(late) Tuesday Highlights

Well, the morning was spent booking our summer travel. Flights are now set.

  • A hybrid (specifically Prius) hater, eats crow courtesy Toyota.
  • Zoom.
  • An anti-Huck, presumably pro-abortion, advocate notes “all those who don’t agree that life begins at conception”. OK. Let’s get this straight. Those who don’t believe life begins at conception are ignorant nutcases. One might wonder why the same crowd who jumps on the non-scientific basis of the young earth crowd don’t jump on this just as hard. An atheist has a suggestion as to why, liberals are anti-science (too).
  • Church and state, and the voters booth, considered. On the same here as well.
  • A pretty site.
  • An argument on choice of residence.
  • A somewhat misleading title to a short essay in which it is noted that the Left/Right (Democrat/Republican) differences is far less than their similarities. Jouvenel noted the same thing.
  • On being cold of hearted.
  • One year in review, and a person of the year as well.
  • One interpretation of what a real conservative candidate would look like.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 comments

  1. An anti-Huck, presumably pro-abortion, advocate notes “all those who don’t agree that life begins at conception”. OK. Let’s get this straight. Those who don’t believe life begins at conception are ignorant nutcases. One might wonder why the same crowd who jumps on the non-scientific basis of the young earth crowd don’t jump on this just as hard. An atheist has a suggestion as to why, liberals are anti-science (too).

    No, they are not. They just don’t agree with you and your definition of human life. They might think a nervous system is needed first. They might think viability is the point at which the full rights of a human being are conferred on a fetus. There is no solid scientific opinion on this question. Your religion guides you to this belief and in your desire to have the law of the land enforce your beliefs you try to claim that science agrees. If the poster you criticize is pro-abortion then I believe that you must be labeled anti-choice, not pro-life. As far as the atheist you cite as offering an idea, the only thing he offered was a bigoted rant against those who he and you apparently consider the source of all evil, the American liberal. It’s a nice, simple answer that ignores the reality that the real world is more complex than either of you are happy with and so you focus an unreasoned hatred against those who don’t agree with you.

  2. Mark says:

    Jim,
    He didn’t say, “human life” he said “life”. There is absolutely no argument that life begins there. And the atheist linked is not just attacking the liberal I think. He is arguing that neither conservatives or liberals are scientific … except when it aligns with their political or idealogical ends.

    As for “unreasoning hatred”, please don’t look in the mirror and assign what you see there to me. For example, I’d invite you to examine my follow-up post and tell me where you find “unreason” or “hatred” anywhere in that argument.

  3. No, Half-Sigma did nothing in his piece but rant against an imaginary monolithic group of people called liberals. No mention or hint of a bit of criticism towards anyone else.

    And as far as your attitude towards other viewpoints is concerned, so long as you insist on describing your ideological opposites as pro-abortion instead of pro-choice I will continue to think my criticism holds at least some validity.

  4. Mark says:

    Jim,
    So when I see “pro-life” cast as “anti-choice” or anything but “pro-life”, I should as well, consider that a “unreasoning” and “hateful” point of view?