Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
USA Today (warning, video auto-plays):
Seniors who graduate over the next several weeks are poised to be yet another product of a depressing economic cycle that isn’t their fault but that they may never fully recover from.
Fail-buzzer: A preposition is not something you end a sentence with.
But I noticed something else, and Stuart Schneiderman noticed it too:
It’s good for USA Today to say that their bleak job prospects are not their fault. And yet, we must notice that they voted for the politician whose policies are most responsible for this mess.
As the old saying goes, you get what you vote for.
…you get that for which you have voted…
It may be tough for the Class of 2014 to explain this to the Class of, oh, let’s say, 2052 or some such: After we voted in Obama and He fixed everything and made it all moar-wonderful, we were then faced with a depressing economic cycle that somehow wasn’t our fault.
I’m of the opinion that we’re going to survive this. I’m also of the opinion that when & if we do, it will be because — and only because — of a renewed, society-wide understanding of the plain and simple cosmic truth that things that happen, cause other things to happen. Our current miseries result from a widespread ignorance of this; the Weltanschauung that dominates is one that says everything is spontaneous, everything is random, and there’s nothing for anybody to do except believe in politically-correct pablum, start & win all the fights on the Internet about the pablum, tweet/twerk/selfie/Instagram like crazy, and have lots of “hope.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
…you get that for which you have voted…
- CaptDMO | 05/20/2014 @ 07:55Unless, of course, the majority (you know…democracy and stuff) of a State votes for State Constitutional Change, and ONE State, or Federal, judge simply negates it.
‘A preposition is not something with which you end a sentence.’
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 10:02“That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!” — Winston Churchill
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 10:04mkfreeberg: …you get that for which you have voted…
The economic collapse dates to the end of the Bush Administration, not the Obama Administration.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 10:05Or more specifically it dates to the beginning of full Democratic control of the whole Congress, on the heels of fighting two wars (which are always expensive).
In any case, even if you want to blame BOOOOOSH, it’s funny that Obama got into office (with even larger Democratic majorities) and decided that the best way to handle Bush’s economic policies was to continue them, only more.
- nightfly | 05/20/2014 @ 10:56nightfly: Or more specifically it dates to the beginning of full Democratic control of the whole Congress, on the heels of fighting two wars (which are always expensive).
The financial meltdown is far beyond whatever strains the wars put on the U.S. economy.
nightfly: In any case, even if you want to blame BOOOOOSH, it’s funny that Obama got into office (with even larger Democratic majorities) and decided that the best way to handle Bush’s economic policies was to continue them, only more.
Obama is certainly responsible for his response to the economic debacle, just not its cause.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 10:58Obama is certainly responsible for his response to the economic debacle, just not its cause.
Just like, whenever you see a fireman pumping gas on a house fire, it’s very, very important to remember he didn’t strike the match.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 11:36mkfreeberg: Just like, whenever you see a fireman pumping gas on a house fire, it’s very, very important to remember he didn’t strike the match.
Doesn’t look like the fire has gotten worse, which is what you would expect when gasoline is pumped on a fire.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 11:41http://www.floatingpath.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/US-GDP-Growth-Second-Estimate-Q1-2013.png
Doesn’t look like the fire has gotten worse…
Yeah…takes a lot of work to keep it from looking that way.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 11:43mkfreeberg: takes a lot of work to keep it from looking that way.
You might want to be more specific. Are you saying GDP didn’t stabilize after 2009? Here’s job growth:
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 11:46http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2013/08/02/Photos/MG/MW-BG287_jobs_g_20130802084548_MG.jpg
Pro tip: The end of the Bush administration is, by definition, the beginning of the Obama administration. Funny, that.
- Rich Fader | 05/20/2014 @ 13:00Rich Fader: Pro tip: The end of the Bush administration is, by definition, the beginning of the Obama administration.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 nearly brought down the global financial system. The Bush Administration did take immediate action, which helped mitigate the damage.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 13:05The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 nearly brought down the global financial system. The Bush Administration did take immediate action, which helped mitigate the damage.
FTA:
We may debate how much the financial meltdown is related to this current lengthy string of bad years for employment. But it would be a useless debate. With a strong, thriving economy, a disaster that took place in the past is just that, something in the past. Even a big one would have no more effect on the future than, say by way of example, Jimmy Carter’s massive economic screw-ups had on my fortunes (graduated ’84).
It’s always like this when democrats run things, ever since the Great Depression. The misery drags on and on, and they blame the predecessor until it becomes just ridiculous, then they keep going. That’s because they don’t fix anything. They sit, like scavenging animals, waiting for something good to happen so they can take all the credit — and if anything goes wrong, they blame conservatives. That’s what they do.
They don’t live in a world of cause-and-effect. To them, that’s just something you put in a speech to make disasters look like the other guy’s fault.
BOOOOSH!!!
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 18:31mkfreeberg: Previous generations didn’t experience the fallout as harshly or for nearly as long as the current one, Shierholz says.
Shierholz, Davis & Kimball: Unemployment of young graduates is extremely high today not because of something unique about the Great Recession and its aftermath that has affected young people in particular. Rather, it is high because young workers always experience disproportionate increases in unemployment during periods of labor market weakness—and the Great Recession and its aftermath is the longest, most severe period of economic weakness in more than seven decades.
That’s what happens when you break your economy. The authors recommend “fiscal relief to states, substantial additional investment in infrastructure, expanded safety net measures, and direct job creation programs in communities particularly hard-hit by unemployment.”
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 05:59The authors recommend “fiscal relief to states, substantial additional investment in infrastructure, expanded safety net measures, and direct job creation programs in communities particularly hard-hit by unemployment.”
Reagan did it differently. We seem to have a conflict here between positive past experience, and what-the-experts-say. What to do?
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 06:36mkfreeberg: Reagan did it differently.
Reagan didn’t face the same situation. The recession was monetary., Carter and Volcker had put the brakes on inflation, and the economy rebounded when the Federal Reserve eased up on the brakes.
In any case, it was your citation. All we did was read it.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:53In any case, the current economic problems stem from the financial meltdown in 2008.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:54And what started this apparent ambiguous and faultless financial meltdown that has now dragged in spite of Obama‘s brilliant leadership? The “Bush wars”, approved, before they disapproved, by Democrats? Bush spending/wasting 100’s of millions on useless “green energy” loans to failing business run by campaign financiers? Bush spending billions in shovel (not really) projects? Bush doing away with the welfare requirements setup years earlier under speaker Gingrich’s Contract with America? (That conveniently gets labeled as Clinton initiative.)
What, what was it exactly that started the recession…hmmm…oh yeah…it’s been so long…banks being forced to loan to people who had not ability to pay them back. And who instituted, put teeth into enforcing that? (Who’s the governor of NY?) Bush! Ah no…actually he and his administration warned congress numerous times that Freddie and Fannie were in deep doodoo.
But who wouldn’t have any of that? Your boyfriend, Barney Frank and the rest of the liberal, social engineering, , jack wagon, hypocritical establishment who never, ever take any responsibility for the unintended consequences of their actions. Actions driven by pure emotions that appeal to low information nitwits who could care less about life’s cold hard facts but would rather feeeeel good about themselves for having “done something”. When in reality, and proved time and time again, it all is just suckage dressed up with a big bow on top. “Look bread and circuses! Yeah!”
They’d rather blame someone or something else. Or declare they need another government program and yet more money from hard working Americans to fix the problem. All the while they can’t begin to explain the continuing failure of their ideas or legislation.
Nope. Just blame the republicans.
Fuck off.
- tim | 05/21/2014 @ 09:16tim: And what started this apparent ambiguous and faultless financial meltdown …
The financial meltdown, due to a bubble in the unregulated shadow market in securities, was avoidable.
“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far fewer.” — Alan Greenspan
tim: that has now dragged in spite of Obama‘s brilliant leadership?
And we have not argued that the Obama Administration took the best possible course of action, only that the primary precipitating event predates his administration.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 09:29It continues to fascinate me that, in so many areas of failure, the only defense that can be offered for the desultory leadership of Barack Agent-Of-Change Obama consistently boils down to “But it was already that bad before He showed up.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 09:48Morgan: It continues to fascinate me that, in so many areas of failure, the only defense that can be offered for the desultory leadership of Barack Agent-Of-Change Obama consistently boils down to “But it was already that bad before He showed up.”
Exactly – as if His Awesomefullness didn’t campaign upon His presumed ability to fix everything better forever and ever. And of course there are all the events that primarily precipitated during His administration, that He is astounded to hear about.
The thing that astounds me – though at this point it really shouldn’t anymore – is the doublethink required to hold, simultaneously, that Obama is a Philosopher-Jedi-Batman-Lightworker who can fix everything, while simultaneously he’s constantly thwarted by forces out of his control, wielded by nefarious parties. Like, well, here:
Z: The financial meltdown, due to a bubble in the unregulated shadow market in securities, was avoidable.
