Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Oh yeah, dead dinosaurs Previous entry: How Dare You Portray Me As I Portrayed Myself!

Why you can’t trust a damn thing they say

Fundies

Another day, another go-round with anti-choice nuts claiming there’s “no evidence” that they are motivated by hostility to female sexuality instead of pure fetal love. This time, I was arguing with them in the comments of a piece about how anti-choicers removed mandated contraception from health care reform.  You do have to admire the audacity of a liar who is willing to stick to the lie in the face of clear-cut evidence you’re full of shit.  That, or you have to assume they’re that stupid. 

But I bring this up because in arguing with this dude, I had a revelation.  I was reminded of a recent and fascinating episode of “This American Life” where they interviewed Jim Henderson, an evangelical who is critical of the standard tactics used to convert non-believers.  Namely, he was upset by the bait and switch. He describes tactics such as using girls in bikinis to pass out fliers advertising a beach party, and then, when people show up looking for drinks (which of course were non-alcoholic) and entertainment, they got a whole faceful of Jesus.  Or how he and his buddies were encouraged to pose as researchers doing a survey on religious practices, so that when people would tell them they don’t go to church, they’d use that as a hook to try to get them to come into theirs.  Evangelical Christians are doing the live action version of being a virus inside an email that says “Check This Out!!”  Henderson is more fond of building relationships and trust, and then bringing in the Jesus.  Still not my ideal of people just making their arguments honestly and letting the chips fall where they may, but at least better than overt lying.

Talking to a full-of-shit anti-choicer, it occurred to me: According to Henderson, these sort of deceptive tactics are not only acceptable in evangelical circles, but they are eagerly promoted, and could even be called standard operating procedure.  There’s some Biblical justification for it, and that’s all they need to know.  In their mind, the end (saving souls) justifies the means (lying).  In fact, I’d say that they are so invested in the belief of the all-encompassing rightness of their ends that they are inspired to up the ante on immoral means, to prove how fucking serious they are.  (Certainly, that explains why evangelicals are so interesting in recruiting in China, where they and their converts are in serious danger if caught.  A truly moral believer would figure that if sheer numbers of souls is the main thing, it’s better to go where you can do more converting with fewer consequences.  But that’s not hardcore.) 

What this said to me was that if evangelical Christians cannot be honest and straightforward about what they claim is the most important part of their lives—-their faith and saving souls—-then you can’t trust them on anything.  Their subculture has inculcated a habit of not only justifying dishonest means to achieve dishonest ends, but in fact encouraging people to lie and feel better about themselves because they lied.  Which makes a fucked-up sort of sense.  Despite all the attention that immoral behavior gets, most people are mostly moral most of the time.  Our society would come to a screeching halt if we couldn’t accept that most of what people tell us is true.  For most people, the default is not to lie, steal, or harm.  It actually takes some steeling of one’s self to complete a moral transgression like lying; most of us only do it if we feel we have to.  Because of this, it’s easy to spin moral transgressions committed for a cause as acts of courage. (Think of how the military frames killing.)  And so evangelicals have created a culture where people can applaud themselves as courageous warriors when they lie for Jesus.

But at this point, I think it’s beyond even that.  Once you get into the belief that lying for Jesus is acceptable, then it’s easy to drift into thinking that truth itself is irrelevant, and that everything is means and ends.  That’s why you get so many people like Sarah Palin, who say whatever they need to in order to get their way, but seem to be believing it at the time.  Their frame of reference is “what you need to hear/not hear” not “what is true/false”.  The latter drifted off on an ice floe a long time ago.  Certainly, on the abortion issue you see this confusion.  They’re obviously motivated by hostility to female sexuality, but doing things like proving this don’t even register.  It’s been understood that fetuses are a good sales pitch, and the pitch is everything, and truth is irrelevant. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:52 PM • (117) Comments

I was a theater major in college.  Once I got evangelized in the form of a phony audition for a student film.  They seemed rather bemused when the lines they gave me (I was the convertee in a conversion scenario) didn’t resonate in my soul and I just said to call me if I got the part.  I don’t think they tried that tactic again.

Comment #1: damnedyankee  on  11/17  at  06:59 PM

I take it you recognize the parallels between “lying for Jesus” and “lying to get into a war that will result in a peaceful and totally pro-USA Middle East really it will just trust us and in the end you’ll see that we were right to lie to you.”

Comment #2: RickMassimo  on  11/17  at  07:10 PM

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Come back Orwell!  All is forgiven!

Comment #3: tannenburg  on  11/17  at  07:15 PM

This is a great analysis, particularly your explanation of how and why “proving” what lies beyond the rhetoric doesn’t even “register.” I wonder what the consequence of this is or should be for activists as we create strategies for confronting the right—what are the limits of rational arguments when confronting systems that create and operate by their own logic? Would other approaches be more effective?

Comment #4: Tim Jones-Yelvington  on  11/17  at  07:30 PM

See, it isn’t hostility to female sexuality, and you’re mean if you say so.

It is all about love and peace and purity and God’s plan and being courageous enough to stand up for those things against the forces of Satan (easily identified, because they’re the people who disagree with them.)

Look, even YOU say that good people only lie when they feel they have to. Don’t you think opposing Satan is worth a little lying, especially to Satan’s minions?

In all seriousness, while I agree completely with you that this is really all about hostility to non-straight-male sexuality, I really do think that they never think of it that way. They are thinking “Purity Good. God Good” and are actually non-plussed to hear their motivations being categorized this way.

If there were any possibility of getting through to them, I’d actually frame it as, “Whatever you think your motivations are, the direct and inseparable consequence is hostility to female sexuality.”

It’s like saying “How dare you say it is my intention to hurt school kids? I am using asbestos in schools to keep them safe from fires!” And that may be true, but once you know better and don’t change, there isn’t a distinction any more.

That’s the connection that they refuse to see. (Or at least most of the footsoldiers. Their leaders are just lying scum.)

Comment #5: Lymis  on  11/17  at  07:31 PM

Or how he and his buddies were encouraged to pose as researchers doing a survey on religious practices, so that when people would tell them they don’t go to church, they’d use that as a hook to try to get them to come into theirs.

That trick’s so old, it was probably thought up by Saint Paul. After the third or fourth time that happened to me in college, I started telling the “researchers” that I was a disciple of Charles Manson. The “surveys” tended to end quickly after that.

Comment #6: Bitter Scribe  on  11/17  at  07:37 PM

I wrote angry letters to the whitehouse and all my representatives specifically pointing out the lack of mandatory contraception, prenatal care, and cancer screening.  Is it too late to get those back into any of the healthcare reform bills?

Comment #7: carovee  on  11/17  at  07:47 PM

Honestly, when dealing with this crowd and saying things like “hostility to female sexuality” they will either here “blahblahblah huh?” or “blah blah SEX blah blah” and you’re not registering. At all. They will just assume you are part of Satan’s Sex Brigade.

They don’t even recognize “female sexuality” as a concept, certainly not as a positive one; if pressed, they would say a) it belongs to a husband and b) otherwise, it’s a sin. (and maybe c) it’s icky).

You might get a little further arguing about consequences ie, contraception preventing abortions/abortions saving lives in at least some cases/the constant surveillance of women required by making fetuses persons being evil and unfair.

Maybe.

Probably not, though.

Comment #8: emjaybee  on  11/17  at  07:50 PM

I remember hearing that there’s an actual ancient & apparently well-known principle codifying this in the legal realm—a Latin translation of “if you’ll lie about one thing, you’ll lie about anything.”
Any law students or recent grads remember having learned it in the original?

Comment #9: smartalek  on  11/17  at  07:50 PM

They don’t even recognize “female sexuality” as a concept, certainly not as a positive one; if pressed, they would say a) it belongs to a husband and b) otherwise, it’s a sin. (and maybe c) it’s icky).

Emjaybee, you forgot d) it’s a myth, in their view.

Comment #10: phylosopher  on  11/17  at  07:55 PM

Being an atheist and not particularly polite - certainly not for the sake of politeness itself, when these people are hellbent on ruination of our whole society - I have no problem in stating the obvious: Religion is the original lie. These people can’t believe in their own religion,  they are trying to lie to themselves 24/7, and they carry on this dysfunction into every area of their lives.

There are religious people out there whose beliefs are not harmful to themselves and to others, but they tend to temper their religion with a healthy dose of empathetic secular humanism.

But this topic raises an important question: in a democracy, how do we win an argument with a side which is anti-democratic, does not believe in winning arguments based on facts or truths, and is more than willing to undermine the whole process? For these people, going back to some kind of paranoid tyranny is the goal.

Comment #11: CassieC  on  11/17  at  07:58 PM

But this topic raises an important question: in a democracy, how do we win an argument with a side which is anti-democratic, does not believe in winning arguments based on facts or truths, and is more than willing to undermine the whole process?

By cutting off their source of adherents.  You don’t win by arguing with them; you win by educating people that what they believe is stupid and destructive.  You don’t play to them, you play to the crowd.  And hopefully, you make them a shrinking minority that will never have power; because god help you (heh) if they ever do get power.

We came perilously close to this in 2000.  Fortunately it was mostly conservative authoritarians and not Christian Dominionists who stole the election that time (though CDs were a big part of their coalition).  Next time we might not be so lucky.

They’re obviously motivated by hostility to female sexuality, but doing things like proving this don’t even register.  It’s been understood that fetuses are a good sales pitch, and the pitch is everything, and truth is irrelevant.

No, they just don’t accept your truth as genuine.  You can illustrate a chain of consequences leading directly from A to B but they reject the premise because God trumps everything, even logic, and they’ve got the straight dope right from His Inspired Word, and that’s the end of it as far as they’re concerned.

Comment #12: liberalrob  on  11/17  at  08:37 PM

RH Reality check is always so crawling with anti-choice concern trolls it’s hard to take. Every thread there I’ve ever visited has been full of dudes (obvs, far and away most anti-choicers will never have to make the choice in question) looking to hijack every discussion by demanding 8 tons of sunshine be blown up their individual asses for their being ever-so exceptional.
That guy was a tool. ‘I don’t oppose contraception and sex ed.’ Super, asshole. Tell it to the Vatican.

