A perfect explanation easy enough for anybody to understand
So, I was seriously called a “neo-fascist”, “capitalist”, “pro-war” and “anti-communist” (one statement I don’t disagree with) who is against women’s health no matter how many times I stated I was against racism, unjust war (i.e. bombing entire cities), absolute capitalism and negligence of the poor, and supported alternative health care and other services to women besides direct abortions.
“Oh, so now you care about a CEO’s salary?…
“Maybe you should mention the other 97% of what planned parenthood does, you know, just so we’re having an honest conversation.”
Of course I care about a CEO’s salary when it comes to a CEO running a group that kills unborn children, lobbies for various moves contrary to Catholic social doctrine and attempts to eliminate competition, then lies about not getting funded by the government and lies about being “non-profit” when its CEO for example makes half a million dollars annually. Yet, I don’t get where this clown got the idea that I don’t care about greed in other instances. He obviously has preconceived notions that for you to be pro-life and anti-abortion you must be pro-greed and greedy, not keeping in mind that this doctrine against abortion far outdates the foundation of the GOP.
“It does matter what else they do. They provide vital services to women who may not have access to said services if not for PP. All because of their abortion services, which amount to a small portion of what they do.”
So, he falsely accused me and a host of other anti-abortionists of being against women’s health care both implicitly and explicitly while ignoring (perhaps deliberately) the fact that there is a long list of anti-abortion groups that provide health care for women and other services for them as well, even having alternatives to medical research that are far more beneficial (e.g. adult stem cell research instead of embryonic stem cell research, adoption instead of abortion, work opportunities for parents, charity, etc.). It’s a matter of searching, but due to the tremendous amount of propaganda from the academia, the government and pro-abortion lobbyists (e.g. Planned Parenthood), many think their only option for health care is abortion groups, thus practically eliminating any competition. Let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood has gone as far as to lobby against the use of ultrasound so as to influence a woman’s decision against saving the life of the fetus. They have to keep clients coming into their so-called clinics to stay open and receive funding from private donors and the government otherwise they lose money and has to shut down.
“The name of the group implies that you’re for absolute capitalism. If I had to guess, I’d say that you’re probably pro-war too.”
He got this assumption because the group name mentions Catholics who oppose ideologies like progressivism and Islam. Yet he is ignorant of Catholic doctrine and perhaps deliberately so. I have consistently opposed the use of airstrikes upon the basis that the Catechism condemns airstrikes since all acts “of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation” (no. 2314). Again, he assumes I’m a pro-war Republican who supports airstrikes in the name of national security and anti-terrorism in addition to assuming to be anti-Islamic you have to be pro-unjust war, not that I can currently think of a single Republican by name who advocates indiscriminate airstrikes of entire cities. But again, the guy can’t stick to the subject. He has to create false evidence (a.k.a. strawmen) in order to feel like he’s won an argument, not a debate as debates don’t include false attacks, name-calling or generalizations. He chooses to ignore the fact Planned Parenthood does provide for abortions while condoning false accusations made against their critics. It’s a known fact Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses; it’s not a known fact that people like me advocate aggressive war, negligence of the poor, or other such things.
“False analogy is false.
“Your threat of removal has me terrified. Your stance on war is relevant as it can make your stance on abortion hypocritical.
“Bombing a highly populated city? Good.
“Liberal Marxist assumptions? Liberalism and Marxism are two very different things. Such a statement leads me to believe you’re of a neo-fascist persuasion. Capitalism. Nationalism. Anti-communism. Anti-women’s rights.”
So, the guy had a hissy fit after I referred to his tactics as “liberal Marxist” to educate him on his rhetoric and it’s not as paradoxical as he has been told, especially if you compare Democratic Party (a page he likes on Facebook) policies to that of socialist and communist party policies. He furthermore added insult to injury to falsely and explicitly assume I advocated bombing entire cities in spite of the complete lack of evidence for this. He furthermore assumed I must be neo-fascist, capitalist and nationalist to call his rhetoric “liberal Marxist”. So, there’s no middle ground with absolutists like that; either you’re with them or you’re against them (hence the total opposite). Maybe he should read up on Church doctrine about subsidiarity as opposed to capitalism and communism.