A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu May 16, 2019 3:09 pm

also I'm kinda hoping that this increase in abortion restrictions plus the increase in messaging about how low birth rates are affecting our economy is some sort of coincidence.

e.g.
Paul Ryan wrote:This is going to be the new economic challenge for America: people. Baby boomers are retiring. I did my part, but we need to have higher birth rates in this country meaning baby boomers are retiring and we have fewer people are following them in the work force. We have something like a 90 percent increase in the retirement population of America but only a 19 percent increase in the working population in America. So what do we have to do? Be smarter, more efficient, more technology… still gonna need more people.
Mike Lee wrote:The solution to climate change is not this un-serious resolution that we're considering this week in the Senate, but rather the serious business of human flourishing. The solution to so many of our problems, at all times and in all places, is to fall in love, get married and have some kids. Problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they're solved by more humans. More people mean bigger markets for more innovation. More babies mean forward-looking adults, the sort we need to tackle long-term, large-scale problems.
and that's not even getting into what Steve King has said.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu May 16, 2019 11:21 pm

The Millennial population (born 82-96) is actually larger than the Boomers (83 million to 76 million) and Gen Z is on track to surpass even that, so the math here just doesn't check out.

They are talking about white babies.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri May 17, 2019 12:33 am

To weigh in on the Tlaib thing - probably the only surprising aspect here is that she seems to have gotten a more vociferous defense than Omar, which is strange to me because Tlaib is far less eloquent than Omar, whose comments, in context, are far less ambiguous concerning intent. Still, Tlaib's comments were clearly not anti-Semitic, not even anti-Zionist oddly enough, and the chorus of kvetching from Republicans is another round of weak equivalences to not be replaced in the indignation market. Lynne Cheney, especially, comes close to suggesting the Dershowitz theory of denying that a Palestinian-Arab dislocation ever took place, being such an empty, unsettled land and all (I wonder who started the riots in 1920 and 1929 then?).

Political conveniences aside, Tlaib's comments were still confused, at best. Her framing of the role that Palestinians played in the establishment of Israel is pretty farcical on its face, portraying it as some kind of charitable altruistic act of sacrifice. Odd to take pride in losing several wars over several decades, and odder still, perverse even, to assert a dominance of victimhood, "it was my ancestors who suffered", in the context of discussing the Holocaust. Like Chappelle's "oppression olympics", I don't think it's helpful or productive to ascertain whether the bloodshed of Palestinians outweighs or overshadows the bloodshed of the Holocaust, and it's reasonable to see her comments, in context of the Holocaust Remembrance Day, as attempting to one-up the atrocity. Or if one were to attempt balance, it could have been done with considerable more tact.

A more generous reading though would imply that this sacrifice was worth it, tacitly endorsing the Zionist mission. I'm not convinced that was her intention, but it is the source of the confusion of her almost contradictory comments. Anyway, I wish her grandmother the best.
User avatar
Bandy Greensacks
Posts: 11542
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Bandy Greensacks » Wed May 22, 2019 10:27 pm

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:43 pm
I think, at this point, I'd rather see a realistic plan for a generation ship and viable terraforming technology, because even if the U.S. shifts course on climate change, China and India absolutely will not. I think it's realistic to assume that the Earth is fucked no matter what the West does.
LEAVES wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:02 am
China is already taking action, though, and India is doing even better. The USA is not. At all.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india/
Update: China has not "taken action" after all

Never would've guessed...
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15636
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Thu May 23, 2019 12:01 am

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 10:27 pm
Update: China has not "taken action" after all

Never would've guessed...
A.) Your article says that the Chinese Feds are cracking down.
B.) This is one greenhouse gas, not total greenhouse emissions.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu May 23, 2019 3:05 am

America can't really pull out of an international agreement, and then complain when another country isn't meeting the terms of that agreement. To say that China isn't curbing their emissions isn't proof that the Paris Accords don't work, it's proof that we should have remained in the Accords in order to influence and enforce its outcomes.

This is frightfully similar to Trump's approach with Iran: we nix the treaty in a huff, and then pout our plummage when Iran decides to lax their obligations in the very treaty we'd abandoned.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri May 24, 2019 11:01 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 3:05 am
America can't really pull out of an international agreement, and then complain when another country isn't meeting the terms of that agreement. To say that China isn't curbing their emissions isn't proof that the Paris Accords don't work, it's proof that we should have remained in the Accords in order to influence and enforce its outcomes.

This is frightfully similar to Trump's approach with Iran: we nix the treaty in a huff, and then pout our plummage when Iran decides to lax their obligations in the very treaty we'd abandoned.
I love that we're still criticizing the U.S. as if we're driving the bus. China has massively overtaken us in terms of carbon emissions and no amount of "moral authority" gleaned by signing agreements would coerce the furious rise of China as the new empire. The dramatology of the "original sin" of Colonial Western guilt has blinded us to the reality that we're not only not uniquely evil and responsible, but that we increasingly don't matter.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri May 24, 2019 2:49 pm

that's true about China but historically, we're still #1 on emissions so I feel we deserve to be criticized. and that we should shoulder more responsibility.

arguably, we could be responsible for some of China's carbon output too given how many of our products are manufactured there.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri May 24, 2019 3:31 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 2:49 pm
that's true about China but historically, we're still #1 on emissions so I feel we deserve to be criticized. and that we should shoulder more responsibility.

arguably, we could be responsible for some of China's carbon output too given how many of our products are manufactured there.
No, we're not. See that video I posted upthread which tracks emissions.
No country on Earth produces more carbon dioxide than China, and it isn’t even close. In fact, the next closest culprit — the United States — produces half as much carbon dioxide as China.
https://rentar.com/carbon-dioxide-emiss ... duces-co2/

We made a devil's bargain under Clinton with China. They get most favored nations status, we gutted our manufacturing, and we get cheaper products in exchange. How does China do it so cheaply? Well, when you don't have an EPA and when you don't give a shit about human rights, you can churn out products very cheaply. But it takes two to tango and it is ridiculous to pin the blame on the U.S. -- China is building a new silk road without us. They're building islands in the Pacific to claim property rights extending well beyond territorial waters. They're not fucking around and we don't control everything. They're a dangerous mix of no-conscience capitalism and communist top-down control. It's Huwawei phones and Sesame Credit. It's their century. They're no longer our client state, so we need to stop pretending that we're baby sitting sovereign nations. They're driving the bus and they're driving carbon emissions.

