Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Dual Dissonance

Two sides: Liberal and conservative.

Two issues: Abortion and the proposed smoking ban.

Two Incidents of dissonance:
Liberals want to ban smoking in public settings, because exposure to second hand smoke can cause cancer, heart problems, etc., and could kill you. Conservatives think it should be the choice of the business.

Conservatives say abortion should be banned because it kills babies. Liberals think that the choice should be up to the woman.

9 comments:

  1. Kind of like gay marriage and concealed carry.
    Both sides are inconsistant at times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sometimes I question how you got out of 7th grade.

    In the case of abortion, death is 100% certain, and directly administered.

    Not so with "second-hand" smoke--nor is the first part operative with FIRST-hand smoke.

    But what is "distinction" to you, except another way to spell "it's hard to think"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. A chicken and a pig walk into a restaurant that serves ham and eggs for breakfast.

    The chicken contributes to the breakfast. The pig gives a total sacrafice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So what is a person called that's pro-choice for both issues?

    I'd say a true Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So what is a person called that's pro-choice for both issues?"

    Heh...I was going to say you'd call a person who's pro-choice on both issues "Zach."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glad I'm not the only one against the smoking ban.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It figures that it would be too deep for Daddio.

    Rich, um, you may have not noticed, but on the side bar I have some quotes. The first is where someone called me "king of the hate left."

    That kind of excludes me from being conservative. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah...I think that's safe to say capper. Funny thought though!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Close but no cigar, capper.

    In an elementary way there is incongruity in your two examples...but it's not a clean comparison. Why?

    In the smoking issue, the non-smoker is free to do an about face and take their business/seek employment elsewhere; meaning they have the freedom avoid the hazard. In the abortion example, the baby has no such freedom; just a rendezvous with death.

    The real logic-disconnect here are the protections you'd afford a non-smoker, but would deny a more imperiled baby.

    On the abortion issue, a better example of dissonance:
    When a woman wants the baby, it's a baby. The mother takes steps to encourage healthy growth through diet and healthcare. If she loses the baby, their is grief, sadness and remorse.

    When the woman doesn't want the baby, it's something else; just an unwanted growth regarded no differently than a tumor.

    Leaving the definition of life to an arbitrary decision devalues it.

    ReplyDelete