Calling Trumpistas "Stupid" May Be a Kindness They No Longer Merit - Page 10

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You are accusing Planned Parenthood of being deceptive about whether or not they sell "baby parts".

Multiple people at Planned Parenthood would have to be involved in perpetrating this deception.

That isn't a conspiracy. That's standard corporate PR spin.

ProBonoShill · 2nd August 2019, 05:03 PM

Let's get this thread back on track shall we.

I wonder if FMW thinks the Conservatives in this video are "dumb and racist":

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA- The part starting at 6:17 is very interesting.

wareyin · 2nd August 2019, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How is that a conspiracy? I allege nothing secret, nothing illegal. And the basic facts upon which I base my conclusion are public and undisputed.

So undisputed that you are the only one arguing for them?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How can it be a conspiracy theory if I'm not alleging a conspiracy? Seriously, how stupid an accusation can you make?

I hope you were not looking for competition in posting stupid accusations, as there is no way I could compete with your fine efforts.

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

So undisputed that you are the only one arguing for them?

Do you deny that PP provided fetal tissue to companies?

Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue?

If so, then you are at odds with PP's own public statements. If not, then I don't see what underlying facts we're in disagreement about.

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Let's get this thread back on track shall we.

I wonder if FMW thinks the Conservatives in this video are "dumb and racist":

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA- The part starting at 6:17 is very interesting.

I believe the standard excuse is "internalized racism". Don't know if FMW specifically believes in that, or if he thinks it applies here.

Regnad Kcin · 2nd August 2019, 06:22 PM

These baby parts...are they thin skinned?

Upchurch · 2nd August 2019, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue?

If so, then you are at odds with PP's own public statements.

These two statements are false. You are misrepresenting both what PP does and it's public statements.

Foolmewunz · 2nd August 2019, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Let's get this thread back on track shall we.

I wonder if FMW thinks the Conservatives in this video are "dumb and racist":

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA- The part starting at 6:17 is very interesting.

Not sure I get your point.

No where have I said that conservatives are dumb and racist, and those two identifiers aren't the criteria under discussion. The group under discussion is "Trumpistas", the devotees to Trump who stand by him not just in spite of, although that's part of the group, but BECAUSE OF his exclusionary bigoted programs and attitudes and his recent moves to hammer that wedge between different parts of American society.

What a bunch of black conservatives have experienced, personally, does not address the question I'm asking. We don't have a sufficient number of black members here to even have that conversation. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that there's systemic racism in the Democratic side of the political debate. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that self-appointed liberal gatekeepers have an abiding hatred for conservatives. What this has to do with the willful bigots standing by an administration that's got social policies driven by Trump-Miller (or Miller-Trump, which I suspect is more accurate), I'm not sure. Tu Quoque is a fallacy for a reason.

Minoosh · 2nd August 2019, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims?

Beelzebuddy · 2nd August 2019, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I can't pretend to understand why some posters say what they say. It seems there is a contingent that, while not necessarily defending Trump, will instead attack criticisms of Trump, often seizing on one aspect of a controversy and digging in so that the thread becomes about some tangential issue. I don't know if that's just conservatives, but it seems that way to me.

ETA: Let's say it's not 40 percent who will support Trump no matter what. It's some other number - hopefully much smaller than 40 percent. But even if it's 39 percent, I think that one percentage point matters. My hope is that at the polls some 2016 Trump voters will realize that 4 more years of Trump are going to be bad for the country. Even if he's not a racist pig, but just dangerously incompetent.

Which is where the thesis of the thread comes in. I'm more inclined to attribute your aunt as being part of that one percent who'll turn on Trump than the contingent you describe. She has a reasonable enough position, it's just built on a pile of fear, doubt and slander instead of facts. Meanwhile the contingent are the ones spreading that fear, doubt and slander, and you can only attribute so much to incompetence before it spills over into malice.

Pterodactyl · 2nd August 2019, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I can't pretend to understand why some posters say what they say. It seems there is a contingent that, while not necessarily defending Trump, will instead attack criticisms of Trump, often seizing on one aspect of a controversy and digging in so that the thread becomes about some tangential issue. I don't know if that's just conservatives, but it seems that way to me.

ETA: Let's say it's not 40 percent who will support Trump no matter what. It's some other number - hopefully much smaller than 40 percent. But even if it's 39 percent, I think that one percentage point matters. My hope is that at the polls some 2016 Trump voters will realize that 4 more years of Trump are going to be bad for the country. Even if he's not a racist pig, but just dangerously incompetent.

I am all in on the dangerously incompetent argument against Trump. I believe that is exactly what he is. Not only is he not smart or diligent enough to adequately execute the duties of the office he holds, he also doesn't know that he's not smart enough to do so, which is extra dangerous.

If it seems like I occasionally "attack criticisms of Trump" or in this case
"evil" Trump supporters, it's because I think some of these criticisms or arguments are ridiculous, and additionally, counterproductive to the point of being dangerous themselves. People who adhere to critical or skeptical thinking should be discerning in their arguments, and not resort to emotional or religious reasoning to justify their disdain.

On top of that (my opinion only), over use of terms like bigot, racist, etc. devalue their meaning and exaggerate racial tensions. Trump may indeed be racist, but I don't find that to be the defining characteristic of his incompetence or his appeal to most of the populace that supports him. Nor do I think he is clever enough to exploit such support without overtly expressing it. I think what you see is what you get with Trump, and that should be bad enough without having to play up the racist component.

ProBonoShill · 2nd August 2019, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Not sure I get your point.

No where have I said that conservatives are dumb and racist, and those two identifiers aren't the criteria under discussion. The group under discussion is "Trumpistas", the devotees to Trump who stand by him not just in spite of, although that's part of the group, but BECAUSE OF his exclusionary bigoted programs and attitudes and his recent moves to hammer that wedge between different parts of American society.

What a bunch of black conservatives have experienced, personally, does not address the question I'm asking. We don't have a sufficient number of black members here to even have that conversation. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that there's systemic racism in the Democratic side of the political debate. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that self-appointed liberal gatekeepers have an abiding hatred for conservatives. What this has to do with the willful bigots standing by an administration that's got social policies driven by Trump-Miller (or Miller-Trump, which I suspect is more accurate), I'm not sure. Tu Quoque is a fallacy for a reason.

So many fallacies so little time. Moving the goalposts, special pleading, moronic strawman.

Good try at walking back your OP, but the ridiculous bias is there for all to see.

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

These two statements are false. You are misrepresenting both what PP does and it's public statements.

They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did.

Upchurch · 2nd August 2019, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did.

Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.

They explicitly say they are following the law and not selling fetal tissue. I mean that is literally what they said and you are claiming the opposite. The facts are not on your side, not even a little bit. You’d have to believe that words don’t mean what they mean to twist them into your point.

Foolmewunz · 2nd August 2019, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl

I am all in on the dangerously incompetent argument against Trump. I believe that is exactly what he is. Not only is he not smart or diligent enough to adequately execute the duties of the office he holds, he also doesn't know that he's not smart enough to do so, which is extra dangerous.

If it seems like I occasionally "attack criticisms of Trump" or in this case
"evil" Trump supporters, it's because I think some of these criticisms or arguments are ridiculous, and additionally, counterproductive to the point of being dangerous themselves. People who adhere to critical or skeptical thinking should be discerning in their arguments, and not resort to emotional or religious reasoning to justify their disdain.

On top of that (my opinion only), over use of terms like bigot, racist, etc. devalue their meaning and exaggerate racial tensions. Trump may indeed be racist, but I don't find that to be the defining characteristic of his incompetence or his appeal to most of the populace that supports him. Nor do I think he is clever enough to exploit such support without overtly expressing it. I think what you see is what you get with Trump, and that should be bad enough without having to play up the racist component.

See? We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What I find counter-productive is allowing the miscreants to control the vocabulary of the debate. We see it constantly. No one wanted to discuss the actual "basket of deplorables" statement but wanted to clutch pearls and try to make any conservative think Hillary was calling them names. And it's funny how all you Let's Be Reasonable And Discuss This folks were invisible while the Great Right Wing Noise Machine was spreading that lie. The right was allowed to control the language of the debate and managed to avoid the actual disgusting reprobates on the far right who so earned the description.

We've seen similar treatment of Richard Spencer and his neo-nazis. "Oh, you can't call 'em Nazis, how are we going to reason with them if you do?"

Now I can't call bigots "evil"? Why not? Calling Neo-Nazis "alt-right" allows them a luxury I don't choose to allow them. Calling bigots "bigots" and classifying them taxonomically as "evil" isn't that big a deal. And like with the "deplorables", we have the ISF version of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine ignoring the subject but saying, "Hey, wait, you calling me evil?"

No. I'm not. I'm calling bigots "evil". And no one wants to address that. They'd rather argue semantics or bring out the Even Newer Christie Minstrels and sing Kumbaya with Richard Spencer, the White Citizens Council and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

The Great Zaganza · 2nd August 2019, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did.

The problem is that the rhetoric you use has in the past led to massive defunding and the consequent lack of health services for women.
If, as you say, PP is doing nothing illegal, why get so worked up about it?