The Colonial Theodicy has already been eclipsed, so we might as well cut it with the self-flagellation. It's vanity.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri May 24, 2019 4:19 pm

this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5Hjg30b_M

unless I'm mistaken, I don't think it is tracking the cumulative amount of carbon emitted from a given starting point. or our number would be in the 100 billion ton area. that doesn't mean China's annual emissions aren't the highest today and haven't been the highest for a while.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri May 24, 2019 4:24 pm

There's literally nothing in Jinn's post assuming positions on American colonialism. He said, at a bare minimum, we should participate in the agreement if we expect anyone else to do so or if we want any say in what that's supposed to look like. The agreement may ultimately be too weak for the job, but that just underlines his judgment at us failing to do even the barest minimum. And China was hardly ever our client state. The hell are you talking about?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri May 24, 2019 5:10 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 4:19 pm
this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5Hjg30b_M

unless I'm mistaken, I don't think it is tracking the cumulative amount of carbon emitted from a given starting point. or our number would be in the 100 billion ton area. that doesn't mean China's annual emissions aren't the highest today and haven't been the highest for a while.
I am not sure what the cumulative contribution of carbon is from the beginning of the industrial revolution (or whatever arbitrary point you would want to pick), however, there is that staggering statistic that China poured more concrete in four years than America did in an entire century. At this point, I am skeptical of the notion that China has not overtaken us both year-by-year and cumulatively.

And there is that line by Janet Jackson, "What have you done for me lately?" America's carbon emissions are shrinking and China's are expanding. They're more than twice that of the United States.

Our Colonial guilt leaves us stuck in Colonial thinking. It is our fault. Because it is our fault, it is our responsibility. Because it is our responsibility, we must be in charge. But we're not. We are not driving the bus.

We're not going to stop producing carbon. That's just how it is. If we did simply stop "cold turkey," the results would be disastrous (see aerosol masking effect). Long-term, we're going to need nuclear power on a massive scale, carbon sequestration technology (everything from planting trees to mechanical devices), and balls deep geoengineering once we start tilting towards Mad Max levels of increases in global mean temperature.

At bottom, modern civilization can be thought of as a "heat engine" (see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 083704.htm ). We use energy and energy radiates heat. Our appliances and conveniences and conveyances. Our applications and entertainments. All of them generate heat. Consider that we speak of our "growing energy needs" (which is rather queer given that humans two hundred years ago had NO electrical "needs" whatsoever) which is a polite way of saying that we have a bottomless appetite for energy consumption without considering the concomitant increase in particulates, aerosols, and radiant heat.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri May 24, 2019 6:07 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 5:10 pm
I am not sure what the cumulative contribution of carbon is from the beginning of the industrial revolution (or whatever arbitrary point you would want to pick), however, there is that staggering statistic that China poured more concrete in four years than America did in an entire century. At this point, I am skeptical of the notion that China has not overtaken us both year-by-year and cumulatively.
The Industrial Revolution isn't arbitrary, like we just threw a dart and hit some random period. It's an obvious starting point for the ramp-up in C02 emissions. We definitely still surpass China cumulatively, and cumulative emissions have immediate bearing on what we're dealing with today. Rather than pointing to an indirect anecdote about poured concrete and then appealing to what seems intuitively plausible to you, maybe you should actually consult the historical data on emissions.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 5:10 pm
Our Colonial guilt leaves us stuck in Colonial thinking. It is our fault. Because it is our fault, it is our responsibility. Because it is our responsibility, we must be in charge. But we're not. We are not driving the bus.
Thanks Edmure Tully, but you can sit down.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri May 24, 2019 10:37 pm

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 4:24 pm
There's literally nothing in Jinn's post assuming positions on American colonialism. He said, at a bare minimum, we should participate in the agreement if we expect anyone else to do so or if we want any say in what that's supposed to look like. The agreement may ultimately be too weak for the job, but that just underlines his judgment at us failing to do even the barest minimum. And China was hardly ever our client state. The hell are you talking about?
I suppose Mel was confused by the phrase "influence and enforce", as if this was some kind of unilateral decree that America was imposing, as opposed to the international community, ie the 185 member states who have ratified the Paris Agreement.

It's tragically ironic to accuse our cooperation with the kinds of international agreements that I mentioned - Paris and Iran, but we can expand this to the INF, NATO, KORUS, etc, and speaking of tragic ironies, it's looking more likely that China may even bring charges against Trump for violating WTO rules, lol - as being akin to "colonialist guilt". In fact, it is this recent neo-isolationism spurred by Trump, previously by Bolton, which more closely resembles America's attempt to run away from the global responsibilities caused by various colonial misadventures. The swagger of 'America First' reveals a compensatory impulse to avoid the acknowledgement of our failures as a post-Cold War global leader.

Mission achomlished.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri May 24, 2019 10:47 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:37 pm
Mission achomlished.
This was almost a genius typo. Mission Achomplished: A Pac-Man Story.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri May 24, 2019 10:59 pm

Ergill wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:47 pm
This was almost a genius typo. Mission Achomplished: A Pac-Man Story.
Unfortunately, not a typo, but maybe not the best joke. Probably was caused by Trump's being hungry though.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri May 24, 2019 11:05 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 10:59 pm
Unfortunately, not a typo, but maybe not the best joke. Probably was caused by Trump's being hungry though.
Harrr
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Tue May 28, 2019 1:26 pm



I see stuff like this and I have a sinking feeling that the 2020 election will involve a lot of people responding to similar comments by trying to land the most damaging accusation of hypocrisy on Trump. and if that had any chance of working then he wouldn't have been president in the first place, right?
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Tue May 28, 2019 4:09 pm

By that same token, wringing our hands over his tweets didn't stop him from becoming president either! But we can say that of practically anything that happened in 2016, even with stuff that we should continue as a baseline drumbeat. People on Twitter can point out his hypocrisies all they like because that's what happens there, but my guess that or whatever else they do there will be largely epiphenomenal to what happens. Much the same for the glut of op-eds. Who ever the candidate is, what's most important is them being able to tell a story about themselves. Some of that will involve contrasting themselves with the present administration, but dunking on Trump personally won't move the needle.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Tue May 28, 2019 4:47 pm

true. also when I said "a lot of people" I also meant to include Trump's rivals for the presidency as among those people. oh well we'll see what the future brings but it better hurry up damn soon, so on and so on.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue May 28, 2019 5:14 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 4:47 pm
true. also when I said "a lot of people" I also meant to include Trump's rivals for the presidency as among those people. oh well we'll see what the future brings but it better hurry up damn soon, so on and so on.
If it makes you feel any better, I hear the polls say that he has little chance of winning in 2020...
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Tue May 28, 2019 6:16 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 5:14 pm
If it makes you feel any better, I hear the polls say that he has little chance of winning in 2020...
I'd like to believe that, but it's way too early to call. Incumbents have the advantage, especially with a decent economy. That his approval has remained so low despite people feeling good about the economy is a testament to a lot of the stuff we've written off for not sinking him probably still weighing him down overall. The deck is still stacked in his favor otherwise, so the best we can expect right now is a close race.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Tue May 28, 2019 7:44 pm

"The onslaught from the President’s enemies is unbelievable. In the history of our country, no president has been attacked as he has." - Franklin Graham

Look at this Lincoln buff over here.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15636
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by LEAVES » Tue May 28, 2019 7:56 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 7:44 pm
"The onslaught from the President’s enemies is unbelievable. In the history of our country, no president has been attacked as he has." - Franklin Graham

