ElectricFetus:
Now might be a good time to tell us all what you have learned about sexual harassment from your participation in this thread.
Now might also be a good time to apologise to Bells.
So...
I would suggest that, following the treatment that Bells, in particular, has been subjected to by various posters in this thread
New meaning to late term abortion.
And you posted that as if it something to do with Bells's posting, and was relevant to the thread, neither of which was so and one of which was part of the harassment problem here (the other being part of the relevance problem).capracus said:I made the point that if she advocated that a woman should have the right to terminate up to full term, and for emphasis the point of umbilical severance, then such a stance could reasonably be considered advocating the killing of a baby.
Allow me to join several others in asserting that, in my opinion, you have. You have downplayed the clarity and flagrancy of the harassment, for starters, and "overlooked" the existence of the overall pattern even after it was pointed out to you explicitly, and in a couple of other ways - highlighted by Bells quite cogent posts - deflected consideration of the actual nature of the posting here.james said:I don't think I've made excuses for anybody.
In a forum such as this one, and especially and explicitly in a thread in which the implications of holding "lives" to be "sacrosanct" from "the moment of conception" is exactly and explicitly the thread topic, any "rabid pro-lifer" who adopts such posting as their "standard" should be reminded of the several violations of forum policy they thereby commit - and when they persist, dealt with firmly by any handy moderator.james said:You know and I know that it's standard in any discussion about abortion for pro-lifers to label pro-choicers as baby killers. For the rabid pro-lifer, the pro-choicer condones the murder of innocent unborn babies whose lives should be sacrosanct from the instant of conception.
That is not obvious. Bells's interpretation of your "advice" - to ignore such posting as we see here, and not respond, because that is not her proper role - is an ordinary and reasonable one, and not obviously false or even exaggerated.james said:Obviously I have never told you to shut up or to mind your place.
Your motives are your own business, and no one is questioning them. Your cutting slack for objectionable and inexcusable posting by some folks, while giving "advice" and warnings to sane and reasonable posting by others, is at issue. Your deflection into discussion of "motive", and imputation of such invalid consideration to others, is part of that issue.james said:What would be my motivation in condoning any form of sexual harassment on this forum?
But as a result of his long and consistent history of posting here - which you have been repeatedly asked to consider - it's well justified and long over due. I am not the only poster who, after being subjected to LG's tactics, has pointed out that his posting here appears calculated and premeditated. This is far from the first or only thread in which LG (and a couple of others in his chorus here and elsewhere) has been granted "lack of moderation" for some reason mysterious to me. You should not pretend that the only factor in a decision to ban that poster is a couple of recent posts: they were completely in character and consistent with many months of LG's contributions here.james said:I don't think LG's permanent ban as a result of that and his use of the term "hysterical" is justified
I posted that comment in response to Bell’s claim that I accused her of wanting to kill babies.And you posted that as if it something to do with Bells's posting, and was relevant to the thread, neither of which was so and one of which was part of the harassment problem here (the other being part of the relevance problem)
If you’d care to read the exchanges between Bell’s and myself, you’ll see and hopefully understand the evolution of our contention and its relevance to the thread.
To be clear, once again, I don't want babies murdered. Considering what I spent a lot of my adult life doing for a living, you couldn't be more wrong.I posted that comment in response to Bell’s claim that I accused her of wanting to kill babies.
If you’d care to read the exchanges between Bell’s and myself, you’ll see and hopefully understand the evolution of our contention and its relevance to the thread.
I read them. They motivated the post, there - this: "And you posted that as if it something to do with Bells's posting, and was relevant to the thread, neither of which was so and one of which was part of the harassment problem here (the other being part of the relevance problem)."capracus said:If you’d care to read the exchanges between Bell’s and myself, you’ll see and hopefully understand the evolution of our contention and its relevance to the thread.
Sunlight may disinfect, stagelight does not.What are you suggesting?