ProBonoShill · 2nd August 2019, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

See? We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What I find counter-productive is allowing the miscreants to control the vocabulary of the debate. We see it constantly. No one wanted to discuss the actual "basket of deplorables" statement but wanted to clutch pearls and try to make any conservative think Hillary was calling them names. And it's funny how all you Let's Be Reasonable And Discuss This folks were invisible while the Great Right Wing Noise Machine was spreading that lie. The right was allowed to control the language of the debate and managed to avoid the actual disgusting reprobates on the far right who so earned the description.

We've seen similar treatment of Richard Spencer and his neo-nazis. "Oh, you can't call 'em Nazis, how are we going to reason with them if you do?"

Now I can't call bigots "evil"? Why not? Calling Neo-Nazis "alt-right" allows them a luxury I don't choose to allow them. Calling bigots "bigots" and classifying them taxonomically as "evil" isn't that big a deal. And like with the "deplorables", we have the ISF version of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine ignoring the subject but saying, "Hey, wait, you calling me evil?"

No. I'm not. I'm calling bigots "evil". And no one wants to address that. They'd rather argue semantics or bring out the Even Newer Christie Minstrels and sing Kumbaya with Richard Spencer, the White Citizens Council and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Your racism is showing, black Americans don't need some guy living in Thailand talking down to them. Check your privilege

Foolmewunz · 2nd August 2019, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

So many fallacies so little time. Moving the goalposts, special pleading, moronic strawman.

Good try at walking back your OP, but the ridiculous bias is there for all to see.

WTF? I haven't walked back my OP in the least. I keep trying to explain it to those who pretend not to understand it.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Your racism is showing, black Americans don't need some guy living in Thailand talking down to them. Check your privilege

Haw haw, that's some of that there not-really-funny stuff, there. Try addressing the topic and concentrating less on counting coup.

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The problem is that the rhetoric you use has in the past led to massive defunding and the consequent lack of health services for women.
If, as you say, PP is doing nothing illegal, why get so worked up about it?

I didn’t get worked up about it. And I’m not going to refrain from telling the truth because you don’t like the possible consequences.

Ziggurat · 2nd August 2019, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.

They explicitly say they are following the law and not selling fetal tissue. I mean that is literally what they said and you are claiming the opposite. The facts are not on your side, not even a little bit. You’d have to believe that words don’t mean what they mean to twist them into your point.

You are wrong. First off, the law does not prohibit the sale of fetal tissue. The law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Second, not, they do not deny selling fetal tissue. They deny profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. They use the word “reimburse”, but again, in the post in question above, what I described (companies give PP money, and PP gives them fetal tissue) is not in any way in conflict with PP’s own words. They match. Yes, words have meaning, but you don’t seem to be aware of either the meaning or the words.

jimbob · 3rd August 2019, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims?

Is it an extraordinary claim? I have acquaintances who have similar sets of beliefs, especially evangelical Christians, who often to have rather cranky beliefs, in my experience.

But again, nice attempt at deflection.

Craig4 · 3rd August 2019, 01:10 AM

I see the OP's point. However, it's hard not to look at these scum and not conclude they are stupid. They can still be filth bigots and racists too but stupid definitely covers it.

kellyb · 3rd August 2019, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims?

I know a lawyer (!!!) who is convinced that PP pushes/sells/provides BCPs instead of IUDs specifically because BCPs have a higher failure rate, so there are more unintended pregnancies, so PP can profit off providing more abortions.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2019, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You are wrong. First off, the law does not prohibit the sale of fetal tissue. The law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue.

The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Second, not, they do not deny selling fetal tissue. They deny profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. They use the word “reimburse”, but again, in the post in question above, what I described (companies give PP money, and PP gives them fetal tissue) is not in any way in conflict with PP’s own words. They match. Yes, words have meaning, but you don’t seem to be aware of either the meaning or the words.

No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue and then follow up that they don’t actually say they sell fetal tissue. Those are mutually exclusive statements. Your partisanship is overriding your natural pedantry.

Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and providing a service?

jimbob · 3rd August 2019, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit.

No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue and then follow up that they don’t actually say they sell fetal tissue. Those are mutually exclusive statements. Your partisanship is overriding your natural pedantry.

Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and recouping the costs ofproviding a service?

Additional highlight, according to my understanding.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2019, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Additional highlight, according to my understanding.

That’s fair. I was taking baby steps.

theprestige · 3rd August 2019, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself.

jimbob · 3rd August 2019, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself.

There is no reason to doubt Minoosh - it is an ordinary claim and many of us know people with views that are consistent with her aunt, so her key point about them being in a bubble of confirmation bias is valid whatever. BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT her, anymore than if I was saying that it is sunny over my house at the moment.

theprestige · 3rd August 2019, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Is it an extraordinary claim? I have acquaintances who have similar sets of beliefs, especially evangelical Christians, who often to have rather cranky beliefs, in my experience.

