supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
I am currently reading Moral Politics by George Lakoff. Excellent book. If you want to understand why Oddjob thinks the way he does, read this book. He is the poster child for the Strict Father morality model.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 7 years ago
I am glad you are finding the book as elucidating as I did, Richard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
If it explains how Oddjob thinks, it must be a masterpiece.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1350) 7 years ago
I typically shy away from anything that tries to wedge 316 million people's views into 2 vertical silos of thought. This book however was one of the few exceptions. While I still think one of the deepest roots to our current problems is the clinging we do to a Left vs Right facade of democracy, this book takes a noble stab at trying to explain why.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Richard:

You don't know Jack about me or how I think, because you have never been there. I went to the same parochial Gulag you did for 12 years, so I understand your god problem. I just let it go. UM taught me to be a good Marxist for 20 years, so I know exactly how Leftists think.

I've been one.

I raised my kids to be independent thinkers and they are. Some voted for Obama, some didn't vote. I don't care. They have their own lives to live and their own choices to make. They do still come visit their old man quite often, in spite of having to listen to my s**t about voting for Obama.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Great, now he's going to quote to us from Saul Alinsky.

Everything I needed to know about oddjob I learned when he told us that religion was necessary to keep the rubes in line, even though he himself doesn't believe.

Whatever.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Everything I needed to know about Bridgier, I learned, the first time he called me a racist.

Whatever.......
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
Hmmm. ......are you now disavowing all your previous racist posts on milescity.com, Oddjob?

Interesting ploy. I am interested in seeing how this plays out for you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Whoa... all am saying is the book does a great job of explaining some things. I am hopefully it will help me explain why I believe what I believe, and help understand where you might be coming from. It's all good.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
"Hmmm. ......are you now disavowing all your previous racist posts on milescity.com, Oddjob?"

Pretty tall words, Gunnar. Perhaps you would care to produce one (in context)?

And while you are at it, dig up a few of yours about how the country will be a better place when all the old WHITE men(Republicans, Teabaggers) are eliminated. Nothing racist or bigoted there.....

BS Richard. You run another label up the flagpole when you know all the free thinkers here will shake their heads in agreement that now Oddjob beats his wife and kids....

Give me a break.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
And... when did I call you a racist?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Here's one from "The Second after you die"



"He's a proud supporter of them Juan, as long as the guns are pointed at people of the proper hue."

I only had 30 seconds to look. When I have time, I'll dig up more. It wont be too difficult.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Cliven Bundy, man of moral courage, Michael Brown.... ?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
Just as black people get a free pass to use the n-word, so do I when it comes to making fun of old white men. Ask Bridgier.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
The commissioner will allow it.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Pretty much what I figured I'd get.

"making fun of old white men"

Yeah. It always comes down to that...It's just "making fun". It's "just a joke". The standard response from Liberals to hide their hatred and bigotry when it comes back to haunt them.

But I expect that from the MC.commies. You can't put forth a rational argument FOR big government; FOR oppressive taxes, porous boarders, militant and lawless bureaucracies, crooked or incompetent "leaders" and Democrats, so your response is always "shut up". "You're a racist!". You're a bigot!".

"Shut up!".

You want Alinsky, Bridgier? There he is. You guys are fair to middlin' practitioners of the Leftist creed.

Actually it is rather humorous though, because it demonstrates how much time you invest in actual thinking, before blowing it off for the knee-jerk response. Granted, the exception is Richard, who really needs to drink more beer and watch more football on Sundays instead of hand-wringing over true believers.

My only wish is that Buck Showalter would come back so we could get a little more originality in the insults. Kinda same-ole, same-ole around here without him....
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago


Poor oddy, part of the great oppressed white majority.

But at least now he can get gaymarried! At the very least, an avowed libertarian such as himself will surely be happy to see the expansion of freedom to his gay friends and neighbors.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (10/7/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
Oh. My. God.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
And I can too make an argument for "porous boarders", as the college kids who used to rent my house drank alcohol like fishes, yet they always paid their rent on time.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
"Boarders" is the new "moran".
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Perhaps a sample is in order:

I should say at the outset that, though I have used the term “Strict Father” to name the model given, there are variants of the model that can be used by a strict mother as well. There are many mothers, especially tough single mothers, who function as strict fathers. But the model is an idealization, and is intended here only as that. I believe it is a cognitively real idealized model, that is, a model that Americans grow up knowing implicitly. There are variations on it and I will discuss some of them below. The Strict Father model presupposes a folk theory of human nature that I will call “folk behaviorism”: People, left to their own devices, tend simply to satisfy their desires. But, people will make themselves do things they don’t want to do in order to get rewards; they will refrain from doing things they do want to do in order to avoid punishment.

This is used in the Strict Father model on the assumption that punishment for violating strict moral rules and praise for following them will result in the child’s learning to obey those rules. The entire Strict Father model is based on the further assumption that the exercise of authority is itself moral; that is, it is moral to reward obedience and punish disobedience. I will refer to this most basic assumption as the Morality of Reward and Punishment.

Reward and punishment are moral not just for their own sake. They have a further purpose. The model assumes that life is struggle for survival. Survival in the world is a matter of competing successfully. To do so, children must learn discipline and build character. People are disciplined (punished) in order to become self-disciplined. The way self-discipline is learned and character is built is through obedience. Being an adult means that you have become sufficiently self-disciplined so that you can be your own authority. Obedience to authority thus does not disappear. Being self-disciplined is being obedient to your own authority, that is, being able to carry out the plans you make and the commitments you undertake. That is the kind of person you are supposed to be, and the Strict Father model of the family exists to ensure that a child becomes such a person.

There is also a pragmatic rationale for creating such people. It is that the world is difficult and people have to be self-disciplined to be able to survive in a difficult world. Rewards and punishments by the parent are thus moral because they help to ensure that the child will be able to survive on its own. Rewards and punishments thus benefit the child, which is why punishment for disobedience is understood as a form of love. According to this model, if you are obedient, you will become self-disciplined, and only if you are self-disciplined can you succeed. Success is therefore a sign of having been obedient and having become self-disciplined. Success is a just reward for acting within this moral system. This makes success moral.

Competition is a crucial ingredient in such a moral system. It is through competition that we discover who is moral, that is, who has been properly self-disciplined and therefore deserves success, and who is fit enough to survive and even thrive in a difficult world. Rewards given to those who have not earned them through competition are thus immoral. They violate the entire system. They remove the incentive to become self-disciplined and they remove the need for obedience to authority.

But if a person is to be this way, the world must be a certain way too. The world must be and must remain a competitive place. Without competition, there is no source of reward for self-discipline, no motivation to become the right kind of person. If competition were removed, self-discipline would cease and people would cease to develop and use their talents. The individual’s authority over himself would decay. People would no longer be able to make plans, undertake commitments, and carry them out. Competition therefore is moral; it is a condition for the development and sustenance of the right kind of person. Correspondingly, constraints on competition are immoral; they inhibit the development and sustenance of the right kind of person.