Isn't sunlight the best disinfectant (to quote one of our colleagues)?
Allow me to join several others in asserting that, in my opinion, you have [made excuses for LG and others]. You have downplayed the clarity and flagrancy of the harassment, for starters, and "overlooked" the existence of the overall pattern even after it was pointed out to you explicitly, and in a couple of other ways - highlighted by Bells quite cogent posts - deflected consideration of the actual nature of the posting here.
In a forum such as this one, and especially and explicitly in a thread in which the implications of holding "lives" to be "sacrosanct" from "the moment of conception" is exactly and explicitly the thread topic, any "rabid pro-lifer" who adopts such posting as their "standard" should be reminded of the several violations of forum policy they thereby commit - and when they persist, dealt with firmly by any handy moderator.
You can't support one standard of argument for "rabid pro-lifers", and another for their targets and the rest of the forum participants. There's no reason to give such posters special privileges.
That is not obvious.Obviously I have never told you to shut up or to mind your place.
Bells's interpretation of your "advice" - to ignore such posting as we see here, and not respond, because that is not her proper role - is an ordinary and reasonable one, and not obviously false or even exaggerated.
Your motives are your own business, and no one is questioning them. Your cutting slack for objectionable and inexcusable posting by some folks, while giving "advice" and warnings to sane and reasonable posting by others, is at issue. Your deflection into discussion of "motive", and imputation of such invalid consideration to others, is part of that issue.
But as a result of his long and consistent history of posting here - which you have been repeatedly asked to consider - it's well justified and long over due.I don't think LG's permanent ban as a result of that and his use of the term "hysterical" is justified
I am not the only poster who, after being subjected to LG's tactics, has pointed out that his posting here appears calculated and premeditated.
This is far from the first or only thread in which LG (and a couple of others in his chorus here and elsewhere) has been granted "lack of moderation" for some reason mysterious to me.
You should not pretend that the only factor in a decision to ban that poster is a couple of recent posts: they were completely in character and consistent with many months of LG's contributions here.
I don't need to pretend. Tiassa is on record as saying that he banned lightgigantic for a 15 month record of unacceptable posts - posts that had as a matter of fact been accepted right up to when he was banned.
To be clear, once again, I don't want babies murdered. Considering what I spent a lot of my adult life doing for a living, you couldn't be more wrong.
I'll explain my dry foot policy and hopefully this will put your mind at ease or answer questions that have been answered but was misunderstood and misrepresented and misconstrued.
My dry foot policy that I support is that a woman always has rights over her person and her body. That is integral. While she is pregnant, that basic and fundamental human right does not fade. In that regard, I do not believe that an unborn child can have personhood rights while it is inside her body, the reason being is not that it does not deserve it, but because history has shown that when it is legally defined as a "person", then women do die.
You made some comments in this thread which were troubling. For example, saying that maybe women get a kick out of getting an abortion and the manner in which you seem to believe that women do not think about what it is they are doing when they get an abortion. All evidence points to the contrary. No woman wants to or would get a kick out of having contractions for 3 days and being in absolute pain for that length of time, nor would a woman or girl seek out such an option without consideration of what it is they are doing. No one aborts a viable foetus on a whim. Women have abortions for a variety of reasons, it is not done because she changed her mind right before it's due. 3rd trimester abortions, as has been explained many times now, are exceptionally rare and the reasons have been listed and linked numerous times, and I don't plan on linking it again.
Now, you seem to be of the belief that I was advocating that a woman could be popping out the baby and decide to abort it, or change her mind after it is born and stuff it back in and abort it then. You seemed to become angry and offended when I refused to give any credence to such ridiculous notions. I will say this now. I won't take impossible and ridiculous arguments seriously. If you are going to dream up an impossible scenario in a what if situation that cannot happen in reality, then I will never assign it to what I may believe or support. If you dream up something that cannot happen and does not happen in reality, then I'm sorry, but at no time will I say 'oh yes I would support that because I support the dry foot policy'. My stance is based off what happens in reality, not in what if situations.
