The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Lathum]

Someone posted a picture in my towns facebook group of a store that had formula in stock. Nice gesture. Of course some idiot couldn't help themself and made it political. It took everything I had not to eviscerate them, but it is a relatively small community. I coach softball, am involved in girl scouts, volunteer at the school etc...just not worth it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I just don't see why women who can't produce breast milk should ever be allowed to have children. It's just not God's way. You can either take care of your child or you're an unfit mother. There is no other argument.

Good point, similar to you shouldn't be able to fly either since we aren't built for flying so guess you are doing the devil's work.

But then OTH it's really very simple. God provided us with a brain to build things to let us fly. God has provided for others to provide breast milk. It's all in (your own interpretation) of the plan.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My reading of Genesis clearly indicates that life begins when one is able to draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body), so clearly life begins at birth.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body)".

To your point

Even when a fetus’s lungs are fully developed, it’s impossible for the fetus to breathe until after birth. Developing babies are surrounded by amniotic fluid, and their lungs are filled with this fluid. By 10–12 weeksTrusted Source of gestation, developing babies begin taking “practice” breaths. But these breaths provide them with no oxygen, and only refill the lungs with more amniotic fluid. Because it’s normal for a fetus’s lungs to be filled with fluid, a fetus can’t drown in the womb.

But also

After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus’s body. The umbilical cord connects to the placenta, which is connected to the uterus. Both structures house many blood vessels, and continue to grow and develop throughout pregnancy.

Together, the umbilical cord and placenta deliver nutrients from the mother to the baby. They also provide the baby with the oxygen-rich blood necessary for growth.

This means that the mother breathes in for the baby, and the oxygen in her blood is then transferred to the baby’s blood. The mother also breathes out for the baby, as carbon dioxide from the baby is moved out through the placenta to the mother’s blood, the removed with exhale.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And that’s my point. There is an endless number of variables so it should be between and woman and her health care provider. Not some government mandated line in the sand that doesn’t allow for any gray area or context.

My original question was

Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus up to birth? Do you have a cut-off point where you believe a woman should not be able to undergo the procedure?

Based on your answer, I'll take it as yes, you do believe a woman can abort a fetus up to birth (because it's up to the woman and her health care provider).

If this is correct, we'll agree to disagree. I do not know the precise timing (viability is as good of standard as any + or - some weeks), but IMO there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong (other than for life of mother).

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Good point, similar to you shouldn't be able to fly either since we aren't built for flying so guess you are doing the devil's work.

But then OTH it's really very simple. God provided us with a brain to build things to let us fly. God has provided for others to provide breast milk. It's all in (your own interpretation) of the plan.

I'm not bound by the laws of man's religions.

Is it very simple? Science is the enemy of religion. Man doesn't live to challenge the word of god according to religion. The word of god was brought to us by man, interpreted by man, and defined by man. Soooo...

Only pointing out the hypocrisy in the interpretations of the what is ok and what is not ok and the right loves to point out how their religion should be for everyone, but it's so twisted and manipulated that it's a farce for the rest of us.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My original question was



Based on your answer, I'll take it as yes, you do believe a woman can abort a fetus up to birth (because it's up to the woman and her health care provider).

If this is correct, we'll agree to disagree. I do not know the precise timing (viability is as good of standard as any + or - some weeks), but IMO there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong (other than for life of mother).

The correct answer is yes. Full stop. Yes....because there is no other room for definition modifications by your standards, there is only black or white....so yes. right up to the day before.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The correct answer is yes. Full stop. Yes....because there is no other room for definition modifications by your standards, there is only black or white....so yes. right up to the day before.

Grey is my middle name, i like to try see both sides and if there are any missing context, assumptions, compromises etc. Think you have me mistaken for some of your more progressive absolute bros.

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic as it seems it's a non answer (sorry if you really did answer the question in the above posts) but I'll assume that you do believe a woman should be able to abort up to birth ... full stop.(like Lathum)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm not bound by the laws of man's religions.

Is it very simple? Science is the enemy of religion. Man doesn't live to challenge the word of god according to religion. The word of god was brought to us by man, interpreted by man, and defined by man. Soooo...

Only pointing out the hypocrisy in the interpretations of the what is ok and what is not ok and the right loves to point out how their religion should be for everyone, but it's so twisted and manipulated that it's a farce for the rest of us.

There is no doubt there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in religion (not sure about Buddhism, have to read more about that) and how they are interpreted for one's own gain.

But let's not pretend it's only the righteous/extreme right (because we know there are more moderate right) that are messed up here. If you truly believe a fetus can be aborted up
to point of birth (see post immediately above) we can have an interesting discussion of the extreme left hypocrisy (similar to the wtf baby formula tangent).

[Brian Swartz]

I'll just point out that my personal views are strengthened by, not contradicted by, the science here. The consensus of biologists - not religious leaders, but scientific experts in the human organism - is not that human life begins at the point of viability but much earlier. If the science said otherwhise I would reconsider my view. While I disagree with a number of the conclusions that are sometimes reached in it's name, I definitely do agree with the goal of following the science (which is not inherently in conflict with religion. Properly understood, I would describe them as complementary, not competing fields).

The real debate is not about that, but about personhood theory which is more a matter of philosophy/practicality. It's not a matter of science, but of separating human lives into those that are persons society is obligated to protect, and non-persons we are not (another obvious example being the permanently comatose and other end-of-life issues).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll just point out that my personal views are strengthened by, not contradicted by, the science here. The consensus of biologists - not religious leaders, but scientific experts in the human organism - is not that human life begins at the point of viability but much earlier. If the science said otherwhise I would reconsider my view. While I disagree with a number of the conclusions that are sometimes reached in it's name, I definitely do agree with the goal of following the science (which is not inherently in conflict with religion. Properly understood, I would describe them as complementary, not competing fields).

The real debate is not about that, but about personhood theory which is more a matter of philosophy/practicality. It's not a matter of science, but of separating human lives into those that are persons society is obligated to protect, and non-persons we are not (another obvious example being the permanently comatose and other end-of-life issues).

I'd be interested in reading that article, can you provide a link. My guess is the definition of 'human life'

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As others have said though, it is both immoral and illegal to not feed people we are detaining. Not giving away formula to other countries when we don't have enough? Sure. But if we're going to detain them, we have to feed them.

I never said we shouldn't feed people we have detained.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Answer yes and the right paints it as people aborting perfectly viable pregnancies days before birth willt-nilly. Answer no and it validates their beliefs that all pregnancies regardless of health of the mother or baby should be completed regardless of the consequences.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll assume that you do believe a woman should be able to abort up to birth ... full stop.(like Lathum)

Excellent job of proving my point

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There is no doubt there are inconsistencies and hypocrisy in religion (not sure about Buddhism, have to read more about that) and how they are interpreted for one's own gain.

But let's not pretend it's only the righteous/extreme right (because we know there are more moderate right) that are messed up here. If you truly believe a fetus can be aborted up
to point of birth (see post immediately above) we can have an interesting discussion of the extreme left hypocrisy (similar to the wtf baby formula tangent).

By the definition of the question, there is no room for grey. You defined the terms yourself. You said "should a woman be able to abort a fetus up to the birth?" You got the answer you wanted, for now I am surely a monster to you. It's the same question that pro lifers always ask. Because it's horrible and awful to imagine something like that. But yeah, when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers. The question is derived to put the respondent on the defensive, and force them to either commit to the answer in the way you framed it, or be jumped when they say no, and force them to agree that's it's an abomination and murder. That is the only avenue that question lives in. It's one, or the other. So in the context of the question the answer is yes.

The comparable question is, "are you pro forcing people to give birth against their will?" It's a yes or no question. Black and white. You either are, or aren't.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

By the definition of the question, there is no room for grey. You defined the terms yourself. You said "should a woman be able to abort a fetus up to the birth?" You got the answer you wanted, for now I am surely a monster to you.

Nope, don't think you are a monster. Look how Larry, Grantdawg, Lathum (well after some prodding) and Brian (not specifically but he pretty much) answered with their caveats, assumptions. Look at my response and tone to Lathum. In no way do I think he is a monster.

It's the same question that pro lifers always ask. Because it's horrible and awful to imagine something like that. But yeah, when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers. The question is derived to put the respondent on the defensive, and force them to either commit to the answer in the way you framed it, or be jumped when they say no, and force them to agree that's it's an abomination and murder. That is the only avenue that question lives in. It's one, or the other. So in the context of the question the answer is yes.

Lathum thinks it was a trick question. You think its a stupid question. Whatever. Pro-lifers ask that question because it's a relevant question regardless of your & Lathum's fear of being put on the defensive or what others think about you.

There is no overall societal right answer to this question because how could there be with so angst. However, there is a right answer for each one of us personally. I answered, the others answered with whatever caveats they wanted to put in.

Regarding putting a person on the defensive. I'm pretty sure the feeding illegal immigrant babies was an attempt to put the other side on the defensive. So what, this is what happens on this board. State your position and live with the consequences/discussions. It seems to me you are willing to jump on others that make a stand but not willing to establish your own position (without complaining about it).

The comparable question is, "are you pro forcing people to give birth against their will?" It's a yes or no question. Black and white. You either are, or aren't.

This is a fair (not stupid or trick question) and I'll answer it with my caveats because it's not black and white, there is some grey.

There is a certain point in time (i've stated I don't know exactly when but viability + or - some weeks is as good as any) that yes, a mother should give birth (natural, c-section whatever) to a viable fetus unless mother's life is in danger.

Take the 2 extreme examples. Let's use the example of 8.5 weeks. Definitely have the baby, there is no doubt in 99.99% of the cases, that is a viable living human being. On the other side, fertilization +2 weeks, nope I personally do not believe that is a human being then. The grey is around 22-24 weeks, that is the stage of viability so I'm willing to listen to each side.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Excellent job of proving my point

Not sure what point I proved but okay. All I was looking for was an answer to what i believe to be a hard but fair question.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I never said we shouldn't feed people we have detained.

Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I think others did as well. The link Rainmaker posted is about providing formula to people we have detained. You said:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

this is about the Federal government giving something to illegal immigrants that Americans are having trouble finding on their store shelves.

What measures are you saying the government should be taking? It seems pretty clear to me; we either supply those people with baby formula or we don't.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I think others did as well. The link Rainmaker posted is about providing formula to people we have detained. You said:



What measures are you saying the government should be taking? It seems pretty clear to me; we either supply those people with baby formula or we don't.

Is there no alternative to the formula that can't be found on store shelves?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is there no alternative to the formula that can't be found on store shelves?

No. Formula literally is the alternative...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is there no alternative to the formula that can't be found on store shelves?

If there were an alternative to formula, then we wouldn't be in the middle of a formula crisis.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'd be interested in reading that article, can you provide a link. My guess is the definition of 'human life'

I didn't reference any article? If you are referring to the consensus on when life begins, the brief recently submitted to SCOTUS, in support of neither party, is I think a good place to start:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ER%20PARTY.pdf

It's also worth observing that in the recent cases what we don't see are arguments being made to the contrary; that is, arguments submitted claiming that human life begins at some other point in time. The brief linked above does reasonably well in assessing why IMO - there's a long history here, humans have been studying life scientifically for quite a while, we treat animals in a certain way in terms of distinguishing between organisms, we have knowledge of genetics etc., and applying that to humans leads to the conclusion that human life starts at fertilization/conception. On that the brief states on page 4 as a bit of a key quote: " it can only be supplanted by an alternative view if there are paradigmatic shifts to axiomatic concepts within biology"

It's been discussed on these boards before, but it's also worth noting that there are a number of laws on the books in this country that assume this. Our national legal approach is definitely patchwork and varies from place to place, but California for example has had a fetal murder law for more than 50 years. This law was of course made famous in the Scott Peterson case. Courts there held in 2004 that killing an unborn fetus counts as a second homicide even if the assailant didn't know the victim was pregnant.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No. Formula literally is the alternative...