Comment #13: snobographer  on  11/17  at  08:41 PM

This reminds me of something that Jon Krakauer said about the Mormons in Under the Banner of Heaven that stuck with me, which is that one of the tenets of the LDS church is that it’s okay to lie for the lord (e.g. for conversion or in defense of criminal activities conducted by the church or its representatives, which in the LDS is everyone). Of course we know many politicians, and Repubs in particular, have internalized that lying w/o even thinking about it is de rigueur, but even so the fact that he expressly believes that lying is not sociopathic is one of the reasons Mittens Romney’s presidential prospects scared me to death.

Comment #14: Geocrackr  on  11/17  at  08:56 PM

I think they’re taking the idea of speaking in riddles and parables and running with it. Krakauer takes it further: according to him, since the fundamormons (the ones who still openly practice polygamy etc) believe that their deity’s revelations are ongoing, pretty much anything the voices in your head tell you to do is OK. Which is really a great thing.  (A lot of nonmormon fundamentalists are also pretty hot on the idea of personal conversations with G*d, maybe a little less on murdering your kin when you believe G*d tells you to.)

Comment #15: paul  on  11/17  at  09:10 PM

Amanda, I know you’re not stupid so please don’t take this to be as snarky as it sounds but yes, for “the other side” winning is everything.  Doing anything to win is justified, always.

Anything else is window dressing and bullshit.

It’s in their politics, it’s in their religion, it’s in their business.

Once we get this through our heads, we’ll start making progress pushing these sociopaths to the borders of our society where they, at very best, belong.

Comment #16: ice weasel  on  11/17  at  09:49 PM

What’s weird is that Fred Clark at Slacktivist has been writing lately about how “moral absolutes” has become such a fetish with evangelicals that the Left Behind guys can’t even put a scene in their books where the characters would lie to the Antichrist, because it would be immoral.  I Googled briefly for his previous comments but I’m at work and don’t quite have time.

I’ll try to summarize what he’s said over several posts, but it’s basically that there’s a huge lip service given in the past decade or so to telling the truth and it never, ever being okay to lie, even if you have Jews hiding in your attic and Nazis are knocking at the door.  However, if you look at what they actually do, they’re lying all of the time.  So you enter this weird territory where the lie you’re telling somehow becomes a not-lie because if it were a lie, that would be a sin.  So, therefore, the lie you’re telling isn’t actually a lie because ...

Well, I’m really not sure how they reconcile it, but the human brain is very elastic.

Comment #17: Mnemosyne  on  11/17  at  09:52 PM

I wonder, all the time, whether Karl Rove or Liz Cheney or Newt Gingrich or Mitch McConnell actually believe a single thing that comes out their mouths.  And who puts together these horseshit e-mails all our conservative acquaintances get day in and day out?

Comment #18: Wallace  on  11/17  at  09:57 PM

From Amanda:

Their frame of reference is “what you need to hear/not hear” not “what is true/false”.

That reminds me a bit of Irving Kristol’s famous statement about different truths for different people:

“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy.

It’s not just anti-choicers. The idea of “telling people what they want to hear whether or not it’s true” is SOP for many neocons on foreign policy too. To Kristol-style conservatives, only certain people are good enough to hear the whole truth. And they call us elitists?

Comment #19: Jeff  on  11/17  at  10:35 PM

Yeah, it’s unfortunate that 20% of our population in this country is not only impervious to any evidence against their worldview, but actively sees such evidence as literally the enemy. This would be survivable if their worldview was not one of a literal suicide cult (rapturist christianity) that sees the destruction of the world as a good and necessary thing.

Hopefully we can eventually find a solution to this or at least that we can keep playing to the crowd so that those swayed to join with them for short term battles because of racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, etc… will all realize that their allies are fucking nuts. I think it worked a bit last election with Sarah Palin and there was a small outcry when the philosophy of The Family started becoming public during the Ensign and Sanford scandals, but I think we need to keep highlighting just how crazy these fuckers are and the fact that as much as we’d like to, we cannot assume good faith for any of their arguments.

Comment #20: Cerberus  on  11/17  at  11:04 PM

”Amanda, I know you’re not stupid so please don’t take this to be as snarky as it sounds but yes, for “the other side” winning is everything.  Doing anything to win is justified, always.”

But … it isn’t a winning strategy, so for them winning must not be everything

Do you think that this—”He describes tactics such as using girls in bikinis to pass out fliers advertising a beach party, and then, when people show up looking for drinks (which of course were non-alcoholic) and entertainment, they got a whole faceful of Jesus”—Wins many converts?

No, they don’t lie to achieve a greater goal, they lie because they like to lie
Having the people who show up for the party go away pissed off is their “win”, they got to put one over on somebody

Comment #21: jefft452  on  11/17  at  11:08 PM

You don’t win by arguing with them; you win by educating people that what they believe is stupid and destructive.

Well sort of, but not really.  You really win by giving the people something better.  Nobody wants to hear “your beliefs are stupid, and your way of life is destructive”.  What they want to hear is, “here, have a cookie!”

Just like the way you counter religious fundamentalism in the developing world.  You give people education and access to opportunities.  You give women control over their bodies.  You give young people the space to be free and creative and have a little fun.  You give older people a functioning society - a government that works, local institutions that are worthwhile and functional.

There’s a reason that red state “values” go hand in hand with poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and totally undermined public services.  Give people nothing to turn to but God, and they’ll come flocking to your church no matter what kind of garbage you preach.

Comment #22: The Opoponax  on  11/17  at  11:23 PM

there’s a huge lip service given in the past decade or so to telling the truth and it never, ever being okay to lie, even if you have Jews hiding in your attic and Nazis are knocking at the door.  However, if you look at what they actually do, they’re lying all of the time.

Of course, this is because evangelical Christians have some pretty antisemitic attitudes lurking below the surface - the Jews in the attic are the first people they’re going to sell out in the name of “honesty”! 

(mostly in jest; I think I remember the threads over at Slacktivist you’re talking about.)

Comment #23: The Opoponax  on  11/17  at  11:28 PM

there’s a huge lip service given in the past decade or so to telling the truth and it never, ever being okay to lie, even if you have Jews hiding in your attic and Nazis are knocking at the door.  However, if you look at what they actually do, they’re lying all of the time.

I read something about this over at Pharyngula recently as well.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_moral_conundrum_resolved_wit.php

Comment #24: ks  on  11/17  at  11:33 PM

It’s paternalistic lying.  It’s “we know better what is right for you than you do yourself, so it’s not immoral to do whatever it takes to get you to do what is right for you” lying.  Maybe paternalism is not the worst crime of fundamentalist religion, but the idea that you, the evangelist, a total stranger, know what *I* really need, disgusts me.

I am not anti-religion.  I am anti-fundamentalist, though.

Comment #25: MadLibrarian  on  11/17  at  11:41 PM

Another day, another go-round with anti-choice nuts claiming there’s “no evidence” that they are motivated by hostility to female sexuality instead of pure fetal love.

That’s because there is no evidence.

This time, I was arguing with them in the comments of a piece about how anti-choicers removed mandated contraception from health care reform.

Either Marcott is lying or simply can’t read.

What the piece she linked to actually says is:

So far, none of the three reform bills has required insurers to cover contraception… Women’s health advocates reported that some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control and other preventive services for women into the minimum benefits package.

In other words, it’s not that “anti-choicers” are actively campaigning against the inclusion of contraception in the bill - it’s that the heroic Democrats never bothered to put it in any of the three bills. Pro-lifers never removed anything.

It’s the Democratic party that’s at fault here for not having the political courage to require something the use of which 90% of Americans already support and is already available through medicaid in all states.

Hell, about half of the states go as far as to not only cover contraception under medicaid they mandate that all private insurance cover contraception as well.

To claim that most pro-lifers oppose contraception or are at fault for the failings of the Democrats bill is simply a lie.

Comment #26: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  12:40 AM

Amanda,

forgive me, but my only coherent thought during after reading your piece is “Preach it!  Preach it, sister!”  I’m just so tired of assholes.  Thank you for arguing with them.

Comment #27: barbara smith  on  11/18  at  12:43 AM

A truly moral believer would figure that if sheer numbers of souls is the main thing, it’s better to go where you can do more converting with fewer consequences.

They’re not concerned about their physical safety. They are concerned about thier non-existent souls. That’s what makes them so delusional and dangerous.

Comment #28: pablo  on  11/18  at  12:51 AM

That guy was a tool.

No kidding. He actually argued in another thread that men are ready for sex any day of the week, while women only like it 2 days a month (i guess when we’re in heat!), men only care about the physical attractiveness of their partners and women don’t care about that at all, and that women only have sex when we want babies, therefore abortions are mostly men’s fault, since they pressure women to have sex.

Then when I tried to tell him he was full of shit he said feminists only don’t believe in what he called “evolutionary science” (a catholic using evolution to argue for his sexism??) because we like to pretend there are NO DIFFERENCES between women and men. that’s right, feminists think women have dicks and men have uteruses! We sure are stupid!

Comment #29: slingshot  on  11/18  at  01:49 AM

Mnemosyne already mentioned the indispensable Fred Clark over at Slacktivist, but nobody here’s yet mentioned his brilliant two-part dissection of the Lying For Jesus phenomenon.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/10/false-witnesses-2.html

Comment #30: grendelkhan  on  11/18  at  02:08 AM

Stick rule on Progressive Prince? Please? Seriously. He’s not entertaining.

Plus, he is stupider than the stupidest chunk o’ wood if he can claim, with a straight face, that there is no evidence of misogyny being the motivating factor of the anti-choice movement, when so many feminist and progressive writers have explored that exact subject in such excruciating depth over and over.

Comment #31: kristin  on  11/18  at  02:17 AM

Mnemosyne already mentioned the indispensable Fred Clark over at Slacktivist, but nobody here’s yet mentioned his brilliant two-part dissection of the Lying For Jesus phenomenon.

That’s what I was thinking of but I couldn’t remember the search terms.  Thanks!

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  02:31 AM

“Evangelical lying” is the basis for how Christian creationism works. The leaders of the movement have no idea what the hell they are talking about scientifically, and when pressed on this will admit so, but it doesn’t matter since the more important job is to save souls.