Look at this Lincoln buff over here.
People that defend Trump rarely talk about the merit of the attacks against him. An interesting phrase would be, “In the history of our country, no president has been attacked with such little merit as he has.” The silence is deafening.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by DaMU » Tue May 28, 2019 9:02 pm

Ergill wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:16 pm
I'd like to believe that, but it's way too early to call. Incumbents have the advantage, especially with a decent economy. That his approval has remained so low despite people feeling good about the economy is a testament to a lot of the stuff we've written off for not sinking him probably still weighing him down overall. The deck is still stacked in his favor otherwise, so the best we can expect right now is a close race.
I'd agree that it's going to be close, but I'm choosing (trying to choose) to not worry right now about who's most electable or how probable Trump's victory is. There's still so much time for things to change.
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
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Tue May 28, 2019 10:57 pm

DaMU wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 9:02 pm
I'd agree that it's going to be close, but I'm choosing (trying to choose) to not worry right now about who's most electable or how probable Trump's victory is. There's still so much time for things to change.
Agreed. I think the electability argument is a quagmire. The only sure thing that proves electability is getting fucking elected.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu May 30, 2019 6:00 pm

Biden's security detail got picked up by local scanners: "Red 1, copy - It's loose! Repeat, the old dog is out, the old dog is out! Neutralize contact and spare the child!"
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:36 am



More than 40,000 people endorsing this post.

Culture of death.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:01 am

Ah yes, a Reddit thread with upvotes short of cat-meme, which can be likened to laws willfully misconstrued, which we're all dangling shinily in front of everyone to distract from the more ascendant, actual, and directly awful laws that are being put into action. Very well, very well.
User avatar
Bandy Greensacks
Posts: 11542
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Bandy Greensacks » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:03 am

I'm all for retroactively aborting live children, but I think we should leave the ones who require 24/7 care alone... they could help end marriages and drive more middle-age males to suicide

Do I have to say </S>?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:31 pm

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:03 am
I'm all for retroactively aborting live children, but I think we should leave the ones who require 24/7 care alone... they could help end marriages and drive more middle-age males to suicide

Do I have to say </S>?
I think you do. And even so, your sarcasm is still ambiguous. The jab about leaving children who need 24/7 care alone to create increased divorces and male suicides seems to communicate the opposite belief (i.e., that the Reddit post is correct and that we should murder special needs children). I presume that you're not literally for killing of the most vulnerable members of our society (unless of course, you're with that small city of upvoters who made it to the front page of one of the most dominant social media websites on the internet), so even your sarcasm leaves a bit to be said.

When babies are inconvenient, we abort them. When poor people are inconvenient, we imprison them. When old people are inconvenient, we warehouse them. We're moving in the direction of offering assisted suicide to young people with depression.

Mark well those people society calls "heroes". In many cases, these people do things that the average person is not willing to do, even though they admit that it is desirable and even necessary that someone step up to the plate and serve that need. Our heroes are, so often, people still recognize their duty in a world where others have shirked their responsibility in the name of a "right" which cloaks self-interest. If some calls you a hero, there's a good chance that that person would be a "free rider" if the situation were reversed. The parents of special needs children are not heroes. They are simply people who do what needs to be done when life deals them a bad hand. One only calls such a person a "hero" because they recoil at the thought of being given that much responsibility.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:18 pm

You promised us dead babies, Melvin. Where are all of the dead babies?
User avatar
Bandy Greensacks
Posts: 11542
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:08 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Bandy Greensacks » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:51 pm

If you want my actual opinion, I'm a supporter of adoption and look at most people who choose to have more than 2 kids as irredeemably self-absorbed. But late-term and, particularly, post-birth abortion are morally repulsive in large part because the person/potential person being killed has no ability to consent.

And I was under the impression that consent was a hot-button issue these days, even when we're not talking about ending a life.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:04 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:18 pm
You promised us dead babies, Melvin. Where are all of the dead babies?
Well, out of the sixty million+ abortions since 1973, how many were more than just "clumps of cells"?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:25 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:04 am
Well, out of the sixty million+ abortions since 1973, how many were more than just "clumps of cells"?
Nuh-huh. You made the claim of infanticide, which, by your hysterics, is apparently already legal in Virginia and New York (at least).

Where are these delicious, unwanted filleted little darlings, Melvin? Maybe just one infanticide? Like, even an accidental one would be more accurate than what you've given us. Quickly. We hunger.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:50 am

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:51 pm
If you want my actual opinion, I'm a supporter of adoption and look at most people who choose to have more than 2 kids as irredeemably self-absorbed. But late-term and, particularly, post-birth abortion are morally repulsive in large part because the person/potential person being killed has no ability to consent.

And I was under the impression that consent was a hot-button issue these days, even when we're not talking about ending a life.
In that case, you're in the same space that most Americans report they're in when they're polled. In that case, you should as strongly opposed to 40 week plenary right to abort bills in states like Virginia as you may be to "heartbeat" legislation in Georgia. We have to get to the point where people screeching about coat-hanger's and A Handmaid's Tale are no longer a sufficient rejoinder. If only the extemists control the dialogue, we're going to be stuck with "light switch" legislation where abortion permissions are "all the way on" or "all the way off," both of which are disastrous options. Give the centrist the false choice of the light-switch option and most will side with an absolute right to choose. Thus, so long as we're stuck in the absolutist frame, the Overton window will continue to shift to the left. Thus, that Reddit post shows where we're heading, the smiley-face compassionate phase of eugenics.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:25 am
Nuh-huh. You made the claim of infanticide, which, by your hysterics, is apparently already legal in Virginia and New York (at least).

Where are these delicious, unwanted filleted little darlings, Melvin? Maybe just one infanticide? Like, even an accidental one would be more accurate than what you've given us. Quickly. We hunger.
Present me with the specific claim that I made upthread and I will give you a specific answer. You're shooting from the hip, months out of context.

By my lights killing a baby, inside or outside of the womb, is infanticide. Legalizing abortion through 40 weeks, by logical necessity, allows for murder, if criteria for personhood are met before birth. In my opinion, they are. The only legal abortion should be the abortion that does not involve killing a baby.

What Northam described would, in fact, be infanticide. As I said upthread, however, I believe he misspoke. And this is why I found it disgusting that his peers immediately threw him under the bus.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am
Present me with the specific claim that I made upthread and I will give you a specific answer. You're shooting from the hip, months out of context.
Alright:
Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:40 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6WD_3H0wKU

Did he misspeak? Did he misrepresent the bill? Did he, as a pediatrician, reveal a little too much?

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. That's count 1, sanchez.
So here we have you alleging that a baby, born, "alive out of the womb", can be put to death (infanticide) if the mother or physician choose to.

