Colorado Pastor Impersonates Cop to Rob Gay Men »« The Acton Institute and Religious Freedom

Marcotte Pretty Much Destroys Hannity

What happens when a dullard like Sean Hannity, who is only capable of confidently repeating shallow talking points, falls into the hands of someone like Amanda Marcotte, who is actually capable of thinking clearly? The result is a serious beatdown, which can be found in this article at Slate by Amanda.

Hannity griped, “Why are people accused of waging a war on women if they don’t want to pay for their birth control, which is inexpensive?” When his caller tried to point out that not everyone has that kind of money, he started to holler, “But why don’t women like yourself, then, maybe then have an ‘adopt-a-woman’ birth control program? In other words, why should the government be doing it?”

You may think I’m going to try to argue Sean Hannity down, but in fact, I think he’s onto something here. Perhaps there could be a program where everyone who needs health care, including contraception, pays into a common pool that we can draw out of. You could pay monthly into it—let’s call that payment a “premium”—and when you need things like drugs or doctor’s visits, you could show a membership card instead of writing a check. Some employers might elect to save money by buying group plans instead of having their employees buy individually. We’d need some anti-discrimination rules to make it fair, so things like contraception should be covered regardless of your personal hang-ups about female sexuality. You can call it an “adopt-a-woman” program, I guess, but I think a simpler term that would both be more comprehensive and male-inclusive would be “health insurance.”

She also points out that this is part of a bigger lie about the “government takeover” of health care. The ACA sets minimum requirements on what a health insurance policy must cover. More precisely, it adds a few things to already existing regulations on what has to be included and contraception coverage is one of those things. The government isn’t paying for free birth control, it is requiring that birth control, which is an absolutely vital element of women’s health care, be included in the insurance policies.

Comments

  1. says

    The ACA sets minimum requirements on what a health insurance policy must cover.

    Exactly. Obamacare limits your healthcare. Do you really want some unelected government bureaucrat limiting your healthcare? No! That’s what elected government bureaucrats are for.

  2. scienceavenger says

    “But why don’t women like yourself, then, maybe then have an ‘adopt-a-woman’ birth control program? In other words, why should the government be doing it?”

    It drives me nuts when people ask questions like this. It reveals an abject ignorance of the fact that collective action can accomplish things that the sum of individual actions cannot. IOW, there are things the government can fix that the free market never would. It also reveals an ignorance of the fact that such programs benefit everyone, not just those who contribute to it. Perhaps someone should ask Hannity why he thinks he should get a free ride on the efforts of others.

  3. eric says

    Hannity griped, “Why are people accused of waging a war on women if they don’t want to pay for their birth control, which is inexpensive?”

    Well, part of the reason could be that every time someone asks why you don’t want to pay for it, the answer is almost always misogynistic slut shaming. “I’m not [whack!] at war [whack!] with women [whack!]” is not exactly a convincing argument.

  4. scienceavenger says

    Hannity griped, “Why are people accused of waging a war on women if they don’t want to pay for their birth control, which is inexpensive?”

    If its so inexpensive, then why are you making such a fuss about it?

  5. says

    Scienceavenger, of course they never seem to gripe about the expenses involved in pregnancy, which are much greater. “Why should I have to pay for your baby?”

  6. felidae says

    Hannity should change his name to Innanity to more accurately reflect what comes out of his mouth

  7. Schlumbumbi says

    “Why should I have to pay for your baby?”
    ^
    Which IS a completely legitimate question. How come, the government can force you to pay for other peoples’ lifestyles and offspring through taxes ? You don’t have to be some anarcho-liberal to understand that this is socialist statism.

  8. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    someone like Amanda Marcotte, who is actually capable of thinking clearly

    History of banning commenters due to failure to distinguish between pieces of others’ comments they quoted in order to argue with them, and said commenters’ actual words, notwithstanding….

  9. says

    Which IS a completely legitimate question. How come, the government can force you to pay for other peoples’ lifestyles and offspring through taxes ?

    Because it benefits the economy and society as a whole to have people healthy, well-educated, and able to be productive.

    You don’t have to be some anarcho-liberal to understand that this is socialist statism.

    You don’t have to be a student of propaganda techniques to understand that slinging around phrases like “socialist statism” as scare words does not an argument make.

  10. Doug Little says

    felidae @9.

    Ode to Sean Hannity
    by John Cleese

    Aping urbanity
    Oozing with vanity
    Plump as a manatee
    Faking humanity
    Journalistic calamity
    Intellectual inanity
    Fox Noise insanity
    You’re a profanity
    Hannity

  11. kevinalexander says

    Let’s not overpraise Amanda. After all, she won her battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

  12. Onamission5 says

    I should have to be beholding to an individual benefactor who may or may not change their mind about what kind of health care they will allow me to have rather than be allowed to pay into a collective system and then extract the benefits I and my doctor decide I need because…?

  13. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Okay, I know Ed isn’t much for taking the trash out, but Sclumbumbi is a known Slymepitter. See here.

  14. Chiroptera says

    schlumbumbi, #10: You don’t have to be some anarcho-liberal to understand that this is socialist statism.

    lol

    Evidently, you do because I have no idea what the heck you’re complaining about.

    How come, the government can force you to pay for other peoples’ lifestyles and offspring through taxes ? You don’t have to be some anarcho-liberal to understand that this is socialist statism.

    We’re not talking about paying for lifestyles or offspring. We are saying that everyone, without exception, should have access to adequate healthcare, and since the so-called “free market” is insufficient to ensuring that access to everyone, then the state should be given the responsibility for providing that access.

    Some of us also note that it seems to work pretty well in countries like in Europe, and we’d like a similar system here.

  15. abear says

    Azkyroth wrote:

    Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)

    January 30, 2014 at 6:24 pm (UTC -5)

    Okay, I know Ed isn’t much for taking the trash out, but Sclumbumbi is a known Slymepitter. See here.

    I read that; where is the evidence that S is a Slymepitter?
    Also, does this somehow relate to your comment #11? I thought you were against banning people that dis agree with you.

  16. vmanis1 says

    Schlumbumbi: ` How come, the government can force you to pay for other peoples’ lifestyles and offspring through taxes ? You don’t have to be some anarcho-liberal to understand that this is socialist statism.’

    I love it when people call Otto von Bismarck (the founder of modern social welfare programs) a socialist. To such a person, words literally have no meaning, and can be used randomly and interchangeably. In place of `socialist statism’, one can say `fascist authoritarianism’ or even `an ultra-moderate coffee-table’.

  17. leonardschneider says

    I wonder if Fox News’ insurance company pays for Hannity’s Cialis? All they’re doing is encouraging indiscriminate sexual activity. Besides, wouldn’t it be God’s Will if you got no angle to your dangle?

    (I’m giving Hannity credit for having a penis that functions, just not very well, so he’d get Cialis. Viagra is for honest-to-Buddha, medically diagnosed erectile dysfuction: dangerous stuff to take for, ah, recreational purposes. Seriously, take Viagra when you don’t need it and you can cause permanent, irreversible damage.
    Hannity’s dick probably works… Just not well or dependably; he’s probably got the staying power and control of a fourteen year old seeing his first porn video, hence the Cialis use.
    Well, I think I’m done disparaging Sean Hannity’s sexual competency. Shall I move on to disparaging his sexual interests? He can’t come without the leather clown costume, two iguanas, and a quart of brake fluid?)

  18. peterh says

    @ #2:

    You seem to misunderstand the purpose of minimum standards. They are to assure a bottom line below which (in this case, medical care) will not drop; adding to that minimum is anyone’s prerogative.

  19. No One says

    Schlumbumbi:

    How come, the government can force you to pay for other peoples’ lifestyles and offspring through taxes ?

    Because it’s cheaper than unwanted children, and safer than those kids growing up hungry and pissed off. Pay a little now, more for you in the future… my little social Darwinist.

  20. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Also, does this somehow relate to your comment #11? I thought you were against banning people that dis agree with you.

    I’m against banning people for things they didn’t say. Neither this nor membership in an organization formed explicitly to encourage harassment of people who stand up for social justice and women’s rights has any relationship to mere disagreement. Read for comprehension, if you dare.

  21. johngreg says

    Azkyroth, I am a known Pit person. However, to restate abear’s comment, as we have no Schlumbumbi registered as a member of the Pit, so, on what grounds do you presume that Schlumbumbi is a Pit person, in particular, a ” known Slymepitter?

  22. johngreg says

    Azkyroth said:

    Neither this nor membership in an organization formed explicitly to encourage harassment of people who stand up for social justice and women’s rights has any relationship to mere disagreement.

    If you are claiming that the Pit is/was “an organization formed explicitly to encourage harassment of people who stand up for social justice and women’s rights”, then you are, in point of fact, quite spectacularily wrong. If you wish to see why/when/how the Pit was formed, have a gander here (the http colon slash stuff removed because I do not know what this blog’s practices are regarding auto-links.):

    … scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/01/bad-form-rebecca-watson/

    If you are not claiming that the Pit is/was “an organization formed explicitly to encourage harassment of people who stand up for social justice and women’s rights”, then please ignore my comment.

  23. Al Dente says

    A couple of pitters are trying to pretend their misogynist cult isn’t a misogynist cult. They look so cute when they’re lying through their teeth.

  24. abear says

    Azky wrote:

    I’m against banning people for things they didn’t say. Neither this nor membership in an organization formed explicitly to encourage harassment of people who stand up for social justice and women’s rights has any relationship to mere disagreement. Read for comprehension, if you dare.

    I too am against banning people for things they didn’t say: for example I hereby ban Azky, not for anything he said, but because he is a Pharynguloid (baboon). That would be unfair.
    If by “membership” you mean reading and even sometimes commenting on a forum/blog means you are responsible for other commenters than WTF?
    As for me being an illiterate coward, as many arrogant people you have a tendency to resort to insults when you’re shown to not be as bright as you think you are.
    “Read for comprehension, if you dare.”
    What a fool.

  25. johngreg says

    Well, the Pit is not a misogynist cult. The claim that it is, is just silly.

    Among many other topics, and so on, the Pit is a bbs on which several people disagree with several feminists, male and female, and a lot of those feminists’ practices, and operational goals and procedures.

    And that does not make it a misogynist cult.

  26. says

    peterh “@ #2: You seem to misunderstand the purpose of minimum standards.”
    You might want to consider reading that comment again, with tongue in cheek.

  27. johngreg says

    Now, to get back on topic — uh, excuse me, but a brief aside: why is it that so many FTB commenters seem so driven to derail original FTB topics and comment threads by bringing up the so-called evils of the Pit?

    Anyway, Ed says:

    … Amanda Marcotte, who is actually capable of thinking clearly….

    While this Hannity chappy may be a doofusgoofus, stating that Marcotte can think clearly is rather like saying that the Pope delivers good sex advice and pizzas.

    I mean, those two things, Marcotte and clear thinking, do not go together: oil and water; chalk and cheese; etc.

    In my opinion.

  28. Michael Heath says

    johngreg writes:

    While this Hannity chappy may be a doofusgoofus, stating that Marcotte can think clearly is rather like saying that the Pope delivers good sex advice and pizzas.

    I mean, those two things, Marcotte and clear thinking, do not go together: oil and water; chalk and cheese; etc.

    In my opinion.

    Exhibit A, Ms. Marcotte’s response to Mr. Hannity that Ed presents here, is illustrative of a conclusion very different than your own.

    I don’t recall seeing you comment in this forum before. Additionally there’s a bunch of other seemingly new commenters here. Are you all part of a group and if so, what’s the motivation for commenting on this particular blog post?

  29. says

    “Hannity’s dick probably works”

    Well, seeing’s he’s ALL dick, he has to hope that it does.

    Who’s got the popcorn concession for the trollsmackdown that’s gonna be happn’in?

  30. abear says

    @34: I know what you mean Michael about new commenters here. This Azkyroth and Al Dente are trolls from Pharyngula to stir trouble up here. You can safely ignore them, they’re not convincing anyone.
    Marcotte won an argument with Sean Hannity. Big deal. You don’t have to be a particularly clear or profound thinker to do that.

  31. johngreg says

    Michael Heath said:

    I don’t recall seeing you comment in this forum before.

    Well, actually, I commented here a few times a long time ago. At that time Ed seemed to have no problem with my comments (so far as I could tell); however, because I had said, on other blogs than this, some things that he didn’t like about a couple of friends of his, Ed banned me, with XPD.

    Additionally there’s a bunch of other seemingly new commenters here.

    That’s how blogs work, isn’t it: New posts; new commenters; growth, and so on and so forth. I mean, you wouldn’t want utter stagnation, false consensus due to a prescribed and limited commentariat, dogma, and ideology, along with endless repetition, would you? Right? Right.

    Are you all part of a group and if so, what’s the motivation for commenting on this particular blog post?

    Well, obviously I cannot comment on or assume/presume/define other commenters’ motives, location, origination, and so on. I’ll leave that to you.

  32. gmacs says

    Uh oh, Ed needs to clean up. There’s an ursine turd and other garbage lying around.

    Seriously, I imagine the pitters just troll through the atheist blogosphere, sniffing, searching, watching. Finally, one pipes up, “Paydirt! Someone is talking positively about someone we hate. The game is on friends, for these are the moments we live for!”

  33. jws1 says

    Wow. Sure am glad I never went, and never will, to this “Slymepit” I’ve heard so much about. Pretty much just a bunch of little boys giving men a bad name. Somebody has Ted Bundy-style issues with women….

  34. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ ^ johngreg : Well, you could comment on your own personal motives, origination and location if you wanted. You could also confirm or deny that the Pit has a post up about this or there are mentions in a thread that there’s a this thread here please go look at it couldn’t you?

    You don’t have to say and respond here of course but since the question has been asked an answer might be appreciated.

  35. Stacy says

    That’s how blogs work, isn’t it: New posts; new commenters; growth, and so on and so forth.

    Ah, the famous Slymepit disingenuity. How clever.

    I mean, you wouldn’t want utter stagnation, false consensus due to a prescribed and limited commentariat, dogma, and ideology, along with endless repetition, would you? Right? Right

    No, we wouldn’t want that. Happily, it isn’t a problem ’round these parts. Of course bright commenters possessed of moral and intellectual integrity are always welcome. Dim, preening obsessives with an ax to grind–not so much. (Hint–that would be you guys.)

  36. johngreg says

    gmacs said:

    Uh oh, Ed needs to clean up. There’s an ursine turd and other garbage lying around. Seriously, I imagine the pitters just troll through the atheist blogosphere, sniffing, searching, watching. Finally, one pipes up, “Paydirt! Someone is talking positively about someone we hate. The game is on friends, for these are the moments we live for!”