That does not mean a woman can legally abort a baby whenever she wants. I linked you an interview with one of the very few abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions. The moment that it comes even close to full term, she will not abort it. I also don't see a woman in labour changing her mind and trying to find an abortionist aborting her baby - perhaps the exception was the hack who was a murderer, but no one does that. My dry foot policy is based on what happens in real life and in reality. In other words, what I believe does not even come close to some of the things you were making up and attributing to me. Why? Because what you were making up does not happen in reality. If one day we get to a point of insanity and there are doctors who are willing to abort a woman's pregnancy when she is at full term and about to deliver, then we can have that discussion. But I am not going to entertain something that is not even a possibility.
To be clear, once again, I don't want babies murdered. Considering what I spent a lot of my adult life doing for a living, you couldn't be more wrong.
I understand the need for protecting the health of pregnant women, but I also believe that a once a fetus reaches a distinct level of consciousness, it deserves some consideration in regards to its right to live. Where exactly that point occurs during pregnancy is open for debate. It could be as early as 22 weeks, or conceivably postnatal. My argument errs on the early side, and unfortunately would complicate the desires of a woman to terminate late. In any case I don’t think women should be required to unreasonably sacrifice their health to save a fetus. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies would be prevented, negating their associated medical and social costs.I'll explain my dry foot policy and hopefully this will put your mind at ease or answer questions that have been answered but was misunderstood and misrepresented and misconstrued.
My dry foot policy that I support is that a woman always has rights over her person and her body. That is integral. While she is pregnant, that basic and fundamental human right does not fade. In that regard, I do not believe that an unborn child can have personhood rights while it is inside her body, the reason being is not that it does not deserve it, but because history has shown that when it is legally defined as a "person", then women do die.
I believe I acknowledged the fact that women don’t their kicks from abortions.You made some comments in this thread which were troubling. For example, saying that maybe women get a kick out of getting an abortion and the manner in which you seem to believe that women do not think about what it is they are doing when they get an abortion. All evidence points to the contrary. No woman wants to or would get a kick out of having contractions for 3 days and being in absolute pain for that length of time, nor would a woman or girl seek out such an option without consideration of what it is they are doing. No one aborts a viable foetus on a whim. Women have abortions for a variety of reasons, it is not done because she changed her mind right before it's due. 3rd trimester abortions, as has been explained many times now, are exceptionally rare and the reasons have been listed and linked numerous times, and I don't plan on linking it again.
Circumstances in life lead to multitudes of unwanted outcomes; some are more avoidable than others. At least in modern societies getting pregnant should be in the avoidable category, but unfortunately social conditioning hasn’t yet achieved that goal, and until it does there will be a need to deal with the undesirable consequences of pregnancy at all stages. I ‘m fully aware that there are women with legitimate medical need for late termination, but there are also some who don’t. I wish there was better documentation on the late term cases so we could better understand the issue.I imagine some women could conceivably get their kicks from an abortion procedure, but I’m not aware of any. It certainly wasn’t the case for my wife many years ago.
I used an extreme interpretation of Tiassa’s dry foot policy, that personhood begins at umbilical severance. I then used an extreme example to expose the implication of that stance. I considered the obvious point to be, would a reversal of condition result in a reversal of rights. I was somewhat amazed that it wasn’t understood as intended. Whether out of misunderstanding, or ideological posturing from both our sides, the whole discussion seemed to stray in various pointless directions early on.Now, you seem to be of the belief that I was advocating that a woman could be popping out the baby and decide to abort it, or change her mind after it is born and stuff it back in and abort it then. You seemed to become angry and offended when I refused to give any credence to such ridiculous notions. I will say this now. I won't take impossible and ridiculous arguments seriously. If you are going to dream up an impossible scenario in a what if situation that cannot happen in reality, then I will never assign it to what I may believe or support. If you dream up something that cannot happen and does not happen in reality, then I'm sorry, but at no time will I say 'oh yes I would support that because I support the dry foot policy'. My stance is based off what happens in reality, not in what if situations.
