that the people of Idaho at the behest of a few politicians and people like Steven Thayn, told me and my family that, not only were we not good enough, we were so not good enough that the Idaho Constitution should be changed to reflect the fact that we would never be good enough.MG says she took this personally because it affected her and her family personally, and that justifies her exposing Thayn's son's domestic abuse problem. That's a personal problem of the Thayn family. Thayn has placed family issues in play, so his family issues should also be in play. (Put another way, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.")
Anyway, the ever vigilant Adam has attempted to counter MG's argument here.
If we personalize politics, where does it end? I suppose I should take Carte Blanche with pro-choice politicians to go and visit county courthouses where they’ve lived and dig for dirt, and search for anyway I can to ruin their lives. The reason is that abortion is very personal to me. After all, every pro-abortion person is of the opinion that had my mother (who would never in a million years consider the thought) decided to have me killed that would be okay. Or, even a politician who raises my taxes. I could say, “You take money out of pocket, you cause me pain. I’ll cause you pain by finding out something embarrassing about you.” Heck, I think even smokers who can’t smoke in Bowling Alleys or nearly every restaurant in the state could take vengeance.Adam doesn't directly refute MG's point about personalization. He doesn't say that MG's logic is flawed, he just posts up a few logical fallacies of his own in an obfuscation effort.
First, saying "where does it end" is employing the slippery slope argument; this step leads to all these others. Wrong. The second step does not follow inevitably from the first. Legislating that your family will have the permanent status as second class is not the same as supporting abortion rights. One effects behavior, the other is just an opinion. If we legislated that Adam's family must abort every other child, that would be an equivalent argument. It's a fallacious slippery slope argument, and it doesn't even meet the point head on. If the legislature passed an amendment that said African-Americans or Mormons would not be allowed to marry, is that the same as believing that women should be able to get a safe and legal abortion if necessary? Of course not.
Next, Adam misstates the pro choice position; classic straw man. Put up a phony argument, attribute it to the other side, then knock it down. Another fallacy. To paraphrase Adam, he says every "pro-abortion person" believes that it would be okay for Adam's mom to have had him killed. Of course, saying every is akin to saying never or always; hyperbole and overstatement. Also, many if not most and perhaps all pro-choice folks agree that abortion is a serious act to be used only when there are no other options.
Adam next equates imposing taxes and outlawing smoking with relegating a family to permanent second class status. Taxes are not levied based on a person's individual characteristics. You're not taxed on blond hair, or beards. The smoking argument would be equivalent only if the legislature ruled that smokers cannot get married.
Adam calls MG's response a "perceived personal afront." No, it's not just perceived. She actually cannot get a marriage license to marry her sweetheart.
To close, Adam refers to MG's Thayn posts as "hyper-personalized politics where reason was abandonned to embrace a politics of anger and emotion." I think Adam has, if not abandoned reason, certainly failed to employ reason in his effort to stick up for Thayn.