So it was avoidable, and warned against, and those warnings were ignored – but it’s the fault of those who gave the warning, because, well, that excess demand was just soooooo irresistable. Blame the securitizers for it! And the excess demand from regulators in government who threatened to fine banks into oblivion for not writing those mortgages? That had nothing at all to do with it. And the fix that made it worse? It was simultaneously a terrible idea when W and the Congress did it in 2007, and a great idea that kept things from getting worse once the party affiliations all switched hands.
It’s comic book thinking, and we’re supposed to take it seriously as an adult world view held by mature and responsible people. Actual comic books show more depth and subtlety than this. It’s similar to the simplistic doublethink that held that George W Bush was the evil mastermind of all woes and harms who was simultaneously too stupid to get out of bed in the morning without a giant down arrow pointing his feet to the floor.
- nightfly | 05/21/2014 @ 11:38nightfly: as if His Awesomefullness didn’t campaign upon His presumed ability to fix everything better forever and ever.
Not sure all his supporters thought that Obama could “fix everything better forever and ever”.
Of course, at that time, the depth of the financial troubles wasn’t yet understood. Much of the bad paper was held without oversight, so there was no accounting.
nightfly: So it was avoidable, and warned against, and those warnings were ignored
Again, the problem was precipitated by a bubble in the shadow market in securities, which rivaled the conventional banking system is size; consequently, there was little understanding of what was happening. The obvious solution is to bring the shadow market into the light, as well as hold banks responsible. Meanwhile, you have a large segment of the population unemployed or underemployed.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 12:49Z: Not sure all his supporters thought that Obama could “fix everything better forever and ever.”
It doesn’t take an all, only a lot. And that was the campaign’s tone, message, and platform – it worked well enough to carry him into the White House, so I have to conclude that the message was believed in sufficient numbers to be pertinent.
Z: Of course, at that time, the depth of the financial troubles wasn’t yet understood. Much of the bad paper was held without oversight, so there was no accounting.
It was understood well enough for several people to sound the alarm about Fannie and Freddie before Barack Obama even became a Senator. They were studiously and judiciously called racists and hateful for objecting to the relaxing of the lending standards that then led to the subprime mortgage crisis. The “obvious solution” to bring things to light was in fact tried, while the less-obvious and far more helpful solution – actually doing something about it – was specifically rejected. Oversight and accountability was there for the asking ten years ago, and were fought off.
Saying “But we didn’t know” when the knowledge was offered and rejected isn’t exculpatory. If you’re told it’s likely to rain and refuse to take an umbrella, you’re a fool if you complain later about how wet and miserable you are, even if the rain turns out to be a lot heavier than anyone expected.
- nightfly | 05/21/2014 @ 14:16nightfly: And that was the campaign’s tone, message, and platform – it worked well enough to carry him into the White House, so I have to conclude that the message was believed in sufficient numbers to be pertinent.
While you could argue that optimistic platitudes got Obama elected, after four years, the platitudes had lost whatever luster they had, yet he was handily reelected.
nightfly: It was understood well enough for several people to sound the alarm about Fannie and Freddie before Barack Obama even became a Senator.
Sure. There was evidence the housing market was overheated. However, Fannie and Freddie were latecomers. They were the “greater fools”. The epicenter was with the investment banks.
nightfly: They were studiously and judiciously called racists and hateful for objecting to the relaxing of the lending standards that then led to the subprime mortgage crisis.
There was a relaxation of lending standards, especially during the Bush Administration, but that wasn’t the whole problem. The bubble, like all bubbles was demand driven. There was an insatiable appetite for securities, and investment banks gamed the ratings system. If they had told the buyers what they were really getting, it would have slackened demand.
nightfly: Saying “But we didn’t know” …
That’s not what we said. We said the *depth* of the problem wasn’t known with certainty because there was no oversight of the shadow market, no inventory, so no way to know who had what in terms of toxic securities. No one knew whether Bank of America or Chase or Morgan Stanley had the hot potato. And because no one knew—and they weren’t telling—, if you can’t trust the credit of Bank of America or Chase or Morgan Stanley, then no one can be trusted. The banking system went into seizure. The Bush Administration took immediate action to stabilize the system, or it could have been far worse. Even then, the damage was extensive.
In any case, blaming the Obama Administration for the debacle makes no sense whatsoever. You can certainly make an argument that different policies might have been more effective, but doing nothing would have led to the collapse of the global economic system.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 14:50The epicenter was with the investment banks.
A most deceptive use of the word “epicenter.”
The root cause was with the altered incentives acting upon those investment banks. Altered by the government, that is.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 18:22mkfreeberg: A most deceptive use of the word “epicenter.”
How so? It seems a propos.
mkfreeberg: The root cause was with the altered incentives acting upon those investment banks.
The incentive was that they found out how to put a triple-A rating on questionable mortgages. This fed the bubble in the securities market. We covered this already.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 05:18Correction:
“That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!” — commonly attributed to Winston Churchill
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 05:29http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002670.html
[…] Me, in a comment: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/22/2014 @ 06:01The incentive was that they found out how to put a triple-A rating on questionable mortgages. This fed the bubble in the securities market. We covered this already.
Yup. We live in a universe of cause-and-effect. And there is a long-standing correlation between heavier government involvement, and these “bursting bubbles” in the marketplace.
“That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!” — commonly attributed to Winston Churchill
Spurious?
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 06:23mkfreeberg: We live in a universe of cause-and-effect.
Sure.
mkfreeberg: And there is a long-standing correlation between heavier government involvement, and these “bursting bubbles” in the marketplace.
Quite the contrary. The market cycle had been moderated considerably since the Great Depression. However, those lessons were forgotten, and “tax cuts pay for themselves” and other rot took hold.
mkfreeberg: Spurious?
That’s not clear, but we’re happy to correct our original attribution.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 06:33“…they found out how to put a triple-A rating on questionable mortgages.”
As if they became “questionable” all by their lonesome. Amazing.
It’s truly incredible also how banks, and the free market in general, is able to operate effectively for years, decades, even centuries, without government interference. Then suddenly, as if the banks and securities lost their collect minds and…poof the shit hits the fan.
No mention of how, no mention of who, no mention of blame. No action proceeded it, nope.
And thankfully Greenspan saw it coming…well, not so much.
It’s like synopsis of how government works – they get rat fuck anything and everything and yet…nobody nor anything is to blame. And when the Dem’s are in charge it’s the Republican’s fault…forever. Like Obamacare, it would work if the R’s would just get on board. But yet we just a bunch of racist, misogynistic back woods glingers stuck in the ‘50’s , why would they want us to approve and why would our approval matter? It’s like wanting to throw the eggshell in the cake mix.
So young people are doing OK…good. Obama is really trying, great. Bush sucks, he still sucks and his policies will live forever and ever affecting us for the rest of lives and no president, or representative or senator, with a D in front of his name can do anything about it nor are they to be blamed for anything they do. Even if history has and does prove that their actions are wrong. Got it already.
- tim | 05/22/2014 @ 07:16tim: As if they became “questionable” all by their lonesome. Amazing.
They became questionable due to the cozy relationship between the securitizers and the ratings companies. Investment banks could choose their own rating company, so they could put pressure to get the results they wanted. In addition, they paid exorbitant salaries to hire people away from ratings companies, so that they could better understand how to game the ratings.
tim: It’s truly incredible also how banks, and the free market in general, is able to operate effectively for years, decades, even centuries, without government interference.
During the industrial era, the market cycle became more and more exaggerated, leading to a series of booms and busts. Countercyclical policy helped moderat the market cycle from the Great Depression until the Great Recession.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 07:22…not clear, but we’re happy to correct our original attribution.
“Apocryphal…Verdict: An invented phrase put in Churchill’s mouth.”
Most people, myself included, would interpret “apocryphal” to be a few notches further out than “spurious.” But at any rate, y’all originally attributed the quote to Churchill the same way I attributed the other quote to George Washington, simply connecting the name with the alleged statement.
In neither case was the alleged statement ever popularly attributed to any other name, so in neither case was any correction really needed.
They became questionable due to the cozy relationship between the securitizers and the ratings companies. Investment banks could choose their own rating company, so they could put pressure to get the results they wanted.
Bzzzzt, fail-buzzer. We’re looking for a cause, which means an event, which means some sort of metamorphosis. Banks have had cozy relationships with ratings companies since, well, ever. It’s unavoidable. It’s one of the pitfalls with regulatory activities. Those regulated have to talk with the regulators, which means people have to get to know each other, and they have to develop relationships. We can come up with rules prohibiting gifts in excess of $50 as much as we want, but it doesn’t work.
As far as metamorphosis goes, the conservatives are lining up to blame Community Reinvestment Act, Carter and Clinton phases. That argument has the virtue of making sense, and of fitting into our universe of cause-and-effect. The government got involved (cause), they made a mess (effect). As small-tee tim the godless heathen points out, the banking industry went centuries without creating any such “meltdown” for generations and centuries — until government started getting more and more involved, then we see these messes. And yet we’re supposed to blame the system that came before, and ignore the involvement of those who got involved right before the really big messes happened.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 16:53mkfreeberg: Apocryphal…Verdict: An invented phrase put in Churchill’s mouth.
