This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
What I want! How I want! (Is this the sign of the next sexual revolution?)
Pi is exactly three!
I like the artwork on the OP, and the possibility that it may lead to MRA’s turning up here, taking one look at the artwork, and immediately ranting about “Misandry! Castrating Feminazis! Wot about teh menz!!11!1Eleventy! *head asplode*” is a bonus.
hyperdeath #2
Is not.
(you silly person, you)
Chas,
Okay, given the fact the press already knew that the bombs were deployed at the site in backpacks, “BAG MEN” is supposed to mean they were witnesses and not the culprits? That’s a curious use of the phrase. But I suppose you’ll argue for the Post anyway, since they were men with bags.
“Say what you want, how you want”
The water in northern bathtubs do not circle round the drain differen than than southern hemisphere bathtubs!
(at least unless your bathtub is smaller than a lake)
Spitfire was not more manouverable than Messerschmitt 109!.
(at least not before the overloaded bf 109 G variant)
And lemmings do not bloody well commit suicide! And bipedal Scandinavians do not off themselves more often than other people (despite what Eisenhower claimed in an electorial debate). Fuck you, Eisenhower.
— — — — — — — —
Insects have four legs! I know this, because of OT!
Tpyos is busy :
“smaller than a lake” should be “bigger than a lake”.
Chigau #4
But what if he believes it is, doesn’t that make it so?
FYI: One marathon bombing suspect dead; Boston’s in lockdown.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhunt-boston-marathon-bomber-suspect-underway-article-1.1321605
Terry Scurr #8
Whether it’s true or not, we must respect his beliefs.
wait
This is The [Thunderdome]!
We don’t respect nuthin’ ’round these parts.
@Chas
I really think you need to stop with this NY Post thing.
This:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1093643/thumbs/o-NEW-YORK-POST-570.jpg?6
Is not responsible journalism (for whatever value of journalism is applicable to the Post). One of the young men pictured here was hounded on Facebook and other social media sites until he went to authorities himself, in fear for his safety and to clear his name.
They got stuff wrong, Chas, because they’re sensationalists. Let it go.
@Gregory
#3
Scantily clad female with visible cleavage standing in a pose that thrusts her chest out.
Some might say PZ is fine with displaying sexualized female images,
Granted, nothing wrong with kickass female characters that are also sexy.
Speaking of female characters in game, I want to know people’s opinion on the following (in term of their portrayal of female characters).
Aquaria: http://www.bit-blot.com/aquaria/
Main character is female mermaid-like thing. Game involves a lot of explorations in very beautiful locations.
Transistor (same team as Bastion): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmlnUCK9oWI
Main character is apparently a singer of sort in cyberworld who recently got her voice stolen.
Whoa, we got a live one, here!
I checked in on that ridiculous Patheos Catholic benevolent sexism post dianne linked yesterday, and found that this gem of a comment has made it through moderation:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/04/women-are-not-equal.html
Look out, men! Women who take the pill are injecting you with carcinogens!
WharGarbl @ 12;
I can see your point, though to be fair the image is not as bad as many, the pose does at least have some justification as a post combat ‘triumphant warrior’ stance, and the proportions of the character are not as grotesquely distorted as those of female characters all too often are in such images.
Agreed – there is an important distinction to be drawn between female characters that are illustrated to convey power and competency who are also ‘sexy’ as a side effect of that, and female characters that are created with the obvious intent of simply being sexualised for its own sake or in pursuit of some nasty and misogynistic fetish of the artist or the intended audience.
Mostly this image amused me because I spotted the apparently slain male barbarian character in the foreground, and could just imagine the testerical gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair that this would induce in a certain segment of the atheist community. You know, the kind of people who would probably consider this an artist’s rendition of the ‘elevator gate’ incident – along comes a poor, innocent barbarian bloke who simply approaches a fur clad woman he doesn’t even know at four in the morning on a lonely rock escarpment after she has just spent several hours addressing the local annual gathering of tribes about how irritating it is when random tribesmen think they are entitled to hit on any woman they see whenever they feel like it without thinking and whatever the circumcstances may be, and asks her if she would like to join him for ‘red meat and ale’ *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* back at his yurt, and before you know it
nothing at all has happened to him, except the woman in question commenting about the incident at a social media feast to say ‘guys, don’t do that’ without even naming or otherwise identifying himhe has been brutally eviscerated by twin curved sabres and is lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood.You know, just like what happened to that dudebro in the elevator…
Err, wait… that’s not right…
I sometimes wonder where txpiper is more of a contrarian asshole or a religious fanatic. When I first started arguing with him in 2006, he was very cagey about what he actually believed.
Well, no matter how ambiguous he might have been back then, he appears to now be a full-blown batshit fundamentalist, complete with a Gish-gallop of bullshit theology:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/10/learn-a-little-developmental-biology/comment-page-1/#comment-601077
I mean, whoof.
Not only is his blathering about the pillars paranoid nonsensical pareidolia, it’s also based on a failure to read properly. In Exodus 38, there are not five pillars for the screen, but four. The hangings (“veil”) were on three pillars, not four. And all the bases of the pillars were bronze; none of them were silver.
What a loon.
@Gregory
#14
If we REALLY want to rile MRA up, we should replace that rock she’s standing on with a mountain of corpses.
Kind of like that Meet the Medic video, with barbarian woman on a mountain of barbarian men corpses instead of a German and Russian on a mountain of Americans.
I’d like to note early on this in Thunderdome that it’s Day of Silence. I’m doing my best to participate, helped along by my girlfriend.
re @15;
The texpip’s fundamental core is intellectual dishonesty. Once one realizes that every he posts is a lie deliberately chosen to promote one of his favored hobby horses (of which he has several), even if it happens to directly contradict something he has previously said in favor of some other hobby horse, his pattern of behavior becomes clear.
re #12,14;
Scantily clad? The degree of exposure honestly to me falls within the normal range for evening wear we see in modern life.
Why someone would be wearing the equivalent of evening wear to a battlefield is a slightly different trope….
The litmus I prefer is to consider a male character in an equivalent pose, and in this case I think the image would pass that test.
Should I remember scottyroberts?
The name sounds familiar, but I might just be imagining things.
OT, but if someone wants to do something for people in Boston but doesn’t know what, the Boston Children’s Hospital has a wish list up on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/3BI2LVVRH4KZG/
@Amphiox
#19
Opinion will differ, but I consider evening gowns that shows that much mid-drift, cleavage, and leg to be borderline “scantily” (well, at least it’s not a bikini armor). So maybe my definition of what constitute as “scantily” is a bit broader than most.
Magic?
Although for the woman in the picture’s case, it seems reasonable (her opponent, the dead guy, was likewise unarmored… and appeared to lack weapons).
You do have to take into account the attire and, as stated before, body proportion (is that included in the “pose”?)
@6
Ah, but the Bf109 *was* an energy fighter, not a turn fighter, so it would have been a better idea on the part of the Bf109 pilot to not try to out-maneuver and instead just climb up and away.
@Rip
#23
Hm… similar idea with P-40 vs Zero in the Pacific theatre in WW2 over China.
P-40 cannot outmaneuver Zero, but it can out-run, out-gun, and out-tank a Zero.
So when in doubt? Turn all aerial maneuver a jousting match.
Although that did piss off the plane maintenance crew for the Flying Tigers.
My grandfather had a friend who was one of the maintenance crew. While they were thankful for American’s help, it did piss them off a bit that every time they come back, their planes are full of holes.
Why someone would be wearing the equivalent of evening wear to a battlefield is a slightly different trope….
Berserking?
Also, Aquaria gets a high recommendation from me. A really innovative mechanic integrated with the score, gorgeous undersea art, and a female protagonist who has to rescue her boyfriend.
WharGarbl @ 16;
Yup – that would probably result in a few hilarious MRA aneurysms…
eggcorn!
I came across a post or two that mentioned a Scotty Roberts as part of the Paradigm Symposium. As for why his name rang a bell as a commenter, and not a good one, I scoured around and then I discovered that he was the smarmy pissant from this thread that vaguely defended the Ancient Alien proponents and proceeded to whine and mock and contort and dodge, over the course of 1000 comments, when people started confronting him over his high regard for bullshit.
#27
Yeah yeah, I know, don’t be a word nazi.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/nate-bell-tweet-boston-_n_3116480.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Puke.
@nightshadequeen
#30
Count me out of that wishing, I’m wishing for Season 4 of MLP:FIM instead.
Heh. I’m wishing I went to the grocery store yesterday and had more for food than frozen fruit/frozen veggies and sandwich supplies.
….here’s to bumming eggs off friends?
definitely, darn sneaky cliffhangers-that-aren’t-obviously-cliffhangers. Here’s to poniez.
—
putting this here because I’m too damned furious to keep researching: (bolds mine in lieu of screaming profanities)
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/19/texas-hhs-committee-approves-trap-bill/
because a state as big and sprawling and Christian and gun-ridden as Texas is really going to have plenty of helpful non-Catholic hospitals within thirty miles of abortion providers’ clinics. Mississippi’s last clinic couldn’t find one in the entire state.
@Pteryxx
#33
All hail poniez!
I wonder what a ponified PZ would look like.
A unicorn with Cthulu for cutiemark and an octopus pet that always wrap itself on his head?
Probably not going to be atheist, considering that you can talk to them.
… sigh, my state is represented by idiots and assholes.
Well, here to waiting for all the old regressive assholes die out.
kinda liiiike, THIS?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/21/am-i-on-a-slippery-slope/
@Pteryxx
#35
LOL! Didn’t know PZ Already have one!
Happily.
Of course, the same ought to go for everyone else, too.
You, for instance. You tell me I should drop the subject, then go ahead and directly address me with a further comment on the same subject, then finish by telling me again to drop it?
yeah, that’s bullshit; it’s not how it works. If you address a comment directly to me like that, I am very likely to respond if I see it.
For example:
I agree. I already addressed that front page; I believe my exact words were “that’s pretty bad”.
Somebody else asked me above about the headline, “Bag Men”. I mean, that’s the Post. That’s what they do. They had made the disastrous decision to run the photo of two men with bags. they title it, literally ‘bag men’. Of course they know people are going to make the leap from backpack to bomb-in-a-backpack, it’s intentional;; and some people said that the phrase reminded them in general of crime (though that kind of bagman has nothing to do with killing). It’s a kind of evil genius.
Now, they gambled on running that photo (major score if those had been the perps) but lost big, and yeah, the victim here is the kid you mentioned. Big fuck-up from the viewpoint of journalism critics and we right-thinking citizens. From the Post‘s perspective, though, another day bigger story.
My point. They’re good at it, too. I’ve already said a couple of times that I am very familiar with the NY Post . I see it every day at the 7-11 where I coffee up every morning, and I saw the one with the fuck-up photo there too*. I read it if I find one at the train station or coffee shop, and I amuse myself by separating the facts from the rhetoric.
I’ve said this already, too: I have never defended the Post as a source of responsible journalism. They are all about the rhetoric: the innuendo, the spin, the general crassness. They hyperbolize. They imply. They pander. They’re completely full of repellent shit editorially.
And all that’s because they sell papers that way. They count on a lack of critical thinking skills in their purchasers; they’re selling the bullshit, and a lot of people around here eat it up.
The other way they sell papers is by covering certain stories (mostly the cheap, the trashy, the shabby, the prurient) very heavily, as opposed to other News Sources, and so they’re always blatting on about exclusive scoops. And that’s why they went with the bag-men photo.
What they don’t do? (another repeat) They do not just make up the facts.
Even in the story that accompanied the bag-men photo. Their lawyers will have no trouble defending the words they actually printed. Even the stuff they got wrong, like the 12 dead report, they never said ’12 are dead’, they always said ‘a federal law-enforcement official told the Post that at least 12 were killed.” They’re covered.
They undertand the difference between facts and rhetoric.
If you were to read every single one of my comments on the subject, you’d find that I was talking about ostensible facts, not rhetoric. And not the polished shit published on the front page of a deadtree newspaper for sale, but broadcast over their website in near-real time during a breaking and ongoing event. And the ostensible facts that interested me turned out in the end to be true facts.
I regret nothing.
But, I will happily drop it now, if everybody else does too; seems only fair. I’m sure nobody wants to have to read or scroll past another comment like this one.
*I noticed that you linked the picture from a Huffington Post server in a comment about responsible journalism…kind of like ray-ee-ayn on your wedding day.
Re. Terry Scurr @ 8:
The question is not “truth” but “truthiness”!
— — — — — — — — — — — –
WharGarbl & Rip Steakface
Although not very good performers, both the P-40 and the Hawker Hurricane* were robust, often limping back home after being “shot to ribbons”.
I assume the lightweight Spitfire and bf 109 were fragile, and the even more lightweight Zero and its Japanese Army sibling Ki-42 often disintegrated when hit by .50 ammunition.
I am told Mosquito with its plywood structure turned out to survive a lot of combat damage, despite being designed to avoid combat altogether by speed.
*This quality must have been useful for those Hurricanes sent to Russia under lend-lease.
And both P-40 and Hurricane served as attack aircraft in the Far East long after being obsolete as fighters. But it must have been murder for the ground crews keeping them flying with both extreme weather and combat damage.
— — — — — — —
Chas:
“The other way they sell papers is by covering certain stories (mostly the cheap, the trashy, the shabby, the prurient)”
-Just like the British “gutter press”.
BTW is the NY Post owned by Murdoch? It certainly sounds like his style.
Meh. That pic just makes me think of a quote from Burne Hogarth chastising his students at The School of Visual Arts;
“Goddamnit, you guys quit trying to paint like Frazetta; There can be only one Frazetta and he’s it!”
Speaking of WWII combat aircraft, did you know that Finn pilots made the robust (but slow) Brewster Buffalo one of the most successful American-built combat aircraft in history?
It reminds me of how American-trained Pakistani pilots successfully flew old Chinese MiG-19s against more modern Indian combat aircraft.
— — — — — — — — —
“Ancient Alien proponents” sounds potentially entertaining, but I assume Roberts was too full of himself to be much fun.
Early uncensored Corben is more fun than Frazetta. Corben’s stuff is often a bit tongue in cheek.
Beatrice:
Right there with you. Seeing the name scottyroberts sent up flags in my head.
@Chas
Whatever. I’ll drop it. Fine. Calmate, chico.
I did a Google image search for the NY Post front page and that was the first one that popped up. So it’s not so much “Isn’t ironic doncha think?” than pre-caffienated laziness.
mythbri @#13:
It’s worse than that! Us menz (who “can’t control [our] libido[s]”) have convinced women to self-pollute with carcinogens in order to facilitate our “own selfess [sic] pleasure” … truly bizarre. ~:-|
Because, as you know, women have no sexual desire of their own, so the only reason they would ever take birth control is because they were forced into it.
@LykeX
I read that comment as a thinly-veiled “Your mom!” insult.
birgerjohansson @#6:
Debatable?
When a German says something like “Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger […]” I tend to believe him.
Counter-evidence welcome, though. *rawr* ;-)
I don’t know where the ‘equivalent of evening wear’ is coming from; looking at the picture, she’s wearing a fur loincloth and a lace-up halter top of some kind. The dead guy is wearing a fur loincloth, a leather harness, and possibly a helmet; it’s a little hard to say, he could be bald. So, basically they’re in the same outfit by my standards.
I am now creating ponies. Because it is awesome.
Some say awesome, some say awful.
It might be like Stockholm syndrome.
Forgot the obligatory most-hilarious Spitfire footage ever. ;-)
And finally … these geese are not flying, they are falling with style:
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr05/2013/4/2/17/enhanced-buzz-wide-29841-1364939926-5.jpg
Via.
IIRC, the Spitfire Mk. 2, which fought in the Battle of Britain used a carbeurator instead of fuel injection, which the Me109 had. This meant that engine performance dropped significantly in comparison during certain acrobatic maneuvers, like flying upside down, which can impact combat maneuverability. The Spitfire’s wing design was superior to the Me109 for maneuvering. By the end of the war the Spitfire Mk 7 was, I think, clearly superior to the Me109 but during the Battle of Britain it was a wash.
And in the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane accounted for twice as many kills as the Spitfire. If any individual fighter could be said to have “won” the battle, it would be the Hurricane.
As for the Zero, its fragility was a deliberate design decision. It lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and armor protection for the pilot in order to decrease weight to increase maneuverability and operational range (vital for a carrier based fighter). This enabled it to achieve performance benchmarks that exceeded what conventional wisdom held was possible for fighters with early war engines. Once the allies figured out the compromises made in the Zero’s design they were able restore functional parity by changing their tactics. Once they advanced engine technology to increase power output to achieve even better benchmarks without compromises (in the Hellcat for example) it was game over for the Japanese, who had fallen behind in the technology race.
It also reflected doctrinal ideas about how airplanes should be used. The Japanese belief, based in part on the Bushido code, was that fighters were weapons of attack, and that the best defence was to strike first and knock out the enemy before he even has the chance to shoot back at you at all. The design trade-off between fragility and performance was inherent in all their WWII plane designs. This worked well at the beginning when the Japanese had a large number of well-trained battle hardened (by action in China in the 30’s) pilots but when the war became one of attrition and they were forced to send novice pilots to the front lines it did not work out so well for them. And when they fell behind in the technology race their planes became flat out inferior in all aspects, period.
(In short, valuing human life turned out to be a war winning strategy for the allies in the Pacific War).
Amphiox:
Nothing to do with their far, far larger industrial base?
https://twitter.com/Boston_Police/status/325409894830329856
Suspect in custody.
@56
I think what Amphiox is referring to is how valuing human life in one-on-one engagements led to more wins on the part of the Allies. Less of a strategy and more of a tactic – that said, all strategy is, is tactics multiplied.
The suspect is in custody. Now the political shit-storm can beginning in earnest as every right-winger in America try to pin this all on the administration and, by association, liberals.
Why is it impossible for people to figure out that some shit just happens and you can’t do anything except help the victims? Being “preventative” doesn’t work when you can build a trigger mechanism at home, stick it in a pressure cooker with some simple home-made or store-bought explosive (like fertilizer), and leave it in a backpack. The only thing that could have prevented it would be a paranoid bystander reporting it to the police, and even then, that may have just resulted in some dead cops.
It’s still not going to stop them, Rip. My father is your run-of-mill, Drudge-and-Breibart-reading Republican and he’s spent the last hour blaming all this on Homeland Security and the FBI which he believes starting slacking off due to “political correctness” when a Democratic president too over.
http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-brothers-parents-innocent-124/
From the Russia Today: ‘They were set up, FBI followed them for years’- Tsarnaevs’ mother
Also: https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/325419654153633792
Ah, so predictable
someone say Spitfire?
I can top all of you: A Christian’s view of the Boston Bombing!
One wonders why children’s television shows like… anything in the DCAU didn’t get the attention that MLP FiM has.
LykeX here:
But what about the killing of viable and deliverable fetuses?
But what if the infant isn’t killed outside the womb but rather killed inside the woman? Would that be acceptable?
And here I absolutely agree with you!
You’re right, this isn’t rocket surgery. Glad we agree on these very important points, especially the part of NOT killing the fetus if possible.
But what if the fetus is simply unwanted by the woman and the sole intent of the abortion is such that she doesn’t have to be burdened by a baby? Don’t you think the woman has the choice to terminate the fetus inside her body, regardless of how viable the fetus is? Wasn’t this the intention of the vast majority of Gosnell’s late-term patients?
————————
Tony:
If the lives of the women are not at risk, is it acceptable for any doctor (no matter how experienced, trained, certified, etc.) to carry out late-term abortions of viable fetuses that involve the intentional killing of the fetus?
————————
omnicrom:
Of course I don’t believe that pro-choice advocates “should have no problem” with Gosnell. I’m just trying to pinpoint exactly what problem(s) that may be. Of course everyone would have problems with the clinic’s unsanitary conditions and untrained medical staff that put the women/babies at risk for greater harm. Those are no-brainers. The real question is whether pro-choice advocates have a problem that viable fetuses/babies were purposefully terminated. If it is completely unacceptable to kill a fully born baby, then would it be acceptable if the doctor instead kills it while still inside the woman (assuming the death of the fetus is the woman’s intention)?
————————-
LykeX:
I accept that the vast majority of pro-choice proponents condemn Gosnell the same way they would condemn a car mechanic with no medical training performing appendectomies inside his car shop. But whether one thinks certain appendectomies are intrinsically wrong by themselves (regardless of who does them and where they are done) is another question that needs further clarification.
—————————–
theophontes:
Well, maybe not in the exact manner, but yes that’s essentially what I’m asking. Have you seen the post by Heather McNamara in Zinnia Jones’ blog (that was linked by Mellow Monkey)?
How about what I’ve already suggested? That the doctor doesn’t wait until the fetus is fully delivered, but rather kills the fetus while it is still inside the woman, or at least partially inside the woman. Would that be acceptable?
My answer is that there really is no practical difference whether the baby is killed after it is born or a few minutes beforehand while it is still inside the woman. The only practical difference I see is that killing the fetus while inside the woman puts the woman at greater health risk.
Stenberg vs. Carhart and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I simply asked what “undesirable outcome” you were referring to in regards to Gosnell. I thought you were talking about something pertaining to the abortions procedures rather than to the unwanted pregnancies themselves.
I intend to convince many of you that much of your worldview is wrong. Simple as that.
Witnessing Unto the Heathen.
There’s a merit badge for that.
–
Whoever made the unkind video about Chechnya that left those two kids no choice but to vigorously protest ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
md
You, too, are a total fuckwad.
joey I notice you didn’t even bother to respond to my other comment about how you’re pretending not to know the Pro-choice views. It just reinforces that you’re playing pretend when you pretentiously ponder the world of the Pro-choicers. It also reinforces that you are a liar.
Let me reiterate for the umptiumpth time what people have told you: When the fetus is viable the method of abortion is to INDUCE BIRTH. The rest of your post is the usual dishonest mental masturbation of the anti-choice playing hypothetical games and pleading ignorance, which according to Janine is how you arrived at Pharyngula so start as you mean to go on I guess.
Quoting this directly because it made me laugh. joey you are a dishonest little shit and I find it hilarious that after being called on it and rebutted a million times you come in here on your tiny little crusade. But go ahead: convince me that my worldview is wrong. Show me the merits of your shiny happy Anti-choice worldview, tell me the wonders of the agenda that created Gosnell and many other problems big and small that afflict women. I await with bated breath.