Like I mentioned earlier, I wish there was more documentation of these late term cases so we could effectively analyze the reality of it all. The medical reality is that some late term abortion procedures essentially mirror delivery procedures, with the difference being the mortality of the fetus. We both know that the Dr. Gosnell’s of the industry might be inclined to accommodate such late term desperation. We also both know that pregnant women will kill their babies at birth, and I would think it likely that somewhere along the line that doctors may have assisted. I never said or expected that you personally condone such action, but did imply that an extreme interpretation of your dry foot policy could legitimize it.That does not mean a woman can legally abort a baby whenever she wants. I linked you an interview with one of the very few abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions. The moment that it comes even close to full term, she will not abort it. I also don't see a woman in labour changing her mind and trying to find an abortionist aborting her baby - perhaps the exception was the hack who was a murderer, but no one does that. My dry foot policy is based on what happens in real life and in reality. In other words, what I believe does not even come close to some of the things you were making up and attributing to me. Why? Because what you were making up does not happen in reality. If one day we get to a point of insanity and there are doctors who are willing to abort a woman's pregnancy when she is at full term and about to deliver, then we can have that discussion. But I am not going to entertain something that is not even a possibility.
Get you eyes and/or comprehension checked.I read them.
I don't have to "think", or estimate "likelihood", or engage in motive guessing - I have the example of the standards right in front of me, for many months.james said:I'm not advocating any kind of double standard. I'm quite firmly pro-choice myself, as it happens, so if I were inclined to show bias it would seem more likely that I would support those with whom I agree, don't you think?
I can only speak for myself, but my reason was lack of confidence in your judgment and that of the other moderators, based on past experiences with your evaluations of such tactics by such posters.james said:Why were there no reports submitted about the harassing behaviour, by anybody participating in the thread?
James, I quoted one of the several responses by you (choosing a sufficient one) that I thought completely justified Bells interpretation. Quoted, right in the post, and directly referenced. And you ask that question, without even a pass at dealing with the reference and post? Dude, that's trolling. By you.james said:Obviously I have never told you to shut up or to mind your place.
That is not obvious.
Well, I hope we're clear on that now. The record shows that Bells has been quite vocal thoughout the course of this thread, and I have at no point said that she should not be.
- - -
Where have I talked about Bell's "proper role" in all this?
1) The factions involved here are not divisible so, without complaint - EF, for one, has been repeatedly and stridently vocal about that. 2) Nobody objecting to LG's, EF's, Wynn's, etc, posting has engaged in anything remotely approaching LG's etc routine level of despicable rhetoric and bad faith posting tactics. That does not mean, require, suggest, or imply, as you attempt to frame things, that any of them are "unimpeachable"; and that kind of response by you is part of the problem here.james said:And do you have any concerns about the way the pro-choice advocates here have put their side of the case? Or have they all acted in an unimpeachable fashion?
From where are you coming up with that kind of innuendo? And why?james said:Is there something there apart from expressing views that you stridently disagree with on topics such as religion and abortion?
And I keep reading them, like this:capracus said:I read them.
Get you eyes and/or comprehension checked.
A post describing that bullshit as an "interpretation" of what Bells posted is not at all difficult to comprehend.capracus said:Bells, I seriously don’t believe you want to kill babies, but from a conservative interpretation of my perspective, the policy that you advocate could be interpreted as leading to that outcome.
In the future, when you "sincerely don't believe" something, and it's a personal attack, and it's an ad hominem fallacy, and the entire claim you are pushing with this stupid insult you don't believe and ad hominem argument you regard as somebody else's interpretation is completely irrelevant to the thread topic, how about you don't post it? Just a suggestion.