Quite possibly.
mkfreeberg: Most people, myself included, would interpret “apocryphal” to be a few notches further out than “spurious.”
apocryphal, of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.
spurious, not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
Spurious is the stronger term.
mkfreeberg: But at any rate, y’all originally attributed the quote to Churchill the same way I attributed the other quote to George Washington, simply connecting the name with the alleged statement.
Yes. The difference is that we corrected our statement when it was pointed out the attribution was apocryphal, but you insisted that your attribution was genuine.
mkfreeberg: In neither case was the alleged statement ever popularly attributed to any other name, so in neither case was any correction really needed.
As we said, if you’re just telling a story, then it probably doesn’t matter, but if you are using it to lend credibility to your position, then it does matter.
mkfreeberg: We’re looking for a cause, which means an event, which means some sort of metamorphosis.
Sure. The Bush Administration loosened restrictions, investment banks found a loophole, and got creative.
mkfreeberg: It’s one of the pitfalls with regulatory activities.
Ratings agencies are corporations, not government entities.
mkfreeberg: That argument has the virtue of making sense
It doesn’t make sense. Government mandates don’t make markets. Government mandates won’t lead international investors to pour trillions of dollars into questionable securities. They based their bets on the ratings of the securities, and the tacit government guarantee.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 17:02Yes. The difference is that we corrected our statement when it was pointed out the attribution was apocryphal, but you insisted that your attribution was genuine.
False. I asked for evidence that the quote was “spurious”; none was forthcoming, so I asked to whom else the quote could have been attributed. I received no answer there either.
Someone must have said it. I had simply linked the quote to Washington’s name, and it seems that’s the best name to which it could be attached. No correction needed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 20:06mkfreeberg: I asked for evidence that the quote was “spurious”; none was forthcoming
We provided expert opinion.
mkfreeberg: so I asked to whom else the quote could have been attributed. I received no answer there either.
The quote first appeared years after Washington’s time.
mkfreeberg: Someone must have said it.
Sure. Just not George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 03:10Government mandates don’t make markets. Government mandates won’t lead international investors to pour trillions of dollars into questionable securities. They based their bets on the ratings of the securities, and the tacit government guarantee.
Speaking of not making sense… does any single one of you see that sentence #3 directly contradicts sentence #2 and sentence #1?
Government mandates often lead to billions and trillions being poured into all sorts of questionable activity. All the government has to do is pass a law that say you’ll go to jail or have all your stuff confiscated if you don’t. I am not free to refuse to contribute to Social Security, for example, even though every year they send me a letter telling me they’ll be belly-up and unable to pay any benefits by the year I turn 70. I am now not free to carry the insurance policy of my choice – or no insurance policy – unless I want to get socked with a fine. The insurance companies themselves are pouring a whole crapton of money into all of the systems mandated by the ACA, and when that all goes to smash, I’ve no doubt that whomever of you is still around will claim it was the GOP’s fault and not at all the blame of the people who foisted it upon us all – by government mandate. Because government mandates don’t do that sort of thing, you know that, everyone knows that, so it couldn’t have possibly been them. Unless there’s an R behind someone’s name, and then have at it.
- nightfly | 05/23/2014 @ 10:27nightfly: Speaking of not making sense… does any single one of you see that sentence #3 directly contradicts sentence #2 and sentence #1?
Do you mean the tacit government guarantee? That’s not a mandate, which was the issue under discussion. Investors were not required to invest in mortgage-backed securities, and many lost money doing so.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 10:56M: I asked for evidence that the quote was “spurious”; none was forthcoming
Z: We provided expert opinion.
Bollucks. Y’all can’t even name who they are. That’s about as low as a bar gets, for what “expertise” is.
Anonymous experts cited by anonymous blog-commenters. That’s another chapter for Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 17:42mkfreeberg: Y’all can’t even name who they are.
As usually, you either don’t read, or simply forget. We cited the Mount Vernon Association, in particular, their research and archival staff.
http://www.mountvernon.org/
Here’s a few on their staff.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:06Esther White, Historic Preservation and Research
Mary Thompson, Research Historian
Mark Santangelo, Chief Librarian and Archivist
Michele Lee, Special Collections Librarian
Adam Shprintzen, Archival and Digital Historian
None of whom would lose any face if the quote turned out to be genuine.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:13mkfreeberg: None of whom would lose any face if the quote turned out to be genuine.
Of course they would. It’s not a particularly important issue, so it would be a small loss. There simply isn’t any evidence supporting the attribution, and good reasons to suggest it is spurious. Yet, you continue to say you don’t need any evidence. You found it on the Internet somewhere, so it must be the truth. Or do you mean truthy?
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:33Of course they would.
No, they wouldn’t. They did what experts are supposed to do, recite the facts as best anybody knows them, and then draw their own opinions about what those facts mean…which, by the way, aren’t better than anybody else’s opinions, so long as the other person is equally well-informed about the facts. Facts. Opinions. Them two are different things.
Thing I Know #330. A man who doesn’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion, is not to be trusted in delivering either one of those.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:50mkfreeberg: No, they wouldn’t.
Of course they would, though being a small issue, it would be a small loss of face. But we can test that hypothesis once you present the evidence that they are wrong.
mkfreeberg: They did what experts are supposed to do, recite the facts as best anybody knows them, and then draw their own opinions about what those facts mean…which, by the way, aren’t better than anybody else’s opinions, so long as the other person is equally well-informed about the facts.
Are you equally well-informed about the facts? How much time have you spent studying original documents from the period, including what George Washington wrote in his journals and letters. Have you published your findings for the benefit of other researchers?
By the way, it’s not just facts, but methods that are important for reaching valid conclusions.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 05:45Are you equally well-informed about the facts?
That doesn’t matter, because what y’all’s experts have managed to bring to this is not knowledge, but a lack of it. Failure to find X ≠ success finding !X.
If X was there, how likely would they have been to find it? How diligent was their search? I don’t have any idea. Neither do y’all. Knowledge of this would be necessary in order to answer y’all’s question about my relative command of the facts. All we know is that they went looking for something, and did manage to find it, but not before 1902. And, based on that, they have an opinion.
That’s the way history works. Here & there we are blessed with clues about what happened, or may have happened; but the clues are the exception and not the rule. Our default state, even if we’re experts — as is the case with all other things — is a state of ignorance.
As usual, y’all are wrong, and unaware of how wrong y’all are, because of this belief that some curriculum, vocation or series of exercises can eventually elevate mortal humans above their natural state of ignorance. This is not the case.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:41mkfreeberg: That doesn’t matter, because what y’all’s experts have managed to bring to this is not knowledge, but a lack of it.
That’s not quite correct. Not only do they not find positive evidence, but the purported quote doesn’t fit the historical context.
In any case, your argument is that because there is no evidence against the claim, that your claim is valid.
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 07:46That’s not quite correct. Not only do they not find positive evidence, but the purported quote doesn’t fit the historical context.
Y’all have been given many opportunities to explain how that is. Y’all ended up in the shame closet for shifting back and forth in y’all’s claim that 1) the statement doesn’t fit Washington’s known feelings on the subject, vs. 2) the statement doesn’t fit Washington’s use of the written language. Back & forth between those two. In other words, y’all got caught equivocating.
The “historical context” of the late eighteenth century was that the Founding Fathers were trying to figure out how intrusive the government should be, and how much faith they should put in it. The statement fits that context just fine.
Y’all’s propaganda one-liner there seems to be composed for dissemination to people who are accustomed to being told what to think, who don’t think critically or for themselves.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 08:01Zachriel: Not only do they not find positive evidence, but the purported quote doesn’t fit the historical context.
mkfreeberg: Y’all have been given many opportunities to explain how that is.
We pointed to the library of Mount Vernon concerning the lack of positive evidence, and you have yet to provide any support for your claimed attribution.
As for the historical context, we pointed out that the analogy is something more usually found in the Romantic, not the Enlightenment. We also pointed to specific instances of Washington’s writings, and suggested you read more. We can’t make you look, though. That part is up to you.
It still comes down to you insisting on the attribution without any evidence to support the attribution. Really, it’s just something you should have admitted to, modified your quote to “often attributed to George Washington” and moved on. But because you are a black-and-white thinker, admitting the attribution may be questionable you may see as repudiating the thought behind the quote, which is not the case.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 08:09What’s ironic is that you rail against appeals to authority, but insist on the attribution because of Washington’s supposed authority on government.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 08:12We pointed to the library of Mount Vernon concerning the lack of positive evidence, and you have yet to provide any support for your claimed attribution.
Right. Y’all never did show any solid evidence that someone else said this. Y’all never showed any direct evidence of anything, just “experts” who went looking for something; didn’t find it; and offered an opinion, which is worth the credibility they would lose if it turned out to be wrong. Which is zero.
And then, didn’t even bother to proofread the page.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 10:29You still haven’t provided any support for your claimed attribution.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 13:33You still haven’t provided any support for your claimed attribution.
That’s okay. Someone obviously said it, and before 1902. On that much, everyone is agreed.
There is no other name to whom it has been attributed. By anyone. Even among people who have actual names.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 17:24mkfreeberg: Someone obviously said it, and before 1902. On that much, everyone is agreed.
Oh. What evidence do you have it predates 1902?
