So I was considering joining in the satire on “our” abortion policy that we never announced, but decided that this sort of gutter-based straw-personing isn’t funny for any definition of the word, and is exactly the type of thing that politics has too much of- that is, childish bickering where we all try to score points off each other instead of helping to debate the real problems our country is facing.
Needless to say, while the Green Party really does think global overpopulation is a problem, we’d rather address that by helping people lift themselves out of poverty and educating them about the environment than by doing something even along the hamfisted lines of David’s parody. People have less children when they’ve had the opportunity to get out of poverty, and that should be a focus for any government that wants to address overpopulation.
So I suggest an agreement, say, that if I don’t say National wants to feed concentrated industrial solvent to babies to save costs on waste disposal, that National supporters in turn won’t say we want people to go into an abortion lottery. Even “parody” has its limits, and I think it makes far more sense to actually try and characterise each other’s views fairly.
update: David replies. For what it’s worth, I think he’s got a very strange definition of satire that he thinks it doesn’t have to be funny. Satire without humour is a strawperson argument, which strangely enough, is exactly what I accused him of 😉