This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
Perceived, why?
The difficulty here is distinguishing the
mens rea
and the
actus reum
.
You said:
Santorum hasn't expressed any campaign platform that is racist.
So I explained why some of his policies could be interpreted as implicitly racist. In other words, I provided the framework for why he would want to dog-whistle racist support while still arguing implausible deniability.
If he had been supporting affirmative action and apologising in official capacity for the investigation of Paul Robeson, then it would have been hard to argue
mens rea
for wanting to alienate black voters.
But then you went back to arguing actus reum:
Rick Santorum hasn't said anything racist
Except there is no reason to doubt that he did, given his failure to categorically deny the blah people statement and any reasonable (non-apologetic) interpretation of "government ***-uh". Either viewed in a vacuum could be marked suspicious and left alone (because he probably desires the attention), but given the context of "government !@#$%^" being a synonym for "welfare queen", one can't just let it slide.
Again, I wasn't even going to comment on your preference of the candidates, but I don't think Patty was being unreasonable in their interpretation.
Post by
MyTie
I'm disappointed. But, I can see you are set in seeing racism where there isn't any, so I won't continue bothering to discuss it.
Post by
gamerunknown
Tell me what: if you're fond of Rick Santorum, why not dredge up another example of him stuttering and saying "blah" in a sentence while publicly speaking, or "nig" - but it has to be in a separate instance before these two comments.
Post by
MyTie
Tell me what: if you're fond of Rick Santorum, why not dredge up another example of him stuttering and saying "blah" in a sentence while publicly speaking, or "nig" - but it has to be in a separate instance before these two comments.
Do you realize how this sounds?
Post by
gamerunknown
Do you realize how this sounds?
If it's a common utterance for someone eschewing teleprompters, it shouldn't be hard to find an example. Do you know how flimsy his denials sound to an individual without his ideology*? I mean, if you're interested in his policies, listening to him speak should be fun and finding his verbal tics could be a side-project.
* I cede that I was at first willing to interpret his comments in any other form since I doubted someone would willingly jeopardise their campaign in that fashion. Even Don Black refrains from using such language.
Post by
MyTie
This is a bit like talking to a UFO hunter. "Oh yeah, well find an object in the sky that looks like the one in my video, and I'll believe there isn't aliens". The fact is, he didn't say *!@#$%. He didn't say "black". He didn't say them. I don't need to find a stutter pattern to prove he didn't. He doesn't even need a consistent stutter in order to have an interrupted sentence. Even if he did, or even if he didn't, he didn't say #$%^&*. If he went out fighting this with fists flying like you are saying he should, it would only draw attention to something that is a non issue. Only among people looking for *!@#$% will people find *!@#$%, because they have to find it where it is not. Same goes for UFO hunters. They'll find stuff in the sky. They won't be aliens, but you'll never convince them otherwise. And, I'll never convince you otherwise. If you believe that Santorum saying "blarg" once, and stuttering once, makes him a racist, then I bid you farewell, good sir. This conversation is quite beyond any redemption within my power.
Post by
gamerunknown
When asked about it, he said he watched a movie called "Waiting for Superman", which featured black children. He then denied saying it after he realised that there was significant controversy.
He waited about a month and then said "government nig". His implausible deniability line is "I worked at historically black universities" and "I work without a teleprompter and sometimes stutter" (paraphrase). Would that crap work if one of your kids pulled it? You ever tried to get away with calling someone a piece of ship? Nobody buys it.
Post by
MyTie
It wasn't even a derivative.
Post by
gamerunknown
So apparently this wildrose guy thinks marriage is defined as between
fathers and mothers
.
Guess he's openly out in support of pre-marital sex then?
Edit:
Life begins before sex
, let alone conception.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It answers the "why" in the article, Boron. It's a roundabout way of moving the age of abortion from 20 weeks to 18 weeks. The concept they're using is rather ridiculous, but the intent is pretty clear. I imagine they thought people would be more inclined to vote the change in if it did it this way, rather than say in plain language they'd like to move it back to 18 weeks.