Just for Joey, I quote from Tony’s comment in the Lounge:
Not that I intend to convince that specimen of the wrongness of his worldview — that would require an open mind on his part.
(Religion poisons everything)
@ joey
Well it does help to be clear. And heather McNamara is that.
No, joey, there is nothing particularly pleasant about the abortion of a foetus. All the more reason that such operations should be undertaken in proper, professional medical facilities.
More important is to legalise abortions, and place a lot of emphasis on educating people on reproduction and their reproductive rights. No amount of wishful thinking and false equivalencies from the anti-abortion (not pro-life, that is a perverse misnomer) side is going to change the need for abortions.
But if you are honestly seeking to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and consequent abortions, may I suggest that you seek out best-case examples and educate yourself in what works (best) in the real world. It is a myth that abstinence, lack of education, shaming and the denial of women’s reproductive rights is of any help in this matter. These are generally xtian right-wing positions and they fail to work. This failure belies the real motivation of goddists in the whole debate – a desperate attempt to take the moral (if only by their own lights) high ground without regard for real world consequences.
…
Ok, I don’t mean to do all your homework for you, but:
(source, see also source2)
And more recently:
(emphasis mine, source3)
…
Religion is an abject failure in this regard. Give it up and seek real solutions, joey.
heatherHeather(Sorry.)
Combining Ponyz and WWII fighter planes.
I hope that worked, I cant do html to save my life.
Sure is. Good eye.
Joey:
If that is your goal, using the unsubstantiated, unscientific, anti-woman notions in your holy book is not the way to go.
Also, arguing honestly, utilizing proper reasoning skills, as well as accurate information will be quite helpful.
Once again: full bodily autonomy. Women have it. The rights of the fetus do not supercede the rights of the woman.
Let go of your hateful deity. You are ill served following barbaric views crafted long ago for a group of people you likely do not belong to.
I really don’t think it’s a good idea to put our only hope for rescuing the planet on a punk kid who’s going to try to hit a 2m ventilation shaft.
Joey the fuckwitted theobot:
You can’t convince us we are wrong. You are wrong. Your problem starts with your imaginary deity,which you can’t/won’t prove exists, and goes downhill from there as it is all based on illogical presuppositions. You offer nothing but bullshit. We don’t pay any attention to fiction.
Ideology vs reality. Phantasy vs finality. The fact that you state “many of you” betrays how much ‘wishful’ is foundational to your thinking.
That post of yours worked fine Arawhon. I seem to be immune to finding trifling things like Pony WWII fighters particularly weird, especially in this case since I know about the truly dreadful Japanese media property Strike Witches. Strike Witches is one of those anime properties that make all anime look bad, and like bad media properties from Japan designed exclusively to pander they never go the fuck away.
@ joey
Aborts the foetus, in other words. Maximum regard should be given for the patient’s safety, as with any procedure. Acceptability would depend on medical and safety concerns. What you suggest may well be the less safe option and would, in that case, be rejected as an option. I’m loath to make sweeping, general statements for something that would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
We have gone from foetus to baby again? Decide which you are referring to. Goddists/anti-choicers tend to do that linguistic switcheroo in order to conflate issues, so that they can make sweeping moral statements.
I gather you are trying to construct a hypothetical in which an essentially normal birth is terminated just prior. And somehow we should rise up in moral indignation at the idea. Or rather, if you want to place yourself on the moral high ground, we should just say we are fine with that. Aaargh, atheist monsters are we! What you describe is a pretty rare and unusual situation, joey. It is also not one that is generally allowed (assuming a healthy birth is about to take place), as there are restrictions on when a birth may be terminated. What is more likely in the real world, is that the pregnancy is carried forward those extra, hypothetical, 5 minutes and the baby put up for adoption.
(Do you spend all your spare time twisting your thoughts out of shape to come up with such contorted examples? I have already indicated that the goddist approach has resulted in worse outcomes.)
….
Your Almighty YHWH (a Milquetoast version of Almighty Zeus) actually delights in the slaughter of little babies (to use the anti-choice language) in the womb. In His bitter hatred of humanity He murders about one in three viable little babies right there in the womb.
(My view is that He is a malicious murderer, but perhaps you can convince me He is only criminally negligent.)
cm @#53:
wow. (That whole ‘Via’ link is worth checking out.)
I know the source said “Canada geese” but no; those are fledgling wood ducks.
Thanks–I knew they weren’t Canada geese (we have those) but didn’t know what they actually were.
For anyone who’s lazy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/once-in-a-lifetime-shots
Theophontes:
Am I mistaken, or are fetus’ carried nearly to term wanted pregnancies? Have there been any cases of a woman getting a late term abortion just for shits and giggles (which is apparently what joey is so worried about, because this is such a huge problem) where her life was not in danger? I know with Gosnell, he performed late term abortions, but we know none of the circumstances behind the decisions of the various women to abort.
(The above is asked for the benefit of our resident goddist)
****
Joey:
Have you forgotten that no one has the right to make use of the body of another without permission? Have you forgotten everything people have told you? You cannot force someone to give you a blood transfusion or internal organs, even if your life is in danger.
You appear to be under the impression that pregnancy is a special circumstance where the above does not apply.
In your world, the fetus has the right to make use of a womans body without her permission, and she has no right to stop that process, through abortion. Then, somehow, once the fetus is born, they no longer have the right to make use of the mothers body. Somehow fetuses have special rights not afforded to any other human being. All because you think your god says so.
Late-term abortions carried out by serious health providers are usually when ultrasound failed to spot life-threatening deformities early, like the brain being outside the cranium.
If the introduction of “metamaterials” in the design of ultrasound devices succed in improving resolution fourfold it means fewer of these non-viable pregnancies will slip through early ultrasound examinations.
— — — — — — — —
Bf 109 was originally designed for a small 750 hp Junkers Jumo engine and an arnament of two machine guns. Spitfire was designed for a 1000hp Merlin and eight guns.
Bf 109 got upgraded with bigger engines and better weapons, just like the Spitfire but the margin of further development ran out earlier with the German aircraft. They should have phased out production in favor of Focke-Wulff 190, a later design with more margin for development. Not that it would have saved Germany.
The Japanese had no oil wells apart from the occupied areas. They even lacked factories for synthetic fuel. When their merchant navy was torpedoed, they were doomed and should have surrendered but the military estabishment lived in a shared delusion.
The brilliant aircraft prototypes would have made no difference to Japan had they been mass-produced.
Tony,
Considering how restricted abortion access has become in the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised if people with unwanted pregnancies, that they would’ve otherwise liked to terminate early, were stuck going to less-than-honest providers like Gosnell for a late-term one.
ck:
Good and scary point.
Looks like joey and his anti choice pals still are not getting what they want. You are not going to eliminate abortions by making the procedure illegal. All they have done is significantly increase the risk of pregnancy for women, because they are going to turn to back alley doctors to get abortions.
If the fetus is mature enough to be actually viable, it’s long past the time when you’d do a D&E or similar procedure. More likely, the method of terminating the pregnancy would be an induced birth. If that’s the case, then there’s no reason to kill the fetus.
If the fetus is viable, then live birth should be preferred. At that point, you’d have to deliver the fetus anyway, dead or alive. Unless there was some reason why it would be safer to do it dead (which I doubt, since having dead things inside you is generally bad), I don’t think that should be done.
So, how often does that happen? Specifically, if we assume:
– We’re in a country where abortion is safe and easily available
– The woman is healthy and without psychological issues
– The fetus is healthy, viable and could be expected to survive if delivered instantly
– There is no health risks to the woman associated with live birth, as opposed to killing the fetus before delivery
Under those circumstances, how often does a woman ask for a doctor to kill the fetus? How often would a doctor comply with that request? Can you give me even one single example?
And if not, why should we bother discussion these extreme hypotheticals when there are very real problems going on right now?
What burden? If we’re at that late stage, then there’s no significant difference between delivering a dead fetus or a live one (correct me if I’m wrong on that). Since the woman can give the child up for adoption, I don’t see that she avoids any burden from not killing the fetus before delivery.
And, of course, if safe abortions are easily available, then we will never have that situation. A woman who doesn’t want the child will have an abortion at a much earlier stage when all of these questions are simply irrelevant. It’s only when anti-choice assholes try to restrict abortion rights that we even get these problems.
Look, women don’t have abortions for fun. They have abortions to retain control over their bodies and their lives. If they have late-term abortions, it’s either because there’s something wrong with the fetus or because they’ve been forced into a desperate situation by people who try to limit access to abortions.
The thing you describe simply doesn’t happen unless something has already gone horribly wrong, more often than not because of the intentional actions of the anti-choice shit heads.
No. Their intention was to get an abortion. People like you prevented them from getting them safely, so in desperation they turned to a quack like Gosnell. If it weren’t for anti-choicers, this would never have happened.
People like you are responsible for this. This is the natural and eminently foreseeable outcome of anti-choice policies. You people did this. You people are doing this, right now.
@ Tony
No, not necessarily. Whereas a woman may carry for some time with a wanted pregnancy – which later suffers complications that require an abortion (Savita’s was such a case), often it is the goddists which wilfully caused the delay. (What is the point of moralising, if one doesn’t get to shove one’s worldview down people’s throats.) Here are two links to illustrate that often it is unnecessary delay caused by moralistic buffoons like joey:
In Mexico [Trigger Warning!]:
(Source)
And in USA:
(source2) Not much morality on display here from the anti-choicers. If you are rich, their moral codes don’t apply. But woe betide those poor people who cannot afford to pay for their basic reproductive rights.
Though I imagine this is possible, it would be a real outlier. This has been raised more as one of joey’s over-the-top hypotheticals to grease the path of The Almighty ™ into our lives. The lack of citations allows us to *floosh* joey’s arguments and imaginary deity down the drain.
@ joey
The above articles give descriptions of why woman are forced to abort unwanted pregnancies far later than they would have liked. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Understand this: Although I am pro-choice, I am also in a sense anti-abortion. Let me describe what I mean, so that you don’t quote me out of context later.
I am also anti-drilling in dentistry and anti-stent in surgery. I will happily work to reducing any of those medical procedures. Not (I must emphasise for the willful idiots) to deny those procedures as a last resort, but rather to resolve the issues prior to them getting so far. That is: to try and obviate the need for such procedures in the first place.
For example: In the case of dentistry I would recommend that one brush one’s teeth regularly, that one floss regularly and maintain a proper diet. Also that the public is educated in oral health issues.
In the case of reproductive health, we need to seek out and mitigate the causes of unwanted pregnancies prior to occurrence. That is, by undertaking proper education in the matter, promoting the use of contraceptives, acknowledging sex as something positive and healthy, fighting against rape culture, fighting misogyny, … the list will be long and very much at odds with the proposals elicited by a goddist world-view.
joey, we all wish to find a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. We would all like to reduce the number of abortions. Even you will likely agree here: our final objectives are the same. Where you fail – as is well researched and adequately documented- is in your methodology. The goddist approach has done nothing to ameliorate the situation. It has made it far worse.
I shan’t go much into your motivations for pursuing such an obviously failed approach, other than to surmise that they must be appalling.
Corrections:
1. Lonely “?” seeks loving home.
2. Not the quoted piece (Mexico), but the original article should carry the warning.
Well, Tony, I guess I should be flattered you imagine that I was the one driving the conversation over on the RadFem thread.
(To give you credit, perhaps it’s true; when I respond to someone and to their responses, it is I who is driving the conversation! :) )
John:
I never said you were driving it. The particular focus you displayed in your initial comment was-IMO-veering off topic. You were not the only one, obviously, but my comment was directed at you because you instigated the ‘left turn at Albuequrque’.
Fair enough, Tony.
FYI, I’m about 90% sure the radfem thread has Matriarchy making a return appearance. Dunno the proper procedure ofr these things. The child has an unhealthy fixation with, among others, me (It is, by no means, just me, I just don’t feel like boring you all with the list of names)
joey, LykeX and any number of others have answered you. I agree with their answers.
Now please could you answer John M’s question:
Should Beatriz be prevented from having an abortion? Or should she be able to have an abortion?
Anything from a yes/no answer to detailed reasoning is acceptable, provided you actually answer the question.
@John Morales
Why?
I can say for my part: I have a deep need* for equality and acceptance. I want to live in a world where all people are accepted as equals. And I want to contribute to that world. And when someone is being treated badly and is suffering, I want to help.
– Do you not believe that all humans are equals?
– Do you oppose human rights, as in “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”?
– Or is it that while you embrace those ideals in principle, you just don’t want to contribute to these ideals in any way? In other words, you enjoy your position at/near the top of the heap, without feeling any kind of responsibility for those who are less fortunate? (And yes that does sound like exploitation.)
___
* I embrace non-violence, so “do” needs rather than obligations, but that’s a different discussion.
John,
I’m not sure whether you are playing a philosophical word game because you were bored and felt like poking people with a stick, or you have some sort of a genuine point to make that you expect people to divine out of your short comments (which, again, looks remarkably like a game you are enjoying). Either way, I feel strangely disappointed.
Delft:
Well, I don’t feel that deep need, though I do feel the world would be a lot nicer if everyone were like me.
And sure, in general, I like to help people. And I often do.
1. In principle and ab initio, sure. But once I have some information, I adjust my judgement accordingly. I’m no saint.
2. I don’t oppose them, but I don’t endorse them, either.
3a. Nope.
3b. Things are what they are, and I don’t consider that such social privilege as I have which I did not seek and which I have no way of refusing entails any corresponding obligation or responsibility on my part.
—
In short, such good things as I may do for others I do because I choose to and because it makes me feel good, not because I feel obligated to do so.
(And the converse applies, obviously)
Ah.
Do you also believe your contribution is more valuable than that of someone who believes they have a moral obligation to do that same thing?
Beatrice, if you’re asking whether I think the intrinsic value of any given action depends on its motivation, then no; if you’re asking whether I think it’s more morally meritorious if it’s motivated by other than a perceived obligation, then maybe yes and maybe no, depending on the action and the situation.
@John Morales
If by your own admission you don’t “endorse” human rights, and you think your social privilege and power confers no responsibility on you, why do you “feel the world would be a lot nicer if everyone were like” you?
Surely that describes most politicians, bankers, and people in powerful positions all over the world?
The world would be a lot nicer FOR JOHN MORALES if everyone were more like John Morales. He doesn’t seem concerned with whether the world would be nicer for everyone else if that were the case.
Narcissist. Which would go a long way towards explaining his lack of access to basic theory of mind reasoning about other people’s motivations and desires.
You know, every single one of joey’s questions, this time around, every single one, he has already asked multiple times before, and received the same answers multiple times already. The only difference is that the pathetic intellectually dishonest schmuck is name-dropping Gosnell this time around.
Pitiful.
SallyStrange:
You’re not thinking that through; the predication is everyone else being like me, and hence if it were nicer for me it would accordingly be nicer for them too.
Unwarranted inference.
(Does this mean you too are a narcissist, or does it mean you believe the world would not be a nicer place if everyone were like you?)
thinking stuff through is, like, a guy thing.
Extra salt on my popcorn, please.
Chas being an arrogant sexist ass? must be Sunday
Speaking for myself and not for SallyStrange, the world would not be much nicer if everyone were like me. No one would challenge any preconceived notions I might have and be blind to, because everyone would be blind to them. Everyone would know all of the stuff I know and nothing more. There would be no one to fix your car, because I don’t know jackshit about cars, no one to build and maintain infrastructure, no one to teach the young people (who are also like me, so they’ll be a fucking handful) Calculus or ancient Sumerian history or to speak Mandarin.
Everyone would rather hang out on the internet, if they were like me, than do what they should be doing, which is learning all this stuff so society doesn’t crumble.
You know, we have this rule about not bearing grudges across threads. However, I made it with the idea that if anybody tried to exploit it in that way, using it as an excuse to avoid answering questions, I’d step in.
If Joey is doing that, it is a bannable offense.
Well, it’s been previous incarnations of the TDome; do those count as separate threads?
What? Carrying personal grudges across multiple iterations of the TDome? Who would do something like that?
@ chas
Well, it does add a certain frisson to the goings-on around here.
Sometimes I wish I could reach through a USB….
thumper1990 posted in another thread:
Leaving aside the ridiculousness of your contention that doing nothing requires as little effort as combating something, and leaving aside that I’ve already noted I do things I’m not obligated to do, whyever do you imagine that noting that there is no such obligation implies a refusal to do things to which I am not obligated?
(Do you not do things unless you feel an obligation to do them? :) )
Good news, everyone!
Soon, you will not have to debate if the new episodes of Futurama is as good as the old episodes.
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
@Goodbye Enemy Janine
#116
Well, there’s two way a show can end.
1. On a high note, where the show producer realize that they ran out of ideas and decided not to “milk the franchise” so to speak.
2. Lose all audience, because they decided to keep “milking” the franchise.
I would rather that a show ends on it’s own term. That said, it is still better then most shows in their prime.
Actually, I am happy that the show has lasted (on and off) for as long as it has. And still makes me laugh.
And it still has not become The Simpsons.
I just hope that it can have a definite ending. And, no, I do not mean the cancellation.
So, you DO speak up against misogyny and regard it as a good thing to do. But you flipped your shit at the notion that I might have the audacity to perceive such actions as a moral obligation for all those on the receiving end of privilege?
“The world would be a better place if everyone were more like me” is a narcissistic sentiment, and we’ve already established that you suck really hard at interpreting other people’s actions, because you have a hard time imagining that people think differently than you, so I think “narcissist” is a label that is perfectly warranted by the available evidence. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a narcissist, Morales. Everyone has narcissistic tendencies.
I agree with evilisgood. I do not spend much time wishing that people were more like me, and don’t really see how that would make the world a better place, for me or anyone else. I enjoy novelty and diversity. I recognize that not everyone finds these things enjoyable and that’s okay with me–in fact, I’m glad those people exist because otherwise people like me would throw the world headlong into recklessly risky changes. Maybe the world would be better if more people, like me, saw the value of having a diversity of people and thus a diversity of values, paradigms, and experiences.
I’m still baffled as to what was stopping Morales from just saying, “I don’t regard that as an obligation and here’s why” rather than playing another one of his coy little games with his cryptic one-liners. I WANT to have a discussion about it, Morales, that’s why I posted it in a DISCUSSION THREAD and that’s why it annoys me, when you, a person who apparently disagrees with me and may have some interesting and valid reasons for doing so, can’t do me and all the other readers the courtesy of stating your disagreement in plain, easy-to-understand terms. It really looks like you are just playing games, and NOT interested in participating in a rational discussion.
And this is where we enter yet another round of attempting to explain to Morales that this [unpleasant thing involving emotions such as annoyance, anger, and frustration] is what your actions look like, and Morales says, that’s not his intention, and we say, okay, but your intention is not translating through your actions into perceptions that match up to your intention, and Morales insisting that it’s everyone else’s fault for not understanding his amazing brilliance and if we were all just super-logical Vulcan robots like him, we’d understand exactly what he meant, and the world would be a better place.
*spits*
@John #115
Yeah, I didn’t say that. Obviously doing nothing is less effort, I said combating it does not require a lot of effort.
And I assumed that because why else would you mention it? And I disagree; I think there is a moral obligation here. Allowing bad shit to keep happening when you are capable of combating it makes you a bad person.
However, seeing as you do not appear to be in favour of doing nothing, it would seem we have no argument outside of semantics.
Just to jump in and say something completely unrelated to the thread which might or might not upset people…
The surviving Boston bomber: Is there any chance at all of him getting…not exactly off, but at least not executed or imprisoned for life? From what I’ve read, it seems like he may have been heavily influenced by his brother and may not have been that interested in jihad or revenge or making things go boom himself. And he’s only 19. Maybe he could get out in 20 or 30 years like the bombers of the 1960s? He’d still have time to make something out of his life. Or is it simply impossible in such a high profile case with everyone after revenge no matter what?
Assuming actual guilt, and assuming that no future court subverts any sentence b/c he was tortured or something, I don’t believe that there is any way that he gets out before death.
There is an argument for that. (I don’t think it’s persuasive for Life-w/o-Parole, but I think it’s an excellent case for Life w the possibility of Parole if we’re convinced you’ve changed.) The argument is this: you’ve proven that you’re willing to assist mass murder. While you may not be motivated to plan one yourself, any mass murderer looking for flunkies to help make their attacks more deadly would be stupid not to look you up. And we don’t have any faith you would say no.
You can say that it was his brother, etc., etc. That’s certainly true. But even if he’s *more* likely to follow his brother into mass murder than some other person into mass murder, there are still objective reasons to believe that it’s a possibility that he’d follow someone else into mass murder. I like to think there’s no way you could get me to participate in such awfulness. I have never been put in a situation where someone I loved asked me for help in killing folks, but the thought it repugnant to me and I can’t even imagine myself not turning my loved one in (if I thought steps were being taken & this wasn’t idle misanthropic whining) much less assist in doing it.
I can’t say the same about the surviving bomber.
Crip Dyke: I can’t see how he can not be guilty or even be gotten off by any defense attorney, given that he was in a shoot out with the cops and there was bomb making material in his house. And I find your argument that someone willing to help commit mass murder is unsafe even if he (or she) would never form a plot on his/her own.
Still, he’s 19. A 19 year old is still fairly neurologically immature and he may have been caught in his brother’s world view to the extent that he couldn’t make his own moral judgements. (The latter may or may not be true-I’m speculating that the older brother was the driving force behind the plot, but that could be totally untrue.) Could he get to the point where violence no longer holds any attraction? Could we as a society ever trust that he’d reached that point? I don’t know.
Dianne, if I had to guess, I’d bet that if his lawyers have any hope of keeping him out of prison, they’d have to argue that his brother was completely in control (i.e. that he was brainwashed). This would require a plea of not guilty for reason of mental defect, which is difficult to pull off successfully even in the best of situations (which this is not). More likely, I’d guess, would be a guilty plea in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table (i.e. life without parole). The probability of him not spending the rest of his life in confinement is nil.
@Esteleth, the most colossal nerd on Pharyngula
#125
Not sure what it means by nil (0% or just extremely unlikely). But life without paroles can be pardoned by governor (if sentenced by state) or the president (if sentenced by federal).
Maybe he can help write the memoirs of an aspiring 2032 POTUS candidate. America believes in second chances.
Indeed, pardons are possible. But I’d say that in this case “nil” = “extremely small probability.”
@dianne
#122
Some might argue that he doesn’t deserve that chance after depriving three individual their own chance to make something out of their life.
