 |
| Credit: |
When the Left Co-opts the Word "Bullying". This is an older blogpost that showed up on my facebook newsfeed. I can really identify with it.
They can dance in the boxing ring with you all day if you try to argue facts, statistics, and logic, because they will simply ignore what you say and call you a racist or a sexist. But if you stoop to their level and take them on in a personal way, shaming them and exposing them for the idiots they truly are, then they get mad. Because in going after them personally, you reframe the argument to be personal and about them. They (very much like conservatives frantically scramble to deny an accusation of racism) get livid, see red, and muster the entirety of their energies to protect the thing that means the most in their lives - their egos
Does it solve the debate?No.
Does it advance the national dialogue about the economy and government?No.
But it's the most progress I've ever had whilst engaging leftists.
However, an interesting little phenomenon is developing and I can see it happening a mile away. And that is the left is quickly drafting on its drafting board in academia the perfect weapon to deflect, deny, and even criminalize any mockery, ridicule, outing, shaming or any other form of one-upmanship. And that perfect weapon is to take all of the above, define it as "bullying" and make it an illegal act a la "harassment" or some other such act of intellectual dishonesty.
I've often noticed that when I'm winning in a debate, the leftists always want to make the debate about something else, instead of what we're debating. So if I'm debating abortion, the subject will turn to me, my parent, my Catholic faith, gay marriage, anything but the actual thing we're supposed to be debating.
Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors
I loved this quote:
“When I went to college…I met smart Christians for the first time, and it was a real shock.”
Unfortunately, many hostile atheists are too proud to recognize smart Christians. They assume they're all dumb as dirt, even when the evidence to the contrary is clear. Every Catholic bishop in the world has a PhD (at least, that's what canon law requires.)
Admonish the Sinner – A Reflection on the First Spiritual Work of Mercy
The problem with admonish a sinner is that people often sound like a jerk doing it. Try not to sound like a jerk. Try to do it kindly, in humility. But even if those aren't your strong suits, do it anyway.
Marginal Hope in Hard Times. The whole thing is good and should go viral.
I think many social conservatives surrender to the culture. They still want to watch television that mocks their values, they want to keep their jobs, they want people to like them, precisely because resistance is difficult and the fruits are not forthcoming. Until we're ready to create a genuine counter-culture-- not just one of morals and rhetoric, but of behaviour, art, median and institutions, we'll have a difficult time advancing our agenda. How badly do you want Truth to triumph?
Does the Pro-Life Movement Need a New Strategy? Another old blogpost that showed up on my newsfeed.
I have a few quibbles with this article, but this line is really important:
What part of the directive to “love our enemies” is confusing?
Some years ago, I began praying for Henry Morgentaler on a consistent basis. I did it purely out of obedience to Our Lord's command to love our enemies. So I asked myself: Who was the biggest enemy of the pro-life movement? Of course he was. And the funny thing is that as I prayed for him, I lost a lot of the anger I had towards him. I could even sympathize with him. I developed a desire for only good things to happen to him, not because I wanted to "score" politically with his conversion, but I genuinely wanted him to experiences graces and the Lord's bounty notwithstanding the evil he perpetuated. Of course I wanted him to stop killing babies and to shut down his clinics, but it went way beyond that. When you pray for your enemies, and try to love them, the polarized rhetoric becomes hollow. Did Morgentaler deserve invective against him for what he did? Maybe he did. But was the most loving way to proceed? The Holy Spirit operates in our loving. And by "loving" I don't necessarily mean by wishy-washyness, false irenicism or relativism. I mean seeing individuals as God sees them, and wanting the good things that God wants for them. The Spirit transforms the world through our loving. I'm not against righteous anger and denunciation. That Spirit works with that as well. But you need ALL manifestations of the spirit, in the right measure, including a lot of mercy and humility.
I think we should offer women who abort the opportunity to memorialize their loss with a death certificate. There are a few women who would take up the offer.
Why Hasn’t Planned Parenthood Challenged Any of the State Bans on Abortion After 20 Weeks?
Simple: Contrary to the claims of abortion advocates, it does not adversely affect women's health to ban late-term abortion. Otherwise, how come the vast majority of countries in the world do so, including liberal countries like Sweden and France?
Tories deny plan to use hate crime laws against Israel boycotters
CBC seems to be making stuff up. But for the record, if the Conservatives DID take a stance, I would be 100% against it. People have a right to their opinions, period.
Justin Trudeau defends proposed tax hike on wealthy in Bay Street speech
Trudeau has said he would have to increase taxes on the wealthiest to pay for the middle-class tax cut. In his speech, the Liberal leader seemed to nix the idea that raising corporate tax rates could also pay for those tax cuts.
Competitive corporate tax rates encourage and reward investment and growth, he said. Raising those rates would "have the undesired effect of stifling innovation, investment and growth," he said.
"So I'm asking those with the most to do a little bit more to help those in Canada with less, so raising corporate income taxes is not going to do much in that regard."
So don't tax the people making BILLIONS of dollars, tax the people making $300 000 dollars to afford tax cuts for people who are generally less skilled and less hard-working than the doctors, lawyers, engineers and executives in the top one per cent.
But that's not punishing success at all.
Look, the reality is we can't afford everything. Government shouldn't be doing everything. There are lots of public bodies the government could abolish and nobody would lose any sleep over it.