I'd already shown, from the very language in the Virginia bill (HB2491) that this is not the case, that the 2002 Born-Alive bill and 2003 Partial Birth ban are not repealed or affected by this bill, that resuscitation is mandated based on "clearly visible evidence of viability" in same bill, and that Northham's comment of "the discussion" between the mother and physician doesn't necessarily imply options which would be nevertheless prohibited by both '02 and '03 bills.

In short, you have yet to show any evidence supporting this incredible claim of legalized infanticide, or of the alleged Democratic agenda to that end.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am
By my lights killing a baby, inside or outside of the womb, is infanticide.
Let's try to dim those lights with some facts then. The Oxford definition of "infanticide" is fairly explicit, descibing the action as either the killing of a child "within a year of birth" and "soon after birth". The term "infant" is defined as "children anywhere from birth to 1 year old". "As a legal term, 'infancy' continues from birth until age 18". I can find no instance of the term "infant" referring to a pre-partum fetus. Likewise, I can find no mention of "abortion" listed among the historical descriptions of infanticide.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am
What Northam described would, in fact, be infanticide. As I said upthread, however, I believe he misspoke.
I believe he was purposely misconstrued.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:57 am
And this is why I found it disgusting that his peers immediately threw him under the bus.
Oh, right. This was another allegation that you've failed to back up with even the least bit of evidence.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am
So here we have you alleging that a baby, born, "alive out of the womb", can be put to death (infanticide) if the mother or physician choose to.

No, I was showing how infanticide was in the conversation on the basis of Northam's comments. What he described was, in fact, infanticide.

Why would he misspeak so glariingly? Is he telling us what actually happens in these instances regardless of legality? Is this some fantasy he has concocted in his head which would be a "best possible world." Did he misread the bill? And if he misread it, why was he in favor of what he thought was a pro-infanticide bill? It is baffling that he assures us that this is "exactly what would happen."
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am
I'd already shown, from the very language in the Virginia bill (HB2491) that this is not the case, that the 2002 Born-Alive bill and 2003 Partial Birth ban are not repealed or affected by this bill, that resuscitation is mandated based on "clearly visible evidence of viability" in same bill, and that Northham's comment of "the discussion" between the mother and physician doesn't necessarily imply options which would be nevertheless prohibited by both '02 and '03 bills.


What is most troubling about the bill is what it clearly does allow. Take it away Tran,



And I love your hand-wavy bullshit - "doesn't necessarily imply" (which means it does not necessarily exclude) "options" (this "option" is called "infanticide") "which would nevertheless be prohibited" (I certainly hope so...).

Abortion, through 40 weeks. One doctor's OK is all that is needed. No physical risk to the mother required. Mom's alleged mental health needs greater than the human right to life of the child she is carrying (unless you're going to argue it is just a "clump of cells" for all 40 weeks...). This is fucked up. We are, indeed, tilting more and more into the direction of Peter SInger's case for infanticide.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am
In short, you have yet to show any evidence supporting this incredible claim of legalized infanticide, or of the alleged Democratic agenda to that end.


On the contrary, Northam provides evidence. You dispute that evidence, but it is still evidence. Someone who should know what he is talking about in terms of policy and medical practice avows that he will tell us exactly what would happen and then describes infanticide, that's expert testimony. It may be wrong. He may be mistaken. But it is evidence.

Moreover, the damming quotation you posted does not pin me to any claim of legalized infanticide being extant today. Go Fish.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am
Let's try to dim those lights with some facts then. The Oxford definition of "infanticide" is fairly explicit, descibing the action as either the killing of a child "within a year of birth" and "soon after birth". The term "infant" is defined as "children anywhere from birth to 1 year old". "As a legal term, 'infancy' continues from birth until age 18". I can find no instance of the term "infant" referring to a pre-partum fetus. Likewise, I can find no mention of "abortion" listed among the historical descriptions of infanticide.


I direct you to the testimony of Tran regarding her legislation:
Chairman: So,where it's
obvious that a woman is about
to give birth, she has physical
signs of that she is about to give
birth would that still be a point
at which she could request an
abortion if she was so
certified?

She's dilating.

Tran: Mr. Chairman that would be a,
you know, a decision that the doctor,
the physician and the woman (would make)
Should we care that the baby, one minute before birth, is not an "infant" according to Hoyle? Should we care that that baby's right to life carries no weight if one doctor, who must be ideological committed to the practice of abortion to be in the industry, decides that the mental health of the mother would be harmed by giving birth, because it is not according to the strictest definition an infant?

The semantics of murder are fun, aren't they?
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:59 am
I believe he was purposely misconstrued.


If the literal meaning of your words involves infanticide and you don't want to be accused of infanticide, you should literally use different words.

No, at best, he misspoke, massively.

quote=Jinnistan post_id=1252667 time=1559959192 user_id=7700]IOh, right. This was another allegation that you've failed to back up with even the least bit of evidence.[/quote]

Except for all those videos of democrats loudly denouncing him and demanding that he step down as governor, you mean?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
No, I was showing how infanticide was in the conversation on the basis of Northam's comments. What he described was, in fact, infanticide.
No it wasn't. Northam does not describe infanticide in his remarks. Perhaps you could quote the part of his comments that you imagine to be infanticide, but the video you posted upthread does not describe the post-partum killing of an infant.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
What is most troubling about the bill is what it clearly does allow. Take it away Tran
As I pointed out originally, the accusation of "mispeaking" more properly is applied to Tran. Although, even given that, she still does not describe an act that would be considered "infanticide". Instead, she mistakenly says that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion, something that her bill clearly does not. If you want to take issue with her for not reading the bill she sponsored, then have at it. She clearly fucked up here, but even Northam, in his defense of the bill, did not claim that an abortion could be performed during (much less after) dilation.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
And I love your hand-wavy bullshit - "doesn't necessarily imply" (which means it does not necessarily exclude) "options" (this "option" is called "infanticide") "which would nevertheless be prohibited" (I certainly hope so...).
Ah, but you're the one suggesting that the "discussion" Northam is referring to does necessarily imply options which run counter to existing federal law, to such an extent that you would take such an inference as a fact.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
On the contrary, Northam provides evidence. You dispute that evidence, but it is still evidence. Someone who should know what he is talking about in terms of policy and medical practice avows that he will tell us exactly what would happen and then describes infanticide, that's expert testimony. It may be wrong. He may be mistaken. But it is evidence.
I don't think that Northam is the one who's mistaken here.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
Moreover, the damming quotation you posted does not pin me to any claim of legalized infanticide being extant today. Go Fish.
Oh, except of course for this unambiguous interpretation of Northam which you're peddling. The accusation of the agenda towards infanticide notwithstanding, I suppose.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
Should we care that the baby, one minute before birth, is not an "infant" according to Hoyle? Should we care that that baby's right to life carries no weight if one doctor, who must be ideological committed to the practice of abortion to be in the industry, decides that the mental health of the mother would be harmed by giving birth, because it is not according to the strictest definition an infant?
I only care that you understand what the definition of infanticide actually is before making such charges.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:25 am
Except for all those videos of democrats loudly denouncing him and demanding that he step down as governor, you mean?
Maybe they were motivated because he might reveal the parties' predilection for pedophilia. That allegation would require an equal level of non-evidence as well.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am

It's funny that you think your dictionary definition settles the issue of "infanticide."

