|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? Show nested quote +To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? Show nested quote +If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle. Show nested quote +
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how.
Consciousness evades science and so a fortiori personhood does too. This should be obvious. This will go a lot better if you really think about these issues before posting the first question that comes into your mind. It kind of blows my mind that you are connecting this to Science at all. When did I bring that up?
I would argue it's a moral imperative for persons to not kill other persons, yeah. I might even argue that you are not a person if you disagree. Morality is socially constructed. Just like reality. We often develop laws to err on the side of the caution when the uncertainty is existential. So don't kill a two year old. Killing is nothing like a "personal preference."
edit: I realized that I initially posted "it's a moral imperative for person to not kill other person" and your question was about not killing dogs and other non-persons. The argument is analogous for non-persons, though the moral turpitude of killing non-persons is obviously of a different degree than killing persons.
|
On April 25 2017 13:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:25 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks. this is a garbage hypothetical that you should have thought through more before even posting it let's also add a paired button to the second button that must be pushed by a man at the same time as the woman presses her second button the paired button gives the man orgasms but he never gets pregnant the point of the hypothetical is not to mirror reality. Just to see if your stance on abortion changes from one extreme to the other. Does it or does it not? If it does not, then let's leave it at that. At least you are consistent.
I'd be against abortion too if pregnancy lasted only 24 hours and was easy, painless, and posed no harm to the mother. Just like I am against killing dogs you own because you got tired of taking care of them.
But that's not the reality is it?
|
Canada11360 Posts
On April 25 2017 13:26 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how. You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not.
How is leaving it to science to determine biological benchmarks of development for determination not arbitrary? Why is that the standard? And says who? And what are the benchmarks and how high are they- do they, for instance, include the developmentally challenged?
@Igne
Sorry, I was breaking apart a few replies and parts referred to you and others to the other. So it would seem that you are arguing that science does not really have a say on the subject.
I might even argue that you are not a person if you disagree. I still don't have a very good definition for personhood, and it would seem you and Slaughter are going in opposite directions. But how is it a moral imperative if morality is socially constructed? In what sense is anything truly wrong, including breaking bodily autonomy as something else could replace what we have currently constructed.
|
How many people here are familiar with that philosophy paper about the violinist? Because it seems like we're kinda talking around thst argument without quite acknowledging it. Kwark's position seems largely based on it, for instance
|
On April 25 2017 13:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks. The "punishment" has to be fitting of the crime. You know that when you jaywalk you run the risk of getting hit by a car and dieing. Does that mean that if we have a magic button to revive people hit by cars, we should only use it for people who walked at green lights? Or should we allow it to be used on dead jaywalkers as well? gotta make some special protections for those parasites!
I think you're missing the point. You're treating unwanted pregnancy as some kind of divine/karmic justice for the sin of having unprotected sex. Now we know we can undo this "punishment" with an abortion, which you seem to oppose on the ground that the woman knew what she was getting into. So I created a thought experiment featuring another form of karmic justice to plumb the depths of your desire for this form of divine retribution.
|
On April 25 2017 13:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how. You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not. How is leaving it to science to determine biological benchmarks of development for determination not arbitrary? Why is that the standard? And says who? And what are the benchmarks and how high are they- do they, for instance, include the developmentally challenged?
It's entirely arbitrary at least insofar as we are talking about fetuses and babies, where the consciousness is clearly of a different kind from an adult person.
|
On April 25 2017 13:32 ChristianS wrote:
How many people here are familiar with that philosophy paper about the violinist? Because it seems like we're kinda talking around thst argument without quite acknowledging it. Kwark's position seems largely based on it, for instance
I am. However there's no point starting the debate assuming people have done their homework. It's the internet, after all.
|
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Portion I'm responding to:
I don't think it is a quibble as what we are dealing with inside the womb is fundamental to the argument on both sides. Otherwise this thread would not insist on compare human offspring to 'contents of their body' 'parasites' 'putting down a dog' and 'kidneys', (or for that matter Latinize offspring). But anyways, the kidney transplant is not a good comparison and the bodily autonomy argument isn't really describing like actions (one of these things is not like the other.)
I disagree with the bolded part. I don't think it matters whether a fetus is considered human life or not. That's why I don't think it is productive to argue about characterizing it as a parasite.
So one, your offspring is not another body part of the woman. It does not have the woman's DNA, but instead has an entirely unique genetic code for a brand new person.
I don't understand the relevance of this.