To be fair, some of the responses are equally ridiculous- "They want there to be a law that declares that all women are pregnant all the time" and "we're going to be told it's an abortion to have your period because you didn't have sex," are dumb statements as well.
I don't understand the amount of obtuseness on the side of some pro-choice people when responding to pro-life people. You may not agree that the fetus is a child, but it's not such a huge leap in logic to see how another person might thing that a fetus is alive earlier than you do, because you both agree that if you wait long enough, it becomes a child. I don't understand how someone can read the statement "I think it's a baby when it's conceived," and equate it to all sorts of ridiculous arguments like "They're threatened by our vaginas, it's rape by legislation, they want to declare that sperm has the right to vote," and similar nonsense.
I get that you don't think it's alive yet, because of certain organs that haven't developed. I don't agree, but I understand where your logic is coming from. Is it really so hard to see where the pro-life opinion comes from, even if you think they're wrong?
Post by
Adamsm
Is it really so hard to see where the pro-life opinion comes from, even if you think they're wrong?
For a large percentage of people...sadly yes.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Is it really so hard to see where the pro-life opinion comes from, even if you think they're wrong?
For a large percentage of people...sadly yes.
But why...what is so astronomically unbelievable about the idea that someone might consider an undeveloped human still a human being? Not just why is it something they don't agree with, but why something that they see as completely alien logic, like they wanted equal rights for toasters or something.
When trying to explain the fervor behind the pro-life position to someone who is pro-choice, I often draw comparisons between abortion and the killing of children. Because to someone who believes it is a child, it's considered killing a kid. But I don't then extrapolate that if someone thinks abortion is ok, they would be fine with beating, starving and murdering toddlers and schoolchildren, because I understand that their idea is based in them thinking it's not a kid, and not in them thinking kids are ok to kill.
It just seems that in response a lot of people don't have the same ability to have some perspective on where the pro-life argument comes from, and so think that they must think it's ok to rape women and refuse to treat them for cancer, because clearly their argument comes from their desire to subjugate women and dictate their medical procedures. It seems that many people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that we just think of it as a child that they're harming, and has nothing to do with regulating what someone does to themself and everything to do with regulating what someone does to another person.
Again- I know why they don't agree. I just want to know why they can't even fathom the distinction.
Post by
MyTie
It just seems that in response a lot of people don't have the same ability to have some perspective on where the pro-life argument comes from, and so think that they must think it's ok to rape women and refuse to treat them for cancer, because clearly their argument comes from their desire to subjugate women and dictate their medical procedures. It seems that many people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that we just think of it as a child that they're harming, and has nothing to do with regulating what someone does to themself and everything to do with regulating what someone does to another person.
This is done intentionally. If the pro-abortion crowd can frame this as a woman's choice, then those who are pro-life are simply anti-choice and misogynistic. In a sense, the pro-abortion crowd frames the argument as a battle of semantic ad hominem, instead of a battle of logic and morals. In fact, changing the wording to "choice" is probably the only way that the pro-abortion platform can be even remotely defensible, by putting the pro-life crowd on the defensive. All of a sudden, women must be defended from the evil pro-life crowd. Ridiculous.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, my problem is that I never heard of any other proof from pro-lifers other than the fact that abortion is a murder. And since, this reason itself is debatable, I never heard any 100% valid reason against abortion.
Well, my problem is that I never heard of any other proof from anti-nazis other than the fact that the holocaust was murder. And since, this reason itself is debatable, I never heard any 100% valid reason against the holocaust.
But, where you and I differ, is if there stands the possibility that millions of babies are dieing, then I'll stand against it until I have proof that that is not the case, regardless of what my personal beliefs of what makes a human being a human being.