Sorry if I know nothing of taking caring of infants, but how did humanity survive before the invention of formula?

And is the survival of all Americans infants really in the hands of a handful of companies right now?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sorry if I know nothing of taking caring of infants, but how did humanity survive before the invention of formula?

And is the survival of all Americans infants really in the hands of a handful of companies right now?

If an mothers milk didn't come in the baby either died of starvation or another woman would feed the baby. I suspect there were probably some other alternatives but likely not healthy for the child.

Not sure you are trying to be glib, but it is a much larger problem than a few American companies. If we as a society had better maternity leave women wouldn't need formula as much, for example.

[albionmoonlight]

Watching the right wing on social media talk about the formula crisis is very interesting. On the one hand, Biden happens to be president, so they want to play it up as a big deal that is All His Fault.

But women choosing to use formula implies that women, and not the state, are making choices about how best to care for their children. Which – with abortion in the news – cuts against current conservative thought. So there’s this weird tension between being mad about the formula crisis but also being mad at women for choosing to use formula.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sorry if I know nothing of taking caring of infants, but how did humanity survive before the invention of formula?

And is the survival of all Americans infants really in the hands of a handful of companies right now?

Well, we could import some, but Trump's NAFTA replacement agreed to limit Canadian dairy imports because the Canuck government help their farmers too much, apparently.

Alexander Panetta on Twitter: "/ For those interested: Here’s the relevant chapter in USMCA that capped infant formula exports from Canada. https://t.co/8qiK2wwANt

Screengrab shows what the caps look like.… https://t.co/BTF8wiYRrQ"

So, yes, it is the hands of three companies.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "draw breath (or, more specifically, God breathes life into the body)".

Were Adam or Even inside a womb when God breathed life into the body? Nope. Therefore life begins at birth, when a baby first draws "God's breath".

That's my interpretation, and it's equally valid to Samuel Alito's.

[PilotMan]

Nope, don't think you are a monster. Look how Larry, Grantdawg, Lathum (well after some prodding) and Brian (not specifically but he pretty much) answered with their caveats, assumptions. Look at my response and tone to Lathum. In no way do I think he is a monster.

Your response to Lathum was to clarify, and redirect to the specific question that you were asking. At no point did you leave any room for variation. If you did, instead of dictating the terms of the question you could have said, "are there any circumstances where a woman would need an abortion right up to the point of childbirth?" That question still gives you the answer you seek, and it allows for open ended discussion.

Lathum thinks it was a trick question. You think its a stupid question. Whatever. Pro-lifers ask that question because it's a relevant question regardless of your & Lathum's fear of being put on the defensive or what others think about you.

It was a very poor question. Pro lifers ask that question because it's worded in such a way that I've previously discussed, and addressed above. Your denying it because you don't believe me to be correct. I've written enough survey's to know better.

There is no overall societal right answer to this question because how could there be with so angst. However, there is a right answer for each one of us personally. I answered, the others answered with whatever caveats they wanted to put in.

Regarding putting a person on the defensive. I'm pretty sure the feeding illegal immigrant babies was an attempt to put the other side on the defensive. So what, this is what happens on this board. State your position and live with the consequences/discussions. It seems to me you are willing to jump on others that make a stand but not willing to establish your own position (without complaining about it).

