a way that many African-Americans feel continues to under-affirm their humanity. The comparison sometimes goes like this:

a) All fetuses are human beings (their DNA, origin, and progress prove this that they are human, not monkeys, dogs, etc.)
b) All human beings are persons
c) Therefore, all persons deserve equal respect, value and protection.

Okay, the argument is basically fine. But read Mr. Kemper’s opinion piece and tell me how many times he seems to deeply affirm the human pain and suffering African Americans endured in slavery. He seems quite aware of the Jewish holocaust, referring to monuments and observances dedicated to never forgetting that human tragedy. But how many such monuments and museums exist in honor of African people treated as chattel? How many institutions work to ensure there is a deep, abiding recollection of those centuries of torture? Not many. Kemper certainly doesn’t mention many. Now, here’s why some of us say “how dare you?” Without demonstrating any genuine empathy, any continuing affirmation of the humanity of African people, the comparison simply seems to lack authenticity, familiarity, and empathy. It merely sounds expedient. Those who use the argument don’t really sound like they care about black people as such, but only about exploiting the pain of black people as a political expedient.

Let me give you an illustration. Yesterday I went to a restaurant with a brother in the Lord. While there a Toby Mac song began playing on the restaurant speakers. There was something oddly familiar, yet clearly distant. The particular song seemed to be an effort at playing the blues by someone who grew up pretty affluent and problem free. There was the basic form and melody of the blues, but won’t no blues in it. The way, the how, of this comparison lacks blues for slaves and descendants of slaves. It lacks familiarity with the suffering, pays passing tribute to the humanity of slaves, and moves too quickly to the rhetorical and political comparison. It’s all too expedient and neat for an experience whose icon is a lacerated, bleeding, whipped back.

A suggestion: If you have an African American audience with whom you’re using this analogy and you have 30 minutes to win their support, spend the first 20 minutes showing your familiarity with the brutality of suffering and affirming the humanity of the sufferer before you employ the suffering and the sufferer in your cause. Otherwise, I’m guessing most of your audience is saying, “How dare you?!”

Second, how dare you?! Now, I don’t like ad hominems. And I don’t appreciate arguments where one person calls something “off limits” simply because another person doesn’t share their skin tone or ethnic background, etc. I’m not intending to do that here. The history of African Americans belongs to the world, and I want to encourage wider appropriation of that history by people who are not African Americans.

But having said that, the person who wants to compare abortion to slavery–especially the politically and theologically conservative white person–needs to be ready to hear a lot of people question them personally for doing so. Here’s why. You fit a type in the African American mind. You look, think, speak, and act a lot like the very folks who held slaves. Your views on some things are hauntingly and terrifyingly similar. We sometimes hear you making political arguments about other issues (take states’ rights, for example) and we think, This dude is a Dixiecrat. Now you show up and you talk about the suffering of African Americans in a way that doesn’t deeply explore that suffering or memorialize that humanity and you become very suspect.

I hesitate to use this example. I don’t want to be guilty of what I’m cautioning others against doing. But in using this illustration, I think I’ll highlight the point. My heart is to illustrate, not offend. But here goes: Your using this comparison in this drive-by way without paying attention to how African Americans view you is a lot like a rapist saying to a woman he brutalizes that she should have not worn that outfit or been in that place. The rapist’s response not only blames the victim and minimizes her suffering and trauma, it also reveals he’s too blind to see how terrible a thing it is to be a rapist. He is the problem and he doesn’t seem to know it.

My friend, the problem isn’t the comparison between slavery and abortion. The problem is a person showing up to make the comparison who doesn’t know he is being identified by his audience as “the problem.” Here’s how I tried to address this dynamic in the comments thread of the earlier post:

If a white brother uses the argument with slavery as the example with the average African American, who otherwise might be right there with them on the issue and argument, I think he’s going to be raising racial barriers, mistrust, and perceptions that actually defeat his cause. Many in that audience will likely think, “But you don’t have the moral credibility to talk to me about slavery.” And there’s the rub. You’re not actually talking about slavery; you’re talking about abortion. But injecting slavery with this audience obligates the white speaker to demonstrate a range of sensibilities and capacities on questions of race that, honestly, not many in my experience can offer at a level satisfactory to most African Americans.

