Sexy Fun Times
Anthony Gockowski reports from Purdue University, where a debate on abortion takes a strange turn:
“What would you call the public display of a butt naked body of a child?” [pro-abortion speaker, Professor David] Sanders questioned. “I would call it child pornography. Do they have their permission? Do they have the permission of the foetus? Obviously not.”
The permission of the foetus. All things considered, not the happiest turn of phrase.
He went on to question whether or not [anti-abortion group] Created Equal obtains “the permission of the parents to show these images of children,” soliciting a shocked reaction from the audience, with one in attendance pointing out that Sanders had effectively admitted that “it’s a child.”
So, to recap. Showing images of terminated babies-to-have-been during a debate on abortion is apparently pornographic and indecent, a violation of the subject, unlike actually terminating said subject with forceps, suction tubes or abortifacient drugs.
Related: Just Thwarted Sperm.
Sexy Fun Times
Wow. Dark sarcasm…
Dark sarcasm…
Grim incongruity seemed somehow appropriate.
The word ‘parents’ isn’t happy either.
The word ‘parents’ isn’t happy either.
Given the context, no, not really.
Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully. Since the trap he sets is not only contrived and unconvincing, but also draws unflattering attention to his own position, rather than that of his opponents.
And someone should tell Professor Sanders that his hat just doesn’t work.
Why, it’s like they lack the capacity, the critical thinking skills, to think through their own arguments. And we’ve been losing to these idiots why?
Why, it’s like they lack the capacity, the critical thinking skills, to think through their own arguments.
Well, as attempts at deflection go, it’s not the best. I suppose the idea was to attach an air of revulsion to his opponent’s position by associating it, crassly, with paedophilia. But the (insincere) appeal to decency – and the welfare of very small children – doesn’t work, and backfires, for reasons that should be obvious, even to an academic.
Well, that has a hundred answers even after you define who “we” are. But I dare to speculate that one significant factor is failure to stop entryists. These idiots, it seems to me, are dysfunctional in the way they purge and witchhunt at the drop of a hat, but they do kick out “us” too, while “we” (at least for certain values of we) have been losing because we’ve been failing in the opposite direction by purging far too little. Rare is the man who stands up and says anything like “Communists get out”. Instead we get Communists saying with a straight face “Curtis Yarvin must not be allowed to speak about technology at a technology conference because his political views worry me” and somehow the Communists aren’t laughed out of the room.
Add some nepotistic hiring decisions, loyalty tests, affirmative actioning, et cetera, and you get a one-way ratchet. These idiots are practically never punished for trying, nor rolled back much, so they have very little in the way of downside risk. They can afford to demand stupid shit ten times, fail every time, succeed on the eleventh, and then fight tooth and nail to keep their gains while asserting loudly “THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL!”
Closely related is the pas d’ennemis a gauche, pas d’amis a droit principle. (“No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.”) These idiots have plenty of moderates who stand by their violent extremists. Reasonable people have been terribly reluctant to stand by so much as Charles Murray for writing a book, and Murray in turn feels obliged to denounce Steve Sailer, while Sailer tuts terribly at Deogolwulf and I figure Deogolwulf wouldn’t be caught dead with Anti-Communist Action streetfighters. But Anti-Fascist Action streetfighters can smash shit and throw fire and still get glowing reviews from the New York Times.
“And we’ve been losing to these idiots why?”
“still get glowing reviews from the New York Times”
THERE’S YOUR REASON RIGHT THERE.
And we’ve been losing to these idiots why?
Defining “we” as those who value classical liberalism and personal autonomy, I think the answer is, we desire to pursue principle. For those at the opposite end of the spectrum, it’s solely about attaining power over others. For our opponents, philosophic consistency is something to be used when helpful and abandoned when not. Sadly, “we” presuppose a measure of good faith on the part of the other side, which the other side is quite happy to use to its advantage. How else to explain the feminist defense of Bill Clinton and his enabling spouse?