You never know, the victim’s family might do what the Amish during the “Amish school shooting” did.
Granted, their killer did kill himself (it was a massacre + suicide).
Chrissy Amphlett, lead singer of the Divinyls has died.
There’s always Guantanamo Bay…
@Morales:
Anyone who seriously thinks about this question for at least 5 minutes and does not conclude that the world would actually be really shitty if everyone was more like them is probably pretty narcissistic.
I’m fairly narcissistic and I still don’t think the world would be better if everyone were more like me.
Jadehawk@171 in the radfem/TERF thread:
Feel free to articulate your actual position at any time. It’s hard to agree with you when I don’t know what you’re actually arguing.
While I understand how one could interpret this as a manifestation of misogyny instead of misandry I disagree.
1) I don’t think misandry and misogyny are mutually exclusive.
2) I interpret “misandry” as “anti-man prejudice,” not “anti-manhood prejudice” (so I guess you’re the one arguing against strawmen this time?). As a result I think the social attitudes that suggest men are less worthy than other men for experiencing real human emotion are misandristic. I think the way our culture constructs “manhood” is unhealthy in the first place.
3) This argument can only be based on your own inconsistency in the use of these words. Supporting the cultural construction of femininity over the experiences of actual women is described frequently as “misogyny”. But according to your argument supporting the cultural construction of manhood over the experiences of actual men is not misandry. Implicitly for something to qualify as misandry (again, according to your argument) it would have to attack the cultural construction of manhood.
I’d appreciate if you could actually state your position on this instead of just describing anyone who offers an opinion that differs from your own of arguing with straw men. You seem quite scornful of the idea that anyone might use the arbitrary sound “misandry” to designate a category that includes actual events, behaviors, and attitudes in the real world but you seem unwilling or unable to articulate why.
Rutee Katreya@173 in the #radfem2013 thread:
I disagree that the word “misandry” has to describe a “societal bias” in order to be a valid and coherent concept in its own right. You may have to do more than call me “jackass” to convince me otherwise.
I can think of a few reasons: for example that men shouldn’t need that help and it’s condescending to suggest they should. (I’m not saying you’re making that suggestion.) Mainly what I had in mind is that the way our culture constructs manhood encourages men to deny or downplay important aspects of what it means to be human. Incidentally, I am not arguing that these assumptions are not simultaneously misogynists — see my response to Jadehawk. I’m certainly not arguing that the misandristic aspects are in any way more important or more ubiquitous than the misogynistic aspects.
Thank you for informing me of that evidence. I wasn’t aware of any statistics on the first part but I’ll take your word on it. (It’s not particularly salient to the argument I’m making — I’m not particularly sympathetic to the MRM.)
unrelated: OH FFS
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/steubenvilles_football_coach_gets_two_year_contract_extension/
Daniel, what you’re missing is why men being emotional / grooming / doing childcare / etc gets their manhood called into question.
To wit, it is because in doing those things, men are acting like women. And as women are (in the patriarchal framework) lesser than man, a man acting like a woman is doubleplus ungood. The crapping on “unmanly” men is thus not misandry (they are not being crapped on for being men, they are being crapped on for acting like women) but misogyny.
Some might argue that he doesn’t deserve that chance after depriving three individual their own chance to make something out of their life.
I’ll agree that this is fair and just when the guys running an unsafe fertilizer factory with blatant disregard for human life and deprived at least 5 people of a chance to make something out of their lives get treated in the same way. They’ll probably never spend a second in jail or even have to pay a fine.
I’d bet that if his lawyers have any hope of keeping him out of prison, they’d have to argue that his brother was completely in control (i.e. that he was brainwashed).
If they did pull this off-and it’s the only way that I can see that he might avoid being found guilty-he’d end up in indefinite commitment for treatment of mental illness. Which would be ok if we had any knowledge of how to treat this sort of mental illness or any parameters that would indicate when treatment was successful. Which, as far as I know, we don’t. In fact, that’s kind of the bottom line problem here: Suppose he is put in prison, does reform, and is safe to be released. How would anyone know?
If this argument is triggering, please tell me and I’ll drop it. I’m kind of trying to figure out what I think about the situation and don’t actually have a position. And recognize that that statement may be a bit like the “I’m just asking questions” thing that MRAs do, so please tell me if I should drop it.
@Pteryxx
The sad thing is that I’m not really surprised. It seems to be par for the course that coaches can get way with almost anything as long as they can produce wins for the team.
Esteleth@137:
I’m not “missing” that at all. I make that argument occasionally as well. As I said several times I do not think the concepts are mutually exclusive.
And again the fact that I think it makes sense to talk about both concepts doesn’t mean I think both are of equal significance or consequence.
Where is SGBM these days?
Shouldn’t this actually read more like “acting like women are “supposed” to act” or something like that? My problem here is that the presumption there is a specific way women are “supposed” to be or act is itself misogyny. Is that not the case?
I am talking specifically about what I think are psychologically injurious expectations and pressures on men as “misandry.” analogous to how I would use “misogyny” to describe, say, the expectation that women are supposed to be demure or whatever harmful stereotype of women you would like to use.
I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it except look at this yahoo answers. The word “misandry” is going to be used. I think it’s better to be able to articulate how the term “misandry” can be understood in a way that is compatible with feminism if only to prevent it being used as a propaganda tool. But then again maybe it’s not my job to make that sort of judgment so let me know if I’m over the line on this.
Ouch. That was only borderline coherent. Hopefully you can get the meaning but please let me know if I need to try again.
Men are also shit upon if they do something, or have something done to them, that shows them to be passive, the recipient of a sex act (the ‘fuckee’ as opposed to the ‘fucker’), or cry, or shows emotion, or does anything else that the patriarchal paradigm deems to be feminine. So yes, men are not supposed to leave the patriarchal behaviour. We are, for most of us, locked into what is acceptable behaviour by society for men, women, and children.
If it wants to co-exist with misogyny, it must. I know the majority are always keen to invent words that mean the majority is the one who is being put upon, such as heterophobic or ‘anti-cis bias’, but it doesn’t make those words meaningful or accurate descriptors of jack shit.
If it helps the majority of men it affects, it ain’t ‘misandristic’. And saving their careers, saving them time, and making them lauded for putting the slightest effort into child raising, is helping them.
Why? Why can’t it be another word referring to something related but distinct and of unequal importance and significance?
Well, unlike “heterophobic” and “anti-cis bias”, “misandry” dates back to several hundred BC in the original Greek. Like it or not it’s a word referring to a concept. You can try to contextualize it or you can let the traditionalists and MRAs do that for you. Your choice. And of course I’ll stop using it if it’s making you uncomfortable.
Because it’s borrowing from conversations about misogyny. That’s why they’re formed from the same roots linguistically – the whole point is to make it sound as bad as misogyny, when it ain’t.
If you aren’t speaking greek, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference whether it ‘dates back to it’. It is, for all intents and purposes, made up to try to borrow from conversations on misogyny – just like ‘reverse racism’ and ‘heterophobic.’
where, indeed?
[in other news]
oo! oo! fight!
daniellavine-on-the-internet vs. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Doom!!!
I don’t have any popcorn…uh… tortilla chips OK?
Let’s fill this Danaid jar:
Yeah, but it’s easy to take jokes when you get to go back to the real world of privilege. (Aaargh, I used that word)
“Hatred of men’s traditional role” and “culture of machismo” is misandry??? Did I read that correctly? That’s not abusive to men, it’s freeing. That’s not a valid use of the term ‘misandry.’ The first part I agree with.
Well, I haven’t solved much yet, let’s moive on:
Bit of an overreaction don’tcha think? Sure, perhaps a few women are like this. Every movement has the ultra-radical element, but they are sociopaths, I would think, and by no means define the norm, in terms of numbers, or ideology. Far, far from it.
Uhm, not really. Reinforcing male stereotypes is anti male, and female. It sure isn’t man hatred.
This is:
There is a perception of this, but it is overblown. It is giving far too much credit to a few ultra radicals, and maybe if everyone quit giving them so much air time, they wouldn’t be perceived as so influential.
I have to say that I, personally, have objected to the use of the phrase “all men are potential rapists” as giving credence to this perception. I object with anything that I see as giving, maybe intentional, but mostly unintentional, inflammatory connotations.
I now realize that it means ‘any one man might be a rapist(for all I know)’, but anyways, it doesn’t matter that fucking much. It is a misperception, one I think ought to be avoided. It is both ‘sides’ fault. I digress
[That’s what Rutee Katreya said!]
Can’t say that that hasn’t happened to me, at times, towards both sexes.
I was going to argue with you, Rutee,
but I find out that you are correct!
Hey, I almost forgot to tip my hat to trickipedia! Misandry
For the record, I’ve seen reference to the term ‘misandry’ first appearing in 1909, besides 1879 here, so it doesn’t have a long history of usage, whatsoever.
Sorry for butting in… in a sense ;)
daniellavine
That was fine. I think. And I know incoherent.
Anyone remember danielhaven? He is the reigning King of incoherence
mikmik #150
danielhaven was a personal favorite.
I use the
killhushfile only on those who call me names.The rest of the time, I just scroll.
[sometimes I miss important stuff]
Evilisgood,
All evidence from the nym aside, SGBM is not without limits. Sometimes a break is necessary to recuperate, they will be back if they feel they can.
cage match
link
or
limk
video quality [try to ignore]
@ daniellavine
I thought about it for 5 minutes. A phrase such as “The world would be a better place if people were (more/just) like me.”, does not say much other than: “I believe the world is a better place for my being here.”
Pretty much everyone feels this way, or (by one’s own lights at least) one is fucking up somehow.
@ mikmik
DH66 RIP.
no
no
no
no
He is still with us.
Thanks, Dhorvath. I hope all is well, and I totally understand.
@ chigau
Oops.
DH66 RIP.DH666 RIP.I get that feeling connate with a rather obtuse, beloved family Labrador that has jumped the fence and gotten hit by an ice-cream truck. All very sad.
But yes, he is likely still out there somewhere in cyberspace.
…
{theophontes does a little plié to the audience}
(You have not remarked on my snazzy new nym.)
Picking apart the Chinese part:
theophontes (Evil (inferior + heart) + Slow +Step + Animal (moving + matter (live+not)))
Correction: theophontes (Evil (inferior + heart) + Tardigrade (Slow +Step + Animal (moving + matter (live+not))))
I shall stop unpacking it there for now.
No, if more people in the world were like me, or if everyone were like me, the world would be a suicidal mess. So no, not everybody. For one thing, the entire internet would be full of broken people who have failed at being human.
[considers internet]
Then again . . .
Ogvorbis, dammit! You’re doing it again. :|
The only thing you’re “failing at” is recognising your own worth.
—
(“Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Tho’ I’ve belted you an’ flayed you,
By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”)
Sorry, John. I’m feeling really down right now. I tried to banter over at the Lounge and even that comes across as negative. I read that part about the whole world being like me and it just scared me a little. What a depressing/depressed place that’d be.
@ Ogvorbis
Dammit, Ogvorbis!
You are the last person to be accused of not making the world a better place by being in it. Now just be as good to yourself too.
We are here for you 24/7 – the Horde never sleeps. (and I’ll offer to help set you up with a really snazzy kick-ass nym-suffix as well.)
oooh sniny!
Oggie:
You are not a failure. I will happily continue to say this and support you and remind you that you are a good person.
****
Theophontes:
I think the two sentences say different things.
I am not a scientist, inventor, politician, CEO, businessman, academic (the list goes on). Were everyone in the worl to be like me, the world would be full of procrastinating, uncreative people who think too much and cannot turn off the analysis.
(Here, my assumption is that ‘making the world a better place means improving the world as it exists currently. There are things I can do, but those are limited and, imo apply in the social arena only. To make the world better, I think we need diversity. From my position then, evryone being like me would be bad for the planet. )
****
mikmik:
Why do you not like using ‘privilege’?
@Tony #165
You, too? Glad I’m not the only one.
….
The series that Greta is doing over at her place regarding her new book has prompted me to continue my thinking regarding some things that I still struggle with, as a feminist and a person – sex work and pornography.
I don’t feel like I share the same attitudes toward sex workers that are so prevalent in society or even some groups of feminists (but then people who don’t “get it” never feel like that, do they?).
I don’t think that sex workers are undeserving of protection or recognition or membership in sex-positive feminism. I don’t think that sex workers are un-rape-able, or are a designated “rape class” that allows for the perpetuation of rape culture (something that I’ve heard people say). I don’t think that all sex workers everywhere are oppressed by the very nature of their work, or cannot really truly choose sex work of their own free will, and not as a “last resort.”
But.
It’s hard to know if I can offer any kind of criticism or have any legitimate concerns about either sex work or pornography. When I’ve tried to engage with people who are “more sex-positive than thou,” I get accused of judging other people’s kinks and professions, and I’ve even been called a “Second Wave Feminist”, which I am most assuredly NOT.
What frustrates me about these conversations is that the “more sex-positive than thou” people seem to have this magic wand that *blink* makes everything they like completely free of any societal or historical context, and therefore not a problem and how dare you even imply that it could possibly be one!
Most of the time I’m more than content to let different feminists be different feminists (except for the transphobic “radfems” and feminists that are satisfied with legal equality but not actual equality, of course) – we don’t all have the same concerns or causes. But it starts to rub me the wrong way when I feel like my feminism is de-valued because I don’t necessarily agree with “more sex-positive than thou” feminists 100% of the time.
Granted, I had to do a lot of learning and growing into my atheism/feminism, and overcoming a lot of internalized shame and sexism to get to the point where I am now, and I by no means believe that I’m done learning. But this is something I’m having a hard time understanding.
Thoughts?
@ Tony
Did you ever see the film “Being John Malkcovitch?” (The poster is enough by itself!)
I don’t know if you should treat John’s little experiment to mean too literally that it is a world populated by just you, as you are now (unless that’s what he meant). Perhaps just the manners of doing… culture thus.
What does amaze me, on reading old histories, is how contemporary the main issues of the day, and the people who face them appear. Even although it is now thousands of years later. How similar people actually are over the course of centuries (some might argue that we have regressed). We face different situations and deal with different cards and this seems to mask a lot of the similarities.
There was an argument of what a god (much like YHWH, all powerfull, all knowing) would do to fill in the vacuity of a fully known eternity. And the solution was this. That it would play games of hide and seek, forget, pretend, hide behind masks… surprise itself. Without breaking apart into so many parts it could not live. But essentially it remains the same god. (Not that I’m saying that is the case, but it is a handy suggestion if you ever find yourself in the position of being the one-true-god.
@ mythbri
Well there were societies, back in history, that regarded prostitution as divine. We appear to have sunk to a low ebb. It says more about current society than prostitutes that they are now held in any less regard than fully fledged professionals (not to even speak of the abuses suffered.)
@thephontes
No arguments here. And I don’t think it’s fair that current perceptions negatively impact people who are trying to do the work they enjoy – but that’s true of a lot of professions, for women and men. The abuses heaped upon sex workers are significant, and inexcusable.
@ mythbri
Of course the babble had a lot to do with corrupting attitudes. There the Greeks were, just trying to bring some fun and laughter into the Temple ™ . And then the goddists got all hot under the collar (2 Maccabees 6:4):
We have all seen where all that newfangled, pious outrage led. From celebrations to dirty little secrets. From respect too contempt.
(I don’t think religions, per se, poison everything. I do think all those YHWH-based religions do though. A culture with perverse attitudes to sex will illicit perverse attitudes towards sex-workers.)
Ogvorbis – *hugs and chocolate* You are a good person. We all know that.
@theophontes
Again, I completely agree.
YHWH-based religions at least (not alone, but they definitely do the lion’s share) have spent thousands of years demonizing the feminine.
I had an experience with a guy I dated who was very “sex positive.” He was an avid viewer of pornography and a huge fan of individual actresses and models who did nude work.
It really bothered me. And he pushed my boundaries and I excused it because I was still getting over my religious-indoctrinated prudishness, and I pushed back when he pushed too hard. He kept maintaining that his interest in pornography was a celebration of sex and sexiness and women and all that, claimed that it was empowering and feminist. And I thought I ought to give him a chance, even though that bothered me, because we had a lot of other things in common.
(Trigger warning for rape)
And then, after our relationship had lasted for almost a year, he told me that he had been arrested (long before we met) for masturbating in a public library while watching porn. And even though I didn’t want to have sex with him, he wanted to sleep in the same bed as me (and I knew he desperately wanted to have sex with me. But it was okay, he said, because he didn’t fuck women in their sleep “any more.”
“Any more.”
He raped one of his previous girlfriends multiple times when she was asleep, until one time she woke up and freaked out because (DUH) he was raping her.
He said he’d “learned his lesson” and “would never do it again.” I did NOT let him sleep in my bed.
After I ended the relationship I found out that he had been sexually harassing some of our mutual online female friends, and had been stealing pictures of them from their social network profiles for his own personal “collection.”
So yeah – I’ve got issues with “sex positivity” being used to excuse or cover for extremely bad behavior.
chigau @ 153
Ooooooh, Phil Ochs! One of my musical heroes.
I have a blister crater on my right hand* that is weeping pus on my mouse. This is a little gross.
Also, the blister is placed just so on the sort of distal central portion of my plam, that I can’t get a band-aid to stay in place.
Also, I submitted my Chinese visa application this morning. Now I just need to learn Chinese. I’m glad that I know how (Evil (inferior + heart) + Tardigrade (Slow +Step + Animal (moving + matter (live+not)))) is written. A journey of a thousand miles & cetera. I’m also glad that in the process, no one insisted on shaking my hand.
*Side eye to those ascribing prurient causes to a pretty innocent if not currently sticky and disgusting injury.**
**If you must know, I was digging a moat around my house and didn’t think to wear my gardening gloves.
Minor thought experiment*:
The police are going door-to-door looking for a terrorist in your neighborhood.
You grow pot in your basement.
What’s your best choice of action?
*Not mine.
@nightshadequeen
Offer the police a toke?
Tell the police that there is definitely not a terrorist in your basement.
Antiochus Epiphanes
And are you going to explain this?
What’s to explain? Prolonged digging without protective hand-gear can cause blisters. It’s a risk I decided I could live with.
Ogvorbis
*hugs* As others have said, I reiterate: You’re a good person and a worthwhile human being.
mythbri
Ugh. That’s definitely part of a pattern I’ve noticed, which is that any type of cause/idea that involves “Let’s dispense with with this tradition/cultural trope that restricts behaviour in an often harmful way” will inevitably attract a fringe of fellow-travelers who read that as “since we’re dispensing with that tradition, it means I can do whatever I want. FREEDOM!!!!”. These people are assholes, scumbags, and parasites, and usually are not members of whatever group is most harmed by the tradition in question.
chigau:
There’ll always be DH666. Damn, that thread was fun!
—
Antiochus Epiphanes, will the moat have sharks? Will the sharks have lasers? Enquiring minds want to know!
—
Ogvorbis, I think the last time I posted something at (to) you, IIRC, you had a nearly-heart attack, so I’m just going to +1 what everyone else said just said instead. ;-)
*le sigh*
Just putting up the following piñata to see how people knock it down.
.
The emotions can be subtle and powerful. Emotions alter our thinking and our perceptions. Strong emotions can even alter our memories. You don’t have to look very hard to see how deeply people’s thinking has been affected by their emotions.
.
The problem with religion is that it has no protections against the emotions. In fact, most religions encourage the emotions to a degree. You can even categorize subgroups within religion based on how much they encourage emotionalism. Even the most cerebral subgroups still encourage the emotions.
.
How deeply people’s perceptions, thinking, and memories are affected by their emotions is the elephant in the room that religion ignores.
.
The whole purpose of empiricism is to protect against the emotions.
.
The paradox of empiricism is that that, because it takes strong emotions to fight strong emotions, you have to be emotional about not trusting any of the other emotions. Not trusting the other emotions is the one thing it’s safe to be emotional about.
It’s 10:23pm and we’re making sponge cakes. Goddamn kids’ school bake sale days. :-/
In what galaxy can one refer to all the various cognitive biases that prevent accurate perception and measurement of the world around us as ’emotions’. Empiricism is about getting things right by following the evidence, not about halting emotions 4eva.
Fly casual!
@Rutee Katreya
Sure, referring to all cognitive biases as “the emotions” is a simplification, or an oversimplification, or even an inaccurate characterization, by someone whose not very knowledgeable in that field (me). But I think empiricism is meant to protect us against cognitive biases as well.
.
@Rutee Katreya
I agree empricism is about getting things right by following the evidence. But I never said empiricism was about halting emotions, either temporarily or forever, I said empiricism was about guarding against the emotions.
I think you’re going to have to do a better job explaining the distinction you’re making here. If you’re willing to concede that referring to cognitive biases as ’emotions’ is inaccurate, then I fail to see why you wouldn’t abandon that characterization.
Thanks for the support. I’m back into the ‘I know it wasn’t my fault but I still did what I remember I did which is beyond the pale of human behaviour.’
Someone slowed down Bela Lugosi’s Dead by Bauhaus so that it lasts nine hours.
I will not link to it.
If you want to hear it, look it up yourself.
Besides, I like Tones On Tail and Love And Rockets better.
*Kw*k* I have met his sister! She is a wonderful person. She is also hosting a Roy Zimmerman concert in a couple of weeks.
Next time, try using a shovel. rimshot
No, it is not a simplification, or an oversimplification, or even an inaccurate characterization.
It is simply flat out wrong.
Which is still flat out wrong.
*twitches*
Someone looped up Nyan Cat so it lasts ten hours.
I’m not sure this internet thing is actually helping anyone anymore.
Back in my younger days, I would sometimes get drunk off my arse and jam on that with my friends for probably close to nine hours.
Well, that and “She Bangs the Drums”…
@cm
As long as you want, in multiple flavors and with a timer, to keep track of your life slowly draining away.
Antiochus Epiphanes
I wasn’t questioning the digging (I’m an archaeologist, digging is my life.).
I was questioning the ” moat around my house”.
[only if you want to share]
In northern Ireland, I believe quite a few convicted IRA and “loyalist” terrorist murderers from the 1970s and 1980s are now living normal, in some cases productive lives. For example, Patrick Magee, who bombed the hotel in Brighton where Margaret Thatcher and other senior ministers were staying. You don’t get much more high-profile than that. To be fair, other released terrorists have been rearrested for further crimes of violence.