    Well, speaking for myself (and avoiding the various juvenile insults), I, like, I presume, almost all ‘netisphere denizens, tend to gravitate toward any and all topics of interest, regardless of where they originate. Nonetheless, there are some neighbourhoods that are of more interest than others.

    jws1 said:

    Wow. Sure am glad I never went, and never will, to this “Slymepit” I’ve heard so much about. Pretty much just a bunch of little boys giving men a bad name. Somebody has Ted Bundy-style issues with women

    I think my only legitimate response to this can be a reminder that the various theistic churches of America, and a few other places on our glorious globe, condemned, with great vigour, the film, The Last Temptation of Christ without having seen it.

    I should think/hope that the point is obvious.

    StevoR said:

    @ ^ johngreg : Well, you could comment on your own personal motives, origination and location if you wanted.

    Yes, I could. As to my location, that is, I think, irrelevant; nonetheless, my location is Canada. My experience in both the meatworld, and the ‘netisphere is that Canadians (and most non-American societies), generally speaking, tend to be far, far less reactionary, far more open to real-world critical thinking, and far more accepting of actual free speech and differing opinions than are Americans in both the meatworld, and the ‘netisphere. There are, of course, exceptions to that observation.

    You could also confirm or deny that the Pit has a post up about this or there are mentions in a thread that there’s a this thread here please go look at it couldn’t you?

    Yes, some one individual has a post on the Pit about this post of Ed’s. No, no one said, or even implied “please go look at it”. It was only, and very briefly, mentioned as to its existence. And so what? So far as I am aware, that single post is the only one about it. Is that relevant? Is it somehow wrong, or ideologically illegal to point to or mention posts on other blogs?

    You don’t have to say and respond here of course but since the question has been asked an answer might be appreciated.

    I’m sorry, but I do not understand that comment. What “question has been asked”?

    I would like to reiterate that I think it is inappropriate to derail Ed’s original topic with heated discussions about the Pit, and the Pit people. If anyone is interested in discussing such topics, perhaps they could travel over to the Pit (… http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/index.php), and discuss them there.

  37. dingojack says

    John – Since you seem keen to post here to state some kind of position, you should be man enough to discuss the issues right here & right now. I see a lot of hand-waving and some barely creditable denials, but no actual arguments to support your position nor any to lend force to those denials.
    What is<are your arguments, exactly?
    Dingo

  38. brive1987 says

    Are we talking contraception as in condoms to limit STD or the pill prescribed for baby-less sex (an activity I have no qualms with). If its the latter then I can think of quite a few recreational lifestyle related items I’d also like included. Gym shoes, membership, sports equipment. Without proper gear these healthy discretionary activities can be legitimately dangerous. Plus good foot wear is very expensive – as are professionally run gyms with properly maintained equipment. Ie inaccessible to many.

    Marcotte stopped making sense came when she went from “heath care” to the ideological based “We’d need some anti-discrimination rules to make it fair, so things like contraception should be covered regardless of your personal hang-ups about female sexuality”. Non Sequitur much?

    Full disclosure
    ——————————————
    PZ Myers
    October 30, 2013 at 8:02 pm (UTC -7)
    Ick. Brive1987 was banned from Pharyngula … and is apparently also a member in good standing of the slymepit. The ‘pit is unified by another thing: the utter repugnance of its denizens.

  39. dingojack says

    Nope – since the original argument was ‘why should I pay for female contraception’ that rebuttal was not even close to a non sequitur – nice try, but still a serious reading/logic fail.
    Dingo

  40. says

    Never been to Slymepit. The name alone reeks of some sort of “cutesiness” associated with the artificial “old tyme” spelling that is so popular amongst people who think that D&D is real*.

    Yes, yes, I know that I can’t REALLY know how cool your club is without going there but I’ll just have to live with that. After all, I don’t go to bestiality or kiddieporn sites, either, but I know they’re disgusting.

    General question to the commentariot:

    Does anybody know how many of these douchebags belong to “Promise Keepers” or other “MEN” groups? I see a population of loozerz with control issues–the typical membership roll for any of those orgs.

    Totes disclosure: I am not a real big fan of bossy women.

    Totestotes disclosure: I am not a real big fan of ANY bossy people, regardless their sex.

    * No offense intended toward those who enjoy it as a GAME.

  41. brive1987 says

    The premise in question is whether the avoidance of the natural outcome of sex (in order to maximise the incidence of recreational sex) = “healthcare” – and therefore should be the responsibility of the health safety net funded by you and me.

    Accepting this definition, rather than using some other form of justification, is highly debatable and opens up all sorts of weird scenarios.

    Marcotte however, makes that questionable link without so much as a “hmmm”. Her capacity for considered rational analysis is clouded by her ideological twisting of the healthcare issue into one of “hang-ups about female sexuality”. What the? I have no issue with women wanting sex without consequences. I just don’t see it as being an unambiguous “health care” issue ie an adverse condition caused by illness or injury.

    Maybe it is. But neither side in that debate really had their thinking caps on.

    We may as well roll food stamps into the healthcare program as well as any other benefit likely to prolong life and health. Or perhaps not….

  42. brive1987 says

    Yes, of course the ‘pit can be equated with kiddie porn. Did you even think before typing that?

    The name I believe, was adopted from a description bestowed on the group by a blogger on this network. So seek for twee no longer.

    Since you feel it relevant to this discussion (?) my 2 cents is that it’s a forum of disparate views broadly linked by the common (strong) rejection of the ideological premises underlying a specific brand of SJ. Not the rejection of the ideals of fairness for all [clowns excepted :-) ]

    And yes the ideological rejection is done with a fair amount of lolz and mockery of that which is held dear in some quarters. And of the perpetrators. Bring out the stakes.

    Back to on topic …..

  43. says

    “The premise in question is whether the avoidance of the natural outcome of sex (in order to maximise the incidence of recreational sex) = “healthcare” – and therefore should be the responsibility of the health safety net funded by you and me.”

    No, it’s not, you lying sack of shit.

    Despite what Hannity and you moronz think, it’s not solely (or at least shouldn’t be) a woman’s prerogative to ensure that all her sexin’ is safe and non-(re)productive. If we start throwing MEN in jail for impregnating women and then abandoning them and their child (an option which is very popular with men–with women, not so much) or forcing them to pay support for the product of their loins and live in a shithole dump and give up all sorts of other cool stuff, including their freedom of movement, to do so–well, then you might have a point to make about something; I’m just not sure what.

    Men don’t wanna pay to play and they don’t want to pay when there’s an undesirable “outcome”–this is not conjecture.

    You don’t like Amanda Marcotte, fine; don’t try to peddle your dislike as something that springs from high-minded idealism, asshole.

  44. Michael Heath says

    brive1987 @ 47 and 48,

    To keep on topic; are you arguing that Sean Hannity’s position is a credible one? I ask because you’ve moved the goal posts away from the topic of Ed’s blog post; and that’s how Marcotte responded to a well-known partisan supposedly acting acting inconsistently and hypocritically (as nearly always with Mr. Hannity).

  45. eric says

    Are we talking contraception as in condoms to limit STD or the pill prescribed for baby-less sex (an activity I have no qualms with).

    The latter, of course. Was this a disingenuous question, because I can’t believe anyone above the age of 13 would not know that.

    If its the latter then I can think of quite a few recreational lifestyle related items I’d also like included. Gym shoes, membership, sports equipment. Without proper gear these healthy discretionary activities can be legitimately dangerous.

    The chance of having a baby due to unprotected sex approaches 100%, and a quick googling tells me that hospital deliveries cost around $25,000. Please cite me a sport that the majority of adults engage in where the chance of a $25,000 injury approaches 100%. My point is: if you’re going to make this comparison, you still have to admit that the social “cost of injury” from the “sport of sex” is expected to be much much higher than the social cost of any other sport. A quantitative judgement, where we mitigate the social cost of only this “most dangerous sport” seems like a prefectly reasonable social policy to me.

    Secondly, Because its not just going to be some small subset of the population, it’s going to be practically all of us, that makes this activity a much much stronger candidate for a tax-and-manage approach, because we are all paying for a service all of us will take advantage of. If you’re a gay man, maybe you have some right to complain about paying for a service you don’t use. The rest of us? Really not so much.

    Plus good foot wear is very expensive – as are professionally run gyms with properly maintained equipment. Ie inaccessible to many.

    If there was, in fact, a single sport or physical activity that the vast majority of the US population engaged in, I’d be perfectly happy with a tax-and-subsidize plan that allowed the population to do it safely regardless of their personal wealth. Encouraging preventative medicine seems like a perfectly reasonable expenditure of taxes to me. If (as an analogy) the Swiss want to use taxes to prevent ankle injuries from skiing, hey, that seems like pretty smart planning move to me.

  46. dogmeat says

    Let’s not overpraise Amanda. After all, she won her battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

    All too true. I’ve heard of people coming to a gun fight with a knife, but a spoon?

  47. dogmeat says

    Are we talking contraception as in condoms to limit STD or the pill prescribed for baby-less sex (an activity I have no qualms with). If its the latter then I can think of quite a few recreational lifestyle related items I’d also like included. Gym shoes, membership, sports equipment. Without proper gear these healthy discretionary activities can be legitimately dangerous. Plus good foot wear is very expensive – as are professionally run gyms with properly maintained equipment. Ie inaccessible to many.

    This is an utterly idiotic argument. Oral contraceptives for women, in addition to reducing the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy perform a number of regulatory functions that dramatically reduce the chances women will develop a variety of illnesses later in life. In addition they can help with a number of hormonal imbalances that can make women’s lives miserable. Your argument is akin to arguing that prostate exams shouldn’t be covered because a healthy prostate allows a man to engage in recreational activities.

    The simple fact is, at the bare minimum basic preventative care should be a universal right. To “slut shame” women while at the same time defending the distribution of condoms (which actually are only intended to be used during sexual activities) is really quite slimy and misogynistic.

  48. colnago80 says

    The problem with half wit Hannity, as with limpdick Limbaugh earlier is that the pill is also prescribed for certain medical problems with women that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. But of course, assholes like them are as totally ignorant of medical science as they are of evolution and climate science.

  49. eric says

    @54 and @55 – I’m not a fan of those arguments. I see rational and reasonable policy value in supporting contraception even if its not to solve some specific health issue such as a hormonal imbalance. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a social good, and that (IMO) is the hill which we should defend. Moreover, some of your opponents will likely kick back at you by saying they have no problem coving the pill when a doctor proscribes it to fix those sorts of issues…which would eliminate 90% of contraceptive coverage. Do you want that outcome? Do we want the law to force doctors to lie to the state about why they prescribe the pill? No? Then stop using a defense that leads there. Make the argument for why contraception as contraception should be covered, not for why contraception for ‘off label use’ should be covered.

  50. says

    @56:

    Either what you suggest., Eric, or simply call them the lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes that they are. I lean toward the latter, because my experience is that being nice to assholes makes they happy while not changing their thinking in the least and for my dollar I want them to NOT be happy lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes.

    YMMV.

  51. abear says

    gmacs wrote

    Uh oh, Ed needs to clean up. There’s an ursine turd and other garbage lying around.

    I gather that bit of childish name calling is pointed at me.
    As Ed and regular readers probably know, I have been reading and posting here since sci-blog days.
    Gmacs sounds like a recent reject from 4chan.
    Nevertheless, Ed has the right idea to let his post stand, regardless of how inane or obnoxious gmacs is being. It shows that he (Ed) has enough respect for the intelligence of his readers to let them decide on the validity of the arguments,

  52. abear says

    Democommie wrote:

    January 31, 2014 at 7:21 am (UTC -5)

    Never been to Slymepit. The name alone reeks of some sort of “cutesiness” associated with the artificial “old tyme” spelling that is so popular amongst people who think that D&D is real*.

    Yes, yes, I know that I can’t REALLY know how cool your club is without going there but I’ll just have to live with that. After all, I don’t go to bestiality or kiddieporn sites, either, but I know they’re disgusting.

    It’s very wise of you to make up your mind without investigating the matter. Why bother looking at the Slymepit and hurting your brain by having to think about it when you have reliable sources like PZ, Janine, Hallucinating Liar , and Josh Spokesgay making up your mind for you?
    P.S. If you don’t like bossy women you are a misogynist just like Marc Lepine and would fit in perfectly at the Slymepit.

  53. says

    “P.S. If you don’t like bossy women you are a misogynist just like Marc Lepine and would fit in perfectly at the Slymepit.:

    Excuse me, you lying, misogynistic fuckbagasshole, but you could not possibly be more wrong about that.

    It’s pretty goddamned hilarious that you cherry-picking fucktards can’t even get that the first AND second caveat on that comment were SNARK. You’re fucking pathetic.

    “reliable sources like PZ, Janine, Hallucinating Liar , and Josh Spokesgay making up your mind for you?”

    I have had ONE interaction with P; I don’t think we’ll be lifelong friends. As for him or any of the others making up my mind FOR me, well, that will be happening around the time that, well, NEVER.

    There are some women that I strongly dislike, it has nothing to do with their sex, sexuality or views on either.

    You and your dickwad buddies really don’t make a very good impression for what I might expect to find if I was delusional enough to go your eatingother’sshit daisychain echo chamber.

    Have a wretched day, you pathetic fuckweasel.

  54. says

    Whoops, I’m sorry, I typed something which I sincerely regret.

    “eatingother’sshit” was entirely wrong.

    It should have been, “eatingeachother’sshit”.

    We regret the error.

  55. scienceavenger says

    Re 58 and 59 Your choice to skip the substantive responses and waste time on idle sniping is duly noted, and disappointing.

  56. abear says

    Democommie wrote:

    I have had ONE interaction with P; I don’t think we’ll be lifelong friends. As for him or any of the others making up my mind FOR me, well, that will be happening around the time that, well, NEVER.

    So you make up your mind without any information at all. No wonder all your comments are so stupid!
    As for you not paying attention to the baboons over at Pharyngula, forgive me for thinking they make your mind for you.
    Your style of debate is almost identical to theirs: you say some thing stupid, when challenged on it you get all pissed off and instead of responding with a counter argument you throw a fuckedyfuck shitshit fuck you you fucking doucheweasel tantrum.
    It’s hilarious how predictable you are.

  57. abear says

    @62 Well, I plead guilty to allowing myself respond to those derailing comments instead of just ignoring them. As far as the matter at hand, I don’t hold many of Marcotte’s in high esteem, but I happen to agree with her in this case.

  58. johngreg says

    dingojack said (… freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/01/30/marcotte-pretty-much-destroys-hannity/#comment-298278):

    John – Since you seem keen to post here to state some kind of position, you should be man enough to discuss the issues right here & right now. I see a lot of hand-waving and some barely creditable denials, but no actual arguments to support your position nor any to lend force to those denials. What is<are your arguments, exactly?

    I am a bit nonplussed by your Coulterism, “man enough”. What does that even mean?

