Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-02-2019, 12:08 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Just curious, why did the majority of squatters get fed up with you? What specifically was it about you that teed them off, or have you even reflected on that yet?

Mainly my nocturnal slacker nature. For anarchists, a lot of them were remarkably staid and uptight in their ways. The ones who were less so (and actually hung out with me) were, as I described, very much in my corner.

Oh, and I asked one time (in nearly three months living there) to use the TV to watch the U.S. Open men’s final. The noive!
  #102  
Old 03-02-2019, 07:38 AM
Cyros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlantic Canada
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

Oh, and I asked one time (in nearly three months living there) to use the TV to watch the U.S. Open men’s final. The noive!
You should have snuck in at night and set up a table and chairs around the TV. Then you could have claimed squatters rights. 😂
  #103  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:13 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Now you're back to the word salad, your other defining trait.
GIGO makes more sense than you ever do.
  #104  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:02 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You try to attack me for not knowing every detail of this bill, but your takes on it are fundamentally ignorant, dishonest, or both.
Nothing you have posted in any way demonstrates that the criticisms here of your position on this bill are in any way ignorant or dishonest.

In particular, you and your quoted source appear to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting a fundamental point:
Quote:
[...] neglecting to make clear to the American people that they do, in fact, oppose infanticide and believe babies born alive after a botched abortion deserve medical care consistent with similarly situated babies who are born under any other circumstance. [...]

[...] if Democrats can’t support a bill that penalizes denying proper care to a baby who survives an abortion [...]
A non-viable fetus that briefly survives induced delivery during a crisis pregnancy termination is NOT analogous to "similarly situated babies who are born under any other circumstance", and refraining from temporarily resuscitating such a fetus is NOT "denying proper care".

Criminalizing doctors' and patients' informed individual choices about how to care for such non-viable fetuses during their brief existence outside the womb is NOT protecting "babies born alive". Republicans are, as usual, lying when they claim that Democrats' insistence on letting pregnant women and doctors make these difficult choices without draconic state interference means that Democrats support killing babies. And you are, as usual, credulously falling for their PR spin when you panic about Democratic legislators sticking up for proper medical procedure in this situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Here, let's hear from someone who worked in the Obama White House:
Your tendency to prioritize unthinking ideological loyalties over specific facts and principles is one of the characteristics that makes you so bad at informed debate. The fact that Michael Wear, the author of your linked article and an anti-abortion Democrat, worked in the Obama administration's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships doesn't automatically mean he is someone we should agree with on the issue of abortion. But you somehow imagine that because he's a Democrat and an Obama supporter, quoting him about his (disingenuously slanted) support for this bill should persuade us that he must be right.

You know, SlackerInc, if you would just come right out and state that you're ethically opposed to abortion rights and you don't think Democrats should vote for measures that protect or expand abortion rights, I'd have much more respect for your position. But your smarmy concern-trolling attitude of "oh noes, the Democrats are hurting themselves politically by not supporting Republican undermining of abortion rights and thereby endorsing the Republican message that DEMOCRATS ARE BABY KILLERS, I SAID DEMOCRATS ARE BABY KILLERS!!" is contemptible.

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-02-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #105  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:24 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
GIGO makes more sense than you ever do.
Thanks for that; although, unlike a consumer of conspiracy salads here, I would like at least a bit of advise on the grammar. As I pointed before, I accept my shortcomings as an ESL, but no such luck can be expected about SlackerInc admitting that he is being misled on many issues by "mainstream media"

I still find how disingenuous he was about how he found about Lomborg, the lukewarm climate change misleader.

We got so far as the Slacker reporting that he saw Lomborg "interviewed in the mainstream media" so he thought he was legit, problem is that most serious media, scientists and even economist peers of Lomborg, report that he is a hack.

The teachable moment here is that in recent years Lomborg appears mostly in Fox news, the WSJ and other right wing media sources and he was even invited by some in the "intellectual dark web" podcasts, increasing the range of a big misleader in the subject of climate change.

Unwilling to learn if something is amiss, the Slacker managed to find a cite were Lomborg accepts that climate is changing because of the human emissions and push for a carbon tax (that when one looks closely, his proposal is a very weak one on how to apply a tax to deal with the issue), but then the Slacker willfully ignored plenty of evidence that Lomborg's game is to accept some science, but in the end, to advise listeners or readers of FOX and other alt media to do little about the issue.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-02-2019 at 02:25 PM.
  #106  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:52 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyros View Post
You should have snuck in at night and set up a table and chairs around the TV. Then you could have claimed squatters rights. ��

LMAO!! Well played. How did you make the laughing emoji, BTW? I don't see it as a choice, and when I have tried in the past to use emojis from my phone, they don't come through after I click "post".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
A non-viable fetus that briefly survives induced delivery during a crisis pregnancy termination is NOT analogous to "similarly situated babies who are born under any other circumstance", and refraining from temporarily resuscitating such a fetus is NOT "denying proper care".

Criminalizing doctors' and patients' informed individual choices about how to care for such non-viable fetuses during their brief existence outside the womb is NOT protecting "babies born alive". Republicans are, as usual, lying when they claim that Democrats' insistence on letting pregnant women and doctors make these difficult choices without draconic state interference means that Democrats support killing babies. And you are, as usual, credulously falling for their PR spin when you panic about Democratic legislators sticking up for proper medical procedure in this situation.

You're still not getting it. I don't give a shit if the proper procedure according to experts in the field is X, Y, or Z. There are SO many issues in public policy where that is the case, yet the public is overwhelmingly against following the expert course of advice. If we just follow the experts in those cases, heedless of the politics, we soon lose our chance to have any influence over policy at all. It's strange how hard this is to grasp for so many people.

Not to mention that presumably you would support reducing the number of doctors to sign off on late term abortion for similar reasons. Yet in France, which consistently gets extremely high marks for their health care system, two doctors must sign off on any abortion past twelve weeks. (If I had my 'druthers, I'd have us take on the French policies via constitutional amendment and leave the question permanently settled.)

I mean,do you think Schumer decried this bill as "the worst kind of Washington politics" because the GOP was making a move that would backfire on them? Do you think he is sitting back and gloating at how well Democrats won this PR war?
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #107  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:57 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Maybe it's the worst kind of Washington politics because it seeks to make political hay from from the pain of those who have to make this kind of decision in the first place. Yeah, sorry your child was born technically alive but with a completely absent brain stem, but in order to score political points we need to make your pain a big damn deal and magnify the suffering of you and yours!
  #108  
Old 03-02-2019, 10:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Maybe it's the worst kind of Washington politics because it seeks to make political hay from from the pain of those who have to make this kind of decision in the first place. Yeah, sorry your child was born technically alive but with a completely absent brain stem, but in order to score political points we need to make your pain a big damn deal and magnify the suffering of you and yours!
Yep, and I have to add that the concern trolling needs to have more than one poll to tell us if most people swallowed the Republican trash or that this issue means defeat for the Democrats, as the generic polling shows, not much has changed since February 26, according to Harris interactive who is one of the few that has bothered to keep going with the generic ballot polling.

The latest poll showed that a congressional Democrat gets about 42% vs a Republican with 36%. That 5 or 6 point difference has been very constant ever since the Abortion vote and for the recent past.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...eneric-ballot/
  #109  
Old 03-03-2019, 12:13 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ticide-1231437

Quote:
Democrats are frustrated by the right’s effective messaging on the “born alive” bill.

To counter the accusations of "infanticide," Democrats say Republicans are misrepresenting why, when and how frequently abortions take place late in pregnancy. And they stress that if a doctor does harm a baby who was born alive — as in the notorious case of Philadelphia physician Kermit Gosnell — prosecutors bring murder charges under existing law.

A rare dissenter is Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), one of very few anti-abortion Democrats remaining in Congress. He told POLITICO that while he understands his colleagues’ arguments that the bill criminalizes acts that are already a crime, he sees no downside to passing duplicative laws to protect newborns.

“I want to make sure there’s no chance we don’t have the full measure of protection,” he said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office did not respond to multiple questions on whether she is allowing any members of her caucus to sign the GOP’s petition aimed at forcing a floor vote on the legislation.

Democrats blocked the bill in the Senate on Monday, and GOP efforts to force a House vote appear likely to fall short as well. But Republicans say they won’t drop the issue, as they hope to mobilize anti-abortion voters and box in Democrats with as many uncomfortable votes as they can manage.

Best case for Democrats here is that they weather the storm and it doesn't hurt much. But if you think this is actually what winning the news cycle or the messaging war looks like, you've got another thing coming.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-03-2019 at 12:14 AM.
  #110  
Old 03-03-2019, 12:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ticide-1231437




Best case for Democrats here is that they weather the storm and it doesn't hurt much. But if you think this is actually what winning the news cycle or the messaging war looks like, you've got another thing coming.
As noted already, it has not even been a blip in the general support for the Democrats, and as the article, that it is full of the unsupported opinion of anti abortion proponents, the recent reality can not be denied: "In 2018, voters overwhelmingly rejected attacks on health care and reproductive rights — we need only look at the U.S. House of Representatives for proof," said Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen.