Janine: Because your the coolest kid here, you have probably heard The Savages. I like what I’ve heard.
carlie: Hah!
chigau: すみません! I was being silly. I’m putting a French drain out back because water has been piling up on the patio. Right now it’s just a 100′ moat that covers the whole back side of the house and wraps around to a dry well in the front.
Antiochus Epiphanes
I’m relieved.
I was worried that you were going Survivalist on us ;)
@ LykeX
I’ve been trying to play Nyan for several hours now, but with little success. I can’t seem to get the kitteh to *DO* anything. I shall grant that it is very much like playing with a real cat in that respect. I finally got the credits to change to Turkish: DİSKOLU MİSKOLU NYAN CAT! which has been the highlight of my day so far.
@ AE
We need to come up with a ruse to divert your trip via Southern China…
theophontes: I’ll see what I can do. I have kind of a big black box for how I’m getting back, but I have some bidness in Beijing, so I’m leaving from their. I just haven’t established how I’m getting from Kunming to Beijing at the end of the trip. Kinda depends on field conditions and colleagues.
If possible, it would likely be the third week in June.
This landed in my inbox this morning.
….is this as creepy as I think it is?
nightshadequeen,
Very creepy
nightshadequeen
I can see the creepy side, but I can also see the useful side for people like me. My memory for things that I’ve done is utter and complete shit. Last night, for instance, I suggested that we ought to watch The Neverending Story, as I’ve never seen that movie. I was informed by L and D that I had seen it no less than three times, with them even. (I still can’t remember seeing that movie, though) That kind of thing happens to me all the damn time, and it would actually be really nice to have some kind of external reminder of what the hell I’ve been getting up to.
The audio data is uploaded to their servers.
I got the impression that the app records periodically by itself once you start it.
(back online)
@John Morales
You haven’t answered my question.
Oh. Shit no. No, no, no.
[reads the rest of it]
That is creepy. Very creepy.
nightshadequeen
Missed that part, that would be a problem.
beatrice
Well, it would be pretty pointless if it didn’t; if I can’t remember what movie I watched last month, I’m certainly not going to remember to turn the thing on everytime something interesting happens.
But that’s one of the things I find creepy. I can be doing anything, talking about anything, and it suddenly starts recording? Creepy.
I would feel pressure to start doing…you know…like, interesting or awesome things. The kinds of things that get me into trouble.
It could be more depressing than creepy.
Heh, that’s another way of looking at it.
Depressing, yes.
maybe this could be a good thing. All conversations could be monitored for potentially dangerous words — bomb, kill, shoot, liberal, women are people, GLBTQ are people, Fox News is shit — and make the world safer for the 1%ers.
Delft:
Because I don’t need to accept some formal concept of “human rights” in order to treat humans as humans, and I don’t care about social power.
Surely not. Did I mention I have no ambition, as most people understand it?
Yes, but maybe no sometimes?
NO no no no never no no no no
And it records…randomly? So probably you miss the time your baby first says “I love you”, but it records that time you’re telling your mother about your colonoscopy results.
@John Morales
How luxurious.
Or do you mean that you don’t care about obtaining social power?
Yes, mythbri, I do mean that I don’t care about obtaining social power.
Then I’m glad that you already have the amount of social power that makes you comfortable.
mythbri, you still don’t get it, do ya?
(I’m not comfortable about it, I just don’t care about it)
Apparently I don’t get it, John. You don’t exactly explain what you mean.
What I imagine is that you don’t care about it because you’re not uncomfortable about it.
mythbri, well, duh.
Anything one doesn’t care about is something with which one is not uncomfortable.
(Do you care about, um, Justin Bieber’s present hair-style?)
Actually, it makes me uncomfortable. ;)
Okay.
Then back to my original comment – to not care about the amount of social power seems like a luxury to me.
And I’m talking about this in a social justice context, not a corporate/status ambition context. Unless you consider aspiring to be recognized as equal to be an ambition, which it very well could be.
mythbri,
Fair enough.
(The grass is greener)
Social power boils down to the power to influence people within a given social milieu, so context is not that relevant since I don’t care about any of its varieties.
—
Let’s rewind a bit. This whole thing started because SallyStrange made a sweeping moral prescription (based on her own morality) which I noted I did not consider applies to me*, to which various people responded and which I clarified** upon Sally’s request.
Perhaps it will clarify matters if I note that my not feeling obliged to do something doesn’t entail that I don’t feel inclined to do that something?
—
* “(I choose my own moral obligations)”
** “I don’t share your morality and I most certainly feel no obligation as a man to do something about misogyny.”
@John
So given this, I could accurately say that you don’t care about the amount of influence you might have on other people, regardless of the social milieu in which you happen to be?
If that’s the case, how would you (should you feel the inclination, of course) “do something about misogyny”, if you don’t care about the level of influence you have?
And as a follow-up, is there truly no variety of social milieu in which your level of influence/social power matters to you?
mythbri, I think your rewind button is broken. :)
—
Did you read what I wrote?
Again: I don’t seek it and I don’t shun it; it was what it was, it is what it is, and it will be what it will be.
Leaving aside that feeling an inclination to do something doesn’t entail possessing the ability to do that something, I would do it by applying such influence as I do have.
(How else?)
What a silly thing to ask — I’m not making claims about all possible realities, I’m describing what is in this reality.
@John
Okay. By “this reality” do you mean Pharyngula, the Internet in general, the entire world as it is, or all of the above?
mythbri, I mean this reality.
@ John Morales
Dokkōdō?
theophontes, I wish!
Your voices are all Bobcat Goldthwait.
(in my head)
Dokkōdō
13. Do not pursue the taste of good food.
dumbass
Thunderdome: I’m currently working on a methodology for the transfer of trolls from various Facebork threads to this glorious arena. Any ideas?
The only way not to “care” about social power, is to have enough of it.
I don’t “care” about money, because I know where my next meal is coming from, and I can pay a doctor’s bill should the need arise. I don’t delude myself that I don’t covet a mansion-cum-swimming-pool, luxury holidays, etc. because I’m somehow chill. It’s an enormous privilege to be able to not “care”.
Let’s not forget not to “care” means “not to have to worry”. For social power most people don’t have that luxury. It’s like a white Southerner saying they don’t “care” about slavery or segregation. And, of course, by not “endorsing” human rights and saying you don’t “care” about social power, that is exactly what you are saying. It’s fine with you if other people are slaves, though if you were one you’d begin to care oh-so-quickly.
The point of “human rights” is not just about you. The point of human rights is to accept that everyone should treat humans as humans. And that if someone doesn’t, it’s the responsibility of the whole group – including you – to do something about it, not just the victim. If you don’t accept that responsibility, you are in fact very plainly not treating others as humans. Because you’re saying you don’t “care” if they are not treated as humans by others.
And it doesn’t help to say you may help others if you happen to feel like it, or not, as the case may be. You seem to think that is some kind of get-out-of-jail card. It’s not, it’s just asshattery.
Hi A. R
How’s things?
[I really dislike “methodology” where “method” will do.]
—
transfer from fussbork
tell them they are cowardly weenies if they don’t comment here
Delft:
Well, duh.
(Since I don’t care about it, however much or little of it I have is enough for me)
Gee whiz, I also know where my next meal is coming from, and I can pay a doctor’s bill should the need arise, and yet I do care about money.
(I apparently this luxury you possess)
You’ve messed up your quotation marks, it should be either “Let’s not forget not to “care” means not to “have to worry”.” or “Let’s not forget “not to care” means “not to have to worry”.”
(Actually, it not only means that, it also means more than that)
I am not “most people”, and you’ve made this conversation about me, not about most people.
How you go from me not caring about my personal social power* to me not caring if other people are slaves is for a psychologist to determine, and I’m not a psychologist.
Fine, you treat people as humans because of your concept of “human rights”, and I’ll treat people as humans because they’re humans.
You are delusional: you quoted what I wrote, and it was not that*.
Hint: “I don’t care about social power” ≠ “I don’t care if some people are not treated as humans by others”; the former refers to ambition, the latter to morality.
And you’re projecting; there is no jail and I need no card to get out of it.
(Is it supposed to be flattering to me to know you care about what I may or may not care about and what I seem to think?)
—
I feel inclined to note that find it somewhat amusing you imagine you are my moral superior, though, and that you’re in a position to condemn me for my moral inferiority.
(Oh, look! I’ve just acted on my inclination! :))
—
* It’s clearly that to which you refer, since you’re claiming that my claim not to care is because I have a sufficient amount of it.
** You’ve here switched from my personal social power to others’ social power.
John Morales
Why are you doing this?
chigau:
Since either fits A.R.’s comment, you need to determine which of the two senses was meant (the one is general, the other is specific) before you can know whether that comments merits your dislike.
chigau, why?
Because I’m feeling generous, and so I kindly respond to people’s comments to me.
(Yah, I know — this place is feeling more like the Lounge by the day)
@ Delft
I can’t speak for John, but will look at your question.
Would you act appropriately without the concept of “human rights” – that you appear to have been brought to regard as so critical to our interactions. You will notice that the argument comes round to issues of morality and is analogous to arguments given out by goddists that “if it wasn’t for the babble…!”
This is like calling someone “arrogant” for having an IQ above 100. It is likely true for pretty much anyone commenting here. As to moral obligations (“responsibility”), I have often felt such, but cannot vouch that they were necessarily a good thing. Charity (not a weasel-word for “greed”) does begin at home and I have, in the past, had the misfortune of forgetting that.
Here we have to look at each unique situation. There are of course good politicians, bankers and people in power. I doubt most are irresponsible. But, we can be quite pragmatic about the question without raising the specter of an overarching morality to which they should comply. It really comes down to effects not motivations. Intentions are not magical. The powerful right really do feel they are on a specifically “moral” crusade… with appalling results. Without amplification, by way of power, our own “immoralities” may be of little consequence only because of this lack of amplification.
John Morales
I usually do a simple substitution:
simpler is always better.
—-
I regret that my drugs have just kicked-in and I gotta go to bed.
tomorrowLater?@ chigau
Yeah, this threw me a little too. It seems innocent enough. But I, for one, would be a lot healthier if I could only learn to take this one to heart.
@ chigau
Waaaaaay more cool. You just gotta accept that “-ology” clipped onto the back of anything just sounds so fucking awesome:
{shouts} * Tardigradology!*
See?
chigau @240, I can’t deny one interpretation is far more likely than the other, and that you make a good case.
Why, yes!
‘Fuckology’ has a nice…
(Um, never mind)
@ A.R
{gruffly} What have you done with the extension cord?
@ AE
{thinks: We must wangle something.}
How about two ologies. Like methodologyology?
[the one that puts my drawers in a twist is “In order to”]
And also, I meant to remark just the other day: chigau, I didn’t know that you were an archaeologist. That must be fascinating. I used to spend my summers at archaeology camp, which I loved unreservedly. You know. When I wasn’t otherwise busy beating up poindexters for their lunch money or participating in toxically masculine activities with my “bros”. And being cool and stuff.
I know.
People keep saying things to Morales. Why is he replying, is your question?
A much better question: why do the people who keep grilling him care?
(if it wasn’t for John, this place would be back to weather reports with sekrit messages hidden in the punctuation.)
Shhhhhh. That’s all on the QT.
€£¥#{%]>*
Tony! The Lonely Queer Shoop
I really don’t have a problem with it, at all, anymore! I used to be all uptight about it getting used so much. Nick Gotts gave me shit for being so touchy, I freaked out, and now I have my tail between my legs. I said “Aargh” because I was admitting I was wrong. Kind of an inside allusion for people that know me to be a loud mouthed nit picker. Fuck nits!
– – –
@ chigau (違う), @theophontes (恶缓步动物), sigh… I still keep hoping he’ll post, and I now cheer for West Ham! And… I keep hoping I’ll run into him somewhere, just to say hi. What a blast it was trying to decipher his comments, LOL
– – –
Okay, I have to get through about 100 comments here to catch up.
cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)a
Yeah, was it ever. There were two other characters going that just wouldn’t give up, around the same time as DH, that we kept
unloading onengaging, as well. Those were heady times….– – –
justanotherguy
It’s actually scary. I had an instance not long ago. There was a music video that I saw about three times on TV about ten years ago, that I loved. I could never find it after that, until about two years ago, when I found it on youtube. I remembered the singer as wearing a blue top, among other specifics, that were burned into my brain, in a crystal clear moment that I had worked to remember exactly. Fuck, even the song was quite a bit different, and the singer was actually wearing red. It took me a while to realize that it was the same sang, and video, that I had strived to memorize. What a shock it was to realize that my memory was so off. Can you imagine, I thought to myself, how badly distorted the memories of my idiot adversaries must be in comparison!? (jk)
LOL, I remember reading a report on an fMRI paper that showed how much the emotional centers lit up when people were read political statements, although Democrats still had more of the logic center still functioning. I know that emotions can seriously override logic, probably inducing confirmation bias, and our attitude about how much stronger our reasoning is than an opponent’s.
I don’t think that overall logic is compromised in the final evaluation of a situation, because logic is logic and can be checked, but I know that it affects the relevance we place on certain features, eg feeling secure and blissful versus accepting reality when painful.
Interesting topic, justanotherguy.
John Morales
What these guys said.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/methodology
No, you don’t. Saying to someone who’s human rights are being violated that you don’t accept an obligation to oppose this is not treating them like humans. You may sometimes treat people as humans (when you happen to feel like it), but often you don’t.
I treat people as humans because I have a deep need for all humans to be treated decently, not because I happen to feel like it at the moment.
I also acknowledge that if a person is treated inhumanely by someone other than me, that is also my business. You don’t. But helping the victim in this situations is also part of treating them as humans. By denying your obligation to oppose misogyny you are precisely treating women as less than human.
Hint: read the whole paragraph. You don’t “endorse” human rights = you don’t care how people are treated by others. We’re not talking about the finer points here, you don’t care if others are mistreated even in the ways covered by the human rights declaration, e.g. slavery.
Wrong again. I don’t believe in moral superiority.
I am, however, realising that you lack empathy, and theory of mind. You seem not to have learnt the lesson of developing social animals that the other is similar to yourself. That’s probably the only way someone could say things like they don’t “endorse” human rights, and feel they do not share in the responsibility for society.
People who have read more of your comments are probably long aware of this, I just hadn’t cottoned on yet.
@theophontes
The human rights declaration is not about defining what is good. It is about acknowledging that people have the right to be treated humanely – the clue’s in the name. This entails that as a society we have the obligation to secure these rights.
It has nothing to do with why I try to treat people decently. It has everything to do with why it is wrong to say “I have no obligation to oppose misogyny”.
John Morales tells people who are being treated like shit that it’s not his responsibility to oppose that. I questioned this because I thought there might be some kind of reasoning behind it (like the philosophical switch from obligation to need), but it’s just selfishness / lack of empathy. And people lacking empathy do not make the world a better place.
Unlike him many of the regulars here do make the world a better place, I agree, but that is exactly because they have a lot of empathy.
@theophontes
Before you go haring off again, for clarity:
I think that this line usage can be problematic. People don’t have a right to anything until someone takes action to ensure that they do. Rights just aren’t inherent. You can’t acknowledge that people have the right to be treated humanely until you have established that right.
And this is needless hairsplitting, of course. We probably agree on what rights people ought to have. But, I tend to be persnickety in how my opinion is presented, and so I can’t easily ascribe to any statement that seems so deontological.
Maybe, along the same lines, John means that he is no more obligated to defend the rights of others than he is obligated to be a moral person. Because, after all, who is doing the obligating? John prefers the language of inclination to that of obligation, maybe. However, being intentionally ambiguous about this seems needlessly incendiary.
@Antiochus Epiphanes
Sorry, I’m not really interested in natural law vs. positive etc. Human rights are about the idea that many of us (though not John Morales) share that these are basic rights we feel all humans should have, and where these rights are violated we acknowledge a responsibility to try and change that.
.
I asked the question to give John Morales the opportunity to make any point he may have to make, but even in repeated comments he didn’t.
Saying while you don’t oppose human rights, you also don’t endorse them puts you pretty much beyond language issues.
If you choose not to embrace human rights that is saying you really don’t care how others are treated. Occasional inclinations to do something decent because it makes you feel good are no replacement for empathy and the commitment to help others in need.
That’s John Morales!
The question is, why would the world be a better place if more people sucked at empathy and at modeling other people’s thought processes. Perhaps if Morales is still feeling generous he can take a stab at that, but I’m not feeling optimistic. More likely we’ll just get more cryptic word games.
Delft: Sorry. I could have been more clear. Sally said this succinctly:
I think that’s what we are dealing with.
.
A forgiveable underestimation. I suggest you purchase a solid set of hip-waders.
@Antiochus Epiphanes
? ? ?
What am I underestimating?
Is it? Or can it mean more and different things to people depending on how they become motivated to help others?
theophontes: The extension cord? Oh, I think I used that a few months ago to charge the LOLstar’s batteries after the generator went down for a few days.
chigau: Nice and sunny here now, but it was quite cloudy earlier.
Hidden messages, eh? Phooey!
@Dhorvath, OM
Everything can mean different things if you set your mind to it. But the idea of human rights involves a firm commitment – whatever the motivation – to try to ensure people enjoy these things. Not that you only do something when you happen to feel like it, which was the point under discussion.
A. R
Sunny and windy here, good laundry weather.
—
Dhorvath
It’s a plot.
No. A commitment to try to ensure people enjoy something is not the same as saying they have a right to it. Commitment to ensure is far more concrete than the nebulous right, at least to this flawed reader. I acknowledge as fully as I am able that infringments on items from the declaration negatively impact people’s abilities to enjoy fully the life they live. My empathy drives me, although imperfectly (which is something I continue to work on,) to act in manners which promote the ability of other people to have a fuller set of those opportunities. I doubt our intentions differ, merely how we reach them.
As for John, I dare not speak fully for his position, but he always strikes me as resistant to being told ‘must’. This is a flaw from this observer’s standpoint, but it’s one I well understand having shared a similar disposition when I wasn’t who I am now. He doesn’t, despite this, reject other people’s experiences, nor will he categorically ignore their reactions to him.
@Dhorvath, OM
I am not arguing about the meaning of the word right, but referring e.g. to the Human Rights Declaration. Reading this may make it clearer for you. The leap from “acknowledging a right” to “commitment to try to ensure” is negligible when compared with your leap to “commitment to ensure”.
.
If you want to defend someone who says they don’t endorse human rights, go ahead. But don’t confuse this with resistance to being told “must”. I for my part do not need coercion or encouragement to embrace human rights.
Yo! Popping in for a bit before I go back to finals…
*cries*
So… who thinks this is a cool thing?
I think it’s a cool thing, not least because it’s partially my idea… well… a little bit, anyway…
I love that, NateHevens!! I’m totally adopting that as a meme.
*twitches*
That word is … 3-weeks to go ‘shit I should have read the references?’ and 3am panic attacks and ‘make me sleep now’ vodka and cramming and lucking out that the equations governing the shape of ripples on beaches came up on the paper (twelve-ish magic numbers, if memory serves) and realising that I’d spent 45 minutes writing an essay about something that hadn’t been asked and trying to write down in 3 minutes what I would have written had I not fucked it up and … and …
*twitch*
Good luck. May slightly better competence be with you. ;-)
Thanks Sally!
And thanks to you, cm. I know what you mean, believe me. The two finals I have left are take-home, thankfully, but… uh…
The one I’m doing now is for Primate Behavior and this is killing me like you wouldn’t believe…
Also, it’s due tomorrow (Friday) at 11:59 pm (EST)… she originally said it was due next Monday in class (I have audio-recorded proof of that). So I’m freaking out…
*twitch*
Fuck! Now I’m doing it…
omnicrom:
I’m not pretending because I really don’t know the “pro-choice views”, as if there is a consensus on exactly what comprises “pro-choice views”. Is there? Do you think that every pro-choice advocate shares exactly the same views on late-term abortion? Do you think the views of Heather McNamara, who makes absolutely no distinction between a fetus and a fully born baby, fall within the “pro-choice views” category?
Alright. Do you support laws already in place (at least in the US) that restrict the terminating of viable fetuses, assuming the health of the mother is not at risk? If so, then I understand your views and I don’t feel the need to ask any more questions. But if you say you don’t agree with such laws, can you understand my puzzlement and why I seek further clarification of your views?
Let me give you a firearms analogy. Let’s say I claim that a law-abiding citizen has the right to protect his/her household with a simple handgun. I also feel that it is unreasonable, not to mention grossly unsafe and unnecessary, to own an automatic machine gun for such ordinary purposes of simple protection. However, I do not support laws that restrict the ownership of any firearm whatsoever. Doesn’t my lack of opposition to restrictions on automatic weapons entail that I believe citizens have the right to own automatic weapons? (For the record, I do believe in rational gun control.)
———————
Tony:
I’m not sure if that completely answers the question that I asked, which was whether the women has the right to terminate the fetus inside her body regardless of how viable the fetus is. Some here object to the fact that Gosnell allowed the babies to be fully born before he killed them (although Heather McNamara sees no issue with this, assuming the “procedures” are performed by qualified and licensed medical professionals within a sanitary environment). Would it be acceptable if these late-term, viable fetuses were instead killed inside the woman first before being expelled outside the womb?
————————-
theophontes:
Is it? Some here consider “abortion” as merely the terminating of the pregnancy, not necessarily the terminating of the fetus.
Gosnell is still part of the conversation, right? Gosnell and all of his late-term patients are from the “real world”. From the grand jury report it is claimed that he made “hundreds” of these late-term abortions of viable babies by inducing birth followed by scissors to the spinal cord…again after they were born. So, would it have been acceptable if they were terminated while still inside the women as opposed to outside?
———————
Tony:
In Pennsylvania late-term abortions are legal if the life of the woman is at risk. So if any of the lives of these hundreds of late-term patients of Gosnell were in danger, why didn’t they simply go to a legit doctor where it would be safe and legal? What reason would they have to put their lives in further danger by going to someone as sketchy as Gosnell?
I may not have the right to force someone to give me a blood transfusion even if my life was in danger, but it doesn’t follow that that someone has the right to directly kill me.
This conversation has solely been about the abortion of late-term, viable fetuses. Even if I agree with you that a viable fetus does not have the right to make use of a woman’s body without her permission, that doesn’t mean the woman has the right to directly kill the fetus. A pregnancy of a viable fetus can be terminated by inducing the birth of a live baby.