The conversation about feeding immigrant babies was started on the right side of the aisle. We wouldn't even be having it otherwise. I've stated my position pretty clearly.

This is a fair (not stupid or trick question) and I'll answer it with my caveats because it's not black and white, there is some grey.

I disagree, you're changing the rules to suit your desires.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Your response to Lathum was to clarify, and redirect to the specific question that you were asking. At no point did you leave any room for variation. If you did, instead of dictating the terms of the question you could have said, "are there any circumstances where a woman would need an abortion right up to the point of childbirth?" That question still gives you the answer you seek, and it allows for open ended discussion.

Let me pull this together because sometimes things get lost in translation across multiple posts ...

My original question was

Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus up to birth? Do you have a cut-off point where you believe a woman should not be able to undergo the procedure?

Lathum (ultimately) answered

And that’s my point. There is an endless number of variables so it should be between and woman and her health care provider. Not some government mandated line in the sand that doesn’t allow for any gray area or context.

I responded

Based on your answer, I'll take it as yes, you do believe a woman can abort a fetus up to birth (because it's up to the woman and her health care provider).

If this is correct, we'll agree to disagree. I do not know the precise timing (viability is as good of standard as any + or - some weeks), but IMO there is definitely a time when abortion is clearly wrong (other than for life of mother).

In our conversation, you said

By the definition of the question, there is no room for grey. You defined the terms yourself. You said "should a woman be able to abort a fetus up to the birth?" You got the answer you wanted, for now I am surely a monster to you.

I replied

Nope, don't think you are a monster. Look how Larry, Grantdawg, Lathum (well after some prodding) and Brian (not specifically but he pretty much) answered with their caveats, assumptions. Look at my response and tone to Lathum. In no way do I think he is a monster.

Your response

Your response to Lathum was to clarify, and redirect to the specific question that you were asking. At no point did you leave any room for variation. If you did, instead of dictating the terms of the question you could have said, "are there any circumstances where a woman would need an abortion right up to the point of childbirth?" That question still gives you the answer you seek, and it allows for open ended discussion.

Three points on your last paragraph ...

In my response, no way do I think my response indicated Lathum (nor you) was a monster. I said we'll agree to disagree and moved on.

For first bold - it may not have been in my original question but in my back and forth with Lathum, I said below to him. I think this leaves plenty of room for open ended discussion.

Equivocate or caveat as much as you want to provide context to your answer (I did).

In second bold - I've already stated my position that I did believe there were circumstances. So that's really not the question I wanted answered.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It was a very poor question. Pro lifers ask that question because it's worded in such a way that I've previously discussed, and addressed above. Your denying it because you don't believe me to be correct. I've written enough survey's to know better.

Let me know what your professional survey question writing credentials are. I’ve written a ton also in my line of work (implementation and change management).

The conversation about feeding immigrant babies was started on the right side of the aisle. We wouldn't even be having it otherwise. I've stated my position pretty clearly.

That was in response to your being put on the defensive with the question. NoBodyhere was put on the defensive with that question. So what, that doesn’t determine the legitimacy of a question

I disagree, you're changing the rules to suit your desires.

I don’t know what the rules (yours?) are that I’ve changed. Please elaborate if you want. Otherwise I assume we’ll agree to disagree …

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If an mothers milk didn't come in the baby either died of starvation or another woman would feed the baby. I suspect there were probably some other alternatives but likely not healthy for the child.

Not sure you are trying to be glib, but it is a much larger problem than a few American companies. If we as a society had better maternity leave women wouldn't need formula as much, for example.

Not exactly sure what part of my post you accuse of me of being glib but I have no intentions pf that here.

I have never cared for an infant and from I've read most formula is produced by 3-4 companies in America.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sorry if I know nothing of taking caring of infants, but how did humanity survive before the invention of formula?

And is the survival of all Americans infants really in the hands of a handful of companies right now?