    As for discussing the issues right here, right now, and my arguments, what, specifically, are you referring to? My initial comments were simply a reply to Ed’s describing Marcotte as being exemplary of clear thinking, a description with which I quite strongly disagree. As for the rest of my comments, most of them are simply defence replies (so to speak) to the attempted derailments posted by other commenters. I am trying to avoid continuing such derailments, but sometimes a reply is more or less necessary — after all, I do not want to be described as avoiding replying to accusations of this or that.

    democommie said — and so politely too (… freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/01/30/marcotte-pretty-much-destroys-hannity/#comment-298287):

    Never been to Slymepit…. Yes, yes, I know that I can’t REALLY know how cool your club is without going there but I’ll just have to live with that. After all, I don’t go to bestiality or kiddieporn sites, either, but I know they’re disgusting.

    And yet, with no knowledge whatsoever, beyond biased hearsay, you have decided that it is accurate and quite correct to dismiss, debase, and wholly misinterpret the Pit, its members, and what goes on there. Because you want, what? To be a part of the in-group? I guess that must be it. Critical thinking is not exactly your strong point, is it. As I posted earlier, why not have a look at when, where, why, and how the Pit started, before making your baseless condemnatory accusations:

    … phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Freethoughtblogs_timeline

    Does anybody know how many of these douchebags belong to “Promise Keepers” or other “MEN” groups? I see a population of loozerz with control issues–the typical membership roll for any of those orgs.

    So far as I know, none of the douchebags at the Pit are members of any of those groups. And, speaking of groups, we do have a slightly atypically high number of PhDs, and high level professionals — mind you, we also have a lot of low-level nobodies, and even some unemployed folks. One of the nice things about the Pit is its diversity, both demographically speaking and in terms of thought, ideology, and so on. Anyway, there are a small number, perhaps somewhere between 5 and 10 out of a membership of, currently, 850 people, that self-identify as MRA supporters; nonetheless, I do not think that any of those putative MRA supporters are members, specifically, of any particular MRA group or any specific concrete MRM.

    Excuse me, you lying, misogynistic fuckbagasshole, but you could not possibly be more wrong about that. It’s pretty goddamned hilarious that you cherry-picking fucktards can’t even get that the first AND second caveat on that comment were SNARK. You’re fucking pathetic.

    HAHAHA: kettle to pot. Well, the point is, that that description was one that PZ Myers used to describe the members of the Pit. I guess you don’t visit Pharyngula much. On that topic, it should be noted that there is some degree of disagreement as to whether Myers used that description specifically directed to Pit people, or whether it was just a general dismissal of anyone who disagrees with him.

    Lastly, and again, I really wish that the FTB commenters would stop trying to derail Ed’s topic by all these venomous attacks on the Pit. We, like everyone else here, are free to participate in any blogs that are publically available. C’mon, commenters, let’s try to stay on topic.

  59. scienceavenger says

    @64 Fair enough. I for one welcome the new batch of posters, from where ever they come. I confess to not being familiar with the apparent history they seem to have with others here, nor do I particularly care. But I would be interested in hearing why some of you think so little of Mancotte’s thinking abilities.

  60. johngreg says

    scienceavenger, speaking for myself, I think that the primary reason, not the only one, but my primary reason for my tending to dismiss Marcotte as a clear thinker is her views on habeus corpus and rape laws, wherein she is very vocal about changing the law so that any and all men, and specifically only men, accused of rape are considered guilty until proven innocent.

    In general, I think Marcotte is a reactionary, somewhat hysterical, and usually highly wrong-footed individual who is so deeply caught up in her own angry and rather fanatical ideology that she cannot see the trees for the forest — or the other way around; I never can quite get myself straight on that one: trees for forest; forest for trees.

    I also suspect that Marcotte does not really wholly believe in her own rhetoric, but is, for the most part, taking the stance she does with the goal of self-aggrandisement, self-promotion, and the attainment of as large a public position/following as she can get. Clearly and obviously I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think I am.

  61. abear says

    science avenger@66: One of the criticisms I have of Marcotte was her behavior during the Duke Lacross rape case.She didn’t have the intellectual integrity to admit she was wrong and continue to defame the defendants even when it was pretty well proven they were innocent. Then she simply tried to cover her tracks by memoryholing her worst comments.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Marcotte
    Her credentials as a liberal progressive took a pretty big hit when she allowed the book she wrote to have a series of racially insensitive illustrations.
    She does alright when going after low hanging fruit like Hannity and his fellow troglodytes but comes across as shallow and dogmatic when she attempts to tackle something that has nuance.

  62. says

    I am soooooooo upset that the Slymepits trolls don’t like me. I may have to drink some extra beer to assuage the hurt.

    Why don’t you asswipes hook up with Jonathan Gray, he hates teh ladies, too–as well as non-KKKristians, blacks, gays, liberals and other decent human beings. You deserve each other.

  63. brive1987 says

    #49 demo – I’ll address your one cogent point. A man does has a legal responsibility for his children and it should remain a legal responsibility. And if the laws are no good they need to be reviewed against current social values. But that’s not the argument here. The driver for allocating scarce healthcare Insurance money should not be to offset concerns about civil law.

    And I haven’t formed a strong opinion of Marcotte – in general.

    …………………….

    #50 Michael – this blog post is specifically about the perceived inanity of Hannity’s argument and Marcotte’s apparently super-duper put down. Maybe for a high school playground debate she rules; give yourself a rhetorical high five.

    What I actually saw was Marcotte slide slipping contraception into healthcare with a side order of feminist trope together with Ed’s “birth control, which is an absolutely vital element of women’s health care” Hannity was in fact clumsily questioning the premise that underlies both these “certainties”. Marcotte’s argument (and Eds post) did not actually address this, yet they “won”.

    …………………….

    #51 Eric. I was simply wanting to establish clearly that we were talking about contraception to avoid babies rather than contraception to avoid injury and illness (ie healthcare). The confusion shown by later posts (see #54 and 55) indicates mine was a fair question …. Your point is that we should fund contraception not because it can be properly defined as healthcare but for pragmatic (commercial) cost benefit reasons. You make my case for me.

    Separate conception out from a principle based social initiative where it is setting problematic precedents and call it for what it is – a lifestyle subsidy with high ROI.

    Plus why discriminate on a “single sport” – if (as you believe) sport = preventative medicine = should be publicly funded, why limit the flavour consumed?

    Finally “The chance of having a baby due to unprotected sex approaches 100%” Well both my children were planned and easily conceived – yet my wife and I have not used conception (and she is now ‘beyond it’). If we had wanted to, a box of Trojans a week would not have made a dent in the beer and bread budget. If it had and social values were in line, then I’d accept a means tested food stamp style solution.

    No this whole argument is really all about ideology.

    …………………….

    #57 Demo You say –

    “Either what you suggest., Eric, or simply call them the lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes that they are. I lean toward the latter, because my experience is that being nice to assholes makes they happy while not changing their thinking in the least and for my dollar I want them to NOT be happy lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes” and “Have a wretched day, you pathetic fuckweasel.”

    That was scarier than anything I have read on the Slymepit. You would last there 1 min before everyone put you on ignore.

    I suspect you are the type of hidden social threat I warn my kids about. Try and have a nice day

  64. Stacy says

    The name I believe, was adopted from a description bestowed on the group by a blogger on this network.

    How carefully you worded that. The name “was adopted from….”

    The name Slimepit was the description “bestowed on the group by a blogger on this network.”

    The twee slyme-with-a-Y spelling came from y’all.

    But of course you knew that.

  65. johngreg says

    C’mon, c’mon, stop all this derailing. Let’s get back to discussing the Hannity/Marcotte adventure.

    Hannity is a goofusdoofus indeed, but is Marcotte really any better? I think not. What say you all?

  66. dogmeat says

    @54 and @55 – I’m not a fan of those arguments. I see rational and reasonable policy value in supporting contraception even if its not to solve some specific health issue such as a hormonal imbalance. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a social good, and that (IMO) is the hill which we should defend. Moreover, some of your opponents will likely kick back at you by saying they have no problem coving the pill when a doctor proscribes it to fix those sorts of issues…which would eliminate 90% of contraceptive coverage. Do you want that outcome? Do we want the law to force doctors to lie to the state about why they prescribe the pill? No? Then stop using a defense that leads there. Make the argument for why contraception as contraception should be covered, not for why contraception for ‘off label use’ should be covered.

    Eric,

    I agree completely. My argument was primarily to point out that the condom good, oral contraceptive not good (or unjustified) argument was idiotic. I agree with both actually, but claiming that the one serves a useful purpose outside of sexual intercourse while the other is “purely recreational” is an idiotic and downright backwards argument. The former (condom) actually doesn’t have an intended purpose beyond its role in preventing pregnancies and disease, whereas the latter (oral contraceptives) does have substantial health benefits above and beyond its initial purpose. If I had to argue that only one could be covered and the other not (another idiotic argument) I would argue on behalf of the oral contraceptive because of its greater positive health benefits.

  67. says

    “And I haven’t formed a strong opinion of Marcotte – in general.”

    Bullshit.

    “That was scarier than anything I have read on the Slymepit. You would last there 1 min before everyone put you on ignore.”

    Not enough to scare you back under the rock from which you slimetrailed here.

    “C’mon, c’mon, stop all this derailing. Let’s get back to discussing the Hannity/Marcotte adventure.

    Hannity is a goofusdoofus indeed, but is Marcotte really any better? I think not. What say you all?”

    Go fuck yourself? Well, maybe it’s just me saying it, but if you hang around long enough it will become a chorus.

    When you three fucking douchenozzles start showing up on multiple threads, every day, for a while then maybe people will stop thinking that you’re the lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes that you are. It doesn’t mean that you’ll stop BEING lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes; it just means that people will stop thinking of you in only those terms. Prolly not gonna happen.

  68. brive1987 says

    #73 Stacy. Of course I knew. The irony of adopting and ridiculing the Slime/Slyme pit reference in homage to FtB hyperbole is usually lost on commentators here. As is most of the layered irony and humour on the ‘pit – as it’s actually (usually) self described by the members.

    But of course you knew that too.

  69. brive1987 says

    #77. The freedom to politely dissent on multiple FtB threads and blogs is rarely afforded – unless you qualify as a chew toy. I appreciate the fact that this has not been the case here. Demo though, your efforts to be a ‘horde of one’ have not, IMO, contributed to considered conversation.

  70. zenlike says

    74 johngreg

    Hannity is a goofusdoofus indeed, but is Marcotte really any better?

    Yes, she is.

    I think not. What say you all?

    That you are an MRA troll.

  71. Michael Heath says

    dogmeat @ 75:

    The former (condom) actually doesn’t have an intended purpose beyond its role in preventing pregnancies and disease . . .

    brive1987 responds @ 76 by quoting dogmeat above, but leaving out dogmeat’s “and disease” phrase:

    Are you serious?
    http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/byAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSActivities/ucm126372.htm
    Posting privileges revoked until you get a coffee.

    Quote-mining works with the David Barton crowd, but not in this forum.

  72. cry4turtles says

    Pregnancy is a medical condition. Contraception is to pregnancy as RA medications are to RA. There really shouldn’t be any belief or moral arguments involved. Facts are facts.

  73. scienceavenger says

    @70

    I was simply wanting to establish clearly that we were talking about contraception to avoid babies rather than contraception to avoid injury and illness (ie healthcare).

    I don’t see what distinction you are trying to draw here. Pregnancy carries with it considerable effects to the body, which is why so many consider it a “vital part of women’s health care”. On a very base level, a pregnancy is comparable to a parasitic infection. Seems perfectly in line with health care to me.

    Separate conception out from a principle based social initiative where it is setting problematic precedents and call it for what it is – a lifestyle subsidy with high ROI.

    Why? I’ve reread this sentence 5 times and can’t for the life of me extract any meaning from it that adds to the discussion. What exactly are you getting at here? Surely you’re not trying to revive the “gym mmbership” argument, which struck me about as about as reasonable as the “if raising the minimum wage is good then why not raise it to $100,000/hr” argument I saw one talking head propose.

    Unwanted pregnancy is a serious social problem. I fail to understand why you’d go to so much rhetorical effort working to stop a program to address it.

  74. says

    “I appreciate the fact that this has not been the case here. Demo though, your efforts to be a ‘horde of one’ have not, IMO, contributed to considered conversation.”

    Allowing you asswipes to comment is Ed’s prerogative, likewise his allowance of “hordes of one” (I’m stealing that, btw–it’s the only remotely intelligent thing you’ve said here) like moi to mock your ludicrous handwaving outrage and point and laugh at you.

    FWIW, I give exactly not a fuck about how you feel about me.

    I promise to never seek you or your lameass circlejerk society at whatever moldering, chancre infested shithole you call home; return the favor and we’ll all be happy–or at least less upset.

    @80:

    “That you are an MRA troll.”

    Yes and not even particularly good at trolling.

  75. says

    Michael Heath “brive1987 responds @ 76 by quoting dogmeat above, but leaving out dogmeat’s “and disease” phrase:”
    You monster! Are you trying to imply that he’s arguing in Bad Faith simply because he’s arguing in Bad Faith?

  76. johngreg says

    zenlike said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/01/30/marcotte-pretty-much-destroys-hannity/#comment-298586):

    … you are an MRA troll.

    HAHAHAHA. Having an opinion that differs from yours does not make me a troll. And, for the record, I do not, never have, and never will, identify with or support any MRA movement or group. I self-define as a humanist — not a feminist; not an MRA; a humanist.

    Like many other people, I think Marcotte is a dogmatic fanatic ersatz RadFem with some very, very disturbing opinions and ideologies. I believe she is a danger to rational thought. You can disagree with that all you want; nothing wrong with that. But to make groundless and false accusations is a waste of both my, and your, time.

    democommie, why don’t you try to set aside your raging derails, and join the on-topic conversation?

    democommie said:

    FWIW, I give exactly not a fuck about how you feel about me.

    Then why on Earth are you raging on and on and on about it?

  77. johngreg says

    dogneat said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/01/30/marcotte-pretty-much-destroys-hannity/#comment-298574):

    … the latter (oral contraceptives) does have substantial health benefits above and beyond its initial purpose.

    Could you expand on that? The only health benefits I’ve ever heard of, from my mother, sister, and various female friends, is a reduction in the general discomfort (and duration) of menses. On the other hand, I’ve heard, from my mother, sister, and various female friends, of many and several health negatives, including increased risk of cancer, among others. So, seriously, could you list some of the “substantial health benefits” of oral contraceptives?

  78. zenlike says

    86 johngreg

    I think Marcotte is a dogmatic fanatic ersatz RadFem with some very, very disturbing opinions and ideologies. I believe she is a danger to rational thought.

    But you are not an MRA, nosirree. Glad we cleared that up.

  79. johngreg says

    But you are not an MRA, nosirree. Glad we cleared that up.

    No, I’m not an MRA or a supporter of same.

    If you think that my lack of respect or trust for Marcotte equals being an MRA, you are doolally.