Even if survival were not an issue, even if the world could be made easier, even if there were a world of plenty with more than enough for everybody, it would still not be true that parceling out a comfortable amount for everyone would make the world better and people better. Doing that would remove the incentive to become and remain self-disciplined. Without the incentive of reward and punishment, self-discipline would disappear, and people would no longer be able to make plans, undertake commitments, and carry them out. All social life would come to a grinding halt. To prevent this, competition and authority must be maintained no matter how much material largesse we produce.

If competition is a necessary state in a moral world— necessary for producing the right kind of people— then what kind of a world is a moral world? It is necessarily one in which some people are better off than others, and they deserve to be. It is a meritocracy. It is hierarchical, and the hierarchy is moral. In this hierarchy, some people have authority over others and their authority is legitimate. Moreover, legitimate authority imposes responsibility. Just as the strict father has a duty to support and protect his family, so those who have risen to the top have a responsibility to exercise their legitimate authority for the benefit of all under their authority. This means: 1. Maintaining order; that is, sustaining and defending the system of authority itself. 2. Using that authority for the protection of those under one’s authority. 3. Working for the benefit of those under one’s authority, especially helping them through proper discipline to become the right kind of people. 4. Exercising one’s authority to help create more self-disciplined people, that is, the right kind of people, for their own benefit, for the benefit of others, and because it is the right thing to do.

This model of the family does not occur alone and isolated in one’s conceptual system. To accept this model of the family is also to accept implicitly certain moral priorities that naturally go with it, many of which are metaphorical in nature. These moral priorities are directly expressed in priorities given to certain metaphors we all have in our conceptual systems. Such a set of moral priorities, together with the above vision of what a person should be and what the world should be like, is what I will call Strict Father morality.




Lakoff, George (2010-12-15). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (Kindle Locations 1106-1109). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
You gents are getting a little long in the tooth to be pretending you're 16. The "old white men" stage is creeping up on you.

Richard

Which Lakoff model produces the "forever adolescent"? Lets discuss that one.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
I smell a question being begged here...
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:
Lakoff, George (2010-12-15). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (Kindle Locations 1106-1109). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Then his work is clearly directed at a polarized populace, and explains why some of the comments have displayed a degree of obliviousness to reality.
Even though the following statement started out sounding like enlightenment,

J. Dyba wrote:
While I still think one of the deepest roots to our current problems is the clinging we do to a Left vs Right facade of democracy, this book takes a noble stab at trying to explain why.
it quickly descended into something quite the opposite, resembling the indoctrination that history revisionists have become so expert in instilling.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (10/8/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1350) 7 years ago
Donald Mullikin wrote:
it quickly descended into something quite the opposite, resembling the indoctrination that history revisionists have become so expert in instilling.


If I am understanding this point correctly then all I can say is someone didn't notice a word. Two actually!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
I am on a personal mission to be the best me I can be. Here is another quote that I thought was enlightening:

I consider this book to be anything but an idle academic exercise. Because conservatives understand the moral dimension of our politics better than liberals do, they have been able not only to gain political victories but to use politics in the service of a much larger moral and cultural agenda for America, an agenda that if carried out would, I believe, destroy much of the moral progress made in the twentieth century. Liberals have been helpless to stop them, largely, I think, because they don’t understand the conservative worldview and the role of moral idealism and the family within it.

Moreover, liberals do not fully comprehend the moral unity of their own politics and the role that the family plays in it. Liberals need to understand that there is an overall, coherent liberal politics which is based on a coherent, well-grounded, and powerful liberal morality. If liberals do not concern themselves very seriously and very quickly with the unity of their own philosophy and with morality and the family, they will not merely continue to lose elections but will as well bear responsibility for the success of conservatives in turning back the clock on progress in America.

Conservatives know that politics is not just about policy and interest groups and issue-by-issue debate. They have learned that politics is about family and morality, about myth and metaphor and emotional identification. They have, over twenty-five years, managed to forge conceptual links in the voters’ minds between morality and public policy. They have done this by carefully working out their values, comprehending their myths, and designing a language to fit those values and myths so that they can evoke them with powerful slogans, repeated over and over again, that reinforce those family-morality-policy links, until the connections have come to seem natural to many Americans, including many in the media. As long as liberals ignore the moral, mythic, and emotional dimension of politics, as long as they stick to policy and interest groups and issue-by-issue debate, they will have no hope of understanding the nature of the political transformation that has overtaken this country and they will have no hope of changing it.


Lakoff, George (2010-12-15). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (Kindle Locations 378-385). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Yes, Richard. Very enlightening as to where Lakoff is coming from.

I have a question.

What is "liberal morality"?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Well, I'm going to explain it this way, we'll see who is paying attention: We should help our neighbor protect and improve his goods and his means of making a living. We should speak well of our neighbor and put the best construction on everything we say about him. It's all based on love, empathy, and nurture of others and recognizing that we need to do our part to help our neighbor and strengthen the community.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/9/2014)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:
Well, I'm going to explain it this way, we'll see who is paying attention: We should help our neighbor protect and improve his goods and his means of making a living. We should speak well of our neighbor and put the best construction on everything we say about him. It's all based on love, empathy, and nurture of others and recognizing that we need to do our part to help our neighbor and strengthen the community.

Said another way, the liberal majority are those who crave control of everything to limit everyone's personal lives rather than let anyone enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness. And their morality is that which is forced down the throats of any who might disagree or actually have morality based in a reasonable religious belief.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (10/9/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
YES! EXACTLY! DONALD GETS IT, AND I WILL PERSONALLY VOUCH FOR HIM WHEN THE TIME COMES TO SEND HIM TO THE RE-EDUCATION/FEMA CAMPS! IT'S THE TOP BUNK FOR YOU SIR! NOW GO OUT THERE AND GET YOURSELF GAYMARRIED ASAP!
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
"It's all based on love, empathy, and nurture of others and recognizing that we need to do our part to help our neighbor and strengthen the community."

Could you be more specific instead of pumping out Beatles lyrics?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
NOW GO OUT THERE AND GET YOURSELF GAYMARRIED ASAP!


Sorry, I'm not like that, I am heterosexual, and already have a Wife. Or are you simply implying that all should do as you would?

Again, I am not like that either. I do and think for myself rather than being one of the polarized masses who simply act as parrots for their chosen political party/figure.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Donald Mullikin wrote:
Said another way, the liberal majority are those who crave control of everything to limit everyone's personal lives rather than let anyone enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness. And their morality is that which is forced down the throats of any who might disagree or actually have morality based in a reasonable religious belief.


