Arguin with idiots; Harry Reid Edition

Timothy Birdnow

Had an argument with a usually polite liberal over Harry Reid.

Mike Reynolds says:

I got a stomach flu after which I could tell this was going nowhere and never looked at the last round of replies. Also, I saw your post where all your friends agreed vehemently agreed that Harry Reid is in Hell or is in grave danger of damnation. I don't know what makes him different from any other Democrat, he was a rather bland person. So, you must think all Democrat's salvation is in jeopardy. Despite your veneer of civility and manners, that is a very deep level of contempt and a profound a priori bias against which it is impossible to rationally debating much of anything. And you all think you know better than scientists. I think you should use that approach with lawyers and refuse to ever hire good lawyers! lol...

Here is a fascinating interview by an ultra-conservative (Steven Crowder aka Louder w/ Crowder) of a psychologist widely respected by conservatives for his pervasive and vituperous anti-feminist arguments.https://­www.youtube.com/­watch?v=eHyDW8-X9Pg

I retort:

Mike I don't necessarily agree with my Facebook friends, but I will say this; Harry Reid violated the tenants of his religion repeatedly, most notably by supporting abortion in direct violation of Church teaching. That is a huge thing. He also SOUNDED bland but was anything but. And he had ties to the Mafia. I don't presume to judge where he is but I wouldn't want to have to answer for so much of what he did. (True of most politicians, on both sides of the aisle, granted.)

Oh, and "know better than scientists". Which scientists? You assume a scientist working for a government agency is SCIENCE and that is the end of it. I can quote scientists who disagree, but you give them no credence. Science isn't about a consensus anyway. It's about logic and truth. I don't know which particular post has you so wound up, but you seem to be accusing me of being a closed-minded bigot and I could say the same would apply in your case since you ignore the science that disagrees with your interpretation.

I wouldn't hire a lawyer advising me to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit because it would make him richer, or accept his advice if it would bankrupt me. Why should my standards for a scientist be any lower?

I would also add to the litany of Mr. Reid's sins, he knowingly lied about Mitt Romney and when asked said "well, it worked". Yes, politicians lie, but he had absolutely no problem trying to smear Romney with what he knew was a lie.

Thou shalt not bear false witness... Mike replies:

That is why to this day as far I'm aware, no Christian dominated country has ever made a law punishing women for having back ally abortions where they are or were illegal.

I beg to differ:

Certainly the Catholic Church has issued the highest condmmnation of abortion Mike. You can try to dodge that all you wish but it's still true.

And Harry Reids LLDS faith condemns it also. https://religionfacts.com/mormonism/abortion

Harry Reid claimed to be pro-life but in fact had a 70% rating from NARAL and between an 83 and 89% rating from Planned Parenthood.

Your point that no Christian dominated country has made it illegal is a rather weak half-truth; it WAS illegal until secularization in most Western countries just fifty years ago. And it STILL is illegal in a number of Christian countires. Here is a list of all countries where abortion is illegal. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal

But even so, so what? We are talking about where the man is going to wind up, not whether it was technically legal.

I would also point out that Mr. Reid opposed gay marriage until it was politically expedient for him to adopt it. His LDS faith opposes it https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/mormon-leader-reaffirms-religion-s-opposition-gay-marriage-n1055586 and yet Mr. Reid had no problems with it only after it became obvious it would become the law of the land.

The point is that is something that might be legal but he openly rejects the teachings of the church to which he claims membership.

Oh, and Mike you are wrong; Thomas Aquinas never addressed the topic, but from his writings on other subjects it's clear he opposed it. https://catholicexchange.com/st-thomas-aquinas-culture-life

And the same holds true for Augstine. Even this op-ed in the New York Times admitted that. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/29/opinion/l-st-augustine-too-opposed-abortion-264986.html

I've read both of these men's writings and can attest to the fact neither were proponents of abortion.

Oh, and yes Academia is government to a large degree. Who do you think is PAYING them? Why do you think government is funding them? They aren't doing it without gain.

And I could present to you scientists who do the same research and come to a different conclusion. Often they have to remain quiet or risk their jobs.

Google Joanna Simpson. She came out as a climate skeptic after she retired, and said she feared losing her job if she came out while employed by NASA.

Get that? Dr. Simpson saw the oppression of science in action.

Mike your argument just doesn't hold water.

He who pays the bills is boss.

BTW My ancient computer would not let me access the youtube video you presented so I cannot speak to it.

Oh, and Mike, even IF Aquinas thought it acceptable to abort a baby prior to "ensoulment" which he thought was about sixty days (he didn't; he just thought it wasn't as bad as late-term abortions) it still doesn't change the fact that Reid still protected those who wanted late term abortions. He led the filibuster of the GOP late term abortion ban. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/09/pain-capable-abortion-ban-defeated-harry-reid-filibuster/ That puts him outside of the timeframe alleged for Augustine.

Oh, by the way. In the year 300, the Council of Elvira, a local church council in Spain, passed specific legislation condemning abortion (Canon 63). This is a long standing tradition of opposition to abortion in most Christian denominations. Abortion was sometimes allowed to protect the life of the mother, but very rarely for any other purpose.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1094 words, total size 8 kb.