    Tell me, zenlike, do you think that Marcotte’s desire for an eradication of habeas corpus and the rule of law in the specific case of men accused of rape is a legitimate, and/or thoughtful, and/or wise, and/or desireable goal? Do you think her views on that issue represent clear thining?

  80. says

    “democommie, why don’t you try to set aside your raging derails, and join the on-topic conversation?

    democommie said:

    FWIW, I give exactly not a fuck about how you feel about me.

    Then why on Earth are you raging on and on and on about it?”

    You really don’t get it, do you? You fucking moron.

    There is no “on-topic conversation”.

    You and your assholetroll palz are doing a drive-by, like Paulbots, Rombots and various KKKristian ReiKKKwingers do. You have some goofy notion that I’m the ONLY person who doesn’t give a fuck what you think. Have you noticed that most of the comments are inane horseshit (dishonest, inane horseshit, at that) by you and your Sickfuckslymer buddyz and insults by me? Here’s a hint, shit for brains, you’re not winnin’ the thread.

    I don’t give a fuck what you think. I do give a fuck that you continue to pollute this blog with your MRA crap. Fuck you, fuck all of your friends, fuck your families…oh, no, wait, they’re YOUR families, they’re already fucked.

  81. zenlike says

    90 johngreg

    Marcotte’s desire for an eradication of habeas corpus and the rule of law in the specific case of men accused of rape is a legitimate, and/or thoughtful, and/or wise, and/or desireable goal? Do you think her views on that issue represent clear thining?

    [citation needed]

  82. johngreg says

    Amazing, democommie, amazing.

    I am rendered speechless by your deep erudition and your eloquence.

    Stunning.

    So, democommie, master of the finely tuned ad hominem, do you think that Marcotte’s desire for an eradication of habeas corpus and the rule of law in the specific case of men accused of rape is a legitimate, and/or thoughtful, and/or wise, and/or desireable goal? Do you think her views on that issue represent clear thinking?

    Also, perhaps you could explain why my lack of respect or trust for Marcotte somehow translates, magically, into my being an MRA, even though I claim otherwise?

  83. johngreg says

    zenlike, your request for a citation is certainly a legitimate request, but as it was many years ago that she made those statements, I am not sure if I can track them down — for one thing, Marcotte has made something of a habit of removing/deleting any posts/comments she makes that might eventually bite her in the butt, so to speak. But I’ll have a look around and see if I can find them.

  84. abear says

    Hey dramacommie; if you’re starting to run out of stupid stuff to say maybe you could “win the thread” big time by taking some tips from this guy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zslSCzuSObY
    I bet this is the most wound up you’ve been since they kicked you out of the Young Republican Club in high school!

  85. johngreg says

    Apparently, I was right: Marcotte deleted the post:

    Journalist Cathy Young described Marcotte as a leader of a “cyber-lynch mob,” writing that, “in Marcotte’s eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.”[23] The post attracted so much commentary, including from The New York Times, that Marcotte ended up deleting it.

    Some links:

    – … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Marcotte

    – … realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/21/feminism_and_amanda_marcotte_106038.html

  86. Jacob Schmidt says

    I note that Cathy Young, despite having access to the Marcotte’s article before it was taken down, was unable to produce any quote that demonstrates Marcotte thinking “the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.”

    Really, if someone with access to the article in question is unable to demonstrate any such thing, your word on the matter is worthless.

  87. says

    Hey Ed,

    I saw this post of yours a few days ago and read Marcotte’s post and I honestly couldn’t figure out how Amanda destroyed Hannity.

    In fact her answer was so bizarre and clearly wrong that I had a hard time understanding how you could feel it demonstrates she “is actually capable of thinking clearly”. I sort of felt sort of bad for you.

    Marcotte writes:

    Hannity griped, “Why are people accused of waging a war on women if they don’t want to pay for their birth control, which is inexpensive?” When his caller tried to point out that not everyone has that kind of money, he started to holler, “But why don’t women like yourself, then, maybe then have an ‘adopt-a-woman’ birth control program? In other words, why should the government be doing it?”

    You may think I’m going to try to argue Sean Hannity down, but in fact, I think he’s onto something here. Perhaps there could be a program where everyone who needs health care, including contraception, pays into a common pool that we can draw out of. You could pay monthly into it—let’s call that payment a “premium”—and when you need things like drugs or doctor’s visits, you could show a membership card instead of writing a check. Some employers might elect to save money by buying group plans instead of having their employees buy individually. We’d need some anti-discrimination rules to make it fair, so things like contraception should be covered regardless of your personal hang-ups about female sexuality. You can call it an “adopt-a-woman” program, I guess, but I think a simpler term that would both be more comprehensive and male-inclusive would be “health insurance.”

    She never address his point. Or seems to understand it.

    Hannity’s point: he doesn’t want to pay for women’s BC, and doesn’t think gov’t insurance should require it, and is okay if women want a special self interest non governmental optional insurance plan to cover that.

    If Marcotte wants to join a group of women (and/or men) who want to pool into a plan to pay for each other’s birth control, that’s fine.

    That’s what scuba divers do, and I believe skydivers do, and climbers do.

    But I don’t join those special interest insurance groups. And there’s a good chance you don’t either.

    While I have absolutely no problem with ACA paying for women’s birth control at all, nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable to consider an ACA plan that would not pay for women’s birth control, and still consider that plan a huge advance over what we have now.

    And if women wanted to then create an “adopt-a-woman” birth control program, that would be like scuba diver insurance, or like Costco. That would not **require** a government ACA program and it would not require Hannity or similarly minded people to pay into it.

    In fact, I believe that’s what Canadians and Britons do for supplemental insurance to enhance their national insurance plans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
    > In some provinces, private supplemental plans are available for those who desire private rooms if they are hospitalized.

  88. Michael Heath says

    jacquescuze writes:

    Hannity’s point: he doesn’t want to pay for women’s BC, and doesn’t think gov’t insurance should require it . . .

    Are you too at Sean Hannity’s level of cogency and also don’t understand how these two points do not compute? How about trying to think this through yourself, carefully this time, prior to asking someone to spoon feed you the problem with what you wrote.

  89. johngreg says

    Jacob, me ol’ pally, excuse me if I have misunderstood you, and please clarify — if necessary.

    What I think you are saying is:

    1. Cathy Young failed to have the foresight/precognition to presume/assume/know that Marcotte would delete her own post.

    2. Young’s failure to have that foresight/precognition, therefore, renders the generally well known and understood instance of Marcotte’s post, erm, non-existent — some kind of magical time machine thingy, I guess.

    3. My failing to know/presume/assume/precognitively knowing Young’s failure to foretell, precognitively, the future therefore renders my opinion, um, moot; meaningless; invalid; worthless.

    Have I got that right, me ol’ mucker?

    Kind of reminds me of my first year or so of posting comments on various FTB blogs, where my posts were deleted (and in my naive innocence, I did not in any way anticipate such deletions and therefore took no screenies) after various and several accusations, directed my way, of some kind of infidelity were posited, but I had no way to clarify the issue with any proofs because my posts were deleted, and the deleters had fun making all sorts of mendacious post-deletion accusations about my deleted posts that because of the deletions I could not defend. Several commenters then demanded that I prove that my posts were deleted after I was banned. Well, I am no sort of a magician, but even so, I fail to see how one can prove that one’s posts were deleted after one was banned from a blog. Nah, I don’t get it.

    What a wonderful world it is.

  90. Jacob Schmidt says

    Cathy Young failed to have the foresight/precognition to presume/assume/know that Marcotte would delete her own post.

    Uhh… no. Young was quite happy to quote Marcotte. She does so right before she accuses Marcotte of wanting to do away with the presumption of innocence. I find it highly suspicious that Young is willing to quote Marcotte except when it pertains to the actual claim Young was making.

    My failing to know/presume/assume/precognitively knowing Young’s failure to foretell, precognitively, the future therefore renders my opinion, um, moot; meaningless; invalid; worthless.

    Oy.

    I am sympathetic to people trying to make a case after the evidence has disappeared, or when the evidence is inherently sparse. It sucks. It sucks for rape victims. It sucks for people targeted by corrupt police officers. It sucks for people trying to pin down the purportedly abhorrent words found in an internet post that now no longer exists. It sucks. I get it. I’m usually willing to cut people some slack. In fact I did just that with your assertions here.

    But then, it seems others have tried making the same case, or at least a similar one. They did so with full access to any evidence they needed. They then failed to do so. Given that, I don’t care about your word anymore.

    (Side note: you are aware that “habeas corpus” refers to one’s right to trial in court, yes? I ask because this is the only instance I see of someone asserting that Marcotte wants to abolish habeas corpus in rape trials. Everyone else is asserting that Marcotte wants to do away with presumption of innocence.)

  91. brive1987 says

    # 85, 81 I quite rightly read and digested the point ‘condoms do not have the same value add over oral’ and quoted what I heard not what was written. Mea culpa – not that the original point raised is any more cogent or relevant to any of the arguments here as a result. My WTF moment was simply un-needed.

    #83 Your only stated reasons for including contraception in health insurance are “considerable effects to the body” and that “unwanted pregnancy is a serious social problem” Other lifestyle activities have the same effect. Your principle can be extended to include insurance paying out for nutritional food and other drivers for a continuing healthy lifestyle. Which is stupid.

    But is getting pregnant the responsibility of the individual like eating well or keeping fit? I guess it’s necessary to point out the obvious – getting pregnant is not an illness like cancer or the equivalent of somehow ingesting a parasite.

    So eat your fruit and if you want consequence free sex better stock up on something as well. We won’t subsidise the former and I don’t see why we should subsidise the guy buying his condoms for a good night out.

    Now if you are too poor to buy contraception and you are being priced out of some nifty PIV fun – then I guess as a society we could extend some largess to these unfortunates – but that’s a different story altogether; analogous to food stamps.

  92. Jacob Schmidt says

    We won’t subsidise the former and I don’t see why we should subsidise the guy buying his condoms for a good night out.

    My highschool handed out condoms for free. All I had to do was talk to the nurse. My local hospital gives free condoms. My university gives free condoms (again, just visit the school clinic). The government health centre gives out free condoms. Pretty much all of that comes from government subsidizing. This sort of thing is pretty standard in Canada, too.

  93. brive1987 says

    True – but the interesting thing here is exploring the social value principles at play.

    We choose to subsidise the 45 year old man’s condoms because …
    We choose not to subsidise fresh fruit because ….

    I just don’t appreciate the brain dead “of course contraception is an objectively obvious healthcare issue for all men and women and should be subsidised as such”

    There may be a logical social-values consistent nuanced approach – but firing off an ideologically blinkered base as we saw in the OP is not a clever way forward.

  94. Jacob Schmidt says

    We choose to subsidise the 45 year old man’s condoms because …
    We choose not to subsidise fresh fruit because ….

    Fruit may not generally be subsidized, but many forms of farming are. For the record, I have no problem with subsidizing fruit.

    There may be a logical social-values consistent nuanced approach – but firing off an ideologically blinkered base as we saw in the OP is not a clever way forward.

    Did you just assert that promoting insurance for a specific class of prescription drugs is “ideologically blinkered”?

  95. dingojack says

    I confess I haven’t been paying much attention to this ‘argument’ here’s a few (randomish) thoughts:

    a) Pregnancy is a public health issue. You can pay a little now, or a lot later. Which would you prefer?

    b) You claim that issuing contraceptives increases people having sex. Any evidence to show that this is so? And if it does is that a bad thing or not? Again would you prefer paying a little in the short term or a lot in the longer term?

    c) Public health insurers pay money to inform the public about the benefits of not smoking, eating healthily and exercising etc. already. All these are part of the cost of a healthier, more productive population. You may not need these services, you may need other services. Each pays a little to make sure the services the community needs are available.That’s how insurance works.

    d) Interesting that you object to paying for female contraceptives, but not male ones? Why is that so?

    e) Female contraceptives have other health benefits, apart from preventing pregnancy – yet you’re content to hand wave that away in the hope nobody notices. (Not to mention the health benefits of male contraceptives in preventing the spread of disease).

    Just my $0.02.
    Dingo

  96. brive1987 says

    Firstly Marcotte side-stepped the (polite) conversation we are having with the line “everyone who needs health care, including contraception”. An unexamined base premise which actually formed the basis of Hannity’s clumsy effort at a principle based debate.

    The ideology kicked in when she replaced “everyone” with “We’d need some anti-discrimination rules to make it fair, so things like contraception should be covered” I guess condoms don’t count as contraception and men are not part of “everyone”. She then sealed the deal with “personal hang-ups about female sexuality”

    And Ed managed to cover both misdirects with one sentence: “which is an absolutely vital element of women’s health care”

    The three to and fros we have had have been a more interesting discussion then anything in the OP.

    As I said there is undoubtedly a reason to subsidise some contraception and not others. But the basis should be logic and priority of values – not the old MRA/FEM dichotomy.

    And re fruit – I was suggesting that wholesale subsidy of everyone’s contraception was probably less logical than a healthcare based direct subsidy to individuals to buy fruit – if stopping social ills and negative physical impacts was the sole logic in play..

  97. johngreg says

    Jacob said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/01/30/marcotte-pretty-much-destroys-hannity/#comment-298741):

    I am sympathetic to people trying to make a case after the evidence has disappeared, or when the evidence is inherently sparse. It sucks. It sucks for rape victims. It sucks for people targeted by corrupt police officers. It sucks for people trying to pin down the purportedly abhorrent words found in an internet post that now no longer exists. It sucks. I get it. I’m usually willing to cut people some slack. In fact I did just that with your assertions here.

    But then, it seems others have tried making the same case, or at least a similar one. They did so with full access to any evidence they needed. They then failed to do so. Given that, I don’t care about your word anymore.

    (Side note: you are aware that “habeas corpus” refers to one’s right to trial in court, yes? I ask because this is the only instance I see of someone asserting that Marcotte wants to abolish habeas corpus in rape trials. Everyone else is asserting that Marcotte wants to do away with presumption of innocence.)

    Fair play to you. And, for the most part I agree with almost everything you say. However, I am stuck in the position that I have, me, myself, and I, read statements from Marcotte where she stated, unequivocably, clearly, and with sincere intent, and without doubt that, yes, habeus corpus, and the presumption of innocence, should be removed from law in the instance of men being accused of rape — accused, not charged, but accused.

    Now, with all fair play to both you and me, I cannot find those statements, try as I might. That might be because I have invented (imagined/created) them. But I think the more probable reason, in this case, and given her history, and other people’s recollections, and because she has a known record of doing so, is that Marcotte has made a concerted effort of removing all such comments from the ‘net.

    Yes, yes, Jacob, I completely agree that I could be wrong. But, the frustrating fact is that neither I, nor you (for that matter) can prove otherwise.

    Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best.