“we” (at least for certain values of we) have been losing because we’ve been failing in the opposite direction by purging far too little
I agree with you on the level of having principles to stand for. Communism has failed soooo many times in sooo many environments that there is no reason to treat these hammer-and -sickle (spelled it right that time…I think) flag waving idiots with any degree of respect. Communism should be regarded by society with the same revulsion, if not more, than Nazism, and certainly more than Franco-style fascism. NOT that I like the latter but such was the way the world has been able to function to some degree for millennia. However on the internal side, and specific to what the topic above was referencing underneath, on fuzzy issues such as when life begins/abortion, there is far more room for debate than many on the right want to admit. Don’t want to start a fight over that issue except that it’s such a political killer for the right, in the US anyway.
After I posted my comment above and then taking our morning walk, was thinking (probably over-thinking) about this post and the depth of the idiocy of this so-called professor’s comment. I was wondering if this blatantly stupid comment wasn’t really an attempt to draw attention to the subject of abortion and by extension, social conservative religion. It seems to me whenever the right gets some traction against the left, the media and such can gin up the more un-hinged side of the pro-life movement (and please note, I respect hinged pro-life arguments and agree with most of them) and similar religious extremists to undermine the rightward drift of the moderates, and especially the moderate women many of whom are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Similar seems to occur in regard to other socially conservative issues, but none get up as much lather as abortion.
Wish I could word-smith that more as it’s a bit rough for my point and I’m prolly asking for trouble here, but the millennial I work with has just showed up for work @ 9:20 so gotta get back to the salt mine.
OK, hes on potty break…
THERE’S YOUR REASON RIGHT THERE.
And the best we have opposing that is Fox News why? I would say it is an unwillingness among those on the right to actually stick their necks out and fight, and fight in such a manner as the left does. Reach out to the poor and downtrodden and shiw them how to succeed. Most of the pain and misery of the potential converts to rationality is due to their never hearing the other side of the story. And yes, it is a harder sell but not impossible. Not that we have much of a choice anyway.
There’s no need to shout. But I would appreciate if you spelled out your argument a bit more.
(And perhaps noted that the indented text in my comment is a quote. I’ve taken to the blockquote tag over italics for that, because blockquote won’t spill over into the next comment if left unclosed by accident.)
In addition to what others have said, the right tends to respect authority, whereas the left doesn’t. So if you have an organisation where the people in charge are of the left and the lower levels are of the right, the lower levels are still going to obey the people in charge, because they’re the people in charge and therefore ought to be obeyed. Conversely, if you have an organisation where the lower levels are made up of left-wingers, they’re much more likely to kick up a fuss when their superiors do something insufficiently left wing. (Cf. the various student protests issuing demands to university administrators.) This means that, in general, institutions are going to face less push-back for heading left than they are for heading right. After a few generations of this, it’s not surprising that the left ends up controlling almost all the major institutions in society.
But the (insincere) appeal to decency – and the welfare of very small children – doesn’t work, and backfires, for reasons that should be obvious, even to an academic.
That.
… personally pro-life but politically pro-choice …
That would be me. As a self-described libertarian, I believe in keeping my nose out of other people’s business. Unless a woman tells me so, just knowing that she is pregnant requires sticking my nose pretty far up her business. (A libertarian answer to the question “Are you pregnant?” is “None of your business.”)
left-wingers, they’re much more likely to kick up a fuss when their superiors do something insufficiently left wing
We’ve talked before about a left/non-left asymmetry of attitude and temperament. Specifically, the fact that the “social justice” contingent is much keener to signal piety via public umbrage and hair-trigger scolding. As we’ve seen, it can get quite competitive, with quarrelsome little warriors interrupting lectures and derailing social gatherings, and generally imposing themselves on others. Bravely journeying to the centre of attention.
While many of the people here, I suspect, including your host, may be reluctant, in real life, to be a vibeslayer or drama queen or political pedant – someone who feels compelled to point out every infraction or point of contention, however minor, and however inappropriate the fuss. I, for one, don’t want to be that guy. Because in real life – as opposed to, say, blogging – being that guy is a ticket to bedlam.
The arguments from the left are becoming stranger and stranger, and increasingly detached from reality. There is a perverse tendency to say something bizarre, as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.
…as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.
Those orthodoxies aren’t going to deconstruct themselves.