Comment #33: artiofab  on  11/18  at  02:33 AM

Jeff at #19 sez:

That reminds me a bit of Irving Kristol’s famous statement about different truths for different people:

“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy.”

Actually, this is true.

An example:
Truth: The world is round.
More precise truth: The world isn’t round. It’s an oblate spheroid.

For everyday use, “round” is true enough, but there are times when you need the more precise truth. And I’m sure if you think about it hard enough you can come up with several examples in your own life where you were told something as a child that was true enough for you to understand, then when you got older you were told a more precise truth, and (perhaps) when you studied the subject closely you found a truth that was even more precise. Heck, you might even find times when you were told something that was sort of true but not really, but was good enough to let you understand what was going on, and when your ability to understand increased, you were told something that pretty much completely changed what you were told as a child.

This concept is also discussed in The Science of Discworld, where two popular science authors use Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series to illustrate, well, a lot of stuff.

Comment #34: JCfromNC  on  11/18  at  03:16 AM

Yes, Irving Kristol and Discworld are *definitely* on the same page.

Oy.

Comment #35: Well, what?  on  11/18  at  03:20 AM

For everyday use, “round” is true enough, but there are times when you need the more precise truth.

Kristol’s not talking about a more precise version of the truth as the ability to absorb knowledge increases.  He’s talking about restricting access to information.  He’s advocating that you tell children that the world is flat and adults that the world is round ... if the adults are educated enough, that is.  Otherwise, they can just continue to get the same information they did as children.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  03:25 AM

In a recent discussion I had on a pro-life right-wing Catholic blog, in an early stage of discussion I cited a post I wrote about my experience of deciding to kill my cat, as a discussion of decisions pregnant women make about late-term abortions where something has gone awfully wrong. In that post, I wrote “I know that deciding to kill my cat, after she’d had fifteen years of life, was not a decision on a par with having to decide about a late-term abortion.”

In the Catholic blog, the blogger “Disciple” responded to my post with “So killing a cat was painful. But the thought of killing a baby, not so much.”

In further discussion, Disciple acknowledged that they had read my post, had read that specific line - and still wanted to argue that I had claimed the thought of “killing a baby” wasn’t as painful as killing a cat.

I found this exceedingly strange, because while I could understand Disciple lying about what I had written in my blog to someone else - “OMG Jesurgislac, she said it wasn’t as difficult to decide to ‘kill a baby’ as it was to kill her cat” - I couldn’t understand why Disciple was lying to me about what I’d written, very clearly, and had linked to. (The discussion began, if you’re interested, with a post about a Law and Order episode.)

Unless, as you outline here, it has simply become such chronic second nature to pro-lifers to lie, that they really cannot understand being called on their lies. The truth is irrelevant: all that matters is justifying their position with rhetoric. (Further down the Law and Order thread, I got into a discussion with someone who is claiming to work in the medical field, who was arguing that it was absurd to say that zygotes don’t breathe…

Comment #37: Jesurgislac  on  11/18  at  04:12 AM

Is it bad to say that it wasn’t a difficult decision to put my cat to sleep?  The combination of circumstances—failed kidneys, lethargy and hiding, mouth sores that meant he couldn’t eat—meant that there was only one decision.  There was no way at all that I could take him back home and pretend to myself that he was going to somehow get better.  And it took all of 30 seconds for his heart to stop once the vet injected him, so he was nearly there anyway.

It was a hard, hard thing to do, but the decision wasn’t difficult, because there really wasn’t any other choice at that point.

Comment #38: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  04:41 AM

(Certainly, that explains why evangelicals are so interesting in recruiting in China, where they and their converts are in serious danger if caught.  A truly moral believer would figure that if sheer numbers of souls is the main thing, it’s better to go where you can do more converting with fewer consequences.  But that’s not hardcore.)

This bit is actually more about self-crucifixion.

Comment #39: Mandos  on  11/18  at  04:58 AM

Um, Jesurgislac, with that last sentence you got to the crux of the discussion.

Comment #40: bad Jim  on  11/18  at  05:40 AM

Mnemosyne: Is it bad to say that it wasn’t a difficult decision to put my cat to sleep?

I know that it was a difficult decision for me - both the times I’ve had to do it. But the crux of my post was that it didn’t make any difference that someone else might have made another decision - the point was that she was my cat, I was her human, and it was my decision to make. Writing the post, actually, was what helped me finally to understand that the reason I’d never felt it was a good decision was because I was in a position where there were no good decisions to make: only the bad and the less bad, and I had to decide which was which. The only really wrong option would have been to fail to make any decision at all.

Comment #41: Jesurgislac  on  11/18  at  06:33 AM

I have to say that the thing that drives me craziest about religious people is their belief that religion makes people more moral or more ethical, when all evidence suggests the opposite.

It’s not unusual to see people come through years of religious indoctrination with every scrap of whatever moral sense they started out with now focused entirely on sexual conformity, while virtually insensitive to (e.g.) lying, theft or violence. 

As a result, they not only have no functional sense of right and wrong, but find themselves—as adults, and often along with their entire families—burdened by the results of sexual misadventures that you’d expect even a middling-smart high-school kid to be able to avoid; however, because of their pious incapabilities to think rationally about sex, they could not (Mark Sanford or Ted Haggard, for example).

And of course, all of this lying-for-Jesus crapola is part of that.

Comment #42: Molly, NYC  on  11/18  at  07:51 AM

Jesurgislac-

o.O to your parenthetical statement about the liar for Christ pretending to be a medical expert. I’m definitely tripping to what he a)imagines a zygote to be and b)was thinking when he said it can breathe. I mean yeah, of course, he was lying out his ass, but I think the example really illustrates how they seem not only hostile to the idea of the mother, but actively seek to erase her completely in even picturing the question. Bizarre argument, indeed.

Molly, NYC-

Yup, my partner is working through lingering issues over that. Basically, when she just trusts herself, she goes the extra mile and is super moral. Where she falters morally is when she starts feeling bad and worried that she’s being a “bad person” and thus starts to revert to her upbringing by an abusive catholic family. This is where she starts lying, letting people down, etc… because the emotional weight of beating yourself up for imagined sins that don’t matter doesn’t leave any emotional energy left to just do right by people.

And that’s the softcore version for people who have the equivalent of the Bends. For those in it, the morality gets entirely twisted around being seen as “sexually pure”  or “properly Christian” and nothing else. My ex-fundie best friend has a number of horror stories of the backstabbing endemic in the Church of his youth, because one was perfectly free to be a nasty person as long as one “followed the rules”.

I believe also Fred Clark has also documented this phenomenon both as “being assholes for Christ” and in his takedowns of the Left Behind books (almost any of them) where he points out that the Christianity they present there actually makes one a worse person if followed and an inhuman monster to boot. I think my favorite example was a morality play the authors wrote with the background of a tarmac littered with plane crashes and people needing emergency medical aid. The morality play is whether or not one took the offered lift back to the airport or simply walked back, weaving between the bodies, one’s baggage thumping over their twitching injured bodies. The correct action was to walk, but definitely not to lend aid or touch the dying heathens.

Comment #43: Cerberus  on  11/18  at  09:06 AM

Mnemosyne sez at #26:

Kristol’s not talking about a more precise version of the truth as the ability to absorb knowledge increases.  He’s talking about restricting access to information.  He’s advocating that you tell children that the world is flat and adults that the world is round ... if the adults are educated enough, that is.  Otherwise, they can just continue to get the same information they did as children.

{shrug}Not having seen the full context of the quote given, I can’t speak to his real meaning—but given what I’ve seen in the past, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that he means exactly what you say.  But that doesn’t change that the quote itself does have some truth to it. Although the bit on the end does seem to support the whole “elites get better truths” idea, and I prefer to believe that in a lot of situations, there is, if not an absolute truth, at least a truth that’s “true enough” for everyone involved.

Now I feel all icky from sort of defending him. I think I’ll go home and take a long hot shower.

Comment #44: JCfromNC  on  11/18  at  09:22 AM

“Is it bad to say that it wasn’t a difficult decision to put my cat to sleep?”

No?  I mean, it’s also a lot like abortion/pregnancy loss in the sense that everybody’s different and most situations where this stuff comes up have their own unique variations even on the common scenarios that are going to impact how the individuals involved respond to them.

“Kristol’s not talking about a more precise version of the truth as the ability to absorb knowledge increases.  He’s talking about restricting access to information.  He’s advocating that you tell children that the world is flat and adults that the world is round ... if the adults are educated enough, that is.  Otherwise, they can just continue to get the same information they did as children.”

I’d have to assume the ‘educated’ part is code for ‘hold a certain ideology.’ What he’s talking about sounds more like a hierarchy where you pay your dues, put in your time, move up, and get rewarded with special enlightenment denied to lower ranks.  Those sort of systems rarely judge participants by simple or objective rubrics.

Comment #45: preying mantis  on  11/18  at  09:39 AM

It’s not unusual to see people come through years of religious indoctrination with every scrap of whatever moral sense they started out with now focused entirely on sexual conformity, while virtually insensitive to (e.g.) lying, theft or violence.

And the idea that morality is exactly and only equivalent to the rules. That’s the one that blows my mind.

That something that is wrong must always be illegal, and that anything legal must be morally right.

It’s the mindset that makes the leaders of Christian groups demand that the host hotel block the porn, even at events only adults attend. Actual adults who disapprove of porn for moral reasons simply won’t watch it.

People who really disapprove of contraception don’t need it banned, they just don’t have to take it.
People who really feel gay sex is immoral, or that gay marriage is not according to God’s plan for them won’t do it whether it is legal or not.
Vegetarians won’t order a burger just because it is on the menu.

Setting aside all discussion of actual truth or validity, it is always incredibly clear to me that the people who fight the hardest for structuring laws to force their form of morality on everyone else, to mandate their religious observance and outlaw others, just simply cannot believe what they are selling.

Whether you are right or not, if your strongest argument is the equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ear and shouting “La la la I can’t hear you” then you don’t believe what you think you do.

Comment #46: Lymis  on  11/18  at  10:03 AM

They all think they are St. Elizabeth.  Her husband supposedly forbade her from gving bread to the poor, and he then caught her with an apron full of . . . something bulky.  “Are you giving bread to the poor?” he demanded to know.  “No, it’s only roses,” she replied.  And he forced her to show him what was in her apron, and miraculously, it was roses. 