Your words and thoughts... not mine nor what I said at all. Your comment is both ironic and hilarious, given that most of what I said is a paraphrasing of Luther's Small Catechism. (Guess you weren't paying attention)

I believe that love and kindness toward our neighbors and community is not found in a single act; it is a lifestyle. It's all about making the lives of others more livable by showing them love, kindness and respect. Sometimes it is as simple as giving some obviously stressed waiter 40% instead of 15%. Other times its being actively involved in making sure that the community doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people. The list of ways to help others is exceedingly long.

I don't desire to "control" anything about anyone else's life. My own is a big enough project. I am thankful for the opportunities others have given to me and I am always seeking situations to return the favor. I believe that if each of us saw it as their duty to help our neighbor protect and improve his/her goods and his/her means of making a living and we speak well of our neighbor and put the best construction on everything we say about him, the world would be a different place. I think that is "religion" everyone can accept and agree with. It's also the essence, IMHO, of what liberal morality is all about. Government is simply the best mechanism to efficiently organize and complete such duty on a large scale.

Also, your notion of compulsion is antithetical to the way liberals think. There are many people in who daily show love and kindness to others through their actions and involvement in the community. I'm pretty certain that none of them have any desire to control things or limit anyone personal freedom. Those that would be categorized as liberals here on mc.com are generally all in favor of allowing and expanding personal freedom.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Bridgier, a flaming liberal if there ever was one, is in favor of people enjoying the "freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness" including by getting "gaymarried" if that's what they want.

Donald, who wants to "enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness" dislikes Bridgier and other liberals who seem to be fighting for the very thing he holds dear.

I don't get it.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
David Schott wrote:
Donald, who wants to "enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness" dislikes Bridgier and other liberals who seem to be fighting for the very thing he holds dear.


Sounds like someone is mistaking or twisting. First off, yes, I value the freedom to strive for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness very highly.

Now, maybe you would care to explain where Liberals (Who are all about bigger Government -- instituting greater control of the people through permitting of fewer rights while working toward complete socialism though socialized medicine, unrestricted borders, and financial equalization reassignment) are even fond of supporting the quest for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Likewise, maybe you could explain where the conservatives who would prefer there be such a small government, that there would be no one to curtail or restrict their support of Corporate Enslavement of the populace, could in any way support anyone other than themselves striving to achieve Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Donald Mullikin wrote:
"Liberals (Who are all about bigger Government -- instituting greater control of the people through permitting of fewer rights while working toward complete socialism though socialized medicine, unrestricted borders, and financial equalization reassignment)..."


Republicans favor smaller government?


"• When excluding World War II, the average spending as a percentage of GDP under a Democratic President was 19.4% and under a Republican President 20.2%."

"Unrestricted borders" equates to greater control of people?

"Financial equalization reassignment"? Say what? Did you just make that up?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine wrote:
I believe that love and kindness toward our neighbors and community is not found in a single act; it is a lifestyle. It's all about making the lives of others more livable by showing them love, kindness and respect. Sometimes it is as simple as giving some obviously stressed waiter 40% instead of 15%. Other times its being actively involved in making sure that the community doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people.


Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
David Schott wrote:
Republicans favor smaller government?

"Unrestricted borders" equates to greater control of people?

"Financial equalization reassignment"? Say what? Did you just make that up?


Taking them in order. Where did I say republican? I didn't and wouldn't. Please do not confuse having a strong/larger Military with having a large costly unwieldy Government bogged down with multiple layers of extremely inefficient bureaucracies.

Unrestricted borders floods the job market with those who would willingly avoid being paid minimum wage just to work under the table. Putting a greater number of American workers on socialized programs, where they then are under greater control of the Government operating those socialized systems.

Some would call Financial equalization reassignment -- Wealth Redistribution. I personally see it as government condoned theft.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Donald, you sound like a Republican who doesn't want to be called a Republican.

Here is a link to the party's platform if it helps.

https://www.gop.com/platform/
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
David,
Let me ask why you chose to provide information that while not being completely erroneous does not really relate to the statements made.

The statements made; were that Liberals are all about a larger government; followed by, Conservatives prefer a smaller government.

You provided a link to a picture that displays spending as related to GDP by president/party, and even makes it clear that the data has been manipulated -- making it unreliable at best.

Please note
•The first chart is inflation adjusted, displaying all dollar amounts in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, as provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
•Therefore, dollar amounts prior to year 2005 are inflated and dollar amounts after 2005 are deflated. For example, U.S. federal government expenditures in 1940 were $9.5 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $117.8 billion in 2005 dollars. Likewise, U.S. federal government expenditures in 2009 were $3,517.7 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $3,176.8 billion in 2005 dollars.

Trying to relate size of government using GDP (Figures displaying strength of the economy) rather than focusing on spending related directly to the size of government, is like saying that just because a governmentally regulated half-gallon of milk costs a dollar, that an equal amount of unregulated gasoline will be the same price at the pump. Sorry, they are two completely different things.
Now if you look at


You’ll get a chart showing the comparison of government size broken down by spending by president/party.

Again, I am using the site you used, which I have already shown has been manipulated to make a reader who does not understand the reality of the issues, believe that things are better than they are, or are different than reality.

Please take note that while Clinton was downsizing the Military he was increasing the size of the government at a pace that outweighed his Military cuts.

Had we not just drawn down our Armed Forces under Clintons watch, terrorists might not have attacked us in 2001. Had that attack not occurred, the war on terror never would have happened, and the subsequent ramp-up in Military Spending would not have been necessary.

Far too often people fail to analyze the cause/effect or look to understand the bigger picture before spouting their parties platitudes

As for your recent proclamation
you sound likea Republican who doesn't want to be called a Republican.


I am presently and have been a free thinker for many years.

I look at the issues from both sides and weigh what I perceive are the pros and cons before making a decision. Unlike those who simply listen to their preferred party and parrot the platitudes.

I do the same with political candidates. I look at their actual background, what they have voted on or for, what organizations they have worked for, why they left -- if it can be found out, and not what they or their party says about them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
I see something interesting in the slopes of that graph donald provided, but I'm sure its just an artifact of manipulation.

Regardless, if someone other than clinton hadn't decided that the roooskies and the chinese were bigger threats than al-queida, then 9/11 might have been less likely to happen under his watch. Oh well.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Donald are you saying that a chart that tracks spending over time should not be inflation-adjusted?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
David Schott wrote:
Donald are you saying that a chart that tracks spending over time should not be inflation-adjusted?

That is not what I am saying and it is.
Ask yourself this, If $10 million was spent on say the IRS in 1940, why should we not know that it was $10 million then? Why would they want to mislead us by saying it was $32 billion (inflation rate corrected)? <figures are factious and only used as examples>
Then ask yourself why they chose 2005 dollar values rather than present dollar values? The chart they are using basically includes Obama's first 4 years in office, so why are they not using 2012 dollar values?

Bridgier wrote:
I see something interesting in the slopes of that graph donald provided, but I'm sure its just an artifact of manipulation.