I mean a big part of it is that the woman's body is conditioned throughout history to stimulate milk production based on the infant feeding, but we have come to a point in humanity where women need to be in the workforce in order to support said infant. This means that a female is not able to feed a baby every 2 hours and thus stimulate the natural milk production mechanism that caused infants to survive prior to the invention of formula. Yes breast pumps exist. No they are not as good as the real thing. All of this can contribute to a woman's breast milk production drying up. And we haven't even touched on women that can't produce enough milk naturally to begin with.

Also historically wet nurses existed which were women with really high natural breast milk production that would feed other women's children for money/goods/status whatever. It was the historical version of formula.

[GrantDawg]

My wife was at home with both of a children, and attempted breast feeding. My daughter was off the breast in 6 months, and my son never could be fully breast fed. As a matter of fact my son had a hard time even on formula, it ended up only one type wouldn't cause him to vomit it all back up. Chances are in the past he would have probably died. Formula is a life saver for many babies.
I can't imagine what parents of babies like my son are going through right now. It has to be a complete nightmare.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I mean a big part of it is that the woman's body is conditioned throughout history to stimulate milk production based on the infant feeding, but we have come to a point in humanity where women need to be in the workforce in order to support said infant. This means that a female is not able to feed a baby every 2 hours and thus stimulate the natural milk production mechanism that caused infants to survive prior to the invention of formula. Yes breast pumps exist. No they are not as good as the real thing. All of this can contribute to a woman's breast milk production drying up. And we haven't even touched on women that can't produce enough milk naturally to begin with.

I touched on maternity leave earlier. The other part of this is even is a woman CAN pump at work, a large number of employers do not provide a nursing area. Hell, when my wife worked for Procter and Gamble she had to pump in a supply closet with her back to the wall so no one would come in because the door didn't have a lock. Not exactly ideal conditions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I didn't reference any article? If you are referring to the consensus on when life begins, the brief recently submitted to SCOTUS, in support of neither party, is I think a good place to start:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...ER%20PARTY.pdf

It's also worth observing that in the recent cases what we don't see are arguments being made to the contrary; that is, arguments submitted claiming that human life begins at some other point in time. The brief linked above does reasonably well in assessing why IMO - there's a long history here, humans have been studying life scientifically for quite a while, we treat animals in a certain way in terms of distinguishing between organisms, we have knowledge of genetics etc., and applying that to humans leads to the conclusion that human life starts at fertilization/conception. On that the brief states on page 4 as a bit of a key quote: " it can only be supplanted by an alternative view if there are paradigmatic shifts to axiomatic concepts within biology"

It's been discussed on these boards before, but it's also worth noting that there are a number of laws on the books in this country that assume this. Our national legal approach is definitely patchwork and varies from place to place, but California for example has had a fetal murder law for more than 50 years. This law was of course made famous in the Scott Peterson case. Courts there held in 2004 that killing an unborn fetus counts as a second homicide even if the assailant didn't know the victim was pregnant.

Hey thanks for the article. Glanced through it, didn't read it all. A little too detailed for me but I get the gist.

There is large (and to your point) scientific consensus that life begins at fertilization or soon after (e.g. not at week 22-24 "viability"). Googling tells me the counter is when does "personhood" (or similar terminology) begin. Definitely deep philosophical, religious etc. discussions there.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let me know what your professional survey question writing credentials are. I’ve written a ton also in my line of work (implementation and change management)

I don't owe you shit and your writing sucks.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't owe you shit and your writing sucks.

Np.

But yeah, when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers. The question is derived to put the respondent on the defensive, and force them to either commit to the answer in the way you framed it, or be jumped when they say no, and force them to agree that's it's an abomination and murder.

I'll remember your criteria for a good question is not to put someone on the defensive. What a snow (GenX) flake.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm with PilotMan. It's a question designed to put the respondent in a poor rhetorical situation. You may not have done it on purpose, but there's a reason anti-choicers pose the question that way.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll remember your criteria for a good question is not to put someone on the defensive. What a snow (GenX) flake.