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 19:43Attributed to “The First President of the United States” in “Liberty and Government” by W. M., in The Christian Science Journal, Vol. XX, No. 8 (November 1902) edited by Mary Baker Eddy, p. 465; no earlier or original source for this statement is cited; later quoted in The Cry for Justice : An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest (1915) edited by Upton Sinclair, p. 305, from which it became far more widely quoted and in Frank J. Wilstach, A Dictionary of Similes, 2d ed., p. 526 (1924). In The Great Thoughts (1985), George Seldes says, p. 441, col. 2, footnote, this paragraph “although credited to the ‘Farewell’ [address] cannot be found in it. Lawson Hamblin, who owns a facsimile, and Horace Peck, America’s foremost authority on quotations, informed me this paragraph is apocryphal.” This can be found with minor variations in wording and in punctuation, and with “fearful” for “troublesome,” in George Seldes’s book, p. 727 (1966).
What evidence do y’all have that anyone else said this?
Maybe what y’all are missing is that as a statement, it has a lot of merit regardless of who said it first. There is no shortage of people experienced in dealing with government who can vouch for that, and there’s no shortage of people who need to learn it. Whoever originated it, should be given credit for it; and no other name has been offered.
Think y’all have misunderstood a motive as one of stealing George Washington’s notoriety, when actually, all people have been wanting to do is avoid plagiarizing. And y’all still haven’t offered any actual evidence that it’s mis-attributed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 00:24mkfreeberg: What evidence do y’all have that anyone else said this?
You just provided it, notably under the topic of disputed quotes, which indicates a foremost expert considers it apocryphal, and another source inaccurately attributed to his farewell address.
mkfreeberg: Whoever originated it, should be given credit for it
Sure they should. Now you got it!
mkfreeberg: And y’all still haven’t offered any actual evidence that it’s mis-attributed.
You just provided it, notably under the topic of disputed quotes, which indicates a foremost expert considers it apocryphal, and another source inaccurately attributed to his farewell address.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 05:22You just provided it, notably under the topic of disputed quotes, which indicates a foremost expert considers it apocryphal, and another source inaccurately attributed to his farewell address.
Oh good, so I guess that means y’all will finally answer my question:
Who else said this? To what other name should it be attributed? Hand waving is not an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 06:59mkfreeberg: Who else said this?
You already provided the answer. The founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy said it. Your own citation indicates the attribution is probably spurious. Not sure why you keep arguing the point.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 09:19The founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy said it.
Ms. Eddy edited the journal which is the earliest known citation. The history before that, is an unknown.
Which doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Once AGAIN — if y’all can’t understand this, it isn’t anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:32mkfreeberg: Ms. Eddy edited the journal which is the earliest known citation.
Yes, the Christian Science Journal of “Scientific prayer as taught by Mary Baker Eddy in Christian Science is effective because it is based on divine laws.” And nearly a hundred years after Washington supposedly said it. That’s not credible support.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 10:45Yes, the Christian Science Journal of “Scientific prayer as taught by Mary Baker Eddy in Christian Science is effective because it is based on divine laws.” And nearly a hundred years after Washington supposedly said it. That’s not credible support.
Y’all have a right to y’all’s opinion. I don’t think y’all should connect the statement to George Washington, if y’all have this opinion. But, that’s really all it is.
Interesting fact about George Washington quotations: If they happen to lean conservative, they will be attacked. It’s inevitable, especially on Wikipedia. If someone was there who actually heard him say it, they’ll attack it as aw, gee, it’s only from one little kid, and he was six at the time so that doesn’t count.
But there’s a serious side to these questionable arguments that say “can’t find it so it doesn’t count”: This is how history is airbrushed. And, we know it’s happening with George Washington because he was, without question, a remarkable man for his time — and when we ruminate over what academia allows us to recall about him, after they’re done airbrushing out most of what he said, what we’re left with is a vacuum of information mixed in with apparent contradictions packed into one giant enigma. Sometimes, we need to be just as careful about “debunking” things as we need to be about believing things. We wouldn’t want to end up like Snopes.
And once AGAIN — if y’all can’t understand that, it isn’t anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:57So you are going to update your attribution to “Don’t know”?
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 11:42So you are going to update your attribution to “Don’t know”?
Check the attribution. It doesn’t say anything like “I know for sure Washington said this.” It just uses his name, in front of a link, and if you follow the link you find a page at BrainyQuote.
Maybe y’all should take y’all’s findings over there.
- mkfreeberg | 05/26/2014 @ 06:29mkfreeberg: Check the attribution. It doesn’t say anything like “I know for sure Washington said this.”
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington
- Zachriel | 05/26/2014 @ 06:38“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington
Where’s that BrainyQuote link? Y’all keep making that claim, but y’all provide no support for it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/26/2014 @ 09:08mkfreeberg: Where’s that BrainyQuote link?
What? An appeal to (questionable) authority?
- Zachriel | 05/26/2014 @ 09:23Hey. It’d be something.
And I’ve provided that much. So hey, who’s “more likely” to be right…
- mkfreeberg | 05/26/2014 @ 09:33mkfreeberg: Hey.
So to be clear, you’re making an appeal to authority? Is that correct?
- Zachriel | 05/26/2014 @ 12:56So to be clear, you’re making an appeal to authority? Is that correct?
Evidence that I didn’t just make it up. It might be considered a stretch to call it “appeal to authority” since it’s pretty well defined by now exactly what evidence we’re evaluating when we quibble about the likelihood that Washington actually said the fire/government thing. But, if y’all like.
Except that doesn’t exactly make anything “clear.” What would clear things up is:
How come it is that when y’all’s argument is utterly and completely defeated, y’all start foraging around for some phony “gotcha” like a banana-crack-junkie-monkey? I mean, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious by now. But we want to “be clear.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/26/2014 @ 20:06mkfreeberg:
Sure.
mkfreeberg: But, if y’all like.
We take that to mean you are making an appeal to authority. It might be considered a stretch to call it “appeal to authority”.
The Mount Vernon Association, based at the home of George Washington, has professional historians, archivists, and documentarians, with access to original documents, and working within a community of other scholars. Your authority doesn’t provide a source for the quote, doesn’t provide an explanation, nor make reference to any experts in the field.
Which appeal to authority do you think is the more substantial? Furthermore, we provided specific reasons why the attribution is probably spurious.
- Zachriel | 05/27/2014 @ 05:06We take that to mean you are making an appeal to authority. It might be considered a stretch to call it “appeal to authority”.
The Mount Vernon Association, based at the home of George Washington, has professional historians, archivists, and documentarians, with access to original documents, and working within a community of other scholars. Your authority doesn’t provide a source for the quote, doesn’t provide an explanation, nor make reference to any experts in the field.
So y’all’s point is that when y’all pretend something is something, and y’all are told beforehand that it’s a stretch to call it that, then y’all find out it is indeed a stretch to call it that, this somehow proves something. Or not.
Also, that when we study history, it’s just as important to get rid of information about what happened, as it is to get hold of information about what happened.
…based at the home of George Washington…
Oh, my. That is persuasive as well.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 03:06mkfreeberg: Or not.
Word salad.
You said you were making an appeal to authority. The Mount Vernon Association, based at the home of George Washington, has professional historians, archivists, and documentarians, with access to original documents, and working within a community of other scholars. Your authority doesn’t provide a source for the quote, doesn’t provide an explanation, nor make reference to any experts in the field.
- Zachriel | 05/28/2014 @ 05:39The Mount Vernon Association, based at the home of George Washington, has professional historians, archivists, and documentarians, with access to original documents, and working within a community of other scholars. Your authority doesn’t provide a source for the quote, doesn’t provide an explanation, nor make reference to any experts in the field.
Professional historians can be (and often are) wrong, documentarians can be (and often are) wrong, peple with access to original documents can reach the wrong conclusions about what they say or even who wrote them…scholars can be wrong and often are…
People who are not any of those things, can be and often are right. The relationship between being a documetnarian/historian/scholar, and being right, is orthogonal. It isn’t at all like being a liberal and being wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 17:24mkfreeberg: scholars can be wrong and often are…
Sure, but they are more likely to be right about subjects within their field of expertise than laypersons. Hence, when your child is sick, do you call a doctor, or do you order a pizza?
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 05:23“…when your child is sick, do you call a doctor or do you order a pizza?”
Well, that would also be orthogonal, wouldn’t it? One may well do both, or neither. If it’s the sniffles and he has no fever we’re probably all right; we’ll watch him closely and call if we need to. And that has nothing really to do with whether or not we’re all hungry as well.
The Paradox of Z – an unerring instinct to pick the perfect examples to undermine their own position.
- nightfly | 05/29/2014 @ 06:41nightfly: If it’s the sniffles and he has no fever we’re probably all right; we’ll watch him closely and call if we need to.
Call whom? Do you ask the doctor for medical advice, or the pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 06:42Merely calling isn’t enough… you have to be able to trust what you’re told. If the doctor told me to stick my kid in the mircowave to nuke his germs, I would be looking for a better doctor. And there are enough stories out there about people who, when met by incompetence or ignorance in the medical profession, did their own research and eventually discovered – or in some cases, pioneered – the proper treatment for their own conditions.