(and.. so much for the weekend flounce )

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-03-2019 at 12:23 AM.
  #111  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:10 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
"In 2018, voters overwhelmingly rejected attacks on health care and reproductive rights — we need only look at the U.S. House of Representatives for proof," said Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen.

Every special interest lobby thinks elections are won/lost because the party did/didn't support their line. The Sierra Club presumably thinks the election is proof that environmental issues are what really matters; BLM thinks it's police shootings; etc. We can't know for sure what engineered the election results, but it being abortion rights is a dubious claim. Looks to me like it was mainly the Trump administration being a treasonous dumpster fire that House Republicans refused to lift a finger to try to put out. Maybe aided by the attacks on Obamacare and particularly pre-existing conditions.

This kind of claim is also made even murkier by the fact that Republican candidates got way more votes than they did in 2014 when they had a great night. It's just that Democrats got way, way more votes than they did in 2014. So it doesn't really fit a narrative of all these voters leaving the GOP to join the Democratic side.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #112  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:11 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don't give a shit if the proper procedure according to experts in the field is X, Y, or Z.
Your admission that you "don't give a shit" about what knowledgeable medical experts recommend regarding this policy is not exactly inspiring confidence in your judgement about what policy legislators ought to be supporting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
There are SO many issues in public policy where that is the case, yet the public is overwhelmingly against following the expert course of advice.
Well, the solution in that case is to help educate the public about the facts of the issues. Otherwise, you just continue to get crappy public policy because you're just following ill-informed popular preferences.

This is how we got so deep in the shit on policy regarding climate change, for example: Malicious manipulators encouraged the public to believe a bunch of bullshit on the issue, and not enough people spoke out against the bullshit or stood up for effective policy. Craven acquiescence and deference to the malicious manipulators didn't achieve anything of substance for Democrats on the issue of climate change, and it's not going to achieve anything of substance for Democrats on the issue of abortion rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Not to mention that presumably you would support reducing the number of doctors to sign off on late term abortion for similar reasons.
Why on earth would you presume that? I'm not at all against doctors following proper medical procedures, and I certainly don't think that abortions should be entirely unregulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Best case for Democrats here is that they weather the storm and it doesn't hurt much.
No, the best case for Democrats here is that their supporters get energized to push back against the Republicans' malicious manipulation, educate some of their fellow voters (instead of just "not giving a shit") about the realities of third-trimester abortions and the necessity for doctors and patients to make decisions about them without ignorant legislators trying to railroad them into stupid one-size-fits-all procedural requirements, and expose the manipulative Republican lies on the subject.

Are you going to be doing any of that stuff to support the Democrats whose political success you claim to care so much about? Or are you just going to go on splattering your concern-trolling all over the internet, scolding Democrats for making a principled decision because it might make them vulnerable to Republicans' malicious manipulative slanders that you can't even be arsed to contradict?

The more you post on this subject, SlackerInc, the more you seem like you're actually ideologically in favor of draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion and actually want the Republicans to successfully bully Democrats into endorsing them. And you pretend that what you're concerned about is the "political optics" for the Democrats because you fondly imagine that will make you more successful as a political "influencer" on a left-leaning messageboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
But if you think this is actually what winning the news cycle or the messaging war looks like, you've got another thing coming.
If you think your roundly mocked performance is actually what being a canny political "influencer" on the internet looks like, you've really got another think coming.

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-03-2019 at 01:12 AM.
  #113  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:34 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Every special interest lobby thinks elections are won/lost because the party did/didn't support their line. The Sierra Club presumably thinks the election is proof that environmental issues are what really matters; BLM thinks it's police shootings; etc. We can't know for sure what engineered the election results, but it being abortion rights is a dubious claim. Looks to me like it was mainly the Trump administration being a treasonous dumpster fire that House Republicans refused to lift a finger to try to put out. Maybe aided by the attacks on Obamacare and particularly pre-existing conditions.

