VEEP Debate--Who Won?
16 Oct 2016, 5:29 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,227
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Oct 2016, 5:40 pm
auntblabby wrote:
how did we go from the VP debate to this topic?
Mike Pence is very anti-choice and anti-woman.
Mike Pence’s sadistic abortion law: Indiana passes draconian anti-choice bill geared towards humiliating and bankrupting women who have abortions
Mike Pence Has Led a Crusade Against Abortion Access and LGBT Rights
5 Reasons A Mike Pence Vice Presidency Would Be Bad For Women
Mike Pence Fits Right In With Donald Trump’s Anti-Woman Worldview
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
16 Oct 2016, 5:44 pm
Never mind the VP debate. I'm actually scared about what's going to happen on Wednesday. If Trump is setting up a scenario where he feels he was robbed of the vote he could mobilize the NRA and with his supporters it could get ugly. Well actually it already is ... a Republican office was set on fire today, I heard on the radio.
16 Oct 2016, 5:44 pm
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
16 Oct 2016, 6:16 pm
In some ways I find Pence even more worrisome than Trump, and hope the deal offered to Kasich (you handle domestic/foreign policy, I'll sell my brand) doesn't apply to Pence too. If it does, you have the kinds of policies Cruz would have implemented, plus Trump's creepy nativist/authoritarian mass movement.
Pence agrees with his running mate on hardline immigration policies, stop-and-frisk, tax cuts for the wealthy, and tearing apart the Iran deal while we're busy battling the mutual enemy of Daesh. Meanwhile, his stance towards Russia is McCain-style open provocation rather than either Obama-era careful containment or Trump's pandering, and unlike Trump he appears to actually care about Religious Right issues that are demographically waning in importance. His record on TPP, the only thing Trump has actually been decent on, is also as weak as Clinton's.
_________________
Don't believe the gender tag. I was born intersex and identify as queer, girl-leaning. So while I can sometimes present as an effeminate guy, that's less than half the time and if anything I'd prefer it say "female" of the two choices offered. I can't change it though, it's bugged.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,227
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Oct 2016, 6:38 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
If you weren't actually being disingenuous, then you should probably do some critical thinking about your sources of information and their reliability. If you want to have an actual debate about something and you want to take a position that you don't necessarily hold yourself, you still need to back up that position with actual facts and data, not just propaganda and anecdote--arguing with misinformation and anecdote makes it seem that you either don't understand how debate works or you aren't actually interested in having a genuine debate and are instead trying to promote an agenda through promoting misinformation. So don't apologise for the subject matter of this discussion being sensitive (not the problem with your participation in a discussion about abortion), apologise for participating in the discussion without providing any factually based evidence to support your claims, and try not to do that in future.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
16 Oct 2016, 7:26 pm
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
If you weren't actually being disingenuous, then you should probably do some critical thinking about your sources of information and their reliability. If you want to have an actual debate about something and you want to take a position that you don't necessarily hold yourself, you still need to back up that position with actual facts and data, not just propaganda and anecdote--arguing with misinformation and anecdote makes it seem that you either don't understand how debate works or you aren't actually interested in having a genuine debate and are instead trying to promote an agenda through promoting misinformation. So don't apologise for the subject matter of this discussion being sensitive (not the problem with your participation in a discussion about abortion), apologise for participating in the discussion without providing any factually based evidence to support your claims, and try not to do that in future.
Promoting an agenda?
Speak for yourself. You were the one posting about how Mike Pence was fundamentally against women, and quoted stats saying 95% of women liked their choice and with it disregarding variables. In some cases bleeding following abortions have been prolonged and people have linked it to Endometritis.
16 Oct 2016, 7:33 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
If you weren't actually being disingenuous, then you should probably do some critical thinking about your sources of information and their reliability. If you want to have an actual debate about something and you want to take a position that you don't necessarily hold yourself, you still need to back up that position with actual facts and data, not just propaganda and anecdote--arguing with misinformation and anecdote makes it seem that you either don't understand how debate works or you aren't actually interested in having a genuine debate and are instead trying to promote an agenda through promoting misinformation. So don't apologise for the subject matter of this discussion being sensitive (not the problem with your participation in a discussion about abortion), apologise for participating in the discussion without providing any factually based evidence to support your claims, and try not to do that in future.
Promoting an agenda?
Speak for yourself. You were the one posting about how Mike Pence was fundamentally against women, and quoted stats saying 95% of women liked their choice and with it disregarding variables. In some cases bleeding following abortions have been prolonged and people have linked it to Endometritis.
Did you notice the factual information I provided to support my claims? That is the difference between my argument and yours, and is what makes me doubt your intellectual honesty. You continue to make claims with no supporting evidence other than "my mother knows a woman". This is not how one debates honestly, nor how one plays devil's advocate. You can't even do what you are claiming you want to do properly--if you want to argue that abortion is wrong and dangerous for women, then provide some actual evidence to back up that claim. If you keep posting the kind of nonsense you have thus far without providing any evidence for your argument I will report you for trolling, because that's all that is.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,227
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Oct 2016, 7:37 pm
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Lastly I don't know about you look but I am really liking this argument even if I am just playing Devil's advocate. It is forcing me to consider multiple perspectives on a very sensitive topic and many of you especially, Auntblabby have ended up highlighting issues that I previously did not know much about. I think I will keep this up as a good learning experience and I apologies if I have offended anyone passionate on this issue.
You say you are playing devil's advocate, but you are actually arguing with misinformation and propaganda rather than any facts, so I don't see how that possibly helps you understand anything. I think you are just being disingenuous for the sake of being inflammatory, and it's pathetic.
