A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:12 am
I'd say it's the one joking about baby dumplings.
Mocking an extreme position is not an equally extreme position.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:12 am
Sorry pal, you have a moral obligation to justify legalizing acts that terminate what is (1) alive, (2) human, (3) capable of feeling pain, and (4) viable outside the womb.
My obligation, in this particular discussion, is to justify why these legal acts don't constitute infanticide.

I didn't decline to address the personhood debate because it was hard, but because it was irrelevant to this.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:12 am
We're talking about "emergencies" as defined by "a health care practitioner,"
I thought we were discussing a "conspiracy" as defined by "Melvin", "an internet advocate" and "certified loon".


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:12 am
No, you were telling us what Tran meant by her misspeaking, not just the bill.
This is so evidently false that I'm just going to let it sit here as a testament to the bad faith on display.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:01 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm
Mocking an extreme position is not an equally extreme position.


I haven't taken an extreme position, so that doesn't fit. Go fish.

Indeed, polling data (for decades) has shown that Americans want open access in the first part of pregnancy, but have significant objections the later we are in the pregnancy.

Talking about baby dumplings in response to concerns about late term abortion is not mocking an extreme with an extreme, but rather a pathetic dodge, an attempt to deflate such conversation to mere "extremism" and to deflect from the issue. You're attempting to gaslight by mockery "Hahahah! The nutter. Don't listen!. It's totally cool to kill a 36 week old fetus in the name of mental health."
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm
My obligation, in this particular discussion, is to justify why these legal acts don't constitute infanticide.


This is like saying, "No, no, no! I am not here to discuss patricide! Killing your mother is matricide. I have no obligation to prove that killing your mother is not murder!"

You're desperate to cling to bare semantics, because you know that you're ass is going to get handed to you on the personhood debate.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm
I didn't decline to address the personhood debate because it was hard, but because it was irrelevant to this.


Irrelevant to what? Our discussion has ranged over many topics and subtopics. It has included abortion, infanticide, incarceration and many other topics. All of the sudden, the whole enchilada is about whether a 0-to-40 week abortion is infanticide by the barest dictionary definition, even when Tran refers to it as infanticide?

As for the legislation, it actually weighs in on the question. What is a homicide according to New York S. 240?
"Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person"
And what is a person?
"The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this article: [1.] “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."
The law implies that the unborn might be considered a person in some other sense of the term, just not any sense of the term that would offer them from protection from the intentional causing of their death with design and forethought. In short, if you're unborn, you're not a person in any sense that matters under this law.

This law, the template for Virginia, the one all your lefty friends in potato chip hats cheered, this monument to reproductive rights, this is what brought personhood into the question. And with the stroke of his pen, Cuomo decided that ALL of the unborn are not persons.

My central contention is that this legislation is objectionable because it fails to consider the life of the unborn. Indeed, being de-personed such that you cannot, by definition, be considered the victim of a homicide. Thus, an angry boyfriend may punch his 38-week pregnant girlfriend in the stomach until their baby dies and face no charge greater than assault. The baby has been depersoned and the boyfriend cannot be charged with murder. Moreover, I maintain that our society is titling in the direction of infanticide. And it its. Even if you disagree Tran's assessment and my assessment that killing a baby just short of clearing the womb is infanticide, we are certainly moving closer to that day when reproductive rights will allow for the termination of an infant as a mere "product of conception" without rights, legal standing, or human dignity.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm
I thought we were discussing a "conspiracy" as defined by "Melvin", "an internet advocate" and "certified loon".


The quotation marks are direct quotations from S. 240, "J." They are not "scare quotes," I manufactured to spin a conspiracy theory, but legal terms that are now backed by the state of New York.

It's no conspiracy that Peter Singer has argued for it. It is no conspiracy that the front page of Reddit saluted it with 40K upvotes. It's no conspiracy that European nations have created a legal framework for assisted suicide for people of various ages for various reasons. This is all stuff that has already happened.

If all you've got left is ad-hominems, I suppose we're done here.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:29 pm
This is so evidently false that I'm just going to let it sit here as a testament to the bad faith on display.
And I am just going to quote you here as a testament to your failed attempt to salvage Tran's comments.
As I pointed out originally, the accusation of "mispeaking" more properly is applied to Tran.


How do you know that she is misspeaking? How do you know that she didn't say what she intended to say? The very notion of misspeech requires that you are able to tell us what is in her head.
Although, even given that, she still does not describe an act that would be considered "infanticide".


Now we're talking about her testimony about the bill. She thinks the bill would allow for what the questioner describes. She may be mistaken, but that is HER meaning. She thinks that is what is allowed by the bill she wrote and she (in that moment) is standing by it.
Instead, she mistakenly says that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion, something that her bill clearly does not.


She did NOT say that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion. Her own comments in the Washington Post (her clarification now that she's had time to think about it) of January 31 directly quote her stating that what she described was infanticide. It is only at this point that you no longer gave "a fuck" about what she meant and what she was trying to say. At this point you got religion and wanted to go sola scriptura, even though Tran is the scriptor, even though she is the authority representing what is in her own legislation.

You're so desperate to establish that we're nowhere near the territory of infanticide that you throw Tran under the bus when you can no longer mansplain her own characterization of her comments. This is really rich. I love it. Interesting parallel to how the DNC threw Northam under the bus after his gaff.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:01 am
Talking about baby dumplings in response to concerns about late term abortion is not mocking an extreme with an extreme
That's not what happened though. I talked about "baby dumplings" in response to your concerns about infanticide, post-partum abortion. This is, and has been, the focus of the issue. I did not challenge you to defend your stance on third-term abortion, but on these alleged (by you) killings of infants, conspired in "discussion" by the mother and physician after the child is born. You failed to defend this accusation, reasonably enough since it's a complete fabrication, and so you scuttle back into the personhood debate and try to act like that was and always has been your desired beachhead.

You don't need to try to redefine "infanticide" or walk back your Northam quotes because you've already been specific that your charge involved post-partum abortions. You participated in the slander of accusing Democrats of promoting and enabling infanticide, and yet you have no idea why your position is on the extreme. Am I scared of getting my ass handed to me in a personhood debate? You only ask because you've already received your ass in the infanticide debate, and personhood is all you have left.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:01 am
They are not "scare quotes," I manufactured to spin a conspiracy theory, but ...
And in this admittedly manufactured conspiracy theory, the "emergencies" are euphemisms for eugenics and "health care practitioner" is a generic nomenclature for these white-coat Eichmanns.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:01 am
She did NOT say that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion.
She claimed that her bill would allow for an abortion during dilation. That's the definition of a partial-birth abortion.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:01 am
It is only at this point that you no longer gave "a fuck" about what she meant and what she was trying to say. At this point you got religion and wanted to go sola scriptura, even though Tran is the scriptor, even though she is the authority representing what is in her own legislation.
I've maintained from the beginning that Tran is, at the most generous, an incompetent lawmaker who most likely did not read her own bill and probably doesn't have a grasp on the existing laws of the land. I've consistenly surmissed that she did not write this legislation, and her lack of authority over the issue is now well documented. This opinion has not changed since the matter was brought up months ago. Since you've revealed that she has an equally tenuous understanding of the definition of "infanticide" as you do isn't very surprising, but also did little to change my opinion of her.

But you seem so happy to think you've caught me in some kind of hypocrisy here, so I'll go ahead and concede that she probably smells nice.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:47 am

YARN tossing bunny ears on "emergencies" in reference to third-term abortions is repugnant. He's lovingly nursing a thought experiment of a dilating woman suddenly deciding to execute her baby, or a husband and wife looking at their newborn and saying "Nah", and then he's completely ignoring the copious, multiplying testimonies of women who've actually had third-term abortions and the horrific situations that lead to them. All abstraction, no reality. Plenty of heart for hypothetical, not actual, people.

I'd also make note of him trying to sneak in another anti-abortion pet issue: tossing fetal personhood into the question of how someone should be charged for assaults leading to death of the fetus. For a good example, they tried to co-opt a recent case as damning the new law, but had to considerably pervert the stakes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/nyre ... ueens.html

The law did not seriously change the severity of the culprit's charge, and the law doesn't have to make clear-cut decisions on fetal personhood (much as YARN has never done) in order for the loss to factor into a culprit's charge. (I mean, in NY, the stakes are certainly higher than the Biblical charge for causing a miscarriage where it was considered a loss of property to be addressed by a fine of the judge's choosing.) But I ask this. If YARN feels there's some point at which personhood is totally clinched and avoidable miscarriage would be considered a crime, how would he legislate that? Who would decide it in any given case? How would it jibe with his posture of Feel-the-Bern populism in the case of women who worked 'til miscarriage in Amazon warehouses because they needed the check and their bosses were callous? Could he guarantee in this fucking awful environment that it's just the bosses who would suffer culpability and not the women? Do his thought experiments stop short of this?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
That's not what happened though. I talked about "baby dumplings" in response to your concerns about infanticide, post-partum abortion. This is, and has been, the focus of the issue. I did not challenge you to defend your stance on third-term abortion, but on these alleged (by you) killings of infants, conspired in "discussion" by the mother and physician after the child is born. You failed to defend this accusation, reasonably enough since it's a complete fabrication, and so you scuttle back into the personhood debate and try to act like that was and always has been your desired beachhead.

I have been arguing that personhood is at the core of the issue for months now. It is massively disingenuous of you to claim that "all the sudden" I am trying to introduce this into the discussion.

You popped up in our most recent exchange and wanted to make an allegation regarding what happened upthread months ago. You have alleged that I have pinned everything on infanticide happening right now, but you have failed to offer up the damming evidence. Go fish. Until you offer up the proof, kick rocks.

My position is that ours is a culture of death which is drifting into the direction of infanticide and that the issue is already creeping into the frame via policy proposals and discussions surrounding policy proposals. Indeed, Northam blunders into the controversy over Tran by describing a case of infanticide by way of his waffling hedges (e.g., may or may not be viable). Tran then comments that her own blunder under interrogation described infanticide. How are we supposed to say that infanticide is not creeping into the frame when even the author of the Virginia bill repudiates her own testimony as describing infanticide?
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
You don't need to try to redefine "infanticide"

Isn't it funny how Tran agrees with my colloquial understanding of the term in her clarification in the Washington Post?
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
or walk back your Northam quotes

Well, that's good, because I am not walking back those quotes. Northam put the issue clearly on the table (quite literally in his hypothetical) when he went beyond what Tran and I already agree was a case of infanticide. His comments describe a case that fit your preferred dictionary definition. Why would I walk that back? I have granted, for months, that this is possibly missspeech (which Northam would confirm later), but that he said it reveals a lot. He seemed to be speaking from experience (e.g., is this shit already happening de facto if not de jure?). He called upon his authority a policy-maker and pediatrician in jamming his feet forcefully down his own throat (i.e., it is not being unfair when a person who is an authority on two relevant fronts leans in to tell us "exactly" what would happen). He fucked up. He has every right to come back later and say that he didn't mean to say what he said, but he still said it with surprising aplomb.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
because you've already been specific that your charge involved post-partum abortions.

