It's your basic no-brain-pro-life-nonsensical propaganda bullshit


Click to enlarge
To preface this: It's my response to an absurd meme that shows a bunch of animals on the endangered animal watch list and then, next to these majestic animals, shows a pregnant woman with text that reads something like "It is legal to kill the babies of only one of these animals." 


Of course, I am in a bad mood today and so I just couldn't bite my tongue. I normally just keep scrolling. But today I had to point out the fallaciousness of the meme and that it's a false equivalency. The offspring of the animals depicted are protected by law, sure, but so are all human born babies. Human babies are not being murdered en mass after birth (only in the imaginations of whacked out pro-lifers completely detached from reality).

Needless to say, pointing out that this wasn't a valid argument of any kind ruffled the feathers of at least one super duper concerned citizen.





I love the paranoia of these zealot Christians masquerading as Jesus-Christ-Do-Gooders so they can dump their verbal diarrhea on nonbelievers whilst pretending that they actually care about the sanctity of life and things like morality. 



They don't. If they did they'd sit down and have a serious conversation and hash out the issue with their interlocutors by paying equal respect to the other side's point of view -- at least hearing them out and considering the objections to their position. 

 Of course, they don't do this. Because it's not about finding common ground. It's about being on the side or righteousness and thwarting evil -- and all the foot soldiers working for Satan -- like me apparently, according to this guys reaction.






I have to admit, the moment he didn't show any respect for reason and then went on how science isn't a reliable thing and showed a stupendous ignorance whilst pretending to have the moral high ground, I had no qualms with knocking him off his high pedestal. 





Granted, I knew I wasn't going to accomplish a damn thing. People this dense cannot hear reason if it was broadcast through a loudspeaker straight into their brain. I ought to know, I used to be one. Nobody forced me to become more reasonable, more rational. I had to choose to become rational. I had to choose to listen to reason. And that meant admitting that I might be wrong, and then actively choosing to test whether or not I was.

Regardless, rather than waste rational argument and logic on a person like this, which would simply have gone in one ear and out the other, I decided to have a bit of fun instead. I still abide by netiquette rules of fair play though, so if you feel it's borderline trolling, you can rest assured, it's of the very polite variety. At any rate, I thought I'd share with you the conversation because it was so goddamn entertaining.


*UPDATE*

I tracked down the (annoying) meme. Here it is:



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more