If you weren't actually being disingenuous, then you should probably do some critical thinking about your sources of information and their reliability. If you want to have an actual debate about something and you want to take a position that you don't necessarily hold yourself, you still need to back up that position with actual facts and data, not just propaganda and anecdote--arguing with misinformation and anecdote makes it seem that you either don't understand how debate works or you aren't actually interested in having a genuine debate and are instead trying to promote an agenda through promoting misinformation. So don't apologise for the subject matter of this discussion being sensitive (not the problem with your participation in a discussion about abortion), apologise for participating in the discussion without providing any factually based evidence to support your claims, and try not to do that in future.
Promoting an agenda?
Speak for yourself. You were the one posting about how Mike Pence was fundamentally against women, and quoted stats saying 95% of women liked their choice and with it disregarding variables. In some cases bleeding following abortions have been prolonged and people have linked it to Endometritis.
Did you notice the factual information I provided to support my claims? That is the difference between my argument and yours, and is what makes me doubt your intellectual honesty. You continue to make claims with no supporting evidence other than "my mother knows a woman". This is not how one debates honestly, nor how one plays devil's advocate. You can't even do what you are claiming you want to do properly--if you want to argue that abortion is wrong and dangerous for women, then provide some actual evidence to back up that claim. If you keep posting the kind of nonsense you have thus far without providing any evidence for your argument I will report you for trolling, because that's all that is.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
16 Oct 2016, 8:01 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
I quickly googled the "Elliot Institute" (the host of that second article you cited) and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon It was founded by this guy, who is an anti-abortion activist and an electrical engineer. According to wikipedia, Reardon received a Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University (Hawaii), an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction.
This is why checking your sources is important. This is obviously a biased source. Can you find any actual peer-reviewed studies done by reputable researchers that support your argument?
ETA from the wiki article on Reardon: "Reardon's findings conflict with the view of the American Psychological Association, as well as other scientists and researchers, that abortion carries no greater mental-health risk than carrying a fetus to term."
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
16 Oct 2016, 8:15 pm
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
I quickly googled the "Elliot Institute" (the host of that second article you cited) and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon It was founded by this guy, who is an anti-abortion activist and an electrical engineer. According to wikipedia, Reardon received a Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University (Hawaii), an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction.
This is why checking your sources is important. This is obviously a biased source. Can you find any actual peer-reviewed studies done by reputable researchers that support your argument?
ETA from the wiki article on Reardon: "Reardon's findings conflict with the view of the American Psychological Association, as well as other scientists and researchers, that abortion carries no greater mental-health risk than carrying a fetus to term."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0128832
This is getting way too tense for me anyhow. But I will carry on.
The fact that only 37.5% of people with abortions agreed to participate shows something. It shows that for many others 62.5% of the people abortion is a part of their life they do not wish to disclose.
16 Oct 2016, 8:24 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
I quickly googled the "Elliot Institute" (the host of that second article you cited) and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon It was founded by this guy, who is an anti-abortion activist and an electrical engineer. According to wikipedia, Reardon received a Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University (Hawaii), an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction.
This is why checking your sources is important. This is obviously a biased source. Can you find any actual peer-reviewed studies done by reputable researchers that support your argument?
ETA from the wiki article on Reardon: "Reardon's findings conflict with the view of the American Psychological Association, as well as other scientists and researchers, that abortion carries no greater mental-health risk than carrying a fetus to term."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0128832
This is getting way too tense for me anyhow. But I will carry on.
The fact that only 37.5% of people with abortions agreed to participate shows something. It shows that for many others 62.5% of the people abortion is a part of their life they do not wish to disclose.
All it means is that %62.5 of the women asked didn't want to participate in that particular study. You can't presume to know why that is unless they were asked why they declined and they answered and that was included in the study, which it was not.
You keep saying this is getting tense for you, but you have repeatedly asserted that you don't actually believe the argument you are presenting and are just playing devil's advocate--which is the truth? I really believe you are trolling here and not trying to genuinely debate an issue. You are consistently being intellectually dishonest.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
16 Oct 2016, 8:56 pm
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion
and here
http://afterabortion.org/2015/study-cla ... he-debate/
I quickly googled the "Elliot Institute" (the host of that second article you cited) and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reardon It was founded by this guy, who is an anti-abortion activist and an electrical engineer. According to wikipedia, Reardon received a Ph.D in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University (Hawaii), an unaccredited correspondence school offering no classroom instruction.
This is why checking your sources is important. This is obviously a biased source. Can you find any actual peer-reviewed studies done by reputable researchers that support your argument?
ETA from the wiki article on Reardon: "Reardon's findings conflict with the view of the American Psychological Association, as well as other scientists and researchers, that abortion carries no greater mental-health risk than carrying a fetus to term."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0128832
This is getting way too tense for me anyhow. But I will carry on.
The fact that only 37.5% of people with abortions agreed to participate shows something. It shows that for many others 62.5% of the people abortion is a part of their life they do not wish to disclose.
All it means is that %62.5 of the women asked didn't want to participate in that particular study. You can't presume to know why that is unless they were asked why they declined and they answered and that was included in the study, which it was not.
You keep saying this is getting tense for you, but you have repeatedly asserted that you don't actually believe the argument you are presenting and are just playing devil's advocate--which is the truth? I really believe you are trolling here and not trying to genuinely debate an issue. You are consistently being intellectually dishonest.
I think this is tense for me because I know you feel strongly about this and it is beginning to show.
Finally I am not a troll just argumentative. I am playing devil's advocate but I will never claim to be good at it.