This kind of claim is also made even murkier by the fact that Republican candidates got way more votes than they did in 2014 when they had a great night. It's just that Democrats got way, way more votes than they did in 2014. So it doesn't really fit a narrative of all these voters leaving the GOP to join the Democratic side.
Good thing that I added a conditional there, I did not look only for the recent past but noticed that even recently there has not been an erosion of the general support for the Democrats in Congress.
  #114  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:20 AM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Maybe it's the worst kind of Washington politics because it seeks to make political hay from from the pain of those who have to make this kind of decision in the first place. Yeah, sorry your child was born technically alive but with a completely absent brain stem, but in order to score political points we need to make your pain a big damn deal and magnify the suffering of you and yours!
Making that sort of "hard decision" about other people's pain gives a certain type of person a sort of no-cost catharsis boner. "It pains me so badly to declare that you'll have to suffer for the greater good. Poor child".
  #115  
Old 03-03-2019, 09:54 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're still not getting it. I don't give a shit if the proper procedure according to experts in the field is X, Y, or Z. There are SO many issues in public policy where that is the case, yet the public is overwhelmingly against following the expert course of advice. If we just follow the experts in those cases, heedless of the politics, we soon lose our chance to have any influence over policy at all. It's strange how hard this is to grasp for so many people.
So your position is that you should promote whatever position has the most public support, regardless of its advisability, and that ignoring experts on policy issues is the best course of action if it’ll get votes?
  #116  
Old 03-03-2019, 11:19 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
So your position is that you should promote whatever position has the most public support, regardless of its advisability, and that ignoring experts on policy issues is the best course of action if it’ll get votes?

No, but thanks for entering the strawman sweepstakes.

My position is that you don't take inflexible stands on principle when public opinion is 3 to 1 against you, when what's at stake is a relatively rare corner case that even at worst isn't leaving kids hungry and homeless (or in cages at the border), which potentially happens on a massive scale if we let Republicans lure us into a political trap.

Again, we can win in the short term even without being terribly canny, but the risk is like what happened after Watergate. One or two good cycles and then our advantage was frittered away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, the solution in that case is to help educate the public about the facts of the issues.

Oh yeah, great. Nice short term project. Maybe you can bear fruit with it in a few decades, if you haven't ceded control of education to Betsy DeVos and her ilk for so long by then that it's a hopeless cause.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
The more you post on this subject, SlackerInc, the more you seem like you're actually ideologically in favor of draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion and actually want the Republicans to successfully bully Democrats into endorsing them. And you pretend that what you're concerned about is the "political optics" for the Democrats

You're damn right I ideologically support what you call "draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion". As do an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a large chunk of Democrats. That's precisely what helps me see clearly how bad the optics are here.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #117  
Old 03-03-2019, 12:22 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're damn right I ideologically support what you call "draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion". As do an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a large chunk of Democrats. That's precisely what helps me see clearly how bad the optics are here.
In your "expert" opinion, what are the common reasons for late-term abortions, and how would the recently failed-to-launch stupidity in the Senate fix that?
  #118  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:05 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
In your "expert" opinion, what are the common reasons for late-term abortions, and how would the recently failed-to-launch stupidity in the Senate fix that?
Why the fuck do you think he has facts? He's made it very clear that he disdains facts.
  #119  
Old 03-03-2019, 08:05 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're damn right I ideologically support what you call "draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion".
Exactly which draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion to you support? Are you actually in favor of the measures proposed in the failed Republican bill, and your professed concern about Democrats being hurt politically by opposing it was just a smokescreen for your attempt to push Democrats into going along with it, because those measures are actually what you want to see enacted?

If so, then why don't you have the guts to just come right out and declare "In my opinion, this bill is morally and medically correct in the restrictions it proposes concerning third-trimester abortions and it ought to be enacted", instead of sanctimoniously pretending that you don't care what the right policy choice is but you're just soooo sooo concerned that the Democrats might possibly lose votes over it?

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-03-2019 at 08:05 PM.
  #120  
Old 03-03-2019, 08:18 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No, but thanks for entering the strawman sweepstakes.
It’s not a strawman. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
I don't give a shit if the proper procedure according to experts in the field is X, Y, or Z.
If you don’t mean it, you shouldn’t say it.
  #121  
Old 03-03-2019, 08:34 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You're damn right I ideologically support what you call "draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion". As do an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a large chunk of Democrats.
What Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to is elective third-trimester abortions, which are not legal in any state, nor is there any significant effort to legalize them. (Nor should there be, IMO: the state's interest in protecting the life of a healthy viable fetus at that point can reasonably be held to override the state's interest in protecting the autonomy and reproductive choice of the pregnant woman carrying said fetus, although not her life or health.)