Call me crazy, but if you're looking for an actual discussion or a reasonable & constructive response, why wouldn't you try not to put someone on the defensive?

Calling someone a snowflake really just suggests you're looking for an argument.

[cuervo72]

Guys, that's been the MO his entire time on the boards. For him to claim otherwise is...well, pretty silly. (I still haven't figured out how or why he even found these boards; I don't believe he ever posted on FOF or OOTP, and right out of the gate started with "Hey what does everybody think about the Middle East?")

[Brian Swartz]

Often framing questions in a way that goes out of its way to not put people on the defensive serves only to make the question useless in actually producing any meaningful discussion. A question often needs to have 'teeth' to get at the desired issue(s).

Edward64 is one of the people on these boards who tends to get unfairly presumed and accused of things he isn't really doing, or at least that there's no evidence that he's doing. Often by the 'we want discussion, so long as it's along lines that agree with and validate our presumptions' crowd.

[stevew]

John Fetterman(senate race, PA) had a “minor stroke” which could be a potential problem but hopefully isn’t.

And what Pilotman said

[Flasch186]

Spoiler

That’s not true Brian

I laid out the problems in debating with you and now you’re trying to bring Edward into the group with you and I don’t think that that is accurate

You’re never ever wrong because you are constantly moving the goal posts or changing your interpretations of data or deflecting or gaslighting. I’ve seen Edward occasionally admit to being wrong. You’re never wrong, just misunderstood.

It’s fine that that is your goal and personality on here

I don’t want to get suspended again for pointing things out so I’m going to spoiler it again

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Flasch1986

You’re never ever wrong because you are constantly moving the goal posts or changing your interpretations of data or deflecting or gaslighting. I’ve seen Edward occasionally admit to being wrong. You’re never wrong, just misunderstood.

Once again just not true. I have admitted to being wrong on multiple occasions. One reasonably recent example is in discussions with Rainmaker regarding economic studies and unemployment.

As I mentioned last time, other posters have pointed out occasions where they saw others twisting my words on these forums. One person who has stated such numerous times is AlexB. I could probably point you to a couple of those posts if you are interested, but I doubt it would do any good.

Solecismic recently got similar treatment in the climate change discussion, a debate I was on the opposing side of. This isn't a case of 'so and so agrees with me so I'll form a tribe with them'. Edward64 doesn't agree with me on abortion and has said so. It's still wrong for him to be treated this way.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Often framing questions in a way that goes out of its way to not put people on the defensive serves only to make the question useless in actually producing any meaningful discussion. A question often needs to have 'teeth' to get at the desired issue(s).

Disagree on both counts. We've just become so used, as a society, to accusation/counter-accusation and controversy being mistaken for constructive discussion that no one has much of an idea how to construct an objective line of inquiry anymore.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm with PilotMan. It's a question designed to put the respondent in a poor rhetorical situation. You may not have done it on purpose, but there's a reason anti-choicers pose the question that way.



Call me crazy, but if you're looking for an actual discussion or a reasonable & constructive response, why wouldn't you try not to put someone on the defensive?

Calling someone a snowflake really just suggests you're looking for an argument.

Discussion was going well (somewhat) until he started using profanities and insults. No I'm not butt hurt but I've found best to return in kind of this board

I can only remember one time when I got personal and insulted first tbh. And that guy hopefully is no longer here. Feel free to call me out otherwise ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Guys, that's been the MO his entire time on the boards. For him to claim otherwise is...well, pretty silly. (I still haven't figured out how or why he even found these boards; I don't believe he ever posted on FOF or OOTP, and right out of the gate started with "Hey what does everybody think about the Middle East?")

Arrgh, sniped again by cuervo. That hurts, it really hurts

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm with PilotMan. It's a question designed to put the respondent in a poor rhetorical situation. You may not have done it on purpose, but there's a reason anti-choicers pose the question that way.



