Sunday, March 11, 2012

James Jordan: Wrong On Everything

This is not the first time I've addressed James Jordan, and it probably won't be the last. He recently made a blog post about Sandra Fluke, which I promised to demolish. He then made another post, wherein he figured that my post about right wing sexism vs left wing sexism was actually a response to him (I guess he figured I'd delay my John Carter review for him?) An astute reader may find that my post went up March 7, and his was up March 9, making this an impossibility. Anyway, I shall now respond to both articles from James. This'll be long, so click the link.

The first thing to clear up is from the second post. He's not my friend, at least not now. Why?

You do NOT get to say I'm supporting child rape and call yourself my friend. I even asked for an apology (and for proof that I supported this heinous thing) and was denied on both counts. So, fuck you, buddy. By filling this post with anything other than the most heinous of insults towards your character, repeatedly, I am showing you more respect than you deserve. Showing you any respect is showing you more than you deserve. You are a horrible, horrible person.

Now, to the actual claims. In the "Analysis of Sandra Fluke's Testimony" post, James essentially started with this:

First, it is clear that Ms. Fluke is demanding coverage for contraception as part of health insurance. Liberals keep turning out the bait-and-switch notion that, in some cases, birth control pills are needed to address concerns that are not contraception. Contraception is still contraception. If a doctor prescribes birth control pill for some other reason is not contraception. Per Wikipedia, these are called non-contraceptive uses.

What a strange line of argument. It is explicitly called the "combined oral contraceptive pill". It is a pill that is designed to be a contraceptive, and it also has other properties. If I use a knife to pick my teeth, is it a toothpick? If I use it to tighten a screw, is it a screwdriver? No, it's still a knife. Regardless of the use, it's still a knife. OK?

Next, he says that "if contraception is healthcare then that means children are a disease." Based on that logic, and that logic alone, one can, and should say:
  1. Contraception should be outlawed, completely.
  2. If amputation is healthcare then that means limbs are a disease.
  3. Amputation should be outlawed, completely.

Think about it. Amputation might have some medical benefits, like removing cancer, diabetic infection or gangrene, (which is, of course, a non-amputative use of the procedure) but what we're really saying is that arms and legs are disease. Of course, if you have an ounce of intelligence, you'll realize this is a ludicrous proposition. Well, so is what you're saying. Perhaps you read something from that wikipedia page aside from the fact that there are non-contraceptive uses of contraception? Just two sections up from that, it shows the great preventative power of the Pill. Simply using the Pill, at all, reduces the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Prolonged use of the pill can reduce the risk of both types of cancer by 80%. I have a friend dying of ovarian cancer, and had she not been so radically christian and radically anti-birth control, she could have prevented this. Your ideology is killing women. But of course, there are other myriad benefits of the Pill, including decreasing mortality rates (essentially, allowing women to live longer). But yeah, it's all about killing babies 'cause they're a disease.

Then, he comes out with this gem:

Identity politics appeal. Fluke's comment "I see the faces of the women" also insults our intelligence. Let's see. If these women are having sex with women, they don't need contraception because a woman is not a man and can't conceive a child with another woman. If these women are having sex with men, they might need contraception. So I'm supposing that Ms. Fluke is talking about the faces of women who have sex with men. This raises the question, where's the man? Maybe the women of Georgetown University are said because they only sleep with losers who refuse to pay for condoms and birth control? Just a thought, although I don't see any other conclusion.(Emphasis mine-Ben)

Do you not fucking listen? At all? I just listed reasons why anyone with a vagina (which, I should remind you, James, is what women have) would benefit from contraception and you still can't see any other possibility besides sleeping with men who don't pay for condoms or birth control? Are you purposely dense? Hell, you just admitted there are reasons to use contraception that have nothing to do with children, and now you conveniently forget this fact. Your sexism must truly know no bounds. Also, I'm pretty sure you meant that they're "sad" rather than that they're "said".

Then, James goes on to compare this to men being forced to dip into their "beer and football cash" to purchase condoms. And he doesn't get it. Contraception for men consists of condoms (cheap) vasectomies (one-time cost, short and mostly painless procedure) and horrendous groin trauma (painful but funny, permanent). There are no medical benefits to vasectomies, and there aren't any associated with condoms unless your partner has an STD or STI. Contraception for women consists of the Pill (expensive, with some side effects, many of which are beneficial) female condoms (more expensive than male condoms, painful to insert, has to remain in there for a few days to be truly effective), diaphragms (ditto), spermicide (with a myriad of possible very painful side effects) and tubal ligation (very invasive, intense surgery). There is no comparison. Female contraception is much more expensive, and has benefits aside from preventing pregnancy, which I might add is a huge medical benefit.