If you’re going to talk about abortion in this way to Jewish and African American audiences, I suspect you might want to pay attention to how the audience views you. I suspect you’d be wise to know what associations they make between you and “your people,” a people they have historical reason to associate with their suffering, the suffering you’re now trying to turn to your advantage.

Kemper offers his description of the problem Jewish and African American audiences have with the comparison:

The problem they have is not really the fact that a comparison is being made to one of these horrific tragedies; after all, we build museums, memorials and reminders of what happened to make sure something like the Jewish Holocaust will never happen again. The problem really is that we have elevated what they consider to be a blob of tissue to personhood status.

Hmmm…. The first rule of public speaking is: Man, Know Thy Audience. Honestly, I think that paragraph shows Kemper hasn’t done what he needs to do to know his African American audience. African Americans are not against arguments that affirm personhood. Gosh! We’ve spent centuries fighting for personhood! We’d simply like our own thoroughly affirmed and appreciated before appropriated. That’s why we (at least, I) don’t like the comparison.

There’s one more element to this I’d like to highlight. When I say, “How dare you make this comparison?” I’m also identifying someone who hasn’t shown up to support a lot of other causes I care about. Not only have you not shown up to support, you really haven’t shown up to dialogue, understand, or persuade. Most of your political and social positions lie across the river from my own, and though you own a boat you’ve never tried to row across. Now you show up saying how much I ought to support your cause. And you tell me how much this cause ought to mean to me, how I ought to care about the death of black babies. You tell me this as if I don’t already care about the death of black babies. But when I talk about the death of black babies due to crime, or poverty, or drugs, or slow death from a sub-par education, you tell me that’s my problem. When you do that, you seem to care more about your political issue than you care about my black life. You need to know that’s how we see you. Your comparison reminds us of all of this.

So, yes, how dare you compare abortion to slavery?! I love you. But I’m afraid you don’t love me… at least not long enough to hear how your comparison affects me. I’m in the trenches with you–at least I want to be–but the shrapnel from your rapid fire makes it hard for me to fire with you.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I think the Dr. is contradicting himself. In the first post he talked about how Toby Mac could not perform blues by stating, "The particular song seemed to be an effort at playing the blues by someone who grew up pretty affluent and problem free" and " It lacks familiarity with the suffering". In the second he tells us "white men" to "Show some empathy and understanding of the suffering caused by slavery."

How can one show empathy when in the first blog he mentioned that someone who grew up affluent and problem free lack familiarity of the suffering of slavery?

 

[Jack K]

We who are white, American believers need to listen well to Thabiti Anyabwile. He knows the gospel, is on our side, and understands things we struggle to see.

 

[ChristianTrader]

If abortion is as bad, if not worse, than what is claimed for Southern slavery, then on what basis is there for offense when the comparison is made? If there is no basis, then isn't the answer just to say, "Grow Up"? Individuals and groups have been and will continue to be unjustly treated from the beginning of the world till the end. That is not an excuse for for someone to attempt to close ones ears to another pointing out obvious inconsistencies and misconduct.

CT

 

[TimV]

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided that human persons who were of Jewish heritage were not actually human persons, but some kind of pest or rodent that needed exterminating.

How can you compare two things when you don't even understand one of them? Jews were considered human. Under the Nuremberg race laws half Jews could by filling out paperwork or joining the army get changed to quarter Jew status and then by law not only be able to marry Germans but by law forced to marry only Germans. Jews were thought to work as a group to further their own interests at the expense of Germans. Communism was just one example of a Jewish movement to the Nazis. Jews were encouraged to assimilate or leave, and until Barbarossa cut off the Eastern exit that same pressure was put on Jews to become Germans or leave. After Barbarossa they started to be killed off in large numbers, but no where near the numbers of Slavs.

So, I'd submit that propaganda and hyperbole be thrown out of the discussing, and restrict the debate to those who have actually taken the time to educate themselves on the matter. And there are LOTS of variables.

I would also keep in mind that everyone seems to have their own pet sin that they use to make themselves feel better than other people. I defend Jews. I defend the unborn. I don't smoke. I don't support the wine industry. If I were alive at the time I would have killed lots of Germans. I am a five point Calvinist. I've never committed adultery.

Now, it's all well and good that we are haters of sin. We just need to look within ourselves to make sure we don't hate a particular sin just because we want to compare ourselves favorably with the sorry dude who's committing our pet sin.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

From the very second the development of a human being starts, the thing developing is a human being.