Correction, the graph is from the same website that David used, David opted to use a graph that referred to the GDP {Economic figures} rather than the chart that actually referred to Spending on Government detailed by Party/President.
But I wouldn't have expected you to understand that, as you show such little understanding of anything.
Likewise,

Bridgier wrote:
Regardless, if someone other than clinton hadn't decided that the roooskies and the chinese were bigger threats than al-queida, then 9/11 might have been less likely to happen under his watch. Oh well.

Would you care to relate that logically to the conversation?
Or are you simply sated by tossing out irrelevant information that has nothing to do with downsizing either the Armed Forces or Government?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
Donald Mullikin wrote:
"That is not what I am saying and it is."

Whatever you say, Donald. Whatever you say.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
So, David, I take it you could care less about being told the truth, preferring to be lead to believe that everything is good.

With the manipulation at the site you used, I disagree with how they both use figures that I cannot find appropriate and accurate inflation rate charts for. So in that aspect, I do not want the rates adjusted. If they were to provide accurate/verifiable data, then adjusting may be acceptable. But again. Why?
I know there has been inflation, I can understand that what cost a nickel in 1940 may cost $95.99 today.

What I do not need is a site that claims they are telling the truth that utilize figures that cannot be verified and rates that no longer apply.

Makes me feel that they are blowing smoke and trying to tell everyone it's foggy.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 7 years ago
That's right, Donald. It's all a vast conspiracy. The economists are manipulating us for political purposes, so they can control us, as well as for their own personal monetary gain. Nobody really understands inflation or how to calculate it, but if those charts could be adjusted for 2014 dollars instead of 2005 dollars then we would see the real truth. It would be a much different picture -- the peaks, the valleys, the trends... would be totally and completely different and they would deliver the message that Donald wants them to deliver.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Donald Mullikin wrote:
Would you care to relate that logically to the conversation?
Or are you simply sated by tossing out irrelevant information that has nothing to do with downsizing either the Armed Forces or Government?

I didn't realize that the thread on 'Moral Politics' had been restricted down to 'Rightsizing the military & the government'. So, my apologies.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Getting back on topic.

There are lots of really nice people all over the globe who are not liberals. They perform acts of great kindness and compassion every day. Liberals don't have a lock on love, kindness and compassion for their fellow human beings. They just think they do. What liberals do have a lock on, is a shared delusion that they all occupy some mythical "moral high-ground" from whence they have a divine right to instill the tenets of "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy".

The liberal believes "freedom" and "liberty" are natural rights inherent to all humans. That is, until the "freedom" and "liberty" of certain humans offends the liberal, or is deemed "insensitive" by the group-think. When that occurs, liberals seek to use government and the courts to limit the "freedom" and "liberty" of the offending person or group. In that respect, Richard is absolutely correct.

Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:
Government is simply the best mechanism to efficiently organize and complete such duty on a large scale.


That's why liberals love big government. Especially one they control.

"Liberal morality" boils down to liberty and freedom for all, as long as you agree with liberals. As long as liberals do not find your freedom and liberty offensive.

Don't say "boys and girls" because the terms lack sensitivity. They must be called "purple penguins". Speech is offensive and must be restricted. Don't pray at a football game or city council meeting because freedom of religion is forbidden on "public property". Don't own certain guns, or any guns. Don't think that you built a successful enterprise that made you lots of money. Liberals enabled you, so the government must extract the profit for "income redistribution".

"Liberal morality" IS moral politics. It's freedom from speech, freedom from religion, freedom from self-reliance, self control and personal responsibility. Ultimately, its freedom from whatever the liberal chooses to be offended by next.

The idea that "compulsion is antithetical to the way liberals think." is the prime example of their delusion.

[This message has been edited by Oddjob (10/12/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
So, the freedoms of the majority should obviously outweigh the freedoms of the minority?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
Liberals don't have a lock on love, kindness and compassion for their fellow human beings. They just think they do.

I cannot argue with that.

Oddjob wrote:
What liberals do have a lock on, is a shared delusion that they all occupy some mythical "moral high-ground" from whence they have a divine right to instill the tenets of "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy".

A prime example is Hilary's; "What's it matter"? statement, when she appeared before an investigative panel.

Oddjob wrote:
That is, until the "freedom" and "liberty" of certain humans offends the liberal, or is deemed "insensitive" by the group-think. When that occurs, liberals seek to use government and the courts to limit the "freedom" and "liberty" of the offending person or group.

Which explains why prayer or the reciting of the Pledge in schools has been banned. Now our jails are overcrowded; possibly due to banning moral instruction in our schools.

Oddjob wrote:
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:
Government is simply the best mechanism to efficiently organize and complete such duty on a large scale.

That's why liberals love big government. Especially one they control.


I have to disagree with this. There comes a point when government gets so large that many within it consider it a joke, and it -- as well as many within it can no longer be controlled.
Look at how Eric Holder defied Congress and Congress could do nothing about his arrogance/defiance.

Oddjob wrote:
"Liberal morality" IS moral politics.

How can there be morality without there first being morals? Likewise, there has not been any proof of moral politics since the political parties instituted polarized politics to the point that Our great Constitutional Republic is now referred to globally as being a Democracy.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
So, the freedoms of the majority should obviously outweigh the freedoms of the minority?


Thank you, for proving so eloquently, that morals no longer exist in todays politics.

Each person has inherent rights that are endowed by our creator and not by any government, or by any Domestic Faction/Political Party. Yet there are politicians of all political parties believing otherwise.
More proof that morals in politics no longer exist.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (10/12/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Morals are slippery little beasts. Just when you think you've got an idea of what they are, you end up old and confused as history passes you by.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
I have to agree that political correctness where speech is concerned is gone a little too far.I see nothing wrong with calling something "short" instead of vertically-challenged. But society is better off because we've removed demeaning words like "nigger" and "retard".

I don't believe prayer has any place in the public square. I can argue this point from both an athiest perspective and conservative Lutheran perspective. Prayer accomplishes little other than to divide people.

Nobody needs an AK-47. The gun rights religion is as out of control as is political correctness speech.

None of this has much to do with true liberal morality. Oddjob has once again defined things from Lakoff's strict father perspective.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
I wonder if Oddy & Donald use today to reflect upon the moral underpinnings of the American Colonization. Slavery, theft and murder would seem to be things that should fall squarely into the 'immoral' bucket, but I'm probably wrong (I usually am).

Three continents enslaved, by people making the sign of the cross with one hand while wielding the whip in the other, forging an order and a prosperity which we enjoy the fruits of today.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
I wonder if Oddy & Donald use today to reflect upon the moral underpinnings of the American Colonization. Slavery, theft and murder would seem to be things that should fall squarely into the 'immoral' bucket, but I'm probably wrong (I usually am).


I can only speak to my own sense of reality.
Criminal activity is still criminal activity the same as right is right and wrong is wrong.