It's interesting that you would use that phrase "J" as this is the sort of locution the champions of infanticide like to use.

https://slate.com/technology/2012/03/af ... icide.html

Strange, you worked so hard to keep abortion and infanticide segregated up to this point, but now you offer a construction that shades into pulling the term "abortion" into the zone of infanticide. If so, why may I not refer to pre-partum infanticide? Semantics. Semantics. But the only semantics that matter are whether we are speaking of a person with human rights. You cannot escape this question.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
You participated in the slander of accusing Democrats of promoting and enabling infanticide,

The Democrats slandered themselves! Take it away Tran!
"I should have said: ‘Clearly, no because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia
In my discussion, I was arguing that by design or accident they were pushing the issue on the table. I noted, months-a-fuckin'-go that Northam possibly misspoke in that moment.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
and yet you have no idea why your position is on the extreme.

My position is not extreme. Choice and mental health considerations do NOT override the right to life of another person. Period. That's not extreme. We would not allow mommy to kill a two-year-old to benefit her mental health or under the banner of her autonomy. What's extreme is inverting this relation. That's your side. That's the overreach of the New York legislation, the legislation that unpersons all of the unborn so that the rights of the unborn may never take precedence of the "rights" of mothers as asserted under the say so of a healthcare practitioner.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
Am I scared of getting my ass handed to me in a personhood debate?

We both know you are. You're so afraid of it, in fact, that you are doing the very thing you are trying to accuse me of.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
You only ask because you've already received your ass in the infanticide debate, and personhood is all you have left

Personhood is the only thing that matters you idiot. Go back and you will find months-a-fuckin'-go that I said that women should have an arbitrary right to abort in such case where a person is not involved. I drew the line then at personhood and I draw the line now at personhood. Indeed, how can you infanticide something which is not a person?
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
And in this admittedly manufactured conspiracy theory,

This isn't a conspiracy theory. And who is doing the admitting? And in what sense is this manufactured?

AGAIN, those quotation marks were LITERAL quotation marks. They quote the language of the New York bill which is now law. This is not conspiracy. Try harder.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
the "emergencies" are euphemisms for eugenics

Allow me to quote the passage in full
A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43
fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44
in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45
according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46
judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47
twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48
absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49
patient's life or health.
Source https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/A21

So, what do we have here? A single healthcare practitioner (i.e., an abortionist ideologically committed to practice of the industry s/he is a part of - they have to be as Carmicheal reminds us). This is just one person, not three (sorry, Ralph Northam, it's not three anymore). One person who can make this decision. Not a clinical psychologist. Not even a physician is required under the New York law. You just need a licensed practitioner.

And after 24 weeks (before 24 weeks there are no restrictions at all), what must be established? Well, that's where the last line comes in. The "patient's life" is a powerful consideration. This raises the problem of possibly killing one person to save another. But there is another, much lower standard (and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link) which may authorize the procedure, the patient's "health." That is, it won't kill the patient, but will involve some sort of damage to the patient. It is this second term that makes the entire clause vague. Are we talking dire risk to the mother's health? Are we talking about a threat to mental health (and if so, since when has one person's mental health right's trumped the right to life of another person - especially in such case as when we have a viable fetus which might simply be delivered and put up for adoption?).

We don't need to speculate about what "life and health" means here. This was settled by Doe vs. Bolton
Justifiable Abortion. A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother
And later, it is stated,
Indeed, whether a particular operation is necessary for a patient's physical or mental health is a judgment that physicians are obviously called upon to make routinely whenever surgery is considered.

Id. at 72. This conclusion is equally applicable here. Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely.
source https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecour ... _US_179n11

So, under New York law (not proposed, but enacted), one person who is neither a physician nor psychiatrist/psychologist may independently decide that an abortion is in the mother's mental health interests, after 24 weeks. This is the same law that legally depersons anyone who is as yet unborn in New York.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is law.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
and "health care practitioner" is a generic nomenclature for these white-coat Eichmanns.


This is the legal nomenclature as quoted above. It wasn't a scare quote. It was a direct quote. Go fish.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
She claimed that her bill would allow for an abortion during dilation. That's the definition of a partial-birth abortion.


Her word for that was "Infanticide" per WaPo of January 31. Give it a name, "J." Give it a name.

We're already gone beyond the pale when it is legal to have abortion in the last weeks of pregnancy on a warrant as thin as the mental health of the mother as assessed by a person without psychology degree. This is the problem. Personhood rights have been written out of the law, literally. Now, the only restriction is the judgement of one person, the abortionist. I wonder what they will determine? And this is why we're already tilting in the direction of infanticide. Tran mistakenly defended what she now recognizes (also wrongly, in your view) as an infanticide. She thought she was defending a bill (a bill that she authored!) that would allow for what she would later call infanticide. Northam patiently describes infanticide when he bungles his apologia for her comments. What matters most is that the New York law cements an inversion of a value hierarchy. Life of one comes in second to another, because the former is not a person. With this inversion, which is the inversion that motivates the anti-life left, the natural extension of this logic is to finally arrive at infanticide which is the argument of Peter Singer, who does a more competent (because honest) job of reasoning from the premises of the anti-life left.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:42 am
I've maintained from the beginning that Tran is, at the most generous, an incompetent lawmaker who most likely did not read her own bill and probably doesn't have a grasp on the existing laws of the land. I've consistenly surmissed that she did not write this legislation, and her lack of authority over the issue is now well documented. This opinion has not changed since the matter was brought up months ago. Since you've revealed that she has an equally tenuous understanding of the definition of "infanticide" as you do isn't very surprising, but also did little to change my opinion of her.


She is your leader. She is literally a "representative" of the people. And she and Northam both blunder into talking about infanticide.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
It is massively disingenuous of you to claim that "all the sudden" I am trying to introduce this into the discussion.
It isn't so "all of a sudden" as much as a cyclical pattern of pivoting, from launching claims of infanticide (Northam's "discussion") to resting back on late-term issues of personhood. It's the same pattern that played out with Ergill in the initial posts. You defend your conflation by basically saying there is no substantial difference between "post-partum abortion" and "pre-partum infanticide" as a way to walk back the claims that Dems are actively supporting the legalized killing of born infants (because Slate!).



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
You popped up in our most recent exchange and wanted to make an allegation regarding what happened upthread months ago. You have alleged that I have pinned everything on infanticide happening right now, but you have failed to offer up the damming evidence. Go fish.Until you offer up the proof, kick rocks.
"The baby. Born. Possibly resuscitated (mom's choice). If resuscitated (i.e., alive out of the womb and no longer make a claim to the property of anyone else's body) a discussion would ensue between mother and doctor (dads need not apply, it seems) and then an action would be taken." - Yarn



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
Well, that's good, because I am not walking back those quotes.
"Now, I fully grant that right-wing media have been misrepresenting Northam's comments every chance they get, denying him his right to clarify his comments." - Yarn



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
The Democrats slandered themselves! Take it away Tran!
To which Tran immediately denies the slander. Thanks.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
This isn't a conspiracy theory.
"(eg, is this shit already happening de facto if not de jure?)" - Yarn



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is law.
What it is not, remarkably, is infanticide.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
This is the legal nomenclature as quoted above. It wasn't a scare quote. It was a direct quote.
It was also a direct comparison, employing Stokely, to Eichmann.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
Her word for that was "Infanticide" per WaPo of January 31. Give it a name, "J." Give it a name.
You can call it "partial infanticide" if you prefer, but the ultimate distinction is that it is illegal to kill a viable fetus in the birth canal, and it is illegal to terminate a viable infant once fully born, and nowhere in either NY or VA bills do they reverse existing federal law.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:29 am
She is your leader. She is literally a "representative" of the people.
:-/

I'm sorry to notice that this is another one of your 'hour of the wolf' posts, so maybe you should think about getting a good night's sleep before venturing into the intricacies of democracy.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
It isn't so "all of a sudden" as much as a cyclical pattern of pivoting,


So, you admit that I have bringing up personhood throughout the discussion and stand by this as the relevant criterion?

Thank you.

Indeed, on Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:31 pm I referred to the personhood question as the first of five essential propositions relevant to the debate I was having with Ergill (still waiting for the reply, BTW).

Torgo noted this,

Image

Strange that you forgot and now refer to it as a mere "sideline of analysis." You're adorable.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
"The baby. Born. Possibly resuscitated (mom's choice). If resuscitated (i.e., alive out of the womb and no longer make a claim to the property of anyone else's body) a discussion would ensue between mother and doctor (dads need not apply, it seems) and then an action would be taken." - Yarn


Ah, I do love the old RT names, don't you "J" who sounds like "Hanson Hinnistan"?

Since you're attempting to cherry-pick, let's consider what I said immediately after that in the very same post(!).
Me wrote:Until those comments are clarified, according to him as a witness (both politician and pediatrician) this is "exactly what would happen." Thus, by his own testimony, infanticide is on the table.


I was commenting at the moment when this bombshell initially dropped. My comments which followed clearly showed that infanticide was only provisionally on the table, unless and until he clarified his comments.

This post was made Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:30 pm

You juxtaposed this with this comment.
"Now, I fully grant that right-wing media have been misrepresenting Northam's comments every chance they get, denying him his right to clarify his comments." - Yarn
but I made this comment more than five months later!!!!! Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:22 pm By this time more of the picture had filled in and Northam had had a chance to clarify his meaning.

This was not a "side--by-side" comment from the same post! Rather you have been carefully looking for cherries to pick to act as if I said all these things at once. Shame on you.

Northam made his infamous comments on January 30th. I said that infanticide was provisionally on the table unless and until he clarified his comments on February 4th. And you think that you've got me dead to rights with a quotation from five months later!?!?!?! I said he might clarify his comments. And when he did I responded to this and noted it and you think that that is foul?

You need to try harder, "J."
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
To which Tran immediately denies the slander. Thanks.


LOL, she slandered herself, dummy. She called it infanticide in her "denial."
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
"(eg, is this shit already happening de facto if not de jure?)" - Yarn


Abby Johnson and other people who used to be in the industry have some interesting stories to tell.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
What it is not, remarkably, is infanticide.


And matricide is not patricide, but it is still murder.

And this is why you can't escape the question of personhood.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
It was also a direct comparison, employing Stokely, to Eichmann.


That was not the section quoted, you disingenuous weasel.

Brother Stokely was brought in to remind us of the perils of cognitive dissonance. His quotation reminds us why parties to a dispute should never be made adjudicators in their own case. Abortionists are adjudicators in their own case. So are police forces that protect dirty cops. So are churches that protect dirty priests. It's just that in the case of police and priests it is immediately apparent why such a policy is disastrous.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
You can call it "partial infanticide" if you prefer, but the ultimate distinction is that it is illegal to kill a viable fetus in the birth canal, and it is illegal to terminate a viable infant once fully born, and nowhere in either NY or VA bills do they reverse existing federal law.


But it is legal to kill a baby at ANY point before it enters the birth canal, because before that point it is legally not a "person" under this marvelous new legislation.