Tran later tried to clarify her comments, stating in the Washington Post of January 31, "I should have said: ‘Clearly, no because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth."

Tran's backpedaling establishes that we can have infanticide before the baby is outside the womb.

So now we have two instances of misspeech resulting in an assertion of infanticide!

And by Tran's own admission, the literal interpretation of her words under testimony describe an instance of infanticide which would be allowed under her proposed legislation!

And why the fuck didn't she know what was in her own bill?
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
No it wasn't. Northam does not describe infanticide in his remarks. Perhaps you could quote the part of his comments that you imagine to be infanticide, but the video you posted upthread does not describe the post-partum killing of an infant.


His remarks have already been quoted in full. The video has already been linked. But hey, let's do it again. The interviewer specifically asks Northam about the hypothetical Tran was speaking of.
I wasn't there Julie and I certainly can't speak for delegate Tran, but I will tell you one first thing I would say this is why decisions such as this should be made by providers physicians and the mothers and fathers that are involved.
Would it be allowed? He's not quite sure, but he says examples like this are why the decision should be sole province of doctor and patient. In short, this is the same thing as saying that it SHOULD be allowed. Northam has just committed to a plenary right to abort through 40 weeks. Good job Ralph!
There are, you know, when we talk about third trimester abortions
Just in case there was unclarity, he makes it clear that we are talking about third term abortions.
These are done with the consent of obviously the mother with the consent of the physicians more than one physician by the way
Under the status quo, yes, but H.B. 2491 would have changed this, according to the Washington Post on January 21, "It also would have required just one physician to certify the need for the procedure, instead of three." So, Ralph is not telling us what would be the case under the proposed legislation.
And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities.
This implies, of course, that it may also be done in cases where there are NOT severe deformities. More than this, we are left with the open question of how severe of deformities.
There may be a fetus that's non-viable.
But again, this implies that there may be a fetus which IS viable. Ralph is not drawing lines here, but gesturing the best cases as possibly justifying the worst that would be allowed under the letter of the law.

So in this particular example
Again, this is the hypothetical Tran was responding to. Our case is a mother given approval by one doctor on the grounds of her "mental health." And again, she's dilating. And again, by Tran's own admission, what she described in her testimony is an instance of infanticide. Northam now tries to salvage her case, by assuring us that the child would be humanely infanticided.
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered.


The word "infant" is used. It refers to a baby that has been delivered. With us so far, "J"?
The infant would be kept comfortable.


Once again, we have the word "infant." The infant would be kept comfortable. You can't be "comfortable," so we're talking about a living infant. Got it?
The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
Apparently, if the infant was near death, they would bring it back from the brink. And then "a discussion would ensue". A discussion about what? How the Mets are doing this year? About where to vacation?

Perhaps his next comments will tell?
So, so I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again, we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.


So, a discussion would ensue about which we would not want the government to be involved. Interesting. Nothing bad would happen, and we certainly wouldn't want to the government to legislate against anything bad happening, because this none of their business. Riiiiggghhht.
We want the decision to be made by the the mothers and their providers
A discussion. A decision. Government not involved.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
As I pointed out originally, the accusation of "mispeaking" more properly is applied to Tran. Although, even given that, she still does not describe an act that would be considered "infanticide".


Tran disagrees with you "J." You have a quote from the Washington Post of January 31st where she says that she did describe infanticide (because she was not agile enough to answer those cunning questions.

Am I to believe that you know her meaning better than herself? Should I prefer your interpretation of what she meant to hers?

Will you save her by mansplaining her meaning to us all?
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
Instead, she mistakenly says that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion, something that her bill clearly does not. If you want to take issue with her for not reading the bill she sponsored, then have at it. She clearly fucked up here, but even Northam, in his defense of the bill, did not claim that an abortion could be performed during (much less after) dilation.


She fucked up. And the bill is fucked up. Even if the bill does not literally allow for abortion of a baby about to emerge from the womb, it does allow for abortion on the say so of one doctor, through 40 weeks, on a warrant as thin as "mental health." So, even if we are days away from delivery rather than hours, we're still NOT talking about a fucking clump of cells.

Consequently, this legislation is still monstrous.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
I don't think that Northam is the one who's mistaken here.


Oh, he is mightily mistaken. He's never worn black face. But then he has. It wasn't him in the photo but a friend. But then maybe it was him. He defends Tran's testimony by saying it's not that bad, where even Tran concedes that she described infanticide. He claims you need more than one doctor, where her legislation changes that. He talks about having a discussion about what to do about a living infant that has been delivered and stresses that the government should have no say in that conversation. No, he's not mistaken at all. Clear as mud.

And again, I made it clear, months-a-fuckin'-go that the man was likely to have misspoken and that he should be allowed to clarify his meaning. However, the meaning which should be read from that moment before clarification is to see a waffling politician describing a "humane" moment which might be followed up by infanticide. He fucked up. And he should not have. He is a politician and a pediatrician. He should not only know what would happen, but be able to describe it in a way that isn't semantic tangle he dumped on that table in that interview, especially when he claimed to be revealing exactly what would happen.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
Oh, except of course for this unambiguous interpretation of Northam which you're peddling. The accusation of the agenda towards infanticide notwithstanding, I suppose.


They said it. I didn't. They have to stand by it. They're literally trying to make policy. I'm not. And it is pretty telling that in their half-assed defenses of extreme legislation being pushed for fear of losing Roe that they're spinning into apologia that describes infanticide. If it is so easy to accidentally stray into this territory, you're conceptual map is not well-regulated enough for us to trust your moral intuitions. Indeed, we drifting in Singer's direction.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
I only care that you understand what the definition of infanticide actually is before making such charges.


Why don't you explain that to Tran too, while you're at it.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:23 am
Maybe they were motivated because he might reveal the parties' predilection for pedophilia. That allegation would require an equal level of non-evidence as well.
Let's leave Uncle Joe out of this.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
It's funny that you think your dictionary definition settles the issue of "infanticide."
It helps. Compared to, you know, what you want to believe instead.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
Tran's backpedaling establishes that we can have infanticide before the baby is outside the womb.
I know you probably aren't a gynecologist or anything, but "dilation" refers to the literal exiting of the womb, which is why it's referred to as "partial birth" when aborted at this stage. The proximity to infanticide is no doubt why the procedure remains illegal, a condition that Tran's bill does not change.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
And by Tran's own admission, the literal interpretation of her words under testimony describe an instance of infanticide which would be allowed under her proposed legislation!

And why the fuck didn't she know what was in her own bill?
Good question. I previously guessed that this was a model legislation, essentially identical to the bill that passed in New York, and Tran didn't bother to read or understand it.