In regards to compelled kidney donations (which, yes I realize is what you are talking about), it is still not comparable, not if what is in the womb is a living being. In the abortion, a womb is not voluntarily available and so the fetus dies indirectly due to scarcity of resources, i.e., nutrients provided by a woman's body.
See edits. In what sense is a womb voluntarily available if a woman is being forced to make it available against her wishes?
There is no direct action taken to end that persons life. People tried to do their best to help the patient as best they could, but there was not sufficient generosity. Sad certainly, but inaction did not violate the patient's bodily autonomy (if that is the big moral ought of our age.) But nobody's bodily autonomy is being preferred to the other.
There seems to be a contradiction here. The hypothetical potential kidney donor did not "do their best to help the patient as best they could." They allowed a potential recipient (really several potential recipients) to die when they could have prevented it.
I also don't agree that using the "direct" versus "indirect" characterization of actions is useful as an absolute principle. So if there are twins who are conjoined in such a way that separating them will kill the weaker one, but keeping them together will kill both of them, would you oppose separating them?
The unborn offspring is an entirely unique circumstance. They are the most vulnerable, unable to protect their bodily autonomy and someone or someones directly takes action to end his or her life thus denying them autonomy (or, if you will potential autonomy, which they will inevitably develop given sufficient time.) So why is it that women's present autonomy is favoured over their offspring's autonomy. Does one need to be autonomous to have bodily autonomous considerations? Offspring are clearly in the margins, but in the same way of the developmentally challenged.
To reiterate, I don't believe that a fetus has equal bodily autonomy to an adult woman. However, assuming one does, its bodily autonomy ends where another person's begins. I can't just break into your house and eat all your food and say "sorry bro, I was hungry and my bodily autonomy is equal to yours so I can take your things." Similarly, a fetus does not have a right to claim a woman's body and resources.
Why then, is autonomy the ultimate moral consideration compared to protection of the vulnerable, dependent, and the weak? Where do we get this ought from?
Autonomy is not always and everywhere the ultimate moral consideration. However, in our society we place a huge value on a person's ability to control what happens to their own body, unless that person happens to be a pregnant woman.
|
Top White House aide Sebastian Gorka abruptly departed from a Georgetown University cybersecurity conference Monday afternoon after undergraduate students subjected him to a round of tough questions.
A senior counterterrorism and cybersecurity adviser to President Donald Trump who came to government by way of Breitbart News, Gorka was invited to speak on a panel titled “News, Alternative Facts, and Propaganda: The Role of Cyber in Influence Operations.” Several attendees told TPM he appeared on the defensive from the start, using his prepared remarks to accuse journalists who use anonymous sources of engaging in fake news campaigns.
Jared Stancombe, a program manager for a global health care supplier, told TPM that his full-throated comments prompted attendees to check their mobile phones for information about his background. They found a number of articles about Gorka’s ties to the Order of Vitez, a Hungarian knightly order founded by a Nazi collaborator.
“After his tirade, which visibly made people uncomfortable, I saw people begin to pull up his bio and recent stories on his affiliations … ,” Stancombe said in an e-mail. “People began to look at each other, while the panel continued with other speakers.”
Gorka has adamantly denied belonging to the group, though he acknowledges his father was a member and that he sometimes wears the Order’s medal.
Tensions escalated once the question-and-answer session began. Students from J Street U, the Jewish Student Association, and the Muslim Student Association, many of whom carried signs expressing disapproval for Gorka’s ties to the Order and rhetoric about Muslims, came prepared to press the Trump aide on his views.
Roey Hadar, a senior at Georgetown, told TPM that he asked Gorka if he believed “harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media and in government” fueled extremism and legitimized groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Gorka replied that Hadar was “committing cultural appropriation and arrogance,” according to Hadar’s account and those of several journalists present.
Andrew Meshnick, Hadar’s roommate who helped organize the protest, said Gorka was similarly “combative” and “defensive” in response to his question about how Trump created “fake news” by alleging, without evidence, that Obama national security adviser Susan Rice committed a crime by requesting that some names in intelligence reports be unmasked.
After a total of five students directed questions at him, Gorka departed, saying he wanted to give the rest of the panelists an opportunity to talk.
“He just stood up and walked out,” Meshnick said. “He was sitting in the middle of the panel and there was no evidence he was supposed to leave early. It was clear he was uncomfortable. He was huffing and puffing and just very angry.”