My wife and I are not doctors, and yet we feel ourselves competent to handle all sorts of common ailments.
Which brings us back to Morgan’s point, which is that the “best experts” or “authorities in such matters” carry more weight in their opinions, but those are still just opinions, and increased reliability is not infallibility.
- nightfly | 05/29/2014 @ 12:26nightfly: Merely calling isn’t enough…
You didn’t answer. Do you ask the doctor for medical advice, or the pizza delivery guy?
It’s already granted that experts are not infallible. The question is whether they are more likely to be right about subjects within their field of expertise than laypersons. Whom do you call?
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 12:33“You didn’t answer. Do you ask the doctor for medical advice, or the pizza delivery guy? ”
I didn’t answer because your question fails to address the issue at hand. The issue in dispute is: are expert’s pronouncements opinions, or do they hold the force of fact?
You grant that they’re not infallible, but you also take their side with alarming regularity over non-experts even when the non-experts actually have facts and logic behind their opinions. I think that it’s unhelpful – indeed, dangerous – to simply summon an expert and then stop thinking about the problem. If the expert’s opinion is at odds with what is actually happening, or leads us to a poor outcome, are we still obliged to follow their advice? What is more important: what is actually there, or what an expert thinks about it?
- nightfly | 05/29/2014 @ 13:56nightfly: The issue in dispute is: are expert’s pronouncements opinions, or do they hold the force of fact?
They are expert opinions. Now, please return the favor. If your daughter is very sick, whom do you ask for medical advice, a doctor, or the pizza delivery person?
nightfly: You grant that they’re not infallible, but you also take their side with alarming regularity over non-experts even when the non-experts actually have facts and logic behind their opinions.
Not at all. You have to evaluate an appeal to authority. Is there a reasonable consensus? Is it a valid scholarly field? Is the authority a crank? Is there undue bias? Do you have contradictory evidence and sufficient knowledge of your own to evaluate that evidence? If someone makes a valid appeal to authority, what you can’t credibly do is simply wave it away.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 14:24Of course you can.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 14:57mkfreeberg: Of course you can.
Not credibly, as we said.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 15:05Not credibly, as we said.
That’s right.
But I would find someone’s dismissal to be very, very credible if the person they were dismissing was Dr. Josef Mengele…in the subject of Dr. Mengele’s expertise…and the man was certainly an expert.
Y’all’s claim fails, because y’all claimed it isn’t possible to do something that is demonstrably possible.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 17:29mkfreeberg: But I would find someone’s dismissal to be very, very credible if the person they were dismissing was Dr. Josef Mengele
We would dismiss Mengele’s opinions because he had biases that undermined his expert opinion, not to mention he had violated his professional oath. That’s not hand waving by any means. That’s an example of a valid ad hominem.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 17:57We would dismiss Mengele’s opinions because he had biases that undermined his expert opinion, not to mention he had violated his professional oath. That’s not hand waving by any means. That’s an example of a valid ad hominem.
I see. So we can credibly dismiss expert opinions if we infer that they are biased.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:13An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:15Y’all didn’t cite y’all’s source, so what y’all wrote down doesn’t mean anything. Nothing more than “The first President of the United States said, ‘Government is not eloquence, it is fire…'”
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:18mkfreeberg: Y’all didn’t cite y’all’s source
Source of what? What constitutes a valid appeal to authority? Don’t they teach you anything in school in your country?
Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“An argument from authority, when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.”
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:29https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html
Internet links! Cool!
Thanks. I’m underwhelmed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:31mkfreeberg: I’m underwhelmed.
An appeal to authority is pretty basic stuff. It’s an everyday thing; the mechanic who fixes your car, the dentist who fills your kid’s cavities, the engineer who builds the bridges that you drive your family over.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:38An appeal to authority is pretty basic stuff.
True. You don’t even need to think critically in order to rely on one. That’s the whole point.
An appeal to authority, when you get right down to it, is like a math student who copies off other kids’ tests and never learns how to do the actual work, chiding his study partner for learning how to do the actual work.
- mkfreeberg | 05/30/2014 @ 05:02mkfreeberg: You don’t even need to think critically in order to rely on one.
That is incorrect. An appeal to authority has to be evaluated like any argument. We’ve discussed this before.
As we’ve said, we’re more than willing to reconsider our position if you provide some evidence. But handwaving is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 07:32Not only was evidence provided, you acknowledged the evidence – *even so far as to concede the point we were making* – only to then return to your original premise and demand a reply to it. (TWEEEEEEEEEET) And our refusal to go back over this ground is called “handwaving,” which is apparently your magic code word for “We don’t feel like thinking about this no more, so just hurry up and agree that we won the argument.”
The game’s ended ten minutes ago and you’re still standing at the plate demanding to know the definition of the strike zone. The correct answer is “Go home, Squirty.”
- nightfly | 05/30/2014 @ 10:50nightfly: The issue in dispute is: are expert’s pronouncements opinions, or do they hold the force of fact?
They are expert opinions. Now, please return the favor. If your daughter is very sick, whom do you ask for medical advice, a doctor, or the pizza delivery person?
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 11:08nightfly: Not only was evidence provided, you acknowledged the evidence
You interposed into mkfreeberg’s comment, and didn’t include a quote. To which of several discussions on this thread are you referring?
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 11:11“You interposed into mkfreeberg’s comment, and didn’t include a quote. To which of several discussions on this thread are you referring?”
I see that Cuttler #4 has tapped in and now wants to get up to speed. Very well.
The contention here is Morgan’s statement that experts can be and often are wrong, even in their area of expertise – that their opinions do not carry the same weight as facts or direct observation. A layperson can form a more accurate opinion based on those things than an expert can based only on their general expertise. And even then, the layperson could turn out to be correct and the expert incorrect while both are looking at the same evidence.
After a few examples, I wrote @ 12:26 on 5/29, “Which brings us back to Morgan’s point, which is that the “best experts” or “authorities in such matters” carry more weight in their opinions, but those are still just opinions, and increased reliability is not infallibility.”
And Cuttler #2 (or 3) replied @ 12:33 : “It’s already granted that experts are not infallible. The question is whether they are more likely to be right about subjects within their field of expertise than laypersons.”
So – a mere seven minutes after I say “Expert opinion isn’t fact, just more credible,” you say…. “Experts are not infallible … but are they more likely to be right?” As a rhetorical trick, it’s almost brilliant – restating your opponent’s conclusion as a question they refuse to answer – but it don’t make a lick of sense. (One may reasonably ask what they’re teaching you in your own schools.)
But it gets better, because at 7:32 today, one of you writes: “An appeal to authority has to be evaluated like any argument. We’ve discussed this before.” But when that appeal to authority is actually discussed, you immediately return to appealing to the authority under discussion as if that settles the issue – effectively short-circuiting the evaluation before it starts, because hey, expert opinion!
Again, rhetorically it’s quite clever. Logically it’s quite dismal.
In any case, all this is a post-game analysis back in the studio, and not a continuation of the game. You’re like those folks in the old Big Red commercials, blissfully kissing while hours later everyone else has gone home. I mean, you’re even in the same pose like they are – cutting and pasting the same statements (or maybe it’s just a macro, who knows how your algorithms were written) every few hours into the threads. While the rest of us go on to useful endeavors, maybe one of you should call a friend to fix the scroll wheel on your mouse, so you can re-read the threads for your newcoming friends and not make one of us do all the research.
- nightfly | 05/30/2014 @ 12:11nightfly: The contention here is Morgan’s statement that experts can be and often are wrong, even in their area of expertise
Correct, though more often right in their area of expertise than laypersons.
nightfly: – that their opinions do not carry the same weight as facts or direct observation.
It’s possible. A layperson may not have access to all the same data or methods of an expert, especially in complex fields. The placebo effect would be an example of a personal observation that may not be indicative of a scientific finding. Nonetheless, evidence always trumps, evidence being observations related to a specific hypothesis.
However, it’s not clear that is mkfreeberg’s position, which seems to meander quite a bit.
nightfly: A layperson can form a more accurate opinion based on those things than an expert can based only on their general expertise.
It’s possible, but anecdotal observations can often be misleading.
nightfly: And even then, the layperson could turn out to be correct and the expert incorrect while both are looking at the same evidence.
It’s possible, but the expert is more likely to be correct.
nightfly: So – a mere seven minutes after I say “Expert opinion isn’t fact, just more credible,” …
We do not see that quote on this thread.
nightfly: But when that appeal to authority is actually discussed …
You mean evaluated. Where?
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 12:24@ Nightfly,
I hope you’re not referring to Squirty, the Official Mascot of Rotten Chestnuts? He may be a rather dull-witted cephalopod, but even he only reiterates the same cut-n-paste nonsense a few dozen times. And he’s got a statute of limitations — these dickheads are attempting to re-litigate threads from two or three years ago.
- Severian | 05/30/2014 @ 12:43Sav – and also pretending that because I didn’t use the precise quote when I summed up, that I must not have meant it. Those exact words didn’t come out in the precise order therefore it wasn’t said, the point remains unmade, and they claim the technical victory.
