Even Alex Pareene Must Know He Is Babbling Nonsense, Right?

By -
Regarding allowing religious institutions to opt out of having to pay for contraceptives, he says:

"[Murkowski] had no idea she was signing on to a hugely unpopular and politically suicidal campaign to restrict the rights of women!"

Hey, I'd like a six pack tonight! I think if my employer refuses to pay for it, I will whinge that it is restricting my rights.

Pareene then piles the rubbish heap yet higher:

"She is pro-choice. She is obviously pro-contraception. She just voted against those two principles because..."

So, if I am pro-book, but vote against forcing employers to buy their employees books, then I am voting against my principles?

These are just rhetorical ploys, right? He can't actually believe these arguments make any sense.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:40 PM

    These are just rhetorical ploys, right? He can't actually believe these arguments make any sense.

    I don't know. Believe me, I totally get what you are saying. But, I remember (for example) when you and I were arguing about materialism, and boy did I really think you were being a jack*ss. Of course now, I realize I was the braying donkey.

    Same thing with my weekly religious posts. It's not like a 1% disagreement over the proper insight to emphasize; when people are coming at something from totally different angles, what is a "knockdown" argument for one person necessarily has to be dismissed as complete rubbish by the other person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike B.10:29 PM

    Just curious, is there a link to these famed Callahan vs. Murphy debates on materialism? Did they take place in an online forum somewhere? As someone currently thinking and struggling through these issues myself, I'd be quite interested to read them! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah10:30 PM

    anti-state.com, if I remember correctly, is where they took place.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more