Thursday, October 01, 2009

They manipulate while accusing others of manipulation

McGill Daily

While Choose Life’s mandate dictates that the club “educate” students on the pro-life position and “encourage dialogue,” their events don’t appear to be productive forums for student debate. Instead, they rely on shock and fear to pressure students not to have abortions. This is why we don’t think Choose Life has a place on campus, and support the motion at SSMU Council to censure them.

So, they disagree with the information presented, the opinions offered, because of their shocking nature, so now they are blameworthy for having shown the truth.

It's not that they deny the information presented. It's just shocking. It's gross. It's fear. It's intimidation. It's pressure. It's guilt-tripping.

So, they use emotionalism to argue against emotionalism. It's wrong because it makes people feel bad and they say so.

It's a matter of: I don't agree with you, what you say can dissuade others of thinking like me, you use emotions not facts (never mind that's what they're doing) therefore you are not entitled to your opinion.

And this is just hilarious:

Public debate about abortion should continue on campus. But when it comes to such a polarizing and emotional question, the best facilitators for a discussion on abortion experiences, counseling, and education are those without a political or religious agenda, like McGill Health Services, the Sexual Assault Centre of McGill Students’ Society, or members of the Union for Gender Empowerment, who are trained to be active, non-partisan listeners.


In other words, public debate should continue, but only one side of the issue should win!

I love this-- trained to be active, non-partisan listeners-- i.e. they agree with abortion.

And you have to really wonder if they believe their own tripe.

Do they not realize how ridiculous they sound? Have a debate about abortion, but only have people who agree with it run the show? Why,so that the outcome is a foregone conclusion-- manipulate the event to prove poor-choicers are right?

They used to have debates like that. In the Middle Ages. You'd have Christians on one side and Jews on the other. It was run by the Church. Who do you suppose won all those debates?

And,if you don't want an emotional debate, stop being emotional. Part of growing up is neutralizing emotions and addressing issues with your head.