Also, as this is an adult board, while nobody with a high school education denies that at the moment of conception a human being is created, the other question of when a soul is given has to come up. My denomination, one of the most conservative in the world, allows the killing of a fetus under certain circumstances, and we're in really good company. A minor issue, I admit, like pointing out that the Nazis did consider Jews human in my last post, but if we're going to act like adults and talk like adults then we need to think like adults.

Or, we can just scream at each other.

 

[seajayrice]

I think the Holocaust parallel pertains not so much to the definition of life but to the cold hard calculus that allowed the Holocaust to occur. Racial purity and the master race, I hear that when the relativist bemoan bringing an unwanted person into the world. The other obvious parallel is to those that stand by and do nothing. As far as the good pastors response, the racial elements are difficult to address and deeply complex. However, it is good to talk about it and pray for one another, as this too is an effect of the fall. I am white so take this with a grain of salt, but does the good pastor believe only black people of African slave pedigree can understand the suffering or scope of slavery. That unless your pedigree is black African slave you must walk this certain way when speaking with all blacks if the S word is used. If he wants to discuss racism and the after effects of slavery - that is another story. Racism in America is alive and well. The Mexicans were not slaves but white America seems to hate them pretty well too. He further muddies the dialogue when he inserts some apparent resentment against people from "over the river" (like he omnisciently knows what all whites are doing) have failed to support his pet causes that he deems racial in nature. He fails to mention yellow, red and brown babies. He also fails to mention what he has done for our families in Korea and China or bothered to point out how the Japanese treated these peoples for centuries. Does he really believe he speaks for all black people when he asserts blacks see slave owners when they see whites (further proof of omniscience) use the S word? Could that possibly be true? Certainly white Middle America could use some help in reaching outside the culture and thankfully, that came in his thoughtful and effective second response. The graceful thing to do is to speak openly and lovingly. What he writes in the initial response contains some truth that white America should hear; it is the overall tenor and racial overgeneralizations that are so off putting. I would be so pleased to hear that the brother (as in Christian brother) might retract some of what he initially wrote and get back to the abortion fight. Racism is also a fight that could use much more Christian light.

A very worthy topic, thanks for posting. Ties in somewhat with the multi-cultural thread.

 

[smhbbag]

If abortion is what we say it is, then how is slavery even on the same order of magnitude of evil?

The comparison with slavery can indeed be offensive, but the offense is the other way around.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ahem, I actually believe that abortion is WORSE than slavery.

 

[jayce475]

Rev. Anyabwile makes it sound as if the average African American is holding onto a lot of emotional baggage when facing white Americans. If this is truly the case, I think his argument of not using such comparisons so as not to unnecessarily offend the African American community is valid on the basis of Romans 14. However, looking in from the outside, I'm wondering if this is really true of what's happening in America? And if it is, perhaps something needs to be done about such mindsets held onto by the typical African American? If it is not, they why is Rev. Anyabwile so riled up about this issue? I know that I as a young Singaporean who did not experience the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers during the war would have no issue with comparisons being made between abortion and what the Japanese did, but some older folks may be offended, so I would be sensitive when talking about the war. Not entirely sure if this is comparable to American slavery though.

 

[py3ak]

If we are seeking support for our own political cause, and if we are using "close-to-home" comparisons to get the audience stirred up, then certainly a sympathy with the audience, an understanding of how the elements of comparison work is essential. And if we are seeking support for political causes, it does seem that we ought to be willing to listen to other, similar political causes supported by those whose support we seek. And Rev. Anyabwile's follow-up stump speech was quite stirring.

That said, I think some of the outrage (obviously not Rev. Anyabwile's) over the comparison between slavery and abortion is because the people hearing it don't like slavery, and do like abortion, and so they hate to have one of their favorite things associated with one of their least favorite things: especially when it's obvious on the face of it that both involve selfish oppression of helpless others.

 

[Fly Caster]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time following the Dr.'s argument, but it appears that he is overlooking some things.

We are all not so very different-- blacks and whites. We are all sinners and we all sin-- and have sinned-- against one another. Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, whites against whites, blacks against blacks. The main problem that I see here is that "slavery" and the "Holocaust" are portrayed as "white" sins-- and while I don't wish to attribute something to the Dr. that he isn't saying, the logical point of his argument boils down to "How dare you to compare "Black" sins to "White" sins? That in order to, as a white man, relate to a black audience on these things, I must spend the most of my time acknowledging that "white" sins are worse than "black" sins-- otherwise I am being offensive.

My people were Scots. Centuries ago they were savage, idolatrous pagans who ran about naked, desecrated their bodies and treated their neighbors horrifically-- not very different from the black tribes of Africa. Large numbers of my people were sold into slavery as well. And, yes, my people have participated in a few holocausts and genocides of their own, the practice of abortion being one of them, among others. My peoples sins are really no different from the sins of the Dr.'s people-- which contained large numbers of savage, idolatrous people who kidnapped their neighbors and sold them to the slave traders, butchered neighboring villages, and even owned slaves in America. Thoughts of the "Holocaust" could just as well apply to the recent genocide in Rwanda as the genocide in Germany. I am not opposed to pointing out the sins of our people, but I do oppose pointing them out with something other than equal weights and measures.

We must see these things in light of the Law and of the Gospel. In light of the Law we can condemn both Abortion and man-stealing, as well as genocide at the hands of whites and at the hand of blacks, on the common ground of what God has forbidden. In the light of that Law, we can also determine what restitutions need to be met and punishments meted out to set things right. In the light of the Gospel, we can see how we, black and white, are now to live as free men, forgiving each other up to 7 times 70, with the barriers of race torn down once for all, with no further atonement to be made. Is this not sufficient? Are we to think that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites to a greater extent than our Lord suffered for the sins of mankind? That further atonement must yet be made?

So how do I relate to a black audience? How can I 'understand' and 'empathize' with them in their suffering, and thereby avoid giving offense? The honest answer is that I cannot, and I am not afraid to state that. All I can do is confess my guilt and my people's guilt, call upon them to confess their own, and look to one who has born our sins and has the knowledge to understand and empathize with us all-- black or white. That is the gospel that brought a change to my Scottish people-- that united them in a common cause. And that is the gospel that will unite a sin-ridden people composed of both light skin and dark skin. I'm afraid that the Dr.'s arguments would divide us Scots back up into clans and factions instead of fostering the unity that we all have in Christ. More importantly, they are fostering an unhealthy division among races in the church.

If I am misunderstanding, I welcome correction.

 

[Zenas]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time following the Dr.'s argument, but it appears that he is overlooking some things.

We are all not so very different-- blacks and whites. We are all sinners and we all sin-- and have sinned-- against one another. Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, whites against whites, blacks against blacks. The main problem that I see here is that "slavery" and the "Holocaust" are portrayed as "white" sins-- and while I don't wish to attribute something to the Dr. that he isn't saying, the logical point of his argument boils down to "How dare you to compare "Black" sins to "White" sins? That in order to, as a white man, relate to a black audience on these things, I must spend the most of my time acknowledging that "white" sins are worse than "black" sins-- otherwise I am being offensive.

As I said above, this is all well and good, but does nothing to change the reality that people feel the way Rev. Anyabwile describes and we have to deal with that. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way I doubt would be well received and would do nothing to change that feeling.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time following the Dr.'s argument, but it appears that he is overlooking some things.

We are all not so very different-- blacks and whites. We are all sinners and we all sin-- and have sinned-- against one another. Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, whites against whites, blacks against blacks. The main problem that I see here is that "slavery" and the "Holocaust" are portrayed as "white" sins-- and while I don't wish to attribute something to the Dr. that he isn't saying, the logical point of his argument boils down to "How dare you to compare "Black" sins to "White" sins? That in order to, as a white man, relate to a black audience on these things, I must spend the most of my time acknowledging that "white" sins are worse than "black" sins-- otherwise I am being offensive.

As I said above, this is all well and good, but does nothing to change the reality that people feel the way Rev. Anyabwile describes and we have to deal with that. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way I doubt would be well received and would do nothing to change that feeling.

We should encourage people in the belief that their sins are less than the sins of others? If not then truth has to be spoken to power.

CT

 

[Zenas]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time following the Dr.'s argument, but it appears that he is overlooking some things.

We are all not so very different-- blacks and whites. We are all sinners and we all sin-- and have sinned-- against one another. Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, whites against whites, blacks against blacks. The main problem that I see here is that "slavery" and the "Holocaust" are portrayed as "white" sins-- and while I don't wish to attribute something to the Dr. that he isn't saying, the logical point of his argument boils down to "How dare you to compare "Black" sins to "White" sins? That in order to, as a white man, relate to a black audience on these things, I must spend the most of my time acknowledging that "white" sins are worse than "black" sins-- otherwise I am being offensive.