Slavery then or now is immoral. But why is it that the two biggest political parties do not see that their actions seek to enslave their constituents? This is both wrong and immoral.

Theft is still wrong and immoral regardless of whether it is committed by a criminal or the Government. If you do not understand the Government theft remark or think that I am merely referring to the IRS, I would suggest you study the Laws in America today a bit better. When Law Enforcement can take property from someone who is not even a suspect in a criminal case, or has been exonerated, yet the property never gets returned because they already sold it at auction and the Citizen the property belonged to receives no restitution or compensation for what was taken from him, that is theft.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Bridgier

Take today to reflect on the 150 million murdered in the 20th Century by the Leftists/Marxist/Communists. Doesn't seem to bother you as much as who's symbol it takes place under.

The Columbian Exchange was inevitable. Two world wars and the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people under Socialist dictators was not.

But then, I guess we all have our own priories on who to hate.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
Yes, because I'm rabidly pro-communist dictator. It's like you don't even read my beautiful, beautiful words.

The EXCHANGE was inevitable, the methods employed were not.

but that was a nice tu quoque by the way, but I'll play along -

Beyond Stalin and Mao, could you give me a list of some of these 'socalist' dictators? I just want to make sure we give the bodycounts to the appropriate party.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (10/14/2014)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
originally posted by Oddjob
Bridgier

Take today to reflect on the 150 million murdered in the 20th Century by the Leftists/Marxist/Communists. Doesn't seem to bother you as much as who's symbol it takes place under.


You might want to mention how one party tends to expound upon the evils of how guns are to blame for the thousands of lives lost to gun murders every year, yet completely ignore the greater number of human deaths caused by abortion, and will defend the funding to support abortions to their dying breaths.

You only need to look at how they are aghast and trying to reverse the SCOTUS decision that Hobby Lobby and other Employers can opt out of funding any healthcare that would resemble funding birth-control or abortions.

Said another way, supporters of abortion; support the Murder of innocent lives.

Abortions per year: 1.2 million

http://www.all.org/nav/i...d/NjA3OQ/

Number of Homicides contributed to Firearms in 2010 = 8,775 <--- data obtained from FBI Uniform Crime reports
http://www.fbi.gov/about...tbl08.xls
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
You might want to mention how one party tends to expound upon the evils of how guns are to blame for the thousands of lives lost to gun murders every year, yet completely ignore the greater number of human deaths caused by abortion, and will defend the funding to support abortions to their dying breaths.

You only need to look at how they are aghast and trying to reverse the SCOTUS decision that Hobby Lobby and other Employers can opt out of funding any healthcare that would resemble funding birth-control or abortions.

Said another way, supporters of abortion; support the Murder of innocent lives.


Except that given the timeframe when 99% of abortions occur... it isn't murder, because it isn't live.

And we could also talk about the party who thinks every zygote formed must be born at any horrendous cost, but once they are out of the womb, they're going to cut funding for social programs so they starve to death. We are going to shame the women for giving in to her biological urges. We are against abortion, but be damned if we will allow sex education or contraception distribution that would prevent abortion in the first place. And we will allow insurance to pay for blue pills so that you can have a flag pole the size of the Washington monument, but we ain't paying for birth control for any hussy who wants to fulfill her biological needs. Yup, we can talk about the party of paradox and contradictions.

Prior to 1972, nobody other than some catholics, gave a rats rear end about abortion. Frank Schaffer and Jack Kemp got Jerry Falwell to preach a sermon against abortion, form "moral majority", the republicans got Uncle Ronny elected, and we've been in regression back to the dark ages ever since.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr.
Except that given the timeframe when 99% of abortions occur... it isn't murder, because it isn't live.


Please be kind enough to show justification for your assertions.
Most Neonatologists agree that a fetus can viably live after the 22nd week of gestation.

As most pregnancies here in the United States are aborted up to the end of the second trimester -- or the end of the sixth month during the 27th week, many viable fetuses --Human beings, are being murdered.

There is a case of a prematurely born baby -- Amillia Taylor, who was born in October 2006 just 20 weeks from In-Vitro-fertilization (IVF) who as of 2013 was in kindergarten with minor growth and development issues. http://www.zimbio.com/Am...ja+Taylor Please note IVF and gestation dates differ.

Considering the medical advances and breakthroughs since the 24 week viability determination in 1973 by the SCOTUS Roe-v-Wade decision, that viability point has been put into severe question.

The medical profession itself has redefined Fetal Viability as “The potential of the FETUS to survive outside the UTERUS after birth, natural or induced. Fetal viability depends largely on the FETAL ORGAN MATURITY, and environmental conditions.” Found at: http://www.reference.md/...5328.html

There are more than 1.2 million abortions in the United States every year. Far too many abortions are what are called “live birth abortions”.
These are abortions where the fetus is alive as it is extracted and then are killed -- murdered, to terminate its life.

How many of these might have been viable, no one will really know, until we stop the procedure. Here is a link to a report on these Live Birth Abortions where the nurse is quoted as calling the aborted babies specimen’s to help ease her own moral issues with it.
Abortion clinic employee Sherry West described an incident which “really freaked (her) out” and related to the jury how she heard a child scream who was born alive following an abortion.

Found at: http://www.lifenews.com/...-abortion

Even if only half of the abortions are live birth, that still puts 600,000 murders committed by medical professionals against defenseless infants every year.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (10/14/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
1.2% of all abortions occur after 20 weeks. By your own definition, my point stands. I personally am comfortable with a ban on abortion after 16 weeks, as a compromise. We should give women the liberty to make their own choices. This isn't an issue for men to be deciding.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
And I thought morals were a slippery thing - try holding Donald to a thesis!
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr.

The pie-chart you provided -- found at http://www.guttmacher.or...tion.html
is actually data from the CDC as noted in the footnotes at the bottom of their own page.

When going to the CDC report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/...208a1.htm to validate the data, the following is noted up-front. “Please note: An erratum has been published for this article. To view the erratum, please click here http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/p...6251a7.htm.” When going to the erratum, we are informed that the reports for six states had not originally been reported.

When reading the CDC original report we find in the “Results” area, then in the “Gestational” section that when that Pie-Chart was created the data was based upon 37 areas -- read that as 37 States. Making it that just over two thirds of the United States actually reported. That leaves a tremendous margin for error.

Even though the Pie-Chart is not giving an accurate depiction of reality. If we were to use the 1.2 % figure as being an available figure, and determined the number of post 22 week abortions out of the 1.2 million total recorded abortions in the United States, we would still have over 14,000 murdered babies, which still greatly exceeds the 2010 Murders by Firearms by nearly six thousand.

One thing that even the CDC touches on, but cannot compile accurate data for. And that is to provide the number of non-surgical abortions -- abortions via chemical substances or other non-surgical means, or those who are not accurately or are under reporting the abortions that are accomplished every year by those not reporting to the CDC or by US Citizens who obtained an abortion type pill outside of the US, or without a doctor’s prescription.