But again, nice attempt at deflection.

Thanks! I'm working on being as evil as possible.

But so what?

I showed the recent posts to a black friend of mine. He thinks Zig is way off base about PP, and that FMW has some typical problematic ally stuff going on.

Upchurch · 3rd August 2019, 04:28 AM

Regardless, Aunt Ziggurat is here to champion the idea that PP sells baby parts. Does it matter whose aunt believes the propaganda in order to debunk it?

theprestige · 3rd August 2019, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I know a lawyer (!!!) who is convinced that PP pushes/sells/provides BCPs instead of IUDs specifically because BCPs have a higher failure rate, so there are more unintended pregnancies, so PP can profit off providing more abortions.

What is this? Random anecdote day?

Foolmewunz · 3rd August 2019, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself.

Why? I don't recall you ever asking TBD to provide documentary proof of any of the anecdotal friends who forcefully supported his ~~lies~~ contentions, and some of them were egregiously fictional. Why would you question an archetype that shows up in a thread on typical Americans? Are you saying such people don't exist? Seems that if they do, then it really doesn't matter if Minoosh's relative is real or merely a literary device.

In short, do you have an actual argument to make or are you just casting aspersions on the posts of people who seem to disagree with you about the the Pollyanna-ish version of America you're trying to promote?

johnny karate · 3rd August 2019, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That isn't a conspiracy. That's standard corporate PR spin.

You are alleging that Planned Parenthood is committing a crime.

You are alleging that their "PR spin" is being done in service of that crime.

That is by legal definition a conspiracy.

johnny karate · 3rd August 2019, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue?

I deny. Because they don't. They gave money to Planned Parenthood in return for services rendered, not the fetal tissue.

jimbob · 3rd August 2019, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I deny. Because they don't. They gave money to Planned Parenthood in return for services rendered, not the fetal tissue.

They gave money to Planned Parenthood to recoup their costs in providing the service, which is even less nefarious.

theprestige · 3rd August 2019, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Why? I don't recall you ever asking TBD to provide documentary proof of any of the anecdotal friends who forcefully supported his ~~lies~~ contentions, and some of them were egregiously fictional.

Once I understood his idiom (which was shortly after he joined), I never really bothered to read or engage with TBD.

But I am open to the argument that Minoosh's claims merit the same treatment I gave TBD.

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2019, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You are alleging that Planned Parenthood is committing a crime.

No I'm not. I've explicitly said so multiple times that I'm not claiming PP committed any crime. And I don't think you even understand the law if you think what I said they are doing is a crime.

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2019, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit.

No, and obviously so, because they have costs associated with handling the tissue. Just like pretty much ANY company which handles ANY product has costs associated with handling that product, and which they try to recoup through the sale of that product.

Quote:

No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue

PP explicitly states that they provide fetal tissue and get paid for it in return. They don't use the word "sell", they use the word "reimburse", but that doesn't matter. Their word choice doesn't make it not a sale.

Quote:

Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and providing a service?

First off, the distinction you're trying to make between a product and a service is nonsensical, as the fish example illustrates. In the case of a fisherman, the fish are free, he's only doing a service by obtaining them. Well, no. The customer doesn't care what services the fisherman had to do in order to get that fish, he just wants the fish, and the fish is a thing. It's a product. Same here: the customers don't care what PP did to get the tissue, they just want the tissue, and the tissue is a thing. It's a product.

Second, I note a cute rhetorical trick here: sell a product, provide a service. But of course, you can also provide a product or sell a service. So there's no distinction between selling and providing, as long as money changes hands. Which it does here.

Distracted1 · 3rd August 2019, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why are these questions relevant? Would their answers change whether or not the tissue is sold?

The doctors who perform the implant surgery don't procure the organ.

I see.
Since the doctor is merely taking the organ that is provided to him, and "processing" it in such a way that it meets the patients needs, the fees paid to the doctor do not represent a "sale" of the kidney by the doctor.

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2019, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

I see.
Since the doctor is merely taking the organ that is provided to him, and "processing" it in such a way that it meets the patients needs, the fees paid to the doctor do not represent a "sale" of the kidney by the doctor.

The problem with your comparison is that the cost of an organ transplant isn't unified. There are a ton of different parts going into it. The doctor, the anesthetist, the nurses, the hospital, the insurance company, etc, etc. The actual surgeon is a small part of it. If you want to say that a sale took place, I'm OK with that. I really don't care. But the surgeon isn't in charge of that. He charges for his time, even if the transplant ends up not happening. And he may not charge the patient, or event he patient's insurance, for that time. He may charge the hospital, which will then bill the patient. So there's not much of a case for the surgeon specifically having sold anything. You could make a case for the hospital having sold the organ, though. Do you have a problem with that? And if so, why?

