Pro-Choice abortion supporters are the original “intellectophobes” who because they are afraid of intelligent, sensible and rigorously logical debate which they would lose, instead of debating honestly, they just distract or ignore Pro-Lifers (no matter how rational they are) in order to keep human-killing by abortion legal. This intellectually dishonest strategy has worked for decades! Entire decades of ignoring and avoiding intelligent argument about the crux abortion question of the Human Rights of the humans who are indisputably killed in abortions, an argument they cannot win on any rational nor scientific grounds! (See the Top 6 Facts)
But unfortunately for Free Democracy today, Pro-Choice abortion-promoting extremist politicians who have already rejected Science by pretending preborn humans are not humans (with attendant human value and rights), and who have already rejected the traditional Western (Pro-Life) Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, frequently also hold many other unscientific and anti-traditional positions which are also against the Traditional Western (Judeo-Christian) Pro-Life Family Values which all modern Human Rights and democratic freedoms are historically and logically built on and need to last. And Pro-Choice citizens and politicians and the new “officially Pro-Choice” (therefore officially extremist, human-killing) political parties have in recent years taken what this author has coined as “intellectophobia” to the next level, as in the Intellectophobia Definition below and to the right:
INTELLECTOPHOBIA: The Fear of Respectful, Intellectually Honest, Rational, Scientific and Rigorously Logical Argument and Debate Which Today Leads Anti-Traditional People and Politicians to Label Traditionalists Who Disagree with Their Weakly-Grounded Opinions Some Kind of “Phobes” or “Haters” (or to Pass Laws against Free Speech) in an Intellectually Dishonest Attempt to AVOID any Honest Scientific and Logical Debate over their Opinion Which They Would LOSE Based on Objective Facts of Science, Logic, and History Etc. (Facts which overwhelmingly show that all Western Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms depend historically and logically on the Traditional Western Values they were historically and logically built upon).
The Fear of Respectful, Intellectually Honest, Rational, Scientific and Rigorously Logical Argument and Debate Which Today Leads Anti-Traditional People and Politicians to Label Traditionalists Who Disagree with Their Weakly-Grounded Opinions Some Kind of “Phobes” or “Haters” (or to Pass Laws against Free Speech) in an Intellectually Dishonest Attempt to AVOID any Honest Scientific and Logical Debate over their Opinion Which They Would LOSE Based on Objective Facts of Science, Logic, and History Etc. (Facts which overwhelmingly show that all Western Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms depend historically and logically on the Traditional Western Values they were historically and logically built upon).
The photo to the left demonstrates government Intellectophobia with a sign marking an Intellectophobic "No Free Speech Zone" within blocks of this Human Rights scholar's national Parliament, an undemocratic zone within which he and others can be arrested and jailed just for speaking Science in support of Human Rights Advocacy.
. . . Instead of engaging in respectful dialogue with those who disagree with them (and wholly contrary to the truly democratic expression, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it”), “Intellectophobes” seek to silence their opponents while hiding the weaknesses of their own opinion. . .
. . . “Intellectophobes” avoid admitting that the most pertinent facts and logic do not support their opinion, by shutting down all intellectually honest dialogue at the outset with the quick and easy but intellectually dishonest and unsubstantiated accusation that their opponents’ position is rooted in some kind of irrational “phobia” or “hate” or “racism,” in the hopes that being so (groundlessly) accused will intimidate their opponents into silence. This is what the Science of Logic calls the logical fallacy of the “argument from intimidation,” which is just one of many fallacies of distraction often used at the same time that dishonestly attempt to win an argument by distracting attention away from the key question and distracting attention away from rational honest assessment of the most pertinent facts and logical arguments. . .