A Georgetown spokesperson said that Gorka was scheduled to leave at 1:30 p.m. ET, though it wasn’t announced to the audience.
“Before the panel began, Mr. Gorka alerted event organizers that he needed to depart by 1:30 p.m,” the spokesperson said. “Event organizers started the audience question and answer segment earlier than anticipated to ensure adequate dialogue while all panel participants were still present.”
Meshnick and Hadar said that the protesters remained respectful throughout the event and did not disrupt Gorka’s remarks.
“We just wanted to subject his views to scrutiny,” Hadar said. “I don’t think he’s subjected to skepticism very often given the kind of public appearances he usually makes.”
Source
|
On April 25 2017 13:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how. You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not. How is leaving it to science to determine biological benchmarks of development for determination not arbitrary? Why is that the standard? And says who? And what are the benchmarks and how high are they- do they, for instance, include the developmentally challenged?
Says who? That is a pretty inane question to ask on this type of issue, that can be said to literally every person arguing the debate. What are the benchmarks? I don't know I am not that familiar with developmental biology and that part of human life history. The benchmarks would obviously not be a flat standard and be applied to the context of that fetus, biology is never so simple.
How is it not arbitrary? Because if you leave it up to a scientific consensus on developmental benchmarks you are leaving culture out of it (as much as you can anyway). There is no ultimate morality that is the "right" way, its all socially constructed by culture and they all have different ideas on the subject. Unless you are arguing from a religious aspect and holding up God then that is a different story, In that case I would say that religious arguments on how the government should act in regards to this issue should be left out.
Or you can just argue that each nation state should just follow what the majority of its citizens want letting that become that nations "moral judgement" on the issue. There are plenty of angles and facets to this issue. I personally think moral arguments go no where on this issue because there is no authority to appeal to. Leaving it to science to determine when a fetus has reached the level of a human isn't going to be perfect but it is better then the shit show of endless moral arguments crashing into each other.
|
On April 25 2017 13:50 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:32 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 13:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how. You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not. How is leaving it to science to determine biological benchmarks of development for determination not arbitrary? Why is that the standard? And says who? And what are the benchmarks and how high are they- do they, for instance, include the developmentally challenged? Says who? That is a pretty inane question to ask on this type of issue, that can be said to literally every person arguing the debate. What are the benchmarks? I don't know I am not that familiar with developmental biology and that part of human life history. The benchmarks would obviously not be a flat standard and be applied to the context of that fetus, biology is never so simple.
How is it not arbitrary? Because if you leave it up to a scientific consensus on developmental benchmarks you are leaving culture out of it (as much as you can anyway). There is no ultimate morality that is the "right" way, its all socially constructed by culture and they all have different ideas on the subject. Unless you are arguing from a religious aspect and holding up God then that is a different story, In that case I would say that religious arguments on how the government should act in regards to this issue should be left out.
Or you can just argue that each nation state should just follow what the majority of its citizens want letting that become that nations "moral judgement" on the issue.
that bolded part is a nonsensical mess.
just embrace the arbitrariness of it. or argue along other lines: the baby has a right to life but that right to life does not trump a person's right to bodily autonomy at least because the baby is not a person; therefore you can abort up until the point at which the baby can live outside the womb (with medically assisted technology if our legislatures so deem they would like to pay for medical services to respirate tiny little pre-babies)
|
On April 25 2017 13:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:50 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 13:32 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 13:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how. You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not. How is leaving it to science to determine biological benchmarks of development for determination not arbitrary? Why is that the standard? And says who? And what are the benchmarks and how high are they- do they, for instance, include the developmentally challenged? Says who? That is a pretty inane question to ask on this type of issue, that can be said to literally every person arguing the debate. What are the benchmarks? I don't know I am not that familiar with developmental biology and that part of human life history. The benchmarks would obviously not be a flat standard and be applied to the context of that fetus, biology is never so simple.
How is it not arbitrary? Because if you leave it up to a scientific consensus on developmental benchmarks you are leaving culture out of it (as much as you can anyway). There is no ultimate morality that is the "right" way, its all socially constructed by culture and they all have different ideas on the subject. Unless you are arguing from a religious aspect and holding up God then that is a different story, In that case I would say that religious arguments on how the government should act in regards to this issue should be left out.