But none of that complexity exists here. It's all covered under one entity, PP, which does everything.

2nd August 2019, 03:58 PM	#361
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by johnny karate You are accusing Planned Parenthood of being deceptive about whether or not they sell "baby parts". Multiple people at Planned Parenthood would have to be involved in perpetrating this deception. That isn't a conspiracy. That's standard corporate PR spin.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

2nd August 2019, 06:16 PM	#364
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by wareyin So undisputed that you are the only one arguing for them? Do you deny that PP provided fetal tissue to companies? Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue? If so, then you are at odds with PP's own public statements. If not, then I don't see what underlying facts we're in disagreement about.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

2nd August 2019, 06:22 PM	#366
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,240	These baby parts...are they thin skinned?
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

2nd August 2019, 06:25 PM	#367
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,384	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue? If so, then you are at odds with PP's own public statements. These two statements are false. You are misrepresenting both what PP does and it's public statements.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

2nd August 2019, 07:46 PM	#370
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,077	Originally Posted by Minoosh I can't pretend to understand why some posters say what they say. It seems there is a contingent that, while not necessarily defending Trump, will instead attack criticisms of Trump, often seizing on one aspect of a controversy and digging in so that the thread becomes about some tangential issue. I don't know if that's just conservatives, but it seems that way to me. ETA: Let's say it's not 40 percent who will support Trump no matter what. It's some other number - hopefully much smaller than 40 percent. But even if it's 39 percent, I think that one percentage point matters. My hope is that at the polls some 2016 Trump voters will realize that 4 more years of Trump are going to be bad for the country. Even if he's not a racist pig, but just dangerously incompetent. Which is where the thesis of the thread comes in. I'm more inclined to attribute your aunt as being part of that one percent who'll turn on Trump than the contingent you describe. She has a reasonable enough position, it's just built on a pile of fear, doubt and slander instead of facts. Meanwhile the contingent are the ones spreading that fear, doubt and slander, and you can only attribute so much to incompetence before it spills over into malice.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,077

2nd August 2019, 05:05 PM	#363
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,363	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How is that a conspiracy? I allege nothing secret, nothing illegal. And the basic facts upon which I base my conclusion are public and undisputed. So undisputed that you are the only one arguing for them? Originally Posted by Ziggurat How can it be a conspiracy theory if I'm not alleging a conspiracy? Seriously, how stupid an accusation can you make? I hope you were not looking for competition in posting stupid accusations, as there is no way I could compete with your fine efforts.

2nd August 2019, 06:35 PM	#369
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,242	Originally Posted by theprestige Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims?

2nd August 2019, 07:49 PM	#371
Pterodactyl Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by Minoosh I can't pretend to understand why some posters say what they say. It seems there is a contingent that, while not necessarily defending Trump, will instead attack criticisms of Trump, often seizing on one aspect of a controversy and digging in so that the thread becomes about some tangential issue. I don't know if that's just conservatives, but it seems that way to me. ETA: Let's say it's not 40 percent who will support Trump no matter what. It's some other number - hopefully much smaller than 40 percent. But even if it's 39 percent, I think that one percentage point matters. My hope is that at the polls some 2016 Trump voters will realize that 4 more years of Trump are going to be bad for the country. Even if he's not a racist pig, but just dangerously incompetent. I am all in on the dangerously incompetent argument against Trump. I believe that is exactly what he is. Not only is he not smart or diligent enough to adequately execute the duties of the office he holds, he also doesn't know that he's not smart enough to do so, which is extra dangerous. If it seems like I occasionally "attack criticisms of Trump" or in this case "evil" Trump supporters, it's because I think some of these criticisms or arguments are ridiculous, and additionally, counterproductive to the point of being dangerous themselves. People who adhere to critical or skeptical thinking should be discerning in their arguments, and not resort to emotional or religious reasoning to justify their disdain. On top of that (my opinion only), over use of terms like bigot, racist, etc. devalue their meaning and exaggerate racial tensions. Trump may indeed be racist, but I don't find that to be the defining characteristic of his incompetence or his appeal to most of the populace that supports him. Nor do I think he is clever enough to exploit such support without overtly expressing it. I think what you see is what you get with Trump, and that should be bad enough without having to play up the racist component.

