Has anyone noted any toning down of rhetoric?

apple0154 said:
It's understandable when it comes to abortion. Declaring something a human being precludes making exceptions to willfully kill it when it is innocent. And for those who believe God creates all life killing it because of who it's father is (incest) or how it came into being (rape) causes Cognitive Dissonance.

Of course, there are those who proclaim exceptions be allowed in order to appease their opponents knowing the natural course of events will result in abortion being forbidden in all circumstances as there is no way to logically make exceptions to willfully kill anything considered an innocent human being.

As to the topic at hand Byron Williams has stated, unequivocally, that Glenn Beck's comments led to him snapping. Right or wrong, sane or insane does not change the fact Beck's comments were a contributing factor.

Furthermore, as I previously stated, political rhetoric has been shown to incite "normal" people. Couple that with the current trying times many are experiencing and it's just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

I realize you're trying to prove me right, but I wonder if it's really subconscious.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I realize you're trying to prove me right, but I wonder if it's really subconscious.....
Click to expand...

You are right when saying "simply pointing out that a majority of people here don't like your rhetoric" as you wrote in msg 70. Anti-abortionists don't like what I say as they are compelled to face their irreconcilable views.

To say something is an innocent, human being and in some cases, claim it was God's doing, then make exceptions to willfully kill it because of who the father is or how/when it came into being must be terribly unsettling.

On the other hand, if their motive is to ultimately remove all exceptions, which I believe it is, that would explain their ability to hold their current position without anguish.
 
BTW - After seeing that Olbermann no longer has a show I'll have to admit that yes, there has been some rhetoric that has been toned down.

:D
 
apple0154 said:
Going with your analogy regarding drunks and cars something was done. Breathalyzers. Spot checks. Also, there are places where pub owners can be held libel when continuing to serve a drunk. Why should they be held responsible for another person's actions?

The suggestion is to lower the political rhetoric across the board. If it's applied to both parties do you have a problem? If you do then your argument regarding blaming the Right falls away.

As for "Can we even reasonably expect to accomplish such a thing?", of course we can. Did MSM broadcast Cheney's "F@ck-you" to Patrick Leahy of Vermont?

From political parties instructing their members to tone it down to MSM refusing to cover politicians who insist on speaking such crap it wouldn't take long before the tone changed.
Click to expand...

You argument about breathalyzers is not analogous. We don't all have to take a breathalyzer each time we drive. It is something applied to the individual responsible for the problem. If you want to establish a law which allows law enforcement to involuntarily commit individuals who make threats or start sounding unhinged, then maybe it would be like breathalyzers, and maybe I could agree with that. Restricting MY free speech, is NOT going to be an option here, sorry!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top