  98. Jacob Schmidt says

    The ideology kicked in when she replaced “everyone” with “We’d need some anti-discrimination rules to make it fair, so things like contraception should be covered” I guess condoms don’t count as contraception and men are not part of “everyone”. She then sealed the deal with “personal hang-ups about female sexuality”

    You’ve equated something I can buy at a gas station at 3am with prescription drugs. The latter is generally more relevant to a discussion about insurance policy than the former.

    As I said there is undoubtedly a reason to subsidise some contraception and not others. But the basis should be logic and priority of values – not the old MRA/FEM dichotomy.

    Marcotte neither used nor alluded to either ideology in the above quote.

    I was suggesting that wholesale subsidy of everyone’s contraception was probably less logical than a healthcare based direct subsidy to individuals to buy fruit – if stopping social ills and negative physical impacts was the sole logic in play.

    Are you arguing that if one ignore’s anything relevant besides the motivation in question, the action becomes illogical?

    If so, its a trivial conclusion.

  99. Jacob Schmidt says

    However, I am stuck in the position that I have, me, myself, and I, read statements from Marcotte where she stated, unequivocably, clearly, and with sincere intent, and without doubt that, yes, habeus corpus, and the presumption of innocence, should be removed from law in the instance of men being accused of rape — accused, not charged, but accused.

    A frustrating position for you to be in, I’m sure.

    But, the frustrating fact is that neither I, nor you (for that matter) can prove otherwise.

    I feel no need to prove anything (burden of proof and all that).

    Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best.

    See, this, to me, is an interesting assertion. It suggests that we should act on the balance of probabilities, rather than anything like the presumption of innocence.

  100. brive1987 says

    “You’ve equated something I can buy at a gas station at 3am with prescription drugs. The latter is generally more relevant to a discussion about insurance policy than the former.”

    …………………………………………………..

    This was the confusion I tried to clear up (to resounding jeers) with my first comment.

    When Marcotte says “healthcare funded contraception” are we saying ‘oh that’s shorthand for the [prescription medicine] pill’ . Or does it include IUD’s/Vaginal rings/diaphragms? Maybe just SJ approved ‘womens stuff’? How about condoms used for aids prevention? Condoms used by middle aged businessmen for PIV sex so women don’t have to go pharmaceutical?

    You don’t really know do you? And that’s because once you drop the idea of general contraception for consequence free sex there is no transparent logical guiding principle at play. And once you do adopt that concept the idea of it being ‘healthcare’ becomes tenuous at best.

    Re the ideology – if you don’t get a jolt when ‘contraception for everybody’ morphs in less than two paras to lets stick em for having “personal hang-ups about female sexuality” then lets drop it.

  101. dingojack says

    Brive – so you think AIDS, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and the like has any idea of the chronological age of their hosts, and do you really think it matters to them why the sex is occurring? Do you think you’d have the same attitude to Black Plague, Yellow Fever, Smallpox and the rest? Or is it just the sex part you find especially icky, and therefore somehow ‘beyond the pale’?
    “… once you drop the idea of general contraception for consequence free sex …”
    And your evidence for this tenuous assumption is, what exactly?

    Dingo

  102. johngreg says

    Thanks, Brive; got it. Pondering the lunacy.

    Jacob, ol chum:

    See, this, to me, is an interesting assertion. It suggests that we should act on the balance of probabilities, rather than anything like the presumption of innocence.

    I am sometimes victim of a kind of intellectual vacuum, er, stupidity. And so, I do not know what you mean. Please clarify. I am not being trollish (or whatever today’s current hash is); I am sincere in my claim to not understanding your comment. As I say, please clarify.

  103. zenlike says

    So we now have to take the word of an equity feminist that truly, Marcotte is a dreadful human being. Proof? We need no stinking proof, only the words of an anti-gender-feminist and frequent ally of the men’s rights movement.

    Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best.

    Again, no proof, just your words. johngreg, a dishonest smarmy idiot, as always.

  104. Stacy says

    democommie #46:

    Never been to Slymepit. The name alone reeks of some sort of “cutesiness” associated with the artificial “old tyme”

    brive1987 #48:

    The name I believe, was adopted from a description bestowed on the group by a blogger on this network. So seek for twee no longer

    me #73:

    The twee slyme-with-a-Y spelling came from y’all….But of course you knew that.

    brive1987 #78:

    Of course I knew. The irony of adopting and ridiculing the Slime/Slyme pit reference in homage to FtB hyperbole is usually lost on commentators here. As is most of the layered irony and humour on the ‘pit – as it’s actually (usually) self described by the members.

    Ah, I see. So the reason your response to democommie failed to acknowledge the fact that the twee old-timey “Slyme” spelling was added by pitters, and was not the name originally bestowed by the “blogger on this network,” was…something something, layered irony and humour.

    Got it.

    (Ah, all the self-described layered irony and humour we FtBullies are missing by not frequenting the pit!)

  105. says

    “Amazing, democommie, amazing.

    I am rendered speechless by your deep erudition and your eloquence.

    Stunning.”

    Obviously, you’re not rendered speechless, the shit just keeps spillin’ outta your piehole.

    I do believe that I’ve made it abundantly clear on this thread (and many, many others) that arguing with trolls to change their “reasoned” views is akin to teaching pigs to sing–with pigs learning to sing being the more likely of the two exercises to result in success.

    “So, democommie, master of the finely tuned ad hominem.”

    My bad, my insults are not intended to demean you and your fuckbuddy’z idiotic positions BECAUSE you’re a gaggle of lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes. No, it just happens that you and your lying, misogynistic fuckbagasshole palz are completely full of shit AND you’re lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes*.

    “Also, perhaps you could explain why my lack of respect or trust for Marcotte somehow translates, magically, into my being an MRA, even though I claim otherwise?”

    followed, a few minutes later with this:

    “Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best..”

    Is a level of unselfawareness that I usually only see in invertebrates (no offense intended towards cockroaches, slime mold and the like).

    Jacob Schmidt:

    I don’t remember seeing your comments before; I’m sorry if I missed them as you’re doing a good job of handing these clowns their hats (or do they wear hoodz, they do sound a bit KKKristian KKKlannish in their sentiments towards women).

    Unfortunately, I think that you will find any comment other than:

    “Wow, you guyz are like SOOOOO right; the scales have fallen from before my eyes, Wimmenz are BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD, especially Amanda Marcotte, that crazee bitch! Can I join your KKKool KKKlub?”

    will have precisely the same effect as, “Fuck you, you moronz.” or other, more inflammatory insults.

    I look forward to seeing your comments in other fora.

    * I just found out the other day that I have some pretty bad carpal tunnel syndrome and should prolly spend less time (and wasting the bulk of it) on various blogs. I will in future have to hope that you and your fellow Shytepitters are not upset that I’m using LMF/MRA instead of the longer lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes/MRA in referring to you, individually or as a group. Is that okay with you lying, misogynistic fuckbagassholes? If not, let’s compromise, I’ll do that and you can go fuck yourselves. Okay? Great, I’m glad we could clear that up.

  106. says

    jacquescuze “While I have absolutely no problem with ACA paying for women’s birth control at all, nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable to consider an ACA plan that would not pay for women’s birth control, and still consider that plan a huge advance over what we have now.
    And if women wanted to then create an “adopt-a-woman” birth control program, that would be like scuba diver insurance, or like Costco. That would not **require** a government ACA program and it would not require Hannity or similarly minded people to pay into it.
    In fact, I believe that’s what Canadians and Britons do for supplemental insurance to enhance their national insurance plans.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
    > In some provinces, private supplemental plans are available for those who desire private rooms if they are hospitalized.”

    Birth control is private rooms now? My God, how big are uteruses, anyway?!

  107. Jacob Schmidt says

    Johngreg

    I am sometimes victim of a kind of intellectual vacuum, er, stupidity. And so, I do not know what you mean. Please clarify. I am not being trollish (or whatever today’s current hash is); I am sincere in my claim to not understanding your comment. As I say, please clarify.

    This is what you wrote: “Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best.

    You are suggesting that we assume what you feel is the more reasonable conclusion, not the conclusion that is evident. That conclusion is that she is guilty (i.e. assuming the worst) based on her purported history. Even if I were to accept that you are correct about her history, I would still need to eschew presuming innocence in order to conclude that she is guilty.

    brive

    You don’t really know do you?

    The limits Marcotte wants to set on contraception covered by insurance policies? No, I don’t know that, and you’re really better off asking her herself. But the fact that she limits her reasoning to birth control pills while debating the insurance coverage of birth control pills is not evidence of her being unreasonable.

    And that’s because once you drop the idea of general contraception for consequence free sex there is no transparent logical guiding principle at play. And once you do adopt that concept the idea of it being ‘healthcare’ becomes tenuous at best.

    Again, you are accepting motivations and dismissing everything else relevant. Accepting that consequence free sex is a good thing for society, and accepting that contraception counts as health care, there is still a distinction to be made between prescription drugs and over the counter stuff. Once more, the former is generally more relevant to a discussion about insurance policies than the latter.

    You’d might as well complain that prescription pain killers are often covered under insurance, but aspirin isn’t.

    Re the ideology – if you don’t get a jolt when ‘contraception for everybody’ morphs in less than two paras to lets stick em for having “personal hang-ups about female sexuality” then lets drop it.

    The discussion about women’s contraception morphed into an offhand jab about attitudes surrounding women’s contraception (i.e. how some people feel about women having largely consequence free sex while on the pill). Even if I were accept your description, it still does not demonstrate any sort of MRA/FEM dichotomy. I think that jolt you’re feeling is an invention of your own.

    At this point, it seems to me that you wish to eschew any sort of context to defend your preferred conclusion.

    Stacy

    Thank you.

  108. johngreg says

    Jacob said:

    You are suggesting that we assume what you feel is the more reasonable conclusion …

    Well, not quite. I am not really suggesting that you (or anyone) should assume anything. I am really only stating my opinion, which, of course, you can do whatever you wish with it that you want to do.

    … not the conclusion that is evident.

    I do not see any conclusion as being clearly “evident”. I think it all rests on individual interpretation. You, I am presuming, are a fan, or supporter, or believer, or something like that, of things Marcotte; I am not. Hence, the twain shall probably not meet.

    That conclusion is that she is guilty (i.e. assuming the worst) based on her purported history.

    Yes, that is my conclusion. You may have a different conclusion depending on your interpretation of her statements, etc.

    Even if I were to accept that you are correct about her history, I would still need to eschew presuming innocence in order to conclude that she is guilty.

    Sorry, I don’t quite get that. I don’t really understand that sentence. Could you clarify?

    Also, I am stil curious about what dogmeat meant when s/h/it claimed:

    … the latter (oral contraceptives) does have substantial health benefits above and beyond its initial purpose.

  109. Steersman says

    Al Dente (#28):

    A couple of pitters are trying to pretend their misogynist cult isn’t a misogynist cult. They look so cute when they’re lying through their teeth.

    Nice bit of stereotyping there Al – rather like your fearless leader’s apparent chacterization of everyone who questions any tenet of the modern religion of “feminism” as carrying the name Marc Lepine. Classic demagoguery if the truth be known.

  110. Steersman says

    John Greg (#33):

    I mean, those two things, Marcotte and clear thinking, do not go together: oil and water; chalk and cheese; etc

    I would certainly agree with you that Marcotte has been known to engage in some seriously fuzzy thinking, notably around “feminism” in general and, apparently, about the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, particularly in rape cases. Something which even “Jadehawk” has conceded in her criticism of Marcotte being susceptible to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy with regard to feminism in general. An all-too-common failing of many “feminists”, from Brownmiller’s deprecation of “scientific methodology” in justification of her highly questionable hypothesis that “our nation’s cultural output promotes a climate in which acts of sexual hostility directed against women are not only tolerated but ideologically encouraged”; to the “virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students” in various “Women’s Studies” [Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies; to Ophelia Benson’s equally egregious “connecting ‘virulent’ with ‘feminism’ is misogyny”. All of which suggests dogma rather than skepticism and critical thinking.

    Although one might reasonably argue that Brownmiller might have at least something of a point in view of Philip Wylie’s observation that “our religions agreed to hold woman the inferior sex, cursed, unclean and sinful”.

    However, in the case in question – medical insurance – I’m not sure that Marcotte doesn’t have at least something of a point. Where I think she and Ed and many others go seriously off the rails is in thinking that paying for contraception should be an all or nothing thing. Far more rational, I think, are the policies of various Canadian provincial healthcare programs (1: search for contraceptives) where it is, apparently and generally, funded up to a level of about 50% depending on a person’s income. Seems remarkably shortsighted for 50% of the population to be putting money into a program that the same 50% – more or less – then takes out again; seems only to fund a bureaucracy and, as the recent TV ads suggest, a serious boondoggle.

    —-
    1) “_http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/benefitslookup/faces/Search.jsp”;

  111. Jacob Schmidt says

    johngreg

    I am not really suggesting that you (or anyone) should assume anything. I am really only stating my opinion, which, of course, you can do whatever you wish with it that you want to do.

    You do not hold your opinion superior to mine? You would not prefer it if I and most other shared your opinion on the matter? Assuming both things are true, then I think there is little distinction to be made between stating your opinion and suggesting that we agree.

    I do not see any conclusion as being clearly “evident”.[1] I think it all rests on individual interpretation.[2] You, I am presuming, are a fan, or supporter, or believer, or something like that, of things Marcotte; I am not.[3]

    1) Yet you support a particular conclusion; you, therefore, support a conclusion that is not evident.

    2) The current issue at hand is whether or not Marcotte supported the removal of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence from rape prosecution. You asserted above that statements to that effect have, at some point, existed, and that you had personally witnessed them. Do you wish to concede that such was merely your interpretation of Marcotte’s words, and that other interpretations are equally valid?

    3) Nor am I. I have no stake in defending Marcotte.

    Sorry, I don’t quite get that. I don’t really understand that sentence. Could you clarify?

    I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. You advocated assuming the worst of Marcotte. That runs directly against any concept of “presuming innocence” or “innocent until proven guilty.”

    … the latter (oral contraceptives) does have substantial health benefits above and beyond its initial purpose.

    A substantial portion of women find some aspects of menstruation painful and debilitating. A smaller group of women suffer from menstruation related medical problems. Both are often mitigated by oral contraceptives.

    Steersman

    Where I think she and Ed and many others go seriously off the rails is in thinking that paying for contraception should be an all or nothing thing.

    Where did you read that idea?

  112. johngreg says

    Jacob said:

    You do not hold your opinion superior to mine?

    Superior? No, not particularily. Perhaps more valid, but I hold no absolutist illusions about that. I may very well err in my opinion. But different, yes. And, for me, preferable, but no, not necessarily superior.

    You would not prefer it if I and most other shared your opinion on the matter?

    Well, yes, I would like that; but it is certainly not a requirement. I enjoy differences of opinion, especially when well stated, as they can lead to a change of mind, or at the very least, an expansion of knowledge. When it comes to free speech and freethought, I try to practice what I preach — in a secular fashion of course.