I, for one, don’t want to be that guy. Because in real life – as opposed to, say, blogging – being that guy is a ticket to bedlam.
Agree. Don’t want to be that guy either. But after years of never wanting to be that guy, I’ve decided, only after years of being subjected to the PC BS intruding into my personal life, that the risk is necessary. But what I really don’t want to be, worse than being that guy is being that guy in the next Venezuela.
My take is the safest and most efficient way to get the point across without being TG, because once you are othered as TG your probability of influence is mighty low unless you are very, very good at not being TG while getting the point across, is to work from the bottom up. TG (or TG in the context of present company) can be of a tremendous service to those who struggle because TG generally knows stuff about how the world really works. More so than most people. YMMV, but my perspective for decades now is that the misunderstanding that rich get rich off the backs of the poor is extremely wide spread even among the middle and upper classes. This is extremely damaging to those struggling to come up form below who simply don’t understand the rules of reality, not to mention to the rest of us.
Again…playing hooky here and would like to state that more clearly and less wordy but gotta go…
Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully. Since the trap he sets is not only contrived and unconvincing, but also draws unflattering attention to his own position, rather than that of his opponents.
This ilk’s familiar psychosis has all the gravity of a kid on his first high, speakers thundering as he meticulously inspects a record album gatefold for the wealth of special insight it contains, an enlightenment known only – in that insular, lightbulb moment – to him.
Not that it’s ever happened to me.
…we’ve been losing to these idiots why?
A stupendous question and one asked WAY too infrequently.
The answer is codependence.
There is a perverse tendency to say something bizarre, as if the very absurdity of the remark gives it legitimacy.
There’s that special insight – that self-inflating, teenager response where suddenly after fourteen years the universe is crystal clear (in deep, infinitely narrow slices) … and not a philosopher has ever before trod.
Which puts it mildly. It’s really just a waking-state psychosis these freaks suffer from, a moral unconsciousness, the self-induced, posing, zealous, egotistical, amoral clinical condition that obviously escapes such scrutiny internally and isn’t immediately labeled and vigorously shunned externally.
And that’s the codependency.
Regarding the libertarian view, when it’s not throwing away its birthright on pot and protesting fire departments it at least gets the personal moral dynamicism right – Geezer implies this above – and places personal responsibility directly on the individual.
Where this ilk can burn from it.
… throwing away its birthright on pot …
Is “pot” the same as “pottage“?
Where this ilk can burn from it.
Do ilks have tartans?
“Of that ilk” have plenty of tartans.
But if you want a new one specially for “ilk”, I have a day job colleague who can help.
But if you want a new one specially for “ilk”, I have a day job colleague who can help.
I think the Guild of Evil™ qualifies as an Ilk, and should have its own Tartan.
…they’re much more likely to kick up a fuss…
Therein lies the rub. We are, by and large, just decent people who would like to live and let live, and so we tolerate the outbursts and bad behavior rather than make a scene. Besides, who wants to jump into the path of some overgrown four-year-old’s temper tantrum? I realize that the end result of this non-confrontational mindset is that we now must live with several generations of people who retain the mindset of the tyrannical four-year-old, but it happened so incrementally that we didn’t realize the water was boiling ’til too late.
Any more, the best I can do is to cheerfully and patiently push back against the absurd inconsistencies in leftist dogma. I’ve found it very helpful to open with agreement, and proceed from there:
The trick is to beg the question; to make it so reasonable that your interlocutor can’t help but agree. Take it from me: it’s worth the effort, if only to see the cognitive dissonance swirling through their poor atrophied brains…
“I think the Guild of Evil™ qualifies as an Ilk, and should have its own Tartan.”
What, in addition to Chester’s crest?
(I’ve spared everyone my animated GIF and explanatory graphic)
I didn’t understand any of that.
What, in addition to Chester’s crest?
Yes.
I didn’t understand any of that.
Perhaps you are part of the Guild.
Those orthodoxies aren’t going to
deconstructthemselves.Those orthodoxies aren’t going to construct themselves.
There is a historical parallel to Prof. Sanders’ rhetorical trick. In Uncle’s Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe chronicled all the crimes of slavery, including the sexual exploitation of slave women by white men. Some Southerners then denounced her because “no decent woman would write of such things”.
