|
United States43785 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself.
I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater.
"you eat meat"
"yes I do, here's why"
as opposed to
"you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year"
".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?"
|
On November 15 2012 13:42 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:37 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. People have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as fetuses as well. People have trouble discussing abortion. Period. I don't know that there's a more vexed issue in our shared public lives today. In one sense, a one-to-four month baby is much more comparable to an unborn child than a 30 year old crackhead who is dying from leukemia, and the human life ended by abortion is much more similar to that of a newborn than that of an adult. But I guess that's neither here nor there. I mean you might think that pro-life people are guilty of emotional manipulation by talking about "babies" in the context of abortion. That's fine. I happen to think that pro-choice people are guilty of emotional manipulation by using vocabulary like "fetus" to distance themselves from the act of abortion. I also think they're frequently guilty of emotional manipulation when they frame the issue as a necessary component of women's liberation, as something only opposed by misogynists and fanatics. One approach to this impasse is to do our best to respect one another's worldviews and the values and the emotions that each one of those worldviews includes. This would include, I think, allowing people to express themselves in the terms they find most fitting to the debate and/or to collaborate on more neutral lexical ground. Another approach would be to continue to insist that the other side adopt our language and the worldview that such language inheres. I don't think that approach goes much of anywhere, personally. I'm not sure why there is such a negative connotation attributed to the word fetus, but technically it isn't even the right word to refer to an unborn human child, so I'd personally be find with not using it either. I still feel people who want to be taken seriously by obvious pro-choice debaters should avoid using the word baby in exchange for the pro-choicers not incorrectly using medical terms in an effort to dehumanize the discussion.
I think most of the negative connotation comes from the word's history in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Like I said, it's just such a fraught issue. And I think the solution that you're proposing would be a useful place to start in an attempt to build some sort of common ground between the two camps. I really like that sort of thinking, especially because it places the responsibility to improve the discussion on both sides rather than just one.
One a personal note, though, I don't care if a pro-choice debater, especially one as aggressive and dogmatic as the average TL pro-choice debater (whose aggressiveness and dogmatism are matched only by the average TL pro-life debater), takes me seriously or not. Such approval is just not a priority for me. My only reason for being in website feedback today is because I thought the mod note that started this shitstorm was in poor form, and I just wanted to register that opinion.
|
On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous.
Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this.
|
On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?"
i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast?
|
United States43785 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this.
This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want.
The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways.
|
United States43785 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast?
It was closed almost immediately unfortunately.
|
On November 15 2012 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast? It was closed almost immediately unfortunately.
social experiment ruined. lets see what happens with the next one. i'll go in and accuse everyone of foeticide and make them all look it up in the dictionary. note, its sad that all the references to foeticide on google relate to female foeticide almost exclusively....
|
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
|
On November 15 2012 14:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:03 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder).
Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast? It was closed almost immediately unfortunately. social experiment ruined. lets see what happens with the next one. i'll go in and accuse everyone of foeticide and make them all look it up in the dictionary. note, its sad that all the references to foeticide on google relate to female foeticide almost exclusively....
Another grand social experiment in forced linguistic conformity shot down in the dawn of its life! Alas!
|
On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways.
I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
|
United States43785 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out?
|
On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
lol. why do you say allegedly? baby encompasses born and unborn children.
|
On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less.
|
On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out?
Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway.
|
United States43785 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:19 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not. If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less.
If you would like to use another term as specific as foetus then you can feel free.
|
Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply  ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock!
|
On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock!
actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P
|
On November 15 2012 14:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:19 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not. If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less. If you would like to use another term as specific as foetus then you can feel free.
I certainly appreciate the green light, but that's not what I was discussing. I got no problem coming up with alternate phrases for unborn child no matter how many of them get randomly outlawed.
|
On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P
As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child.
|
On November 15 2012 14:38 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child.
i checked the online Oxford dictionary and it doesn't. are you looking at a paper copy, or what?
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/baby
noun (plural babies)
1a very young child:
his wife’s just had a baby
[as modifier]:
a baby girl
a very young animal:
bats only have one baby a year
[as modifier]:
baby rabbits
the youngest member of a family or group:
Clara was the baby of the family
a timid or childish person:
‘Don’t be such a baby!’ she said witheringly
(one's baby) informal one’s particular responsibility or concern:
‘This is your baby, Gerry,’ she said, handing him the brief
2 informal a lover or spouse (often as a form of address):
my baby left me for another guy
a thing regarded with affection or familiarity:
this baby can reach speeds of 120 mph
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