    Yet you support a particular conclusion; you, therefore, support a conclusion that is not evident.

    That could only be true if we all agreed that said conclusion was or was not evident. I try to hold no such absolutist certainties. And I do not think that any conclusions are necessarily evident: because they require interpretation.

    The current issue at hand is whether or not Marcotte supported the removal of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence from rape prosecution. You asserted above that statements to that effect have, at some point, existed, and that you had personally witnessed them. Do you wish to concede that such was merely your interpretation of Marcotte’s words, and that other interpretations are equally valid?

    No. I read her words, and they were crystal clear. However, anyone who has not heard of or read Marcotte’s statements on that issue might very well come to the conclusion that she did not say what I suggest she said; however, that would be making a conclusion based on a lack of evidence.

    You advocated assuming the worst of Marcotte. That runs directly against any concept of “presuming innocence” or “innocent until proven guilty.”

    Not at all. My advocation of Marcotte’s views of habeus corpous and the rule of law is not an assumption, it is based on her own, now deleted, words. That is evidence. Just because that evidence is no longer, apparently, available, does not mean that it never existed.

    A substantial portion of women find some aspects of menstruation painful and debilitating. A smaller group of women suffer from menstruation related medical problems. Both are often mitigated by oral contraceptives.

    Yes. I believe I already said that, didn’t I? I was wondering if dogmeat had some other health benefits in mind.

  113. Steersman says

    Al Dente (#126):

    You bring up Marc Lepine? What’s the matter, pitter, guilty conscience?

    Why, should I have one? You have some evidence that I’ve gone around and shot a dozen women engineering students? To quote someone that you’re probably familiar with: FLOOSH!

    But nothing like taking some small similarity – questioning of “feminist” dogma and ideology for example – between groups of people and inferring that they’re identical in every other aspect. Tends to betray some highly questionable thinking processes if not some outright bigotry. You might want to consider the problems that follow from letting others do your thinking for you – you might want to start by reading this review of the book Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies.

  114. Jacob Schmidt says

    Superior? No, not particularily. Perhaps more valid, but I hold no absolutist illusions about that.
    -SNIP-
    Well, yes, I would like that; but it is certainly not a requirement.

    For the record, I consider “more valid” as “superior.” Validity of one’s opinion is, to me, a criterion for superiority. One need not be absolute about this; I am happy coming to tentative conclusions, particular when such conclusions reflect well upon myself.

    No. I read her words, and they were crystal clear. However, anyone who has not heard of or read Marcotte’s statements on that issue might very well come to the conclusion that she did not say what I suggest she said; however, that would be making a conclusion based on a lack of evidence.

    -SNIP-

    Not at all. My advocation of Marcotte’s views of habeus corpous and the rule of law is not an assumption, it is based on her own, now deleted, words. That is evidence. Just because that evidence is no longer, apparently, available, does not mean that it never existed.

    There’s some confusion here. While, in this specific instance, you claim to have seen the evidence for Marcotte’s opinion on habeas corpus, you suggested that one should assume the worst of Marcotte, at least in your opinion.* Now, assumptions are rather unnecessary when one has evidence, so I’ve concluded that you feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of Marcotte when you lack evidence. Such assumptions, at least in my estimation, run counter to the presumption of innocence (i.e. that one should assume at least a neutral stance, rather than assuming the worst).

    If you do not feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of Marcotte when evidence is lacking, I’m curious as to when you do feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of her.

    * “Marcotte is not a rational individual, and I think that in her case it is more reasonable to assume the worst rather than the best.

  115. Steersman says

    Jacob Schmidt (#127):

    Where did you read that idea?

    I probably should have said “[where they’re] off the rails is in apparently thinking that paying for contraception should be an all or nothing thing.” But consider what Ed said:

    The government isn’t paying for free birth control, it is requiring that birth control, which is an absolutely vital element of women’s health care, be included in the insurance policies.

    And a salient statement from Marcotte:

    … the real program—women buy insurance, that insurance covers contraception ….

    You see anything in there where they’ve qualified those claims to suggest that most women would pay for birth control out of their own pockets? They’re still apparently thinking that, analogous to King Canute, they can simply pass a law and they will be magically absolved of any necessity of paying for their benefits. If a large percentage of a population – presumably women on birth control pills – require a product or service from an insurance company then the premiums have to be adjusted to pay for them – maybe you’ve heard of the “no free lunch principle”? And, according to this site, Americans spend some $5 billion every year on birth control – you maybe think that the insurance companies aren’t going to want to recover those costs? You maybe think that someone earning $100,000 per year should pay the same premium as someone earning $10,000 per year and get the same benefits, i.e, the birth control pills and many other services?

    Seems far more rational – and more workable and more equitable – to have lower premiums for everyone with the richer paying more directly for most services while the poorer pay less. While I certainly don’t know the specifics of how your system is supposed to work (badly, methinks), here in Canada most people seem to pay somewheres in the range of $100 per month to a government run program which covers many “basics” and, apparently, up to 50% of birth control products. But those on low income either get subsidized prices or they get rebates through their taxation forms.

    Maybe quite reasonable for Marcotte to emphasize the benefits of various insurance programs, although one might suggest, at least, that she’s never heard of the aphorism about the devil and the details. Something that tends to be very typical of those who are overly dogmatic: “Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up!”

  116. Steersman says

    Jacob Schmidt (#127):

    There’s some confusion here. While, in this specific instance, you claim to have seen the evidence for Marcotte’s opinion on habeas corpus, you suggested that one should assume the worst of Marcotte, at least in your opinion.*

    Maybe you didn’t follow the link – the one that “Abear” provided in #68 – to the Wikipedia article on Marcotte? The one that states:

    Marcotte attracted criticism in January 2007 for her views on the March 2006 Duke lacrosse case, when three students were accused of rape; the students were charged, but the charges were later dropped and the players charged were pronounced innocent by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused were “rape-loving scum.” One comment in particular attracted attention:

    I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.

    Journalist Cathy Young described Marcotte as a leader of a “cyber-lynch mob,” writing that, “in Marcotte’s eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault.” The post attracted so much commentary, including from The New York Times, that Marcotte ended up deleting it.

    You read that? You think that that isn’t evidence of some highly questionable thinking on the right to be considered innocent until proven to be guilty? You don’t think that her comments might reasonably justify questioning her rationality? If not her intellectual honesty.

  117. Jacob Schmidt says

    You see anything in there where they’ve qualified those claims to suggest that most women would pay for birth control out of their own pockets?

    I see claims that insurance should provide coverage, not that said coverage need be total coverage for all individuals requesting it.

    Seems far more rational – and more workable and more equitable – to have lower premiums for everyone with the richer paying more directly for most services while the poorer pay less. While I certainly don’t know the specifics of how your system is supposed to work (badly, methinks), here in Canada most people seem to pay somewheres in the range of $100 per month to a government run program which covers many “basics” and, apparently, up to 50% of birth control products.

    I both live in Canada (as stated up thread) and generally approve of our coverage of oral contraceptive; your jab at “my system” is rather amusing.

  118. Jacob Schmidt says

    You think that that isn’t evidence of some highly questionable thinking on the right to be considered innocent until proven to be guilty? You don’t think that her comments might reasonably justify questioning her rationality? If not her intellectual honesty.

    Sure; I don’t agree with that quote. However, it does not demonstrate that Marcotte has “stated, unequivocably, clearly, and with sincere intent, and without doubt that, yes, habeus corpus, and the presumption of innocence, should be removed from law in the instance of men being accused of rape — accused, not charged, but accused.” Such was the evidence under discussion.

  119. Al Dente says

    Steersman @129

    Hey asshole, you’re the one who mentioned Lepine. But I understand, it’s not a guilty conscience. You’re envious that he did something to the women both you and he hate so much. Just don’t get too envious. The cops are also armed and they don’t care about why you hate women.

  120. Steersman says

    Jacob Schmidt (#127):

    I both live in Canada (as stated up thread) and generally approve of our coverage of oral contraceptive; your jab at “my system” is rather amusing.

    I’m obliged to “skim”; I stand corrected.

    However, it does not demonstrate that Marcotte has “stated, unequivocally, clearly, and with sincere intent, and without doubt ….”

    Ok, I’ll concede that that was, at least, a bit of questionable hyperbole, apparently a case of overstating the case. However, you might take a close look at the article from which that Wikipedia one quoted from (here) and ask yourself how credible that author – Cathy Young – is in comparison to Marcotte. And then whether Young’s assertion about “the presumption of innocence … even in cases rape and sexual assualt” is a fair assessment or paraphrase of what Marcotte has written – something, one might note, that Marcotte has deleted and more or less retracted – and then whether that is a reasonable facsimile for “stated, unequivocally … with sincere intent ….”

  121. Steersman says

    Al Dente (#135):

    Hey asshole, you’re the one who mentioned Lepine. But I understand, it’s not a guilty conscience. You’re envious that he did something to the women both you and he hate so much. Just don’t get too envious. The cops are also armed and they don’t care about why you hate women.

    Hey – dickhead – that was an analogy in response to your accusation of misogyny – which you tendered with fuck-all in the way of evidence – which only provides evidence of your ignorance and narrow-mindedness. But if you wish to rectify that deplorable state of affairs then you might start by reading – if you’re capable of putting more than two sentences together – the article on analogies.

  122. Jacob Schmidt says

    However, you might take a close look at the article from which that Wikipedia one quoted from…

    You mean the article upon which I first commented in this thread? Indeed, I might have read that.

  123. Steersman says

    Jacob Schmidt (#138):

    You mean the article upon which I first commented in this thread? Indeed, I might have read that.

    Indeed you did. Though I note that Ms. Marcotte eventually deleted the offending post and, belatedly, genuflected (1) in the direction of “due process”:

    “I do not support [prosecutor] Mike Nifong’s choices in this case and wish generally that rape cases could be handled with due process instead of tried by a public that has politicized what should be a matter for the criminal justice system. Any suggestion that I feel any way about this case outside of that is false.”

    Hardly the actions of someone who felt her words and position were above reproach. In addition, that “due process” was a salient part of her final word suggests that consideration of it was notably lacking in earlier ones. Also, while I will concede that Cathy Young’s comments don’t seem to actually include any quotes of Marcotte that would explicitly justify Young’s “presumption of innocence” comment, although I note Young only said “it seems ….”, you might also wish to refer to this post (2) – unless you’ve already done so – which looks rather damning.

    In particular you might note that the author quotes fairly extensively from no less than 5 of Marcotte’s posts on the Duke case, each one of which has apparently been deleted. And, even apart from what that absence might imply about their prior contents, her frequent references to “rape apologists” and to “white male entitlement to abuse women and get away with it, especially if they are of the wrong sex class or wrong skin color” looks rather much like condemning the accused without the trivial and niggling details of a trial. As the author put it: “That’s an awfully tart take on a case in which any evidence of a rape had to yet be produced.”

    But I can very much sympathize with your earlier comment to the effect “… that trying to make a case after the evidence has disappeared, or when the evidence is inherently sparse … sucks.” The Duke case, the recent revival of accusations against Woody Allen, and, no doubt, thousands more, all with their not inconsiderable measures of grief due to that fact. Part of the reason why I’ve argued on AtheismPlus (3) and elsewhere, and at some length, that iPhone Apps should be developed and used to record more of those types of encounters.

    —-
    1) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Marcotte#Statements_on_Duke_lacrosse_case”;
    2) “_http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186032.php”;
    3) “_http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5336”;

  124. johngreg says

    Jacob said:

    There’s some confusion here. While, in this specific instance, you claim to have seen the evidence for Marcotte’s opinion on habeas corpus, you suggested that one should assume the worst of Marcotte, at least in your opinion.* Now, assumptions are rather unnecessary when one has evidence, so I’ve concluded that you feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of Marcotte when you lack evidence.

    If you do not feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of Marcotte when evidence is lacking, I’m curious as to when you do feel it is reasonable to assume the worst of her.

    A couple of points:

    1. I should probably not have used the word assume, as it seems that you are taking my meaning to be “to take for granted; accept without proof; suppose”, when what I intended was “to take upon oneself; undertake or accept”. A smallish, but important, distinction. Perhaps I should have said adopt, or look upon her behaviour/actions as … or some other, clearer, word/phrase.

    2. Evidence appears to be lacking, but that is not because said evidence never existed, it is because Marcotte has attempted to revise history — so to speak. Anyway, I think Steers more or less covers that issue well enough to be going on with.

    Such assumptions, at least in my estimation, run counter to the presumption of innocence (i.e. that one should assume at least a neutral stance, rather than assuming the worst).

    That actually does not make any sense. One cannot assume a neutral stance if one has read the very words that she wrote. Those words are the evidence, which, however, she has removed in an attempt to improve/preserve her reputation.

    I am a bit unclear on why you are defending Marcotte so strongly. It is common knowledge, so far as I know, that she believes men should be assumed guilty until proven innocent in all cases of rape. Despite her claims otherwise, she is clearly a misandrist. Of course I could be wrong. However, due to Marcottes’ history revision, I cannot prove my point.

    I see that, according to Steers, Marcotte has more or less refuted her initial opposition to due process — I don’t know how she currently stands on habeas corpus. I maintain that she is neither a trustworty nor honest rhetorician, nor does she argue in good faith. That is, of course, only my opinion.

    But, to get back on topic, my primary commentary concern here is to dispute Ed’s description of Marcotte as a clear thinker. In my opinion, clear thinkers do not make a routine habit of deleting their posts/comments, etc., in an attempt to revise their personal history.

  125. Nepenthe says

    OT: Regarding Marcotte’s position on the presumption of innocence in rape/sexual abuse cases, she posted a piece today on that very issue. The relevant quote for this discussion: No feminists that I know of have ever in sincerity said that the court should throw out the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in proving a crime. However, as Brady points out, that’s a criminal standard. It’s perfectly reasonable to have other standards for other situations, such as determining if you feel someone in your community is guilty and needs to be shunned as a danger to women. Or hell, just determining if someone is guilty enough to lose a lawsuit. In civil court, a “preponderance of evidence” standard applies.

    While I understand that it’s difficult for many in this audience to understand, there is a difference between sending a person to jail and not inviting them to parties. Marcotte’s and I and every feminist I know of do not think that a court trial with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is appropriate for the latter.

  126. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Wait Nepenthe. You mean to tell me that known slyme pit regulars are over here lying and distorting the views of a well known feminist?

    Say it ain’t so.

  127. says

    @ Nepenthe:

    Well said. I am happy that I did not have to read more than part of the comment @19 to know that there was a fuckwads infestation on the thread.

  128. Steersman says

    Nepenthe (#141):

    Marcotte’s and I and every feminist I know of do not think that a court trial with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is appropriate for the latter [basis for no invitation to parties].

    You might have a point. Or at least you would have if it weren’t for the rather niggling fact, the inconvenient truth, that the issue in question, at least originally in the Duke case, was someone’s putative guilt for a serious crime with some quite sticky penalties. But nice attempt at moving the goalposts.