But a bill to subject doctors to criminal penalties if they don't apply painful resuscitation techniques to nonviable fetuses that temporarily survive delivery during a crisis pregnancy termination is not in any way protecting the lives of unborn babies. It's merely demanding that doctors be forced to torture the nonviable fetus outside the womb until it dies painfully.

The fact that many Americans may not understand the difference between those two situations does not excuse Republicans from callously attempting to exploit their confusion, and inflict unnecessary suffering on fetuses, patients and doctors, in order to smear Democrats. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for volunteering for the Republican team on this malicious campaign.
  #122  
Old 03-03-2019, 09:21 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I don't want to smear Democrats. I want Democrats to be smarter and not shamble haplessly into the smear traps the GOP sets. Big difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
In your "expert" opinion, what are the common reasons for late-term abortions, and how would the recently failed-to-launch stupidity in the Senate fix that?

I'm not saying the bill would be efficacious in some policy wonk sense. There were some political reporters a few years ago who wrote a book with the thesis that in politics and government you have "hacks" and "wonks". I'm a hack of the Carville/Begala variety (not that I'm saying I'm as talented as those guys: I'm definitely "not worthy")..

But even hacks must try to work with wonks (and vice versa), so here's a wonky answer to the first part of your question:

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/...after-20-weeks
Quote:
Results: Women aged 20–24 were more likely than those aged 25–34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks’ gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Exactly which draconian restrictions on third-trimester abortion to you support? Are you actually in favor of the measures proposed in the failed Republican bill, and your professed concern about Democrats being hurt politically by opposing it was just a smokescreen for your attempt to push Democrats into going along with it, because those measures are actually what you want to see enacted?

If so, then why don't you have the guts to just come right out and declare "In my opinion, this bill is morally and medically correct in the restrictions it proposes concerning third-trimester abortions and it ought to be enacted", instead of sanctimoniously pretending that you don't care what the right policy choice is but you're just soooo sooo concerned that the Democrats might possibly lose votes over it?

Because if public opinion were 3-1 in the other direction, I would NOT favor Democrats' voting for the bill, regardless of my ideological support.

To take a related example to illustrate: I ideologically support reparations for slavery, but if public opinion is 3-1 against, I would not favor Democrats (especially presidential candidates) speaking out in favor of it.

Or do you remember Michael Newdow, the atheist who made a splash in the '00s suing over the Pledge of Allegiance? In response, congressional Republicans led a group out onto the Capitol steps to show their patriotism by reciting the Pledge. That's really eyeroll-inducing to me as an atheist and a big First Amendment guy. But you know what? When Democrats cravenly went out and joined their Republican colleagues in this nauseatingly jingoistic display, I breathed a huge side of relief. The last thing we needed was to give the other side ammunition in that fight, when I know the overwhelming majority of voters are going to recoil at any affiliation with "godlessness".

Getting back to the "born alive" bill: I don't believe this will actually apply to enough people that it really makes much difference to me substantively whether it is passed into law or not. It's all about the political optics and the messaging. Those are precisely the things we shouldn't take a stand on, no matter how we feel about the substance. If it's mostly symbolic, and public opinion is starkly against you, just give in. Discretion is the better part of valor!
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-03-2019 at 09:24 PM.
  #123  
Old 03-03-2019, 09:45 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Or do you remember Michael Newdow, the atheist who made a splash in the '00s suing over the Pledge of Allegiance? In response, congressional Republicans led a group out onto the Capitol steps to show their patriotism by reciting the Pledge. That's really eyeroll-inducing to me as an atheist and a big First Amendment guy. But you know what? When Democrats cravenly went out and joined their Republican colleagues in this nauseatingly jingoistic display, I breathed a huge side of relief.
This isn't about politicians' PR stunts like reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or wearing flag lapel pins and such. This is about legislation that actually affects people's lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
Getting back to the "born alive" bill: I don't believe this will actually apply to enough people that it really makes much difference to me substantively whether it is passed into law or not.
Several hundred abortions per year are performed after the 24th week of pregnancy in the US on account of fetal anomalies. What's your cutoff for "enough people" in order for it to matter "substantively" that they not be forced to participate in needlessly torturing non-viable fetuses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
It's all about the political optics and the messaging.
So why aren't you working to change the "messaging" by pointing out the Republicans' callous lies on this subject?

The reason I don't trust your bona fides on this issue is that you seem to have all the time in the world to reinforce the message that Democrats are supporting evil babykillings and should stop doing it for their own good, but no time at all for spreading the more accurate message that the aforementioned message is founded on a partisan Republican lie.