Patricide. Matricide. Poh-tay-toe. Po-tah-toe. Murder is murder is murder. Killing a person is murder. Cancelling a human being's personhood by legal fiat is murderous and reflects a culture of death.
Jinnistan wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:01 pm
I'm sorry to notice that this is another one of your 'hour of the wolf' posts, so maybe you should think about getting a good night's sleep before venturing into the intricacies of democracy.
I am just pointing out how leading Democrat leaders are representing the cause you are defending.

You want to blow off their failure to read their own legislation, their blundering into justifying partial-birth abortion by saying "No, really, it would just be resuscitated and then a discussion would ensue," their blundering into denying their own congressional testimony as infanticide, but you have to own this. These are the people we are being asked to trust to write legislation.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:33 am

When anyone mentions Abby Johnson, remember that she's a fellow traveller with YARN on the road of bullshit:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/fact- ... unplanned/
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 pm

We started down this road when you claimed that Republicans lie about oral contraceptive being abortifacient. It used to be casually admitted that it was abortifacient, but things changed as the abortion debate heated back up. You were wrong in your flat denial of abortifacient effects of any oral contraceptive and I offered you peer-reviewed academic journal articles to show you the error of your ways, despite your opening assertion that,
”J” wrote:Being basic biology, this fact is not open to debate”

Narrator: “It was open to debate.”

From here you bickered about the semantics of conception. I countered with two additional definitions of conception from medicine.com. You never responded to those definitions.

And I still maintain that if we are to speak clearly to people we must make it clear to them what it is we are referring to. If you know that people who have concerns about abortion view the act of conception to be the joining of sperm and egg, resulting in a living human organism with a unique genetic pattern, then you are willfully misleading them with a lawyerly definition of the term which runs contrary to their understanding.

Notice how we’re not arguing about infanticide yet? Notice how this is not the whole of our discussion? Indeed, our discussion has ranged over various topics, but inside and outside the heading of reproductive rights.

At any rate, you proved to be reliably thick-headed about the matter, doubling down on your claim not just that you were right, but that no debate is even possible, even though you have two peer reviewed sources and definitions from medicine.com which run contrary to your claim.

I sensed that further discussion was pointless, so I said, "No debate exists. No debate is possible. Sure. Just keep telling yourself that. Rinse and repeat.”

Your response expanded our debate.
”J” wrote:Would you like to explain, scientifically, how a zygote can be "viable" without being implanted?

You needed a brightline to show a substantive difference between a fertilized egg is living human organism with a unique genetic pattern, and the same thing attached to the uterine wall. Consequently, you reached out for "viability" as your criterion, which was amusing because viability is getting "younger" all the time as medical technology improves.

I responded to your question with a question,
”Me” wrote:Curious thought. Are you claiming that human rights begin with viability?

Your response was ambiguous as to whether viability was a sufficient condition (i.e., the point of the question, which you managed to miss, perhaps strategically), or merely a necessary condition (one of many which need to be satisfied:
”J” wrote:Um. I think it requires the ability to be alive, yes. Unlike the 60-70% of failed fertilized eggs, implantation is essential for this ability.

I settled on the reading of your answer which would actually be topical (i.e., viability as a necessary condition) and let you know you were in a bad position,
”Me” wrote:By this logic then, any fetus which would be viable outside the womb has rights. Congrats, Janson, you've undone Roe.

Your response was surprisingly oblivious to the danger you were in.
”Me” wrote:Outside? Sure. What is that, about 6, 7 months? I've already mentioned that third-term restrictions are reasonable, unless there's a threat to the mother's life, because her human rights take precedence. I don't believe that this undoes Roe however. Unless you aren't aware of how Casey modified that ruling?
This answer already puts you at odds with New York’s new legislation. This law allows for greater exceptions than you identify. It is NOT just the life of the mother, but the health of the mother and the Doe decision made it clear that health include mental health.

The shadow of personhood had now entered into the debate, but it had not yet been named. “J” certainly wouldn’t defend a “clump of cells” in a woman’s bodies over what a woman decided to do with those cells, would he? Surely not. After all, that would be like arguing that a cancerous tumor had rights. They don’t, because you have to be a special sort of thing to have rights, you must be legal person. Otherwise your call for limitation here is rather arbitrary and even perverse.

Here is where we left off on this topic for awhile.

Things didn’t heat up again until Northam did an oopsie on the radio and was eaten by his own soon afterward.

What is interesting here is that, by your own analysis, you should stand opposed to the New York legislation and other legislation modeled on it, but you can't, because you're in the all-or-nothingism of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice binary. This false dilemma has made you, and many other people unreasonable. And the result has not been productive for either side. Blue states are pushing for overly permissive legislation and Red states are backlashing with even more restrictive legislation. We should be calibrating law to be in the middle of extreme positions, but its 2019 so everyone is now in crazy town, even when by your own avowed stance, you should be standing with me and against New York's legislation.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
So, you admit that I have bringing up personhood throughout the discussion and stand by this as the relevant criterion?
One of these things is not like the other. I admit that you've consistently been pivoting from making claims of what you imagine Northam admitted concerning discussions of post-partum abortion to a stance that equates post-partum abortion with late-term abortions more generally, as if this allows you off the hook for the more irrresponsible and fictitious former claim. I have not conceded your pivot as "the relevant criterion".



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
Strange that you forgot and now refer to it as a mere "sideline of analysis."
I don't believe that quote can be attributted to me.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
I was commenting at the moment when this bombshell initially dropped. My comments which followed clearly showed that infanticide was only provisionally on the table, unless and until he clarified his comments.
I see. So I suppose that would discount your more recent, less provisional, statement of: "No, I was showing how infanticide was in the conversation on the basis of Northam's comments. What he described was, in fact, infanticide." Or not, I doubt you're fully committed to integrity at this point.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
but I made this comment more than five months later!!!!! Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:22 pm By this time more of the picture had filled in and Northam had had a chance to clarify his meaning.
And after such clarification, you were still saying "What he described was, in fact, infanticide", and that was on June 7, only one day before your attempt to walk back the charge. I dunno, perhaps not because Northam gave a statement in the middle of the night clarifying his comments, but because you got caught in an indefensible allegation.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
Shame on you.
Smooches.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
LOL, she slandered herself, dummy. She called it infanticide in her "denial."
Yes, she called "infanticide" the thing that she denied that she, her bill, or the party was actively pursuing.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:34 am
I am just pointing out how leading Democrat leaders are representing the cause you are defending.
Kathy Tran = "leading Democrat leader"


Image
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 pm
We started down this road....
To be clear, the issue with Northam was unrelated to the abortifacient conversation, which took place several months prior. You had initiated your outrage over the Northam comments, and what you perceived to have been the Dems motive to take him down, with no mention of the prior debate on birth control. I don't think it's useful (or honest) to amalgamate every single reproductive argument we've ever had as being along a continuous, linear thread.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 pm
You were wrong in your flat denial of abortifacient effects of any oral contraceptive
This is incorrect. I have not once denied that the oral contraception RU-486 is an abortifacient.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 pm
You never responded to those definitions.
In fact, I countered your sources with those of my own, both addressing the biological action of implantation and the theological concerns involved with "individual souls" of fertilized eggs:

National Catholic Reporter wrote:To understand why scientists believe that the IUD, Plan B and Ella are not abortifacients, it is important first to understand the biology of conception. In order for a woman to become pregnant after sexual intercourse, her ovaries must release an egg (ovulation). Sperm can remain viable inside her reproductive tract for five days. Therefore, if intercourse takes place up to five days before ovulation or within two days after, both sperm and egg are viable and the egg cell can be fertilized.

Now, just because an egg is fertilized doesn't necessarily mean that it will develop into an embryo. For that to happen, the fertilized egg must be implanted into the endometrium that lines the uterus. Implantation happens seven days after fertilization, if it happens at all. Scientists estimate that, at a minimum, two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to implant. Some scientists estimate that the number may even be as high as 80 percent, according to Discover Magazine.

For this reason, according to the medical definition, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo successfully implants the lining of the uterus.

Some church officials argue that a woman is pregnant at the moment of fertilization. If that is the case, then it follows that 60 to 80 percent of the time, this natural process results in a massive loss of life.

I believe that this high incidence of implantation failure must be taken into account for its theological significance. It would imply that God Almighty had designed a biological reproductive system for the chosen species in his own image to waste up to 80% of all conceived life, completely due to natural, non-intrusive factors. If we were to assume that God Almighty had therefore infused every single fertilized egg with its own individual soul, bound for purgatory if not successful in acheiving birth and the knowledge of Christ, then we end up with a Deity that is capable of allowing - nay, engineering! - the soul suffering of the vast majority of human life ever conceived. This may not be too controversial for the believers of myths like Noah's Ark, but it's a bit much to expect sensible people to swallow.

It is for this reason that more sensible theologians are rather acknowledging the ignorance of the ill-equipped biblical geneticians and evolving their better-informed ideas about bioviability.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:15 pm
you're in the all-or-nothingism of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice binary.
I think it's more accurate that the person who's trying to burn the candle at both ends, so to speak (defining "abortion" from contraception to the post-partum) might be the one most guilty of extreme ultimatums here.

Rather than all-or-nothing, I have shown support for certain prohibitions on late-term (past 6 months) abortions, but, taking the nuance further, allowing for the exceptions of these prohibitions based on rare, individual cases (such as those described by Northam). I have refused to put a definite date on which all abortions are deemed invalid, and tellingly, as far as you're concerned, this is tantamount to supporting abortion right up to and beyond birth for any given reason whatsoever that may occur to the clearly disinterested (or worse!) mother and physician. My position, much like Ergill's, may possibly look less like a monochrome either/or if you manage to remove your own monochrome lenses.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
One of these things is not like the other. I admit that you've consistently been pivoting from making claims of what you imagine Northam admitted concerning discussions of post-partum abortion to a stance that equates post-partum abortion with late-term abortions more generally, as if this allows you off the hook for the more irrresponsible and fictitious former claim. I have not conceded your pivot as "the relevant criterion".
Well, this is quite an excuse that you have here "J." If I discuss anything apart from what you avow is the heart of my case, then it is just "pivoting." Damned if I do. Damned if I don't. Heads you win. Tails I lose. Unfortunately, your criticism is too slippery to stick.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
I don't believe that quote can be attributted to me.

OK.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
II see. So I suppose that would discount your more recent, less provisional, statement of: "No, I was showing how infanticide was in the conversation on the basis of Northam's comments. What he described was, in fact, infanticide." Or not, I doubt you're fully committed to integrity at this point.

There is sometimes a difference between what you say and what you meant to say.

There are multiple questions at play here, which is why you are getting confused.

1. Did he say it? - Yes, we have video evidence.

2. Did that statement describe the scene of an infanticide? - Yes. He speaks of a fetus that may or may not be viable. He imagines a resuscitation. He conjures the idea that "a discussion would ensue as to what to do next" in the context of a discussion about abortion legislation.