Do you agree that Gosnell shouldn’t have killed those viable babies that were born alive? If so, then it follows that no matter how premature the babies were they should have been given a chance to live once they were fully outside the women. And assuming they survive, the care for these very premature infants becomes the responsibility of the mothers. Do you agree?
—————————
LykeX:
I agree that there would be no reason to kill the fetus.
Again, I largely agree with you here.
We’re still talking about Gosnell, right? The grand jury report claims “hundreds” of examples. Again, if the health of the women were in question, then these late-term abortions would have been legal at any abortion provider in the state of Pennsylvania. Yet, hundreds of these women still went to Gosnell for these abortions.
Again, Gosnell is evidence against this claim. Early-term abortions are available in Pennsylvania, and yet Gosnell still manages to service hundreds of late-term abortions.
Huh? What does “abortion” mean here?
If the health of the women were in question, then they could have gotten these abortions safely and legally elsewhere. So it seems that they were in “desperation” only if they sought an illegal late-term abortion. But from what you’ve been saying all along, you disagree with illegal late-term abortions, specifically the killing of viable fetuses where the health of the woman is not at risk.
So given your views, do you agree with the restrictions on these late-term abortions where the women’s life is not at risk? If not, then I refer you to the firearms analogy that I gave omnicrom.
————————-
opposablethumbs:
If the life of the woman is in imminent danger due to her pregnancy, then it would be allowable to remove the fetus from the woman without the direct killing of the fetus.
Deft:
You may have missed the conversation a few weeks back, but it seems the general consensus here is that there are no such things as “inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights”.
Ah yes, here we have joey, back again and lying again by omission.
The discussion was that absolute inherent dignity and ABSOLUTE inalienable rights do not, for a practical matter, exist in the real world.
But how typical of joey to deliberately excise the MOST IMPORTANT WORDS pertaining to the discussion to try to make some kind of pathetic talking point.
Pitiful.
A more naive, dishonest, and pathetically false statement I have seldom seen before.
“Legal” does not mean “accessible”.
So people from the Yglesias thread around.
@SallyStrange
It was to point out that American’s have a big educational advantage, both formal education and the education you get from living in a relatively well functioning society and learning the subtleties of how that works. (I previously referred to the society experience as a separate thing, but really that’s just a different kind of education)
I can’t really think of anything less racist because it explicitly rules out race, religion, and culture (in the non-educational sense) as a cause of Bangladesh’s poverty and corruption. And if a group of Bangladeshi’s had the same educational advantage as American’s they’d do just as well.
Can you think of a less racist explanation for Bangladesh’s issues? (Western oppression is a factor, but I don’t think it’s sufficient as a full explanation)
@Tony! The Lonely Queer Shoop
Sorry to undercut your rant, but I used the example of Americans because it’s an American blog and I figured most of you would be American.
I’m actually not a big fan of the US and wholeheartedly agree with most of your criticisms. You country is really screwed up on many levels, particularly against sexual minorities who can face particularly disgusting attacks. Actual racism and religious discrimination is accepted in many circles, large portions of the population are severely discriminated against. Intellect, education, and research are all treated with disdain. The only developed country with capital punishment, a massive prison population comprised largely of minorities, and ugly ghettos that trap generations. To top it all off you have a completely dysfunctional political system. One of your two major parties is completely detached from reality, largely comprised of radical right wing gun-nut theocrats who have no business running a bakery, and the other party is full of Republicans.
But my point was that I think you’re still doing better than Bangladesh, so congrats!
advice: return to your first post, and rework it, ditching *any* and all assumptions you hold true. Rather than asserting what you’ve said as truth, ask yourself if what you’ve said actually *is* true, and how you know that. How did you arrive at the conclusions you’ve reached?
The above quote is a very good example. How did you arrive at the conclusion that “most of us are Americans”? What evidence do you have that supports this? Hopefully something other than “this is a blog by two American writers”. Do you honestly believe that if a blog writer is from a particular country, then so are hir followers?
Ok, so you’re not an American who thinks they belong to a culture superior to Bangladesh.
Instead you’re an individual who is letting hir biased opinions and views guide hir perception of reality. Where is your evidence to support your belief that the United States better than Bangladesh? What socio/political/economic markers are you using to make this determination? In what ways does your view represent reality? What would it take to falsify your belief that the US is better than Bangladesh?
You’re leading with your opinions, rather than letting the facts shape your opinions.
Oh for Fucks Sake. I’m sick of this shit. My day has been crappy already.
JOEY:
Why do you care about fetuses so much?
Why are they so damned important to you?
Is your life incomplete without more fetuses in the world?
Do you wake up daily thinking of how you wish the world had more fetuses around?
Do you think the world is made somehow better simply because there are more fetuses?
Does the loss of fetuses due to abortion devastate you? Why?
Does miscarriage devastate you too? Why?
You think you’re going to convince anyone here that their worldview is wrong, yet you cannot accept one simple fact: you have NO evidence to back up your theologically based claims, which the vast majority of the commenters (I cannot say all, becuase I do not know for certain) here reject.
You want to convince us that our worldview (i.e. that NO god exists, not just your stupid fucking, petty, genocidal, rape enabling evil deity), bring the fucking evidence.
Or else…cue Nerd.
@ chas
(if it wasn’t for John, this place would be back to weather reports with sekrit messages hidden in the punctuation.)
/bearbaiting
@ Delft
Though John is perhaps a little vague on the issue, I do think his point was brought up recently on this thread (the issue was raised by joey wrt “absolute rights”. There really are no absolutes here. (& what AE said @ #255)
@Tony! The Lonely Queer Shoop
It’s an American blog, it covers American politics, both the author of the article and the subject of the article were Americans, there are a lot of Americans, I have a faint memory of seeing some stats at some point that said the readership was mostly Americans. Are you an American? No idea. But if I was going to use a modern country that people knew about it was pretty much the only choice.
The US has lower crime rates, more religious tolerance and less racial discrimination (yay for low standards), better Education (admittedly I don’t know a lot about Bangladesh primary/secondary education quality), a higher standard of living, a higher GDP, lower corruption rates, higher life expectancy, better infrastructure, etc.
On the bad US has a higher level of incarceration, generates more pollution, fights more wars, and probably has higher rates of depression.
On the grounds of who’s better for the planet one could argue Bangladesh, Bangladesh might even win on where you’d want to live if their depression rates really are lower (an unsubstantiated assumption on my part). But as for which is a better functioning country and is good at building things like safe factories (the original subject of discussion) I think the US wins handily.
Honestly it’s kinda hard to answer what would falsify my belief because the major factors are all very well established. The only practical way to falsify my beliefs is to show I’m missing some critical metric or give me a convincing argument to the contrary. I saw the argument you posted and I agree the US has all those problems, but Bangladesh also has those problems, and it has them far worse!
@ joey
Holy fuck, are you still trying to pin the fucking Gosnell-tail onto the Pharyngulite donkey? I think we have all expressed our disgust and contempt for Gosnell by now.
I have said what I have to say. You are arriving after the fire and pissing on the embers. The religious forays into the matter of abortion have been complete, abysmal and deadly failures. I have provided you with examples of such. It depresses me to even read about new religious fuck-ups in this regard – go and do your own homework from here on in.
We need working solutions. These are not to be found genuflecting to an imaginary god, that murders about one-in-three viable pregnancies just for shits and giggles.
I don’t think I could possibly sum up more clearly how much of this shit you’re making up off the top of your head. You don’t know jack about what one country, but you assume they have inferior education to one of the worst-educated populaces in the developed world?
theophontes
Your bear-baiting link actually made me laugh so hard I was moved off my chair.
@ chigau
You are only saying that because you are compelled to by our tribal lore!
Tom was a god link.
Delft:
So what I actually do is utterly irrelevant unless I acquiesce to others’ belief that I am thus obliged, eh?
Well, it’s pretty damn impressive that you know better than I what I do and don’t care about.
Thanks for clarifying that you don’t believe your morality is superior to mine; I guess it must be my lack of theory of mind that makes me imagine that.
(As an aside, if I lack theory of mind, then I can’t be guilty of the fundamental attribution error, can I?)
@joey
We’re still talking about America, right? Land of the free, home of the people who kill abortion doctors? If you’re going to claim America as a place where abortion is easily available… then that’s exactly the kind of bullshit I’ve come to expect from you.
I maintain that in any place where my assumptions hold, you don’t see these kinds of cases. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Any of the 50 abortion providers in Pennsylvania. Maybe this is a question of different standards, but in my book, that’s ridiculous. 50 providers for an area three times the size of my entire country? That’s not easy access. That’s [insert third world nation here].
And to think that Pennsylvania’s one of the good places. It’s enough to make me shiver.
You’re missing the point. Why didn’t they get the early term abortion? Why did they wait? For fun? Or because they couldn’t actually get these oh-so-easily-accessed early term abortions?
Seriously, don’t you wonder? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that so many women would ignore the opportunity for an, according to you, easily accessed, safe and legal abortion and instead deliberately wait to have a painful, dangerous and illegal one later?
Doesn’t it make you think that maybe there’s something here that you’re missing?
Or it might not. Reading that further convinces me that it’s a document meant to change human behaviour, not one that reflects the dominant perspective but one that seeks a new one.
A clumsy mistake, I had intended to transcribe the ‘try to’ in both phrases.
John likely wouldn’t welcome my defense, nor is that my aim. I think you misunderstand his objection. I doubt I can do better at clarifying.
You would first need to be made aware of them, this is part of the set of things which encourages people to work towards them for others. Along with being made aware of how infringments diminish the lives of others, which is a large part of what the phrases in the preamble set out to express.
Joey, you haven’t proved your deity isn’t imaginary, and that your holy is inerrant. That makes everything you say about theology based on twin lies, making the theology nothing but fantasy, and those support it delusional fools like yourself. Until you show thinking in reality *floosh* everything you claim is dismissed as you provide no evidence for your claims. Typical abject loser talking.
@Rutee
Sorry, I was tired and decided to express uncertainty about a claim I had no business being uncertain about. Bangladesh has a male literacy rate of ~60% and female ~50% (though is better among youths). Participation rates are similarly brutal. Yes the US education sucks, no it doesn’t suck anywhere nearly as bad as Bangladesh.
Hey aluchko.
This morning there were news reports about Bangladeshis protesting angrily in the streets about the factory building collapse.
Are you still going to insist on characterizing Bangladeshis’ desire to not have to trade their physical safety for a decent wage as thing which MIGHT or MIGHT NOT exist?
How many Bangladeshis have to get out in the streets before you accept that Bangladeshis are just like you and me: they prefer not to have to risk death or serious injury in order to earn enough money to take care of their families?
What force leads a man
To a life filled with danger
High on seas or a mile underground?
It’s when need is his master
And poverty’s no stranger,
And there’s no other work to be found.
Not perfectly on target, but a decent summation overall. People take dangerous work for low pay when they haven’t got any other options, and not otherwise.
@SallyStrange
I hope they are out protesting, I hope they consider that poor of safety to be so outrageous that it needs to improve, I hope if Western companies play any role it’s in supporting the protestors and not undercutting them, and the protests lead to a better regulatory regime where worker safety is improved. The death toll has passed 300.
All I was trying to argue is that we all “risk death or serious injury in order to earn enough money”, in the west this risk just tends to be really low. We mostly do it when we get in our cars or bikes and commute, some people in Texas did it by working in a fertilizer plant, PZ does it by working at a desk which probably contributed to his heart problems. The difference between the type of risk we have in driving to work or sitting at a desk, compared to the type of risk they have walking into a factory without a fire exit is HUGE. But so is the difference in wages, standard of living, corruption, etc. Those things all need to be drastically improved and I want them to be improved together rather than singling out one metric in particular.
I really do want Bangladeshi safety to be improved, but I don’t want it to be as the result of an outrage by the western public that isn’t shared by the Bangladeshi (and if they’re protesting they do want it).
So now Bangladeshi indicate they want higher safety standards. What could/should other countries do to try to improve it? How can individuals help?
Think.
Answer.
And then my next question will be: “Why did that NOT apply until protesters took to the streets?”
The assumption that you started with, that Bangladeshis might NOT want safety to improved, is a ludicrous and nonsensical assumption. I can only explain you starting from that point if you are working from a series of extremely racist assumptions about differences between “the West” and Bangladeshis.
@SallyStrange
The assumption that you started with, that Bangladeshis are so helpless and ignorant that they have no ability to take care of themselves and need our benevolent protection, is a ludicrous and nonsensical assumption. I can only explain you starting from that point if you are working from a series of extremely racist assumptions about differences between “the West” and Bangladeshis.
Now I know what I just wrote is BS, the question is do you recognize the same.
Speaking of Gosnell, the last I heard 3 of the murder charges against him involving alleged infanticide have been dropped for complete lack of evidence. He had a total of 8 murder charges, at least one of which is for a woman who died as a result of his botched medical care.
joey’s little “hundreds” of cases is another deliberate piece of obfuscating dishonesty of his part. The vast majority of the cases of alleged medical misconduct against Gosnell are in fact the exact opposite of what joey is claiming. They are cases of non-viable fetuses, which Gosnell tried to abort by inducing early labor, ie using induced birth, in a situation where induced birth was not properly indicated, and the proper procedure was a true abortion procedure.
The cases of induced birth of a live viable fetus followed by murder of the new infant are, as we have been saying all along, just a tiny minority of what Gosnell has been accused of doing, just a handful of cases.
And, as has already been repeated by deliberately ignored again and again by joey, this is in fact murder, and is already covered and prohibited by existing law.
Sorry aluchko, but what you wrote is BS, but what Sally wrote is not, and if you cannot understand why that is the case then there is no hope for you.
Basic human empathy should dictate that the first assumption is that human beings would prefer a safer work environment over a dangerous one. Even those who willingly choose a dangerous occupation do everything in their power to limit those risks.
You apply the golden rule. If YOU want safety to be improved for yourself, then you assume that others want the same UNLESS THEY EXPLICITLY TELL YOU OTHERWISE. Because you start by assuming they share a basic humanity with yourself.
To start from the opposite direction, as you have done, is racist in the extreme.
It may be that you do not realize this is racist, but that is what we call unrecognized privilege, and that does not make it any less racist.
Also, even the most cursory bit of research about Bangladesh would have revealed that they people there have been desiring of and fighting for improved workplace safety for decades, and have been violently oppressed whenever they tried to protest, by both government and private forces, in much the same way that early attempts to do the same were violently oppressed in the western world.
If you absolutely refuse to learn about the history of the brown people before thinking yourself qualified to pontificate about what they may or may not wish, at least learn about the history of your own people so you can recognized the parallels where they occur.
Who could have guessed that Bangladeshi people would prefer not to die in work related accidents? Not me. I am astonished. Surprised beyond belief.
Gosh darnit. Imagine how embarrassed all those foreign companies must be now. They come to Bangladesh believing they are just giving the people what they want- miserable wages and a chance to have the ceiling collapse on their heads (lucky bastards), and now these companies find out that Bangldeshi people actually don’t want it. They really should have said so before. Duh.
Here is the fundamental flaw in aluchko’s entire argument as he first presented it in the other thread from which he was chased:
In every human occupation, without exception, human beings desire the greatest safety possible. Some occupations are inherently less safe than others, but even there human beings make every effort within the limits of their technology and economy, to limit the danger.
Yeah, here in the west occupations like crab fishing, lumberjacking, firefighting and the like, are dangerous, but people who choose these occupations still care about their own safety. They will want their employers to provide hard hats, and field first aid, and fire-resistant suits. They will be leery of captains offering leaking ships. They will insist of having lifejackets and lifeboats. And they are afforded the right to organize and lobby for these things.
What is required is for employers to make a good faith effort to ensure workplace safety.
But that is not what is happening in Bangladesh. There the employers are NOT making such good faith efforts. They are leaving the workplaces less safe than they otherwise could, even given their more limited resources in comparison to a place like the US. I can accept a place like Bangladesh having a lower bar for workplace safety than a place like the US as a result of lower availability of resources, if they made an equal effort and failed to achieve the same standards only because of resource availability, but they are not even meeting that minimal level.
That is what makes aluchko’s entire analogy specious, and the comparison he has been trying to make a racist one.
@Amphiox
When I said they might not be interested in higher safety standards I didn’t mean they weren’t interested in safety. I meant that they may not be interested in the economic sacrifices necessary for more safety, and yes, I’m assuming there will be economic sacrifices since if it were free or profitable I assume it would have been done already.
Westerners want more pay, we want more safety, and we want better working conditions in general. But we’re also generally satisfied with the current balance given the resources we have. I do empathize with them and I really try to imagine what their daily life might be like, your basic empathy told you they were really outraged about job safety. Mine told be they were really unhappy about a lot of things with their jobs, and I don’t know how to fix them all at once.
And yes, I should know more about the labour history of Bangladesh, but I can’t know everything about every topic, and I think I had enough knowledge to contribute what I did to the discussion. Btw, you’re the first person in this long discussion who’s mentioned anything about Bangladeshis “fighting for improved workplace safety for decades, and have been violently oppressed whenever they tried to protest, by both government and private forces”, and that’s a very relevant point. So I don’t think my level of knowledge is at all out of place.
No. Saying something is also doing something.
In this case you are saying to people who are systematically persecuted for being what they are, who are being murdered, raped, beaten, molested, shamed, belittled and erased for the way they were born that you don’t think you need to help them. Adding that you might help them if you happen to feel like it, or again you might not, is not a saving grace. It is adding insult to injury.
If you cannot see what is wrong with doing this, it’s not possible to explain this to you. This is where empathy and theory of mind come in.
I’m showing up what your phrase “I don’t endorse human rights” means.
I don’t believe in morality. I see it as a way of trying to coerce others into doing something, which I don’t generally approve of or find helpful, though there are special cases for the protection of society.
@Amphiox
The initial thread was about a crumbling building.
The factory owners built the building 3 stories higher than they were allowed to. Cracks showed up in the building. They were ordered to evacuate but thought the cracks were just cosmetic, they tried repairing them and the building collapsed.
I’m sure it’s about good faith safety. Building collapses are rare, the owners probably never anticipated a collapse when they added the three stories, nor did they think the cracks were anything but cosmetic. Fires and other workplace accidents they should have been aware of, but for building collapses they probably didn’t think of that as a risk. A lack of good faith efforts is a culprit for things like fires or unsafe machinery because people understand that’s a real risk. But building collapses are rare enough that people don’t think about them on an emotional level, so the culprit here is more a poor bureaucracy that allowed a building to be illegally built, allowed that illegal building to be used after it was built, and allowed the factory owners to ignore the evacuation order.
I think it’s important to point out this wouldn’t have been changed by something on the order of new hardhats, lifeboats, or even a repaired ship. The only solution was shutting down the factory, tearing down the building, and the company probably going out of business. I wouldn’t expect a US employer to do any different. It wasn’t good faith safety, it was extremely expensive safety and it’s the point where you need a government to step in and stop them.
joey you are lying. I have no idea how you intend to convince us our worldview is wrong when you have to resort to lying, obfuscation, and intellectual dishonesty to try and make your point. Because when you lie you lie very badly and very obviously.
You said that you didn’t know what the Pro-choice side wants and believes. This is a lie. You have been in numerous thunderdomes, people have explained in detail what the Pro-Choice side believes and why. You bring up someone who is “Pro-choice BUT” to try and obfuscate it to make it seem you don’t know what you do. This is intellectual dishonesty.
You bring up a smoke screen by making a gun control comparison which is totally invalid. Considering the main goal and focus of the Pro-Choice movement is bodily autonomy for women (which you lie and say is not and does not fully answer your questions when it does) the right to bear arms is not equal to it as an analogy. And no I do not support laws that would make it illegal to terminate a viable fetus for two reasons: One is the law has no power because the correct abortion for a viable fetus is birth and two the real reason for these laws is as a club to try and force on the Anti-Choice party line. But you know this joey, you’re too smart to really see the world in your pure and perfect black and white. You are a liar to yourself and others.
Late Term Abortions are the result of a lack of early term abortions or considerable personal tragedy on the part of the women. They are less than absolutely vanishingly rare only because you and people like you joey have done a bang-up job of making easy access to abortions a pipe dream and have gutted sex education and easy access to contraceptives. You continue to bring up Gosnell as though it somehow supports the Anti-Choice argument. It doesn’t it, makes the Pro-Choice argument for us. Abortion will not go away if you ban it joey, you’ll just create more Gosnell clinics. And many Anti-Choicers couldn’t be happy, it’s never about the foetus (excuse me “unborn baby”), it’s about punishing women for sex. But you know this, we’ve told you this before, I’VE told you this before. You are playing pretend whenever you try and ask leading questions and distort and obfuscate and lie and lie and lie. You aim to make the world a little worse every time you open your mouth.
Ophelia Benson has put me into moderation? You can not be serious. You can NOT be serious.
Link
Fuck it. Just fuck it.
Not too sure what your link is supposed to show there. I see a comment from you on Ophelia’s post.
Yes, it’s been let through now. I guess I should feel privileged. Must have agreed with her enough after all. (can you tell I’m not happy about the underlying principle or thought process!) This just wouldn’t happen on Pharyngula.
And in wilfully choosing to build 3 stories higher than allowed, the factory owners were not practicing good faith worker safety.
It was their responsibility to anticipate such things.
It was their responsibility to do the due diligence and proper investigation to not just “think”, but KNOW.
This is exactly my point. Thank you for illustrating it for me.
The solution was to have built the factory to regulation in the first place, in good faith.
And I WOULD.
Aluchko, you strike me as rather simple-minded, and here’s why: I didn’t start out with the assumption that Bangladeshis are helpless and ignorant. You DID start out with the assumption that whether Bangladeshis would prefer not to have to trade their lives and health for a bit of money was in question.
You had to basically lie in order to establish a false equivalence. And apparently you think nobody is going to notice your rank dishonesty? And, furthermore, even if you could establish that my starting assumption was equally as ludicrous and racist as yours was, that is STILL not making any sort of case for your starting point being not-ludicrous and not-racist. So yeah. Kinda dumb.
I hate to bring it up because it’s become so cliche at this point, but does the phrase “Dunning-Kruger” mean anything to you?
The DIRECT analogy would be if US crab fishermen signed up to put to sea on an unseaworthy ship, a ship that had been flagged as unseaworthy by the proper regulatory authority, but ignored by the captain or company that owned the ship, and to have the unseaworthiness of the ship HIDDEN from the fishermen, and then to have said ship sink in a storm and the fisherman drown.