There isn't anything else from the first article worth mentioning, except that the left shows a "totalitarian streak" for trying to shut Rush Limbaugh down. Uh, no. "The Left" is not trying to shut him down, they're telling his sponsors they will not support their products if they support Rush Limbaugh. Rush can still speak freely on his radio show, and if he loses that, he can still air his views online, in books (assuming someone will publish him), on television (assuming someone will host him) or maybe even with documentary movies. Limbaugh has the right to speak freely (OK, not true, since if he swears on TV or radio he will be fined, something that doesn't happen in Canada) but he doesn't have the right to make money from it or the right to have a nationally broadcast radio show, or any radio show. Those are called "privileges". He also doesn't have the right to not suffer the consequences for his speech. Am I violating your free speech by not being your friend after you said I support child rape?

The other article, "Responding to my friend Ben - Fluke fan" had a few things worth talking about. I'll hit the smaller ones in point form.
  • Non-contraceptive uses of contraception are the same as contraceptive uses of it.
  • I didn't talk about two subjects, in fact, I talked about one: sexism from the left and right sides of the political spectrum. I don't even really believe in "left and right", it's more complex than that. No one is purely left or right except a few pundits (who may not be fully human) and many positions can be endorsed by both sides for different reasons (example: Conservatives may not want a war because they don't want to spend the money and risk soldiers lives, Liberals wouldn't want it because they don't approve of killing or wars motivated by greed).
  • I don't want everyone to think like me in all ways. I do, however, think some positions are detrimental to society and must be eradicated (yes, I know that as a stupid and evil asshole you will take that the wrong way. I would never endorse killing a person, only an idea). You think the same thing.

The "big" argument is religious freedom. Your constitution and mine both grant it. This is in no way a religious freedom issue. Now, you might be wondering why. Well, here's the reason why, in point form.

  • Not all employees of organizations run by the Catholic church are Catholic, and forcing them to conform to Catholic religious practices violates their religious freedom.
  • Not all students of Catholic and/or Jesuit schools are Catholic, and forcing them to conform to Catholic religious practices violates their religious freedom.
  • Not all Catholics are opposed to birth control or abortion.
  • Even if most Catholics (or indeed, most christians) opposed this, it's not a religious freedom that's being trampled upon. You don't have to take contraception, and employer medical benefit plans only cover contraception if the employee actually gets it. No one is forcing anyone to violate their principles, and these principles are not part of the core tenets of that religion, at least not in reality.
  • If this was a group of non-christians trying to get special treatment using religious freedom, we know you'd be first in line to condemn them. So, why is this religious organization trying to get special treatment fine?
  • This is an attempt to get special treatment. There's already an exemption for religious organizations (churches and explicitly religious schools) but they're trying to get that exemption extended to non-religious businesses owned by religious people.
  • Lastly, we already disallow religious freedoms if said "freedoms" are deemed harmful to society. Polygamy is no longer allowed because of the institution's inherent inequality and its subjugation of women. Animal sacrifice is not allowed because it's cruel to animals. Human sacrifice is not allowed because it's murder. Executing apostates is also disallowed for the same reason. This "freedom" to deny contraception to people who need it, which harms women, is harmful to society.

In conclusion, fuck you you misogynist twat.


  1. Man, another idiot who thinks that this contraception debate has been about forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control. FFS, the initial plan was that Catholic universities and other organizations (not churches) would have to provide insurance coverage that included contraception without a copay. They already had to offer coverage but not without a copay (since contraception has been designated - rightly - as preventative care, and there is a mandate in the Affordable Care Act for preventative care to be covered without a copay). It's the insurance companies that would have had to pay, and you know what? They didn't care because it saves them money.

    What Catholic organizations are asking for is specifically a special right: to be able to deny basic coverage to their employers because they object to it. That is a restriction on personal liberty, not an exercise of religious expression. Here's a rule of thumb: If you don't like a medical procedure, don't elect to have it done to yourself. You don't have the right to decide someone else's basic medical care, even indirectly by denying them coverage.

  2. You're not my friend? I'm so disappointed, Ben. Don't worry. I'm a very patient guy. God waited 37 years for me. I can at least extend the courtesy to you.