Last edited by Kimstu; 03-03-2019 at 09:46 PM.
  #124  
Old 03-03-2019, 10:10 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
The reason I don't trust your bona fides on this issue is that you seem to have all the time in the world to reinforce the message that Democrats are supporting evil babykillings and should stop doing it for their own good, but no time at all for spreading the more accurate message that the aforementioned message is founded on a partisan Republican lie.
As this is a roast of him, it has to be noticed here that he seems to fall for similar weaponizing of lies that can be seen coming from the Republicans or very conservative circles and media regarding global warming, differences of intelligence among "races" and other subjects.

As I pointed before, there were many intelligent or bright people that fell for Uri Geller or Immanuel Velikowski, so seeing guys from the "intellectual dark web" falling for modern versions of that kind of ignorance and supported now by well funded reactionary media is not so surprising.
  #125  
Old 03-03-2019, 10:11 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Whatever, if you go look at the countless posts I made in Elections in 2016, there is no way a reasonable person can interpret my posting history in toto to represent even a subtle or sneaky effort to lobby for the GOP position on most issues being the correct one.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #126  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:17 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,266
Right. You aren't saying that Republican policies aren't wrong— just that it would be a terrible mistake to be perceived as opposing them.
  #127  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:21 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,101
He's just concerned, is all.
  #128  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:00 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
I was too busy this weekend to respond to all of your drivel, SlackerInc, but I do want to address one point -- that this doesn't hurt only infants who are born despite an abortion. You were incredulous because apparently in your simple mind, pregnancy always ends in either abortion or a healthy baby. Well, news flash-- it's a lot more complicated then that, and under this abortion of a bill (see what I did there?) a nonviable infant who is born during a miscarriage -- ie the mom goes into labor early on her own -- would also undergo pointless, stressful, and pointless resuscitation attempts, with no doctor discretion possible.
  #129  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:06 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I was too busy this weekend to respond to all of your drivel, SlackerInc, but I do want to address one point -- that this doesn't hurt only infants who are born despite an abortion. You were incredulous because apparently in your simple mind, pregnancy always ends in either abortion or a healthy baby. Well, news flash-- it's a lot more complicated then that, and under this abortion of a bill (see what I did there?) a nonviable infant who is born during a miscarriage -- ie the mom goes into labor early on her own -- would also undergo pointless, stressful, and pointless resuscitation attempts, with no doctor discretion possible.
Now, now, the important thing is how he perceives the optics, not that it will help no one and actually hurt some people. It's the optics.
  #130  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:18 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
Don't make excuses for him, he admitted that he believes that performing painful CPR on a deformed infant with half a lung and no heart is the correct policy, because reasons.
  #131  
Old 03-04-2019, 07:54 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Don't make excuses for him, he admitted that he believes that performing painful CPR on a deformed infant with half a lung and no heart is the correct policy, because reasons.
I actually wasn't...I must not have gotten my sarcastic tone just right.
  #132  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:25 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
I actually wasn't...I must not have gotten my sarcastic tone just right.
Oh, I knew you were being sarcastic, that's the tone I was going for too, while also reminding people just how vile what he's said is, since he's gonna jump back in here and call me stupid again.
  #133  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:55 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You were incredulous because apparently in your simple mind, pregnancy always ends in either abortion or a healthy baby.

I'd call that a strawman if you were smart enough to construct one. In this case, I actually accept that you might really think this is my belief. Needless to say (or it should be, at any rate), you are nowhere near correct.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-04-2019 at 11:56 PM.
  #134  
Old 03-05-2019, 08:02 AM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'd call that a strawman if you were smart enough to construct one. In this case, I actually accept that you might really think this is my belief. Needless to say (or it should be, at any rate), you are nowhere near correct.
Then why do you keep insisting that 1) this bill will only affect a tiny portion of people and 2) these people will only be women who attempted a late term abortion? You have had your error explained to you in this thread multiple times by multiple people. So either the disconnect is that you don't understand how pregnancy works, or you're being disingenuous. I was being generous and assuming the former.
  #135  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:37 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,599
Is this thread available in podcast form?

CMC fnord!
__________________
It has come to my attention that people are stupid.
We, the smart ones, should be coming up with plans for how to remedy this, but we're all too busy watching Battlestar Galactica. — wierdaaron
  #136  
Old 03-05-2019, 06:25 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Then why do you keep insisting that 1) this bill will only affect a tiny portion of people and 2) these people will only be women who attempted a late term abortion? You have had your error explained to you in this thread multiple times by multiple people. So either the disconnect is that you don't understand how pregnancy works, or you're being disingenuous. I was being generous and assuming the former.