Something else that the CDC does, is to explain that the gestation data they are using is from the last “Missed menstrual cycle”.

As conception frequently occurs shortly after a menstrual cycle -- not after the last missed cycle, for all intents and purposes the data that the CDC is providing is lacking between 1 to 3 weeks of gestation. Meaning that the fetus might already be three weeks further into gestation then they account for, making their 22 week calculation into 23 to 25 weeks. So when they say 13 weeks, it could really be 16 weeks, etc.

Here is another site you may wish to review, dealing with 140 Doctors who do abortions after 24 weeks. http://www.lifenews.com/...-24-weeks/ We find the following statement
“Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed,” Johnson tells NRLC.


Now, please explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral.
Especially, when we can see that the data they used to report abortions is so skewed, and there are Doctors who would perform abortions even past the actual legal limit.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Rather than editing my last post, I will add something I had originally intended to include here.

I had touched briefly on the abortion pill. Here is another site that will be of interest to those who actually wish to know the whole truth.

http://buyabortionpillonl...performed/

Quote from that site
Medical personnel are unable to tell the difference between a miscarriage or abortion so if one lives in a country where there is possible prosecution for performing a self induced abortion, there is no reason to tell anyone that an abortion was attempted.


They state that in a way like they are front-loading their customers with information on how to induce a late stage abortion while making it look like a miscarriage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Now, please explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral.


I am going to do just that... this is a great time to explain the difference in worldview between conservatives and liberals. Hopefully, you will be open-minded enough to try and understand both sides of the issue.

First, we need to define some terms; namely: embryo, fetus, and baby.

Embryo: an embryo is the product of conception more organized than just a collection of cells, but not yet recognizable as a member of the species.

Fetus: a fetus is a further stage of the organism, but one not yet born. There is no precise, objectively specifiable moment at which a cluster of cells becomes an embryo and the embryo a fetus.

Baby: once the fetus is born it is called a baby.

The terms embryo and fetus call to mind a medical context, in which the issues are medical issues. From this perspective an abortion is the medical procedure used to remove a collection of cells. If an embryo is aborted in the seventh week, a living, organized group of cells that is not a recognizable form of the species has been removed from the uterus, and it ceases to exist as a living entity outside the uterus. Using words like embryo and fetus keeps things in the domain of medical procedures, where the issues are medical.

Using the word baby imposes a different concept and context. A baby is an independently living existing human being, not just an unrecognizable collection of its mothers' cells.

Defenders of the morality of abortion tend to use the terms embryo and fetus. They are defending the morality of the right to remove a group of cells that is not viable, nor independent, or recognizable as a human being.

Opponents of abortion use the term baby to refer to the cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus all alike. Whereas cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus keep discussion in the medical domain, baby moves the discussion to the moral domain. The issue of the morality of abortion is settled once the words are chosen.

The removal of a cluster of cells that are not viable, independently living, or recognizable from the mother is a medical procedure and is not murder. The purposeful killing of a baby which is viable, independently living, and recognizable can be murder. Again, the morality of the issue is tied to how the issue is characterized or framed.

Is an abortion in the first trimester, say, in the seventh week, merely a surgical procedure that is morally neutral, and perhaps even moral if it is beneficial to the mother? Or is it the murder of a baby? The answer one gives depends on how one frames the situation and, correspondingly, on what word he or she uses—“ embryo” or “baby.”

This leads us to what I was originally saying about the two views, the Strict Father morality and the Nurturant Parent. Conservatives are characterized by the Strict Father model, while liberals are characterized by the Nurturant Parent paradigm.

Let's consider for a moment who is most likely to want an abortion. There are two stereotypical categories; teenage girls who are having sex and have been either careless or are ignorant about birth control; and women who want careers or independent lives. There deepest aspirations would be destroyed or highly inconvenienced by having a child. In this case there may be some medical risk as the alarm on their biological clock is usually ringing.

Let's start with the first case. According to Strict Father morality, the teenage girl should not be having sex out of wedlock in the first place. Having sex displays moral weakness and lack of discipline. She has behaved immorally and deserves to carry her punishment to full term. An abortion would simply sanction her immoral behavior and she needs to learn from her mistake.

In the second case, the Strict Father model of the family, a woman's role is to raise children. Men should have leadership roles, not women. The woman can work outside the home to help support the man. But women shouldn't be choosing careers over their "natural role" as mothers raising a family. When a woman chooses an abortion in order to place her career above motherhood, she violates the moral order and is challenging the Strict Father model. Again, in this model the father holds the authority and men rank above women.

In both of the classical stereotypical cases, abortion violates Strict Father morality. Strict Father morality therefore incorporates very strong reasons for categorizing abortion as immoral. But categorizing abortion as immoral fits the “baby” frame, not the morally neutral medical frame. Thus, classical Strict Father morality correlates naturally with conceptualizing the object of abortion as a “baby”; once that is done, it becomes difficult if not impossible to classify abortion as anything but baby killing.

In the Nurturant Parent model, the teenage girl is "in trouble", she needs help, and deserves empathy. The last thing she needs is to be told how "bad" she is or be yelled at for her actions. She is a baby having a baby, has her whole life ahead of her. She shouldn't have her aspirations ruined by this situation. She has plenty of time to have children, if she would like, when she can raise them properly. She should have an abortion if she wants as there is nothing immoral about it. Since there is nothing in the categories of liberal moral action that militates against the abortion and much that favors it, the categorization of the collection of cells as an embryo or fetus rather than as a baby is motivated, and, with it, the medical framing of the surgery. The story is pretty much the same for the career woman.

In the end, this issue boils down to one's chosen worldview. I believe that the way to solve this problem is to compromise. Let's ban abortion after 16-18 weeks. If we did this there can be no claim of killing a baby as it is simply a medical procedure to remove a group of cells that are not viable or independently living. The woman's choice in reproductive rights is preserved. Morality is preserved. This should be something both sides can support.


References:

Lakoff, George (2010-12-15). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (p. 270). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
posted by Donald Mullikin
Now, please explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral.


Richard Bonine, Jr.
I am going to do just that... this is a great time to explain the difference in worldview between conservatives and liberals. Hopefully, you will be open-minded enough to try and understand both sides of the issue.

First, we need to define some terms; namely: embryo, fetus, and baby.
Embryo: an embryo is the product of conception more organized than just a collection of cells, but not yet recognizable as a member of the species.

As the embryo is basically as collection of, or set of cells that have no visible eye’s, spine, or organs. At this point we agree.

Richard Bonine, Jr.
Fetus: a fetus is a further stage of the organism, but one not yet born. There is no precise, objectively specifiable moment at which a cluster of cells becomes an embryo and the embryo a fetus.


Please notice how I emphasized specific words in bold, and then look at your mistaken statement that
Baby: once the fetus is born it is called a baby.