2nd August 2019, 08:14 PM	#372
ProBonoShill Master Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,321	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Not sure I get your point. No where have I said that conservatives are dumb and racist, and those two identifiers aren't the criteria under discussion. The group under discussion is "Trumpistas", the devotees to Trump who stand by him not just in spite of, although that's part of the group, but BECAUSE OF his exclusionary bigoted programs and attitudes and his recent moves to hammer that wedge between different parts of American society. What a bunch of black conservatives have experienced, personally, does not address the question I'm asking. We don't have a sufficient number of black members here to even have that conversation. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that there's systemic racism in the Democratic side of the political debate. No one's denying (or at least I'm not) that self-appointed liberal gatekeepers have an abiding hatred for conservatives. What this has to do with the willful bigots standing by an administration that's got social policies driven by Trump-Miller (or Miller-Trump, which I suspect is more accurate), I'm not sure. Tu Quoque is a fallacy for a reason. So many fallacies so little time. Moving the goalposts, special pleading, moronic strawman. Good try at walking back your OP, but the ridiculous bias is there for all to see.
	__________________ "CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag

2nd August 2019, 08:40 PM	#373
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by Upchurch These two statements are false. You are misrepresenting both what PP does and it's public statements. They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

2nd August 2019, 08:48 PM	#374
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,384	Originally Posted by Ziggurat They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did. Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. They explicitly say they are following the law and not selling fetal tissue. I mean that is literally what they said and you are claiming the opposite. The facts are not on your side, not even a little bit. You’d have to believe that words don’t mean what they mean to twist them into your point.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

2nd August 2019, 08:54 PM	#375
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by Pterodactyl I am all in on the dangerously incompetent argument against Trump. I believe that is exactly what he is. Not only is he not smart or diligent enough to adequately execute the duties of the office he holds, he also doesn't know that he's not smart enough to do so, which is extra dangerous. If it seems like I occasionally "attack criticisms of Trump" or in this case "evil" Trump supporters, it's because I think some of these criticisms or arguments are ridiculous, and additionally, counterproductive to the point of being dangerous themselves. People who adhere to critical or skeptical thinking should be discerning in their arguments, and not resort to emotional or religious reasoning to justify their disdain. On top of that (my opinion only), over use of terms like bigot, racist, etc. devalue their meaning and exaggerate racial tensions. Trump may indeed be racist, but I don't find that to be the defining characteristic of his incompetence or his appeal to most of the populace that supports him. Nor do I think he is clever enough to exploit such support without overtly expressing it. I think what you see is what you get with Trump, and that should be bad enough without having to play up the racist component. See? We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What I find counter-productive is allowing the miscreants to control the vocabulary of the debate. We see it constantly. No one wanted to discuss the actual "basket of deplorables" statement but wanted to clutch pearls and try to make any conservative think Hillary was calling them names. And it's funny how all you Let's Be Reasonable And Discuss This folks were invisible while the Great Right Wing Noise Machine was spreading that lie. The right was allowed to control the language of the debate and managed to avoid the actual disgusting reprobates on the far right who so earned the description. We've seen similar treatment of Richard Spencer and his neo-nazis. "Oh, you can't call 'em Nazis, how are we going to reason with them if you do?" Now I can't call bigots "evil"? Why not? Calling Neo-Nazis "alt-right" allows them a luxury I don't choose to allow them. Calling bigots "bigots" and classifying them taxonomically as "evil" isn't that big a deal. And like with the "deplorables", we have the ISF version of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine ignoring the subject but saying, "Hey, wait, you calling me evil?" No. I'm not. I'm calling bigots "evil". And no one wants to address that. They'd rather argue semantics or bring out the Even Newer Christie Minstrels and sing Kumbaya with Richard Spencer, the White Citizens Council and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

2nd August 2019, 08:55 PM	#376
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,686	Originally Posted by Ziggurat They are both true. You can label it "reimbursement" as PP does if you want to, but even if you insist that a reimbursement is not a sale, my description in that post is still explicitly what PP says they did. The problem is that the rhetoric you use has in the past led to massive defunding and the consequent lack of health services for women. If, as you say, PP is doing nothing illegal, why get so worked up about it?
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do? Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 2nd August 2019 at 09:05 PM.