As renowned linguist and insightful public intellectual Noam Chomsky said:
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin." [Goebbels was Hitler’s Nazi Propaganda Minister responsible for promoting anti-Semitism against Jewish humans which led to 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis in concentration camps; Stalin was the Atheist Soviet Communist Dictator behind the genocide of 7-10 million Ukrainian humans by forced starvation. Chomsky’s point is that both of these evil men responsible for millions of human deaths were in favor of free speech for views they liked, but supported the violent persecution of views they did not like]. "If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise" . . . [Chomsky said at another time] "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
How unconscionable and damning it is for today's officially Pro-Choice political parties in power, that the views they despise so much that they have in some places actually legislated away Free Speech to utter them include the Pro-Life Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy. (See "The Limits of Freedom," below)
. . . “Intellectophobes” (including all Pro-Choice abortion supporters and those who unthinkingly embrace new-fangled pseudoscientific ideologies) have strongly-held but ignorant opinions which they cannot back up intelligently with either established Science, sound Logic, nor established facts of History nor any other kind of facts. So, to “win” arguments without facts, or rather, to prevent any intelligent argument from taking place, they frequently rely on logical fallacies to distract attention away from the weakness of their position. Fallacies including (but not limited to) what the Science of Logic calls the ad hominem fallacy, “attacking the man” (instead of his argument); making “straw man” arguments which misrepresent the stronger position of their opponent, making it easier to criticize and “knock down” (without actually refuting the opponent’s actual, stronger position); making weak analogies or hasty generalizations about their opponents or simply calling them intimidating names (the “fallacy of intimidation”) all in intellectually dishonest attempt to associate those who disagree with them, with some more despicable group such as White Supremacist racist bigots, hoping those hearing or reading their “argument” will transfer their negative feelings about racists to their opponents, who usually are not racists nor haters with irrational “phobias,” but often have reasoned opinions supported by facts . . . Note that the suddenly-popular but ill-defined term “White Nationalist” appears to generally serve no purpose other than the intellectually dishonest purpose of intellectophobes getting people to without legitimate cause transfer their negative feelings about racist White Supremacists onto anybody who intellectophobes label a “White Nationalist,” just because “White Nationalist” sounds a lot like “White Supremacist.” When an intellectophobe knows that there is not near enough evidence to legitimately claim those who disagree with them are racist White Supremacist bigots, they instead label them “White Nationalists” hoping that that hearers/readers will (inappropriately) transfer their justly negative feelings about (the relatively few) actual White Supremacists to anyone who disagrees with them, and then dismiss their opponent’s (probably stronger) position and side with the intellectophobe. . .
. . . Intellectophobes use logical fallacies of distraction to dishonestly bolster intellectually indefensible anti-traditional opinions by attempting to intimidate traditional opponents into silence or attempting to convince others to simply dismiss their opponent’s stronger position by simply labelling their traditional opponents “phobes” or “haters” or “Nazis” or “Fascists” or “White Supremacists/White Nationalists/racists” and so on without being able to intelligently back up these intimidating accusations, and usually without even trying to, even though the burden of proof is on them to prove these extreme words apply to their opponents, which they most often do not. In any case, merely calling someone who disagrees any kind of names, especially new non-medical names claiming the opponent is some kind of psychologically irrational “phobe” or “hater,” as is now common from those not trained in honest logical thinking, is merely an intellectually dishonest way of avoiding logical argument they would most likely lose based on objective facts of History and/or Science and/or the rules of sound Logic (rules of Logic which those “intellectophobes” who call their opponents some other kind of “phobes” or “haters” most often know nothing whatsoever about). . .
. . . Note that it is not a case of “intellectophobia” to call people who call their opponents “phobes,” “Intellectophobes,” because the whole point of calling people “Intellectophobes” is to challenge them to actually engage in the respectful intellectually honest debate which they are avoiding by just calling their opponents some other kind of “phobes,” or “haters”. . .
