Excuse Me But, That's "Far Right, Inc."

My Opponent's Views [sic]:

Capital punishment -- destruction of a human life with independent thought who is not, at the time of his destruction, causing direct harm to anyone. Therefore there is no cause to kill him except vengeance, which serves no useful purpose.

Abortion -- separation of two humans, one of which is causing direct physical trauma to the other until the time of separation. If it is incapable of attaining life without taking it from the other, it is never a human life with independent thought in the first place. The purpose of this prevention of life is to end the trauma it is causing to the woman carrying it, at her behest. The exception, when the fetus attains human life, falls at the juncture of what is called "viability," and abortion ceases to be optional; instead, intact extraction (birth) replaces it, in the interests of preserving the now-present second human life.

Assisted suicide -- in cases where a human life is guaranteed to end in an arbitrarily short span and every remaining moment is to be filled with enormous physical pain beyond the ability of medicine to alleviate, that human should be allowed to use their independent thought to choose a quicker, less painful end.

Condemnation of racism -- where all functioning humans with independent thought are inherently equal, the color of a person's skin should not be relevant to anyone but themselves.

Evolutionary theory -- not to be confused with the observed biological process of evolution, this probably relates specifically to the evidence that mankind is part of a transitional genetic expansion of primates? Since all known life is merely a biochemical reaction inside organic compounds, "life" being an arbitrary distinction in and of itself, there is no inherent contradiction between this and the other positions beyond a simple and equally-arbitrary distinction that function within the cerebral cortex -- the thinking part of the brain -- defines human life. This provides no objective distinction between humans and other similarly-evolved species, but since we are the ones defining the subjectivity, that's irrelevant.

On the whole, I see no contradictions in this set of ideas unless -- as is a typical neoconservative tactic -- strawman arguments are applied and unlikely scenarios developed in order to provide a complex circumstance in which a contradiction may be found. As such, simple rationality dictates that each case be afforded its own merit and not address such issues with blanket acceptance or denial.

I responded:

Capital punishment: If what is right is dependent on how useful it is, or what its consequences are, then what is right is also useless. Capital punishment is just: they should be subject to the same things that they illegally subjected others to. Vengeance does serve a purpose, if it consoles the families of the murdered, if it re-enforces social ethic and structure, and if it is also just, as previously mentioned.

Abortion: As per usual, the argument for abortion is nearly incomprehensible. Pro-death people seem to be always grasping at straws as far as this goes, because it is so hard to disprove something so obvious. Watch:A person is a person no matter what their ability to think, to walk, to act, to see, to breathe, etc. It is not these things that make us human. I could sit here and make the argument that no man is able to think independently, because we are merely comprised of other's influence on us. Carrying a child isn't traumatic, it is a beautiful, natural part of the human condition, granted one that isn't easy. (However, really nothing worth having in life is easy.) However, to make the argument that something natural is traumatic, and should be destroyed is essentially rejecting your own humanity. Just because someone is bothersome or annoying, doesn't give you the right to take them out which is what, at its heart, abortion is all about. I would like to point out that your perceptions are so screwed up that you would rather give the death sentence to an infant than to a murderer. It is at this point that I stop thinking of you as an adult who is able to think clearly about anything, and start talking to you like an idiot.

Assisted suicide: Yes, I can see why we would want to encourage people to take the quicker, easier, and more cowardly path. Not to mention that it de-values human life, and glorifies death.

Condemnation of racism- No one is equal. Not one. If you honestly think that, you are a moron. Do you:a) think differently than someone?b) have more strength than someone?c) are you smarter than someone?d) are you a worse writer than someone?... and the list goes on. I have just proven to you that we are not all equal. However, I find the "independent thought" thing interesting. I guess it would be ok if we started capping retards, autistic people, and people with down's syndrome. Maybe even really stupid people? Why not?Another thing that you don't realize is that every human being, from conception till death is capable of rational and "independent" thought, therefore, by your own definition, you're wrong. And what the hell does that relative comment mean? How can something be relevant to someone without it affecting others? Either a person's skin color has meaning or it doesn't, it can't be both. Seriously, who the hell taught you to think?

Evolutionary theory: Oh, I see you are trying to bully me by showing off your science terms. Unlike most Americans though, I don't bow to the alter of science, and your pathetic attempts at obfuscation are woefully inadequate. You see, a human life isn't the sum of its genetic material, because of our ability to rise above it. It is precisely our capacity for "independent" thought that shows us how much greater we are than mere genetics. What defines human life is that we are able to selflessly love, reason, and act against instinct. None of these things are in our genetics, and each are unique to man. These are "subjective" distinctions, but objective fact. Luckily, though, you managed to avoid talking about how you can explain the complete lack of a fossil record, the sheer logical idiocy, and the miserable consequences of evolution.

