Still no answer, and you are correct, I am specifically attacking you, no two ways about it. Attacking someone who would compare governmental controls on driving and on having children and then attempt to evade answering when challenged on that.
You know, I went and read your previous comments and you don’t seem like that unreasonable of a person. Perhaps I’ve been attributing a religious mindset to you too strongly based on the comparison which I am taking you to task for. I do think, however, that I’ve struck a nerve and you are grasping at straws, for any way of avoiding having to answer for your terrible comparison.
I must say I am only guessing that you are a religiously motivated person based on your comments in this topic, which I may very well have taken as too strong of an indication of your method of ideation. The source from which such a comment would spring.
Let me ask you outright, are you a religiously motivated person? Is that why you said what you said? Why on earth did you say such a thing?
Your question about whether or not I’m religious suggests that you base your response to people’s ideas on how you classify them. If you perceive that people are religious, then they are part of an outgroup and you condemn their ideas based on their identities. This is a time-honored human tradition, but it’s really not humanity at our best. You experienced a little dissonance when you saw that not all my posts struck you as conservative. That led you to question how religious I really am. I don’t think that was the right question to ask.
What you say may have some substance to it. Unlike your comparison between governmental controls on people having children and people driving.
Why did you make that comparison?
Why are you avoiding talking about it?
Let’s remember the source of the disagreement we are having.
Yep, the states are blowing money on behavior modification based on outdated views of religion-based morality, instead of on basic needs like food and housing.
And it’s only since you started including statements about god (perhaps jokingly) that I’ve attributed a religious mindset to you. Before then I was criticising your adherence to a religiously motivated program of behaviour control, specifically your defence of it. Really your personal motivation is ancillary to the criticism. It’s your defence of such behaviour that I am fundamentally criticising.
Whether or not your defence of the attempts to modify behaviour, based on the article quoted in the op, is motivated by the same religious mindset, the fact that you were criticising the article by making such an unjust comparison is the root criticism I am levelling at you.
Would you care to explore your comparison, or is this conversation forever going to consist of me asking you to defend your thesis and you refusing to do so whilst massaging the conversation into variances upon a theme of my deduction of your motivations?
I accept that you may not be religiously motivated to have made the comparison, although I suspect there is some conservative, ultimately religious motivation underlining your stance.
Shall we discuss the wayward comparison? Would you prefer not to acknowledge that you did such a thing? It’s up there, plain as day, you wrote it, I quoted it and you haven’t made any attempt to take it back or even explain yourself.