The Limits of Freedom: Behind the “Boundary” signs in these photos in a national capital city (and in two provinces of this country), you can be arrested and jailed for any kind of peaceful Pro-Life Human Rights Advocacy, even for saying “killing humans is wrong because Human Rights are for all humans;” even for informing people of established medical and scientific facts about abortion; even for just “staring” at an abortion-providing facility (including pharmacies that give “abortion pills”). Police made clear “staring” will be taken by police as a sign of the “disapproval of abortion” that it is now illegal to show under totalitarian laws passed by officially Pro-Choice political parties in power, laws which restrict normal democratic freedoms of assembly, speech, expression, conscience and religion within up-to-150 meter (500 foot) radius “no-free-speech-bubble-zones.” The officially Pro-Choice governing political party of the first province to pass this law ridiculously claimed this so-called “Safe Access to Abortion Services Act” was needed, yet could produce no clear example of anyone being harassed on their way into an abortion clinic. A later investigation requesting all police complaint files found there was nothing at all that gave the Pro-Choice governing political party in the province any reason to restrict the usual democratic freedoms of Pro-Lifers. This law only exists to dishonestly “justify” the bigoted persecution of Pro-Lifers, in order to hide the weakness of the anti-democratic and bigoted Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans position which Pro-Lifers expose.
Of course, any jurisdiction so totalitarian-oriented as to pass such draconian laws against Human Rights Advocacy (like in undemocratic Police States) cannot be expected to only arrest people who actually break laws. Behind these very signs two elderly men were arrested (one died awaiting unjust trial; the author gave a eulogy at his funeral) just for being “known Pro-Lifers” carrying signs reading “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND RELIGION. NO CENSORSHIP;” “GOD SAVE OUR CHARTER RIGHTS;” and “THE PRIMACY OF FREE SPEECH: CORNERSTONE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.” Since this totalitarian Pro-Choice law was first passed October 25, 2017 (after only 3 weeks in the legislature), Pro-Choicers in this country, who really like the idea of just legislating Pro-Lifers into silence (democratic Free Speech be damned!), have tried and sometimes succeeded in getting this kind of totalitarian law copied or expanded in other jurisdictions; into residential areas, etc. Because Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy (and Pro-Choice = Pro-Totalitarianism, as this author’s books demonstrate), Pro-Choicers just do not “get” the classic democratic expression “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Pro-Choicers are happy to have normal democratic freedom of speech taken away from Pro-Lifers who they disagree with (who they cannot win intelligent and honest arguments with, as shown in this author’s books). With laws like this in this nation’s capital, when last in this nation’s capital downtown the author’s dear Bride had a Pro-Choicer angrily tell her “you have no right to park there” because of her Pro-Life “It’s a Child, not a Choice” bumper sticker, and then “if you park there, I will take a bat to your car and wreck it.” This author and many others can testify it is common for Pro-Choicers to steal, vandalize or destroy Pro-Life signs on private property, because one thing Pro-Choicers cannot tolerate is Free Speech for Pro-Lifers. Since all the most pertinent facts of Human Rights History, Science, and Logic prove that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy (and Pro-Choice = Pro-Totalitarianism), it is necessary, for legal human-killing by abortion to continue long-term, that Pro-Choicers show their true totalitarian colors with totalitarian laws like the one that had these signs put up. Any Pro-Choicer who disagrees is invited to take The Intellectual Honesty Challenge.
(Note: the author himself, a Human Rights scholar, took these photos, appalled that his normal democratic freedoms of assembly, speech, expression, conscience and religion are taken away within this “no-free-speech-bubble-zone,” within which this author can be arrested and jailed within blocks of his national Parliament even for saying “killing humans is wrong because Human Rights are for all humans.”)
Anti-Christian and Pro-Choice Bigotry Can Destroy Democracy Which Depends on Christian and Pro-Life Principles
Today’s Uneducated and Unintelligent Anti-Christian and Pro-Choice Bigotry Uses What the Science of Logic Calls “the Genetic Fallacy” Combined with “Circular Reasoning” Known as “Bulverism” to Simply Dismiss or Ignore a Pro-Life or Christian Opponent’s Argument Merely Because it is Christian or Pro-Life (Turning Off the Brain and Ignoring the Overwhelming Facts of Human Rights History, Science, and Logic Which Show that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy and that at Least Respecting the Christian Origins of Human Rights is Essential for LASTING Democracy – Dismissing Established or Verifiable Facts Merely Because it is a Christian or Pro-Lifer Who is Presenting the Facts, Which is Bigoted and Unthinking).