If you tell a lie in the service of god, all-powerful god will make it the truth.

Comment #47: rea  on  11/18  at  10:36 AM

@smartalek #9: Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. False in one, false in all. It is a jury instruction given by a Judge, instructing the jury that if it believes a witness testified falsely on a material fact, the jury may consider that in weighing the credibility of the rest of the witness’s testimony.

Comment #48: Stin42  on  11/18  at  11:32 AM

For most people, the default is not to lie, steal, or harm.  It actually takes some steeling of one’s self to complete a moral transgression like lying; most of us only do it if we feel we have to.

Amanda, how sweetly naive you are!  Have you any evidence at all with which to back up this sunny assertion?

What, do you lie, cheat, and steal more often than not?  Do most of your friends do?  Your family?  Are a significant number of the people in your life pathological liars?  Are you one?  Are you a kleptomaniac?  Do you go to your friends houses and steal something most of the time?  A lot of the time?  Do your friends do this to you?  If you leave something on your desk at work and walk away, do you expect it to be there when you get back, most of the time?

There’s a reason why we have special terms for people who can’t help but lie and steal.  It’s because they are unusual.

Comment #49: Denise  on  11/18  at  11:39 AM

There’s a reason that red state “values” go hand in hand with poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and totally undermined public services.  Give people nothing to turn to but God, and they’ll come flocking to your church no matter what kind of garbage you preach.

DING DING DING!

That’s also the MO of the megachurch - take a look at the kinds of services they offer sometime: they help people find jobs, provide childcare, take care of their elders, etc.  Look at the Mormons and their beloved beehive metaphor: that 10% tithe underwrites a giant host of support services for large struggling families and elderly folks.  Of course they don’t want socialized health care and the like - that cuts into membership!

Comment #50: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  12:33 PM

It’s long been my experience that the easiest shortcut to determining whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or not a raging assmonkey is determining whether they’re Christian. The louder and more fundamentalist their Christianity, the more likely you shouldn’t trust them with much of anything.

I’ve known actual Satanists who were better people than your average fundie.

Comment #51: Scott  on  11/18  at  12:35 PM

Progressive Prince is here to prove the point.  I said that there is no such thing as a lie too bald-faced for these asshats to use it if they perceive it’s politically valuable.  And he shows up to lie is head off, to prove my point.  Thanks, Progressive!

Comment #52: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/18  at  12:53 PM

I mean, it’s also a lot like abortion/pregnancy loss in the sense that everybody’s different and most situations where this stuff comes up have their own unique variations even on the common scenarios that are going to impact how the individuals involved respond to them.

That’s kind of where I was going it with—if people are honest, it often turns out that the “difficult” decision wasn’t really difficult, because there was no other moral choice to make.  I, fortunately, have never been in a position where I had to end a wanted pregnancy because something had gone horribly wrong with it, but I’m guessing that the decision itself isn’t that difficult.  The circumstances are difficult, dealing with the aftermath is difficult (especially since most people know by that point that you’re pregnant), having to deal with asshole pro-lifers who insist they know medicine better than your ob-gyn is difficult, but the actual decision itself may not be hard to make since there’s really only one choice.

For instance, one of my cousins is developmentally disabled.  When she was born in the mid-1960s, doctors still routinely counseled patients to have retarded children institutionalized.  My aunt and uncle said, “Absolutely not.”  It wasn’t a difficult decision despite the pressure from the doctors, because they knew it wasn’t the right thing for them.  The only difficulty came from people second-guessing them.

Which (to circle back to the actual point) is what makes pro-lifers even more hypocritical:  they force people to lie to them.  If a woman says, “Well, no, it wasn’t a difficult decision to have that late-term abortion because the fetus was already dead,” then she’s a horrible, immoral person because it wasn’t hard for her to decide to end a pregnancy where the fetus was already dead.  So she has to make a big show of how difficult the decision was to not leave the dead fetus in her uterus to start rotting and cause a massive septic infection.

Obviously, we’re talking about the most black-and-white circumstances possible where there really is absolutely no other choice.  But it’s interesting to me that, even in those most extreme circumstances, pro-lifers expect you to lie to them so they can maintain their moral superiority as non-kitten-burners.

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  12:56 PM

MonkeyShines, the grown-ups are having a discussion.  Your cynicism reveals you not to be an observant person, but the opposite.  An observant person would realize that 95% of what people say during the day is god’s honest truth.

“The bus should get here any minute.”  “Yeah, if you go one more light and take a left, you’ll find it.”  “Damn, it’s cold.”  “I love you.”  “Dinner will be ready in 10 minutes.” 

Do you honestly think the vast majority of people who enter a store on any given day steal something from it? 

Do you think that most people are cheating most of the time? 

Do you think that most people, if left in an elevator alone together, will immediately start brawling because of a lack of witnesses?

Your belief that everyone else is a sociopath who can’t get along with others says more about you than most people.  Not that I’m surprised.  I smelled an asshole the first time you ever showed up here.  That you are hateful and lie for fun doesn’t mean that’s normal.

Comment #54: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/18  at  12:58 PM

It’s long been my experience that the easiest shortcut to determining whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or not a raging assmonkey is determining whether they’re Christian.

It’s not so much “if” as “when.”  If you know someone for six months and then are surprised to find out they’re an evangelical Christian because it comes up in casual conversation (“Hey, you want to go bowling tonight?” “Sorry, I can’t tonight, I have a Bible study group—how about tomorrow?”), you’re probably fine.  Someone who makes a point of shoving it in your face the instant they meet you, though?  Assmonkey.  There’s a reason that the anti-harassment video they show us at work includes religious harassment and makes a point of telling people that constantly asking your co-worker to go to church with you after they say “no” is illegal harassment and you can be disciplined for it.

Comment #55: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  01:02 PM

Shorter Amanda:

The vast majority of people, even wingnuts, don’t think that trolling on liberal blogs is the best possible use of their time.

Comment #56: paul  on  11/18  at  01:06 PM

There are literally a dozen churches within two miles of where I live, so I get people constantly knocking on my door to try to convince me to go to their church.  It’s not just Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons.  There are too many churches and not enough people, so even the denominations that don’t normally recruit door-to-door have started doing it.  I’ve always wondered if their recruiting ever works.  I can’t imagine that it would be very successful.  Even if someone were looking for a new church to go to, they wouldn’t pick one that will pressure them into doing recruiting themselves.  It’s even worse then telemarketers because you’re supposed to be nice to the sweet religious people.

I was in a Christian after-school club in high school, and the teacher who was in charge of the club expected use to recruit more people.  She would constantly lay guilt trips on us.  She said that she expected the club size to double every week.  We should each go out and convert one person during the week, bring them to the club, and then they’ll start recruiting the very next week.  This was really unrealistic for several reasons.  First of all, nearly every student in the school was already Christian.  Second, bugging people or guilting them doesn’t work anyway.  The only reason I was there was because of peer pressure from a friend who was already in the club, so that she could meet her own quota for one of the weeks.  I actually jokingly made this point once, and she said peer pressure is ok if it makes you do good things.  The whole club was a joke but I couldn’t get out of it.  Plus, if I did happen to find a non-Christian AND they were open to being converted, I certainly wouldn’t take them to a silly school club to do it.  There’s enormous peer pressure in these groups to appear that you are meeting your quota of saved souls, and people will resort to a lot of crappy things to get approval from their group.  Sometimes they don’t even care about saving souls, but just about fitting in or being admired in their group.  In my club, we actually had fake debates about what you could say to someone who disagreed with your views, with the goal of having a failproof slogan that could convert anyone.

Comment #57: bananacat  on  11/18  at  01:18 PM

“Religion is the original lie.”

Absurdly reductive. That’s saying the mainline liberal Episcopalian and the crazy mall-church cultist are the same. Which they most manifestly are not.

One is perfectly compatible with a democratic society, and sufficiently rational, even we concede belief in a First Being as irrational. The other is an enemy of democracy, human freedom, and reason. Not to mention women.

It is sufficient to point out that evangelical right are lying, morally depraved scum. What they espouse is unworthy of being called religion. Religion implies some set of moral principles that and practices that realize them. The US religious right at present seems to lack both.

Comment #58: wapsie  on  11/18  at  01:20 PM

Someone who makes a point of shoving it in your face the instant they meet you, though?  Assmonkey.

Yes, I hate this.  One time I was standing in line at a KFC and the person behind me decided to tell me that she’s a Christian now.  I thought “So what?  You’re just like the majority of people in this country, including me.  Am I supposed to be impressed that you’re now part of the majority?”  I wish I had been brave enough to actually say it to her.  What I hate isn’t that people go on about their Christianity, but that they seem to assume that it’s something special about them and that most people aren’t Christians.  Either they’re naive, or they’re just True Christians(TM) and no one else is.

Comment #59: bananacat  on  11/18  at  01:22 PM

Even if someone were looking for a new church to go to, they wouldn’t pick one that will pressure them into doing recruiting themselves.

I always make a point of treating them like any other salesperson—“Thank you, but I am satisfied with my current religion.  I will keep your religion in mind if I should decide to make a change.”  For some reason, they don’t seem to like that.  wink

Comment #60: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  01:29 PM

Dammit I left typos. Strike “that” from the last sentence, put “the” in front of “evangelical right”.

And it always strikes me how different my experience of Christianity was growing up than others who comment here. I grew up knowing liberal, mainline Protestants and moderate Catholics. Prostyletizing was low-key or not done. Science was not an enemy. Sex was not per se dirty. Sunday school was run by hippies who had us enact Bible stories in costume, sing songs about loving everyone, and collect canned goods for the poor. My childhood congregation in northern Virginia welcomed one of the first woman priests in the Episcopal Church. And so on. Evidently the rest of the US outside the Northeast had a whole different religious culture. Its discovery has been one of the major disappointments of my life.

Comment #61: wapsie  on  11/18  at  01:31 PM

“Religion is the original lie.”

Absurdly reductive.

Um. Not to an atheist. If there’s no god, then any religion is a lie. Or at any rate, peddling a lie.

That some people use this lie and are NOT assholes does not make it less of a lie. (Just as lying for Jesus is still lying—the whole point of the post.)