You would consider that scenario acceptable, aluchko?
If not, then what the HELL point are you still attempting to make here?
@Amphiox, Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
The owners were clearly criminally negligent, but there’s a difference between criminal negligence and making the kind of effort towards safety you were talking about.
You analogy is wrong on two points.
First, if the workers didn’t know about the shoddy state of the building when they joined the company they surely knew about it the day of the collapse (there had been two evacuation orders and other companies had evacuated the building, word certainly got around). So HIDDEN is inaccurate.
Second, ships commonly sink, people understand it’s a risk, especially fishermen. Buildings don’t often collapse so people don’t expect them to, even a crappy building that should collapse will probably surprise you since it’s so far outside of your experience.
True, though it sounds like the extra stories were more a result of zoning laws than safety concerns.
I’ll say the more I read the more it feels like a particularly irresponsible Bangladeshi factory owner who was allowed to run wild because regulations weren’t enforced. In which case the solution isn’t better safety regs (which will be ignored just like these were), but better governance that can actually enforce the current safety regs.
Seems to be the basis for 100% of the arguments you have advanced so far.
What the fuck are you on about? You said:
If this means anything, it means that the factory owners cannot be held responsible for a lack of good faith effort toward workplace safety, even though they grossly violated building codes and refused to close the building when cracks developed in the walls. Now you say they were criminally negligent. How the everloving fuck can you possibly maintain both those things at the same time?
Joey, you are a lying sack of toxic waste. That was not the consensus. People were pointing out that those that are something that should be granted and not dependent upon a deity.
You claim that you re here to change minds. Use these tactics and all of the other dishonest shit you have been spewing and all you will do it drive good and reasonable people away from you. So, stick around, you are alienating the people you seek to turn.
As for me, you already know that I have nothing but contempt for you and your concept of god..
White Lightning
And the crab fishermen would have known about the unseaworthiness of the ship on the day it sank.
This “point” of yours is inane.
This distinction is irrelevant to the point. The two are aspects of the same thing.
You are really, really violating the first rule of holes here….
rorschach @307:
What’s the underlying principle or thought process?
Could it be…a spam filter for words like “Twatson” and “Smellody”?
I had a comment under moderation there once. Surprised me because it was entirely supportive of the OP. I watched other comments being posted after the time stamp on mine, so I knew it wasn’t a full-blog time-out for everyone. I typed something complimenting another comment on a different post. It showed without moderation. I then knew that the next time I wanted to mention a specific ‘pitter, it would have to be as something like C*mm*nd*rT*v*k if I didn’t want to get caught in the “machinery.”
Ships most certainly do NOT “commonly” sink. We expect that ships may sink in certain EXTREME circumstances, not as a routine “common” thing. We expect the SAME for buildings.
This “point” of yours is even MORE inane.
@Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
In between the posts I read more articles about other parties who were asking them to close the factory and I was reacting to that. I agree those positions are inconsistent and reflect that I’m not entirely sure how much responsibility I want to assign to the owner. On the one hand I sympathize because I don’t believe the owner ever expected the building to collapse. On the other hand he repeatedly ignored regulations and defied orders and a lot of people died as a result.
You can’t hop off a sinking crab ship just before it sinks and be fine, you can leave a crumbling building just before it collapses and you’ll be ok, your analogy is broken.
Here’s is wikipedia’s list of notable structural failures, which includes buildings, bridges, stages, and radio towers. Here is wikipedia’s list of lists of shipwrecks. Considering the relative number of ships to buildings I’d say ships are a hell of a lot more likely to sink than buildings collapse.
(if you were talking about fires you’d be correct, but you’re not)
Crossposted from the lounge; I realised this post is more suited for a place where you can symbolicaly yell and shake your fists.
.
-The culprit behind the West explosion: During the Bush administration, Dick Cheney’s son-in-law *twice* blocked attempts to regulate chemical plants to bring down the risk of explosions.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/51669040#51669040
Yeah, government regulation is always bad (spits).
I mean, really. These guys…they seem to deliberately strive for being as corrupt and fucking evil as possible, so they can buy an extra mansion while the morgues get filled up.
:mad:
A) Actually, you can. It’s not that particularly likely, but coast guard and all that. You might even be able to get out after it sinks!
Because, you know, useful safety gear like life vests.
B) Now, how much warning do you think a collapsing building will give you before it goes?
Hint: Not much.
The United States Occupational Health and Safety Act includes in what is commonly called the General Duty clause, and is used to cite employers if there is a specific hazard that cannot first be cited to the following requirements, in this order:
1. Manufacturer’s Recommendations and/or UL listing
2. The employer’s own safety policies
3. Industry-specific regulation
4. Federal/state OHS regulation
5. General Duty clause
This isn’t “good faith” safety. Employers wishing that their workplace is safe doesn’t make it so.
I expect better of U.S. companies, absolutely. And I project this expectation on all other workplaces. I don’t see how increasing one’s odds of returning home safely, with all the body parts with which you reported to work, is controversial.
@aluchko
What?! No!!! This is not a hand.
Intent is not going to un-kill any of those people.
The owner of the building has inherent responsibilities when granted permission to build. Not only did the owner NOT fulfill those responsibilities, the owner violated very basic terms of the building permit and built it almost twice as high as he had been granted permission.
WILLFUL DISREGARD.
See, this is the kind of pathetic nitpicking that someone who knows he has lost the main argument but refuses to admit he was wrong engages in in a pitiful attempt to “win” a point and save face in his own delusional estimation.
What a sad, sorry, simpering display of intellectual dishonesty.
I’m done with this creep.
(And incidentally, even the nit is still wrong. You CAN leave a sinking ship just before it sinks and be ok. It depends on where the ship is, how it is sinking, and what other resources you have, such as lifeboats and life preservers, while you CAN ALSO sometimes leave a collapsing building just before it collapses and still be injured/killed. It depends on where the building is, how it was built, random factors like shrapnel, what kinds materials the building is made of, or contained, and what resources you might have, like protective gear, etc)
Yawn, our liberturd still thinks his OPINION isn’t *floosh* sent to the sewer automatically? Real and conclusive evidence might change our minds. His OPINION, repeated ad nauseum, will never change one mind. He may as well fade into the bandwidth if no links to evidence appear in his posts.
This isn’t a debate of opinion. It is a debate over facts. And a liberturds OPINION’s aren’t and never will be facts.
Jesus H. Christberger Jnr! You sympathise with scumbags whose greed-motivated crimes have just caused hundreds of deaths. Just fuck off you loathsome little turd.
This is stupid. Of course the owner never expected the building to collapse. But the owner wasn’t willing to put the added expense in to ensure this. It was a gamble. They gambled with the lives of their workers. There was a chance that it wouldn’t collapse.
Why do you sympathize with them? They didn’t care about the workers, they care about their bottom line. Ignoring regulations was good for their bottom line, worker safety wasn’t. So, when they ignored this and people died, their intent doesn’t matter. They are responsible for this. Sure they didn’t intend for the building to collapse much like how a drunk driver didn’t intend to plow into the intersection. This lack of intent does nothing to diminish their respective responsibilities for the pain and suffering they’ve caused.
Yea, I could totally clear a large factory that started to collapse with hundreds of workers, and the equipment, and all the other factors.
This point is nonsense. It ignores reality. It isn’t like the workers would have a warning other than the ceiling accelerating at them at close 9.81 meters per second squared. I’m fast, but I can’t cover the distance in a straight line. Bolt, the fastest man on the planet, couldn’t even sprint that fast as gravity pulled down the parts of the building collapsing. And those are best case scenarios with no one, and nothing else, in our way.
What cues did they have? What chance could they have had? This contention is nonsense. At least due to the effects of buoyancy, people have a chance to get to the water before the boat sinks. I would rather take my chances on a sinking ship than try to get out of a building while it collapses.
This is nonsense as well. In both cases, we would want to look at the rate at which a ship sinks in contrast with the amount of ships sailing over the same time period. We would want a rate of sinkings per a given amount. That would give us a decent idea of the percentage chance for your ship to sink. Just comparing the list of “notable” structural failures from wiki to that of shipwrecks is stupid.
Ships don’t commonly sink. Anymore than cars “commonly” crash. More often, ships make it to port, and cars make it to the parking space. That’s why people use them.
I don’t even know what you are hoping to prove. You’ve been shown to be wrong, on multiple fronts. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you build up a hopeless incoherent argument.
aluchko?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/-suddenly-the-floor-wasn-t-there-factory-survivor-says.html
[Somewhat reformatted.]
I’d wager that aluchko doesn’t even remember what his original point was. Something about how Yglesias was right, we shouldn’t fret about Bangladeshis getting killed in garment factory collapses because without garment factory jobs they’d starve to death, right? And people having to choose between slow starvation or a non-zero chance of dying suddenly in a building collapse is totes fair and acceptable and not oppressive at all!
And he never did explain on what he based his skepticism of the idea that Bangladeshis would prefer, ceteris paribus, to have safer working conditions.
Even after a boat sinks, its possible to die, even with a lifejacket, if no one is able to rescue before hypothermia, storms, hostile marine life, etc. Likewise if a building collapses, you may still be ruined even if you happen to escape as the building collapses (no place of employment, physical injury sustained while escaping, etc.).
@cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)
Thanks for that info. It makes it clear that lots of people did feel the building was in danger of collapse (which nullifies that part of my argument) and heaps a ton of extra blame on the managers and owner.
@glodson
Just to be clear, the point you’re arguing against is my contention that the ship you’re on has a far higher chance of sinking than the building you’re sitting in does have collapsing (earthquakes being an exception). Instead of looking around for citations that there’s more buildings than ship I’m just going to fall back to bloody obvious.
@Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
Honestly I can sympathize with pretty much anyone, even extraordinarily loathsome people. I wouldn’t read too much into it.
@SallyStrange
That’s because I never made that claim. My argument was that safer working conditions would have other costs, and the idea that the current allocation of resources between wages, jobs, and safety might be the best they could do.
And my original point was the Yglesias wasn’t the horrible human everyone was claiming to be if he believed that argument.
What claim? I am talking about your skepticism of mine and others’ claim that Bangladeshis are normal human beings who would prefer not to HAVE to make the sort of trade-offs you’re describing here. Remember? Over and over again you said, “IF this is what the Bangladeshis want…” and people said, “What do you mean IF? Of course they want better safety conditions!” And you were like, “Right, IF the Bangladeshis want safer working conditions…” and folks said, “YES, they definitely do want safer working conditions! Here they are demonstrating for better workplace safety years ago. Here is how they have been violently suppressed in those efforts. Here they are protesting the building collapse.”
And now you’re silent on what motivated your previous skepticism about why you doubted that that was a desire that the Bangladeshis had, and why you seemed to think that this idea that we have, that Bangladeshis would prefer not to have to risk death and injury in order to make a living if they don’t have to, is some sort of Western imperialist imposition.
Fuck.
For some reason, the word “slimy” springs to mind.
Of course they don’t want to make those tradeoffs, my point was that we may not be able to offer them the world where they don’t want to make those tradeoffs.
The skepticism I did have was about whether they thought the safety situation was as egregious as we think it is. On that point I now agree they do see it as pretty egregious, but that still doesn’t mean we have the ability to easily offer them a much better deal.
I’m betting econ major.
Or maybe management, I don’t know.
I’m betting amoral and arrogant asshole.
Ze digger of ze holes,
Ze keeps on diggin’,
Diggin’ diggin’ down,
How low to go who knows?
Gives no figgin’
Like unto a clown….
Re the Yglesias thing: As ever, I suspect it’s easy for affluent Western conservatives/libertarians to argue in favour of economic practices which inflict suffering on people in the developing world. But it’s a morally indefensible argument. No, we should not accept lower labour standards in developing countries, because people should not be punished for where they were born. Libertarian economic models are unhelpful here: if the market conditions are such that people have no real choice in their employment, it can’t really be said that they’ve voluntarily accepted the risk.
(Said conservatives also like to underestimate the role that centuries of colonialism, imperialism and vicious exploitation played in creating today’s global economic inequalities. As well as the systems of economic oppression which still exist today. These inequalities didn’t arise in a vacuum, they result from a long and horrifying history of violence.
And, of course, most of said conservatives also support immigration controls, by virtue of which people affected by this economic oppression who try to migrate to wealthier countries to seek a better life are often labelled “illegals”, locked up, and deported. But I digress.)
CompSci actually.
But why the hate on econ? I get it’s a social science so not as rigorous, but if you want people to trust biologists on evolution and climate scientists on AGW why not give economists the benefit of the doubt?
Oh, now it’s “of course!” where before it was “well, only IF this is what they really want…”
Slimy.
The economists who actually influence policy these days–the ones you apparently listen to–have been proven wrong over and over again but have not altered their theories as a result. They are similar to you that way. That’s why all the hate.
Sorry, one more…
What motivated THAT skepticism? Because that is a FUCKING STUPID thing to be skeptical about. The people who actually live in the country where buildings are collapsing and killing works might be LESS concerned about safety than the people living thousands of miles away from said buildings???? Seriously what the fuck?
Killing workers, that is…
It seems Yglesias in the original piece made a very very subtle bait and switch. He went from “we should have some kind of safety standard baseline in all countries; like buildings to code” to “We should enforce U.S. safety standards on Bangladesh”
Then he pulled another bait and switch by pretending like teh case was that there were no regulations in place.
Then another bait and switch by pretending that somehow all regualtions are expensive and they should be weighed on the basis of “standard of living”.
I got into a debate with an economist yesterday about this who agreed with Yglesias, and he pulled the same things. Basically we should ignore human rights concerns if they are a ‘tradeoff’ with respect to economic development.
There is somehow evidence of this, but I have yet to see any, and plenty to suggest that Safety and Human Rights & Economic Development are not divergent goals that are being traded off.
In other words, in order for a “trade off” of any kind of exist, you have to be choosing between mutually divergent goals.
Which is really what this argument is based on, and there is no evidence that is the case, and case studies to demonstrate the opposite.
My point is that you are talking nonsense. And again shifted the goal posts. You said ships commonly sink, and to back that you linked to wiki pages that don’t support that claim.
Why are earthquakes an exception? Why couldn’t I make storms an exception for ships? Again, I wasn’t even comparing ships to building, I was saying that a rate would make your case that ships entail a greater risk. You made yet another claim, and when you presented evidence for it this time, that evidence didn’t prove your claim.
This isn’t about the point itself. This is about your inability to support any of your arguments. The point is that you are talking out of your ass at multiple portions of this arguments. And you’ve yet to admit you are wrong. Because you are wrong.
And he was also reacting to enforcing U.S. standards on U.S. companies, regardless of site.
I dunno how that might work, but it’s a damn tricky ploy to conflate
Standards with enforcement with Cost of living.
It does however force you to end up claiming that making workers safer robs them of their jobs and therefore leads to starving children.
Okay, ghost of Milton friedman. Just like Ford should not have been made to install safety devices in the Pinto, which would have cost like 20 bucks extra per car.
Because obviously it’s the consumers fault and shows how much they value their lives.
I mean, I understand the logic that we all make tradeoffs, but isn’t this just deliberately stunted?
Am I even living in the same universe? Seriously.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/uk-bangladesh-building-idUKBRE93N06U20130426
@Walton
I know there’s an issue with advocating a policy that also seems convenient for your own comfort, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Similarly trying to do good might actually turn out bad. I don’t know if the effect is certain but there’s been suggestions that food aid and donations of goods is bad for African nations because it crowds out farmers and local businesses. The thing is you can’t just not accept a crappy situation and have it fixed, you need to have a way to fix it.
I wouldn’t use conservative and libertarian interchangeably. I don’t consider myself either but I do respect the libertarian perspective and the libertarians I do follow and respect all advocate a very liberal immigration policy.
If only mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, we could have said we witnessed a gold medal performance.
It’s true that some libertarians get it right on immigration. Though others don’t (Ron Paul is very anti-immigration, though arguably he’s really more of a paleoconservative than a libertarian). And indeed they aren’t interchangeable terms.
(But orthodox libertarianism is seriously problematic in a lot of ways. I say this as someone who used to be a libertarian.)
The libertarian understanding of economics, I think, largely fails to grasp the realities of economic oppression and the history of violence that gave rise to it. But I digress, and this thread isn’t the place to go into it. (Especially not past midnight on a Friday night.)
[OT]
Meanwhile, fire kills 38 in Russian psychiatric hospital, and bombs kill 20+ in Baghdad bringing this week’s death toll in Iraq to over 160.
*flail*
I need to stop reading the news.
Your words say otherwise liberturd.
@aluchko
What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? o.O
Libertarians believe that the invisible hand of the market will make people safe. That if we reduce government oversight and regulation that companies will somehow reach the conclusion that keeping their employees (and the surrounding population) safe will somehow work to their financial advantage.
Keeping people safe DOES work to a company’s financial advantage, but there is no way that they will agree that short-term preventive expenses will yield long-term benefits. There is always someone who will say “No” or “Not yet.”
Let me be as clear as I can: We cannot trust companies or corporations to self-regulate.
Looking at them in the most charitable light, the most basic problem is that it is likely that most companies do not retain experts in industrial hygiene, environmental safety, process safety management, management of change, or environmental impacts.
The U.S. government, while imperfectly and could definitely use some improvement, provides that expertise in the form of regulatory agencies and the applicable regulations.
@SallyStrange
I have a lot of friends from Iran and Eastern Europe who describe situations I find extraordinarily dangerous but they find fairly routine and are unconcerned about.
@glodson
It feels like you’re deliberately misunderstanding me so you can say I’m wrong.
My point was always that a building collapsing is generally surprising, but anyone who sets foot on a boat is going to think about that boat sinking. It doesn’t need a citation, it’s obvious. The wikipedia link was just to show how obvious it was because shipwrecks are ridiculously more common.
Seriously, is anyone here going to claim they’re generally as concerned about the roof over their head collapsing at this moment than they would be about the boat they were sitting on sinking?
@Watson
Agreed, I get the motivation but it breaks definitely down at the extremes (if not far before).
He didn’t just shift the goalposts. He moved to an entirely new stadium on the other side of the world.
His “point” such as it was, only applies to ships that meet proper regulatory code, and buildings that meet equivalent regulatory code.
When we’re talking about ships and buildings that violate the pertinent regulatory codes, the likelihood of failure depends entirely on the details of how the pertinent codes were violated.
And excluding earthquakes from the analogy, when storms were explicitly mentioned on the ship side of things, is as blatantly intellectually dishonest as it gets.
If corporations are people, my friend, most of them would be sociopaths.
So you were basing your opinion about what Bagladeshis would think about collapsing buildings killing hundreds of workers on what a couple of random people from Iran and Eastern Europe think about unnamed other situations.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Well, yes, but that’s only because the facade just fell off :D
([redacted] hall is falling down, falling down, falling down….)
@aluchko
Buildings aren’t magic, aluchko. They don’t just spring into being. They are built. Constructed. Assembled from other materials. In order for them to be safe, especially large ones, they are built according to plans and regulations and codes.
I will not enter a building that has been condemned, for instance. I’m not entering a building that looks dilapidated.
There were visible cracks in the structure of this “five story plus three” building. People had legitimate fears, and the greedy companies that had operations there threatened and coerced their employees to work inside when it was clearly unsafe.
@Amphiox
Well built ships are more likely to sink than well built buildings.
Crappy (and probably well) built ships are more likely to sink than crappy built buildings.
I excluded earthquakes because I don’t know if the region is prone to earthquakes, they’re rare events, and that’s the only time when buildings generally collapse. We’re talking about a situation of spontaneous collapse (not in an earthquake), his original analogy shouldn’t have had a storm.
@SallyStrange
I was basing it on the fact that people interpret events differently than I do.
Notice that weasel word “generally”, when the actual point was about very specific classes of examples.
Notice as well the continued perseveration over the side-point while desperately trying to ignore the main point.
Why is it so hard to admit that you’re just full of shit? In reality, you made up some bullshit and offered a pathetic post hoc justification that fails anyway.
Yawn, liberturd’s just another liar for economics, history, politics, etc.
Recall my prior post about nitpicking after losing the main argument?
Pathetic.
It only takes a simple google search to learn that Bangladesh sits on top of a major active earthquake zone, and that poor building codes causing catastrophic death in earthquakes in and around Bangladesh is a major recurring event in that nation’s history.
Intellectually dishonest AND lazy as a stump, too.
Pitiful.
It does fit his pattern though. So eager to pontificate on a country he knows absolutely nothing about. So reluctant to actually educate himself on the subject before yapping again.
@Amphiox
My point has always been that it’s a very rare event (that “generally”, ie rarely, doesn’t happen). So even in a particular set of risky circumstances I don’t find it surprising that someone would have a lot of trouble believing a spontaneous collapse would occur.
The main point was whether the factory owner/manager could be excused for not evacuating because they thought a collapse would never happen. I conceded that point a long time ago after “cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)” posted the first article and it became clear how many people thought it would collapse.
I kept going over the side point because the side point seemed so bizarre.
Shitting in the living room. People died because of greedy business practices. This is something which anyone here would seek to prevent happening in the future. It is something which anyone who might find themselves working in similar situations would seek to prevent happening in the future. If there is economic incentive not to do so, that is an economic balance problem and should find a fair number of people opposing the background factors which give rise to it.
I don’t like the idea of someone making less a month than I make in a day; this is desperation wage and largely incapacitates reasoned response to working conditions. I don’t like the idea of management being able to tell their staff to ignore safety considerations in what is largely an inherently safe manufacturing environment. People who fight fires or cut down trees are in harms way by the very nature of their job, not the environment their job is situated within. Even there, seeking to rebalance the situation is something that everyone ought to be behind, but once profit is on the line corners have a funny way of being cut.
The real question is: What can I do to encourage businesses not to farm out their manufacture to lowest bidder? Is it better to stop buying import clothing and rely on local rules to encourage my money towards businesses which are more rigourously policed? Or should I do something different?
The only bizarre thing here is your arrogance in thinking you have any point, and that anybody believes a word you say. We presume you lie and bullshit. Because you have been caught lying and bullshitting. Shut the fuck up. Nothing you say will change anybodies mind about you or your inane amoral claims.
New info about the collapse:
Via Jezebel: http://jezebel.com/wal-mart-and-joe-fresh-among-labels-in-collapsed-bangla-482673264
The whole situation was immoral from the start, before the building ever collapsed.