We've established that Tran was confused, so I'm not sure why you're more compelled to use her confusion as proof rather than looking at the language in the actual bill in question. Maybe you did, the first time I linked it, and perhaps it simply doesn't satisfy your paranoia. Nowhere in the bill does it allow for infanticide, either during partial birth or post-partum. What you are obligated, by the weight of your allegations, to demonstrate is where exactly in this piece of legislation does it allow doctors to perform infanticides. Short of that, how about a single documented instance of one being legally performed in the state of Virginia (or New York).


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
Just in case there was unclarity, he makes it clear that we are talking about third term abortions.
And just for clarity, we are not talking about post-partum abortions.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
Apparently, if the infant was near death, they would bring it back from the brink. And then "a discussion would ensue". A discussion about what? How the Mets are doing this year? About where to vacation?
No, it can only be a discussion about whether the red or white goes best with baby dumplings.

This is "death panel" territory, and that's not too surprising for you. I suppose some more humane examples of "a discussion" would involve options for adoption, or in the case that the infant cannot maintain viability on its own, taking it off life support. The latter may seem cruel to you, but it would not be "infanticide" any more than pulling the plug on a stroke coma would be "homicide". In fact, it could possibly be the most compassionate option at that point. Basically, you're letting a hell of a lot ride on this vacuously sinister cloud called "a discussion".


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am
Even if the bill does not literally allow for abortion of a baby about to emerge from the womb, it does allow for abortion on the say so of one doctor, through 40 weeks, on a warrant as thin as "mental health." So, even if we are days away from delivery rather than hours, we're still NOT talking about a fucking clump of cells.
If you wanted to argue any of these points, all pretty mainstream from the pro-life position, then that's one thing. The number of physicians necessary is up for debate. The qualifying conditions of "mental health" are up for debate. What is not up for debate is whether or not the bill allows for legalized infanticide.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:21 pm

Northam was talking about a baby born non-viable and the decisions parents and doctors have to make about resuscitation. He qualified that in his initial statement and his office underlined this after the fact. These situations would happen in a Post-Roe world. YARN knows this already, but doesn't give a shit.

YARN is squeezing soundbites he's manifestly misconstrued, with far-flung hypotheticals, about a bill that didn't pass, and this in order to distract us from the bills that actually passed and that we know to a certainty will jeopardize the overall welfare of vast swathes of women. That's because he's much more sympathetic to the latter situation than to what we have now. He's not genuinely interested in expanding representation of "moderate" positions as much as he is in exacerbating the polarization of the issue and putting the full weight of his big, sweaty thumb on the reactionary rightwing end of the scale.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
It helps. Compared to, you know, what you want to believe instead.


Semantics can obscure as much as they reveal, hence the bestiary of euphemisms, acronyms, initialisms, and Latin phrases that take the curse off the actual meaning of statements. It's what you don't want to believe or rather admit that cuts short the dialogue.

Your side is ridiculously committed to avoiding and/or denying the personhood of the unborn. You're desperately trying to convince others, and perhaps yourselves that birth is a hard line and that all fetuses as in the same pre-person phase of development that can be mocked as a clump of cells. Indeed, insisting on callng a baby a "fetus" dehumanizes the baby, because the term covers all phases of pregnancy (i.e., those initial phases where all we have is a mass of developing humanity). It allows you to "thingify" the unborn.

Most Americans are neither radically pro-life or pro-choice. We would like to have a conversation about recognizing rights somewhere in the middle, where scientific and philosphically rigorous criteria of personhood can be determined. So long as the far right and far left dominate this space, this middle ground is a space between enemy trenches, where you will be cut down in a hail of fire as either a misogynist or baby killer.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
I know you probably aren't a gynecologist or anything, but "dilation" refers to the literal exiting of the womb, which is why it's referred to as "partial birth" when aborted at this stage. The proximity to infanticide is no doubt why the procedure remains illegal, a condition that Tran's bill does not change.


Dilation is a process. For a third of the three phases of the process of labor, the baby is still on the other side of the "goal line" (i.e., that magical boundary where human rights are finally, grudgingly admitted by law). The woman's body has to make itself ready before the baby can emerge. Dilation begins as small a blueberry or marble. It takes time to go from there to 10 cm. You're not into active labor until 3 to 4 cm of dilation.

Also, I should point out that you're still contradicting Tran's own assessment of the situtation.
Although, even given that, she still does not describe an act that would be considered "infanticide". Instead, she mistakenly says that her bill would allow for a partial birth abortion, something that her bill clearly does not.
I have given you a quotation from the Washington Post of January 31, where Tran states that what she described in her testimony would be infanticide. Gee, I wonder why people are upset that Tran made comments that they construed the be infanticidal? Could it be that she used language that even she recognizes to be infanticidal? Could it be that her "clarification" further cements this as a warranted interpretation of what those poorly-chosen words would imply? But no, let's blame everyone else for the mess that Tran and Northam made.

Should we trust these people to pass legislation when they don't know what their bills mandate, when they don't realize how it intersects with preexisting law, and when they don't have the sensibility to pull up short when they begin describing what, by their own lights is an infanticide? Should I trust Northam when he blunder into describing (what under the most direct interpretation) infanticide?
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
Good question. I previously guessed that this was a model legislation, essentially identical to the bill that passed in New York, and Tran didn't bother to read or understand it.


Right, so what do we get instead? We get her "spitballing" what she thinks this legislation should contain (I use the word "should" here in both senses of "predict" and "ought") and what does she imagine pro-choice legislation should do? Clearly, her "norm," her loose "vision" of reproductive rights drags the law strongly to the left, contradicting any limits on partial birth abortion and leaving as literally an inch away from infanticide. This is what is in the minds of your civil right heroes. Her testimony is all the more telling and damming for this reason.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
We've established that Tran was confused, so I'm not sure why you're more compelled to use her confusion as proof rather than looking at the language in the actual bill in question. Maybe you did, the first time I linked it, and perhaps it simply doesn't satisfy your paranoia.


My argument has been that the comments made by the authorities advocating this legislation put infanticide on the table. 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, but I still maintain that is the fault of Tran and Northam that this mess emerged. They blundered, in their haste to virtue signal and beat the what seemed like impending demise of RBG to the punch, and their blundering revealed quite a bit.

Tran doesn't know what her legislation calls for. Tran maintains a definition of infanticide which is contrary to your dictionary and when the chips were down, she endorsed what she would later identify as infanticide. In one moment she stands by it. In the next moment she calls it a mistake that describes something "disgusting" (i.e., infanticide). She is dammed by her own understanding and misunderstanding. Northam charges in to smooth things out and describes a scene which directly implies that an infanticide might follow a discussion that would ensue after resuscitation. They grabbed the hand grenades. They pulled the pins.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
Nowhere in the bill does it allow for infanticide, either during partial birth or post-partum.


And that is marvelous. Simply swell. But that leaves us with a massive problem, the elephant-sized baby in the middle of the womb.

