Well, my last post certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest of angry responses.
Good.
KikkiPlanet, of course, is the most vehement in her response:
Let’s examine a few points here: First, calling Kikki a “Terrorist” isn’t an ad hominem “attack”. There is no such thing as an “ad hominem” attack. Ad hominem is a form of red herring argumentation technique.
Wikipedia explains ad hominem this way:
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]
In my previous posting, I did indeed characterize Kikki as a “Terrorist”, but not as an attempt to refute her arguments. I refuted those arguments separately. What I did, and I believe correctly, was characterize the persuasion tactics she uses as terrorism – use of fear to influence people.
I would not have an issue with Kikki’s arguments if she had explained, logically, without hysterics, why she didn’t like conscience rights. Maybe she truly does believe that marriage commissioners should be forced to marry any couple who wants to get married. That’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold. I disagree with it, but that doesn’t matter in this case. There are numerous calm, rational, and logical arguments one can make to back up why, for example, marriage commissioners should be forced to marry anyone, just as there are numerous clam, rational and logical arguments one can make why marriage commissioner should have the right to act in accordance with their own personal moral compass. Who’s correct? That’s for the voters to decide on April 23, but reducing the argument to hyperbolic garbage, suggesting that doctors will be allowed to refuse to treat people based on race, gender, or sexual orientation is nothing more than absurdity. It raises the spectre of fear, and, by using that fear as a weapon to influence how people vote, Kikki is engaging in terrorism.
What part of accusing someone of Terrorism does not fall under hysterics? Blowing it.
Let’s examine a few things.
When the airliners were flown into the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, what happened afterwards? There were more than 3000 victims that day, however the actual target of those attacks was completely different. The target of the 9/11 attacks was you, and me. Why? Because we were frightened. What was the result of the 9/11 attacks? On the day, my wife was sent home from work. The entire North American airspace was shut down. Every aircraft was diverted to the nearest airport and grounded. The US created the Department of Homeland Security, and the TSA – that organization that gropes people, steals their wallets, and takes nude photos of everyone with those full body scanners.
Why did all this happen? Because we were frightened. By the terrorists.
We changed our behaviour because we were frightened. And that was their intent all along. Their message was, “we can bring our war to you, any time, any where, and, unless you change your ways, we will kill you.”
Now, let’s compare this to what’s going on in Alberta today.
No, nobody is killing anyone. Nobody is beating anyone up. Nobody is hurting anyone else (unless you’re Thomas Lukasiak getting pushed out of a doorway by an asthmatic 67-year old dying from liver disease). So clearly there is a massive difference in the scale of what’s going on. But that doesn’t change the basic point that there are people in this election trying to sway your vote through fear. Alison Redford said at an all-candidates forum the other day, “I’m frightened of conscience rights.” Tom Olsen on the CBC raised the spectre of the Wildrose Party being “old white guys.” (glossing over that 64% of the PCAA slate of candidates is “old white guys”). It’s a campaign of fear. They’re using fear to try to change your vote.
And that, on a small scale, is terrorism.
As always, thank you for sharing your opinion.