I have had four children, and have been very involved with all four pregnancies, going to all midwife or OB visits as the case may be, staying with the mother throughout labor, and holding my babies postpartum to give them skin to skin contact until my wives were out of recovery from their c-sections (in three of the four births). I was the only expecting father on my eldest son's Babycenter due date club. I've read several books on the topic, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about pregnancy.

Honestly, how many miscarriages occur in a hospital or doctor's office? In the cases where that does happen, maybe some viable fetuses will have some resuscitation attempted on them. So what? Having a miscarriage is very sad. Some efforts by medical staff doesn't make it significantly more sad. I mean, WTF: "I was enjoying my miscarriage until they brought out the resuscitation bag, and that just really ruined the whole experience for me"?!?
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #137  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:13 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Honestly, how many miscarriages occur in a hospital or doctor's office?
About half of all miscarriages are completed with a medical procedure in a clinic or hospital, which means about half a million annually in the US. Most of those, of course, occur too early for there to be any chance of fetal survival, but extremely premature birth is common enough that doctors advocate developing routine procedures for dealing with it:
Quote:
If clinicians believe in maximal interventions for all newborns at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, their actions may result in a small increase in newborn survival—but at the cost of painful and unnecessary interventions in many newborns who are destined to die. Finding the right balance along the broad spectrum from expectant management to aggressive and extended resuscitation is challenging. Clearly there is no “right answer” with these extremely difficult decisions.
But those "extremely difficult decisions" are exactly what the Republican bill is attempting to railroad with invasive legislative interference in medical practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
So what? Having a miscarriage is very sad. Some efforts by medical staff doesn't make it significantly more sad.
Having to go through the miscarriage or premature birth of a nonviable fetus at any stage of pregnancy is indeed very sad. I don't think you're really competent to judge how much more traumatic the experience would be if the attending physicians were legally forced to subject the fetus to what doctors themselves describe as "painful and unnecessary interventions".

These are, as the linked article notes, extremely difficult and complicated decisions with no one-size-fits-all "right answer". Your attempts to trivialize the malignity of the Republican efforts to hijack these traumatic medical crises for the sake of political showboating are doing your own "optics" no good whatsoever.
  #138  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:24 PM
Reindeer Flotilla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Is this thread available in podcast form?
"You're soaking in it."

<Withdraws hand quickly>

Last edited by Reindeer Flotilla; 03-05-2019 at 07:25 PM.
  #139  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:33 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
"There's no right answer" doesn't appear to be the philosophy of either side here.

So we've got one side offering an oversimplified "solution" to a problem that isn't significant enough to justify the attention of the Senate on the merits. But opposing it is not going to go over well with voters we need, and voting for it isn't going to do massive harm. So just vote for the fucking thing and move on, FFS.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #140  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:44 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
I think everybody else has moved on:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...eneric-ballot/

No change on the +6 support for a democratic congress critter by registered voters according to Harris in the last two weeks.


Also, after a few weeks too, Trump's polls are going down again.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

To be concerned about the trolling we need to... well, see evidence to be concerned.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-05-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #141  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:59 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Like I said, my hope (since it was too late to change the vote) was that we will weather the storm. And at this point, it sounds like we have. Great! But it's not fun to watch Democrats play with fire like this. Eventually, we risk getting burned.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice.
  #142  
Old 03-05-2019, 08:43 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
"There's no right answer" doesn't appear to be the philosophy of either side here.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the side that's voting against the bill is in fact supporting the overwhelming consensus of doctors who are saying that there isn't any one-size-fits-all "right answer" for these traumatic situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
So just vote for the fucking thing and move on, FFS.
Or how about you just stop lying about the fucking thing and stop trying to pressure Democrats into voting for a malicious and counterproductive fucking thing manufactured out of Republican lies?
  #143  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:27 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,975
Slacker starts a thread about how MFA won't work because people want to feel superior to other people, eventually reveals that he's actually the one who feels that way. I really don't even know what to say to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I will add an anecdote that does not necessarily reflect terribly well on me, but is illustrative of the psychology I am talking about. At the place where I got my IVAPS machine, the woman in charge of billing pulled up my insurance and exclaimed “Wow, you have such a low deductible! I wish mine was this low.” I have to admit, I took a lot of satisfaction out of that. And I never really thought “oh it’s too bad she doesn’t have the same thing: I wish everyone did”. Instead, I felt that little frisson of satisfaction you get when everyone is envious that you have a nicer car or TV or whatever then they do. It’s not pretty, but it’s human nature and we have to take it into account.