Yeah I Godwin'd it. Get over it.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron
1) See my entire last two posts. Pro-life = the idea that it is killing a child. If you believed that something was killing children, and you wanted to pass a law to save their lives, you would not look at whether or not that was economically advantageous. Again, not saying you have to believe it's a child, but since they do, it's hard to understand how your argument factors in to their motivations.
2) Would you please re-type what you think I wrote in your own words, so I can understand what you're not understanding about it? I just explained that they're not saying an egg is a life, but that they're maneuvering to move the age from 20 weeks to 18 weeks in a back door way. I'm not saying it's an upfront way to do it, or that the explanation has any scientific merit, but I can't think of a plainer way to explain it than that, and yet you seem to have totally missed the point.
3) Ok- how do you prove that killing any human being is murder?
1) That it was done intentionally.
2) That the action carried out by the person accused stopped the life processes of the person permanently.
3) That it is a human being.
In the case of abortion, we can prove beyond a doubt that it was done intentionally, and that is stops the life process permanently and causes the organism to die. The only point up for debate is at what stage it becomes a human being.
I can prove that it has human DNA, and that if left to mature it will continue to grow and have a full human life (barring any medical complications or tragedy). In my mind, that's enough to qualify it as a human being. You may disagree with that, but I can ask just as well what is your proof that there need to be certain biological processes in place before it counts as a human being? And while you can give me proof of what they have and have not developed, you can't "prove" that any of that makes them not human yet, just like I can't "prove" that not having them doesn't keep them from being human.
If a fetus is a person, then the rest of the facts are not in question and it is definitely murder.
If it is not a person, then the rest of the facts are not relevant and it is definitely not murder.
The reason it's a debate, and not a clear cut case of proving each other wrong with science, is because there is no clear scientific answer as to when it becomes human. If you're spiritual, then there is the involvement of a soul which has nothing to do with science, and isn't something that can be proven in adults any more than in fetuses. If you're an atheist, then there is still for most some level of sanctity of human life and morality in how we treat each other, regardless of the existence of a soul. But until the concept of abortion came about, we never really worried as a species what was and wasn't human. It was pretty easy to tell if something was or was not a human, because you could define it as another species if it wasn't.
But defining what it is within a human that makes their lives inviolable, whether there is a soul, whether it's intellect and self-awareness, whether a child (one that is well past being born but still an infant) is as important as an adult even though they haven't fully become self-aware yet- all of that has less to do with what you can prove and more with what you believe is right. I can't give you a scientific reason why it's wrong to kill people for their money, or their car. I can't show you under a microscope why you shouldn't rape a woman or beat your kids into a coma. There's no evidence available for why it's evil to set live children on fire to hear them scream in pain. Some things exist beyond science.
So no matter how much scientific data each side flings at the other, we're not really proving anything, because all of the things that make a human's life more important than an animals (not what makes the different, but why that difference matters morally) are unquantifiable by science.
Post by
MyTie
No, it is not debatable. We had eyewitnesses and documents to prove existence of Holocaust, at least I believe that those famished people photos are not Photoshoped and troops told the truthI didn't say that there is no proof that the holocaust happened, but that the holocaust was murder. Prove to me a Jew is a person. The question sounds horrible to hear, doesn't it? It sounds like it must come directly from the mind of an evil person. This is the perspective of a pro-lifer when listening to a pro-choicer.
But, where you and I differ, is if there stands the possibility that millions of babies are dieing, then I'll stand against it until I have proof that that is not the case, regardless of what my personal beliefs of what makes a human being a human being.
From
this
, I believe that before Week 9, it is pretty much not baby. After that things are getting doubtful. Maybe If we put cutoff date on week 10, that will make issue a lot easier.
Looking to me like a living entity, that can only be classified as human, and posses DNA that is different than both of its parent beings.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Here's a challenge- someone (not you MyTie- this is for a pro-choice or undecided person) give me scientific evidence why you shouldn't kill a one-year old. Tell me why they are human, and why that is murder.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.