The Meerkat Responds: ‘Illogical Arguments’

In the wake of frequent, childish and dishonest provocations on the part of Mr David Thiessen, I have little choice but to offer a robust rebuke to his cowardly deceptions, and wilful abuse of my material. I had hoped to avoid any further confrontations with him, but his persistent abuse requires correction.

Recently, Mr Thiessen issued a trio of angry, rather incoherent posts, clearly aimed at posts I had written. He titled his posts ‘Illogical Arguments’, which is appropriate, since his arguments were indeed quite illogical. It is good to see him embracing a bit of honesty for a change, and admitting his arguments are in fact quite flawed.

Since there is a lot of ground to cover, it would be best to focus on his first post, which was a foaming-at-the-mouth response to my Meerkat Prompt on breast-feeding. As always, Mr Thiessen lacks the conviction to link to my post, and is quoting me without doing me the professional gesture of linking to my words, or naming me. This is of no surprise; Mr Thiessen is clearly afraid of me, and of logic, hence why he titles his post ‘Illogical Arguments’. It would also be worth checking out Bruce Gerencser’s excellent rebuttal to Mr Thiessen’s illogical argument.

For ease of reference, his text will be purple, and all his original spelling and grammar will be retained. Below, he quotes me:

Firstly, breast-feeding is perfectly natural. It is one of the most natural things in the world. Numerous species across millions of years have breast-fed their young.

This is illogical because first, humans are not animals. The latter do not have a moral code to follow nor even know what morality is. Second, animals tend to have sex in public. If one wants to be consistent and not a hypocrite, then one must call public sex acts natural and should be allowed for public viewing without stigmentation.

Third, there are rules of decency and morality that humans must follow. Animals do not have those rules or know what they mean. Why lower humans to the level of animals when we are clearly superior to them and have a different set of rules to operate by?

This is a strange means of linking breast-feeding (which is an act of feeding) to sex. Mr Thiessen is making an absurd leap of logic here, assuming that mothers feeding hungry babies somehow equates to permitting public sexual displays. Clearly he associates breasts with sex, and nothing else. At least he is thus far consistent with his post’s title.

There are very good reasons why public breastfeeding is not allowed. Morality and decency are just two of them. Another reason is that public breastfeeding is very selfish. it is all about the women going me me me. One woman said when she was barred from public breastfeeding ‘I could not feed my child where I WANTED…’

That is selfish and does not take into consideration anyone else’s views or feelings about public breastfeeding. Doing this natural act privately does not make a woman second-class or inferior, it simply shows that the mother considers other people. It is very awkward walking in a public place and coming across a woman breastfeeding.

Women should not be putting others into that state. Then private breastfeeding protects women from being further objectified sexually as well as stopping women from tempting men and women to sin.

Mr Thiessen is clearly not a parent, and clearly he has never moved on from the juvenile association of breasts with sex. He does not understand that babies – especially new-borns – do not operate to a neat and tidy schedule. The mother’s priority is to look after the interests of her child, which is entirely normal and indeed, something of a biological imperative. Mr Thiessen does not understand this in any way, shape or form. He has no experience with raising children (he abandoned his own moral and legal duties in that regard at the first available opportunity), and should not be offering opinions or advice on a subject he clearly does not understand. Nor should he be sexualising breast-feeding mothers. He has the option to look the other way instead of ogling.

It is not about ‘old-school Puritan views’ that make people oppose public breastfeeding. The reproductive act is natural, done by animals everywhere yet but it should not be done in public because of children. They do not understand what is going on. And children should not be exposed to breastfeeding for the same reason.

Another attempt to illogically link sex with feeding children.

One should not keep one natural act private while making another one public because children are not ready to understand what is going on. Plus, it has nothing to do with little parenting experience,. Parenting experience does not give mothers a pass on doing what is right, moral, and decent.

But some unbelievers think it does. That is illogical. Morals and decency are not submissive to parental experience. parental experience is submissive to morality and decency. Actually, babies do operate by a schedule and parents have known about this for millenniums.

One natural act is very different to the other. Once again, Mr Thiessen is making the curious association of feeding a baby with a sexual act. I will leave it to the reader to determine what that means.

Also, speaking as a parent, Mr Thiessen is incorrect about schedules and babies. They can be gradually taught to operate on a schedule, but it is not a rigid structure, and it is impossible to incorporate any form of structure into feeding a new-born. I speak from parental experience; Mr Thiessen speaks from imagination.

It is just that the modern world has interrupted that schedule due to the busyness of adult lives. It is also interrupted by the false idea that women are made second-class because they cannot do their normal schedules until their children are old enough to not breastfeed.

All Mr Thiessen has done is pull this entirely from the ether of his mind, nothing more.

Then opposition to this act is not about men’s rights. It is true that wives must obey their husbands and no man in his right mind wants his wife exposing herself and putting herself in danger by whipping out her breast. The husband and father do have the right to say where a woman can breastfeed.

The woman has given her body to the man she has had sex with. It is not hers anymore, she does not have rule over her body. It is their business what a woman does. What she does reflects on him and can either undermine or enhance his reputation as well as his qualifications.

When it comes to motherly duty, there has never been a rule or guideline in those duties that women can publically breastfeed their children. It is not part of their duty. It is their duty to breastfeed but not in a position that makes them a public spectacle or embarrasses their husbands and family.

It seems the most dangerous people would be men like Mr Thiessen, who are uneducated where it comes to child-rearing, and who are determined to sexualise women and breasts at any opportunity. No right-thinking husband or father would ever believe that their partner should prioritise them ahead of the needs of their child. In fact, any good father would prioritise their child’s needs ahead of both their partner’s and their own. No good father would be ashamed of their partner feeding their hungry baby, and no good father would make a sexual connection with breast-feeding.

Note as well what I have emphasised. Mr Thiessen expects mothers to breast-feed, but demands it takes place on his terms, even though as established, babies do not operate to a set schedule. No one is making breast-feeding mothers into a spectacle, other than men like Mr Thiessen.

Then feeding a child is not the only priority of a mother. Her top priority is her husband and she must be submissive to him, even in breastfeeding. This illogical argument is nothing but an attempt to sin and defy God.

Unbelievers are not content with pleasing God and want to do things their own way. It reminds us of what the Bible says about what the people of Israel did in the book of Judges- everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

The people got punished for that behavior so those demanding that women publically breastfeed cannot complain about being punished for advocating and supporting this selfish act. it is not right as there are more people than the mother and baby to consider in this issue

There is nothing wrong with scheduling one’s day so that the mother can be in a private location to breastfeed her child. Rescheduling does not undermine her priorities but gives her peace of mind. She is protecting her husband, her child, and herself.

The top priority of any mother is their child. The child should be the top priority of any parent. If my wife had a choice to make, between saving my life or saving our daughter, I would expect her to choose our daughter. The demand that a mother be submissive over a biological imperative to care for and feed a child is absurd, and a further display of Mr Thiessen’s inept understanding of parenting. This is also of no great surprise.

There is more to Mr Thiessen’s incoherent rant, which you can see at the above link, but it is worthless. He seeks to defend how he, as a non-parent, should be able to force his views upon those who actually understand what it takes to raise a child. He knows nothing of the subject, and nor can he adequately explain how it affects him. He should be more concerned about why he feels the need to link sex to breast-feeding. I suspect he will avoid any attempt to discuss this matter in a rational fashion, but we can live in hope that he might pause to reflect upon his illogical positions. I cannot stop him from ranting, as much as he may wish to silence me, but I will not hesitate to ensure his narrative is corrected, whenever it is required.

Back to The Meerkat Responds