Or you can just argue that each nation state should just follow what the majority of its citizens want letting that become that nations "moral judgement" on the issue. that bolded part is a nonsensical mess. just embrace the arbitrariness of it. or argue along other lines: the baby has a right to life but that right to life does not trump a person's right to bodily autonomy at least because the baby is not a person; therefore you can abort up until the point at which the baby can live outside the womb (with medically assisted technology if our legislatures so deem they would like to pay for medical services to respirate tiny little pre-babies)
How is it all a mess? I am talking about morality being subjective. My morality is different from yours but its right for me. I would not dare to impose my own upon another person so why should one moral view point be imposed upon everyone?
|
and so science has a view toward an objective morality?? biology has something to say about morality without reference to ethics? is this like how the nuclear bomb dictates its own use?
come on man what does an epistemology of praxis have to tell us about the ethical status of fetuses? we still have to decide whether fetuses are ensouled at conception or whether pain to a lump of cells overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother.
|
On April 25 2017 14:09 IgnE wrote:
and so science has a view toward an objective morality?? biology has something to say about morality without reference to ethics? is this like how the nuclear bomb dictates its own use?
come on man what does an epistemology of praxis have to tell us about the ethical status of fetuses? we still have to decide whether fetuses are ensouled at conception or whether pain to a lump of cells overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother.
I never said science has a view toward an objective morality. I said using a scientific consensus on what developmental milestone a fetus can be considered human isn't a moral argument. What to do with that information afterwords would left in the realm of morality. If you use scientific consensus to draw the line then you can use that information to ask "killing a fetus after X weeks is morally wrong but in what contexts would we allow or disallow it?" and that Fetuses ensouled at conception isn't really science is it? If you are talking about consciousness then no, that is not there from conception.
Basically my position is that there are parts of the developmental cycle where the fetus is not human and the women should have every right to exercise her rights of bodily autonomy. Later on the fetus would gain more rights and protections but those would not automatically trump the women's rights and then it is down to the individual context of that case. Because humans are humans there will never be a clear answer in all cases and there will always be room for abuse so the law comes down mostly on the side of the women who already is a fully developed human.
|
On April 25 2017 14:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 14:09 IgnE wrote:
and so science has a view toward an objective morality?? biology has something to say about morality without reference to ethics? is this like how the nuclear bomb dictates its own use?
come on man what does an epistemology of praxis have to tell us about the ethical status of fetuses? we still have to decide whether fetuses are ensouled at conception or whether pain to a lump of cells overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother. I never said science has a view toward an objective morality. I said using a scientific consensus on what developmental milestone a fetus can be considered human isn't a moral argument. What to do with that information afterwords would left in the realm of morality. If you use scientific consensus to draw the line then you can use that information to ask "killing a fetus after X weeks is morally wrong but in what contexts would we allow or disallow it?" and that Fetuses ensouled at conception isn't really science is it? If you are talking about consciousness then no, that is not there from conception. Basically my position is that there are parts of the developmental cycle where the fetus is not human and the women should have every right to exercise her rights of bodily autonomy. Later on the fetus would gain more rights and protections but those would not automatically trump the women's rights and then it is down to the individual context of that case. Because humans are humans there will never be a clear answer in all cases and there will always be room for abuse so the law comes down mostly on the side of the women who already is a fully developed human.
when you abandon ideological dogma and just use common sense, you are left with this. A vague and arbritrary clash of two competiting interests that cannot be settled. Glad SCOTUS realized this and came to a similar conclusion. IMO being conservative is better in these scenarios, but that's arbitrary as well.
|
On April 25 2017 14:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 14:29 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 14:09 IgnE wrote:
and so science has a view toward an objective morality?? biology has something to say about morality without reference to ethics? is this like how the nuclear bomb dictates its own use?
come on man what does an epistemology of praxis have to tell us about the ethical status of fetuses? we still have to decide whether fetuses are ensouled at conception or whether pain to a lump of cells overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother. I never said science has a view toward an objective morality. I said using a scientific consensus on what developmental milestone a fetus can be considered human isn't a moral argument. What to do with that information afterwords would left in the realm of morality. If you use scientific consensus to draw the line then you can use that information to ask "killing a fetus after X weeks is morally wrong but in what contexts would we allow or disallow it?" and that Fetuses ensouled at conception isn't really science is it? If you are talking about consciousness then no, that is not there from conception. Basically my position is that there are parts of the developmental cycle where the fetus is not human and the women should have every right to exercise her rights of bodily autonomy. Later on the fetus would gain more rights and protections but those would not automatically trump the women's rights and then it is down to the individual context of that case. Because humans are humans there will never be a clear answer in all cases and there will always be room for abuse so the law comes down mostly on the side of the women who already is a fully developed human. when you abandon ideological dogma and just use common sense, you are left with this. A vague and arbritrary clash of two competiting interests that cannot be settled. Glad SCOTUS realized this and came to a similar conclusion. IMO being conservative is better in these scenarios, but that's arbitrary as well.