Anti-Christian and Pro-Choice Bigotry and Illogical “Bulverism” in Politicians, Political Parties, Legislators and Judges is Extremely Dangerous for Free Democracies, because Free Democracy and Human Rights are Demonstrably, Literally, Historically, and Logically Built on Fundamentally Christian and Pro-Life Principles Which Christians Introduced into the West, and Free Democracy Cannot Possibly Last Without Maintaining its Fundamentally Christian and Pro-Life Foundations.
This is Not a Prediction. It is Already Evident in the Increasing Compromises of Normal Democratic Freedoms Coming from Pro-Choice Politicians and Political Parties, and from Judges on High Courts Upholding Bigoted Decisions Against Christians and Pro-Lifers in Their Uneducated Ignorance of Key Facts of Logic and Science and Human Rights History.
Because most Pro-Lifers are Christians (because there are over 2 billion Christians in the world, and because it was Christians who first taught the brutal ancient West and the whole world the “Pro-Life” principle that killing humans is wrong), Pro-Choice human-killing bigotry against preborn humans and anti-Christian bigotry frequently go together – and involve the same ignorance of facts and the same logically fallacious thinking behind their bigotry.
Pro-Choice bigots (bigoted against preborn humans) and Anti-Christian bigots (bigoted against Christians) are both illogical “Bulverists” who invalidly “justify” their unintelligent bigotry without considering any facts or logic by reasoning in a circle of the general nature: “Christian/Pro-Life opinions are not worth considering. Your opinion is not worth considering because you are a Christian/are Pro-Life.” “Christians/Pro-Lifers are not worth listening to because they are wrong. Christians/Pro-Lifers are wrong because they are not worth listening to.” Circular reasoning can be hard to spot (meaning we can even fool ourselves with it) because it usually uses different wording that assumes the conclusion, but the different wording still boils down to assuming one’s conclusion at the outset without proving or demonstrating it. In this case the effective (and bigoted) reasoning is “Christian/Pro-Life opinions are not worth considering because Christian/Pro-Life opinions are not worth considering.”
This logically fallacious approach also commits what the Science of Logic calls the “genetic fallacy” (“oh, you just believe that because you’re a Christian”). This means discounting an opponent’s position out-of-hand only because of the “genetics” or probable “source” of that belief. While it may indeed be true that a Christian got his or her Pro-Life (or other traditional Christian) beliefs from being raised a Christian, this “genetic source” in no way justifies dismissing their position as if it was not supported by facts, evidence, and sound logic (which a Pro-Life position is – super-abundantly). Pro-Choice “arguments” are just a compendium of intellectually dishonest logical fallacies (as demonstrated in the pages on the Science of Logic). The genetic fallacy is yet another Pro-Choice fallacy of distraction which dishonestly avoids the question of the Human Rights of the humans killed in abortions. Illogical Pro-Choice “Bulverists” do not even engage their brains with a rational argument with a Pro-Lifer over the Human Rights for all humans abortion debate – instead of thinking or considering evidence they just assume their opponent is wrong without proving it (circular reasoning) and condescendingly blame the assumed-but-not-proved wrongness on their Christian faith (the genetic fallacy).
All of this is highly bigoted. But all bigotry is based in ignorance or lack of education and knowledge, and Pro-Choice anti-Christian bigots have to be about the most ignorant people out there – at least, the most ignorant of/uneducated in the most pertinent facts of Human Rights History, Science, and Logic which prove Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy!
William Baptiste Human Rights & Freedoms Forever!
E-Mail: INFO@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To become a "Volunteer Democracy Leader" in your city, e-mail VOLUNTEER@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To book William Baptiste as a speaker, e-mail BOOKINGS@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - for more donation options, e-mail DONATE@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com
Copyright © 2019-2021 William Baptiste Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! - All Rights Reserved.
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION for LASTING FREE DEMOCRACY