I am . . .

banned from blogs for Bush.

Just tried to post a comment and I got a screen saying my comment was denied for questionable content.

Incidentally, Mark Noonan sent me two emails out of our last exchange. The contents follow:

Sorry, but you'll have to address the subject of the thread...why does NARAL insult people, and what does it mean politically?

Thanks,

What's funny about this one is that he eventually posted what I said. This email was associated with the post I started, "Mark, what are you talking about?" Why he would deny it and then post it is unclear.

The second email:

Reece,

Geesh, are you dense, man? We're not talking about the issue you'd prefer to talk about but about the issue of the thread...NARAL has a nasty, rude thing going on and we'd like to know what you think about it.

I'm actually glad I got this one, because it contains the content of my last post in which I said this:

Scar,

The straw man gets grows. I didn't see anyone catching this, but this naral group is from Washington (state). It's not the national group.

This is the national group's site:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.cfm

The site that Mark pulled the ad from was www.wanaral.org. What's the 'wa' for? Well, its for Washington.

So, now Mark's post has 2 straw men.

1. He's attributing to the group a position they do not hold so that he may attack it.

2. He is saying that a position held by part of an organization is held by the whole organization.

Those are both straw man arguments:
"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

If you are arguing against a position that is not held by your opponent, you are committing the straw man fallacy. Mark does this attributing positions to NARAL, his and your opponent, which NARAL does not hold.

As for Washington, in 2004, it elected a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator, 6 Democratic Representatives (out of 9 districts), and went for John Kerry over Pres. Bush by 7%. So, Mark missed again when he said Dems are getting shellacked at polls. Whoops!

Scar, are you serious that you don't agree with anything NARAL supports? Do you not agree with this:

"Finally, we must launch a national effort to require comprehensive sex education throughout our primary and secondary schools. This approach would protect teens by promoting abstinence while simultaneously providing teens with the contraceptive and STD/HIV prevention information they need to make responsible decisions if and when they become sexually active."

Mark does. He said he wanted abstinence to be "an element" of sex education. How can he be any clearer?

Incidentally, if my posts aren't worth reading, why do you continue to do so, Scar? It's your choice, dude.

Damn it's hard being right all the time.

I hadn't checked that email address in 8 days, so I didn't know I had these. Here's how I responded.

Mark,

Sorry, I check this email address about once a week. Nonetheless, you're a moron. There was no insult by NARAL. You were attributing an position to NARAL that was being advanced by NARAL of Washington. Again, Democrats are kicking ass in Washington. Insult or not, you got nothing here because Dems are winning in Washington. Whatever insult your perceive is irrelevant given that your entire premise, namely that Dems are getting pasted at the polls due to things like
the Screw Abstinence party, is false.

Dems in Washington, which is the only relevant jurisdiction here, are winning. A lot.

Beyond that, you still want to attribute to NARAL a position that they do not hold. NARAL has not insulted you. Find me a link with from NARAL's website, www.naral.org aka www.prochoiceamerica.org, that leads to a Screw Abstinence party. You know what, you can't. It doesn't exist. Why? Because they didn't have anything to do with the event that was organized in Washington.

Understand now or do I have to explain it another time?

You are specifically spreading falsehoods in order to stir up partisan fever. Weak.

Reece

Fun Times.