Comment #62: Well, what?  on  11/18  at  01:40 PM

M. Scott Peck was not exactly a pillar of rectitude, but he did have some very interesting ideas and experiences..if you want to understand the evangelical mind you write about in this post, Amanda, go read Peck’s “People of the Lie.”

It’s quite salutary.  Many, many people, evangelical or not, operate on the principle that you say anything necessary to get what you want, whatever that may be.  And *truth* really is utterly irrelevant to that end.  It’s a good book. Worth a look.

Comment #63: Aurelius  on  11/18  at  01:49 PM

“Religion is the original lie.”

Absurdly reductive. That’s saying the mainline liberal Episcopalian and the crazy mall-church cultist are the same. Which they most manifestly are not.

A difference in degree.  If one believes that belief in the supernatural is a false belief, it doesn’t matter whether they’re in your face with it or not.  The belief itself is false.  The point that you can tolerate and coexist with one but not the other doesn’t change the fact that both are based on a false belief from your perspective.  I agree that religion itself is a lie; and organized religion is a particularly pernicious and destructive outgrowth of that original error.  The original sin is ascribing to the metaphysical all things science and reason have not yet explained.  The assumption that we live in a universe that cannot be fully explained by science and reason, that the universe is fundamentally unreasonable and illogical, that’s what I find unacceptable.  There has to be a rational explanation, and some metaphysical “god” cannot exist in a rational universe.

But I’m open to the possibility that the universe is in fact irrational and unreasonable, so that’s why I call myself an agnostic and take antidepressants.  smile

Religion implies some set of moral principles that and practices that realize them. The US religious right at present seems to lack both.

Not at all.  The moral principles they believe in are unacceptable and inimical to a free and liberal society, and their leaders tend to honor them in the breach more often than not (understandable, since those principles are inhumane to begin with), but that doesn’t mean they don’t have them.

Comment #64: liberalrob  on  11/18  at  02:00 PM

Although the bit on the end does seem to support the whole “elites get better truths” idea, and I prefer to believe that in a lot of situations, there is, if not an absolute truth, at least a truth that’s “true enough” for everyone involved.

Here’s a more detailed discussion of the neoCon approach to these issues:

The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one (“exoteric”) thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real (“esoteric”) meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men’s attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the “calling into question” part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics. Worse, it is unclear whether philosophy really can construct a rational basis for ethics. Therefore philosophy has a tendency to promote nihilism in mediocre minds, and they must be prevented from being exposed to it. The civil authorities are frequently aware of this, and therefore they persecute and seek to silence philosophers. Strauss shockingly admits, that the prosecution of Socrates was not entirely without point. ...

Strauss not only believed that the great thinkers of the past wrote Straussian texts, he approved of this. It is a kind of class system of the intellect, which mirrors the class systems of rulers and ruled, owners and workers, creators and audiences, which exist in politics, economics, and culture. He views the founding corruption of modern political philosophy, to be the attempt to abolish this distinction.

Easy to see why it’s a good fit for the neoCon leadership, since it fits right in with their underlying Libertarian/Objectivist attitude of superiority (even with Dunning-Kruger sufferers like Bill Kristol).

It’s not so good for their Know-Nothing marks, but hey, if these peasants are saying it’s OK to constantly lie because an Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ said so, it’s just desserts as far as I’m concerned.

What, do you lie, cheat, and steal more often than not?

Of course he does. A multi-tiered game of “Fuck Your Buddy” (AKA So Long, Sucker) is the basis of modern conservative thought, as I’m sure Progressive Prince would acknowledge if he was honest (but, being a conservative, he isn’t, so…).

One of the problems with this dark worldview is that the game was devised by a Rand Corporation economist named John Forbes Nash, who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time (his life story was documented in A Beautiful Mind).

No wonder the neoCons call liberals the “reality-based community”—their entire movement is riddled through with invisible sky fairies, space aliens, and government conspiracies. One wonders which imaginary entity plagues Progressive Prince and “forces” him to live his life as a complete arsehole.

Comment #65: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  02:16 PM

Absurdly reductive. That’s saying the mainline liberal Episcopalian and the crazy mall-church cultist are the same. Which they most manifestly are not.

It’s not a commentary on craziness or jerkiness, it’s a commentary on the basis of organised religion, which is indeed a lie (“do this/don’t do this because [insert supernatural force/entity of your choice] says so”). Morality can exist outside the context of religion, and that scares the Hell (hehe) out of conservatives.

Comment #66: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  02:23 PM

Evidently the rest of the US outside the Northeast had a whole different religious culture.

Not Catholics on the West Coast.

My grandparents attended the local church with guitars replacing the organ etc after Vatican II and the Latin Mass was replaced by that in the vernacular, and when they moved to the Willow Glen area of San Jose, they attended and donated to a church that was in a poorer part of San Jose.  Of course, the coastal areas of California and Los Angeles the Damned are much bluer than the inland areas.

Of course Catholicism has been around much longer in California than other places in America.

The American Religion

Comment #67: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/18  at  02:25 PM

In my club, we actually had fake debates about what you could say to someone who disagreed with your views, with the goal of having a failproof slogan that could convert anyone.

The funny part coming when you get out in the world and the slogan that was so very convincing among your peers - who already agreed with you - and found that it didn’t work

I suspect that’s at least part of the reason that so many of them keep repeating the same slogan over and over again, even when it’s clear that nobody’s impressed (see Austin Nedved with his bullshit breastfeeding analogy in the thread on the Stupak Amendment): they just don’t understand how their perfect, magic-bullet argument can be failing!  They were told that this argument was perfect, gosh darn it, that the heathens just couldn’t answer it!  Why aren’t they converting?  That’s it!  They know in their hearts I’m right, but they’re just being stubborn.  If I keep repeating my Perfect Argument (tm), don’t let ‘em squirm away, eventually they’ll have to admit the truth.

Comment #68: Seraph  on  11/18  at  02:30 PM

Here’s rich comedy.  I describe you as “sweetly naive” and you respond by calling me an “asshole”.  Now if you were an impartial observer, which one of us would you describe as benevolent and which one as “hateful”?

You’re assuming your impartial observer has no experience with human interaction and wouldn’t recognize condescension when s/he sees it.  Cloaking your contempt with insincere words doesn’t really disguise it.

Comment #69: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  02:31 PM

Progressive Prince is here to prove the point.  I said that there is no such thing as a lie too bald-faced for these asshats to use it if they perceive it’s politically valuable.  And he shows up to lie is head off, to prove my point.  Thanks, Progressive!

Somebody here is lying and it ain’t me Marcotte.

You lied when you blamed pro-lifers for the health care bill’s lack of contraception coverage.

There’s no way around it - which makes it all the more ironic - opening a post about the lying tactics of the right with a lie of your own - it’s all kind of delightfully hypocritical.

Comment #70: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  02:32 PM

But it’s interesting to me that, even in those most extreme circumstances, pro-lifers expect you to lie to them so they can maintain their moral superiority as non-kitten-burners.

They also want you to lie to them because they really WANT to believe that bad pregancy outcomes don’t exist, that pregnancy isn’t dangerous, and that wanted and loved and longed for children die in utero ... and that these are utterly common!  So much less fraught with gray is the declaration that abortion is always done for convenience, rather than to preserve the ability of a family to survive, or the life of a woman, or to admit that things can go catestrophically wrong.

Comment #71: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  02:33 PM

Prog Prince, no kisses for you here.  Nice try - but the facts in evidence speak to other motive.

Comment #72: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  02:34 PM

Do I need to even offer a witticism in response to this one?  You have offered as an example the most common casual lie that people tell.

Poor Monkeyshines, loved by no-one, least of all the blog owner he has a crush on. Anyone in here play the violin?

Here’s rich comedy.  I describe you as “sweetly naive” and you respond by calling me an “asshole”.

We may not be conservatives around here, but we can see the “esoteric” meanings of your comments with no problem. That’s mainly because they ain’t so esoteric. If you’re puzzled by that assessment, I’ll refer you to the Dunning-Kruger link above.

To be fair, though, you’ve always struck me less as an arsehole than a stalk-y attention-starved dullard. Creepy and sad.

Comment #73: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  02:40 PM

You lied when you blamed pro-lifers for the health care bill’s lack of contraception coverage.

Because of course it was pro-choicers and feminists who drove these Democratic poltroons in Congress to omit it! It all makes sense now.

Or perhaps it was the same invisible demon that makes you do such awful, awful things.

Comment #74: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  02:43 PM

Because of course it was pro-choicers and feminists who drove these Democratic poltroons in Congress to omit it! It all makes sense now.

See comment #26 - which explains that, yes, the Democrats are cowardly if they are afraid of the political consequences of supporting something 90% of Americans want.

Or perhaps it was the same invisible demon that makes you do such awful, awful things.

What, pray tell, are the “awful, awful things” that I do? Disagree with you? Calling Marcotte out on her bullshit?

If that’s the case I think it is you that has a problem with your moral sense, not I.

Comment #75: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  02:58 PM

See comment #26 - which explains that, yes, the Democrats are cowardly if they are afraid of the political consequences of supporting something 90% of Americans want.

We’re in agreement that these Dems are cowardly. However, you’re quite reluctant to look at the political leanings of the loud-mouthed 10% they foolishly try to appease (foolishly because those Know-Nothings will always vote Republican).

What, pray tell, are the “awful, awful things” that I do? Disagree with you? Calling Marcotte out on her bullshit?

See my comment at #67. I don’t know or care about the details of whatever “awful, awful things” you do, but I’m sure you justify it as a natural part of the human condition.

And for the record, I don’t think that your pretending the 10% of Americans (conservatives all) who oppose contraception don’t play any part in this situation is awful. Pathetic and intellectually dishonest, but I can live with it for the entertainment value.

Comment #76: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  03:06 PM

To claim that most pro-lifers oppose contraception or are at fault for the failings of the Democrats bill is simply a lie.

She’s claiming the converse, by the way: that most of those (as in 99.999%) of who oppose contraception are also anti-choicers when it comes to abortion.

And while they’re not at fault for the Congressional Dems cowardice, you can bet they and their particualar keys and stops on the conservative Mighty Wurlitzer were the main influencing factor.