No. It is not vague and arbitrary. What we have now is vague and arbitrary. What Slaughter is saying, and I have said, is to simply look for consensus where it can actually be found, and then leave the rest to individual choice.
What is the difference between late-term and early-term? Do you simply not want to define it in any clinical way? Somewhere in the development cycle, a clump of cells gains a consciousness, which I would consider an extremely profound marker. There are possibly others, but to me, that's a big one.
It might not be a mark we can measure to the absolute second of development. But we can measure brain activity, and that, by scientific consensus, very much would signify an individual life, separate from the mother. We should just ignore that?
This is the problem, and I see it on both sides in this thread. Someone proposes actual scientific metrics, and is dismissed in lieu of what can only be called certitude. Abortion is a moral issue, but it is also a medical issue. And we currently just refuse to accept any medical/scientific parameters in how we define and legislate this issue. We leave it all to morality, and then you call anything contrary to that "vague and arbitrary"? Then we're hopeless. We're left with nothing other than "sanctity of life" (unless the mother was raped, in which case, life ceases being sacred for some reason) and "freedom of choice" and platitudes. Vague and arbitrary.
And in leaving the law simplistic and absolute, we are leaving open the door to all the dogma involved. Instead of encouraging people to look at this in any clinical way, by making the law itself deal in clinical definitions, we encourage them to take absolutist positions, dealing with a law that simply stands on "morals". And that's why abortion doctors in this country will continue to be shot, bombed, killed, and terrorized.
Dare I say the only reason we don't invoke medicine into a law that is centered around a medical procedure, is it requires actual work and research that one can't simply look up in a lawyer's case book? I'm glad SCOTUS judged correctly on Roe V. Wade, but there is sooooo much more room for improvement on this.
And as a conservative, assuming you're "pro-life", you are exactly the person that should want this. Because we all need to accept that we can't and won't outlaw abortion. That's never going to happen. What I suggest would most likely mitigate abortions with stricter medical criteria, which is basically the best scenario "pro-lifers" can hope for. I'm not sure you've thought it through. Liberal as I am, my position is the most "pro-life" position you can realistically hope for. You want to save babies? Put down the holy books and start arguing medically.
|
On April 25 2017 13:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Top White House aide Sebastian Gorka abruptly departed from a Georgetown University cybersecurity conference Monday afternoon after undergraduate students subjected him to a round of tough questions.
A senior counterterrorism and cybersecurity adviser to President Donald Trump who came to government by way of Breitbart News, Gorka was invited to speak on a panel titled “News, Alternative Facts, and Propaganda: The Role of Cyber in Influence Operations.” Several attendees told TPM he appeared on the defensive from the start, using his prepared remarks to accuse journalists who use anonymous sources of engaging in fake news campaigns.
Jared Stancombe, a program manager for a global health care supplier, told TPM that his full-throated comments prompted attendees to check their mobile phones for information about his background. They found a number of articles about Gorka’s ties to the Order of Vitez, a Hungarian knightly order founded by a Nazi collaborator.
“After his tirade, which visibly made people uncomfortable, I saw people begin to pull up his bio and recent stories on his affiliations … ,” Stancombe said in an e-mail. “People began to look at each other, while the panel continued with other speakers.”
Gorka has adamantly denied belonging to the group, though he acknowledges his father was a member and that he sometimes wears the Order’s medal.
Tensions escalated once the question-and-answer session began. Students from J Street U, the Jewish Student Association, and the Muslim Student Association, many of whom carried signs expressing disapproval for Gorka’s ties to the Order and rhetoric about Muslims, came prepared to press the Trump aide on his views.
Roey Hadar, a senior at Georgetown, told TPM that he asked Gorka if he believed “harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media and in government” fueled extremism and legitimized groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Gorka replied that Hadar was “committing cultural appropriation and arrogance,” according to Hadar’s account and those of several journalists present.
Andrew Meshnick, Hadar’s roommate who helped organize the protest, said Gorka was similarly “combative” and “defensive” in response to his question about how Trump created “fake news” by alleging, without evidence, that Obama national security adviser Susan Rice committed a crime by requesting that some names in intelligence reports be unmasked.
