Breast Feeding, Literacy and Stupidity
Interesting.
A few days ago, Saskboy posted a rant about this rant by the producer of the John Gormley Show, Tammy Robert. Robert was ranting about the newly appointed leader of the Saskatchewan Greens, Amber Jones and her appearance, with baby in tow, at a political event staged at the legislature. I just finished reading Robert's rant and I got a lot more out of it that just an "outdated opinion on breastfeeding". It seems to me that right in the Robert's rant there is a phrase which sums up her point, namely that Amber Jones was using the baby as a prop to score political brownie points via the media and that as such, she was engaged in exploitation. Hence, the Greens are no more holy than any other political group.
You gotta wonder about whether these lefties can really understand anything that they read or do they just want to sweep the obvious under the rug all the time so they can cherry pick what might be useful for pumping up into phony outrage. Demanding an apology because someone said something politically incorrect!! Where have we seen this before? Next thing you know, there will be a complaint filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.
A few days ago, Saskboy posted a rant about this rant by the producer of the John Gormley Show, Tammy Robert. Robert was ranting about the newly appointed leader of the Saskatchewan Greens, Amber Jones and her appearance, with baby in tow, at a political event staged at the legislature. I just finished reading Robert's rant and I got a lot more out of it that just an "outdated opinion on breastfeeding". It seems to me that right in the Robert's rant there is a phrase which sums up her point, namely that Amber Jones was using the baby as a prop to score political brownie points via the media and that as such, she was engaged in exploitation. Hence, the Greens are no more holy than any other political group.
You gotta wonder about whether these lefties can really understand anything that they read or do they just want to sweep the obvious under the rug all the time so they can cherry pick what might be useful for pumping up into phony outrage. Demanding an apology because someone said something politically incorrect!! Where have we seen this before? Next thing you know, there will be a complaint filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.
posted by Louise at 7:24 am
10 Comments:
Brutal.
"she was engaged in exploitation. Hence, the Greens are no more holy than any other political group. "
There's no "hence" in your argument, because your conclusion doesn't follow from it.
You're one to talk about literacy. Tammy was not at the event, and if you read more about it all, you'd know that the media was the one that asked Amber to pose with her child for photos/video.
No one says the Greens are more "holy". The problem is cranks like Tammy, and possibly yourself, bringing up the red herrings of free speech, and human rights to justify being mean to a new mother and new politician when SHE'S DONE NOTHING WRONG.
Saskboy, Saskboy, Saskboy. Please reread my words enough times until you understand them.
This: "It seems to me that right in the Robert's rant there is a phrase which sums up her point, namely that Amber Jones was using the baby as a prop to score political brownie points via the media and that as such, she was engaged in exploitation. Hence, the Greens are no more holy than any other political group."
is my summation of Tammy Robert's rant. She, not me, is the one who is implying that Amber Jones' behavior shows that "the Greens are no more holy than any other political group."
My post is saying that reducing Robert's argument to the single statement she made about breast feeding illustrates a weakness on your part in understanding the gist of what Robert said. Thanks for proving my point.
"My post is saying that reducing Robert's argument to the single statement she made about breast feeding illustrates a weakness on your part in understanding the gist of what Robert said. Thanks for proving my point."
Not at all... as in, I didn't prove your point. It doesn't matter if I reduce your argument, or hers, they are both wrong. If a part of it is wrong, the whole is likely wrong too. Especially when you or she have a "hence" in there concluding a flawed point.
I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of summarizing my point. I still think it's lost on you.
"It seems to me that right in the Robert's rant there is a phrase which sums up her point, namely that Amber Jones was using the baby as a prop to score political brownie points via the media and that as such, she was engaged in exploitation."
And your point was that she's justified in being mean, because if someone challenges her on a single key point (that you identified too), they are out for a human rights tribunal! Total nonsense.
Totally wrong, Saskboy. I didn't even hint about what I thought about Robert's remarks. My point was that there was big tizzy about one small portion of her rant that went on and on and on, rather than the larger message that her rant contained.
I knew you didn't get it.
For the record. I have no problem with breastfeeding and no problem with doing it in public.
Whether Robert's assessment of Jone's behavior is correct, I haven't got a clue. She could very well be right or you could very well be right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous, if you want your comment to appear please put your name or pseudonym at the end of it. If you are going to take aim at Saskboy, or anyone else for that matter, I insist that you use an identifiable name. My blog. My rules. It's easy. See....
Louise
Post a Comment
<< Home