Comment #77: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  03:12 PM

“What, pray tell, are the “awful, awful things” that I do? Disagree with you? “

It’s somewhat amusing that Fauxgressive Douche doesn’t see his virulent misogyny and callousness as awful things.  nah, those are his best traits! So, clearly, it must be something else. 

LOL.

Comment #78: Gypsy Lee  on  11/18  at  03:14 PM

doesn’t see his virulent misogyny and callousness as awful things.  nah, those are his best traits!

You just don’t understand, Gypsy—humanity is misogynistic and callous by nature. [Space aliens|demons|God|the Easter Bunny|John Galt] declared it so approx. 6000 years ago. The important thing to remember: if we do awful things, it’s not our fault.

Comment #79: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  03:20 PM

Creepy and sad.

Like most clowns.

Comment #80: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  03:21 PM

I often wonder how much of this “lying” is really a pathetic attempt to reconcile complex reality with easy-to-digest truthymemes?  Dishonesty and intellectual sloth go hand in hand - it’s too complicated to think about, so let’s just pretend that it isn’t complicated and slap some moralism on it!

Comment #81: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  03:23 PM

“Religion is the original lie.”

Absurdly reductive. That’s saying the mainline liberal Episcopalian and the crazy mall-church cultist are the same. Which they most manifestly are not.

One has nothing to do with the other. Religion is a based on myth and lies. That’s true no matter the relative level of fanaticism in its adherents. The Episcopalian and the cultist are the same in that they both adhere to the same fallacy.

Comment #82: Egnu Cledge  on  11/18  at  03:24 PM

Oh yes, the “simple people” bullshit plays right into this.  Because people who think aren’t good “simple” red blooded Amurkins, oh no!

Comment #83: Ms Kate  on  11/18  at  03:26 PM

I often wonder how much of this “lying” is really a pathetic attempt to reconcile complex reality with easy-to-digest truthymemes?  Dishonesty and intellectual sloth go hand in hand - it’s too complicated to think about, so let’s just pretend that it isn’t complicated and slap some moralism on it!

For the Know-Nothing suckers, that’s definitely the case. But the neoCons are lying mainly because they believe they’re the smartest guys in the room. That belief would be justified if the only other people in the room were their marks, but they also have pesky liberals and progressives and independents to contend with.

And then you have the sorry fools like Monkeyshines and Progressive_Prince, who believe they’re the con men but are actually the suckers.

Comment #84: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  03:29 PM

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Only now, the fundies are trying to take everything we have so they can feel better about their own beliefs. And if we break a leg or have an unwanted pregnancy, they will gloat over what Dog has done to us.

Comment #85: LCforevah  on  11/18  at  03:43 PM

“What, do you lie, cheat, and steal more often than not?  Do most of your friends do?  Your family?  Are a significant number of the people in your life pathological liars?”

There’s an interesting chapter in <u>NurtureShock</u> about the difference between what children and adults categorize as lies, the biggest difference being that adults tend not to categorize mistakes, elisions (a mother identifying her son as five when his fifth birthday is still a week away), or “white lies” (telling a telemarketer you’re having dinner to get off the phone) as lies while children do. 

I suppose if you stuck with the kindergarten view of lying and count every single pretense people put up during the day to grease the social gears or avoid disappointing others as lies, you might arrive at the conclusion that people are born liars.

Comment #86: preying mantis  on  11/18  at  04:00 PM

There’s a reason that red state “values” go hand in hand with poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and totally undermined public services.  Give people nothing to turn to but God, and they’ll come flocking to your church no matter what kind of garbage you preach.

Absolutely.  I recall the Village going apeshit last year when a certain former U.S. Senator essentially made the same point:

“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

As much as the corporate MSM tools tried to characterize that statement as evidence of Barack Obama’s elitist disdain for rural and small town white America, it was really just an observation of the end result of Republican fiscal policy on those people… struggling, broken-down people whose way of life has been decimated by people like Ronald Reagan.  They are people who desperately need something to get through the day… so bring in the fundies, sell them Xtian prosperity fantasy, and voila - whole communities of bitter people who cling to God and their guns.

Sometimes I just want to go to one of their rallies, grab one of the teabaggers, shake them and say, “Would you pull your head out of your ass for a minute?  What progressives are proposing will benefit YOU personally, goddammit.  Wake the fuck up, we are not the enemy!”

Comment #87: DTG in STL  on  11/18  at  04:36 PM

(a catholic using evolution to argue for his sexism??)

To be fair, that’s one of the very few areas where the Roman Catholic Church breaks with the evangelicals in favor of reason and logic.  Anti-Darwin creationism is one of the few Xtianist fantasies that the RCC doesn’t actively promote.

Comment #88: DTG in STL  on  11/18  at  04:47 PM

They are people who desperately need something to get through the day… so bring in the fundies, sell them Xtian prosperity fantasy, and voila - whole communities of bitter people who cling to God and their guns.

Did you ever see Hell House, the documentary about a church in Texas that does a religious-themed “hell house” instead of a haunted house for Halloween?  One of the main people they followed was a single father with four kids, two of whom were disabled, and you could really understand why he leaned on this church, horrible as they were.  They were pretty much his sole source of emotional and social support in this really crappy, ground-down life.  They gave him hope that there really was a bigger plan and a reason for all of this awful stuff to have happened to him.  Given what I know about Texas, I suspect he was getting a fair amount of financial support through the church, too, since I don’t think they have extensive services for the disabled.

Comment #89: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  04:57 PM

Do I need to even offer a witticism in response to this one?  You have offered as an example the most common casual lie that people tell.

I realize anyone who claimed to love you would have to be lying, but that doesn’t mean normal, happy, non-hateful people can’t genuinely love each other and say so.

Most people aren’t wingnuts or libertarian morons. They have good impulses and bad ones, and they usually try to follow their good impulses because they have things like conscience and empathy. They occasionally act on their selfish impulses and sometimes feel guilty about that and sometimes don’t. They can gradually raise their consciousness and change their behavior in accordance with it. They know it’s good to be good for its own sake, and will at least pay lip service to goodness. One reason a lot of them think we need religion is they don’t trust themselves to be good without a god watching them, but the fact that they want to be policed in the first place shows how genuinely they understand the importance of goodness and how much they fear losing it.

Comment #90: junk science  on  11/18  at  05:05 PM

We’re in agreement that these Dems are cowardly. However, you’re quite reluctant to look at the political leanings of the loud-mouthed 10% they foolishly try to appease (foolishly because those Know-Nothings will always vote Republican).

I don’t get it. Why is it bad for me to be reluctant to consider the “loud-mouth” 10% that you yourself admit are irrelevant since they will never vote Democrat?

See my comment at #67.

What the hell do Straussian concepts have to do with Marcotte’s lies?

I don’t know or care about the details of whatever “awful, awful things” you do, but I’m sure you justify it as a natural part of the human condition.

So basically you just called me an asshole for no reason other than I apparently disagree with you…. hmmm who is the asshole here again?

And for the record, I don’t think that your pretending the 10% of Americans (conservatives all) who oppose contraception don’t play any part in this situation is awful. Pathetic and intellectually dishonest, but I can live with it for the entertainment value.

I never said they didn’t play any part in this situation, rather its just that they shouldn’t play a part. Democrats need to grow a pair and make a decent health care bill.

The fact that they aren’t doing so (at least with regard to contraception coverage) simply can’t be plausibly laid at the feet of conservatives.

When Marcotte said that conservatives had somehow removed provisions from the house bill - well that was just a bald face lie, no way around it.

Comment #91: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  05:21 PM

It’s somewhat amusing that Fauxgressive Douche doesn’t see his virulent misogyny and callousness as awful things.  nah, those are his best traits! So, clearly, it must be something else.

What have I said that is “virulently misogynistic” or callous?

Comment #92: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  05:24 PM

“What have I said that is “virulently misogynistic” or callous? “

LOL.  Add “feigned confusion” to the list of Fauxgressive Douche’s list of best traits.

Comment #93: Gypsy Lee  on  11/18  at  05:41 PM

LOL.  Add “feigned confusion” to the list of Fauxgressive Douche’s list of best traits.

So you’ve got nothing. That’s what I thought.

Comment #94: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  06:15 PM

I don’t get it. Why is it bad for me to be reluctant to consider the “loud-mouth” 10% that you yourself admit are irrelevant since they will never vote Democrat?

Because when you don’t mention them, you provide no context for why the Dem Congresspeople take such cowardly action (or inaction). I know you’d like to believe that the Dems are evil and perverse as well as being cowardly and risk-averse, but there’s motivation and context and constituency issues at work here.

What the hell do Straussian concepts have to do with Marcotte’s lies?

First, you haven’t demonstrated any lies on Amanda’s part. And obviously you didn’t read through to the end of that post. The discussion of Straussian texts was to help clarify the points brought up by JCfromNC, although your low-grade debate-club imitation of those tactics makes the discussion approrpriate to you.

So basically you just called me an asshole for no reason other than I apparently disagree with you…. hmmm who is the asshole here again?

No, I called your arguments “pathetic and intellectually dishonest” (granted in an entertaingly transparent way). You haven’t done anything to change that opinion. As you can see, the “feigned confusion” trick that Gypsy Lee discusses really doesn’t work around here, nor do lies of omission. Continued use of those sorts of shoddy tactics in a debate, most here will agree, is indeed an arsehole move.

I never said they didn’t play any part in this situation

No, you just neglected to mention them entirely, and when Amanda brought them up you claimed she was lying. Like it or not (and it’s obvious that you do like it), these conservative Xtian fantasists do play a part. The Congressional Dems wouldn’t need to “grow a pair” if these anti-choice (in abortion, in contraception, in everything else) didn’t exist in their constituencies—as you like to pretend they don’t.

So yes, if you’re discussing root causes, the reason that contraception is left out can be very plausibly (in fact conclusively) laid at the feet of anti-choice conservatives, by the very fact of their existence.

Seriously, who else do you think would push their Congresspersons for the exclusion of contraception? If you don’t have a plausible answer for that question then (horror of horrors, debate club champ!) you lose.