The complete disinterest in an actual exchange of ideas is really something else. When we don’t give back the pre-approved replies it short-circuits something in the Cuttlers. It’s like the old text adventures when you spend thirty minutes trying to hit on the exact assortment of verbs and nouns to make the program realize that you want to cross the room and go outside. “I don’t know what you mean by (verb). Valid actions include (x, y, z).” It makes it clear that the program is not speaking or understanding language. Beyond that, the concept of “invalid entries” doesn’t work according to the wishes of a program in real life, so it’s ridiculous to attempt to rule as out-of-bounds things that don’t forward one’s own personal script.
It’s so distressing when real people frustrate utopian schemes, whether they’re Settled Science, Approved Official Expertise, or even How the Conversation is Supposed to Go.
- nightfly | 05/30/2014 @ 13:50nightfly: Those exact words didn’t come out in the precise order therefore it wasn’t said, the point remains unmade, and they claim the technical victory.
We didn’t claim victory, nor did we claim that you didn’t say it. We just said we couldn’t find it when we looked for the context. If you consider it an important point, perhaps you could provide that context by providing an accurate quote or something.
nightfly: The complete disinterest in an actual exchange of ideas is really something else.
We replied to your points concerning the limitations of appeals to authority. You apparently lost interest.
nightfly: The issue in dispute is: are expert’s pronouncements opinions, or do they hold the force of fact?
They are expert opinions. Now, please return the favor. If your daughter is very sick, whom do you ask for medical advice, a doctor, or the pizza delivery person?
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 13:57Isn’t it? That’s why I’ve often urged Zachriel to seek professional help. There have been some unfortunate demonstrations lately of what can happen when an excitable-yet-dull-witted fellow has too many conversations that don’t go the way they’re supposed to.
- Severian | 05/30/2014 @ 14:01“We replied to your points concerning the limitations of appeals to authority. You apparently lost interest.”
No, you didn’t reply to my points. You repeated them. And then asked me to refute them.
“[Macro #11]”
TWEEEEEEEET – cut-and-paste. It is still not relevant to the discussion at hand. Repeating it won’t earn it relevance.
You know, this whole bizarre conversation is, in itself, an example of the topic under discussion – a recursive illustration, if you will. The Zachriel are the self-identified experts in argument and rhetoric. They wonder aloud what we’ve all been taught in school and quote their definitions. And we, the laypeople, are expected just to concede the argument to them because of their expertise, have our objections ruled out of bounds because they don’t conform to the expert-approved standards. If we decline to do this, well, we’re going to be brought back to the lesson over and over until we are letter-perfect in our replies.
So much easier to debate if your opponents are only allowed to lose. Real people only get in the way, real life is just an obstacle to pure, sterile theory.
Us real people see something entirely different happening here, but it must not actually be happening that way since the experts think it’s not possible.
- nightfly | 05/30/2014 @ 18:25nightfly: No, you didn’t reply to my points.
Of course we did. We agreed in part with your argument concerning the limitations of appeals to authority, while providing an example where your argument breaks down, in particular, the difference between subjective experience and evidence.
nightfly: And we, the laypeople, are expected just to concede the argument to them ..
Not at all. We hope that if you discover yourself in error that you would acknowledge that error; but if unconvinced, to respond substantively.
nightfly: … because of their expertise, …
We always try to provide appropriate support, and never ask anyone to accept what we say simply because we say it. And we are more than willing to consider arguments against our position, especially when supported by evidence.
nightfly: … have our objections ruled out of bounds because they don’t conform to the expert-approved standards.
If you make fallacious or unsupported arguments, we may well point it out.
- Zachriel | 05/31/2014 @ 06:12M: You don’t even need to think critically in order to rely on [an appeal to authority]. That’s the whole point.
Z: That is incorrect.
Pffft!! Of course it’s correct! You just repeat what the “expert” said, without demonstrating any comprehension of the subject whatsoever. A parrot can do that.
That was lame, even by y’all’s standards.
- mkfreeberg | 05/31/2014 @ 16:41mkfreeberg: You don’t even need to think critically in order to rely on [an appeal to authority]. That’s the whole point.
That is incorrect. An appeal to authority has to be evaluated, just like any claim. In addition, an argument against a valid appeal to authority can be raised through the introduction of evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/31/2014 @ 18:10An appeal to authority has to be evaluated.
No, it doesn’t. You just say “Such-and-such an expert says” and you’ve made an appeal to authority. That’s why it’s such a weak foundation.
- mkfreeberg | 06/01/2014 @ 07:40mkfreeberg: You just say “Such-and-such an expert says” and you’ve made an appeal to authority.
We mad an appeal to authority, and provided information concerning the qualifications of that authority.
- Zachriel | 06/01/2014 @ 09:05We mad an appeal to authority, and provided information concerning the qualifications of that authority.
Right. No critical thinking required. So, what y’all said is not true.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 03:49mkfreeberg: No critical thinking required.
Evaluated qualifications requires critical thinking. For instance, an expert astrologer is not a valid appeal to authority because the field is not a valid field of scholarship. If someone expresses a minority view within their field, but doesn’t qualify their opinion as a minority view, then they are not expressing a consensus. If someone working for the tobacco company says that smoking causes no health problems contrary to consensus, then they may be unduly biased.
An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and like all arguments is subject to criticism.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 05:37Evaluated qualifications requires critical thinking. For instance, an expert astrologer is not a valid appeal to authority because the field is not a valid field of scholarship. If someone expresses a minority view within their field, but doesn’t qualify their opinion as a minority view, then they are not expressing a consensus. If someone working for the tobacco company says that smoking causes no health problems contrary to consensus, then they may be unduly biased.
An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and like all arguments is subject to criticism.
And, y’all are perfectly welcome to recognize appeals to authority as equally solid compared to other arguments. That’s the beauty of America. People have the freedom to be wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 17:33mkfreeberg: And, y’all are perfectly welcome to recognize appeals to authority as equally solid compared to other arguments.
It would depend on the argument. However, you haven’t offered much of an argument.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 17:38However, you haven’t offered much of an argument.
About what?
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 18:20mkfreeberg: About what?
About most anything we have discussed.
For instance, when you define liberalism as bad, then conflate that with what most people mean by liberalism, then you are equivocating. When you define liberalism as bad to argue liberalism is bad, you are begging the question.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 04:19For instance, when you define liberalism as bad, then conflate that with what most people mean by liberalism, then you are equivocating. When you define liberalism as bad to argue liberalism is bad, you are begging the question.
Words, I am told, are defined by their usage. A position of “We have targeted a certain class of individuals who do not enjoy basic human rights, because we refuse to recognize them as people” is a liberal position. The opposing position is a conservative one. No one of any note disputes this. It’s the one thing on which pro-lifers and pro-aborts will agree.
When I note that the slavery issue was polarized exactly the same way, somehow y’all have a problem with that. But we don’t even know who y’all are, and meanwhile, the argument is exactly the same one.
- mkfreeberg | 06/03/2014 @ 05:24mkfreeberg: Words, I am told, are defined by their usage.
That’s right; otherwise, it’s just blowing wind through your feeding tube.
mkfreeberg: A position of “We have targeted a certain class of individuals who do not enjoy basic human rights, because we refuse to recognize them as people” is a liberal position. The opposing position is a conservative one.
mkfreeberg: No one of any note disputes this. It’s the one thing on which pro-lifers and pro-aborts will agree.
There is virtually no one who is “pro-abortion”. By using that term, you are pretending not to recognize the opposing argument, which is just a way to say you don’t have an argument you can defend.
We asked you before. Do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the life and health of the mother?
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 05:30“There is virtually no one who is “pro-abortion”. By using that term, you are pretending not to recognize the opposing argument, which is just a way to say you don’t have an argument you can defend.”
Pro-lifers would contend that using this term simply recognizes the opposing argument for what it truly is. In practice, “safe, legal, and rare” grows to mean “at will, despite any consequence, with no discussion of possible repurcussion or side effect.” So in practice, “life of the mother” exceptions, which are not and have never been controversial – even the Roman Catholic Church permits lifesaving efforts that will result in the death of an unborn child – expand to “life and health,” with the “health” expanding to mean “emotional stability.” The case of an exceptional few who might actually be unable to mentally cope with childbearing is used to give color of legitimacy to those who are simply “not ready for this right now” or whose plans “don’t fit a child right now.”
Funny how every regrettable necessity, when referring to abortion, always trends towards “necessity” while the “regrettable” drops away. And in fact this is not a matter of interpretation, but of straight observation – this is the precise journey taken by legalized abortion and its advocates from the 70’s until today. And the most strident feminists will make no secret of that having been the goal all along. Again – as if we needed any further examples – the moderate Left is co-opted into the extreme position. The way it happens is that the prior middle ground is held up as extremist in the other direction: “a blow against women’s rights that would outlaw most abortions” is a favorite phrase, which covers everything from parental notifications to enforcement of health codes at clinics.
I honestly am not too interested in what milder, focus-tested phrases roll off the pro-aborts’ tongues. What do they promote and work towards? What do their actions favor? The proper description for their behavior is “pro-abortion.”