Professor Sanders is attempting to play Gotcha!, though not, I think, successfully.
Made it through the whole video. The man’s a clown.
The man’s a clown.
Well, it soon becomes clear that Professor Sanders has exactly the kind of politics (and vanities) you’d imagine. As when he starts grabbing at cameras, or screeching about Republicans being racists and liars, or when repeatedly implying that he himself is brave and heroic, a speaker of truth. Despite such intimations of moral heroism, the professor actually seems rather sly and evasive, and somewhat overwound. And when asked questions that are fundamental to the debate – “When does life begin?” “Is the foetus human?” – he dismisses both questions as “irrelevant.”
And that bloody hat.
The man is a Professor of Biology.
Let that sink in.
Related. NSFW
An Assistant School Principal loses his cool confronting Anti-Abortion Students quietly holding placards on the pavement outside the school. First he says that a fetus is ‘ not a child, just some cells..’, then claims that an image of an aborted fetus is highly offensive and will cause traffic accidents. He then goes into full meltdown mode…..
‘not a child, just some cells…’
I wonder if the shouting educator has ever seen images of a foetus at, say, 24 weeks, the current limit of UK abortion law. Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”
Summary.
And stupid hat.
…we’ve been losing to these idiots why?
Because they’re not idiots exactly. They’re emotional blackmailers, and emotional blackmail is very difficult to counter.
Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”
That’s probably why he’s so angry. He knows that if someone sees an image of an 18 week+ aborted fetus, they’ll easily make the emotional connection between ‘it’ and a baby, and perhaps realise that they’re being deceived by the pro-abortion side.
I’m pro-choice BTW, but it must be an informed choice.
I’m pro-choice BTW, but it must be an informed choice.
That is the problem, isn’t it? There is a desire to camouflage or eliminate information, in order to place a thumb on the “choice” scale. For me personally, I have much more respect for those on the pro-choice side who at least acknowledge that abortion involves the destruction of human life, but ask, “So what?” Let’s lay the cards on the table: Personal expediency trumps all, philosophic consistency be damned.
That’s Professor Sanders’s conundrum into which he inadvertently stumbled.
Let’s stop the masquerade and get directly to the Leftist agenda, shall we? They wish to eliminate those whose existence conflict with their pursuit of power over others.
Disclosure: I was once reluctantly pro-Choice many years ago. My personal philosophical hike led me to the conclusion that abortion is contrary to values which we purport to hold dear relative to the inherent value of all humans. Also, an emergency call from an OB/GYN about the absence of a heartbeat with the youngest offspring, followed by a joyful ultrasound helped kick me in the ass.
I wonder if the shouting educator has ever seen images of a foetus at, say, 24 weeks, the current limit of UK abortion law. Because it seems to me that by then what you’ll see, or who you’ll see, isn’t adequately described as “just some cells.”
The ‘just some cells’ argument is silly, even offensive sometimes, but I don’t think it makes sense to think of a 24 week foetus as a person either.
That is the problem, isn’t it? There is a desire to camouflage or eliminate information, in order to place a thumb on the “choice” scale. For me personally, I have much more respect for those on the pro-choice side who at least acknowledge that abortion involves the destruction of human life, but ask, “So what?” Let’s lay the cards on the table: Personal expediency trumps all, philosophic consistency be damned.
It’s more that there is a complex balance of rights and needs to be made than an easy ‘so what’. Having a baby is no small thing, physically or emotionally. I suppose we can agree that foetuses constitute ‘human life’ although I am not sure where that takes us. I don’t think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren’t.
If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake the spam filter.
It’s more that there is a complex balance of rights and needs to be made than an easy ‘so what’. Having a baby is no small thing, physically or emotionally. I suppose we can agree that foetuses constitute ‘human life’ although I am not sure where that takes us. I don’t think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren’t.
© 1996
I don’t think a foetus is a human being and I am certain that we can all agree that at least some foetuses aren’t.
I am certain that a rat foetus or a mink foetus is not a human being, but I am not at all certain that we can all agree that human foetuses are not.