No, sorry, when women who do not want a baby go for an abortion, their comment is they want to abort the baby, not abort the specimen or fetus. Likewise, many medical professionals have determined that the fetus becomes a baby while still inside the mother’s womb. The point at which this occurs is generally between the fifth and eighth week from fertilization. Refer back to my prior explanation that conception generally occurs a week after the last period, where most abortion rules base upon weeks from the first missed period, which is generally one to three weeks later -- most often three weeks after fertilization/conception. And you can look at this link to verify that claim:
http://www.webmd.com/bab...onception
Your doctor will count the start of your pregnancy from the first day of your last menstrual period. That's about 2 weeks ahead of when conception happens.
This statement says from the start of last period, I used end of last period, so as most women have a five to eight day menstrual period, the same thing is being said.

Found at: http://www.nrlc.org/arch...pment.html
Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.
Please remember that this is 14 weeks from conception not missed period. If given from missed period, it would be reading week 11. Also:
Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.
Or 18 to 19 weeks from missed period. I would also ask that you check their sources to understand that this is not just a right for life organization spouting uneducated/unsubstantiated platitudes.

I can conclude by the simple fact that you would mistakenly refer to a baby as being a fetus until it is born, that you have not adequately researched your information to form an educated opinion.

Now, let me cover some of the other words you felt it necessary to type out.
by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Using the word baby imposes a different concept and context. A baby is an independently living existing human being, not just an unrecognizable collection of its mothers' cells.

Already covered above.

by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Defenders of the morality of abortion tend to use the terms embryo and fetus. They are defending the morality of the right to remove a group of cells that is not viable, nor independent, or recognizable as a human being.

Opponents of abortion use the term baby to refer to the cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus all alike. Whereas cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus keep discussion in the medical domain, baby moves the discussion to the moral domain. The issue of the morality of abortion is settled once the words are chosen.


Here are a few links to various reports of babies screaming as they are aborted. Yet you insist that only fetuses are aborted.

http://www.infowars.com/...abortion/
http://www.lifenews.com/...abortion/
http://www.lifenews.com/...-testify/
http://www.prolifeaction...leton.php

Am I using the term baby simply because I want to satisfy my own morality? No.

When you consider that aborted babies are screaming during the act of being aborted, that tells me that they are thinking and feeling little life forms that deserve our protection, not our apathy or disparagement. But there are those who are unfeeling, that wish to bury their heads, and hide from reality and morality, that will refer to a living baby as merely a fetus or in the case of Nurse Sherry West -- calling them specimen’s.

As for worldview, all of my statements have been in reference to the United States and United States citizens. The discussion of global/worldview political morality might extend father than you or I would really wish to comment on.


I am still wondering where you attempted to do as your post was supposed to do?

Again, I had asked you to "explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral." and you had stated; "I am going to do just that..."

From what I see, you provided mostly mistaken information about what a fetus or baby is, and then went into a long diatribe about the book that you are putting so much misplaced value in.

I see nothing explaining to me where abortion is in any way moral. You gave excuses as to why some women might decide to abort Gods creation. You did so without attempting to explain the opposite side of the issue as to how the practice of teen sex or sex outside of marriage is supposedly moral, or how adultery resulting in pregnancy -- resulting in abortion is moral. Or how if the sex was consensual, how the mother can simply abort the baby without the biological fathers consent is in anyway moral.

I am still waiting enlightenment.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Richard wrote..

"The issue of the morality of abortion is settled once the words are chosen."

I have no desire in getting into an abortion debate, but I think Richard has unintentionally brought to light the true character of Liberal thinking.

That WORDS can magically transform reality into something else. That things are really not what they are if you apply the proper label. It's why Liberals are obsessed with political correctness. His arguments are rife with examples of this.. The "Strict Father" (bad), the "Nurturant Parent" (sweetness and light). Fetus and zygote are not really "human". The abortion debate is a classic example of how the label changes the moral hierarchy for Liberals.

Leftists are nor really "murdering" people. They are engaged in "ethnic cleansing".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 7 years ago
blah blah blah infowars blah blah blah infowars blah blah blah
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 7 years ago
Just wanted to clarify two things from Donald's post comments...

You referenced the CDC site for abortion facts (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/p...6208a1.htm), claiming that the site does NOT address non-surgical abortions. Actually, it does, throughout the entire report, multiple times (and those medical abortions ARE included in Richard's pie chart):

Nonetheless, a recent comparison of CDC data with mifepristone sales data¶¶¶¶¶ suggests that CDC's Abortion Surveillance System accurately describes the use of medical abortion relative to other abortion methods in the United States (62).


The chemicals used in non-surgical abortions are still controlled substances, thus easily traceable throughout the medical community (including pharmacies that dispense said chemicals/pills).

Also, you continued to make claims in multiple posts about how the CDC defines gestational age by:

Something else that the CDC does, is to explain that the gestation data they are using is from the last “Missed menstrual cycle”.


Take a moment to search the CDC document. The word "missed" doesn't appear once. Why? Because gestational age is calculated from a woman's LAST MENSTRUAL PERIOD (you know, the menstrual flow that occurs right before ovulation, when a woman's ovary releases the egg for fertilization; I can provide an A&P reference for you if needed-- the CDC offers one, as well as many other peer-reviewed sources and professional journals which will provide you with highly detailed information on menstrual cycles in sexually mature females, hormone release, egg release, when fertilization ACTUALLY occurs, how doctors and other medical professionals calculate gestational age, as well as other pertinent data). Please re-read the sections of the CDC report referring to gestational age, as their calculations ARE correct. This data is also labeled correctly on Richard's pie chart as:

*In weeks from the last menstrual period.


After that last mistake regarding women's biology shudder... I would encourage you to speak with your doctor/physician and get brushed up on "How Women's Bodies Work".

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (10/16/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 7 years ago
A woman finds out she's pregnant with her first child. She and her husband are estatic and looking forward to becoming parents. At approximately 8 weeks she begins bleeding. Her doctor says she's having a miscarriage and needs a D and C to remove the tissue and stop the bleeding. This is exactly the same procedure that is used for abortions. Without the procedure she could bleed to death. Did she murder her baby? Discuss.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
Not even close. No she did not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
I am still waiting enlightenment.


Obviously.

First of all it would help Donald, if you listen to understand rather than listening to simply reply.

In the liberal perspective, abortion is moral because it is a simply a medical proceedure, that typically helps the mother. Just because you can't comprehend other people's reality, doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist. Your Strict Father mindset is blinding you from seeing other perspectives.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
by Hannah Nash

Also, you continued to make claims in multiple posts about how the CDC defines gestational age by:


Please reread the post you are quoting from and you will notice that my reference per the gestational age was cited from WebMD and not from the CDC. If you can find a CDC paper or journal that requires a specific method, please post it.