Leaving this aside – it is a tangential issue after all – the practice of abortion, as Morgan observes, targets “a certain class of individuals who do not enjoy basic human rights, because we refuse to recognize them as people.” In this case it is most definitely the current liberal position.
- nightfly | 06/03/2014 @ 12:47nightfly: In practice, “safe, legal, and rare” grows to mean “at will, despite any consequence, with no discussion of possible repurcussion or side effect.”
Even if one supports complete legalization of abortion doesn’t mean someone is pro-abortion. It just means they think the woman should choose, and not the government. In addition, most people who are considered pro-choice still support reasonable restrictions, such as third trimester abortions, except in the case of non-viable fetuses or danger to the mother.
nightfly: So in practice, “life of the mother” exceptions, which are not and have never been controversial …
Woman’s death in Ireland abortion case ruled ‘medical misadventure’
cnn.com/2013/04/19/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy-inquest
Thorny abortion debate looms in Chile
thesundaily.my/news/1066583
The Life of the Mother
factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/
To clarify your position, do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the health of the mother?
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 15:14Even if one supports complete legalization of abortion doesn’t mean someone is pro-abortion.
This is an ancient argument that just doesn’t wash. If the modern left was in favor of choice on the abortion issue, with the defining principle being that people should be able to make autonomous choices and handle the consequences that result, they would continue to uphold that principle in other matters. White potatoes, guns, light bulbs and everything else.
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2014 @ 05:01mkfreeberg: If the modern left was in favor of choice on the abortion issue, with the defining principle being that people should be able to make autonomous choices and handle the consequences that result, they would continue to uphold that principle in other matters.
We asked you before. Do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the life and health of the mother?
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 05:53nightfly: “So in practice, “life of the mother” exceptions, which are not and have never been controversial”…
Z: :::links, of course:::
Not surprisingly, not a single one of the three examples you gave comes close to refuting my statement.
EXAMPLE ONE: the story clearly states that under Irish law, abortion is permissible due to “a real and substantial risk to the mother’s life.” The dispute there was whether that poor woman’s case consituted a real and substantial risk, with no decision made primarily due to procedural errors, such as the consulting doctor not informed of the blood test results showing an infection. An offhand comment by a midwife to the contrary does not create any controversy over what the law actually is, nor what the Roman Catholic Church actually holds.
EXAMPLE TWO: story clearly states that exceptions based on risk to the mother’s life are permitted in nearly every other country, and also that Chile also had such exceptions until the dictator Pinochet ruled otherwise in 1989. I also note that the Archbishop’s comments had to do, not with the actual proposal – since rather inconveniently, Madame President Bachelet has yet to introduce it – but in what the Chilean president said about the topic. Who knows what that was, since the story doesn’t offer any more detail. (If it’s anything like the “controversies” ginned up around here when it comes to Church teaching, it’s very likely that somebody didn’t know what the teaching actually was, forcing some prelate or spokesperson to explain it – and a media who chooses to paint the correction on the doctrinal point as an opposing viewpoint.)
Oh, and there’s this: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/03/chilean-cardinal-gets-police-protection-from-potential-demonstrators/
Because one of the things the other story doesn’t cover is that the Archbishop (now Cardinal) has been threatened by protestors who want abortion decriminalized across the board, not just for certain exceptions. Certainly the pictures of the protestors carrying “I Heart Abortion” signs (as seen here) doesn’t do much for your assertion that complete legalization isn’t the same as pro-abortion.
EXAMPLE THREE: factcheck.org, HAHAHAHAHA. And sure enough, it’s a doofus Representative saying that women’s lives are not at risk from pregnancy – not that any woman whose life was in danger should not be treated.
Z: “To clarify your position, do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will?”
This frames the question in rather a biased manner, don’t it? Because now we’re no longer talking about life exceptions, but mere will. And we’re talking about something that may well be something a government ought to be involved in: whether the people who live within its borders are subject to be put to death with no due process and no recourse, merely because the mood takes that person’s parents.
“Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the health of the mother?”
Those three things are not all the same. And again, we’ve gone from “the only lifesaving option available” to a bunch of other stuff. Can you ever, even once, talk about what we’re actually talking about instead of trying to nudge the nets off their pegs halfway through the game?
- nightfly | 06/04/2014 @ 08:43nightfly: EXAMPLE ONE: the story clearly states that under Irish law, abortion is permissible due to “a real and substantial risk to the mother’s life.”
“Praveen Halappananvar said that he had been told an abortion could not be done while the fetus was still alive because Ireland is a Catholic country.”
So *in practice*, “life of the mother” exceptions have been controversial.
nightfly: story clearly states that exceptions based on risk to the mother’s life are permitted in nearly every other country, and also that Chile also had such exceptions until the dictator Pinochet ruled otherwise in 1989.
So *in practice*, some countries do not have legal exceptions, including Chile.
nightfly: And sure enough, it’s a doofus Representative saying that women’s lives are not at risk from pregnancy – not that any woman whose life was in danger should not be treated.
So there exists a controversy where some on the right think that pregnancy is never dangerous, a belief they use to avoid having to answer the question—the same question you avoid answering.
Do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the life and health of the mother?
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 10:42“Praveen Halappananvar said that he had been told an abortion could not be done while the fetus was still alive because Ireland is a Catholic country.”
I dealt with that: “An offhand comment by a midwife to the contrary does not create any controversy over what the law actually is, nor what the Roman Catholic Church actually holds.” If you’re having a conversation in a coffee shop and I lean over from my neighboring table to tell you to shut up, does that create a legal controversy over the First Amendment?
“So *in practice*, some countries do not have legal exceptions, including Chile.”
In practice, Chilean women have abortions to the rate of 150,000 per year anyway.
“So there exists a controversy where some on the right think that pregnancy is never dangerous, a belief they use to avoid having to answer the question—the same question you avoid answering.”
Not *some* – one. One guy. And again – not a controversy, no matter what factcheck.org decides to call one for the sake of whipping up some useful frothing. It changed nor challenged any law. It was merely a factual mistake born of ignorance, easily corrected.
And I did respond to your question – I challenged its base assumptions and its dishonest terms. It’s not the first time I’ve had to do it, either.
- nightfly | 06/04/2014 @ 11:38nightfly: I dealt with that: “An offhand comment by a midwife to the contrary does not create any controversy over what the law actually is, nor what the Roman Catholic Church actually holds.
We never mentioned the Catholic Church, but the fact that a woman died in Ireland because she couldn’t get an abortion for a hopeless pregnancy that was killing her. “In practice” as you said.
Irish policy was controversial, and it resulted in a 2010 ruling against Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights. Irish law was only changed in 2013.
nightfly: In practice, Chilean women have abortions to the rate of 150,000 per year anyway.
That’s right, the country with one of the most restrictive abortion laws has among the highest abortion rates in the region. And yes, the lack of exceptions is controversial.
nightfly: And I did respond to your question – I challenged its base assumptions and its dishonest terms.
This is the question: Do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the life and health of the mother?
Are you saying that the life of the mother is never threatened by a pregnancy? Are you saying that the health of the mother is never threatened by pregnancy? That no one gets pregnant from rape or incest, that a woman has a magical way to “shut down” their reproductive system?
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 12:29http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/us-congressman-rape-victims-bodies-shut-down-pregnancies-automatically-no-need-for-abortion/politics/2012/08/19/46974
“This is the question: Do you believe government should be able to force a woman to carry to term against her will? Are you against abortion even in cases of incest, rape, and to protect the life and health of the mother?”
No, that is not the question. You can ask it until you are blue in your collective tentacles, but we were specifically talking about whether legalized abortion is the same as being pro-abortion. And the exception under discussion was permitting lifesaving measures for a pregnant woman that would result in the death of the unborn child.
Lo and behold, you are trying to lump that in with other health concerns, rape and incest, and to “carry to term against her will,” which is basically “I’ve changed my mind about this now.” You’re trying to get us to defend the whole thing or reject the whole thing. This is, as I’ve noted above, dishonest. Also, just framing your question that way is proof positive that, indeed, legalized abortion is all about pro-abortion, and not at all about a desperate remedy in limited circumstances. You did see all those I HEART ABORTION signs the Chilean protestors were holding, right? Promoted not as an ugly and rare necessity to be avoided when possible, but as a positive in its own right.
As to your newly-added questions, again – none of those things is at issue here. None of us has said the first thing about any of that, but you’re dragging it into the discussion as a strawman that you want to force us to defend. No sale.
- nightfly | 06/04/2014 @ 14:20nightfly: No, that is not the question.
Thought it was your false claim that there was no controversy over life of the mother exceptions. In any case, you don’t need to divulge your personal views. Suffice it to say that most people recognize the need for some abortions. That doesn’t make them pro-abortion.
nightfly: we were specifically talking about whether legalized abortion is the same as being pro-abortion.
Sure. Women wake up and hope they are pregnant so they can get an abortion.
Virtually no one is pro-abortion. Indeed, nearly everyone who supports abortion rights also supports ready access to contraception in order to reduce the need for abortion.
