Saturday,
January 3, 2009 at 6:56am
I'm watching a debate about whether or not unfit parents should be prevented from bringing more children into the world while they are currently unable to take care of who they have. The remarks and discussion taking place is simply beyond me. In an effort to "respect" and "be within their rights" the simple, practical, and logical solution is swallowed up by people who gear up the applause with their prompt and stern ways of making comments and posing questions. But, as with everything, this speaks to something higher for me. It's too easy to talk about bad arguments muddled with confused reasoning and the like. I see a power struggle. The weirdest and most confusing thing about it though is that I'm not sure anybody talking about this even cares to wield the power of enacting any plan that might actually change something. Thus is the nature of discourse:
"O, that's a great point there Charley, let's put it in the box and put a star on it with all of Ringo Star's songs and children's letters to Santa."
"Thanks for acknowledging the point, but what about the bears!"
"Charley, the bears aren't people and don't even believe in the beer that's damaging these babies"
"Hey! I like beer, let's get a drink together and forget this conversation ever took place."
Scene
I feel like this push to get off track, stay cordial, and make the word honesty a compilation of everyone's personal definition is entirely unproductive and destroys "progress." Of course when I talk about progress I mean purely in quantitative terms. For example, last year say 1000 kids died from gun violence and this year only 10, call that "progress" if you will. Anyway, back to the pseudo-power struggle. You get the priest lady to talk about what should have been done in the past, coupled with the social worker who describes her misunderstanding of the argument that doesn't exist, with a nice layer of anecdotal sympathy story from brain-dead-baby adopted parent, and the beacon of Reason, who happens to be Dawkin's, is trampled and swept to the time-out corner. Who's "winning" in this situation? Who then gets the stamp that enacts these laws? Who's ears are these debates really falling on? All those dumb asses who make that comment "I am really glad this debate is taking place, I really feel like we should be having this discussion" need to kill themselves. Great Mr., you think this debate should take place, here's a cookie, thanks for your empty words. Why not say something like "Yes, I see a problem, here's whether I think the proposed solution would help, if not, here's my speculation on what might be better."
Whatever, there's more important things to think/rant about.