    First, my child rape accusation is spot on, unless you have some other definition for what causes this? Caused by jaywalking, perhaps? No, it's child rape. You support it. I'm just the messenger. The only way you can regain your self-esteem, it seems, is to be pro-life. Then the conflict would cease. But that might dictate a sea change in your men-r-gods worldview. You see, Ben, it is you who are wrong on everything because your worldview is false.

    Now on to contraception. You said**What a strange line of argument. It is explicitly called the "combined oral contraceptive pill". It is a pill that is designed to be a contraceptive, and it also has other properties. If I use a knife to pick my teeth, is it a toothpick? If I use it to tighten a screw, is it a screwdriver? No, it's still a knife. Regardless of the use, it's still a knife. OK?**

    There you go again! The bait and switch. If the doctor PRESCRIBES a birth control pill for a non-contraceptive use (I even enumerated them), that's OK. If a doctor PRESCRIBES a birth control pill for contraception, then myself and particularly religious establishments refuse to pay the bill. And the federal government is restricted from forcing them to pay the bill because of explicit language in the First Amendment to our Constitution. You do realize this is a 9-0 or 8-1 (Elaine Kagan being the only possible hackworthy justice to vote no) vote on the Supreme Court? It's a worthless endeavor.
    President Obama is unwise for trying something like that in an election year. He has pushed away some of his closest supporters while jeopardizing his standing among Catholics who voted 54-45% FOR him in '08. Thank you, Mr. President.

    By the way, this is very telling. **and forcing them to conform to Catholic religious practices violates their religious freedom** Here you play the individual-is-god card again just as you do with abortion. I don't know how they do it in Canada, but here in the US we are governed by laws, not by men and women, and certainly not by the whims of individuals. God bless the USA! Maybe it's better here than I thought. :-)

    You don't understand the importance of the mandate. Obama is ORDERING Catholic establishments of religion to cover the cost of contraception for its employees. The Catholic organizations can't get around this. As you would put it, our President is saying, "Fuck you, Catholic groups!"
    This mandate is different than the one that requires me to buy car insurance. I don't have to drive a car. But an organization can't function without employees. This is also the problem with Obamacare; the mandate that we must buy health insurance is as unconstitutional as Hell. We can't NOT have health. Like the Catholic establishments of religion, we have no way out. And, remember, we are a nation governed by laws, not by whims. You might want to take Mr. Obama to a Constitution 101 course. You two might learn something.

    By the way, **Human sacrifice is not allowed because it's murder. ** It's also called abortion and yes, it is still legal. Just thought I'd add that. (Continued)

    You finished with **Lastly, we already disallow religious freedoms if said "freedoms" are deemed harmful to society.**

    1. You know, you could consider that the thing keeping Ben from considering you a friend is not him but you. I know that I wouldn't be friends with anyone who suggested that I support child rape (or with anyone who so misunderstands the definition of "rape" or willfully misrepresents the word to score a rhetorical point).

  3. Are you twisting meanings deliberately? I'd hate to think you're dishonest, Ben, but perhaps that's the only way to make your worldview work. All freedoms are subject to some reasonable limitation. I don't see people walking around naked in the streets of downtown Miami because that would infringe upon my freedoms. If you were to limit religious freedoms, you'd have to establish that they were doing harm. Apparently, the populace believes that polygamy does harm. So does Jehovah's Witnesses do harm in letting its children die rather than receive possible life-saving transfusions of blood. You even mentioned animal sacrifice, which are still practiced in Santeria. But where does contraception fit into those categories? Wouldn't the will of the people be needed to consider employers not paying for contraception as a harm to society?
    But how would that work, Ben? You can buy contraception anywhere in the US, freely. Where is the harm of the Catholic organizations not paying for their employees' or students' contraception? I'm all ears.....

    Last, my friend Ben, I do seem to have DEMOLISHED your theories. I can't even imagine what you could possibly come back with, other than more expletives. Cheers!

    1. If you think any of that "demolishes" anything aside from your credibility, you're deluded.

    2. So does Jehovah's Witnesses do harm in letting its children die rather than receive possible life-saving transfusions of blood.

      I am almost certain this is illegal or at least that no physician would be liable for giving a life-saving blood transfusion to a child (particularly a young child) in an emergency situation.

      Also, it would be nice if you would note what I said above about who's paying for what.

    3. Here in Canada, it's illegal to deny children life saving blood transfusions. I am fairly certain that, during a high profile example of the government forcing some JWs to give their sextuplets transfusions, the CBC said that every other country in the world does the same thing.