Just Start Making Sense

Lately a lot of people have been supposedly jumping on the “All women should have to get a transvaginal ultrasound and look at the picture before having an abortion.” bandwagon.

Here is a very long list about all the new bills, what they entail and why they are sucky. So far we’ve got Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Oklahoma.

The thing that really strikes me as odd, though is the fact that Illinois has a bill called the ‘Ultrasound Opportunity Act’ which is basically similar but not entirely mandatory, thankfully enough. They’re just saying that, any place a woman can get an abortion they have to offer her the option of getting an ultrasound and have a real ultrasound technician on hand, which I don’t particularly agree with but it’s not a huge deal aside from the cost it would put on abortion clinics. And aside from using language like ‘her unborn child’ in the actual bill, it doesn’t seem that shitty or misogynistic until you notice something odd.

It was assigned to the AGRICULTURE & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.

YES. The same people who debate ‘Asian Carp management’ and ‘Wildlife Code-Case definition’ and ‘Repeal Horse Slaugher Ban’ are the committee assigned to something pertaining to where women can receive a legitimate medical procedure. Because the people who know most about farming and agriculture will know best about what to do with all those wimmins looking for abortions, right?!

The idea that women’s health should be relegated to the Agriculture and Conservation committee, who talk about Leash Laws, is probably one of the most insulting things I’ve come across all day. 

I see this a lot on the internet and probably saying ‘how to argue’ isn’t quite accurate, but saying ‘how to debate’ tends to make people wrinkle their noses.

When you’re arguing with someone you usually want to get them to change their minds or see your side. The old adage ‘You’ll catch more flies with Honey than with Vinegar’ is really, really good advice. But a lot of people seem to take this to mean we have to be nice or complimentary, and that’s not necessarily true.

• Vinegar is going for personal insults, assumptions (All Christians are, you men are) and inserting your personal feelings into things. You’re attacking them, calling them an idiot, insulting their intelligence, and who is going to listen to that? Would you?
• Honey is going to get you a lot further, and in a way it can be about being sneaky. It doesn’t mean being nice or sweet even, it’s just about being polite and speaking in a way that you would be agreeable to yourself. You can be serious and you can be stern, or you can be charming and kind but hold your ground, this will depend on your personality. 

The point of the matter is, no one is going to want to change their mind when you just flat out scream at them that they’re wrong, no matter how wrong they are. I could insist beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sky is in fact purple, and even if I know I’m wrong once someone screams at me that I am, I’m probably not going to admit it. It’s far easier to admit to being wrong if someone walked up to me and calmly spoke to me about why I think the sky is purple and gave me some facts as to why it isn’t purple, but respected my right to be wrong in the first place. 

sprackraptor:

very-sincerely-yours:

thedruff:

PASSING THIS SHOULD BE A PREREQUISITE BEFORE GETTING INVOLVED WITH HEATED ARGUMENTS ON TUMBLR

clearly this is a fact

You’re right! That’s a fact!

The argument would say “‘Marriage’ has moved from being one cis man of one race and one cis woman of the same race, to allowing different races to intermarry, to allowing same sex marriage….. next could be to allowing adults to marry children!” (Of course they would say ‘but interracial marriage is different, of course you shouldn’t ban that… but only because it’s this time period, not earlier in history, but I disgress.) Of course this argument makes no sense, but that is what they’re saying, not that gay people are pedophiles.

I just wanted to say, I totally get what you’re saying and I appreciate the time you took to formulate it, and I totally agree. However I’ve only got a limited space with each image and so I decided to just focus on a single aspect of each argument per image. Each argument will come up multiple times with different points against it, as many of these are multifaceted and, depending on who you’re debating, could have several different things to combat at once. I’ve got about 3 more lined up for this particular argument at present, so that will certainly be touched on. I hope that makes sense, thanks!

Let’s face it, when you argue with someone you want to win. This isn’t always possible, sometimes you’re going to have to call it quits or part ways for a variety of reasons. The only thing that you can control is your own response to whomever you’re debating. Keep it calm and keep it civil while actively debating the person; as soon as you start throwing out personal insults that’s taking it way too far and someone calling you a jerk/idiot/moron isn’t going to make you change your mind about anything.

Yes, it can be hard, but it’s like any other sport- play by the rules and win or lose, it doesn’t matter as long as you know you played a clean game. And just maybe the person you were debating will walk away knowing a little more factual content about whatever it was and it will help evolve their stance on it just that much. It’s pretty hard to chop down a giant tree in a single day, after all.

(That being said, there are some people who are seriously Herping the Derp, and those ones are lost causes to be written off and ignored. They’re either way too far down the rabbit hole to save or trolling you. Try not to label them too quickly though, it’s certainly only a last resort.)