Facebook memes

A friend linked to a “Liberal and proud of it” Facebook page and I read some of their, uh, arguments.  I should note that many Conservative memes are pointless.  I think it is always worth asking if the joke would work on the other side if you just changed the names.  If so, I don’t click “like” or share it.  Just saying, “Obama is stupid,” or attacking his wife’s appearance is about as productive as the Left’s obsession with Sarah Palin.  We have endless facts about his record and beliefs to point to. Why dilute the message with pettiness?

But when the Liberal pages try to make a logical point it is typically loaded with fallacies.  A few samples I saw plus the comments I left:

It is only charity when you donate your money and time. Forcing others to “give” at the point of a gun doesn’t qualify. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. Coveting is still a sin.   Even if his definition of giving matched the dictionary he would still be wrong on two counts. First, he pretends that we aren’t already “giving” vast amounts to the poor. Worse yet, he assumes that more of this “giving” will actually help the country.

This assumes that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is a civil right, but you haven’t proved that. You have about as much right to that as you do a square circle.

It also assumes that gays and lesbians can’t be “married” today in fake churches and live together as they like. They can do that all-day, every day and we won’t complain. There is simply no need for the government to get involved in their relationships, because by nature and design they do produce the next generation.

Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, that ignores the body of the innocent human being destroyed in the abortion.The scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq) is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.  The Democratic platform is officially pro-abortion.

If it isn’t a political issue, why do the Democrats want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?

Yep, we oppose gender-selection abortions — nearly all of which destroy unwanted females — and the Left fights for them. Tell me again who hates women?

Oh, and abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites. And who are the racists who want to increase that rate with taxpayer-funded abortions?

Other commenter: Please quote your source for taxpayer-funded abortion. Fox News? Bzzzz. They definitely don’t happen at Planned Parenthood. Please come back when you can argue without using strawman arguments or false equivilencies.

Hi — would the 2012 Democratic Platform be an acceptable source for you? “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”  http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Thanks for making the day of this conservative. I hope you reconsider your views once you realize you were just shouting from Stereotype-Land (I don’t watch Fox News — not that there is anything wrong with that).

The Democratic platform called for taxpayer-funded abortions. That would increase the rate of black abortions beyond the current rate, which is three times that of whites.

Democratic policies keep blacks dead or dependent. Coincidence?

9 thoughts on “Facebook memes”

  1. Agreed. On the other side of the coin, I have a good friend that is apparently attempting to flood all his facebook friend’s news feeds with “conservative” memes. While I agree with most of the points the memes are attempting to make, I’m embarrassed at their use of intellectual fallacies.

    I appreciated your simple and intellectually honest rebuttals.

    Like

  2. I wish more people would watch the video in your previous post. And I wish people would realize that one should be proud to be a leader or a statesman, but being a politician should be a label of shame.

    Like

  3. Your “logic” is irrevocobly flawed. I’m just curious, when was it that you “proved” your civil right to marry a woman? When was it that African Americans “proved” their civil right to freedom? When did they “prove” their civil right to equal treatment? And what did they do to prove it? As was the case with slavery, just because something is done a certain way for a long time, doesn’t make it the “correct” or “only” way. If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on? If the Bible doesn’t influence our judicial system, what do you propose as an argument in the Supreme Court, against it? Will you argue that gay people haven’t sucessfully proven their civil right to marry? Establishing a burden of proof does not apply to civil rights.

    I would love to read your rebuttle, because I am honestly trying to understand your thought process. Sadly, I’m sure you will not allow this comment to be posted, because it rationally and coherently refutes your reasoning. I have found that Conservative bloggers tend to deny the comments that are based on facts, when the facts aren’t in their favor. I truly hope you aren’t as cowardly as the rest.

    Like

    1. Regarding conservative blogs moderating you, please hold off on martyr status until you do some self-reflection. Your comment here was an extended straw-man argument about religious views. Ironically, your anti-religion bigotry and prejudices fit much better with the pictured meme than our view about real marriage. It is self-serving on your part to go to conservative blogs with your fallacious rants and then pre-emptively call them cowards for not wanting to discuss things with you. If I try to avoid an irrational crank at work I’m being wise, not cowardly.

      If you want to gain some credibility here, please provide links to where you have made comments like this to theological liberals (read: fake Christians) who advocate for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.” You may also want to consider how I didn’t make religious arguments, I made secular ones.

      If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting opposing gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. . . .

      You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?

      You might also want to consider how the 1st Amendment protects religious speech and does not prohibit it. As with the Obama administration, you have it backwards. My religion teaches me that it is wrong to beat up atheists and steal their property. Using your logic I’d have to be silent on that in the public square or even vote the opposite, lest I “force” my religious views on atheists.

      Now to a couple of your arguments:

      I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on?

      That’s a clever rhetorical trick you play there, and sadly enough, it works on many people. You concede my key point that by nature and design gay couples can’t produce children, but you simultaneously pretend that I haven’t made any secular arguments. Not so fast. Since we both agree on that fact, you should ask why government is involved in any personal relationships. The government does not regulate my love for my wife, nor does it need to. It is only involved because the obvious ideal, supported by countless studies and common sense, is that a child be raised by his mother and father, as well as the scientific fact that children are produced by unions of one man and one woman. Even Darwinists should see the merits of that.

      And I didn’t use the term “traditional,” you inserted that. Words mean things, and throughout history the term marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have some dictionaries bowed to pressure and modified it. And your overly broad argument also justifies polygamy and incest and is already being used by pedophiles. After all, if you are changing the definition of marriage why do you get to pull up the drawbridge after you’ve made your preferred change? Why won’t you let others change the laws to suit their desires?

      And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children.

      Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.

      Since you brought up the religion topic I thought I’d share a summary of what the one true God says about marriage and parenting:

      – 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
      – 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
      – 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
      – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

      Also see this secular case against “same-sex marriage” — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/a-secular-case-against-same-sex-marriage/

      Like

  4. Coincidence? The party that opposes the Tea Party is the one that fought a war to keep slavery legal, instituted Jim Crow, voted against the Civil Rights Act in larger numbers than did the other party, and kills black babies in the womb.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s