2nd August 2019, 09:08 PM	#377
ProBonoShill Master Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,321	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz See? We're just going to have to agree to disagree. What I find counter-productive is allowing the miscreants to control the vocabulary of the debate. We see it constantly. No one wanted to discuss the actual "basket of deplorables" statement but wanted to clutch pearls and try to make any conservative think Hillary was calling them names. And it's funny how all you Let's Be Reasonable And Discuss This folks were invisible while the Great Right Wing Noise Machine was spreading that lie. The right was allowed to control the language of the debate and managed to avoid the actual disgusting reprobates on the far right who so earned the description. We've seen similar treatment of Richard Spencer and his neo-nazis. "Oh, you can't call 'em Nazis, how are we going to reason with them if you do?" Now I can't call bigots "evil"? Why not? Calling Neo-Nazis "alt-right" allows them a luxury I don't choose to allow them. Calling bigots "bigots" and classifying them taxonomically as "evil" isn't that big a deal. And like with the "deplorables", we have the ISF version of the Great Right Wing Noise Machine ignoring the subject but saying, "Hey, wait, you calling me evil?" No. I'm not. I'm calling bigots "evil". And no one wants to address that. They'd rather argue semantics or bring out the Even Newer Christie Minstrels and sing Kumbaya with Richard Spencer, the White Citizens Council and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Your racism is showing, black Americans don't need some guy living in Thailand talking down to them. Check your privilege
	__________________ "CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag

2nd August 2019, 09:59 PM	#378
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by ProBonoShill So many fallacies so little time. Moving the goalposts, special pleading, moronic strawman. Good try at walking back your OP, but the ridiculous bias is there for all to see. WTF? I haven't walked back my OP in the least. I keep trying to explain it to those who pretend not to understand it. Originally Posted by ProBonoShill Your racism is showing, black Americans don't need some guy living in Thailand talking down to them. Check your privilege Haw haw, that's some of that there not-really-funny stuff, there. Try addressing the topic and concentrating less on counting coup.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

2nd August 2019, 10:00 PM	#379
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza The problem is that the rhetoric you use has in the past led to massive defunding and the consequent lack of health services for women. If, as you say, PP is doing nothing illegal, why get so worked up about it? I didn’t get worked up about it. And I’m not going to refrain from telling the truth because you don’t like the possible consequences.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

2nd August 2019, 10:06 PM	#380
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by Upchurch Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. They explicitly say they are following the law and not selling fetal tissue. I mean that is literally what they said and you are claiming the opposite. The facts are not on your side, not even a little bit. You’d have to believe that words don’t mean what they mean to twist them into your point. You are wrong. First off, the law does not prohibit the sale of fetal tissue. The law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Second, not, they do not deny selling fetal tissue. They deny profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. They use the word “reimburse”, but again, in the post in question above, what I described (companies give PP money, and PP gives them fetal tissue) is not in any way in conflict with PP’s own words. They match. Yes, words have meaning, but you don’t seem to be aware of either the meaning or the words.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2019, 12:53 AM	#381
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,815	Originally Posted by theprestige Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims? Is it an extraordinary claim? I have acquaintances who have similar sets of beliefs, especially evangelical Christians, who often to have rather cranky beliefs, in my experience. But again, nice attempt at deflection.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2019, 01:36 AM	#383
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by theprestige Do you think Minoosh's aunt actually exists and believes what Minoosh claims? I know a lawyer (!!!) who is convinced that PP pushes/sells/provides BCPs instead of IUDs specifically because BCPs have a higher failure rate, so there are more unintended pregnancies, so PP can profit off providing more abortions.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

3rd August 2019, 02:58 AM	#384
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,384	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You are wrong. First off, the law does not prohibit the sale of fetal tissue. The law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit. Originally Posted by Ziggurat Second, not, they do not deny selling fetal tissue. They deny profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. They use the word “reimburse”, but again, in the post in question above, what I described (companies give PP money, and PP gives them fetal tissue) is not in any way in conflict with PP’s own words. They match. Yes, words have meaning, but you don’t seem to be aware of either the meaning or the words. No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue and then follow up that they don’t actually say they sell fetal tissue. Those are mutually exclusive statements. Your partisanship is overriding your natural pedantry. Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and providing a service?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe. Last edited by Upchurch; 3rd August 2019 at 03:06 AM.

3rd August 2019, 03:14 AM	#385
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,815	Originally Posted by Upchurch The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit. No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue and then follow up that they don’t actually say they sell fetal tissue. Those are mutually exclusive statements. Your partisanship is overriding your natural pedantry. Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and recouping the costs ofproviding a service? Additional highlight, according to my understanding.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2019, 04:09 AM	#386
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,384	Originally Posted by jimbob Additional highlight, according to my understanding. That’s fair. I was taking baby steps.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2019, 04:19 AM	#387
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by Minoosh Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself.

3rd August 2019, 04:24 AM	#388
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,815	Originally Posted by theprestige Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself. There is no reason to doubt Minoosh - it is an ordinary claim and many of us know people with views that are consistent with her aunt, so her key point about them being in a bubble of confirmation bias is valid whatever. BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT her, anymore than if I was saying that it is sunny over my house at the moment.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2019, 04:27 AM	#389
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by jimbob Is it an extraordinary claim? I have acquaintances who have similar sets of beliefs, especially evangelical Christians, who often to have rather cranky beliefs, in my experience. But again, nice attempt at deflection. Thanks! I'm working on being as evil as possible. But so what? I showed the recent posts to a black friend of mine. He thinks Zig is way off base about PP, and that FMW has some typical problematic ally stuff going on.