Comment #95: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  06:28 PM

“So you’ve got nothing. That’s what I thought. “

LOL.  Uh huh.  As long as we totally ignore everything you posted on the other abortion threads, we’ve got nuthin’!  Cuz its not like anyone can just scroll down to that post to see exactly what I’m talking about.  Moron.

Add “completely dishonest” to the list of Fauxgressive Douche’s best traits.

Comment #96: Gypsy Lee  on  11/18  at  06:57 PM

Because when you don’t mention them, you provide no context for why the Dem Congresspeople take such cowardly action (or inaction).

Actually, I did provide context by quoting from the piece to which Marcotte linked, in my comment #26, which indicated the reason contraception was left out was fear of backlash by conservatives.

I then went on to point out that this fear is completely unjustified as 90% of the population supports contraception, every state already covers it through medicaid (even southern states like Alabama) and half of the states even require all of their private insurance to cover it as well.

Seems supporting contraception is hardly political suicide. 

First, you haven’t demonstrated any lies on Amanda’s part.

Comment #26.

And obviously you didn’t read through to the end of that post. The discussion of Straussian texts was to help clarify the points brought up by JCfromNC, although your low-grade debate-club imitation of those tactics makes the discussion approrpriate to you.

That would be relevent if I had been responding to any points made by JCfromNC.

But I wasn’t - I was pointing out that Amanda lied and that the Democrats are being cowards.

No, I called your arguments “pathetic and intellectually dishonest”

You claimed I did “awful, awful things.” I think it’s fair to construe that into calling me an asshole.

I know you’d like to believe that the Dems are evil and perverse as well as being cowardly and risk-averse, but there’s motivation and context and constituency issues at work here.

Well, as a Democrat I hope that we are all not cowards/risk adverse, evil or perverse.

And once again, and I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about this, I am not saying that there is no motivation or context for the Democrat’s failure to include contraception in the bill.

I am just saying that their motivation is both cowardly and foolish in this context - which you seem to agree with - which begets the question of why we are even arguing in the first place?

Oh yeah, Marcotte lied and for some reason you refuse to see it.

Comment #97: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  06:58 PM

LOL.  Uh huh.  As long as we totally ignore everything you posted on the other abortion threads, we’ve got nuthin’!  Cuz its not like anyone can just scroll down to that post to see exactly what I’m talking about.  Moron.

Go ahead and post anything I have ever written on this site that indicates “virulent misogyny.”

Comment #98: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  07:01 PM

<blockquoteActually, I did provide context by quoting from the piece to which Marcotte linked,</blockquote>

Indeed. You specifically quoted this:

some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control and other preventive services for women into the minimum benefits package.

Who do you think the Dems were worried would find this controversial?

I then went on to point out that this fear is completely unjustified as 90% of the population supports contraception

I don’t think Amanda or I would disagree with that, except insofar that the remaining 10% have several large and powerful media presences that exist to pander to them and stir up controversy amongst the remaining 40% of conservative morons (we’ll call them the “slightly less insane conservatives”) who voted for Bush in 2004.

Comment #26

Which goes to root causes. No anti-choice nutbars and a noise machine that caters to them, no controversy to fear. Unfortunately that’s not the case.

That would be relevent if I had been responding to any points made by JCfromNC.

It’s relevant because your attempt to use 3rd-rate Straussian tactics (trolling arsehole tactics) to “prove” that Amanda was lying.

You claimed I did “awful, awful things.” I think it’s fair to construe that into calling me an asshole.

No, an arsehole is one who expresses his crappy proclivities in a public manner. For example, a concern troll.

Ok, so you’re correct: you are an arsehole insofar as your actions in this comment thread present you as one. Better?

Well, as a Democrat I hope that we are all not cowards/risk adverse, evil or perverse.

Oh, I’m sure you’re a Democrat. A life-long Democrat who’s become concerned (very, very, very concerned) at the lack of civility in the party, which golly-gee-whiz seems to just have come out of the blue over the last 20 years.

Give me a break. You think you’re the first anti-choice Libertarian who’s shown up with that hoary old claim?

(and before you get all huffy, there’s a place for those who object to abortions in the Democratic Party—as long as they don’t try to force those personal views into the political and policy arena in violation of the Establishment Clause).

Oh yeah, Marcotte lied and for some reason you refuse to see it.

Ok, so Amanda said the driving force behind the Dems’ cowardice was fear of a controversy. Controversy caused by…?

[answer: anti-choice religious fantasists]

We all (including Amanda) agree that the Dems were cowardly. But who inspired that cowardice…?

[answer: anti-choice religious fantasists]

Therefore, what group ultimately motivated and caused the coward Dems to remove mandated contraception from health care reform?

[answer: anti-choice religious fantasists]

Given that, where do you see Amanda lying?

Comment #99: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  07:19 PM

For reference, the statement you claimed was a lie is as follows:

This time, I was arguing with them in the comments of a piece about how anti-choicers removed mandated contraception from health care reform.

My question: if those anti-choicers didn’t exist, would the Dems have removed contraception as a requirement of health care reform?

If the answer is yes, the kindest conclusion would be that you’re insane.

If the answer is no, then Amanda wasn’t lying.

Comment #100: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  07:24 PM

which begets the question of why we are even arguing in the first place?

That’s a good question. The answer is, because now and then on a slow day I enjoy screwing around with concern trolls (i.e. comment forum arseholes) and forcing them into corners. But my day here is over, so I’ll leave you to decide whether you’re insane, whether you owe Amanda an apology for calling her a liar, or whether you’ll try to weasel out of things by presenting yet another bad faith argument. The last word here (if you choose to take it) is yours.

Comment #101: Gracchus.  on  11/18  at  07:50 PM

My question: if those anti-choicers didn’t exist, would the Dems have removed contraception as a requirement of health care reform?

If the answer is yes, the kindest conclusion would be that you’re insane.

If the answer is no, then Amanda wasn’t lying.

Gracchus, the whole point is that the Democrats never removed anything. They never had to remove anything. It was never there. Because they didn’t add it. Because they were afraid… they were cowardly - which has been my point all along.

It’s not like there were some glorious golden provisions in their bills which generously extended contraception to all until some evil republicans took away in a sinister, stealthy, stupak-like amendment - which is what Marcotte was suggesting when she said:

In all the fuss over Stupak-Pitts, the fact that both houses of Congress removed mandated coverage not only for contraception, but also STD counseling and pelvic exams went largely unnoticed.

Face it. She lied.

I don’t think Amanda or I would disagree with that, except insofar that the remaining 10% have several large and powerful media presences that exist to pander to them and stir up controversy amongst the remaining 40% of conservative morons (we’ll call them the “slightly less insane conservatives”) who voted for Bush in 2004.

So you are now justifying the irrational Democratic fear of the 10% (who will never vote for them anyway) by arguing that these people still somehow, mysteriously have the power to force their wills on the other 90% of the electorate - despite the fact they have failed so utterly to prevent the government from providing birth control in a single state under medicaid?

I mean conservatives haven’t managed to stop states in the South from providing free contraception through medicare - not even in the South - and yet we are to believe the Democrats were justified in not even trying to get into health care?

Give me a break. You think you’re the first anti-choice Libertarian who’s shown up with that hoary old claim?

Dude… I am not a Libertarian. Let me assure you… I am not a Libertarian.

No, an arsehole is one who expresses his crappy proclivities in a public manner.

I like how you just admit, fully and freely, that you think people who express opinions contrary to yours are assholes.

Personally, I don’t think people who disagree with me are assholes. But that’s just how I roll.

Comment #102: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  07:59 PM

Gracchus, the whole point is that the Democrats never removed anything. They never had to remove anything. It was never there. Because they didn’t add it. Because they were afraid… they were cowardly - which has been my point all along.

I think you may need to re-read the piece again.  It doesn’t say that contraception and pelvic exam coverage was in the final version of the one specific bill that only just passed with the Stupak amendment and was just recently removed—it was in earlier versions of the bills from the other committees and was removed.

You do realize that there were three House bills, right?  And that the one specific bill that just passed was not the only bill?  So to say that Amanda “lied” by saying that contraception coverage was in the House bills and was removed is, well, a lie, because it was there in earlier versions of the other bills and it was removed.

Comment #103: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  10:15 PM

I like how you just admit, fully and freely, that you think people who express opinions contrary to yours are assholes.

You’re not expressing contrary opinions—you’re expressing contrary “facts” that are not correct.  As the saying goes, you have the right to your own opinions, but you don’t have the right to your own facts.  You don’t get to make things up and then claim it’s just your “opinion” so we can’t contradict you.

Comment #104: Mnemosyne  on  11/18  at  10:16 PM

“The best example is birth control, which was also recently thrown under the health-reform train. So far, none of the three reform bills has required insurers to cover contraception, although it is almost universally used by heterosexually active women. Other preventive services, such as some counseling about sexually transmitted diseases and pelvic exams, didn’t make the cut, either. Nor have the bills protected these services from “cost sharing,” which means that women may well end up paying for much of their birth control out of their own pockets.”

Comment #105: Progressive_Prince  on  11/18  at  10:26 PM

Sure, let’s play the emphasis game:

“The best example is birth control, which was also recently thrown under the health-reform train. So far, none of the three reform bills has required insurers to cover contraception, although it is almost universally used by heterosexually active women. Other preventive services, such as some counseling about sexually transmitted diseases and pelvic exams, didn’t make the cut, either. Nor have the bills protected these services from “cost sharing,” which means that women may well end up paying for much of their birth control out of their own pockets.”

Believe it or not, “didn’t make the cut” and “never there in the first place” are not actually synonyms, and they would need to be in order for your accusation that Amanda was “lying” to be correct.

Comment #106: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  01:31 AM

Women’s health advocates reported that some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control and other preventive services for women into the minimum benefits package.

They were never inserted - so they never were removed.

Amanda either lied or has the same poor reading comprehension skills you are exhibiting.

Deal with it.

Comment #107: Progressive_Prince  on  11/19  at  02:05 AM

They were never inserted - so they never were removed.

Sigh.  Yes, that’s right, there’s no such thing as multiple drafts of bills, so the fact that the items didn’t make it into the final bill, like, totally proves they were never there in the first place.

I’m suspecting you had a lot of problems playing Peek-A-Boo:  “Oh my God!  My mother completely vanished!  She’s never going to return!”

