Bob Dutko: All Sunshine and Bullshit!

Bob works hard to convince you that his analysis of an issue is generated from pure logic and he has a complete understanding of the topic discussed. However, anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in logic recognizes Bob for what he is: A used car salesman, all sunshine and bullshit with hints of authoritarianism.

This is Bob's understanding of the law:



Bob believes that laws are based in morality. Because laws and morals are equivalent, it's perfectly acceptable to restrict a woman's right to choose through laws.

We can see how full of shit Dutko is with a few easy questions:

Question 1: If Bob speeds and receives a ticket, has Bob committed and immoral act? No! Civil infraction laws are not a question of morality, they are a matter of regulating public safety.

Question 2: If Bob decides to start cheating on his wife, carrying on an adulterous sexual relationship with a married woman, has Bob broken the law? No! Bob's cheating is considered immoral, but it is not a basis to have him arrested and prosecuted.

Question 3: If Bob reads this blog and becomes so enraged so as to murder me, has Bob committed both and an immoral and illegal act? Yes! But understand the claim underlying this third example: When Bob is arraigned for my murder, the charges levied aren't based in a claim to morality, they are based in a violation of my rights! When Bob is put on trial for murder, he is being held accountable for his actions in violating a property right, namely, my right to continue living unmolested by Bob Dutko.

Criminal laws aren't based on moral claims, they're based on claims about rights. Criminal laws are a recognition that people don't have the right to assault others or steal their property, or otherwise threaten public order. If a person has committed an illegal act, its morality is coincidental and irrelevant to its legality.

As it concerns abortion, Bob wants to equate legality with morality because it eliminates the one big concern that he is afraid to address: What interest does the government have in restricting abortion? In other words, how is abortion such a threat to public order that the government must outlaw the act?

Bob won't address the underlying right to abortion because he is incapable of doing so. To be clear, Bob cannot demonstrate that a woman's right to choose affects him in the slightest degree. Bob would rather argue the from a false equivalency about law and morality because it allows him to enforce his narrow little view of the world.

At heart, Bob is an tin-plated authoritarian, willing to use the government to enforce his ignorant little claims to morality. It's disgusting.