hell’s handmaiden

There are currently 6 responses to “Ron Paul gets a hot endorsement”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On December 3rd, 2007, Aaron said:

   This little news story was manufactured by Tucker Carlson who brought the man and two prostitutes to a Ron Paul event. I think it was staged to get people talking. I think the rest of the news media jumped on this non-story to trivialize and discredit Ron Paul. I read somewhere that the brothel owner had already donated $2300 to the Hillary Clinton campaign, but I can not confirm that.

   Ron Paul does not think that abortion is a basic right so his position does not presuppose that states would be able to restrict rights. I believe slavery violates basic rights and I think Ron Paul would agree with me. This would mean that slavery would not be allowed on a state level by the Federal Government. I have read nothing that says Ron Paul supports states restricting basic rights.

   I am pro-choice, but I have to say that I find the argument used in Roe V Wade to be very weak in the current political situation. Roe V Wade says that limiting abortion violates a women’s right to privacy. They believe that a woman makes that choice in private and therefore preventing her from getting an abortion would violate this right. I would be much more open to this argument if the pro-choice community would consistently apply it to other decisions besides abortion. So far I have not seen a clamor from them to abolish the FDA, illegal drug laws, medical licensing or state medical boards, so I have a hard time taking them seriously. If a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected privacy why is someone else’s choice to put a substance in their body or to try an experimental procedure not protected under the same principle? Would it be OK for a state to pass a regulation that would require doctors to get a special license to perform abortions and then refuse to issue any or issue them only to people they knew would not perform abortions? If not why is it OK for them to limit other people’s choice to medical practitioners through licensing?

2. 2 On December 4th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   Manufactured? From what I can gather Hof is Carlson’s friend. Why say ‘manufactured’? That just sounds so nefarious. And like I said– I’m not sure you got this part– I don’t hold this against him.

   As for my point about rights, I think you are missing the point. It is the domain of the Federal Government to set that minimal standard and to protect that minimal standard. Subject matter doesn’t really matter. In other words, anything ought to be fair game for the question, “Is this or is this not some freedom we want to protect?” Paul wants to categorically remove some issues from that consideration, thus short circuiting the system. That is dangerous.

   Now is abortion a basic right? A lot of people think so. If it is, then Paul supports the right of states to limit that freedom. If it isn’t, then no problem really, but it is the first option that worries me. Why categorically remove that issue from consideration? Why, in fact, categorically remove any issue? I’ve seen proposal’s to restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain religious cases. I object to those on the same ground. Paul would remove a court of appeal on particular issues. That is almost, perhaps not quite, limiting freedoms. It is limiting a person’s ability to argue about what is and is not a freedom. I don’t like that game. It is dangerous.

   Whatever your emotional reaction to the way that abortion supporters react to other issues is not logically relevant to the strength of the argument as it applies to abortion.

3. 3 On December 5th, 2007, Aaron said:

   I realised you didn’t hold it against him. My comment was just general to the subject. A lot of people are not as resonable as you. I am suspicious whenever a news media personality is instramental in a story. He had to know that this would be all over the news before he showed up with a brothal owner and two prostitutes.

   It is not an emotional reaction, it is calling into question the logic of applying their reasoning to only one case and not the others. I find it hard to take the argument seriously when they don’t apply it universaly. It makes me think that they don’t realy believe the argument, but will seize on anything to advance their cause. Just dismissing it as an “emotional reaction” does not answer this critisism. If it applies to abortion and not to these other cases there has to be a logical reason why. I have never heard one.

4. 4 On December 5th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   Carlson probably hoped it would be in the news. I’m not sure why that is necessarily a criticism of his actions. He does seem to be a genuine Ron Paul supporter, as does Hof.

   Respectfully, you are having an emotional reaction and you are not “calling into question the logic”. The logic in fact is unaffected by what you say. You are pointing out that some people are inconsistent, which they may be. Valid point as far as it goes. It isn’t relevant to the argument(s) given in support of abortion. The argument could be good even if the proponents are whacked out of their minds. To crib from an old post: “Now, as a six year old I invoked an unseen entity– the thing under the bed– and refused to go to sleep. I was told, by my devout parents, to look under the bed. I looked. They looked. They told me, apparently not realizing the implications for their faith, that if I couldn’t see it or hear it or touch it, then it isn’t there and can’t hurt me.” My parents were inconsistent in their insistence that I believe what I see. They also asked me to believe what I can’t see and what no one has ever seen– God. They didn’t apply the same logic to both cases, but that doesn’t mean that that logic was wrong when applied to the monster under the bed. See what I mean? Their inconsistency doesn’t call into question the logic. Making that inference is a species of tu quoque fallacy– “This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.” If you want to argue that “Well, they really ought to be consistent” you can do that. I like to try to press people for consistency but the point isn’t to criticize one argument or another. You can’t do that. The point is to hopefully force people to rethink their positions. That is different and of course it only works if people care about consistency. But if you want to say, as you seem in fact to be saying, that “They aren’t consistent and therefore I distrust this argument– there is something wrong with the argument” then you, not they, have the fallacy.

   I promise to get to your other comments soon. I’m still swamped.

5. 5 On December 6th, 2007, aaron said:

   Maiden,

   I am not calling into question the validity of the argument; I am calling into question whether or not the people who make it truly believe it and how well they can convince others when they are inconsistent. In your example I think the parents believe their argument until it comes to god. With many Pro-Choice advocates, and the justices that ruled on Roe V Wade, I think it is just used because the Constitution supposedly protects privacy. I think they would use any argument that they thought would win. I hold up the other cases were they are inconsistent to show this. I have asked several people that are all for this ruling if these other things should be protected and if not what the difference is. Most just change the subject. As I said before I am pro-choice. I hope Roe V Wade doesn’t get overturned. I just want all the other supporters of it to be consistent and advocate getting the government out of all our medical decisions and all of our non-medical decisions as well. Being inconsistent may not be a logical fallacy, but it does make ones logic seem weaker in a debate or political setting.

6. 6 On February 18th, 2008, annie earls said:

   There’s a really great election forcast at this astrology blog. Sometimes we all need to take some kind of aternative perspective on these things. The government system is broken and there’s very little to be done about it. Corporations (of corruption) already run things, to believe anything different is to not see at all!
   annie

Leave a Reply