The Bill does allow the killing of a person on the say so of one doctor on the grounds of mental health and this is enough for us to reject the bill.

And the ONLY way you can refute the above claim is to clearly establish that a fetus in the womb at week 39 is NOT a person.

And you can't. And this is why you can only mock the excesses of the right-wing who pin humanity on ensoulment-at-conception or at the very first development of a heartbeat. Your only recourse is to muddy the waters by implying an either or dilemma. Well, one way to answer a dilemma is to pass through the horns. And your dilemma ignores a phases of development that go on for literal months. You've left a space where I can drive a semi-truck through the horns (because that his how far to the right the right is and how far to the left the left is).
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
What you are obligated, by the weight of your allegations, to demonstrate is where exactly in this piece of legislation does it allow doctors to perform infanticides. Short of that, how about a single documented instance of one being legally performed in the state of Virginia (or New York).


LOL, that's cute. You have yet to establish that I am obligated to this at all.

That quotation you offered only shows that I am committed to demonstrating how the idea infanticide enters into the conversation.

My stance is that killing a baby is infanticide and that the term of abortion, if it is to be morally sanctioned term, can only apply to cases of termination where it is clear that a person is not being killed by the process or where the killing of a person is justified (e.g., two people die or just one). You don't have to agree with my sensibilities about the semantics, but you do have to establish that legal abortion under the New York model of legislation (which people in Virginia are apparently picking up without even reading) does not involve the killing of a person. Does the present legislation not meet the standard of infanticide according to the Oxford Dictionary? OK. But does this legislation, nevetheless, involve the killing of a baby in the womb? The semantics debate, in this sense, is hollow (i.e., whether or not it is technically infanticide does not matter if we're still talking about killing persons. And I argue we are).

More than this, it has been, and is my position that we're leaning more and more in the direction of Singer's conceptualization of personhood and rights. The unconscious spillage in misspeech by Northam and Tran and many others I could quote, show that we're drifting into a future where we will have to confront those who make a compelling argument, relative to the background of values and designated facts, that infanticide should be legal. A 17-year-old girl just petitioned to have the state end her own life in the Netherlands. The news widely reported the story wrong (the state did not grant Noa Pothoven's request), but what is telling is that the state did not stop her either. She committed suicide by refusing food and drink (it's not like she jumped off a roof before someone could intervene).
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
No, it can only be a discussion about whether the red or white goes best with baby dumplings.


You joke like a serial killer, but never pause to ask "Am I the baddie?"
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
This is "death panel" territory, and that's not too surprising for you.
No. Months ago, I noted that this was likely to be misspeaking on the part of Northam and that the Democrats should have stood by him instead of turning on him to save "the cause."
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
I suppose some more humane examples of "a discussion" would involve options for adoption, or in the case that the infant cannot maintain viability on its own, taking it off life support.


There is one primary question and that question is personhood. A child abandoned by its mother MUST be cared for in a just society. It's not that adoption is an "option." Care for fellow human beings is a duty, not an option. It's not "leather bucket seats" or "gold trim."

There are cases where persons may be killed. A person may be killed in self-defense. We can play the trolley-problem game. The state may kill in times of war or (more contentiously) as a punishment. But killing CANNOT be a matter of personal choice. It cannot be arbitrary or private. If a mother cannot kill her baby three weeks after delivery in the name of her mental health, then why should we expect that she must be able to do so three weeks before delivery? The only thing that really matters is if we're talking about a human. Once that question is established, the question of whether or not a person can be killed (or allowed to die) falls under the same criteria that we would apply to children, generally.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm
Basically, you're letting a hell of a lot ride on this vacuously sinister cloud called "a discussion".


The prime interpretation, at that time (prior to clarfication), of Northam's words, was the implicature of infanticide as an option post-birth. I have already demonstrated why in the context of his answer and the stream of his premises that this was the most direct interpretation. He screwed up. And the casual screw ups of the champions of "reproductive health" are quite revealing. There is a reason we don't trust you. You cannot approach the baby in the middle of the womb without having to either lose the arbitrary absolute right to abort through forty weeks or you must admit that you're killing persons in the name of choice.

You stay on the right side of history. I'll stay on the right side of eternity.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:10 pm

Ergill wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:21 pm
Northam was talking about a baby born non-viable and the decisions parents and doctors have to make about resuscitation. He qualified that in his initial statement and his office underlined this after the fact. These situations would happen in a Post-Roe world. YARN knows this already, but doesn't give a shit.

YARN is squeezing soundbites he's manifestly misconstrued, with far-flung hypotheticals, about a bill that didn't pass, and this in order to distract us from the bills that actually passed and that we know to a certainty will jeopardize the overall welfare of vast swathes of women. That's because he's much more sympathetic to the latter situation than to what we have now. He's not genuinely interested in expanding representation of "moderate" positions as much as he is in exacerbating the polarization of the issue and putting the full weight of his big, sweaty thumb on the reactionary rightwing end of the scale.
Sorry. I'm bored. Maybe it beats debating Hyde.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
So long as the far right and far left dominate this space, this middle ground is a space between enemy trenches, where you will be cut down in a hail of fire as either a misogynist or baby killer.
Gosh, I wonder who's crying "baby killer" here.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
Dilation begins as small a blueberry or marble.
Your cervical poetry aside, the point remaining that none of these bills allow for an abortion after dilation, the birthing event horizon from which there is no turning back.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
Also, I should point out that you're still contradicting Tran's own assessment of the situtation.
Who gives a shit?


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
Should we trust these people to pass legislation when they don't know what their bills mandate, when they don't realize how it intersects with preexisting law, and when they don't have the sensibility to pull up short when they begin describing what, by their own lights is an infanticide?
It would break my heart if Tran is not re-elected.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
This is what is in the minds of your civil right heroes.

Mm-mm.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
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
*cough*


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
impending demise of RBG
*sniff*


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
The Bill does allow the killing of a person on the say so of one doctor on the grounds of mental health and this is enough for us to reject the bill.
Fine. Notice how this assertion doesn't require fantastical allegations of infanticide?


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
You have yet to establish that I am obligated to this at all.
Hi.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
You joke like a serial killer, but never pause to ask "Am I the baddie?"
I agree.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
I noted that this was likely to be misspeaking on the part of Northam and that the Democrats should have stood by him instead of turning on him to save "the cause."
There is no evidence of this alleged "cause".


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
The prime interpretation, at that time (prior to clarfication), of Northam's words, was the implicature of infanticide as an option post-birth.
Your interpretation of "a discussion" was decidedly subprime.


Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:22 pm
You stay on the right side of history. I'll stay on the right side of eternity.
Bless you.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:46 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:10 pm
Sorry. I'm bored. Maybe it beats debating Hyde.
Didn't mean it as a criticism of you. Knock yourself out.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:10 pm
Gosh, I wonder who's crying "baby killer" here.


The one who is protesting killing babies, perhaps?