    Although I’ll concede that the Vanity Fair article linked to by Marcotte paints a pretty damning picture of Woody Allen’s behaviour towards Dylan.

  129. Steersman says

    Gen, Uppity Ingrate (#142):

    … distorting the views of a well known feminist?

    You mean the one who was so sure and certain of the probity and accuracy of said views that she felt the necessity to delete many of them? That one?

    Marcotte is maybe to be commended, to some extent, for belatedly emphasizing her commitment to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, one might argue that, considering her recent discussion about the Woody Allen case, she is still somewhat unclear on the concept, that what she has more in mind are witch-hunts and lynch-mobs than justice.

  130. Steersman says

    Democommie (#143):

    Well said. I am happy that I did not have to read more than part of the comment @19 to know that there was a fuckwads infestation on the thread.

    Yea, well, I might suggest that there’s a bit of an infestation of dickheads and twats from the Pharyngulag. At least Ed and a few [very few] other bloggers in the “FTB ghetto” are prepared to allow open discussion rather allowing their commentariats to take egregious potshots and then hide behind Mama Myers’ skirts when there’s some inevitable pushback. Reaaal classy.

  131. Nepenthe says

    she has more in mind are witch-hunts and lynch-mobs than justice.

    And, again, suggesting that someone ought not be celebrated, honored, and invited to all the right parties is not equivalent to burning them alive, dragging them behind a car until they die, or hanging them in public and having a picnic around their dangling body. In fact, it isn’t even equivalent to putting them in prison. I know that this is difficult to understand, but it does not actually kill someone if they aren’t invited places and lose friends, even if their rape or sexual assault of someone else is only corroborated by multiple lines of evidence and not a videotape and a bleeding virgin victim.

    So, what happened to those Duke lacrosse players anyway? They must be in prison forever, since clearly that is what happens when men are accused of rape or abuse and Amanda Marcotte has an opinion about it on the internet. What’s that you say? They were acquitted? The prosecuter was disbarred and convicted of criminal contempt? In light of further evidence, Amanda Marcotte revised her opinion of the case? Well, I can only conclude that Marcotte et al. believe that all men should be burned alive by mobs of cheering women (that’s what lynching is, after all).

  132. Steersman says

    Nepenthe (#147):

    And, again, suggesting that someone ought not be celebrated, honored, and invited to all the right parties is not equivalent to burning them alive ….

    I know how hard it is for many of you Pharyngulanas to refer to a dictionary, and how no few of you apparently agree with one “Jennifer B Philips” who insisted that using such is sufficient to cause forfeit of an argument, but you might want to consider that no few words actually have definitions other than the literal variety. In particular, you might want to note the following:

    witch-hunt: An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

    lynch mob: a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority

    Hence, suggesting some analogous degree of correspondence with the harassing of Allen and the apparent attempts to deprive him of the fruits of his labours, all without any conclusive evidence or legal authority to do so. Classy bunch.

    In light of further evidence, Amanda Marcotte revised her opinion of the case?

    Well, bully for her. But only after being the virtual judge-jury-and-hangman in the case, and then following that up by burning the evidence of her “judgements”. As suggested by this (1):

    … conservatives who white wash the Duke rape case are speaking volumes about what entitlements they are willing tolerate, in this case, white male entitlement to abuse women and get away with it, especially if they are of the wrong sex class or wrong skin color.

    Does that look to you like the sober, rational assessment of any type of a credible journalist? Or, more likely, the “foul-mouthed, 8-year-old-like tirades of [a] hyperfeminist”? Go ahead Amanda, keep shooting yourself in the feet. Not to mention discrediting “feminism” – which is almost criminal.

    —-
    1) “_http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186032.php”;

  133. says

    “Yea, well, I might suggest that there’s a bit of an infestation of dickheads and twats from the Pharyngulag. At least Ed and a few [very few] other bloggers in the “FTB ghetto” are prepared to allow open discussion rather allowing their commentariats to take egregious potshots ”

    Name those folks, you fucking piece of shit. There is nobody on this thread that I’m familiar with from this blog who doesn’t have a high degree of credibility with other commenters. There are a few commenters, like Jacob Schmidt, that are new to me. Then there are you and your LMF/MRA posse; commenters who have commented on just ONE thread in the last 4 or 5 days. Yeah, you’re foolin’ everybody, NOT.

    Go back to whatever circlejerkechochamber you usually hang out in–or continue to peddle your horseshit here and be ridiculed for the fucktard that you are.

  134. colnago80 says

    Relative to Amanda Marcotte, the problem with her relative to the Duke Lacrosse players was that she continued to declare them guilty even after it became evident that the case was a crock. Her behavior reminded me of the late and unlamented Andrea Dworkin and Cathrine McKinnon, who have declared that any accusation of rape is to be believed because no woman would ever file a false police report because of the abuse they would receive at the hands of defense lawyers at trial.

    Just to remind folks here, one of the accused rapists, Seligmann, was unequivocally shown not to be present at the time the alleged rape occurred. Further, DNA that was recovered from the alleged victim did not match any of the 3 alleged rapists, which fact the DA, Mike Nifong, failed to inform defense lawyers of. Marcotte owes the three men an apology for here behavior, which apology, to my knowledge, has ever been proffered. Of course, she had company from former prosecutors Wendy Murphy and Nancy Grace who should have known better.

  135. says

    @150:

    I agree with your assessment, for the most part.

    OTOH, the Duke players were/are pretty much the opposite of what we are led to believe the “student athletes* of Duke and other major academic institutions are turning out. Am I naïve enough to believe that shit? Not hardly. But, the school, afaia, did not discipline the students (I may not have heard about it, if they did) and they certainly missed that “teaching opportunity”.

    Amanda Marcotte is not someone I’m looking to be palz with, but just because she was wrong about the Duke players (as far as their being “criminals” and not just fucking douchebag jocks who hire strippers/hookers to come party with them) does not mean she’s wrong about a lot else.

    The four or so douchenozzles that have been trying to justify their childish hatred for her, well, they might not be wrong about OTHER stuff. They’re full of shit on this item.

    * Yeah, I know it’s lacrosse and a lot of “student athletes” spend much of their time studying co-eds, par-tays and offers from various potential customers for their services.

  136. Steersman says

    Democommie (#149):

    Name those folks, you fucking piece of shit. There is nobody on this thread that I’m familiar with from this blog who doesn’t have a high degree of credibility with other commenters.

    Up yours you ignorant fucking prick. Someone who seems to be suffering from a serious case of Tourette’s syndrome – you may wish to consider pharmacological possibilities for managing that. But I expect most of the people I’m referring to recognize themselves.

    Go back to whatever circlejerkechochamber you usually hang out in ….

    Kiss my ass. You the fucking enforcer for this blog? You the one to keep everyone here in tune and stroking in unison? Not just an ignorant dickhead but a pretentious one to boot.

  137. says

    Steersman:

    You fucking piece of shit, and that’s a mild descriptor for you and your Shytepit bud.

    This blog has no enforcer, fuckface. If it did you and your asssuckling palz woulda been long gone.

    You have noticed that your’re engaging with yourselves for the most part?

    Nothing you’re saying hasn’t been said here, and pretty profoundly debunked, FUCKING YEARS AGO, asshole

    Stay as long as you like. We do, from time to time, get people who long to be abused. I think that there’s help for sadfucks like you at a slew of 900 numbers and pervy websites. Have fun.

  138. Stacy says

    The four or so douchenozzles that have been trying to justify their childish hatred for her, well, they might not be wrong about OTHER stuff.

    Oh, they are. Childish hatred is the Slimepit’s raison d’etre.

    Up yours you ignorant fucking prick. Someone who seems to be suffering from a serious case of Tourette’s syndrome – you may wish to consider pharmacological possibilities for managing that

    They are sometimes good for a laugh, though. ; )

    (Remember, kids, the original Slimepit was a place where its distinguished thinkers congregated to trash the woman they called “Rebeccunt Twatson.”)

    Oi. I really hate to encourage the toxic dumbfuckery by addressing it, but–

    Or at least you would have if it weren’t for the rather niggling fact, the inconvenient truth, that the issue in question, at least originally in the Duke case, was someone’s putative guilt for a serious crime with some quite sticky penalties. But nice attempt at moving the goalposts

    That there is some seriously confused bafflegab.

    No goalposts were moved. The “issue in question” here is a writer expressing her opinion about a criminal case. As she was not on the jury, her failure to grant presumption of innocence means–nothing. Nada. Zilch. Amanda Marcotte was in no position to make a legal judgement on the Duke case. She was never going to pronounce sentence. She had no power to penalize the Duke players. Therefore, she was under absolutely no obligation to adhere to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. That standard belongs in a criminal courtroom. A criminal courtroom is a place in which standards of evidence are higher than they are in everyday life.

    Marcotte expressed her opinion on the case. She turned out to be wrong.

    Yes, she should have acknowledged that fact. Yet despite la belle dame sans merci’s aspersions, the Duke boys were legally and publically exonerated. How about that. Why, it’s almost as if a feminist taking an alleged victim’s side and pointing out that rape and sexual abuse are far, far more common than false accusations really doesn’t endanger anyone’s civil rights.

    Again: the standards of evidence and presumption of innocence that obtain inside a criminal courtroom do not obtain outside of it.

    Hence, suggesting some analogous degree of correspondence with the harassing of Allen and the apparent attempts to deprive him of the fruits of his labours, all without any conclusive evidence or legal authority to do so.

    What’s up with Slimeboys and this sort of stilted syntax? Only stupid people who are trying hard to sound smart write like this.

    See above, re: confused bafflegab. Nobody’s trying to deprive Allen of the fruits of his labors now. Nobody has the power to do that. “Without any…legal authority to do so.” Hello.)

  139. Steersman says

    Democommie (#153):

    This blog has no enforcer, fuckface. If it did you and your asssuckling palz woulda been long gone.

    If the dog hadn’t stopped to pee it would have caught the rabbit. “If” tends to carry a limited weight – rather like you who look and act like you’re rather light in the loafers in more ways than one.

    You have noticed that you’re engaging with yourselves for the most part?

    What I’ve noticed, as have apparently many others, is that a significantly large percentage of the blogs on the FTB network, in the “FTB ghetto” – notably Pharyngula and Butterflies and Wheels – implement very narrow, biased, and draconian moderation policies that turn them into little more than echo chambers, than dens for cyber-lynch mobs and hot-house flowers. Although there are also a few, a very few, notable and commendable exceptions, including this one, Ally Fogg’s blog, and Ashley Miller’s. And that when many of the members in the commentariats of the former brave the environs outside of those ghettos, those Shangri-Las, they frequently have their asses handed to them, and they scurry back behind Mama Myer’s and Mama Benson’s skirts. Classy bunch.

    Stay as long as you like.

    That’s big of you, and further evidence of being rather full of yourself, although that’s probably because you’re full of shit. I don’t notice much in the way of cogent analysis from you, just a tendency to resort to being a childish potty-mouth whenever you run out of things to say or credible arguments to advance – which is pretty frequently and pretty quickly.

    We do, from time to time, get people who long to be abused.

    Sticks and stones. But if it makes you happy then fill your boots, although it looks rather like shooting yourself in the feet and hardly redounds to the credit of the blog or the shooter.

  140. Steersman says

    Stacy (# 154):

    (Remember, kids, the original Slimepit was a place where its distinguished thinkers congregated to trash the woman they called “Rebeccunt Twatson.”)

    Therefore every one who ever posted there is equally guilty of that “crime”? Nice, narrow-minded, attempt to tar everyone with the same narrow brush, nice bit of stereotyping. Rather like your “dear Leader’s” apparent characterization of everyone who disagrees with his rather dogmatic “feminism” as carrying the name of “Marc Lepine”.

    But, if you want to play that game, how about a little “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”? How about I tar you with the “rape apology” by various Pharynguloids in the case of Ogvorbis? [Who looks like an A-class troll whose story has more holes than the proverbial Swiss cheese.] How about “die in a fire”? How about anal rape with the porcupine meme? How about Myers’ use of bitch and slut and asshole which even “Crip Dyke” conceded, at least by the “twat” is misogyny “principle, was tantamount to misanthropy? Yea, I know, only wrong when others do it. Hypocrisy thy name is Pharyngula.

    The “issue in question” here is a writer expressing her opinion about a criminal case.

    Yea, well then most people might reasonably conclude, based on her eventual retraction, that her opinions are suspect if not actually worth dick-all. And I thought the question was in fact, as Ed phased it in his first paragraph, whether she was “actually capable of thinking clearly”.

    Again: the standards of evidence and presumption of innocence that obtain inside a criminal courtroom do not obtain outside of it.

    True enough. But she, presumably, is in the business of trying to influence public opinion, behaviour, and consequential laws. Unless she’s only in it to flap her gums and show off her teeth. But in the “principles” that apparently “inform” her opinions I think, and others seem to think, she has in effect condemned herself.

    What’s up with Slimeboys and this sort of stilted syntax? Only stupid people who are trying hard to sound smart write like this.

    Or maybe you’re just incapable, or unwilling, to follow the logic.

    Nobody’s trying to deprive Allen of the fruits of his labors now.

    Horse shit. As Nepenthe phrased it above, Marcotte was “suggesting that someone ought not be celebrated, honored, and invited to all the right parties” which looks rather like “trying to deprive Allen of the fruits of his labours”. Why else would she be flapping her gums trying to promote that response from society in general? Trying to do something in a kangaroo-court through a lynch-mob that she has no “legal authority” to do otherwise. But that was and is an analogy, a concept which you, along with Benson and many other Pharyngulanas and fellow travelers, seem to have some difficulty with.

  141. colnago80 says

    Re Stacy @ #154

    No goalposts were moved. The “issue in question” here is a writer expressing her opinion about a criminal case. As she was not on the jury, her failure to grant presumption of innocence means–nothing. Nada. Zilch. Amanda Marcotte was in no position to make a legal judgement on the Duke case. She was never going to pronounce sentence. She had no power to penalize the Duke players. Therefore, she was under absolutely no obligation to adhere to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. That standard belongs in a criminal courtroom. A criminal courtroom is a place in which standards of evidence are higher than they are in everyday life.

    Stacy misses the point. Marcotte continued to declare the 3 lacrosse players gui9lty of raping Crystal Gaile Magnum after it became clear that the case was a crock. For instance, the evidence that Seligmann was elsewhere at the time the alleged crime took place had been well publicized at the time she expressed her opinion. She was not only wrong, she should have known she was wrong at the time she made here comment.

  142. Michael Heath says

    Stacy writes:

    The “issue in question” here is a writer expressing her opinion about a criminal case. As she was not on the jury, her failure to grant presumption of innocence means–nothing. Nada. Zilch. Amanda Marcotte was in no position to make a legal judgement on the Duke case. She was never going to pronounce sentence. She had no power to penalize the Duke players. Therefore, she was under absolutely no obligation to adhere to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. That standard belongs in a criminal courtroom. A criminal courtroom is a place in which standards of evidence are higher than they are in everyday life.