I am actually more of a traditional conservative, but thanks for playing. Just because I am for this war, doesn't mean I am for all war, and that we should try to export American democracy abroad. I just think, in this case, that it might work, more or less. By the way, do you even know what a neo-conservative is, by definition? What is there intellectual heritage? What is being "mugged by reality"?

Strawman arguments are used by Plato and Aristotle, so you haven't a leg to stand on there. Also, that isn't what strawman means. A strawman means poorly describing an opponents argument and then disproving that, instead of actually debating that person. An effective rhetorical device, but one which, unfortunately for you, was not used here. Lucky for me I have just demonstrated how each of those things is wrong on its own, and, perhaps you might have picked up on some themes, like: human dignity, the sacredness of human life, justice, and the fact that you're an idiot. As there are discernable themes, that mean that they are both wrong in themselves, but are also connected in their wrongness. I don't really expect you to get it.

My opponent responded:

"I don't bow to the alter of science"

Wonderful. A rejection of science renders any rational discussion impossible, since you permit yourself the egocentric freedom to subjectively arbitrate what constitutes "fact." Since your arguments therefore apply only to an imaginary world of your own design, they have no relevant refutation to the rest of reality. I therefore stand by my objective analysis based in empiricism and logic, and pity your waste of a Saturday night composing drivel. Although it is certainly yours to waste, given the magical thinking that defines the parameters of your reality. It was curiously satisfying to note your embrace of racism and derision of the mentally-challenged coupled with scientific laziness, pointless vengeance, callousness, and misogyny. All of which I have come to expect from the Far Right.

Enjoy the demise of conservativism. I certainly am! :)

I respond:

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I have said previously, but that is pretty typical of liberals.

I don't reject science, in fact, it is clear that science has provided many a good thing for our society. However, I don't view science as the arbiter of right and wrong, or look to it to answer transcendental questions: it is quite unable to do so. Science is able to, with much deliberation, give us answers to factual questions, ie "what is an atom?" or "what does the atom do?"; on the other hand it fails utterly to answers questions such as "what does the atom MEAN?" or "What SHOULD we do with an atom?". So, when I made that statement, I was merely saying that science is useless for political debate, because the latter questions are political, and as theory and evidence in science are dynamic, it is unable to give us even clear and standard answers to the questions that we as a society need to answer. Furthermore, your inability to see the constraints of science leads me to believe that you are the one who is incapable of holding reasonable discussions, because science deals with fact, not reason.

I don't really see how any of my statements can be accused of the product of a deluded mind, as they are completely in line with both the objective reality, with the added benefit of agreement with the traditional and philosophical disussions of truth and ethics. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, Augustine, Arendt, and even Hegel can be said to agree with my interpretation. So much for your imaginary world.

I am not racist, I was merely pointing out the logcial fallacies in your own arguments. We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, and each one of us has undeniable human dignity, which I thought I made clear in my previous post, which I am beginning to suspect you didn't even really read.

I have no problem, nor do I deride the mentally handicapped. In fact, I was pointing out that by your standards of what makes a person, and therefore, who it is and isn't permissble to kill (namely "independent thinking", which, I might add, is a pretty idiotic standard for what makes a person) would include the mentally handicapped. (Speaking of which, if you are so concerned about helping the helpless, you might want to look to the womb.) It is liberals who historically have been for the culling of undesirables, not traditional conservatives. (don't even try to bring up the Nazis-they weren't far right. The were SOCIALISTS. In fact, your precious planned parenthood shares their heritage with the Nazis.)

You should try to look to the meanings of words before you freak out about them. You have taught yourself to think of vengeance as pejorative, without really looking at why. One way or another though, I did manage to prove that it isn't pointless as far as the death penalty goes.

As for my callousness, I will acknowledge that when I start ripping innocent children out of their mother's womb.

I want what is best for both woman and men, however, I don't acknowledge that they know what that is. Only a well formed conscience can discern what is morally right and good. Unfortunatly, most people nowadays don't have well formed consciences. Take yourself for example. Nonetheless, I don't believe that letting women kill their children is good for them, and just like I would try to stop a woman from taking drugs, becoming a prostitute, or killing themselves, so I will try to stop them from abortion. I do it because I want to keep them from damaging themselves. If that makes me a misogynist, then I am ok with that.

As per usual, I have taken the time to show you the myriad of ways you are wrong, replying in detail to your objections and accusations, whilst you have chosen to go the path of labeling me as your way of arguing. Why don't you show me how I am wrong, show me how I am callous, instead of attempting to win by ignoring everything except that which re-affirms your position? That is mental laziness.

I see no evidence that conservatism is dead, or dying. Good luck with that, though.

Oh, and that's Far Right, Inc.