3. Should we have expected him to be a competent speaker on this point? - Yes, he is both governor of the state and a pediatric neurologist and he assured us that he would tell us "exactly" what would happen (he did not hedge on his scene-setting).

4. Did Northam attempt to clarify his comments later? -- Yes.

The next set of questions have to do with me.

5. Did I claim that Northam said what he said? -- Yes.

6. Did I claim that his comments described an infanticide? -- Yes.

7.Did I argue that we should expect him to be competent to speak on this point, both indicating what he meant and what would happen? -- Yes.

8. Did I claim that his comments would have to be interpreted as infanticidal unless and until he offered some explicit clarification? That is, did I stipulate that he might clarify his intended meaning later? -- Yes.

The next set of questions have to do with my interlocutors.

9. Was I accused of having misinterpreted Northam's comments early in February? - Yes.

10. Was I accused of having misrepresented Northam's comments after his clarification? - Yes.

The source of your confusion is the difference between 9 and 10. I have been defending myself against both claims.

With regard to question 9, your claim is obviously weaker, because it is relative to a period of time where his attempts at clarification we not circulating in our dialogue. I still maintain that I did not misrepresent Northam in February.

But doesn't Northam's clarification retroactively alter the justice of my interpretation in February? No. Imagine that Ralph Northam comes into my McDonald's in late January. He looks at the menu and says, "I am going to tell you exactly what I want and that is a cheeseburger." I ring him up for a cheeseburger, put his food in his bag, and tell him to have a nice day. Later on, Ralph comes back and tells me that he didn't want a cheeseburger, but rather a Filet 'o Fish. Just for fun, let's imagine that he absolutely convinces me that what he meant to say with all his heart was that he wanted a Filet of Fish.

Did I do the wrong thing when I rang up a cheeseburger when a customer ordered a cheeseburger? No. My job is to deliver what customers ask for. I can concede to Northam that he did indeed want that fish sandwich, but also maintain that what he ordered was a fish sandwich. Clarifications do not retroractively alter evaluations of an interlocutor's interpretation of an utterance prior to any clarification. "But he wanted a Filet 'o Fish!" Sure, but my actions at that time can only be judged on how he used language and not a private intention that he failed to express. There is difference between what he meant to say and what he said.

The only sense in which the author's private intention can have a sort of retroactive effect as a norm of interpretation is for future deployments / encounters with that utterance. However, respecting the private intention as a norm has nothing AT ALL to do with evaluations of people who were interpreting that utterance when that intention was not available (i.e., Me at the point of question 9).

Moreover(!), I noted in February that he might clarify his utterance later. I have not been arguing that "words have meaning and intentions don't matter." On the contrary, my argument was that the best warranted conclusion at that time was that he put infanticide on the table in that radio interview.

Since then, I have conceded material relative to question ten. Time has elapsed, a fact which is masked by your lazy cherry-picking to make it seem like all of this happened at the same time and that 9 and 10 are the same question. I have granted that he misspoke and that conservative media have moved forward by insisting on carrying the original interpretation (which was best warranted prior to his clarification) by denying him his clarification in the months that passed and that this is a misrepresentation (now that we have clarification) of what he meant.

I have not denied him his clarification. Rather, I have justified my original (provisional!) conclusion from February 4th (i.e., question 9). I have been attacked for saying that infanticide was ever reasonably on the table. This is unfair because it most certainly was.

My questions about his clarification have to do with why he would so confident concoct such a vivid scene for his apologia. It does raise de jure/ de facto questions. People who blow the whistle typically suffer character assassination and vilification, so it is very hard to know what is going on.

At any rate, the disingenuous griping about how infanticide could have ever been relevant to the conversation conflates questions 9 & 10.

Is the question still relevant? Absolutely. Peter Singer convincingly argues that the worldview and premises of pro-choicers should lead them (if they are consistent) to be pro-infanticide. Pro-choicers who might agree must still, nevertheless, recognize that it would hurt the cause to be too honest about this point. Those who don't presently agree have no principled reason not to, if Singer's argument is correct.

There are interesting comments that may indicate "hemorrhaging." It is quite curious that Northam would defend Tran by accidentally bungling the scenario farther into an objectionable direction. It is telling that Tran flip-flopped on her own comments so strongly, repudiating her prior comments as describing infanticide. Again, my argument is that of a prediction, this is the drift of the future. We're slouching towards the Singer-solution to pershonhood (e.g., the New York legislation has de-personed all of the unborn). The thin edge of the wedge is eugenic concern for those who would be better off dead (e.g., the Reddit post I shared). This can also be seen in assisted suicide law that is taking root in Europe that allows for state-assisted suicide for people of wider age groups and for psychological reasons (we started off with killing off old people were dying anyway and who didn't want to suffer anymore - "Death with Dignity"). Europe has moved on from "Death with Dignity" to "Death for the Depressed."
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
And after such clarification, you were still saying "What he described was, in fact, infanticide", and that was on June 7, only one day before your attempt to walk back the charge.

That's absolutely right and there is no contradiction in that statement. What he described was an infanticide. He intended to say something else, but he didn't. You do not have grounds to criticize me on question 9. He is the one who put it on the table. It's not my fault that he didn't say what he meant to say.

I grant his right of clarification, but not as an absolute retroactive eraser of everything which preceded it. He did misspeak. He did say it. He did claim to know exactly what would happen.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
I dunno, perhaps not because Northam gave a statement in the middle of the night clarifying his comments, but because you got caught in an indefensible allegation.

9 and 10 are different questions, "J."

As for my allegation, it was not only defensible, but also stipulated (i.e., until clarification was offered, we should interpret him as having meant to describe an infanticide). And even with his intention now in hand, that does NOT change the fact that he misspoke or with a lack of sufficient clarity as to not have infanticide as the most direct and warranted interpretation of his utterance.

Northam fucked up. That's how infanticide got into the conversation. Tran fucked up. That's why Northam got into the conversation. And even if we were to grant Northam an absolute right to retroactively change what his words meant then (and not what they should mean now, going forward in the light of his private intention made public), we STILL have Tran directly stating that in her own misspeaking that she put infanticide on the table before Northam blundered in! In short, I am not at fault for noting that Player 2 had entered the game.

At best, we have infanticide having entered the conversation by misspeech, but it has still entered into the conversation about the Virginia legislation. It was not something I imagined (i.e., question 9).
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
Smooches.

That is a meek defense for having been called out as a bad-faith actor, cherry picking comments.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
Yes, she called "infanticide" the thing that she denied that she, her bill, or the party was actively pursuing.

Which vindicates my cause on question 9! By her own lights, her misspeaking brought infanticide into the discussion. That is why she regrets it and why she wishes she had given a better answer.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 am
Kathy Tran = "leading Democrat leader"

Unfortunate phrasing, perhaps. However, she is a leader and relative to this issue in the great state of Virginia, she was leading. She was the author of that legislation. She was the one defending and describing that legislation under examination. Thus, both leader and leading.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
To be clear, the issue with Northam was unrelated to the abortifacient conversation, which took place several months prior.

We're in an ongoing conversation, "J." However, if you wish to mark the beginning of the present controversy in terms of Northam's comments of January 30th, very well.

I think we should, however, note a few things about your comments which follow this.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
This is incorrect. I have not once denied that the oral contraception RU-486 is an abortifacient.

That's funny. You refer to it as a "contraception" (I presume that you meant to say "contraceptive"). This, however, is not the funny part. The funny part is that where you once denied that contraceptives are abortifacient, you're now claiming RU-486 is an abortifacient contraceptive!

"J" meet "J" from Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:37 am
Jinnistan wrote:It's telling that he mischaracterized birth control as "abortion-inducing". Not only does he not understand female plumbing, but he apparently can't discern the difference between conception and contraception. After all, a pro-lifer should have no grounds to oppose contraceptives (which prevent life, not terminate it)

Let's not review the multiple sources I offered you which contradict the notion that "the pill" is free and clear of any concerns of abortifacient effect. Let's bracket that for now. What is telling is that your tune has changed. We have gone from the claim that contraceptives, by definition, do NOT have an abortifacient effect, to a claim that a particular contraceptive has an abortifacient effect (which completely undermines your former claim).

I think you're mishandling your lines of analysis to your own detriment here so badly that I must rescue you from you.

Here is how Wikipedia lists the uses of Mifepristone
Medical uses
1.1 Abortion
1.2 Cushing's syndrome
1.3 Emergency contraception
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifeprist ... traception

That is, in some contexts it is contraceptive (i.e., 1.3) and in other contexts is an abortifacient (1.1).

And if I am mistaken about this, then whither your own case that argued that contraceptives, by conceptual necessity, are not abortifacient.

And if you really want to get into this can of worms we can debate whether the pill is abortifacient as a feature or a bug (recall the source I cited which justified abortifacient properties as being justified under the doctrine of double effect) and why it would be unethical to perform the definitive study that would confirm what we already know. If you want to go there, let's go there. However, since I have already stipulated to clumps of cells as having no claim to personhood rights in a secular context, perhaps we can just move on?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
In fact, I countered your sources with those of my own, both addressing the biological action of implantation and the theological concerns involved with "individual souls" of fertilized eggs:

What matters is that our duelling sources establish that there is, in fact, a debate to be had. This is the point which you are still unwilling to concede, because you would have to admit that you were wrong about a point (i.e., when you said, ”Being basic biology, this fact is not open to debate").
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
I believe that this high incidence of implantation failure must be taken into account for its theological significance. It would imply that God Almighty had designed a biological reproductive system for the chosen species in his own image to waste up to 80% of all conceived life, completely due to natural, non-intrusive factors. If we were to assume that God Almighty had therefore infused every single fertilized egg with its own individual soul, bound for purgatory if not successful in acheiving birth and the knowledge of Christ, then we end up with a Deity that is capable of allowing - nay, engineering! - the soul suffering of the vast majority of human life ever conceived. This may not be too controversial for the believers of myths like Noah's Ark, but it's a bit much to expect sensible people to swallow.


This quotation is not relevant to a secular context.

Under purely secular criteria, a reasonable person of goodwill must admit (in my opinion) that not all abortions involve the killing of a person. This is why I concede an arbitrary right to abort until such time as criteria of personhood are met.

That stated, it is horribly disingenuous to play semantic games to mislead people who have religious objections. For example, religious people are frequently concerned about what happens post conception and their notion of conception is the joining of sperm and egg. Gaming the semantic so declare no abortifacient effects under a definition of conception that involves implantation into the uterine wall is to wilfully mislead religious people about what is happening with the use of oral contraceptive. This is underhanded and functionally a way to lie to people to make the politics of reproduction easier.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
I think it's more accurate that the person who's trying to burn the candle at both ends, so to speak (defining "abortion" from contraception to the post-partum) might be the one most guilty of extreme ultimatums here.