Comment #108: Mnemosyne  on  11/19  at  03:08 AM

Sigh.  Yes, that’s right, there’s no such thing as multiple drafts of bills, so the fact that the items didn’t make it into the final bill, like, totally proves they were never there in the first place.

Now you are really grasping at straws.

Yes, I suppose in a technical sense the article never explicitly states that at all points during the entire process there were no contraception provisions in any of the bills.

However, that is hardly a plain reading interpretation of

So far, none of the three reform bills has required insurers to cover contraception… some Democrats cited a fear of igniting controversy when asked to insert birth control.

After all, they would not have been asked to insert provisions that were already in place. 

Keep in mind as well - if there had been some draft with contraception included and it was specifically removed the article would have highlighted it to strenghten its case that contraception was thrown under the bus - so to speak.

Comment #109: Progressive_Prince  on  11/19  at  05:01 AM

Gracchus, the whole point is that the Democrats never removed anything.

I said they removed it as a requirement, which it would have been (along with every other standard medical procedure and therapy) if no-one had made it into a particular controversy. If you want to play semantics, by making those procedures issues at all they “removed” the otherwise automatic and assumed and unspoken inclusion of coverage of STD counselling and contraception as preconditions for supporting a reform package. It undeniably amounts to the same result, which seems to please you at least as far as abortion is concerned.

Because they were afraid… they were cowardly - which has been my point all along.

And the point I’m making, with no excuses for these Dems, is that there has to be something for a coward to be afraid of in the first place. And as has been the pattern for two decades, it’s namely the GOP formula that goes something like this:

1. Choose an issue that stirs up the hardcore moron 10% of conservative. These days it’s abortion or Teh Gay.

2. Mobilise them to protest with astroturf campaigns funded by the wingnut welfare racket (e.g. Freedomworks).

3. Have Rush and Faux News and the usual demagogues blow it up into a “controversy”

4. Watch as the “slightly less-crazy conservatives” (the other 40% of GOP voters) jump on the bandwagon simply to score points against the Dems

5. Count on the other MSM outlets to see this as a story that’s “split the nation 50-50”

6. Demand that the Beltway Dems excercise “comity and compromise.”

7. Prosper!

This is no conspiracy theory, as any study of Rove, Luntz, Atwater and Scaife will demonstrate.

So you are now justifying the irrational Democratic fear of the 10% (who will never vote for them anyway) by arguing that these people still somehow, mysteriously have the power to force their wills on the other 90% of the electorate

I’m not justifying anything, but nor am I saying it’s irrational or mysterious. They’re cowards, but poltroons often flee from real and well-understood threats.

And no, the 10% aren’t “forcing their will” on the other 90%, but as described above they play a critical part in the process that gets GOP politicians elected and into positions where they can subtract from our rights.

I mean conservatives haven’t managed to stop states in the South from providing free contraception through medicare yet - not even in the South - and yet we are to believe the Democrats were justified in not even trying to get into health care?

Fixed that for you. Give these religious fantasists an inch and they’ll take a mile. There’s no question that the Dems gave them that inch, and there’s no excuse. But I can understand why these eternal victims caved yet again, and where the blame for that fear lies.

Dude… I am not a Libertarian. Let me assure you… I am not a Libertarian.

I should be clear: not a member of the Libertarian Party, but more the kind of person who’s all for social liberty—up until the point it infringes on his privilege.

I like how you just admit, fully and freely, that you think people who express opinions contrary to yours are assholes.

A proclivity is not an opinion. I’d think some so concerned with semantics would know that, but apparently not. Here’s a definition:

pro·cliv·i·ty –noun, plural -ties.
natural or habitual inclination or tendency; propensity; predisposition

And here are examples of the proper usage:

“P_P had a proclivity to argue in bad faith, by (among other things) ignoring uncomfortable questions, pretending root causes don’t exist, and putting words in the mouths of others.”

or

“Ironically, ‘liberty-loving’ anti-choicers have a proclivity for trying to control the bodies of other people”

By using the word “proclivity,” I don’t characterise you as an arsehole for your repulsive opinion, but rather for the crappy, trollish way you try to defend that opinion. A crappy, trollish way that isn’t fooling anyone.

Anyhow, I’ve had my fun with you here.

Comment #110: Gracchus.  on  11/19  at  11:02 AM

“Go ahead and post anything I have ever written on this site that indicates “virulent misogyny.””

I made it very clear where anyone could find it.  Are you really that stupid?  I mean, you’ve made it very clear that you have absolutely no respect for women, but are you really *that* invested in pretending?

Comment #111: Gypsy Lee  on  11/19  at  11:14 AM

“Go ahead and post anything I have ever written on this site that indicates “virulent misogyny.””

It’s more indifferent and entitled misogyny. Denying women access to legal abortions and other reproductive options indirectly but demonstrably leads to the unneccessary deaths and maiming of many of those women:

The costs of unsafe abortions, which can include inserting pouches containing arsenic to back street surgery, can be high: the healthcare bill to deal with conditions from sepsis to organ failure can be four times what it costs to provide family planning services.

Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions - leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without a mother - and 5m develop complications.

It takes a certain level of disdain for women in general (at least in comparison to non-cognizant cell clusters or Invisible Bearded Sky Men™) to countenance that.

Now if P_P looked at a case where a woman died due to a botched illegal abortion and thought (or, as is his wont, sneakily implied) “served the slut right” (y’know, for “choosing” to get knocked up in his pro-life baby-mad fantasy land) then the “virulent” adjective would indeed apply.

Comment #112: Gracchus.  on  11/19  at  12:59 PM

If you want to play semantics, by making those procedures issues at all they “removed” the otherwise automatic and assumed and unspoken inclusion of coverage of STD counselling and contraception as preconditions for supporting a reform package. It undeniably amounts to the same result,

This argument makes perfect sense if you think “remove” doesn’t mean “remove.” You seem to think it is a synonym for discouraged, detered, dissuaded, etc. It isn’t.

Big breath here - remove means - remove. To take away. To, you know, remove.

I’m not justifying anything, but nor am I saying it’s irrational or mysterious. They’re cowards, but poltroons often flee from real and well-understood threats.

Oh. My. God. Do you not see the blatant contradiction here? They are cowards to run away due to their unjustified fear - but the threat posed by conservatives is totally real and well-understood? Huh?

Either the threat is real (meaning the Democrats were justified in excluding coverage) or not real (in which they weren’t). You can’t have it both ways.

And just to preempt you from once again claiming that I am arguing that there are no reasons whatsoever for the Democrats to keep coverage out (which you keep claiming I argued - and in the same breath accusing me of “putting words in your mouth” - hilarious!) I feel I must recopy and paste this which I said earlier:

“I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about this, I am not saying that there is no motivation or context for the Democrat’s failure to include contraception in the bill. I am just saying that their motivation is both cowardly and foolish in this context.”

P_P had a proclivity to argue in bad faith, by (among other things) ignoring uncomfortable questions

You just seriously made an argument where actually tried to change the definition of a commonly-understood word. You win the bad faith medal for this exchange.

And what “uncomfortable questions” have I avoided?

Anyhow, I’ve had my fun with you here.

I hope you aren’t finished. I really want to see you attempt to recover from the “remove doesn’t mean remove” argument. That’s a classic.

Comment #113: Progressive_Prince  on  11/19  at  09:51 PM

It’s more indifferent and entitled misogyny. Denying women access to legal abortions

I don’t want to deny women access to legal abortions.

I want most elective abortions made illegal.

and other reproductive options

I am not against contraception.

[I]ndirectly but demonstrably leads to the unneccessary deaths and maiming of many of those women… It takes a certain level of disdain for women in general (at least in comparison to non-cognizant cell clusters or Invisible Bearded Sky Men™) to countenance that.

I’ve always found this pro-choice argument perplexing. It’s a breath-taking non sequitur to equate being against abortion to hating women.

I mean we could start with the fact that half of women are pro-life - it just seems, on the face of it, that one half of women can’t possibly hate themselves. But I suppose anything is possible. Perhaps, the main motivation in their hearts against abortion is self-hatred or perhaps the Invisible Patriarchal Cabal has pulled the wool over their eyes - so to speak.

Anyway, from what I have gathered, from the countless bizarre ramblings and screechy screeds emanating from various pro-choice blogs, is that the argument goes like this:

1. Pro-lifers want abortion made illegal.
2. Making abortion illegal will result in some women attempting to obtain illegal abortions.
3. Some of these illegal abortions will take place in unsafe conditions.
4. Some of these unsafe abortions will lead to injury and/or death of the women involved.
5. Pro-lifers know of premise #4.

Ergo: Pro-lifers want to see women die.
Ergo: Pro-lifers hate women.

This, of course, is nonsense - the known, undesired side effects to a policy does not mean the proponents of that policy are in support of said, known and undesired side effects.

For example:

1. Obama wants to reduce the swine flu epidemic.
2. The Obama administration is making the swine flu vaccination available to all Americans.
3. If the swine flu is made available to all Americans some will opt to receive it.
4. The swine flu vaccine will kill a portion of those who receive it.
5. The Obama Administration knows of premise 4.

Ergo. Obama wants to kill Americans.
Ergo. Obama hates Americans.

Comment #114: Progressive_Prince  on  11/19  at  10:19 PM

Keep in mind as well - if there had been some draft with contraception included and it was specifically removed the article would have highlighted it to strenghten its case that contraception was thrown under the bus - so to speak.

Silly me.  I thought you might have some actual information to contribute, rather than insisting that a single editorial that Amanda linked to must contain the full history of all three House bills or else it’s proof that Amanda is a liar because the authors didn’t include that.

Again:  you accuse Amanda of being a “liar,” and present no proof of your own except a single editorial that she linked to.  If she’s a liar, then prove it.  Find the history of those three bills and show us that reproductive care was never included in any of them, ever.  Otherwise, all we have is you slandering Amanda by claiming without proof that she’s a liar but being too lazy to actually present any proof of your claim.

You think she’s a liar?  Present your proofs.  The burden is on the accuser to prove that his/her claims are true.  If you can’t be bothered to prove your claims, then STFU.

Comment #115: Mnemosyne  on  11/20  at  12:23 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.