This.
There you have it. People are cheaper than buildings. People are disposable. People are replaceable. Pay a paltry sum for each one you kill and continue merrily on your business way.
Hilarious. Now he’s using the “bright shiny light” defence, and pretends to a morbid fascination with the “bizarre”.
The only thing bizarre about the sidepoint was the way he kept gnawing at it like a rabid raccoon, and how dishonestly he went about doing so.
@Amphiox
Seriously? We were debating a point. I thought you made a really crappy counterargument. Even after the original point was settled I continued drilling into the sidepoint because I couldn’t understand what you were trying to argue.
What’s so bizarre and hilarious about that?
Still on the side point, still avoiding the meat of the issue.
Yglesias has an update: he thinks he was still right to say that it’s both right and proper that Bangladeshis should risk their lives doing jobs that shouldn’t require anyone to risk their lives because it makes Bangladesh richer and America safer. But he chose a bad time to say so.
No, you were evidencelessly pontificating from ignorance and arrogance. We were telling you reality. Why can’t you shut the fuck up? Because if you do shut the fuck up, you believe you are tacitly telling us you were wrong? YOU ARE WRONG. INABILITY TO ADMIT THAT IS ARROGANCE.
@aluchko
Look, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Even IF the people who worked in that building weren’t afraid that it was unsafe, would that somehow mitigate this disaster? Indeed, if those people hadn’t been concerned, there would have been even more casualties, because the people who had evacuated would not have done so.
What we can all agree on now is that the building was clearly unsafe – you know, seeing as it has collapsed and killed people and all that.
What kind of point would that make in favor of NOT improving safety regulations, reducing corruption, and enforcing building codes?
It becomes even more revealing when one actually analyzes what alcuhko is trying to argue about the side-point.
He perseverates over the minutiae of relative failure rates and completely ignores the fact that the heart of the analogy was in presenting a situation of shared regulatory violation.
It is like trying to argue that comparing the sun to Sirius is invalid because Sirius is more luminous while ignoring the fact that both of them have fusion going on in their cores.
Intellectual dishonesty on intellectual dishonesty, layer after layer.
Simply pitiful.
SallyStrange:
Huh. I have heard at least one person claim they don’t believe in morality.
(For that person, nothing can be immoral)
Gee, John Morales, look at you being all cryptic and shit. What a surprise.
@mythbri
If I recall the original question was how easily foreseen the accident was and what the causes were.
1) If the collapse was easily foreseen for a long time it implies Bangladesh’s lax regulatory enforcement was to blame (lots of opportunity to fix a very unsafe situation).
2) If the collapse was easily foreseen on the days prior to the disaster, but not in the years prior, then it was more an outcome of the owner’s callousness, Bangladesh’s poor regulatory enforcement played a secondary role in being unable to force the closure.
3) If it couldn’t be easily foreseen by anyone than there’s a lot less direct blame to go around and it’s more a case of a disaster brought on by sloppiness like the plant in Texas.
I think 2 is what happened.
For 2,3 people weren’t really expecting a collapsing building, so many of the choices made weren’t made with the realization that they compromised safety (in 2 the owner can’t claim this). And even if they found out a couple days before that wasn’t enough time for authorities to figure out how to force the owners to shut down the factory.
On the other hand in 1 a collapse was somewhat expected that means a lot of people knew about a huge safety risk and didn’t care. This implies horrid safety in general and a huge disregard for life. This would suggests regs and enforcement both need to improve.
But if it was a surprise now they know collapsing factories are a reality, so from now on they’re going to give shoddy buildings a second look, owners will be more conscious of the risk of collapse, and regulators will be better prepared to force a shut down.
So the risk of collapsing buildings may go away on it’s own and not require “improving safety regulations, reducing corruption, and enforcing building codes” to fix it.
@aluchko
Bullshit.
HEY! Guns are dangerous, people! They can kill!
Okay, now that we all know that, there won’t be anymore accidental gun deaths or mass shootings.
@mythbri
But there are people who want guns, nobody wants a collapsing building.
The idea is it’s the first time they’ve seen this particular risk, maybe you need stricter rules and enforcement to fix it, or maybe merely being aware of the risk is enough.
Still no links from our liberturd *floosh* OPINION dismissed as fuckwittry. Funny how evidenceless fools like him can’t put up. or shut thefuck up. If they did, they would have honesty and integrity. Since he can’t, prima facie evidedence he is nothing but a liar and bullshitter….Read and learn liberturd, you have an honest problem here….
@aluchko
You can’t be serious. Someone upthread already said that Bangladesh is in a hot earthquake zone, and that collapsing buildings that kill people are nothing new.
That’s why there are building codes.
Do you believe that Bangladeshis are so stupid that they can’t make the connection between building construction and the risk of collapse?
Improving safety regulations
Any company that can coerce people into working in unsafe conditions that are NOT a part of their routine duties or a necessary condition for doing their job needs to be regulated.
That’s ALL companies, by the way.
Reducing corruption
Do you seriously think that no one noticed that there were an extra three stories on that building? Someone was looking the other way.
Enforcing building codes
Even if the bare minimum of your country’s building codes includes “No crack in key structural supports”, because DUH – then you better damn well enforce it! Condemn the building! Conduct inspections! Don’t let people inside to work! And sure as hell don’t force them!
On the news earlier, they were interviewing a worker at the site while they were pulling out the injured and dead. He said that they had to go in or they would lose their jobs. Then they weren’t supposed to leave, and finally when they were leaving, “The man at the gate wouldn’t let us out and people couldn’t get out of the building.”
Then they had a comment from Fresh, the comment the reporter read said that Fresh only buys a small portion of their clothing from that factory, and that they support safe working conditions at their factories. I’m not sure I heard that right because I was plummeting from my chair at the time.
It was one of the most “who gives a fuck” statements and outright, undisguised hypocrisy I ever heard.
I can’t locate the interview, but it was global TV Edmonton at noon. I also remember the reporter saying that they make 21 cents and working 13 hours a day, and I couldn’t hear if they said 6 or 7 days a week, but the context sounded like he must have said, because he said “nonstop.”
@mythbri
But was this building in an earthquake zone? If it’s not in an earthquake zone they might ignore regs because they figure “that’s only for buildings that get earthquakes, we don’t get earthquakes so we’ll ignore it”
We also don’t know if the manager was allowed to order the workers in like he did, that strikes me as an enforcement issue, not a safety issue.
And as for the enforcement issue it may fix itself because people are now aware of the risk.
@aluchko
ALL OF BANGLADESH IS IN AN EARTHQUAKE ZONE.
And even if it weren’t, there are very basic principles of engineering and design that MUST be taken into account when building any kind of structure.
There were an extra three stories on that building, adding at LEAST an additional 800 tons in just building materials alone – if they were building very, very light. Add to that the weight of furnishings and people.
This building was not constructed for that weight, and we know that based on a single document – the permit.
What the hell are you trying to argue for?
This is a disaster. It had multiple points of failure. Do you really think that this will fix itself?
H & M, Walmart, Gap
I came across this, also
The above came from this page:
Bangladesh garment factory collapse raises questions about consumer choices
The retailers, and at least the Bangladesh govt., are worried about the money, pure and simple.
He just can’t acknowledge, like any person with honesty and integrity, he is wrong. Typical liberturd loser behavior. Unless he stops behaving like one, he can’t be considered anything else…
It is not like Bangladesh hasn’t been, you know, world frakkin famous for several earthquakes in the “mere” 5-6 Richter range producing horrendous (tens of thousands) death tolls because of shoddy buildings collapsing. Buildings falling down when sneezed at is a recurrent theme in Bangladesh.
It is just mind boggling to see this idiot actually trying to excuse a company for violating a building code. Newsflash for the fool: IT DOES NOT MATTER why the company violated the building code. You are not supposed to violate them for any reason.
They want cheap clothing. And as far as your comment that when they are aware, now, after the building collapse, that they will push stricter standards
What the fuck planets are you on? There have been problems and fires and slave labor conditions that they have been aware of for years and they haven’t pushed for enforcement. Read my above posts. Read the pages I linked to. The workers federation has been pushing reports for years.
They are criminally responsible for this shit. The retailers that are supposed to inspect for themselves what is going on, the retailers that knew that it took more money to insure safer conditions declined to sign on because of financial matters. They knew that it’s unsafe, they knew workers are being killed, and they are supposed to inspect the factories for themselves, so there is no excuse. They chose to risk lives, and when you do that, sooner or later bad shit is going to happen – it’s only a matter of time, so don’t fucking mouth off about “no one expected it to collapse” because they knew unsafe conditions were causing disasters already, so they knew already that something would good and fuck up eventually and slaves would die.
Because they will fucking push every tiny penny they can save so they can sell shit for a few cents cheaper instead of just raising prices a tiny bit.
They knew it could, they knew it would eventually, and they didn’t care that lot’s of people were, and would, die.
*trigger warning for rape apologia*
Not sure what the policy on interrupting an argument in progress is here, but I’m feeling too pissed off not to post this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKgFNf4Mhf0
The rape apologists on this video’s comment threads are absolutely fucking infuriating. And yet, I feel compelled to at least try to respond to the bullshit and try to call out the posters on it. *sigh*
First rule of Thunderdome is, there are no rules.
That said, I can’t really handle video. Haven’t the spoons. Transcription, maybe. Post on A+ scribe forum maybe?
Remember when we talked about how people do things with a certain intention, but their actions have unintended consequences?
Try to follow along: at a certain point, claims of good intentions must be weighed against years’ of accumulated actions with effects contrary to stated intentions. Highly predictable effects. Effects which have been warned of, and, subsequent to the warnings, have appeared. Several times.
With regards to corruption, unsafe working conditions, and buildings not built to code, there are decades’ worth of information showing what the short- and long-term effects are.
If you say you don’t want a collapsing building, how many buildings of your fabrication have to collapse before we conclude that there’s some desire that supersedes your desire for buildings that don’t collapse?
What SallyStrange wrote.
(Or: “Actions speak louder than words”)
The video isn’t too much. The video is just of a student preacher at my University standing around screaming with a pro-rape sign, drawing some counter-protests (and a few assaults).
It’s the comments on the video that really got me going. I can post a few examples on A+ scribe, vile as they are.
Ohhh. You go to U. of AZ? Is that video of Dean Saxton or whatever his name is?
In Thunderdome, arguments interrupt you.
We can multitask. Most of the time.
@Sally: Exactly. He’s been there preaching pretty much every week since around last August, but this time he brought out a pro-rape sign (the other side said “rapists deserve the death penalty”, but I think I only saw him hold that one up once, and most of the time he had his other sign covering that part). Typically he’ll only bring out the typical tepid “you deserve hell” sign. Hopefully he gets expelled or compelled to stop soon though, as he told a news crew member he was considering doing the rape apologist routine more often now.
He’s pretty much universally reviled by the actual students, but that video brought out the MRAs in force.
Huh, the chewtoy has lasted longer than I thought. Perhaps some popcorn is in order while I watch you all. How can anyone miss the point and suck at arguing this badly?
Shockna:
I can only imagine the comments. Ugh.
I just cannot fathom someone being ‘pro rape’. Just… f.u.c.k.
****
I still cannot figure out aluchko’s point anywhere. I mean I followed that damn ball across multiple stadiums and could never catch it
**
I just realized the brilliance of joeys plan: convince us that our worldview is wrong by asking questions that he has already had answered.
Hey shartface: find another argument. You are proving nothing by using Gosnell as the poster child of the “problem” of late term abortion.
Gosnell is a despicable piece of work. Yes, killing newborns is abhorrent. Once outside of their mothers body, that child is granted human rights. The fetus does not have such, no matter where in the pregnancy a woman is. In all the cases, Gosnell was wrong, because his actions adversely affected many women-up to and including some of those women dying. Any question of ending a late term pregnancy can and should happen: between the pregnant woman and her doctor. Not people like you saying she must have the baby because…well you people never have a clearly defined reason why a fetus is a good thing to keep around.
Does aluchko also require several cubic meters of proof that Texans really don’t want to die in plant explosions and that plants should be properly built and regularly inspected or is his skepticism reserved only for those alien Bangladeshis? I mean, who knows what those people want? Maybe they don’t give a fuck about dying in a building collapse, or about building a plant that won’t collapse in a strong wind let alone an earthquake.
Foreigners. Who knows what they think. Am I right or am I right?
—
[note: this is a question for aluchko, no helping him with the answer please]
Also, if workers in Bangladesh don’t want to work in shoddy buildings, they should just find jobs elsewhere. That will force companies to give them better work conditions to compete with the rivals. That’s how things work, isn’t it, aluchko?
The point seems to be to awe us with the mastery of shifting goalposts. This is not just mere shifting of goalposts, but Flash Stepping of Goalposts. [Tv tropes warming].
Ophelia despises me and thinks of me as a grotesque parody because I don’t give her, or her friends, a pass when they’re Islamophobic (Or if you prefer, racist against middle easterners, because that’s really all ‘Islamophobia’ comes down to), but she’s never put me in moderation. You sure it isn’t something else? Because frankly, that post sets off massive alarm bells.
@ Tony
In this creep’s case, he appears to think it is the Will-of-GAWD ™ ,or rather: that it is the “just punishment” for not adhering to Bro Dean’s interpretation thereof. You can check out his own video (response?) here: Linky. (wild conjecture: Methinks those two hypocrites are bonking each other.)
[Warning:] How often is it not implied that rape is a just punishment for all manner of crime? But it gets worse. Rape, in South Africa at least, is seen as a cure-all for anything from AIDS (rape a virgin) to being gay (rape a lesbian).
I don’t want to read too much into it. I was overtired and overreacted a bit, for one, and my post was let through pretty quickly in the end(no idea how that thread continued though, I haven’t gone back).
All this just reinforces my conviction that the time of paying thousands of dollars to partake in atheist meetings around the globe is over, and probably also the time to be spending too much time, energy and effort on internet forums.
You know, Jen McCreight tweeted the other day that organised atheism is really tough to do when your life sucks and things are going bad. I disagree with that actually, I think atheism is for the good times, because it comes rather effortlessly, but when things get rough, I totally can’t be fucked to deal with religious dipshits and their tax exemptions, education fuckups and special pleads.
So yeah, I mean, I agree with her.
It worries me that aluchko seems to be basing all his arguments on the proposition that the collapse was impossible to predict and mind-bogglingly rare. So how could anyone have realised it would happen?
Does he not realise that the building collapse had begun at the point where workers were herded back into it in fear of losing their jobs. Another “win” for science teaching in the US, one presumes.
As for rare, there’s an almost exact parallel less than 20 years ago in a richer country – what was built was not what the permit said, profit mattered more than any number of structural engineers, the boss will have his way regardless, early signs of collapse are ignored and, as Nerd says, “Whoosh.” 502 dead and 937 injured according to the wikipedia account – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse
Hell, such things happen in rich and mind-bogglingly well run countries like NZ where it appears that the engineer was working beyond his level of competence when he oversaw the construction of a tall building to a novel design in an earthquake zone. Death toll in this collapse was 115 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTV_Building
How many more will it take before word gets through to aluchko that we already have the knowledge to prevent such events and that building design should be taken out of the hands of accountants and libertarians.
@John Morales
When someone states their bad intentions, and is completely insensitive to the harm he causes directly thereby, it’s unreasonable to suppose his other actions (speech and writing are also actions) will be any better.
That person doesn’t argue from morality, but from human needs and emotions. Sending people into an unsafe building is wrong not because it violates some theoretical code, but because it endangers the safety of these people.
I don’t expect you to understand the nuance.
(posting this also in the original Yglesias thread)
More on how workers were afraid to go back into the cracked building, but were forced by the factory owners; also how the owners of the garment industry influence the government and prevent workers from organizing.
Democracy Now! transcripts: Part One Part Two
@ rorschach
Hey, we always knew it would be a war of attrition.
.
I’ve only ever seen that term used to describe Germany’s national soccer team of the 1980s.
Delft, such a pleasure to extend our little schmooze.
True enough: given those facts, I for one would not want to argue that it’s unreasonable.
1. Well, duh. That’s entailed by their purported disbelief in morality.
2. And that is entailed by virtue of being human. :)
Such mordancy!
Since we’re being frank, I tell you that I don’t believe that you believe that — worse, I don’t believe you believe I would be impressed by that; lucky for you, since you consider I lack theory of mind, you can feel reassured that I don’t impute hopes and human feelings to your motivation for so writing.
rorschach @305
Did you post from a different location?
Happened to me all over FtB when is started logging in from college. System got a different IP and thought “spam”
OTOH, I also ended up in Ophelia’s moderation, pretty much same as Rutkee
aluchko
so, effectively killing 300 people because you’re a greedy bastard doesn’t put people into the category “loathsome”. But wait, those people lost money, so clearly they’re the real victims here.
Alucko, you’re morally bankrupt.
What the fuck do you think does it do to the stability of a building if you add 3 unlicensed and planned stories? Are you that stupid? Since youR’e so fond of sinking ships: If a ship is build and licensed for 500 people, what do you think happens if there’s 800 on board? Do you think that makes a catastrophe “easily forseeable”?
WRONG
Some people had a duty of care. Some people owned that building. Some people rented space in that building. Some people coerced workers to go into that building. They have direct blame.
Just like people who don’t put their kids in appropriate car-seats don’t expect a car crash. Really, who could expect that that day there would be a crash. Seriously, no bad faith on their part.
Yes, because this was the first time in world history that a building collapsed. This has never happened before and surely it will never happen again. Now we will invent statics. Just like nobody ever expects buildings to burn down. It’s always the first time people get trapped in a building with blocked escape routes.
How stupid are you?
+++
Emphasis by me.
Look who isn’t even paying peanuts for the families.
And here we get to the holy alliance between religions, patriarchy and capitalism.
Make sure women breed enough.
Make sure families are big so the pressure to find work is very, very high.
Big families mean lots of cheap labour, Who cares if a few hundred die? There’s more to go around and actually they’re very desperate right now after the person who supported them so far was killed in an accident.
Within 5 minutes? Who do you think I am, Captain Picard? (But you make a good point, this “you logged in from a different location” crap drives me nuts when my email or banking app does it, what the fuck does it matter if I check my mail from Frankfurt or Melbourne or Bangkok?)
I seem to remember that Facebook does this too(Yahoo certainly does), you try to check your account at some airport and this window pops up asking what your pet’s maiden name is, or some other secret answer to a secret question you entered 7 years ago. Drives you nuts.
Crossposting this too, because they’re worth the listening.
From CBC radio (no transcripts):
Interview with Kalpona Akter
She holds the retailers responsible, because when they audited these factories, the inspections are announced beforehand and the workers coached on what to say. The workers can’t complain about violations or feeling unsafe. She also says while consumers play a vital role, they’re disconnected from the human faces of the workers making their clothes, and being lied to by retailers who claim they support worker safety. She asks consumers to hold their retailers responsible for fair treatment and compensation of workers who are injured or killed.
Interview with a factory collapse survivor, Fatema Khatun
Fatema was one of the workers ordered back into the factory in spite of the danger, and threatened when she and other workers tried to leave. When the building started to collapse, she survived by leaping from the second floor. Her job paying $118 per month (with bonuses and 170 hours of overtime monthly) supported her sister and her sick parents, paying for their food and medical care and for her sister’s education. Of her three closest friends, one survived and two are still missing.
@John Morales
A little introspection will show you that your behaviour in these exchanges meets those criteria.
1. No. It’s not a consequence, but what “not believing in morality” means.
2. Wrong. E.g. All the people who argue that being gay is immoral, are arguing from a moral code. There is no human need for other people not to be gay. They are happy to set their code above the needs / suffering of human beings, and even worse, they are completely convinced that that is “the right thing” to do.
Even people who don’t argue from morality generally argue from reason, not from needs and feelings.
I’m sorry it upsets you. My expectation that you don’t understand is confirmed by your answers.
Delft:
You’ve overestimated me, since I don’t know to what bad intentions you refer or what harm I have directly thereby caused.
So you’re contending that a person “not believing in morality” doesn’t entail that that person “doesn’t argue from morality”, but rather it means that that person “doesn’t argue from morality”.
(Perhaps were I better at grasping nuance, I would agree with you)
[a] Well, it may be wrong, but to show how so you need to establish how someone arguing from a moral code cannot be due to human needs and emotions.
[b] So you accept that moral codes exist, though you don’t believe in morality.
(That too might be nuance, since I don’t understand it)
I cannot deny that your compassion is truly evident no less than your competence at theory of mind or your grasp of logic.
@ rorschach
Dull, tiring and lacking in flair?
…
This war has gone on for thousands of years – between superstition and enlightenment – in essence it is for control of the empire of the mind.
This is a dishonest presentation. You’re willing to quote directly the obverse of the sign, but never the objectionable side, which is only (and consistently) described as “pro-rape”. And you did that intentionally, so that lazy gullible folks like Tony! would respond the way you want.
The sign in question said “You deserve rape”. Clearly slut-shaming and victim-blaming, but especially in light of the other side, it’s ridiculous and stupid to call it “pro-rape”.
This kind of crap pisses me off. Go ahead and disagree with this sign-holding idiot for what he actually believes; it’s stupid and offensive enough. Things are bad enough as they are without having to spin shit to make it worse.
I am an eternal optimist. Maybe someday you will realise you are hurting others with your behaviour, like when you insist you “most certainly feel no obligation as a man to do something about misogyny.” Then perhaps you will try to do better. And maybe not.
It’s not that these people’s actions don’t ultimately stem from human needs and emotions (a no-brainer one would think), but that they don’t argue from them. They argue from a moral code, often one taken from an old book, and completely disregard it’s impact on the human needs and emotions, in this case of gay people.
Exactly. The hint is in the next sentence of my comment: “I think it [morality] is a way…”
Not believing in something does not always mean one doesn’t believe it exists.
There are clearly moral codes flying around. I also don’t believe in getting up early. That does not mean I don’t believe there are people who get up early, indeed, I may have done so myself on occasion.
Don’t be so ridiculous and stupid. Saying someone deserves X implies that it would be a good thing if X happened to them. Therefore, it is necessarily pro-X in some cases at least. The fact that this scumbag had two inconsistent messages does not change the meaning of either.
No one ever claimed the guy is consistent in his hatred. I don’t find it unbelievable that he thinks some women deserve to be raped (wouldn’t you call someone who sees rape as appropriate punishment for some women pro-rape?) and that rapists deserve death. That makes him pro-rape and pro-death penalty.