No, what matters most is being honest. Under medical definitions that you don't like (don't forget those two definitions from medicine.com that you never addressed) and the common understanding of the terms which inform the religious beliefs of those seeking reproductive options, contraceptives are implicated in abortive events. That's a fact. It's a fact that a religious couples who are seeking option for themselves deserve to know.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
Rather than all-or-nothing, I have shown support for certain prohibitions on late-term (past 6 months) abortions, but, taking the nuance further, allowing for the exceptions of these prohibitions based on rare, individual cases (such as those described by Northam).

But you have not taken the step that would truly mark you as consistent on this issue. You have not stood with me in opposition to the New York bill which passed and the Virginia bill that did not. Why?

You are defending your side. You are not moving to the middle.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
I have refused to put a definite date on which all abortions are deemed invalid, and tellingly, as far as you're concerned, this is tantamount to supporting abortion right up to and beyond birth for any given reason whatsoever that may occur to the clearly disinterested (or worse!) mother and physician.

You are for prohibitions past six months. This is enough for you to (if you are logically consistent) oppose New York's massive shift in the status quo. This bill has legally depersoned ALL of the unborn in New York. This isn't about quibbling over when personhood begins, but legislation that prevents that debate from even happening and which massively exceeds your coarse-grained understanding.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:00 am
My position, much like Ergill's, may possibly look less like a monochrome either/or if you manage to remove your own monochrome lenses.
It's funny. Ergill (wisely) tapped out precisely at the moment where I was applying pressure to him to, if he is logically consistent, stand against this legislation. He has five propositions to answer before I trouble myself with reading his posts (although I have noted that he is yelling from the peanut gallery).

As for you, "J" this have nothing to do with your trepidation about with marking where personhood "is" and New York's total lack of trepidation in establishing (by force of law) where it is not.

If you cannot bring yourself to stand against this legislation, than you have no standing as a person allegedly seeking the middle ground.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am
2. Did that statement describe the scene of an infanticide? - Yes. He speaks of a fetus that may or may not be viable. He imagines a resuscitation. He conjures the idea that "a discussion would ensue as to what to do next" in the context of a discussion about abortion legislation.
Right, in the context of legislation which does not legally allow post-partum abortion.

The fact is that you misinterpreted Northam's original comments. You let it all ride on a vague "discussion" to infer literally anything you wanted to put in that blank space. A bigger problem is that you, individually, did not do this on your own initiative but as a participant in a wider propaganda push to slander Democrats as the party of infanticide as a naked ploy to create a wedge issue for 2020. In that context, there's a much more simple explanation for the misinterpretation: "I have been attacked for saying that infanticide was ever reasonably on the table. This is unfair because it most certainly was." "On the table" = "fair game for political fodder".



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am
My questions about his clarification have to do with why he would so confident concoct such a vivid scene for his apologia. It does raise de jure/ de facto questions. People who blow the whistle typically suffer character assassination and vilification, so it is very hard to know what is going on.
Yes, it does get cloudy when you're pissing in the faith well. Another important part of the slander laid out above is the implication that Dems must certainly understand the popular volatility of their eugenics schemes, so while, with one hand, attempting to pass infanticide legislation, they must also crack down on those faithful servants who too candidly reveal the plot. And, accordingly, this remains another dogma in your allegations that you haven't bothered to support with evidence more tangible than spooky whispers.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am
Peter Singer convincingly argues that the worldview and premises of pro-choicers should lead them (if they are consistent) to be pro-infanticide. Pro-choicers who might agree must still, nevertheless, recognize that it would hurt the cause to be too honest about this point. Those who don't presently agree have no principled reason not to, if Singer's argument is correct.
(Aside: again, notice how Yarn has accused others of all/nothing binary thinking. Here, he attempts to enforce it. "Pro-choicers" must accept abortion in such all or nothing capacity - "if they are consistent" - to logically presume post-birth infanticide. He gets the infanticide allegation, and also the charge that those who disagree are being inconsistent/dishonest. A true all/nothing dilemma, or perhaps a self-fulfilling accusation.)



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am
In short, I am not at fault for noting that Player 2 had entered the game.
Image



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:06 am
Unfortunate phrasing, perhaps.
Indeed. Unfortunate for anyone wishing to be taken seriously.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
That's funny. You refer to it as a "contraception" (I presume that you meant to say "contraceptive"). This, however, is not the funny part. The funny part is that where you once denied that contraceptives are abortifacient, you're now claiming RU-486 is an abortifacient contraceptive!
First off, I noticed a "retroractively" earlier, and declined the potshot. You're welcome.

As a symptom of your terminal either/or mentality, it might come as a surprise that there is an exceptional oral contraceptive which acts as an abortifacient. I have been consistent in pointing out the exception of RU-486 in previous discussions of the issue. I'm not "now" claiming anything different from what I've said before or what was in the various sources I've provided. If, because 9 out of 10 oral contraceptives are not abortifacients and IUDs are not abortifacients, I choose to shorthand "contraceptives" under the assumption that we all understand the context of the controversy, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I hope that by using the more generic "contraceptives" doesn't require me to point out that at no point in the present discussion am I referring to condoms. I'll just pray that this won't be necessary among consenting adults.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
Here is how Wikipedia lists the uses of Mifepristone...
I am happy to see that you've discovered what RU-486 is. Maybe now you can go back and read the previous studies I've linked which show, by contrast of their respective effects, how other oral contraceptives do not act as abortifacients.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
that contraceptives, by conceptual necessity, are not abortifacient.
Maybe penicillin is the medicine you should be looking up on Wikipedia.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
What matters is that our duelling sources establish that there is, in fact, a debate to be had. This is the point which you are still unwilling to concede, because you would have to admit that you were wrong about a point (i.e., when you said, ”Being basic biology, this fact is not open to debate").
The studies you presented define those contraceptives which promote implantation failure (they are not always successful) as abortifacients, despite the recognized definition of the latter being the termination of an implanted embryo. If one is inclined to view the fertilized egg, itself, as a viable life, then maybe I can see why ensuring the implantation failure would be considered as aborting this viable life. However - and this is the current medical community consensus - an embryo cannot be considered viable until or unless it is first implanted and first begins receiving oxygen and nutrients from the mother's bloodstream. And in consideration of the majority of fertilized eggs failing to implant (from 60-80%), it would seem that fertilization itself proves to be an ineffective baseline for viability.

The "debate", as such, playing out in the political realm has virtually nothing to do with science. It is the Hobby Lobby religious exception to provide women (and all of the contraceptives that they oppose covering are the ones women rely on) with reproductive medicine under the false notion that they are abortifacients. The belief of such a thing, as a religious conviction rather than a scientific demonstration, is what was protected in that Supreme Court ruling.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
You have not stood with me in opposition to the New York bill which passed and the Virginia bill that did not. Why?
Because you're a loon. More specifically, I have noted that your objections to the number of physicians required to sign off on a late-term abortion, as well as your issue with the criteria of "mental health", were valid points to raise. Not that I stand with you necessarily - I don't have enough information on these issues to have a say - but I would support you in addressing them.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
You are for prohibitions past six months. This is enough for you to (if you are logically consistent) oppose New York's massive shift in the status quo.
Again, consistency is the hobgoblin and all that. I recognize the necessity of responding to rare individual cases which would require a late-term abortion, and that the NY law eases access for these cases, but I don't see it as so absolutely countering these kinds of prohibitions. I should remind you, again, that the legislation requires for these incidents to be documented by the physicians involved and reviewed by the state medical board. Your implication is that the standard will necessarily slip from medical necessity to whims-on-demand, and I don't see any indication of the latter.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
If you cannot bring yourself to stand against this legislation, than you have no standing as a person allegedly seeking the middle ground.
Oooh fun. Another ultimatum along narrow linear lines.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:18 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
Right, in the context of legislation which does not legally allow post-partum abortion.


Legislation which was "justified" in infanticidal terms by its defenders. I do not count myself out of line for trusting the governor of the state and the author of the legislation to actually be competent to speak on what the legislation entails, and honest about what they hope for.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
The fact is that you misinterpreted Northam's original comments.


Misinterpreted? By what standard, "J"? Northam's private intention? His private intention doesn't magically accompany his words as a sort of hermeneutic ectoplasm.

On the contrary, Northam misspoke. I have demonstrated how the most direct and warranted interpretation of Northam's comments in that context is to say, "Wow, he just described the scene where doctor and mother contemplate infanticide." Unless and until you provide actual counter-analysis here, you have no standing. "Nuh uh" isn't going to purchase you anything with me.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
You let it all ride on a vague "discussion" to infer literally anything you wanted to put in that blank space.


No, I did not. When I made my comment, I stipulated that he might make what he meant to say clearer later, but until that happens our best evidence of what he meant to express by his words are his words.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
A bigger problem is that you, individually, did not do this on your own initiative but as a participant in a wider propaganda push to slander Democrats as the party of infanticide as a naked ploy to create a wedge issue for 2020. In that context, there's a much more simple explanation for the misinterpretation: "I have been attacked for saying that infanticide was ever reasonably on the table. This is unfair because it most certainly was." "On the table" = "fair game for political fodder".


You're hilariously oblivious to what I actually said. I defended Northam. I said that he had done nothing wrong (relative to DNC politics) in his good faith effort to clean up Tran's mess! I was lamenting the fact that Northam getting attacked from the left was an instance of the left eating their own (what Obama has called the circular firing squad). He goofed, got the infanticide cooties on him and his dear colleagues piled on him when a decades old photo which had been sitting in a yearbook for the same amount of time was "discovered" (something everyone vetting their candidate and doing opposition research should have already been aware of). The tune changed. It wasn't abortion anymore (this was not a winning issue in this round of rock-papers-scissor, because Tran and Northam fucked things up massively), but now an issue that Dems think they can always win. Northam was now racist, so Northam was now bad, so Northam should now step down. How convenient.

Northam deserved to weather scrutiny for his comments, because he misspoke disastrously. He did put in on the table. So did Tran, by her own analysis of her misspeaking (!). Why wouldn't the Republicans jump on this?

I have already noted and conceded that Republicans has been unfair in NOT letting Northam clarify what he meant (that's question 10, BTW), so you don't have me on the hook here.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
Yes, it does get cloudy when you're pissing in the faith well. Another important part of the slander laid out above is the implication that Dems must certainly understand the popular volatility of their eugenics schemes, so while, with one hand, attempting to pass infanticide legislation, they must also crack down on those faithful servants who too candidly reveal the plot. And, accordingly, this remains another dogma in your allegations that you haven't bothered to support with evidence more tangible than spooky whispers.


If Peter Singer is right, pro-choice Dems don't understand the ramifictions of their own premises. It is no wonder then that they would unconsciously stumble in this direction.

And I don't need a conspiracy theory or secret plot. The plot is public. All of the unborn in New York are legally NOT persons now because of this new legislation. This is not a spooky whisper. This is law. If a person slips RU-486 into the food of a woman nine-months pregnant, and the baby dies, and it is only assault. You can only murder a person.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
(Aside: again, notice how Yarn has accused others of all/nothing binary thinking.