The kicker is what is unsaid in your response. It's what you refuse to look at -- the elephant-sized baby in the middle of the woom. It's your absolute refusal to interrogate the status of the human life that is more than a clump of cells but which which has not yet crossed the plane of the goal line of contemporary legal protections. If you had an argument to make, you'd make it. If Sanchez had an answer to those five propositions, he'd give them. Neither of you can, however, without either revealing yourselves to be committed to killing persons or betraying the turbo-lefty pro-choice agenda which is at play in these bills.

You say babies are not allowed to be killed under New York-style legislation? Fine. Prove it. Otherwise, the protest remains.
Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:10 pm
Who gives a shit?


You do apparently, as you were going to lengths to tell me what she really meant and what her understanding was.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2943
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm
The one who is protesting killing babies, perhaps?
Sure. So long as we're clear on who's enforcing these "enemy trenches".



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm
It's your absolute refusal to interrogate the status of the human life that is more than a clump of cells but which which has not yet crossed the plane of the goal line of contemporary legal protections.
Here's why I'm not going to do that: 1) such a determination is unproductively speculative and quite likely relative to developmental differences among various fetii which is all, of course, prior to the almost certain application of the already nebulous presumptions of ancient Hebrew grooming taboos and inextinguishable ethereal fluids. And 2) such a determination is neither necessary to address the issue of infanticide nor sufficient to address the circumstances under which such emergency late-term abortions are deemed and documented as medically valid options by trained professionals in their field.



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm
You say babies are not allowed to be killed under New York-style legislation? Fine. Prove it. Otherwise, the protest remains.
I am not going to prove a negative for you. Until you deliver a single dead baby, killed after birth, there is nothing for you to protest. (Bring me the baby.)



Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm
You do apparently, as you were going to lengths to tell me what she really meant and what her understanding was.
Pfft. No. I was going to some lengths to tell you what the legislative language said and meant. The bill, rather than Tran's stammering, is what would have the weight of law here.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:43 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:41 pm
If Sanchez had an answer to those five propositions, he'd give them.
You'd already find answers to those in my one-act play, which itself was a reiteration of shit I'd already said to you. The real counterfactual at issue is this: if I answered them again, it wouldn't make a difference to you because you don't give a shit about answers. You only care about the story you want to project and the sentiments driving you. I mean, fuck, you still think that the Northam blackface thing was a liberal conspiracy to counteract the unfounded conservative backlash against his abortion commentary, despite the blackface story obviously and verifiably having leaked out of a rightwing outlet. All told, the endgame for you is to work reactionary rightwing propaganda into the bloodstream. You're a walking Motte and Baily tactic, dangling modest poses while dashing for radical conclusions. For the more Millennial (rather than Medieval) crowd, the analogy would be a Facebook meme:
YARN: "Let's accept that a clump of cells is not a person, but a fetus days before birth is"

Also YARN: "Blacks aborting clumps of cells is racial genocide!"
You may not even realize you're doing this. I'm sure if we could boil you down to a suite of positions - which is to say, the very, very general opinions you'd ascribe to in a quiet, controlled environment - you wouldn't come out so radical. Perhaps also in a genuine, face-to-face conversation where you realize you're talking to another human. But people aren't a suite positions. We aren't characterized by a cold list of opinions. We're characterized by the choices we make, the way we latch onto those opinions and interpret them, the way certain opinions ultimately motivate us more than others, the inferences we draw from and stories we build around them, the way we carry ourselves. The mosaic of YARN ultimately comes together in what you told us all those years back. You don't care about rational arguments. You don't think we're rational arguers. We're just gladiators to be defeated in a game dialectic, of pure persuasion for an imaginary crowd, quite apart from genuine concerns with accuracy, validity, or honesty.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:12 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
Sure. So long as we're clear on who's enforcing these "enemy trenches".


I'd say it's the one joking about baby dumplings.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
Here's why I'm not going to do that:
That's right. You're not going to do it, because you can't do it. Game. Set. Match.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
1) such a determination is unproductively speculative


Good God, I am sure slave holders made similar arguments.
"Now, lookee here, Yankee boy. I am not going to get into calibratin' the alleged rights of dark skinned people. Are African slaves entitled to the same rights as upstanding white men? Who can say? Such a determination is unproductive and speculative."
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.

You don't get a fucking pass here because you want to whine about how hard it is to parse these things.

We deal with these issues in the end of life debate. We sort these issues when we parse murder, self-defense, and manslaughter. We do hard things all the time and we do so productively.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
and quite likely relative


We draw lines all the time despite continua of development. Kids mature at different rates, but you don't get to drink until you're 21. The line need not be perfect, but it must be as fairly drawn, erring on the side of life, as possible.

Again, we deal with these sorts of issues in law all of the time.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
And 2) such a determination is neither necessary to address the issue of infanticide nor sufficient to address the circumstances under which such emergency late-term abortions are deemed and documented as medically valid options by trained professionals in their field.


This is precisely why we must enter into the conversation! The discussion is vital.

Abortionists (your so-called "experts") are in no position to determine where personhood begins. People who are party to the dispute don't get to adjudicate it. Moreover, their cognitive dissonance on the issue cannot allow them to see things clearly. I call (then named) Stokley Carmichael to the stand from the year 1967,
We ain't goin wrote:They want to know whether or not it is possible for a man to condemn himself. They never answer the question. The revolutionary philosopher, Franz Fanon, answers the question. He said it's impossible. You ought to know Fanon, he's a beautiful black brother. . . For example, the Nazis after World War II when they had the Nuremberg trials; the Nazis they arrested-if they condemned themselves, they had to inflict punishment upon themselves. An example is that any of the Nazis whom they arrested who lived who allowed themselves to live said that they killed Jews who were inferior; they weren't human beings. So they didn't kill human beings, or they said that they didn't know what was happening in Germany at the time the Jews were being killed, or, more sophisticatedly and as more people in America today say, they were just following law and order. Now the Nazis who admitted that they killed human beings have to commit suicide. They had to commit suicide.
We're talking about "emergencies" as defined by "a health care practitioner," which is to say, the abortionist who is ideologically committed the non-personhood of the unborn making a decision as thin a warrant as "mental health" with NO requirement to take into the consideration the personhood and rights of the party being killed. This is New York law. This is the status quo. This is where a black fetus is more likely to be aborted than born.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
I am not going to prove a negative for you.


We already have what is allowed by law in New York, a law which allows a mother's mental health needs to absolutely supersede a baby's right to life through 40 weeks on the say so of a "health care practitioner."
This law is wrong even in no person were ever wrongly killed under the law. We don't need to entertain the horrors, but people like Abby Johnson has plenty to share, as do other people who used to be in the industry.
Jinnistan wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:07 am
IPfft. No. I was going to some lengths to tell you what the legislative language said and meant. The bill, rather than Tran's stammering, is what would have the weight of law here.
No, you were telling us what Tran meant by her misspeaking, not just the bill.
Post Reply