After a total of five students directed questions at him, Gorka departed, saying he wanted to give the rest of the panelists an opportunity to talk.
“He just stood up and walked out,” Meshnick said. “He was sitting in the middle of the panel and there was no evidence he was supposed to leave early. It was clear he was uncomfortable. He was huffing and puffing and just very angry.”
A Georgetown spokesperson said that Gorka was scheduled to leave at 1:30 p.m. ET, though it wasn’t announced to the audience.
“Before the panel began, Mr. Gorka alerted event organizers that he needed to depart by 1:30 p.m,” the spokesperson said. “Event organizers started the audience question and answer segment earlier than anticipated to ensure adequate dialogue while all panel participants were still present.”
Meshnick and Hadar said that the protesters remained respectful throughout the event and did not disrupt Gorka’s remarks.
“We just wanted to subject his views to scrutiny,” Hadar said. “I don’t think he’s subjected to skepticism very often given the kind of public appearances he usually makes.” Source
so how long until they start blaming this on George Soros?
|
On April 25 2017 15:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Top White House aide Sebastian Gorka abruptly departed from a Georgetown University cybersecurity conference Monday afternoon after undergraduate students subjected him to a round of tough questions.
A senior counterterrorism and cybersecurity adviser to President Donald Trump who came to government by way of Breitbart News, Gorka was invited to speak on a panel titled “News, Alternative Facts, and Propaganda: The Role of Cyber in Influence Operations.” Several attendees told TPM he appeared on the defensive from the start, using his prepared remarks to accuse journalists who use anonymous sources of engaging in fake news campaigns.
Jared Stancombe, a program manager for a global health care supplier, told TPM that his full-throated comments prompted attendees to check their mobile phones for information about his background. They found a number of articles about Gorka’s ties to the Order of Vitez, a Hungarian knightly order founded by a Nazi collaborator.
“After his tirade, which visibly made people uncomfortable, I saw people begin to pull up his bio and recent stories on his affiliations … ,” Stancombe said in an e-mail. “People began to look at each other, while the panel continued with other speakers.”
Gorka has adamantly denied belonging to the group, though he acknowledges his father was a member and that he sometimes wears the Order’s medal.
Tensions escalated once the question-and-answer session began. Students from J Street U, the Jewish Student Association, and the Muslim Student Association, many of whom carried signs expressing disapproval for Gorka’s ties to the Order and rhetoric about Muslims, came prepared to press the Trump aide on his views.
Roey Hadar, a senior at Georgetown, told TPM that he asked Gorka if he believed “harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media and in government” fueled extremism and legitimized groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Gorka replied that Hadar was “committing cultural appropriation and arrogance,” according to Hadar’s account and those of several journalists present.
Andrew Meshnick, Hadar’s roommate who helped organize the protest, said Gorka was similarly “combative” and “defensive” in response to his question about how Trump created “fake news” by alleging, without evidence, that Obama national security adviser Susan Rice committed a crime by requesting that some names in intelligence reports be unmasked.
After a total of five students directed questions at him, Gorka departed, saying he wanted to give the rest of the panelists an opportunity to talk.
“He just stood up and walked out,” Meshnick said. “He was sitting in the middle of the panel and there was no evidence he was supposed to leave early. It was clear he was uncomfortable. He was huffing and puffing and just very angry.”
A Georgetown spokesperson said that Gorka was scheduled to leave at 1:30 p.m. ET, though it wasn’t announced to the audience.
“Before the panel began, Mr. Gorka alerted event organizers that he needed to depart by 1:30 p.m,” the spokesperson said. “Event organizers started the audience question and answer segment earlier than anticipated to ensure adequate dialogue while all panel participants were still present.”
Meshnick and Hadar said that the protesters remained respectful throughout the event and did not disrupt Gorka’s remarks.
“We just wanted to subject his views to scrutiny,” Hadar said. “I don’t think he’s subjected to skepticism very often given the kind of public appearances he usually makes.” Source so how long until they start blaming this on George Soros?
TPM keeps the fake news classy. Speaker leaves as scheduled, protesters allege 'U Mad,' journos create fact-free narrative. Did I miss awards for being more partisan hacks than Breitbart?
|
I'm not sure of the details but I don't see anything that he was scheduled to leave after only answering 5 questions. I suppose you could argue that he felt he was distracting from the rest of the panel which is something different. I haven't found a ton of info on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