As I said above, this is all well and good, but does nothing to change the reality that people feel the way Rev. Anyabwile describes and we have to deal with that. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way I doubt would be well received and would do nothing to change that feeling.

We should encourage people in the belief that their sins are less than the sins of others? If not then truth has to be spoken to power.

CT

I wasn't aware I said that, nor is that the necessary logical conclusion of what I said.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time following the Dr.'s argument, but it appears that he is overlooking some things.

We are all not so very different-- blacks and whites. We are all sinners and we all sin-- and have sinned-- against one another. Whites against blacks, blacks against whites, whites against whites, blacks against blacks. The main problem that I see here is that "slavery" and the "Holocaust" are portrayed as "white" sins-- and while I don't wish to attribute something to the Dr. that he isn't saying, the logical point of his argument boils down to "How dare you to compare "Black" sins to "White" sins? That in order to, as a white man, relate to a black audience on these things, I must spend the most of my time acknowledging that "white" sins are worse than "black" sins-- otherwise I am being offensive.

As I said above, this is all well and good, but does nothing to change the reality that people feel the way Rev. Anyabwile describes and we have to deal with that. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way I doubt would be well received and would do nothing to change that feeling.

We should encourage people in the belief that their sins are less than the sins of others? If not then truth has to be spoken to power.

CT

I wasn't aware I said that, nor is that the necessary logical conclusion of what I said.

Are you advocating saying the hard truths or not? If you are then fine, if you are not then what I wrote holds.

CT

 

[Zenas]

You asked me if I thought we should encourage people to persist in their belief that their sins are less than the sins of others. "Encourage" denotes active promotion which is nothing even akin to what I said. What I said, which was very clear, is that we ought to be aware of the perceptions people have and deal with them appropriately. Simply stating one ought not to feel that way is a logically sound argument which will win over zero (0) people. One's feeling on a subject are not logical, they're emotional. That has to be dealt with appropriately. Explaining that Africans were complicit in their own people's slavery does little to alleviate the strongly held perception and emotional feeling that black people in America (the people who were sold, not doing the selling) feel toward whites (who, depending on when their ancestors got here, were the ones doing the buying).

My answer to you then is none of the above. You apparently misread me and your resulting replies were necessarily off point as a result.

 

[ChristianTrader]

You asked me if I thought we should encourage people to persist in their belief that their sins are less than the sins of others. "Encourage" denotes active promotion which is nothing even akin to what I said. What I said, which was very clear, is that we ought to be aware of the perceptions people have and deal with them appropriately. Simply stating one ought not to feel that way is a logically sound argument which will win over zero (0) people. One's feeling on a subject are not logical, they're emotional. That has to be dealt with appropriately. Explaining that Africans were complicit in their own people's slavery does little to alleviate the strongly held perception and emotional feeling that black people in America (the people who were sold, not doing the selling) feel toward whites (who, depending on when their ancestors got here, were the ones doing the buying).

My answer to you then is none of the above. You apparently misread me and your resulting replies were necessarily off point as a result.

On what basis do you consider logic/reason and emotions to be two completely different spheres? People react various ways due to various assumptions. Remember the original issue was the reaction to the comparison between abortion and slavery. If the point is driven home that abortion is as bad if not worse, then emotions will come in line. If someone has an irrational belief, one does not play to that belief in order to make them feel better. It is a waste of your time and does not help them.

CT

 

[Zenas]

Let us then take the time for protracted debate regarding why black people shouldn't feel the way they do and then move on to why they should oppose abortion. That will definitely work.

Let's apply your approach consistently in other areas at that:

Children whose unbelieving parents have died. When consoling them, we must not let them persist in the belief that their parents were somehow saved. Logically, they went to Hell.

I bet that goes over great.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Let us then take the time for protracted debate regarding why black people shouldn't feel the way they do and then move on to why they should oppose abortion. That will definitely work.

Let's apply your approach consistently in other areas at that:

Children whose unbelieving parents have died. When consoling them, we must not let them persist in the belief that their parents were somehow saved. Logically, they went to Hell.

I bet that goes over great.