Rape is bad and rapists are bad, but some people deserve bad things (rape) happening to them. That looks like his reasoning. I’d call his position pro-rape.
@ chas
Are you telling us this person cannot be pro-rape and pro-murder at the same time? His god certainly promotes both these positions. And he appears to be very aware of what his god wants.
Although, I’m not sure it’s even inconsistent. It’s certainly evil, but not necessarily inconsistent.
It’s the double morality thing. These bad people (rapists) exist and they are conveniently there to rape sluts and other bad women. They do the job a God-fearing man can’t, but since they commit a bad thing, they deserve to die. See? Neat. God is such a nice chap to always take care of everything.
(Inconsistency probably comes into it at the point of defining rape, but that’s not currently the topic.)
Delft:
And I see that your skills at evasion are as good as your other rhetorical competencies.
Hey, you’re winning me over!
(I’m beginning to be swayed to the view that you believe that you have stymied my retort via this verbose rephrasing of the claim to which I responded, and therefore possibly believe some of the claims you have been making)
So, according to you, not believing in God does not always mean one doesn’t believe God exists.
Ah, I see. You don’t believe in getting up early — that’s for other people, though you’ve done it yourself on occasion — any more than you believe in morality.
Exactly. I may have argued from morality myself in the past, and I might still inadvertently do so today. But as I don’t believe in doing so, I consistently try to leave morality out of the equation, and argue from human feelings and needs.
As you seem to believe your retort to be an indictment of my behaviour, I assume that you think people are “good” because of morality. I don’t share this view. People do good things for completely different reasons, and in my opinion “morality” is only every used as a stick to beat someone with. Where there is an actual basis for valuing a particular behaviour, there are human needs that can be used to support that, without needing to reference a theoretical code.
Expressions can have more than one meaning and context is important for the meaning of a word. The sentence I used after discussing morality made it clear to most people I was not talking about existence, though obviously not to you.
Nope.
Inderdeed.
@ Delft
Do you not think that it is possible to generate a rational morality?
Have you considered that there are often ways of doing, interacting, that do not work? We could seek a moral framework by considering such cases (“pathics”) – to be informed by the inverse. Should we turn our backs on a concept that, to a large degree, has been usurped by religion? We abandon whatever terrain into which inroads have been made? (It is hard enough to win back a simple thing, such as “marriage”, this “morality” is so much less clear – and they have held it for so damn long.)
It is notable that some historians trace the beginning of the trend towards improvements in worker rights, conditions, etc in European civilization to the aftermath of the Black Death, when all of a sudden there was a shortage of labor, and individual workers started getting increased clout due to their scarcity.
@ Amphiox
What is our present condition, recently called (variously) : “a lack of jobs”, “lack of skills” etc other than a stranglehold on resources (which incidentally include “skills”)? We are regressing into an increasingly medieval situation where everything is governed by a diminishing (at least in relative terms) proportion of the population controlling an ever expanding proportion of every manner of resource. It is in this context that labour and skills are in relative abundance. Every ounce of effort could be applied to improving the lot of everyone if it was not artificially constrained by this lack of access to the materials, fuels and (this is an ongoing development) skills.
Lack of opportunities, through artificial bottlenecking, not lack of abilities or willpower is causing this predicament.
skillseven educated labour
Up with which I will not put.
@chigau
What I wrote above was this:
If as I say people are using morality to coerce others into doing something, then it follows I think they have a morality, and I don’t think of it as a good thing. Not that I don’t believe they have a moral code, if possibly one I find corrupt.
@theophontes
Reasoning needs to start somewhere. You cannot reason your way to morality, unless you start with appropriate axioms. If you start by making human needs and feelings your guide you might come up with a morality that looks fine.
But my basic issue with morality is that it’s a concept that is violent in itself. It entails a “should” that I don’t think is helpful. It easily segues into ideas about good and evil which are particularly pernicious. It also easily becomes rigid: rules that start out being a guideline quickly become ends unto themselves.
I think we are better off without. I agree this may be because in human history morality has been used as a weapon and a tool of oppression more than anything else.
*sigh*
How odd. I swear I saw someone else objecting to ought.
Not a coincidence. I took up the question with John Morales to see whether he had point to make about morality / obligations, and would replace the “obligation” with some other type of commitment as I do. But apparently not.
Objecting to oughts because of their intrinsic violence and their effect on society is a rather different position from “nobody tells me what to do”.
So not odd at all.
It is now 3am where John Morales lives. You may find he will entertain your inane scribblings again tomorrow.
Chas:
Lazy and gullible?
Yeah there are times I have been both.
I do not agree this time.
The guy is holding a sign saying “You deserve rape”.
He is saying “when you do these things I do not think you should be doing, you should get raped.” In his view, rape is a tool useful in keeping people in line. He is literally advocating certain people get raped. No, he is not saying rape is cool. He is clearly using this punishment under a specific set of circumstances, but rape is horrific. Period. No matter the situation. To advocate for it, to support it, to tell people they deserve it…that is pro rape in my book.
Since you disagree, why not explain to this lazy, gullible person why he is incorrect?
Or do you think telling me to shut up sometimes or tossing out unsupported, insulting barbs is the only way you can interact with me?
@rorschach
The discussion started nearly a week ago, and John Morales has already answered several times, though not to that effect.
Delft’s scribblings may be inane, but at least they’re not cryptic.
(I don’t agree that they’re inane. I found that conversation at least somewhat illuminating.)
Sorry, it’s 4am and I’m just being an obnoxious asshole. Apologies.
*poke*
“Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were in heaven, which men were striving to learn.”
@ chigau
Now that was cryptic.
(However, I do notice that it elicited a response from John Morales. There is that to be said for crypticism.)
Can’t we just agree that Chas isn’t one of the good guys and move on?
I can’t understand why the Horde still entertains this rape-apologist apologist as somebody somehow belonging here.
Hey, I may be cryptic, but I’m no cryptid.
Giliell, your second sentence accounts for your first.
What a dumb, tribal and sweepingly generalizing thing to say.
I think who “belongs here”(I assume you mean “has a right to post comments here”) is still determined by PZ and not by popular vote. But I can understand that some lazy and gullible people may be upset by being called out on being lazy and gullible. I always thought that was one of the best features of Pharyngula, that there was always someone to tear down your front of beloved preconceptions, outright mistakes and instances of lazy thinking.
But those people are becoming rarer and rarer.
@ John Morales
I had to look that up.
Like the wandering Jew or the 12th Imam… or surviving exemplars of Homo floresiensis …?
I also checked out Urban dictionary and got: crypticism You and SallyStrange each get your own definition.
@ rorschach
{pouts}
Hey, not true.
Several people called chas out. Not our fault if there was no proper response.
Rorschach:
I was the last person Chas referred to as lazy and gullible–because I interpreted a man holding a “You deserve rape” sign as being pro-rape. He may or may not explain why he thinks those traits apply to me in this situation, but I do not feel they do. I have explained why “you deserve rape” is pro rape.
If you agree with him, I would love to hear your reasoning. I am open to someone tearing down my front of preconceptions, outrights mistakes or lazy thinking.
rorschach
I wasn’t calling for a ban, so your assumption is wrong. I was clearly talking about “being assumed to belong to this community”
Passive-agressiveness FTW!
So, do you think that claiming that “You deserve rape isn’t pro-rape” is tearing down beloved preconceptions and lazy thinking, entertaining us with nuance, or is it plainly defending a rape-apologist, trying to find wriggle-room for rape apologia, as he has done before (See the thread where Bill Oppenhalt was trying to argue the responsibility of women in rape)?
And this in a forum where he knows exactly whom he’s hitting, women who have been victims of rape AND the victim blaming, who have heard that they deserved to be raped?
But I guess it’s us hysterical bitches again. Don’t understand the nuances about whether somebody thinks in their heart of hearts that rape is a good thing or that he merely thinks that there’s some women who shouldn’t complain when it happens to them. Same as with abortion. When are we going to see the nuance in that?
Tony, he shouldn’t need to explain; think about it.
Let me quote Chas:
#466 John Morales
Just because the other side of the sign is pro-death doesn’t negate or change the fact “You deserve rape” is pro-rape.
I mean look at what he’s saying: (From Lynna, Om,)
His is FOR rape to punish those sluts and the “rapists deserve death” is simply window dressing since his apologetics help rapist not get convicted.
To expand on my last comment:
How many times have we seen this “rapists deserve death” come from people who use it as a defense so they can say “But I’m not for rape!” all while slut shaming, blaming and adhering the “black stranger in an alley” narrow version of rape? If you’re not for rape, then why blame the victim? If you’re not for rape, why slut shame? Following and helping rape culture is pro-rape, because rape culture is pro-rape. I don’t care about their intent or if they act like rape offends them – their actions make a lie of their supposed “I’m not for rape!” crap.
I have yet to see this “rapists deserve death” come from any actually against rape – someone who actually understand what it is and includes date rapes, spousal rape, and more than just penis in vagina penetration as rape.
JAL,
With all due respect, maybe (and most plausibly) so, but maybe not. You don’t have enough facts to make a definitive determination, but you’ve couched your inference without any qualification.
Perhaps a less charged but parallel example may make you reconsider: would you assert that someone with a sign reading on the one side ‘People who walk a minefield deserve to be blown up by a mine’ and on the other ‘people who lay minefields deserve death’ is pro-minefield laying?
To clarify, I was making an observation that I think applies to the blog as a whole and speaking in general terms, and not wrt the little semantics game you have going there at the moment.
John,
Would you argue that only those who believe that rape (in general, that is- all kinds of rape) is a good thing, and endorse the practice of it openly are pro-rape?
Because otherwise a lot of people we consider pro-rape wouldn’t fit the definition. Take a politician who says that a woman has given permanent consent to sex with her husband when they married, and therefore it’s impossible for a man to rape his wife. The same politician may endorse death penalty for rapists. Of course, in his head, rapists are only burly thugs who jump from behind bushes and violently rape struggling virgins. Would you consider calling this politician pro-rape wrong?
Funny, but I would clearly think that somebody who says “rapists deserve the death penalty” is pro-death penalty…
Beatrice:
I certainly would not wish to do so (since I don’t believe that is the case), but the question at hand is whether someone who presents (as Chas noted) as a slut-shaming victim-blamer can simultaneously believe that rape is a bad thing (bad enough for perpetrators to deserve death) and that many victims put themselves in the position of being raped.
The issue I have with Chas and remarks like the one being discussed is that he hasn’t actually added anything to the discussion here, nor has he presented any sort of interesting challenging to Tony’s, Gilliel’s, or anyone’s thinking on rape. His contribution is just pretty bog-standard regurgitating of wider cultural attitudes about rape and rape culture. What value is it to have yet another person spouting the same tired line that no, nobody’s actually FOR rape when clearly they are for rape, just not in every single circumstance, and they define rape much more narrowly than is useful, just like the standard cultural narrative about rape does.
He takes this position fairly consistently whenever discussions of feminism and rape culture come up. It’s not helpful, it’s not even neutral, it’s actively hostile to rape survivors on Pharyngula.
He also sometimes offers a somewhat helpful voice of nitpicky accuracy when the subject is more scientific. He defends evo psych. That’s fine. But this? Tony is lazy and gullible because he characterizes “you deserve rape” as pro-rape? Is nonsensical assholery. And the minefield analogy doesn’t really help either, Morales, unless you’re proposing that there’s something similar to “harlotry” that causes people to walk on minefields for which being blown up is an appropriate corrective punishment.
John,
Another thing. I don’t remember you disagreeing with the use of the term rape culture. You are familiar with those that come arguing that there is no such thing, since rape is obviously not widely accepted and endorsed, people get sent into jail for it, or they even might get sentenced to death for it in some places. A country that has laws against rape couldn’t possibly be considered to have a rape culture at the same time, right? And yet… it does.
The term pro-rape can be considered in a similar way. Someone, especially if it’s a religious someone, can consider rape (the definition of which may differ from what you or I would call rape) a bad thing. Consequently, they would want rapists to be punished for committing rape. But they can at the same time believe that some people deserve to be raped, that their behavior or sexuality make them not only someone who might “cause” their own rape but who should have it happen to them. As a punishment for being outspoken, lesbian, gay, or unashamed of their sexuality. It’s not just about doing something that will “cause” rape (walking in dark streets alone at night, probably the most cited “bad thing” women should avoid doing), it’s also about simply being someone whose very personality and mere existence make them “deserving” of rape. So, it’s really convenient that people with rapey urges exist, to rape these bad women (or men, let’s not forget men who “deserve” to be raped to by some people’s standards). I mention the religious, since it’s their double thinking that makes it easier to both condemn rape and at the same time consider it a desirable punishment. Not to be committed by good people, of course, but by the bad ones. Those nasty rapists who then also get punished. It’s a win-win, thanks God!
I definitely consider these people to be pro-rape.
As I wrote in one of the posts before, it’s not even inconsistent, it’s just plain evil. But people are really good in justifying their malice.
This is the question? This is really a question? Really? This is the question Chas is asking? Are we sure?
Because if this is the question Chas is asking, it’s strong evidence that he hasn’t paid the slightest bit of attention to anyone’s viewpoint but his own during the hundreds of conversation about rape culture we’ve had on this blog over the past few years.
Obviously victim blaming rape apologists claim to be against rape. They do it all the time. And we always point out that, like this guy, rape apologists have a long list of things that we define as rape, which they refuse to, because of things the victim did which they wrongly interpret as giving consent. I.e., dressing like a harlot means you’re asking to be raped. Doesn’t matter how much you struggle or say no, that miniskirt you’re wearing said yes, and getting raped will teach you a valuable lesson about why not to wear miniskirts. Rape has value in enforcing a particular patriarchal moral code. Usually rape apologists aren’t as blatant about it as Dean Saxton was, but that’s basically the thinking. Chas is really having difficulty with the idea that this is essentially a pro-rape position? That’s on him. It’s not that difficult to understand, and it’s really uncalled for to characterize Tony as “gullible” for seeing it that way. Gullible to what exactly? Who is trying to fool Tony? It’s just odd. It’s incoherent. It’s not helpful. It’s not challenging.
John,
I hope the lengthy comment above explains my position a bit better (it could also be that I entangled myself in long explanations and then forget half of what I was trying to say… it happens often).
… And now I also see Sally got in before me with similar thoughts, expressed better (and more concisely) than mine.
469 John Morales
Since when do we need to know a person fully in every way and on every topic before making judgements based on the shit they say?
The douche preacher is the same as any asshole coming into threads here spouting the same nonsense. Their arguments are pro-rape so they are pro-rape. The only difference is this douche is spouting this shit in public and the administration wouldn’t even remove him because rape culture is so insidious.
And you can see Sally #474 regarding that minefield analogy.
473 John Morales
Most people think rape is a bad thing and that victims are to blame. Unless someone is a feminist or been enlightened on the topic, this is most likely true. They are still being pro-rape by spouting that nonsense.
Er, of course while I was writing that Beatrice and Sally wrote better comments explaining the same thing.
Ignoring for a moment how obnoxious such semantic arguments are, it’s not even coherent. When you say that someone “deserves” something, you’re saying that, all other things being equal, you think they ought to have it (or have it happen to them, as the case may be), rather than not.
You’re saying that if you had to choose between two scenarios; one where they got it and one where they didn’t, you’d pick the one where they did.
When the thing in question is rape, then that’s explicitly, clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, pro-rape. The fact that he might think that some rapes shouldn’t occur doesn’t in any way change the fact that he certainly thinks that some rapes should.
Pointing out that he might not be in favor of all rapes always is no more to the point than the fact that slave-owners don’t want to be slaves themselves. It doesn’t protect them from an accusation of being pro-slavery.
If you’re in favor of just one rape, then you’re pro-rape. Period.
Stop being so self-effacing, y’all! :) There’s nothing wrong with having a few comments expressing similar sentiments in slightly different ways, and there’s nothing particularly superior about mine or Beatrice’s comments.
Beatrice,
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes; as you noted, it’s doublethink.
—
SallyStrange,
No, it’s my interpretation of Chas’s objection to the originally-stated basis for the assertion that this person is pro-rape.
Yes.
Yes. :|
JAL,
Since never; but two things:
1. Stating something as a fact is not the same thing as stating an opinion, however justified; and
2. Intent is not magic, but nonetheless there is a distinction between intent and effect; in this case, this sign-person may (as per Beatrice above) believe they are against rape whilst simultaneously having the effect of being pro-rape.
(And I note Beatrice’s comparison to rape culture is an excellent one)
Yes.
—
Looks like we all believe that it’s the case that some people ostensibly believe that rape is a bad thing whilst simultaneously being functionally (if not necessarily intentionally) pro-rape.
LykeX,
Well, I guess since you’re ignoring how obnoxious such semantic arguments are, I shan’t question on what basis you perceive them to be obnoxious and move on to the next bit.
So you entirely discount the possibility that the locution is meant to express that some outcome is extremely likely given a particular action by someone, right?
Yes, but by the same reasoning, if you’re also in favour of the death penalty for rapists, you’re anti-rapist.
(Not worth mentioning?)
I guess slave owners were also anti-slavery, since they didn’t want to be enslaved themselves. And Hitler was anti-genocide because he only wanted to kill the Jews. And all rapists are anti-rape because they don’t want to be victims of rape.
This is why I find these arguments obnoxious. You’re acting like an idiot, undermining the meaning of the words we use until no discussion is even possible anymore.
Fucking waste of time.
@ John Morales
Stay cryptic.
This is a poor analogy, ingenuous even. There is no contradiction in Bro’ Dean’s signage, or in the missions that he is prosecuting. He is both pro-rape and pro-murder.
He supports the the use of crime (rape) to punish acts ( here: flouting of The Dress Code ™ ) condemned by his god. He supports the use of crime (murder) to punish acts (rape) that are condemned by society (rape). This seeming contradiction is resolved by his god being pro both forms of violence.
You may argue that he goes through this double-think because, at some level, he realises (in spite of his god) that rape is wrong and *must* be punished. He remains pro-rape however. He would just style it “gawd-endorsed pro-rape”. He may be confused, but he is not vague.
… by society
(rape)Hello, PaulW.
Do you have evidence that this is what was intended? No? Then why raise it?
Oh right, fucking semantics.
theophontes:
There’s no contradiction in that analogy, either.
(Your point?)
—
Maybe, maybe not. I refer you to my comments above, in particular #484.
—
PS If you didn’t mean disingenuous, I’d be interested to know how you imagine I was being ingenuous.
…why is this even news?
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Rapists don’t even admit to being pro-rape. This research on rapists self-reporting has been discussed here for years. Almost every rape apologist ever claims to be against rape as long as they still get to apologize for it, victim-blame, and waffle about what counts as ‘real’ rape, y’know, the kind they’re totally against. It’s as much a smokescreen as ‘intelligent design’ or ‘I’m not a racist but’. Why should a bog-standard one-sentence figleaf even merit serious consideration anymore?
SallyStrange:
Can you definitively exclude the possibility? No? Then why not at least consider (and address) it?
What exactly do you mean by ‘semantics’? ;)
—
LykeX:
What has that to do with the issue at hand?
Firstly, you don’t know that the sign-guy is a rapist, and secondly, I don’t think all that many slave-owners would hold that slave-ownership deserved death.
Yes, yes… and all murderers are anti-murder, and all thieves are anti-theft etc etc.
Well, pardon me for indulging in idiotic semantics, but I put it to you that you finding these arguments obnoxious is not the same claim as saying that they are obnoxious.
Yet here it is, and you’re part of it! ;)
<snicker>
When we see someone carrying such a sign, this piece of stupidity might be worth serious consideration. Does it occur to you, John, that we can be pretty confident we never will, and that this shows that your analogy is load of crap?
Nick:
Well, to your first, we have seen someone carrying such a sign regarding rape, so perhaps that piece of stupidity might be worth serious consideration; to your second, I note you’re not disputing the form is parallel.
(If I abstracted the contention symbolically, would you make the same objection?)
John:
Didn’t claim he was and what I’m saying doesn’t rely on assuming that he is.
Hell yes, they would. If anyone came along to enslave them, they’d fight with everything they had and they’d surely be in favor of the death penalty for anyone who came to abduct their children.
It’s just that they’ve mentally separated the kind of slavery they do from, you know, slavery-slavery. Same fucking thing.
I rest my fucking case.
I’m so glad you’re having fun. I mean, it’s not as if we’re discussing anything serious. It’s not as if this subject has any real world consequences for anyone.
I don’t know for a fact that you’re a troll, but your behavior here is, to me, indistinguishable from trolling.
LykeX:
Yeah, it does; slave-owner:rapist.
Really? Doesn’t that mean they’d be claiming they themselves deserved death? :)
You need a case before it can rest.
So, you admit we are discussing something; can you further admit that this entails that discussion is not impossible, contrary to your previous claim?
As for subjects with real-world consequences, are you suggesting that such subjects should not be a matter for discussion?
Welcome to Thunderdome!
John,
I lost the point of your comments again.
You seemed to agree that it’s possible to hold beliefs that amount to being pro-rape and pro-death penalty for rapists at the same time. Considering the evidence we’ve got, it looks like this guy fits the bill.
Right now it looks like I dropped into a groundhog day loop. But it’s nice that you’re amusing yourself, hobbies are good. Some less than others.
Oddly, a lot of people seem to be able to discuss things here without either being dishonest nor sabotaging the conversation. Apparently, you’re not.
No, he’s only sometimes anti-rapist, like the mythical black rapist in the alley with an innocent white girl. I bet you he’s not “kill ALL the rapist including the spouses who rape and footballers that rape and college white frat guys that rape”.
He’s only anti-rape for those who don’t rape sluts who deserve it – which just never happens so for all intense purposes he’s not really anti-rapist.
@ John Morales
The lack of any particular correlation either, between minefieldwalkers and rape victims.
OK. This is what I suspect is going on in Bro Dean’s confused world view. I think on this point we are on the same page. It is quite odd to say the least. (I think he is as sincere as he is wrong. You need only see his surprise at the negative reactions he received.)
In the sense of artless, an analogy poorly flummoxed together. Alternatively it just shot straight over my head (but then I am your audience, and you mean to transmit your message in coherent fashion.)
Perhaps if you will allow me to quote Churchill.
{loud boo-ing from the peanut gallery}
OK, last one, I promise {crossed claws behind back}:
{exeunt theophontes, stage left}