Going with the old names Janson? Very well Janson Jinnistan. Let's use them.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:17 pm
Here, he attempts to enforce it. "Pro-choicers" must accept abortion in such all or nothing capacity - "if they are consistent" - to logically presume post-birth infanticide. He gets the infanticide allegation, and also the charge that those who disagree are being inconsistent/dishonest. A true all/nothing dilemma, or perhaps a self-fulfilling accusation.)


Janson, I have merely pointed out the contradiction between your own stated and quoted position and New York's law. This isn't all or nothing. This is, do you stand by what you have said or don't you. If the law of the excluded middle is too extreme for you, then you've literally exited the realm of logic.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:52 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:18 pm
Misinterpreted? By what standard
The standard of political expediency, I suppose. Ignoring Northam's comments as relating to rare medical emergencies (there have been exactly two late-term abortions in Virginia since 2000), and ungraciously applying maximum sinister aspersions to what his "discussion" entails. Or in other words, from the NYMag article I previously posted: "Second- or third-term abortion procedures do not typically result in live birth — and even if that does happen, it’s still illegal to 'execute' infants. When an abortion is performed late in pregnancy, it’s overwhelmingly because a woman’s health or life is at risk or because the fetus has severe deformities, like anencephaly, that are incompatible with life. Northam referred to cases where a woman chooses to give birth knowing that the baby will be terminally ill. It’s palliative care, not an execution."



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:18 pm
I defended Northam.
Sure you did, by doubling down on the slander against Democrats for not only advancing their eugenics/infanticide agenda but also surreptitiously sabotaging one of their own for carelessly admitting it. The funny thing is that one of the few issues on shakier ground than Northam's comments would be this conspiracy theory which has no substantial basis whatsoever. Keep digging, dude.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
First off, I noticed a "retroractively" earlier, and declined the potshot. You're welcome.


Who cares? Typos aren't funny. What's funny are your self-contradictions. And we will dine on them below...

"Contraceptives do NOT cause abortions. YARN doesn't know how female plumbing works!"

"Uh, I totally agree that this is a contraceptive abortifacient!"

This is just too easy. It's why I had to rescue you.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
As a symptom of your terminal either/or mentality, it might come as a surprise that there is an exceptional oral contraceptive which acts as an abortifacient.


Hahahahaah! Says the guy who decided to die on the hill on biological facts which cannot be debated. God this is rich.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
I have been consistent in pointing out the exception of RU-486 in previous discussions of the issue. I'm not "now" claiming anything different from what I've said before or what was in the various sources I've provided. If, because 9 out of 10 oral contraceptives are not abortifacients and IUDs are not abortifacients, I choose to shorthand "contraceptives" under the assumption that we all understand the context of the controversy, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I hope that by using the more generic "contraceptives" doesn't require me to point out that at no point in the present discussion am I referring to condoms. I'll just pray that this won't be necessary among consenting adults.


OK, dig up your previous posts in this thread and in this discussion (remember our field is narrowing by your demand) where you explored the mysteries of RU-486. Note: I will check to see you edit original posts. Have at it. Good luck.

We've gone from your simple absolute which invoked an unchallengeable biological fact reflecting unimpeachable facts about lady parts to marking exceptions. You're making this too easy.

And I loooove that you're now backpedaling and claiming that you were only using the term "contraceptive" as a "shorthand" -- This coming after you were debating the medical definition of "conception" to a narrow technical definition that gave your a floating chunk of wood to grab onto. Now, however, I am supposed to believe that you're being casual in your use of terminology after you attempted to shame me for lack of scientific precision (even though you were presented with peer reviewed articles, two definitions from medicine.com that you never answered, and the analysis that it is disingenuous, at best, claim no abortifacient effect when you know that the people you're selling have a different definition of conception that they're concerned about.

Moreover, I made it clear many months ago that I am not arguing against contraceptives that have an abortifacient effect, because not all abortions kills person. How terribly either/or right wing of me, right?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
I am happy to see that you've discovered what RU-486 is. Maybe now you can go back and read the previous studies I've linked which show, by contrast of their respective effects, how other oral contraceptives do not act as abortifacients.
Not until you answer the peer-reviewed research I have already offered.

And, again, dumbass, the point wasn't even about who was "right" but whether a debate was even possible (Narrator: It was).

I have marshaled more than enough evidence and analysis to refute that claim.

And hey, while you're trying to paint yourself as the reasonable middle ground guy to our imagined crowd of readers, why don't you explain how your position that this was not even debatable to begin with, even though there are medical doctors in the field of reproductive health who disagree with you?
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
The studies you presented define those contraceptives which promote implantation failure (they are not always successful) as abortifacients,


That's right, keep going.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
despite the recognized definition of the latter being the termination of an implanted embryo.
Wait a sec? Are we doing your shorthand again?

Here is Merriam-Webster:
the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both
Here is medilexicon.com
Definitions
1. Act of forming a general idea or notion.
2. Fertilization of oocyte by a sperm.
Here is https://www.health.harvard.edu/medical- ... -c#C-terms
conception: The start of pregnancy, when an egg is fertilized by a sperm.
You've been served.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
If one is inclined to view the fertilized egg, itself, as a viable life, then maybe I can see why ensuring the implantation failure would be considered as aborting this viable life.


Completely irrelevant. The fertilized is neither viable nor a person. And it is not my fault you dug your heels in on a point that wasn't going to get you any traction anyway.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
The "debate", as such, playing out in the political realm has virtually nothing to do with science.


Science is and always has been political, especially medical science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was political. As for medical science, the value-premises which define what is desirable and good do not come from science. This is why the DSM marked homosexuality as a "disorder" for a much greater period of time than it marked it as a lifestyle choice.

Science is a debate. It always has been. Consensus in science is largely an illusion. There are always debates and difference camps and different ideas. And the great leaps forward in science come when an entrenched consensus is overturned by a new understanding. This is why Popper attempted to save the dignity of science, which never really "verifies" any claim to the standards perfectionists pine for (those revolutions are embarrassing to those who want to see science as a linear story of progress with a simple continuity of growing knowledge) and framed science as a falsification game.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
It is the Hobby Lobby religious exception to provide women (and all of the contraceptives that they oppose covering are the ones women rely on) with reproductive medicine under the false notion that they are abortifacients.


And this is why lefties want to control the vocabulary of science so badly. And this is why we see old definitions going into the memory hole and new definitions privileging left-wingers (e.g., Google's quiet redefinition of "fascism" to be a strictly right-wing phenomenon).
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
Because you're a loon.
All the more embarrassing for you Janson; you should be doing better.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
More specifically, I have noted that your objections to the number of physicians required to sign off on a late-term abortion, as well as your issue with the criteria of "mental health", were valid points to raise. Not that I stand with you necessarily - I don't have enough information on these issues to have a say - but I would support you in addressing them.


Then let's address them.

I am concerned that we're getting polarized and losing sight of the middle. My theory of the case is that people have basically been losing their shit since Trump got elected and are terrified about RBG dying while he is in office. This has resulted, in my estimation, in overreaching anticipatory legislation to defend against an overturn of Roe. Righties, have been energized into action in response to this legislation and are now overreaching in the opposite direction. Northam blundered into putting the issue on the table, but right wingers have been disingenuous about how they have kept it on the table. This is more than unfortunate, because it obscures what is really concretely objectionable about NY-style abortion legislation (i.e., the stuff we can actually agree about). I have yet to see the case for personhood at a fetal heartbeat. I am all for defending life, but we must clearly be speaking about persons, even if we err on the side of caution. Heartbeat bills, however, seem likely to make lefties push even harder to the left.

We need loud centrists. We need "extra medium". We need adamant gray. If we lose the center, we could be tilting into a very bad direction no matter who wins and if no one wins clearly, we could be sliding into a civil war.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
Again, consistency is the hobgoblin and all that.


So just admit when you're wrong and give ground. You said I misquoted you, and when I looked at what I wrote, I saw that at best I was offering a paraphrase of your words in quotations, so I said OK when you said you didn't say it. We don't have to fight to the death about stupid points such as whether a debate is even possible.
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
I recognize the necessity of responding to rare individual cases which would require a late-term abortion, and that the NY law eases access for these cases, but I don't see it as so absolutely countering these kinds of prohibitions. I should remind you, again, that the legislation requires for these incidents to be documented by the physicians involved and reviewed by the state medical board. Your implication is that the standard will necessarily slip from medical necessity to whims-on-demand, and I don't see any indication of the latter.


I have quoted directly from that bill. A healthcare practitioner (in all probability an abortionist in the industry). An assessment of life or health. I have quote that Doe established that "health of the mother" includes mental health in language that invokes "life and health of the mother in the abortion debate." I have quoted the portion which legally depersons all of the unborn. Pershonhood is now settled law in New York. And no unborn baby is a person under this bill. This. Is. Bad.

We're not just talking "whims" here, but what we, as a society, allow under the law (i.e., could someone on a whim do this?).
Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:18 pm
Oooh fun. Another ultimatum along narrow linear lines.
No. I am just asking if you have the fortitude to even be self-consistent. Can we, at least, say that the New York legislation exceeds what you would prefer in law?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:45 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
OK, dig up your previous posts in this thread and in this discussion (remember our field is narrowing by your demand) where you explored the mysteries of RU-486. Note: I will check to see you edit original posts. Have at it. Good luck.
Here's one:

Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:11 pm
Which pill would that be? It's statements like this that give me doubts. None of the FDA-approved birth control pills are classified as abortifacients. But there is one, mentioned in the National Catholic Reporter article I posted: "There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan."

I've posted that NCR article a number of times now, both before and after that post, and although I don't always have faith that you bother to read these links, I'd like to expect that you assume that I do.

In addition to this, a number of the links I've made not only mention RU-486, but explain the differences among a variety of contraceptives, most often between the hormonal types and the IUDs. Not surprisingly, you've been the one throughout the thread who has attempted to lump all of these contraceptives into one function. Since one emergency contraceptive does indeed act as an abortifacient, I separated it from the majority of contraceptives under discussion. I'm sorry that you weren't paying attention.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
This coming after you were debating the medical definition of "conception" to a narrow technical definition that gave your a floating chunk of wood to grab onto.
I believe what I said was to quote the Wikipedia article which you linked in your defense, which says "The controversy is not primarily a scientific issue".



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
And hey, while you're trying to paint yourself as the reasonable middle ground guy to our imagined crowd of readers
That's not what I'm doing. It may seem that way to someone with a terminally flat and linear perspective on complex issues. I have no concern for "middle", "center", etc. I'm making my judgments based on a reasonable frame of the best information available.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
You've been served.
With all due respect to these sources, they amount to nonsense on the question of pregnancy in ways which are evident on its face. "The process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both" - Preganancy cannot occur without "both". A fertilized egg cannot become an embryo without implantation, and an unfertalized egg cannot become implanted. There is clearly no scientific debate on either of these scenarios. "The start of pregnancy, when an egg is fertilized by a sperm." - Again, a pregnancy cannot occur until and unless implantation occurs. There are no documented cases of a pregnancy involving an non-implanted egg.




Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
(e.g., Google's quiet redefinition of "fascism" to be a strictly right-wing phenomenon).
If only so many fascists weren't authoritarians who made enemies of both Marxists and liberalism. (Ftr, there's also a Wiki page for "Left-Wing Fascism", and for some reason, it's a lot shorter....)



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
My theory of the case is that people have basically been losing their shit since Trump got elected and are terrified about RBG dying while he is in office. This has resulted, in my estimation, in overreaching anticipatory legislation to defend against an overturn of Roe. Righties, have been energized into action in response to this legislation and are now overreaching in the opposite direction.
I think this is partially correct. I don't see the concern among pro-Roe folks as being unreasonable, and the latest efforts - both the expansion of restrictive bills and the wave of infanticide propaganda - seem to suggest a vigorous interest to do just that. However, I still think that you are grossly misrepresenting these late-term bills.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
So just admit when you're wrong and give ground.
I don't think I am wrong, but I'm starting to think that Peter Singer very well might be.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
(i.e., could someone on a whim do this?).
Apparently not, or I imagine that more people might. Or (brace yourself) perhaps women more generally do not harbor whims about their pregnancies as much as you suspect.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:04 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:19 am
(e.g., Google's quiet redefinition of "fascism" to be a strictly right-wing phenomenon).
It's possible to have interesting historical debates about the so-called "horseshoe" between the far left and far right, especially in the early 20th century (though perhaps not with you). However, attempts to paint historical fascism as being neither right nor left haven't broken beyond a minority of historians and a clique of rightwing commentators eager to co-opt the left's knee-jerk insults of "fascist!". Hard to get around the fact that the paradigm cases of fascism flourished within explicitly rightwing coalitions.

For the curious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_EnpxtoUw
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:05 am

Also, I appreciate your efforts, Jinn.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:30 am

Ergill wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:05 am
Also, I appreciate your efforts, Jinn.
It means more coming from someone who's received similar compliments over the years.

I feel that the issue is worth the effort, and not merely a boredom-induced beef, for the reasons that I linked above. There is an ongoing propaganda campaign to lubricate future efforts to roll-back Roe v Wade and other reproductive protections. These efforts here on a site viewed by - what? - a hundred clicks daily? - are still significant because these kinds of narratives weave into the popular bloodstream in subtle waves, and I simply don't have the strength to navigate Reddit or the comments section of any other newssite where this issue should be debated and these efforts denounced. It just pisses me off into action, however feeble and obscured from view.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:57 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:30 am
It means more coming from someone who's received similar compliments over the years.

I feel that the issue is worth the effort, and not merely a boredom-induced beef, for the reasons that I linked above. There is an ongoing propaganda campaign to lubricate future efforts to roll-back Roe v Wade and other reproductive protections. These efforts here on a site viewed by - what? - a hundred clicks daily? - are still significant because these kinds of narratives weave into the popular bloodstream in subtle waves, and I simply don't have the strength to navigate Reddit or the comments section of any other newssite where this issue should be debated and these efforts denounced. It just pisses me off into action, however feeble and obscured from view.
You're lying to yourself about why you're doing this. This little corner of the net does not need to you be keyboard Batman. "Popular bloodstream in subtle waves," riigggghht. It just pisses you off "into action"? This is really cute. Now, I find that I am part of some conspiracy designed to roll back Roe v Wade. Interesting.

It is telling that in your fantasy narrative of "purification" you cannot even conceive of the possibility that your own position might need to be modified. Your lazy moral certainty is what leads you to think that the world needs to be defended from people who disagree with you. This is how far you have your head up your own backside. And you're wearing a self-appointed superhero cape, so your ass has a curtain hanging out of it too.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:36 am

"And your little dog, too!"

I guess if you're past the point of pretending to defend the crap you've tossed out there, then we can move on to, I dunno, Steve King maybe?
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:52 pm

guys help me understand why Joe Biden keeps waxing nostalgic over the most racist goddamn senators

and by the way, I don't doubt that on a personal level some of these guys were very congenial people! maybe not to everyone but you know...
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:02 pm

I’m not reading any of you smart idiots’ posts unless you are quoting another smart person and not the troll.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by DaMU » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:00 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:52 pm
guys help me understand why Joe Biden keeps waxing nostalgic over the most racist goddamn senators

and by the way, I don't doubt that on a personal level some of these guys were very congenial people! maybe not to everyone but you know...
Biden's always had a mixed record on race. He was probably encouraged to be on the Obama ticket as a counterweight to the more socially progressive and much more black Barack Hussein Obama.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:19 am

I think this is all very silly. It's pretty clear that Biden was not endorsing these bigots in any way. I can see why Booker might be a little sensitive with Biden's numbers in the black community though.

In other recent dumb political controversies, I guess it occurred to me that no one seemed too upset when the UN referred to the Chinese Uigher "concentration camps", almost like it's an actual thing with a definition. Americans are stupid, but Twitter is a goddamn orgy of idiots.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:53 am

I know Biden isn't making a wholesale endorsement but I'm still kinda like, "what's your point?" although it's not like I'm on the Biden train as it is so he doesn't need to try so hard to get me to dislike him. but this is a good entry-point to talking more about what compromises he thinks could be made with the Republican party. assuming that's what people want.

also, Trump almost bombed Iran today. why didn't he? I hope to God we find out.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:37 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:53 am
I know Biden isn't making a wholesale endorsement but I'm still kinda like, "what's your point?" although it's not like I'm on the Biden train as it is so he doesn't need to try so hard to get me to dislike him. but this is a good entry-point to talking more about what compromises he thinks could be made with the Republican party. assuming that's what people want.
Without a specific example of such a compromise, it still seems weak. Whoopi Goldberg mentioned a better example, citing LBJ having to corral the party's Dixiecrats to sign on to the Civil/Voting Rights Acts by making deals. In the logic of Biden's backlashers, dealing with Dixiecrats would be automatically unacceptable, but in the more practical logic of history, perhaps we can surmise that it was a better outcome to have passed that legislation at that time, under those political circumastances, than it would have been to hold out on purity, represented by a still-unattained society where we don't have to deal with bigoted interests. The case of 'politics is the art of compromise' sounds quaint, but it also happens to be the nature of the beast, and a political animal like Booker really should understand that by now (and maybe he even fears the day when his own compromises will be raked over the coals). For all of the apprehensions I have about Biden, this simply doesn't move the needle for me at all, and I feel like it's a cheap shot at the front runner. I wasn't joking, btw - I do think that Booker is keenly aware of Biden's massive lead among African American voters, and thus Booker is also just as opportunistic as any other political animal.

My concern beyond Biden is that I'm dreading a repeat of the kind of destructive primary as 2016 where various factions cut between these candidates will be unable to reconcile behind the eventual nominee. I'm not eager to see a lot of infighting, especially when it's petty, and I absolutely loathe, for example, de Blasio's strategy of aping Trump by jumping in at the bottom and trying to slash his way through with a spray of childish name-calling. I respect those who resist this impulse. I like how Sanders and Warren have been able to avoid splitting their loyalties, as their bases are largely interchangeable, even under the pressure of those who are desperately trying to bait them against each other and divide and conquer the progressive wing. I respect how they, along with Biden, are focusing their scorn on only one target.

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:53 am
also, Trump almost bombed Iran today. why didn't he? I hope to God we find out.
Maybe I should be grateful that Putin has better access to Trump's ear than MbS.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:37 pm

I probably should have gone with a John McCain joke for that last bit.



Speaking of bigots, I wonder how Fox News viewers are going to excuse Laura Ingraham this time.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:09 am

We knew that there would be a buffet of empty platitudes at the Dem debate. I think the most baffling was from Cory Booker: "These aren't just human rights, they're American rights."

What?
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:59 am

You can always expect that though. People are chock full of scripts going into the debate, but at various points they have to reach through the veil of postures, guesswork, and fear, and pluck out whatever words waft up from the ether. Throw me on stage and I'd probably yell "HAMBURGER" at some point.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:03 am

"Bold choice from Sanchez. But did it ultimately help him to clarify 'hamburguesa'? Let's check the polls."
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:51 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:09 am
We knew that there would be a buffet of empty platitudes at the Dem debate. I think the most baffling was from Cory Booker: "These aren't just human rights, they're American rights."

What?
I can’t believe that I’m having to explain this, but here we go:

America invented Freedom, therefore human rights are a minor category of American rights. Human rights are limited to things that unfree people have, like breathing and healthcare.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:04 pm

Ergill wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:59 am
You can always expect that though. People are chock full of scripts going into the debate, but at various points they have to reach through the veil of postures, guesswork, and fear, and pluck out whatever words waft up from the ether. Throw me on stage and I'd probably yell "HAMBURGER" at some point.
Oh, I don't doubt that Cory is very hungry, but I bet he's on the black bean burger kick. That's probably why he's always still hungry.

I was also a little annoyed when he didn't raise his hand about rejoining the Iran deal, only to then, when asked why he didn't, launch into a speech about exactly why he would. No wonder he came out on top in mouth emissions.



My other hot takes:

Warren's still my hero.

It's time for Ryan and Delaney to pack it in. It's not going to get any better. Although I sympathized, a little, with Delaney trying to point out that improving conditions in Central America is crucial to address as an immigration issue, only to get talked down by the same moderators who were unable to shut de Blasio up. Also, although I still harbor very strong suspicions of Tulsi's whataboutisms concerning Assad (and her brief foray into white helmet conspiracies), I still think that her foreign policy position is distinct enough to keep her around. Also, she was the only one willing to bring up Saudi Arabia, so props for that.

I think the gang-up on Beto was unfair, but he kinda deserves it, especially after that war tax bullshit.

I'm surprised to see a tepid reaction for Inslee, because I thought he did very well in his limited time space. Sure, he made a rookie error touting his reproductive accomplishments. It's technically true. As the only governor on stage, he is the only one who has signed anything into law, but still, don't underestimate Klobuchar to leave a careless swing uncountered. I don't think it was enough to dampen the rest of his message.

Seriously, does de Blasio think he's this primary's Chris Christie or something? Everyone's talking about Booker's face when Beto speaks Spanish, but I prefer his reaction to Bill's "only one here with a black son" remark.

Chuck Todd is such a goddamn hamster.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:25 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:15 pm
I do not know why Beto is running for president and not the Senate. I don't think he's gonna make it.
shoulda listened to your good friend Oxnard there, Robert.

I'm also gonna boldly predict that Inslee won't be president but I'd like to see someone like him in a cabinet position.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:33 pm

I called out Booker’s trolling on the Iran Deal immediately. So blatantly obvious.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:02 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:04 pm
Although I sympathized, a little, with Delaney trying to point out that improving conditions in Central America is crucial to address as an immigration issue
Looks like this issue has been taken up by both Biden and Sanders. It's a frequently ignored aspect of the problem, and one that is exceedingly poorly discussed in US media. Honduras, as one example, is worth looking at for the current turmoil currently infecting the country under their cartel-indebted president. Keep in mind that this is all the direct result of US support for the 2009 military coup, so this is not an example of a country requiring US intervention, but a country that could use the US to fix the problems caused by our previous and continuing intervention.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:47 am

Williamson - Policy is superficial, "All You Need Is Love" is profound. Best of luck to her.