ETA: And rereading what I just wrote, I can’t help but have a feeling of pride, like “hey, awesome: now all these people on the board know I have great insurance”. It’s ridiculous, it’s petty, it’s awful really, but it’s psychologically very powerful.
  #144  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:11 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Slacker starts a thread about how MFA won't work because people want to feel superior to other people, eventually reveals that he's actually the one who feels that way. I really don't even know what to say to this.
Cut him some slack(er). He's just channeling his inner LBJ:
Quote:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #145  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:40 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Slacker starts a thread about how MFA won't work because people want to feel superior to other people, eventually reveals that he's actually the one who feels that way. I really don't even know what to say to this.
I suspect he thinks all people feel this way, just like he appears to suspect that all or most white people secretly agree with him about black people. He seems to have trouble with the concept that other people might think very differently than he does.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-03-2019 at 08:40 AM.
  #146  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:40 AM
you with the face is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Slacker starts a thread about how MFA won't work because people want to feel superior to other people, eventually reveals that he's actually the one who feels that way. I really don't even know what to say to this.
People who are accomplished and have plenty of other things to take pride in cannot fathom feeling proud they have a lower deductible or premium than someone else.

So all he just did was advertise how small, unhappy, and unfulfilled he is. Just like all the other sad sacks that would rather keep the status quo than give up the right of feeling better than someone else.

Last edited by you with the face; 08-03-2019 at 08:42 AM.
  #147  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:51 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
People who are accomplished and have plenty of other things to take pride in cannot fathom feeling proud they have a lower deductible or premium than someone else.

So all he just did was advertise how small, unhappy, and unfulfilled he is. Just like all the other sad sacks that would rather keep the status quo than give up the right of feeling better than someone else.
I had a pharmacist say something sort of similar when I got my scripts filled- something was $0, something else was$1, and she remarked that I have great insurance to cover these so well (or something) and you know what I felt?

Grateful. I didn't feel proud or gleeful that others didn't have insurance that was great. I was grateful that I have insurance that covers my needs. the only comparison I made was to myself, when I had less than great- or no!- insurance at all. Other people didn't enter into my thinking at all.


ETA: if fact, if everyone had great insurance, I works be thrilled. Because it would mean that if something happened with this job, I'd still have great insurance instead of being fucked.

Last edited by raventhief; 08-03-2019 at 08:52 AM.
  #148  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:53 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I am at least being pragmatic and trying to get at least basic health care coverage (if not necessarily as good as mine) for everyone who does not currently have it. You apparently feel that it is better to sit on a high horse and express condemnation of anyone not as morally pure as you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I said right up front that the American voters who are decisive in national elections are not great people. But we have to curry favor with them to win even if it is nauseating. Would you prefer to just be pure and lose? How many people get healthcare that way?

And if you think swing voters are not as shitty and selfish as that, look again at the poll numbers I linked. Only 26% would support MFA if it would “lead to delays in some people getting certain medical tests and treatments”. 26% is actually a large number of people. Many tens of millions, and I’m sure you are one of them. But it’s not enough to keep from giving completely shellacked by the Republicans in the election—in which case you end up without half a loaf, or even a crumb of a loaf.

Just in case my wording there is not clear, that is 26% of all Americans, not of swing voters.

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
I had a pharmacist say something sort of similar when I got my scripts filled- something was $0, something else was$1, and she remarked that I have great insurance to cover these so well (or something)

Epic #humblebrag there

YWTF: Are you not aware that those “sad sacks” include swing voters in Wisconsin?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-03-2019 at 08:58 AM.
  #149  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:02 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
BTW, Andy, you are the one who has trouble imagining how others feel. You were so ready to believe I was into the whole “red pill” thing until I showed you that I had stated in unequivocal terms my condemnation for them well before you posted.
  #150  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:14 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BTW, Andy, you are the one who has trouble imagining how others feel. You were so ready to believe I was into the whole “red pill” thing until I showed you that I had stated in unequivocal terms my condemnation for them well before you posted.
Congratulations, sir. You may claim your prize for being: Not the most deplorable person in the world. That and $5 will get you a happy meal.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-03-2019 at 09:15 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017