Other than that, please refer to the Table's in the CDC report. Specifically Table 7 where you will find the following very non-specific means of tabulation.
Table 7
* Gestational age based on the clinician's estimate (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia)
So in those states the Doctor decides what the gestational age is. What basis do they use if not what is outlined in WebMD?
Continuing from CDC Table 7; gestational age calculated from the last normal menstrual period (Rhode Island)
So only one reporting state uses the last menstrual period -- but ask yourself do they use beginning of or end of period?
continuing Table 7 again; gestational age based on the clinician's estimate when the date of the last menstrual period unavailable (Arkansas, Georgia); gestational age calculated from the last normal menstrual period when the clinician's estimate unavailable (Kentucky, Maine, Montana, and Utah); or not reported (District of Columbia).


Did you actually read everything I wrote? If so, then I have to ask if you really read the CDC report fully to know that they are merely sending out questionnaires and then compiling the returned data.

CDC report:
Each year, CDC sends suggested templates to the central health agencies for compilation of abortion data in aggregate. Aggregate abortion numbers, but no individual-level records, are requested for the following variables:


Please notice that the suggested templates are not requirements, so the providers can modify the data as they see fit.

Additionally you will find in the CDC report that they rely on incomplete data as they even admit that U.S. Census reports which have a considerable error rate in their own, and again confirm that not all states report to them.
CDC report:
U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the resident female population of the United States, compiled by CDC, were used as the denominator for calculating abortion rates (23-32). Overall abortion rates were calculated from the population of women aged 15–44 years living in the areas that provided data. For adolescents aged <15 years, abortion rates were based on the number of adolescents aged 13–14 years; similarly, for women aged =40 years, abortion rates were based on the number of women aged 40–44 years. For the calculation of abortion ratios, live birth data were obtained from CDC natality files (33) and included births to women of all ages living in the reporting areas that provided abortion data.


Which brings me back to the Pie-Chart being formulated on data that usually only contains 37 states that was short 6 states at the time it was created. Please refer back to the CDC erratum page.

by Hannah Nash The chemicals used in non-surgical abortions are still controlled substances, thus easily traceable throughout the medical community (including pharmacies that dispense said chemicals/pills).



Please consider how you are trying to tell me that the CDC cannot be in error when it comes to non-surgical abortions or the abortions that are performed by those who do not report to the CDC to begin with.

Even the CDC acknowledges that there are unknown methods of abortions being performed if you read the heading of Table 11.
TABLE 11. Reported abortions, by known method type and reporting area of occurrence — selected reporting areas,* United States, 2010


Finally, if you have an email address, I am sure that you have seen all the spam emails for various drugs that usually require a doctors written prescription, that can be filled simply by paying their fee.

Knowing that actually occurs, are you going to try to prove to me that women themselves, some abusive men, or even parents won’t obtain such drugs to induce abortions that will resemble miscarriages?

But there are politicians and political parties who will attempt to refute these facts to maintain the immorality of those who will vote for them simply because they assisted in that immorality.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Your Strict Father mindset is blinding you from seeing other perspectives.

You are absolutely mistaken; my abhorrence of murder is what drives my perspective. Are you attempting to convince me that murder is good for anyone?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 7 years ago
Checking WebMD-- and Yes, they all calculate gestational age the same way. The biology I explained to you isn't a matter of "opinion" or me trying to sell you some agenda. I didn't even argue with your moral claims. I also never claimed that the data encompassed all 50 states (we know it doesn't), but for the states it does cover, the medical community seems to feel that the CDC reporting and historical data collection is accurate and can be used as a national estimate. If the estimate isn't to your liking, or you think it contains glaring errors, I would encourage you to take it up with the medical professionals who author the paper every year (you can find their names and professional credentials at the top of the research you and I both referenced).

How gestational age is calculated by medical professionals is universal through America as well as Canada, Europe, and other first world nations. Again, please speak with yor trusted family doctor and he/she will tell you how to caculate a woman's ovulation, menstrual cycle, etc.

You want to make convincing arguments about female bodies?? At least do yourself the favor of avoiding biological missteps like these, as it discredits your argument.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 7 years ago
"You are absolutely mistaken; my abhorrence of murder is what drives my perspective. Are you attempting to convince me that murder is good for anyone?"

And your "abhorrence of murder" is driven by your Strict Father worldview.

Murder is never good. Removal of an embryo or fetus prior to week 16 is not murder. It is an amoral medical procedure. Most abortions happen way before that time frame. You can find chemical abortion in the bible. I can't say it any simpler than that.

The point of starting this thread was to share my excitement about finding a book that tries to explain why liberals and conservatives can look at an issue and see it so differently. My hope was that others would be interested in understanding those differences. Apparently not. You've done a wonderful job of demonstrating the books' truth. That is all.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/17/2014)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Hannah Nash
If the estimate isn't to your liking, or you think it contains glaring errors, I would encourage you to take it up with the medical professionals who author the paper every year (you can find their names and professional credentials at the top of the research you and I both referenced).


So, you have changed your effort from accosting me as to information you failed to read originally, to disparaging me over my refusal to accept a flawed report.

If you are willing to accept something with less than 70% accuracy as being 100% factual, that is of course your choice.

What makes you think that I have not taken it up with the powers that be already?

https://www.facebook.com/...13/?type=1
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr
Apparently not. You've done a wonderful job of demonstrating the books' truth. That is all.


Considering that I am neither liberal nor conservative, it is doubtful that I have demonstrated anything of such evil.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (10/17/2014)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 7 years ago
I found their estimates to be perfectly within an acceptable range from a scientific standpoint. I'm fine with it (which has been my stance since my first post).

I said that if YOU found issue with the data (which YOU obvious do), then YOU should pursue that. Not me. You.

I never switched tactics.
Do not accuse me of poor reading comprehension when I have been nothing but respectful and straightforward with you.

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (10/17/2014)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
by Hannah Nash
I found their estimates to be perfectly within an acceptable range from a scientific standpoint. I'm fine with it (which has been my stance since my first post).


Clearly you would as it furthers the liberal immorality.

by Hannah Nash
I never switched tactics.
Do not accuse me of poor reading comprehension when I have been nothing but respectful and straightforward with you.


Do you forget your own statements so quickly?
You initially proclaimed that you wished to clarify, but then quickly revert to chastisement after giving your own incorrect summations or twists of what I had said and/or had cited.

Now, after pointing those out to you, you are in effect denying what you said, so at this point I can already tell that you deny reality.

My only conclusion to make is that there is little point in posting/quoting what you have typed, as you would simply deny it further.

Additionally, you must have failed to read my question asking "what makes you think I have not taken it up with the powers that be?" as you again insist that I should pursue the matter with others, and not you. You need to understand that it was you who entered into the conversation accusing me of not reading the data presented while clearly displaying that you had no idea of what the data was saying.

So, let me turn that around, and ask you to take it up with whomever taught you to read something fully before commenting. If no one ever did, then maybe you should learn to digest what is presented.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 7 years ago
Top