Howdy Swalwell - Promising next Secretary of HHS

Bennett and Hickenlooper - I hope their parking is validated.

Gillibrand - Struggled, which is a shame. I wish someone would have thanked her for her anti-trafficking bills.

Yang - Man, he got fat.

Buttigieg - He was there.

Harris - Best soundbites.

Biden - "I wasn't a prosecutor" may be the best slam of the night, but no one will notice.

Sanders - Cranky and irritable, like we like him, and also broached the best politically taboo subjects.


I feel like tonight, overall, was a lot more superficial than the previous night, more focused on clips and quips. I can see myself backing the top four pretty easily.

I quit cable news shortly after 2016, and it's been a nauseating reminder. Like when you start eating healthy, and then try to do back-to-back nights at Arby's, and it's just been very unpleasant for my system. I hate them and want to purge them, and it's so obvious how the corporate news media is so deeply responsible for where we are today politically. They're empty souls, emotional vampires, analytical frauds and amateur human beings trying to twist their viewers into their own obedient images. I almost admire Fox more for being more candidly corrupt. MSNBC isn't liberal, they're just more eager to feed on youth.
User avatar
Death Proof
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 pm
Location: South Jersey

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Death Proof » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:02 am

LEAVES wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:33 pm
I called out Booker’s trolling on the Iran Deal immediately. So blatantly obvious.

He's in tight with boss George Norcross here in NJ. Norcross is a wealthy egomaniac who promises jobs and favors to people in exchange for passing his projects. While one of his brothers is a congressman, Norcross is a member of the Democratic National Committee and has never been elected to a political position.

Norcross has been associated with businesses that got special treatment from the Economic Development Authority (EDA). A investigative task force was formed to look into the operations and procedures of the EDA. Norcross's law firm sued the State of New Jersey to try stop the highly critical report from becoming public. After a five hour court hearing about the injunction, Norcross lost and within minutes the report was made public.

The Norcross Machine is slowly being dismantled. The rats will start to flee the sinking ship.
If I am the Phantom, it is because man's hatred has made me so. If I shall be saved, it will be because your love redeems me.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by DaMU » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:06 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:47 am
I quit cable news shortly after 2016, and it's been a nauseating reminder. Like when you start eating healthy, and then try to do back-to-back nights at Arby's, and it's just been very unpleasant for my system. I hate them and want to purge them, and it's so obvious how the corporate news media is so deeply responsible for where we are today politically. They're empty souls, emotional vampires, analytical frauds and amateur human beings trying to twist their viewers into their own obedient images. I almost admire Fox more for being more candidly corrupt. MSNBC isn't liberal, they're just more eager to feed on youth.
This. I tuned in for the back half of this debate and almost none of last night's, just because of the cable news debate format and how toxic it is.

That said, while I think Harris has some *serious* issues that other candidates are going to have to figure out whether or not to bring up, her lighting up on poor Diamond Joe does make me think her debating Trump might not be the worst thing.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:27 am

Death Proof wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:02 am
He's in tight with boss George Norcross here in NJ. Norcross is a wealthy egomaniac who promises jobs and favors to people in exchange for passing his projects. While one of his brothers is a congressman, Norcross is a member of the Democratic National Committee and has never been elected to a political position.

Norcross has been associated with businesses that got special treatment from the Economic Development Authority (EDA). A investigative task force was formed to look into the operations and procedures of the EDA. Norcross's law firm sued the State of New Jersey to try stop the highly critical report from becoming public. After a five hour court hearing about the injunction, Norcross lost and within minutes the report was made public.

The Norcross Machine is slowly being dismantled. The rats will start to flee the sinking ship.
I don’t know what this has to do with the particular debate stunt, but I’m glad to know that Norcross will soon be replaced with another dirty NJ political actor. Isn’t that a requirement in NJ?
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:33 am

I thought Gillibrand did well, hammering home the corruption issue and tying herself to Bernie as the one able to build the bridge between where we are and where Bernie’s plan needs to get to. She also hammered home some points on family and womens’ issues that are important for anyone who is a woman or has a family or was part of a family. So, like, male orphans not so much, but everyone else sure.

She was clearly trying to interject a lot, but she also clearly needs to interject otherwise the moderators will ignore her.

Why did you think she struggled?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:18 pm

DaMU wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:06 am
That said, while I think Harris has some *serious* issues that other candidates are going to have to figure out whether or not to bring up, her lighting up on poor Diamond Joe does make me think her debating Trump might not be the worst thing.
The problem is that it's predicated on a falsehood, the idea that Biden had either "praised the reputations" of these segregationists or, as she's now saying, showed "nostalgia" for working with them. These are all unsubtle and deceptive implications, and this isn't supported by the words that Biden actually said. I think that Biden's voting history is all fair game, and I've mentioned a number of these issues - from Anita Hill to incarceration to the AUMF to his bankruptcy bill - before. And even his early opposition to busing is up for grabs, even though I don't see it as particularly relevant today. All of that is plentiful ammo. Just don't try to paint him as racist-adjacent while claiming that you're not.

I want to support Harris, not necessarily as my top choice at the moment, if she becomes the nominee. I'd prefer to support her with her integrity intact. I've been wary of any in-fighting during this primary that would involve inflicitng wounds that you can't take back. You don't have to support Biden (and any support I would give him is out of political contigency) but understand that he's a respected member of the party, and by "taking him down", you run the risk of a party schism that can only hurt the eventual nominee's chances. Harris should win based on defining her platform. She performed well in the debate, but she's still light on her policy substance.


LEAVES wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:33 am
Why did you think she struggled?
We can blame the unwieldy 10 person format, but she, visibly, struggled to get traction and appeared frustrated not getting to say more. As shallow as it is to say, she didn't get that viral moment, that memorable quote, that a few others did, which unfortunately is really the only thing that this kind of format is useful in producing. The whole point of the night was to stand out, because, in reality, this was more of a pagaent than a debate. She didn't embarrass herself or anything (like Swalwell, Ryan or Oprah Guru did), but she didn't tip any scales in her direction either.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:04 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:18 pm
The problem is that it's predicated on a falsehood, the idea that Biden had either "praised the reputations" of these segregationists or, as she's now saying, showed "nostalgia" for working with them. These are all unsubtle and deceptive implications, and this isn't supported by the words that Biden actually said. I think that Biden's voting history is all fair game, and I've mentioned a number of these issues - from Anita Hill to incarceration to the AUMF to his bankruptcy bill - before. And even his early opposition to busing is up for grabs, even though I don't see it as particularly relevant today. All of that is plentiful ammo. Just don't try to paint him as racist-adjacent while claiming that you're not.
btw I guess this is fair although if I were on Biden's team I still would have asked him why bringing up those relationships was relevant to answering the "how am I going to beat Trump/govern different than Trump" question. and what good was it to shine a light on this particular spot? (not that I was planning to vote for him in the primary prior to this foofaraw (due to some of the other stuff you mentioned))
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:39 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:18 pm
We can blame the unwieldy 10 person format, but she, visibly, struggled to get traction and appeared frustrated not getting to say more. As shallow as it is to say, she didn't get that viral moment, that memorable quote, that a few others did, which unfortunately is really the only thing that this kind of format is useful in producing. The whole point of the night was to stand out, because, in reality, this was more of a pagaent than a debate. She didn't embarrass herself or anything (like Swalwell, Ryan or Oprah Guru did), but she didn't tip any scales in her direction either.
...on the other hand, with roughly 30 debates to go and Harris creating issues for herself and Biden, being known primarily for the policies you put forth wouldn’t be bad, especially as the debates progress. It’s possible that they will be less incompetently moderated as candidates drop out and time allotted fairly and not alotted based on interruptions (as it clearly was in the first debate, but not as much in the second debate as too many people tried to take advantage). I think she was frustrated because she knew that her only chance of getting equal time was to interrupt, and others were taking the same strategy. I mean, being one of twenty in an unfair debate setup is frustrating. I don’t fault her for showing the correct emotion.
All that being said, Booker also called Biden’s comments “hurtful” earlier in the week, so I don’t know how strong claims are that Harris was uniquely unfair to him. If anything, she just took advantage of Booker opening the door for her.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:44 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:04 pm
btw I guess this is fair although if I were on Biden's team I still would have asked him why bringing up those relationships was relevant to answering the "how am I going to beat Trump/govern different than Trump" question. and what good was it to shine a light on this particular spot?
It definitely invited more scrutiny onto his busing issue, so it was not wise in that regard, and it can be argued that it is naive to think that his experience can alone overcome the unprecedented obstruction by McConnell (what did Biden do to solve the Garland fiasco, for example?). But it also was not, in any sensible way, an endorsement or expression of affinity for those senators or the stance of segregation.


LEAVES wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:39 pm
I mean, being one of twenty in an unfair debate setup is frustrating. I don’t fault her for showing the correct emotion.
I don't fault her for being frustrated, just pointing out that she clearly was, and that she had trouble stealing the narrative from the other candidates. I'm not writing her off yet.


LEAVES wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:39 pm
All that being said, Booker also called Biden’s comments “hurtful” earlier in the week, so I don’t know how strong claims are that Harris was uniquely unfair to him. If anything, she just took advantage of Booker opening the door for her.
I mentioned Booker in my first comment on the issue earlier. I do think some of the offense is conveniently related to Biden's polling in the black community, which I assume is going to take a hit from the issue (although he still got an endorsement from the mayor of Atlanta). John Lewis is fine with Biden's comments, and he, before anyone else, has the right to take issue with them if he felt it was a valid offense.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15635
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:08 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:44 pm
I mentioned Booker in my first comment on the issue earlier. I do think some of the offense is conveniently related to Biden's polling in the black community, which I assume is going to take a hit from the issue (although he still got an endorsement from the mayor of Atlanta). John Lewis is fine with Biden's comments, and he, before anyone else, has the right to take issue with them if he felt it was a valid offense.
He has the right, and so does she. She just happens to be in a more convenient place in her life to take offense. That being said, I think the substance of her comments had to do with busing and the federal gov’t role in civil rights. She just used her personal feelings as a perhaps too shrewd segue, but it did highlight one of the two big disagreements between Biden and pretty much every other candidate: He is fine with keeping grossly inadequate compromises like Obamacare (a Republican program, after all) and fine with letting states act on civil rights. Every other person wants to transition to M4A one way or another, and nobody else is objecting to criminal justice reform or civil rights on the basis of letting the states figure it out. Re-reading the exchange, and especially her focus on the federal government’s role, I think her comments about the segregationists are pretty irrelevant.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 am

if Nancy Pelosi puts such a bee in my bonnet, it's probably 'cause while Trump, McConnell, etc. validate my most uncharitable views of the Republican Party, then people like Pelosi do a lot to challenge how I thought the #resistance would respond. I know politic-ing has a transactional nature to it, maybe I'm just not in the mood to compromise on certain things at the moment.

also: lol Epstein
Post Reply