Editorials‎ > ‎

"Women's Rights" (Sep. 19, 2010)

In response to the Pope's visit to the UK this weekend, several secularist news sites (such as the BBC most prominently) have done their typical job pushing unmistakeably spun reports about the opposition to the visit, quite a bit more visibly and with contentious resolve compared to the actual Catholic intent behind the visit.

In my reading of these articles, came this and similar quotes:

"Mr Tatchell told the BBC News Channel: "We profoundly disagree with the Pope's opposition to women's rights, gay equality and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV."

Note the emboldened secular buzz word.

It was this I focused my attention to first. What's meant by Women's rights?


This is an image I shared with an atheist (but don't label him) on IRC (Internet relay chat). The following is the conversation that took place, with some critique by me within. nirv has a habbit of offering up animate premise and vague insinuation in place of solid conclusion. I interpret this as an intentional effort on his part.

mawst: Myself
nirv: Atheist with an aversion to moral and logical consistency.


<mawst> I'm Whistle blowing that one.
<nirv> pictures like that piss you off, don't they?
<nirv> but if that kid grows up to be Dr. Kevorkian you get pissed too
<nirv> how the hell do you reconcile that?
<mawst> I don't want Dr. Kevorkian dead.

First instance of desperate justification. He operates on the incorrect preconceived notion that I want Kevorkian (and presumably others that engage in assisted suicide) dead. That wouldn't make much sense. What my position demands is that those activities cease.

<nirv> but you want abortion doctors dead
<nirv> don't you?
<mawst> No.
<mawst> I want them to stop killing.

Another preconceived notion is that I want abortion doctors dead. This confusion no doubt stems from his own predisposition to internally justifying killing if someone is deemed "unwanted".


<nirv> then don't complain about abortion
<nirv> they're never going to
<nirv> it's LEGAL dude
<mawst> Nationalism.
<nirv> it's never going to be illegal
<nirv> it isn't
<nirv> trust me
<nirv> it won't

This goes out to all the atheists that constantly deny a link between atheism and nationalism. nirv has no other authority. The most "objective" thing he can think of is the law.

<nirv> do you know what happened when it was illegal?
<nirv> Women fucking USED A HANGAR
<mawst> People shifted blame?

Indeed. People shifted blame. As people do in regards to AIDS infection. I'll expand on that here.

Example: It's not the fault of the person having intercourse, it's the fault of the Pope, who advocates celibacy and monogamy. However, since he doesn't advocate promiscuity, including the use of contraception to cover the actions of those who engage in it, he is faulted.

The same reasoning is at the very least, insinuated here by nirv. It's not the mother's responsibility she's pregnant, nor the fathers. She "will have an abortion, by any means" yet there's no responsibility for the action in it's actual perpetrator. It behooves the reader to think back to the legal argument nirv made earlier, as it demonstrates clear hypocrisy. Welcome to relativism.

Implied Fallacy: Appeal to Nature.

We arrive at a fallacious argument if our premise is that abortion must be accepted as legal due to the fact that some folks will commit them regardless of legality and thus harm themselves. We cannot logically excuse them from harming themselves because no legal option is available. Especially when he has already made an at least insinuated appeal to the legality of abortion.

<nirv> NO
<nirv> HANGER
<mawst> Yup.
<nirv> women STILL did it
<nirv> less medically
<nirv> less safe
<mawst> "They're going to do it anyways" <--- Appeal to nature FAIL.
<nirv> DUDE
<nirv> that's DEDUCTIVE REASONING
<nirv> it HAPPENED before it was legal
<nirv> you have to talk to the WOMEN
<nirv> not the people DOING the abortion
<nirv> the WOMEN want it
<nirv> just like HUMANS want marijuana
<nirv> WOMEN want abortions
<mawst> "They want to do it" doesn't excuse them breaking the law does it?
<mawst> "They want to do it" doesn't make it moral.
<nirv> you're not going to STOP people from aborting just like you're not going to STOP drug users from doing drugs
<mawst> Pedophiles "want to rape children".
<nirv> yeah and you can't stop them from doing it, really
<nirv> free will remember?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature.

In this instance, regarding the Marijuana reference, the law is out the window because "people want to do it". That's not a justification, but he tries to pass it off as one. There's absolutely no consistency with regard to his reference of law. The ultimate justification is nature. "If it feels good do it" is the 'moral' of his story.


<mawst> Proper education is what stops people from doing idiotic things.
<nirv> not necessarily
<nirv> I'm pretty educated and I have no problem with abortion right now.
<nirv> in fact
<nirv> I'd be willing to say that the more educated you are, the more you'll be okay with abortion
<nirv> that seems to be the trend
<mawst> "I'm educated and I don't have a problem with abortion" <---- Appeal to authority.
<nirv> uhh
<mawst> Let's count the fallacies of the past 2 minutes.
<nirv> haha whatever

We got a two for one fallacy sale going on RIGHT NOW! Everything logical must go! Act Now!

Fallacy 1: Appeal to Authority

"I'm educated, and I'm pro abortion". = *FAIL*

Fallacy 2: Argumentum ad Populam

"That seems to be the Trend" = *FAIL*


<mawst> Your illogical thought is undeniable.
<nirv> so I guess I can't have an opinion on the matter?
<nirv> why even talk?
<nirv> no, it's fine, actually
<nirv> neil tyson talked about education
<nirv> as education increases, belief in god drops
<nirv> so I suspect that as education increases, SENSIBILITY increases
<mawst> Call it "opinion" if you want. The premise was "you're educated" the conclusion was that you don't have a problem with abortion.
<nirv> and SENSIBLE people are fine with abortion
<mawst> The conclusion is not REQUIRED by your premise.
<nirv> and SENSIBLE people are fine with abortion
<mawst> Another appeal to authority.
<nirv> it's the radicals who have a problem with it
<mawst> You're putting the cart before the horse.
<nirv> RADICAL minds are against abortion

We can have opinions, that's fine. When you present a premise followed by a conclusion, it becomes an "argument". That is by definition what an argument is. The argument then becomes subject to logical evaluation.

Ad Hominem x 1
Appeal to authority x 2.

Total fallacy count: 7

Following this portion of the conversation was a wave of obvious irrational anger, profanity and irrelevant ad hominem attacks along with reminders of how laws are continuously changing. Thanks for reading. :)
Comments