Call me crazy, but if you're looking for an actual discussion or a reasonable & constructive response, why wouldn't you try not to put someone on the defensive?

.

I don't really understand this defensive criteria. By definition that means approx 95% of non football discussion (okay exaggeration, the political & social issue threads) and the responses there are really not meant in good faith.

Almost everything here is putting someone on the defensive, especially with the bunch of whataboutism (and I admit I do that to)

I'm on mobile right now but I can find scores and scores of stuff that put posters here on the defensive. Should we call those out also and stop those discussions?

And I'll add others answered with whatever caveats, assumptions they wanted ...

I think the heartburn is this really is a tough question and some are embarrassed (? Or pick another word) to answer it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm on mobile right now but I can find scores and scores of stuff that put posters here on the defensive. Should we call those out also and stop those discussions?

Enjoy your vacation first.

Look, we've all been here a long time. We've all asked a lot of argumentative questions of each other. Generally, we all assume a bias in each other's questions (because most of us have 10+ years of experience with other posters' viewpoints) and away we go (e.g. "you're only asking it that way because you believe XXXX").

The difference here is that you've doubled-down on suggesting it's an objective question, which is consistent with the persona you've cultivated as a neutral poster. So, when it's pointed out to you that it's a biased/leading question you either need to accept it and seek to understand why, or work at odds to your cultivated persona. You did the latter, veering very close to "just asking questions" and adding the snowflake comment.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Almost everything here is putting someone on the defensive

Sure, but generally most of us don't claim otherwise when engaging in the political threads. I mean, I have a long history of drawn-out arguments with folks on this board, and I've certained argued that I'm right, but I don't think I've ever argued that I'm neutral.

I think the heartburn is this really is a tough question and some are embarrassed (? Or pick another word) to answer it.

What you don't get is that the question is designed to entrap. It is designed to produce an answer that can be used against the respondent. Here's how it works:

Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a fetus up to birth?

Yes, list of caveats.

So you would support terminating a pregnancy that's, say, 1 week from birth?

Well, that's not really what I meant, but in extremely unlikely cases, possibly.

What about a child that's viable outside the womb?

Look, I don't want it to happen, but there's too many variables at play, it should be a decision between the woman and her doctor.


How, Edward, has the respondent been painted by this interaction? Would you say positive? The utilization of this questioning technique (including just snipping the original "yes" soundbite) has become so common in media/society (people have literally tried to do it to me in real life) that any self-respecting pro-choice advocate rejects the question on principle. The very act of asking the question in this manner undermines the conversation, because it's not a conversation, it's an attempt to get someone on record as supporting a view that can be construed to be extreme (e.g. I can see an instance where you would need to abort a viable fetus a week or two before birth.).

Do you have a cut-off point where you believe a woman should not be able to undergo the procedure?

Similarly, if you answer yes, you have ceded ground to the anti-choice point of view. If you answer no, then see above.


As I wrote 12 years ago:

I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

If you're going to wade into topic as challenging as abortion and try to be a neutral third party, then the onus is on you to do everything to avoid all of the freighted messaging that's built up in the 50+ years of controversy surrounding the topic.

[Kodos]

I wonder if men would be quite so pro-life if:

1. A woman could simply tell authorities who the father was, and the man that she selected would have to undergo a mandatory paternity test.
2. If the test said they were the father, the man would have to provide financial support until the child was 21.

Right now, the father can usually walk away unscathed, while the mother bears the burden of supporting and raising the child.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Right now, the father can usually walk away unscathed, while the mother bears the burden of supporting and raising the child.

as well as the social stigma...

[cuervo72]

Hell, in the case of rape (if we're going that far) you could say that the child should be the sole responsibility of the man. Of course I don't know how you prove that, proving rape is tough enough already and even if you do it's met with "such a promising boy, we can't harm his prospects!"