    What Ms. Marcotte did in the Duke case was far worse than you assert. She was defaming others, i.e., lying. We should always castigate lying and liars, always.

  143. colnago80 says

    A perfect example of the type of irresponsible reporting that goes on is the case of pop singer Justin Bieber, which has been in the news lately because of numerous stories in the celebrity press as well as lamestream outlets.

    1. According to initial news reports, Bieber was accused of throwing eggs at his neighbor’s house. Now we come to find out that suddenly the LAPD and the DA’s office seem to be unsure of the evidence, namely that the house was egged or that Bieber was the egger.

    2. According to initial news reports, Bieber was arrested in Miami Beach for allegedly DUI and drag racing on a surface street at speeds up to 50+ miles/hour. Then we come to find out that he blew a .014 and a .012 on a breathalyzer test and that a subsequent blood test did not dispute the breathalyzer test relative to alcohol. It did show the presence of pot and Zanex but, as we sit here today, we don’t know how much. Further, the drag racing charge looks pretty thin. Apparently, the vehicle had a GPS system and, according to the rental agency, their data shows that the car never exceeded 34 miles/hour on the street in question.

    3. Bieber surrendered to police officials in Toronto on a charge of assaulting the driver of a limousine. Come to find out that maybe it was another passenger who committed the assault.

    These are just three examples of the types if irresponsible reporting that even lamestream media have perpetrated. Their reporting on the Duke Lacrosse players was equally bad. We could on and on with other bad examples (e.g. Kobe Bryant).

    For those living in Canada and Great Britain, where reporting on suspects in criminal investigations is severely restricted to insure a fair trial, they might find this to be mind boggling. However, the news outlets in the US hide behind the 1st Amendment and the “public’s right to know” so they get away with this kind of stuff.

  144. Nepenthe says

    Being invited to all the right parties and being given lifetime achievement awards is a fruit of labor that it’s unethical to deny someone merely for having probably molested a seven year old? Jesus fucking Christ, what does someone have to do to deserve approbation in the your mind?

    I’m so fucking sick of this. Of all the people who have raped me, raped people I love, assaulted people I love, and generally been abusive dickweeds to myself and people in my life, probably at least 25 assweasels at this point, not a single one has ever suffered a moment of consequence. Not one. In every case, the victim was not believed. If they reported, it was dismissed. If they were a part of the abusers social circle, the abuser was lauded and celebrated and they were hounded out.

    Fuck you, fuck everyone who thinks like you. Rape is a big deal. Child molestation is a big deal. Not for the perpetrators, for the victims. Because you know what happens to people who rape and molest in this culture? Nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing.

    I’m out. I can’t deal with this shit anymore.

  145. Steersman says

    Nepenthe (#160):

    Jesus fucking Christ, what does someone have to do to deserve approbation in the your mind?

    I expect you probably mean “opprobrium”: “Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy”. But in that case, something a little more than the innuendo and confabulist reporting that seems to the bulk of what everyone else is using. For instance you might note that even Ophelia Benson – no particular friend of Woody Allen’s – has, belatedly, conceded that the situation is More a game of “who’s the liar” (1). Although she still insists, on dick-all in the way of evidence which is typically her “par” for the course, that “It seems a good deal more likely that [Allen] did what people say he did than it is that he didn’t.” Against that you may wish to take a look at this comment in the Pit by JacquesCuze (2) which describes another comment that he apparently attempted to post on another of Benson’s posts on the topic (Creating false memories (3)). A salient point in it:

    Dwyer (1986) reports similar statistics. She states that 77% of the divorce-linked allegations of sex abuse cases coming to the Human Sexuality Program at the University of Minnesota have turned out to be “hoax” cases. This was based upon the opinion reached by the agency staff that the allegations were not accurate.

    Considering that “77%” number, I would say that both Benson’s “more likely” and your “probably molested” are rather suspect at best, if not actually evidence of lynch-mob mentality, of a highly questionable “rush to judgement”.

    Of all the people who have raped me, raped people I love, … not a single one has ever suffered a moment of consequence.

    I am truly sorry to hear that you, and others, have been subjected to those experiences. As I have argued or suggested elsewhere many times, it is truly horrific and an egregious miscarriage of justice that there are, apparently, some 200,000 cases of rape and sexual assault in the U.S. every year (4). However, I’m not sure that it is particularly credible, wise or edifying for many to be attempting, apparently, to make Woody Allen the scapegoat for all of those other crimes. And on very questionable evidence.

    Rape is a big deal. Child molestation is a big deal. Not for the perpetrators, for the victims.

    Yes, I know it is – as indicated. And it is not exactly small potatoes either that there are no few cases of false accusations – you may wish to search for other comments by “JacquesCuze” in the Pit where he describes how he was subjected to such in his own divorce. But in light of both types of scenarios – which were highlighted in Woody Allen’s case – it seems rather hard to judge, as Benson put it, “Who’s the liar?” Seems to be a far more fruitful course of action to ask how the incidence of those cases might be reduced than to try to crucify someone who might not even be guilty in some Old Testament morality play.

    —-
    1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/02/more-a-game-of-whos-the-liar/”;
    2) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=159266#p159266”;
    3) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/02/creating-false-memories/”;
    4) “_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Rape_statistics”;

  146. Stacy says

    @Michael Heath

    She was defaming others, i.e., lying. We should always castigate lying and liars, always

    If the assertion that she was still calling them guilty of rape after they’d been exonerated is true, that was wrong and she deserves to be called out for that.

    Still: people who cry foul when a commentator chooses to believe a person alleging abuse over the accused love to bandy the phrase “presumption of innocence!” Presumption of innocence rightly belongs in a criminal courtroom, and I’m glad it’s there. But that doesn’t mean we can’t look at the allegation, the information we have, and the statistics and declare our tentative belief in the word of one side or the other.

    And now the pitizens have Gish Galloped over to poor Woody Allen (Woody Allen, who was in counseling for inappropriate behavior around Dylan two years before he and Mia Farrow broke up! Because some people believe Dylan, Woody Allen, a multiple millionaire, is supposedly being “crucified.”)

    A couple of points: the pfft puts the overall rate of child sexual abuse accusations at under 10%. False reports are more common in custody disputes.

    “Findings of multiple studies performed between 1987 and 1995 suggested that the rate of false allegations ranged from a low of 6% to a high of 35% of reported child sexual abuse cases[verification needed].[8] Experts have argued that the reason for the wide range of differences in the rates resulted from different criteria used in various studies. In particular, a lower rate was found in studies that considered false allegations to be based on intentional lying, whereas the higher rates were reported in studies that also added unintentional false allegations resulting from suggestive questioning.[8] A 1992 meta-analysis suggests that false allegations represent between two and ten percent of all allegations.[6]“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

    And with that, I’m through engaging the Pit on this thread.

  147. Stacy says

    Oops. OK, a couple more points I should have addressed in #162 (it’s so hard to keep up with the Gish Gallop of Pit assfax.)

    Therefore every one who ever posted there is equally guilty of that “crime”?

    Of course, I haven’t made that particular claim. But interestingly enough, john greg, who has appeared on this very thread, was, and he continues to rationalize it and claim that women who object to women being called “cunts” do so out of Puritanism. I don’t know if you were or not, but I’m pretty sure I recall seeing you defend it, most recently on Mick Nugent’s blog.

    And who the fuck are you quoting calling it a “crime”? More dishonesty.

    These slippery people.

    As for the cries of hypocrisy and tu quoque: No, PZ does not call everyone who disagrees with him on feminism a “Marc Lepine.”

    PZ renounced gendered slurs years ago, and TTBOMK hasn’t used them since. “Hypocrisy” doesn’t work in retrospect.

    Obviously.

    The porcupine meme–obviously a baroque version of “go fuck yourself“–was given up months and months ago, after a public discussion in which Pharyngulites debated whether the absurdity of the image mitigated its violence (conclusion: it didn’t. People are allowed to change their minds, and grow.)

    And your spin on Ogvorbis’ history is also dishonest. Just another lame attempt at “gotcha.”

    You lot keep trotting this bullshit out every time you’ve got a new audience.

    It demonstrates your dishonesty and doesn’t absolve you of your asshattery.

    And with that–to quote Gandalf, “goodbye and really goodbye.”

  148. johngreg says

    Hey, Stacy, you’re almost as good a de-flouncer as Cainaji. Go Grrrl!

    Anyway, to the point. You said:

    But interestingly enough, john greg, who has appeared on this very thread, was, and he continues to rationalize it and claim that women who object to women being called “cunts” do so out of Puritanism. I don’t know if you were or not, but I’m pretty sure I recall seeing you defend it, most recently on Mick Nugent’s blog.

    Well, that is without context but, generally, yes, I stand fast on that, that under most circumstances, so far as I can tell, most women, in particular women in the US who object to men using the term cunt are doing so out of a sort of ethnocentric-based neo-puritanism. In particular, women like Ophelia Benson, who adamantly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or to even understand different cultural usages of the word. In her view, what’s good in America stands for the world.

    I defend the general use of the word in all circumsatnces as a so-called swear word and/or insult. It is not the specific use of it directed toward women that I defend, it is its general use as an effective part of the English language in general that I defend. Those are important distinctions.

    And who the fuck are you quoting calling it a “crime”? More dishonesty.

    Are you referring to me? When and where did I say that? What crime? What are you talking about?

    As for the cries of hypocrisy and tu quoque: No, PZ does not call everyone who disagrees with him on feminism a “Marc Lepine.”

    Actually, you’re right. PZ only accused people who criticise feminists as being Marc Lépines but too ashamed and chicken-shit to actually carry out their intended heinous crimes. His words, Stacy, not mine:

    And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice.

    (… freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/06/never-forget/).

    And your spin on Ogvorbis’ history is also dishonest. Just another lame attempt at “gotcha.”

    “Our” spin on Ogvorbis is to directly, specifically, and accurately quote him, in context. Please, explain how that is dishonest and a gotcha?

    Now, stick the flounce if you want, but I think you should defend your accussations.

  149. says

    Nepenthe writes @141

    OT: Regarding Marcotte’s position on the presumption of innocence in rape/sexual abuse cases, she posted a piece today on that very issue. The relevant quote for this discussion:
    No feminists that I know of have ever in sincerity said that the court should throw out the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in proving a crime. However, as Brady points out, that’s a criminal standard. It’s perfectly reasonable to have other standards for other situations, such as determining if you feel someone in your community is guilty and needs to be shunned as a danger to women. Or hell, just determining if someone is guilty enough to lose a lawsuit. In civil court, a “preponderance of evidence” standard applies.

    While I understand that it’s difficult for many in this audience to understand, there is a difference between sending a person to jail and not inviting them to parties. Marcotte’s and I and every feminist I know of do not think that a court trial with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard is appropriate for the latter.

    Many feminists of course have stood up for lowering the test from beyond a reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence when it comes to determining the guilt of a student in sexual assaults. (google college dear colleague letter title ix)

    This can result in a student’s expulsion from a university with an enormous black mark on his record.

    This can even occur when a legal investigation has found that student innocent of the charges.

    I encourage you to follow on twitter @kcjohnson9, @TheFIREorg and @CathyYoung63 for more.

    A good person to follow on this issue is always Cathy Young, you can read her here:
    http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/guilty-until-proven-innocent

    Guilty Until Proven Innocent
    How the government encourages kangaroo courts for sex crimes on campus

    In the midst of a moral panic, the rights of the accused-including the wrongly accused-count for little. In May The Daily Princetonian, Princeton University’s student daily, ran an editorial urging the school to change its standard of proof in sexual assault cases from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence.” Noting that “sexual assault is unique among cases requiring on-campus discipline” in its lack of corroborative evidence and its he said/she said nature, the editorial board concluded that the “clear and persuasive” standard might be appropriate for charges of theft, assault, or drug use, but it is “inappropriate in the case of sexual assault.”

    The wheel has come full circle: Forty years ago, feminists argued that rape should be treated the same as other crimes against persons. Today the progressive position appears to be that since rape is harder to prove than other crimes (particularly when it is defined so that it does not require physical coercion, threats of violence, or incapacitation), it should receive special treatment.

    Nepenthe, are you telling me the feminists you know are against the Dear College letter and the lowering of the test from reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence?

    Or are you saying that expulsion from a university and having it marked on the student’s record is merely not inviting that student to a party?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Rosen-t.html

    Nifong’s sins are now well known, but Taylor and Johnson argue that he was aided and abetted by the news media and the Duke faculty. They are withering about the “lynch mob mentality” (in the words of a defense lawyer) created by bloviating cable news pundits on the left and the right. But they are also sharply critical of what they call the one-sided reporting of the nation’s leading newspapers, including The New York Times. With a few exceptions, the authors suggest, The Times’s coverage consistently showed a “pro-Nifong bias,” most notably in a front-page article apparently trying to resurrect the case after it seemed on the verge of collapse.

    At least “many of the journalists misled by Nifong eventually adjusted their views as evidence of innocence” came to light, the authors conclude. That’s more than can be said for Duke’s “activist professors,” 88 of whom signed an inflammatory letter encouraging a rush to judgment by the student protesters who were plastering the campus with wanted posters of the lacrosse team and waving a banner declaring “Castrate.” Even when confronted with DNA evidence of the players’ innocence, these professors refused to apologize and instead incoherently attacked their critics. In the same spirit, the authors charge, the president of Duke, Richard Brodhead, fired the lacrosse coach, canceled the season and condemned the team members for more than eight months. The pandering Brodhead, in this account, is more concerned about placating faculty ideologues than about understanding the realities of student life on his raunchy campus.
    /blockquote>

    And add to that of course, the mendacious Marcotte with her airport quote made AFTER the students were declared innocent.

    Marcotte is like Ken Ham, nothing will convince her, not evidence, not lack of evidence.

    Your claim that no feminists would say that Nepenthe reeks of ostrich syndrome, intellectual dishonesty, and NAFALT.

    There are five links in here. If this goes to moderation I will repost it with the links mangled or removed.

  150. says

    @John Greg, lying as usual!

    In particular, women like Ophelia Benson, who adamantly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or to even understand different cultural usages of the word. In her view, what’s good in America stands for the world.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/11/how-to-tell-the-diff-er-ence/

    Her point is very valid that lying bumblefucks from the slymepit – who are perfectly aware of the misogynistic roots of cunt when used as an insult to put women down – don’t get a free pass cos some Scots only ever use it as a term of endearment. Same as it being used in an ironic or reclamative sense is absolutely fine. But this simplistic bit of context is either impossible for you and friends to grasp or you are liars who care not what your ideological opponents actually believe or say but only what you can twist and lie it into for political gain.

Leave a Reply