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 16:05Gotta hand it to those liberals, they really do support individual choice over interference from government. Oh…wait…maybe we need to reconsider that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 05:57Well, it wasn’t a false claim. It is an entirely plausible claim. We did you the courtesy of actually reading the three counterexamples – in fact I read other stories about them, not just those you linked, and that’s how I found that lovely picture that all y’all are studiously avoiding in your grandiloquent summaries. Sadly for your outsized self-opinion, that picture comes along with the only one of your three objections that would have held any water.
In any case, if you happen to be Chilean you can go ahead and call it a controversy if you like – but that’s not your assertion. You said “life of the mother” exceptions were themselves controversial. They’re sooooooo controversial, in fact, that only one place has any dispute over it, and that’s because they used to recognize the exception and stopped doing so later on. That’s weak. Far more countries on earth dispute that women have the right to a basic education, or the right to drive a car, or marry whom they please without being murdered in cold blood by their own families. Those rights are not made controversial because of this.
“Sure. Women wake up and hope they are pregnant so they can get an abortion. Virtually no one is pro-abortion.”
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. It’s like saying that I’m not pro-medicine because I don’t want to be sick. But if I am sick, then I’m going to get the medicine. I will be enormously annoyed by idiotic laws requiring me to show ID and sign something in order to get that medicine, even if I admit the utility of certain restrictions. So even though I don’t want to use medicine if I don’t need it, I am completely pro-medicine the moment I catch something. And I will react badly to attempts to deny medicine to sick people even if I’m healthy.
- nightfly | 06/06/2014 @ 07:26nightfly: You said “life of the mother” exceptions were themselves controversial.
You made the broad claim that “in practice, ‘life of the mother’ exceptions, which are not and have never been controversial”. Not only have they been controversial, but are still controversial in many places.
nightfly: It’s like saying that I’m not pro-medicine because I don’t want to be sick.
Being pro-medicine includes using medical science to help people avoid getting sick. No one prefers to have medical treatment, but would rather avoid the medical treatment. The term pro-abortion is clearly misleading.
- Zachriel | 06/06/2014 @ 11:02[…] childhood from my professing Democrat family. I flatter myself that I would do much better than most of the folks currently lining up for their team. That whole exchange, like so many they’ve attempted, goes awry and stays awry for a fairly […]
- It’s something like… | Blog of the Nightfly | 06/06/2014 @ 11:27[…] childhood from my professing Democrat family. I flatter myself that I would do much better than most of the folks currently lining up for their team. That whole exchange, like so many they’ve attempted, goes awry and stays awry for a fairly […]
- No matter who you are, pawns don’t move backwards | Blog of the Nightfly | 06/06/2014 @ 11:29“You made the broad claim that “in practice, ‘life of the mother’ exceptions, which are not and have never been controversial”. Not only have they been controversial, but are still controversial in many places.”
ONE place. And I gave an example of how putting something into dispute doesn’t automatically create a controversy, even if the dispute is more widespread.
“Being pro-medicine includes using medical science to help people avoid getting sick. No one prefers to have medical treatment, but would rather avoid the medical treatment. The term pro-abortion is clearly misleading.”
No – in fact I used pro-medicine in exactly the way others are pro-abortion, and for a particular reason: some people treat pregnancy as if it were an illness to be treated. Your use of “rather avoid the medical treatment” – by not getting sick at all – only reinforces my example. The point is, what happens when the sickness/pregnancy occurs? What is the reaction? Decidedly, avowedly, stridently “pro-“.
You know, I don’t really take this personally, but I confess to a little annoyance here. I took the time to not only read your counterpoints, but to read the sources you gave and even to read further to have a better understanding. In fact, it could well be that I now know more about this than you yourselves do, because I put in the time. But I am neither a group, nor a collective. There are a hundred other things I prefer to do with my time, but I’m giving you the courtesy of taking your replies seriously and not just spitting out rote answers or cut-and-paste jobs of prior phrases. If what you believe is so unimportant to you that you don’t put in even that much effort, then why should I or any of the rest of us?
- nightfly | 06/06/2014 @ 12:41nightfly: And I gave an example of how putting something into dispute doesn’t automatically create a controversy, even if the dispute is more widespread.
“Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.”
Ireland Has Performed Its First-Ever Legal Abortion, And It Saved A Dying Woman’s Life, Ireland’s new abortion law was spurred by Halappanavar’s tragic death, which sparked a global controversy.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/23/2516291/ireland-legal-abortion/
nightfly: The point is, what happens when the sickness/pregnancy occurs?
Sometimes babies. Sometimes miscarriage. Sometimes abortion.
nightfly: What is the reaction? Decidedly, avowedly, stridently “pro-”.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but lots of pro-choice women have children.
nightfly: If what you believe is so unimportant to you that you don’t put in even that much effort, then why should I or any of the rest of us?
Indeed, we have attempted to understand your position and respond appropriately.
- Zachriel | 06/06/2014 @ 13:07In the U.S., personhood amendments define embryos as citizens with equal rights. That would mean it would make abortion illegal even in cases where it threatens the life of the mother. Furthermore, it would make many forms of birth control illegal, as well as fertility treatments.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 07:34I’ve read these amendments. They’re usually very simple, just a line or two, and they do not define embryos as citizens, but as persons according to the legal definition of person already existing in those states. (Non-citizens still have certain natural rights recognized and protected by law.) That would suggest something like due process and other legal protections, but not an absolute bar to abortion in extremis. It would outlaw abortifacients masquerading as birth control, abortion for the heck of it, and abortions as amateur eugenics: weeding out Downs children, for example, which is one of the popular rationales for elective abortion.
I would say the same applies to certain ferility treatments. They would be altered, certainly, since they often create several embryos in the attempt to successfully bear only one child. That has been controversial since it first became possible, and for the same reason: so many lives created merely to be disposed as inconvenient or unnecessary. In that way, the practice far more closely resembles an elective abortion than an emergency lifesaving measure. Logically speaking, the difficulty would be resolved so long as all the embryos get the chance to come to term – either by only conceiving one at a time or else arranging for anybody else to be adopted by willing couples.
Personhood USA, a group supporting these measures, seems to disagree about “life of the mother” exceptions, but they also say that there were virtually no abortions in the United States before 1973, which is a laughable assertion. (Their grammar isn’t too sharp in some places, either.) Besides, as a practical matter such exceptions would certainly continue, no matter the opinion of any advocate group. The existing legal precepts applying to other persons do not forbid self-defense, nor prevent the state from prosecuting criminals and denying them their own rights – or even determining the rights of one person to take precedence over others’ at need. In addition, minors routinely have many of their legal rights abrogated, or else exercised on their behalf by their parents.
I still think you mistake the actual controversy over elective abortion as one that extends to cover medically-necessary lifesaving acts. The dispute wouldn’t be over the need for such a line to be drawn, only where that line ought to lie. Many of the most recent arguments are only because medical science has made such progress as to resolve previously-impossible difficulties – the line moves, but is not erased.
- nightfly | 06/09/2014 @ 09:57nightfly: They’re usually very simple, just a line or two, and they do not define embryos as citizens, but as persons according to the legal definition of person already existing in those states.
You are correct, and we misspoke previously.
nightfly: That would suggest something like due process and other legal protections, but not an absolute bar to abortion in extremis.
You can let someone die, but you can’t proactively end an innocent life to save another.
nightfly: It would outlaw abortifacients masquerading as birth control …
Most forms of birth control, including the pill, can sometimes result in the loss of an embryo. Should women who use birth control be prosecuted for child endangerment?
nightfly: That has been controversial since it first became possible, and for the same reason: so many lives created merely to be disposed as inconvenient or unnecessary.
It’s because the technology has a low rate of success, so several embryos have to be created.
nightfly: I still think you mistake the actual controversy over elective abortion as one that extends to cover medically-necessary lifesaving acts.
In the U.S., Roe v. Wade largely eliminated many restrictions on first-term abortions, so no law restricting abortion can get passed without including a life of mother exception. Instead, pro-life groups work on making acquiring an abortion more and more difficult. However, many groups have made it clear their goal is to eliminate all abortions.
- Zachriel | 06/09/2014 @ 10:25“Most forms of birth control, including the pill, can sometimes result in the loss of an embryo. Should women who use birth control be prosecuted for child endangerment? ”
From what I’ve read, what we commonly think of as “The Pill” is not intended to prevent implantation, but to prevent conception entirely by fooling the body into thinking it’s already pregnant. In any case, it’s neither possible nor wise to winnow such cases from the whole of people using any drugs that work this way; nor should they all accused all at once of something both impossible to prove and of which they are probably innocent anyway.
Logically, any measure recognizing embryos as persons by law could outlaw the sale of chemicals specifically designed to kill an embryo or prevent implantation, while permitting purely contraceptive measures.
- nightfly | 06/12/2014 @ 13:14nightfly: From what I’ve read, what we commonly think of as “The Pill” is not intended to prevent implantation, but to prevent conception entirely by fooling the body into thinking it’s already pregnant.
The pill works three different ways:
“The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.”
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills
Taking the pill could result in the loss of an embryo, so could be considered child endangerment.
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 13:28