Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Once again proving that Lulu at Canadian Cynic lacks reading and logic skills

The folks on Canadian Cynic like to put people down. That's their stock and trade. The premise is this: if the people you attack are morally and intellectually bankrupt, that makes you right. You don't have to actually address issues. Just people. Just commit enough ad hominems to complete the character assassination and you will prevail.

So she thinks.

Lulu loves to jump to unfounded conclusions about what people think, making it easier to fling baseless ad hominems. For instance, in response to the report that 30 000 infants are victims of non-fatal child abuse in the US, I said that we should not abort them, and we should not let parents off the hook.

Parental responsibility. My response to child abuse. What a concept.

Lulu's spin on this:

Just the same old tired don’t have an abortion because a fetus is a child but once you actually have that child and are overwhelmed and completely unprepared for what’s ahead, well, too bad for you.

What exactly about being "unprepared" makes it okay for a parent to commit child abuse?

Child abuse is not the product of being "unprepared". There are lots of people who are "unprepared" who manage not to hurt their week-old infants.

Child abuse is often cited as a reason to allow for abortion: better to abort the baby than to allow him to be abused.

Child abuse is perfectly preventable: just don't hurt the baby. Pretty simple huh?

If you're not able to care for a baby, for instance, you're addicted to drugs, then the responsible thing to do is to hand over care to someone who can, either a relative, friend or as a last resort, Child Protection.

Lulu thinks that lacking housing, being a single parent, or lacking support is the cause of child abuse.

That's the cause of many things. But that's not the cause of child abuse.

Child abuse is caused by a caretaker's poor decision to do something that will harm the child. It's not caused by poverty. Lots of poor people have children and manage not to hurt their children. The story relates that many of these babies are neglected-- perhaps they are not fed or their diapers aren't changed. Here's an idea: feed the baby, change their diaper and pick him up and talk to him now and then.

How does that require a "program"?

It doesn't require a program to be a good parent. That's not to say I don't support helping out people in need. But poverty and child abuse are two different issues.

no time for the real, live babies.

Lulu of course defines all unborn children as not "real live babies".

Even Henry Morgentaler thinks fetuses after 24 weeks qualify as "real, live babies".

The fact that a baby does not draw oxygen through his lungs disqualifies that baby from compassion in Lulu's eyes. If he has to suffer and die in the name of someone else's convenience, oh well! Cruelty is perfectly justified.

Lulu also writes:

SUZANNE does have one whole entire post on child care. Except it’s a cheap shot at Red Jenny.

Yeah, telling people where I got a cartoon is a low cheap shot. *Roll eyes*.

Not like what Lulu does, where she constantly jumps to false conclusions, reads everything in the most negative light and makes baseless accusations on a constant basis.

Now that is being hypocritical.

And oh yeah, this is my low cheap shot at Belinda Stronach: that she wouldn't be caught dead with a bunch of conservative old ladies who want to knit, and her reaction to the "dog" comment was over the top.

And my "cheap shot" at Democrats: why do they think it's okay for a sixteen-year-old to have an abortion, but not okay for her to have sex with an adult man?

Soooooo, one could assume that child care, knitting and politicians stalking teenage congressional pages are all of equal importance to SUZANNE

You could assume that, but you'd be wrong.

... and that she never misses a chance to take a cheap shot at someone who isn’t in complete ideological lockstep with her.

Not like....the gang at Canadian Cynic, who never take any cheap shots whatsoever.

I mean, it's okay when they do it.

And if I never missed an opportunity to take cheap shots, why does Lulu have to go ALL THE WAY BACK to posts in 2006 to find examples.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a single mom. I have a good job, I just bought my first house and my son is going to university in the fall. Needless to say, I'm not exactly rolling in cash — but that doesn’t stop me from putting my money where my mouth is.

I'm really glad Lulu has risen to that level of moral virtue.

Unlike the sanctimonious, hypocritical shriek harpies in the fetus-fetishist crowd. So after you’ve saved the fetuses and they’re born and you’ve fucked off they way the anti-choicers always do because, as far as you’re concerned your job is done SUZANNE, don't worry.

That's interesting she should make that assertion. What does she know about how I spend my time and whom I donate to? She seems to be certain that I don't give a single dime to anyone.

She crows about how virtuous she is, then, without back-up, asserts that I, nor any pro-lifer, don't do a thing for anyone else.

What was that about taking cheap shots?

I’ll be here to pick up the slack.

Good to know you're being holier-than-thou there, Lulu.

For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca