4 ms·

It's probably going to cost me a ton of totally fake, made up Internet points to say this, but consider this from the perspective of (some) religious conservati

It's probably going to cost me a ton of totally fake, made up Internet points to say this, but consider this from the perspective of (some) religious conservatives: 1. Candidate R thinks assaulting pubescent girls is OK. 2. Candidate D thinks murdering innocent babies is OK. From this (I'll admit quite warped) perspective, candidate R is the lesser of two evils. This calculus---which we all engage in---doesn't mean religious conservatives think hebephilia or statutory rape is OK. They're as disgusted by it as you are, but they hate abortion more.

fencepost 9y ago
"What you're telling me is that sexual assault [on children depending on the particular case] is terrible, but it's not a deal breaker for you."
- Anon1096 9y ago
  No. He's saying that voting D in the election is saying that "murder is terrible, but it's not a deal breaker for you." I'd probably vote R as well in the election if that were my perspective.
  - fencepost 9y ago
    If you'll vote for them, it's not a deal breaker - it's just a hold-your-nose vote because cream isn't the only thing that floats.
mnm1 9y ago
By that logic, menstruation could be considered murder too. How stupid! My original comment stands; people's stupidity is in no way a defense of their disgusting actions and culture, and shedding light on that stupidity in no way lessens the horror of their actions.
- xenophonf 9y ago
  You missed my point: People with the values system I described are acting rationally within the confines of that values system. In that system, zygotes are as human as you and I, and harming zygotes (et seq.) is infinitely worse than harming 14-year-olds. The moral calculus is that simple. I don't agree with it either, but I'm not going around insulting people's sincerely and deeply held moral beliefs. As a rhetorical strategy, that sucks. It won't convince anyone.
ryanwaggoner 9y ago
I grew up in this kind of environment, and I completely agree that this is how religious conservatives talk about this issue and what they'd say to defend their choice, but it's mostly bullshit. If Candidate D was pro-life, they still wouldn't vote for them. They'd either call them a liar and say they secretly DO believe in abortion, or they'd attack them for their stance on guns, or immigration, or prayer in schools, or whatever. And they'd continue to cast doubt on the accusations, so that it becomes a question of "candidate A was accused of X, but it's probably a bullshit conspiracy by liberals" vs. "candidate B definitely thinks Y!" Like almost ALL voters, these folks don't really think for themselves that much. They're products of their tribe, the influencers in the media they watch and listen to, their preacher, their friends, etc. The argument you've laid out is the one they'd use because it's available and the strongest from their perspective, but they'd just swap it out for another slightly weaker one if needed. It's about the tribe, not the truth.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  The best example of this is the fact that "evangelical voters" in the Republican primary election chose a venal divorce enthusiast who hadn't been to church in decades over a devout Southern Baptist whose father is a born-again evangelical minister. Hey, that guy looks like us and he was on TV! These people have no ethics; let's ignore them from now on.
jessaustin 9y ago
The most warped part of that "perspective" is the idea that one must vote R or D. I only vote for candidates whose election could possibly be a good thing. Typically that's neither blue nor red.

fencepost 9y ago

"What you're telling me is that sexual assault [on children depending on the particular case] is terrible, but it's not a deal breaker for you."

Anon1096 9y ago
No. He's saying that voting D in the election is saying that "murder is terrible, but it's not a deal breaker for you." I'd probably vote R as well in the election if that were my perspective.
- fencepost 9y ago
  If you'll vote for them, it's not a deal breaker - it's just a hold-your-nose vote because cream isn't the only thing that floats.

mnm1 9y ago

By that logic, menstruation could be considered murder too. How stupid! My original comment stands; people's stupidity is in no way a defense of their disgusting actions and culture, and shedding light on that stupidity in no way lessens the horror of their actions.

xenophonf 9y ago
You missed my point: People with the values system I described are acting rationally within the confines of that values system. In that system, zygotes are as human as you and I, and harming zygotes (et seq.) is infinitely worse than harming 14-year-olds. The moral calculus is that simple. I don't agree with it either, but I'm not going around insulting people's sincerely and deeply held moral beliefs. As a rhetorical strategy, that sucks. It won't convince anyone.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

I grew up in this kind of environment, and I completely agree that this is how religious conservatives talk about this issue and what they'd say to defend their choice, but it's mostly bullshit. If Candidate D was pro-life, they still wouldn't vote for them. They'd either call them a liar and say they secretly DO believe in abortion, or they'd attack them for their stance on guns, or immigration, or prayer in schools, or whatever. And they'd continue to cast doubt on the accusations, so that it becomes a question of "candidate A was accused of X, but it's probably a bullshit conspiracy by liberals" vs. "candidate B definitely thinks Y!" Like almost ALL voters, these folks don't really think for themselves that much. They're products of their tribe, the influencers in the media they watch and listen to, their preacher, their friends, etc. The argument you've laid out is the one they'd use because it's available and the strongest from their perspective, but they'd just swap it out for another slightly weaker one if needed. It's about the tribe, not the truth.

jessaustin 9y ago
The best example of this is the fact that "evangelical voters" in the Republican primary election chose a venal divorce enthusiast who hadn't been to church in decades over a devout Southern Baptist whose father is a born-again evangelical minister. Hey, that guy looks like us and he was on TV! These people have no ethics; let's ignore them from now on.

jessaustin 9y ago

The most warped part of that "perspective" is the idea that one must vote R or D. I only vote for candidates whose election could possibly be a good thing. Typically that's neither blue nor red.