3rd August 2019, 04:28 AM	#390
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,384	Regardless, Aunt Ziggurat is here to champion the idea that PP sells baby parts. Does it matter whose aunt believes the propaganda in order to debunk it?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

3rd August 2019, 04:29 AM	#391
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by kellyb I know a lawyer (!!!) who is convinced that PP pushes/sells/provides BCPs instead of IUDs specifically because BCPs have a higher failure rate, so there are more unintended pregnancies, so PP can profit off providing more abortions. What is this? Random anecdote day?

3rd August 2019, 04:30 AM	#392
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by theprestige Don't scoff. If we're allowed to speculate about Ziggurat's hypothetical response to your anecdotal aunt, we're allowed to speculate about the reality of the aunt herself. Why? I don't recall you ever asking TBD to provide documentary proof of any of the anecdotal friends who forcefully supported his ~~lies~~ contentions, and some of them were egregiously fictional. Why would you question an archetype that shows up in a thread on typical Americans? Are you saying such people don't exist? Seems that if they do, then it really doesn't matter if Minoosh's relative is real or merely a literary device. In short, do you have an actual argument to make or are you just casting aspersions on the posts of people who seem to disagree with you about the the Pollyanna-ish version of America you're trying to promote?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

3rd August 2019, 07:49 AM	#393
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,597	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That isn't a conspiracy. That's standard corporate PR spin. You are alleging that Planned Parenthood is committing a crime. You are alleging that their "PR spin" is being done in service of that crime. That is by legal definition a conspiracy.

3rd August 2019, 08:02 AM	#394
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,597	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Do you deny that companies gave money to PP in return for this fetal tissue? I deny. Because they don't. They gave money to Planned Parenthood in return for services rendered, not the fetal tissue.

3rd August 2019, 08:42 AM	#395
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,815	Originally Posted by johnny karate I deny. Because they don't. They gave money to Planned Parenthood in return for services rendered, not the fetal tissue. They gave money to Planned Parenthood to recoup their costs in providing the service, which is even less nefarious.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

3rd August 2019, 09:19 AM	#396
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Why? I don't recall you ever asking TBD to provide documentary proof of any of the anecdotal friends who forcefully supported his ~~lies~~ contentions, and some of them were egregiously fictional. Once I understood his idiom (which was shortly after he joined), I never really bothered to read or engage with TBD. But I am open to the argument that Minoosh's claims merit the same treatment I gave TBD.

3rd August 2019, 12:35 PM	#397
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by johnny karate You are alleging that Planned Parenthood is committing a crime. No I'm not. I've explicitly said so multiple times that I'm not claiming PP committed any crime. And I don't think you even understand the law if you think what I said they are doing is a crime.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2019, 12:48 PM	#398
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,360	Originally Posted by Upchurch The tissue is donated. Selling the tissue at any amount would be 100% profit, which the law prohibits, as you said. Hence, PP is prohibited by law from selling fetal tissue because it would necessarily generate a profit. No, and obviously so, because they have costs associated with handling the tissue. Just like pretty much ANY company which handles ANY product has costs associated with handling that product, and which they try to recoup through the sale of that product. Quote: No, you are making up your own meanings to match your confirmation bias. You claim PP explicitly says they sell fetal tissue PP explicitly states that they provide fetal tissue and get paid for it in return. They don't use the word "sell", they use the word "reimburse", but that doesn't matter. Their word choice doesn't make it not a sale. Quote: Maybe you just don’t understand, in business, the difference between selling a product and providing a service? First off, the distinction you're trying to make between a product and a service is nonsensical, as the fish example illustrates. In the case of a fisherman, the fish are free, he's only doing a service by obtaining them. Well, no. The customer doesn't care what services the fisherman had to do in order to get that fish, he just wants the fish, and the fish is a thing. It's a product. Same here: the customers don't care what PP did to get the tissue, they just want the tissue, and the tissue is a thing. It's a product. Second, I note a cute rhetorical trick here: sell a product, provide a service. But of course, you can also provide a product or sell a service. So there's no distinction between selling and providing, as long as money changes hands. Which it does here.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2019, 12:51 PM	#399
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,535	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why are these questions relevant? Would their answers change whether or not the tissue is sold? The doctors who perform the implant surgery don't procure the organ. I see. Since the doctor is merely taking the organ that is provided to him, and "processing" it in such a way that it meets the patients needs, the fees paid to the doctor do not represent a "sale" of the kidney by the doctor.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.