Actually I stated the lynchpin was how bad abortion is. If that is settled then we won't have to worry about trying to settle the emotion issue. Perhaps if you attempted to read vs. trying to score points, then we wouldn't have even started this line of posts.

Next, a consistent application of my approach is that truth sets free and lies hold people in bondage. If someone is 5'4" and believes that they are not in the NBA due to some racist plot, I am not going to try to encourage them in this line of thinking. They might get upset etc. but it does no one any good to make the person feel good absent the truth.

CT

 

[Zenas]

Next, a consistent application of my approach is that truth sets free and lies hold people in bondage. If someone is 5'4" and believes that they are not in the NBA due to some racist plot, I am not going to try to encourage them in this line of thinking. They might get upset etc. but it does no one any good to make the person feel good absent the truth.

You love poisoning the well don't you? We can go ahead and strike the word "encourage" as that's irrelevant to anything I've said.

Moving on from that, how you go about enlightening someone to the reality of things might have a lot to do with it, which has been consistently my point. Merely stating the logical truth of reality will do little to win points. You've said nothing regarding this. When I tried to warn you that you misread me, you ignored the warning and marched straight into the river of "wrong" you're currently occupying, ironically making pithy comments about my need to read you correctly. An analogy regarding the color of pots and kettles comes to mind.

In case you missed it, here's my position in the form of a big, bolded 2x4:

What I said, which was very clear, is that we ought to be aware of the perceptions people have and deal with them appropriately. Simply stating one ought not to feel that way is a logically sound argument which will win over zero (0) people.

An important caveat which obviates the need for any explanation in line with your points is underlined.

How you missed it is a function of a deficiency you accuse me of. If we're keeping points as you accuse me, I'm up.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Next, a consistent application of my approach is that truth sets free and lies hold people in bondage. If someone is 5'4" and believes that they are not in the NBA due to some racist plot, I am not going to try to encourage them in this line of thinking. They might get upset etc. but it does no one any good to make the person feel good absent the truth.

You love poisoning the well don't you? We can go ahead and strike the word "encourage" as that's irrelevant to anything I've said.

Either you are encouraging or discouraging. You can try to say it nice or not but you are either one way or the other.

Moving on from that, how you go about enlightening someone to the reality of things might have a lot to do with it, which has been consistently my point. Merely stating the logical truth of reality will do little to win points. You've said nothing regarding this. When I tried to warn you that you misread me, you ignored the warning and marched straight into the river of "wrong" you're currently occupying, ironically making pithy comments about my need to read you correctly. An analogy regarding the color of pots and kettles comes to mind.

I made the point that either you are going to speak hard truths or not. You lost it at that point. You wanted to take some third option which does not exist. However you wish to flesh that out, I take no position on, but at the end of the day, the hard truth of abortion is as bad if not worse must either be defended or rejected. That is hard truth. Never did I affirm just stating that abortion is really bad without argumentation defending that point.

Next, your "Let us then take the time for protracted debate regarding why black people shouldn't feel the way they do and then move on to why they should oppose abortion. That will definitely work. "

When did I ever make the point that I would attack feelings before truth? Yeah pot meet kettle indeed.

In case you missed it, here's my position in the form of a big, bolded 2x4:

What I said, which was very clear, is that we ought to be aware of the perceptions people have and deal with them appropriately. Simply stating one ought not to feel that way is a logically sound argument which will win over zero (0) people.

An important caveat which obviates the need for any explanation in line with your points is underlined.

How you missed it is a function of a deficiency you accuse me of. If we're keeping points as you accuse me, I'm up.

The caveat was obliterated when you decided that you wanted a third option.

CT

 

[Zenas]

Either you are encouraging or discouraging. You can try to say it nice or not but you are either one way or the other.

Which is something I've never constested. I said how you handle the matter is important and that one should be aware of the perceptions they are dealing with. As I stated twice now, and now for a third time, you didn't read me correctly.

Your false dichotomy that I either have to tell people their feelings are ignorant and illogical or don't tell them anything is unwarranted and irrelevant, which is why I said "None of the above." Your own failure to read carefully and clumsy conclusions have resulted in what can only be characterized as a complete waste of time between two people who mostly agree save for one point that the other has conjured out of thin air.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The only dichotomy that I made was that either one tells folks that their sins are less than the sins of others, or tell them that their sins equal or exceed those of others. The reasons I made that dichotomy is that such belief is at the center point of the irrational emotions.

CT