Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[carpedm9587]

Of course not because you tend to act as though your position isn't debatable. Why should some stranger disapproving of my personal relationship cause me any sort of mental issue?

All subjects are debatable. Not all debates, however, make sense. I'm personally not following your line of reasoning. It's not even clear to me what point it is you are trying to make. And I don't recall suggesting that you should be having any sort of "mental issue" due to a stranger's opinion.

Pixie - I have to admit to being completely lost concerning your overall point. You started by entering into the discussion concerning Seer's views about homosexuality. Then somehow went to the "approval" theme (which I cannot seem to connect with anything I've said). Perhaps you could restate your point, so I could know what it is you are trying to say?

[Psychic Missile]

Nope, you are merely defining your own terms. I have no idea what an environmental inclination is, or why some homosexual behaviors wouldn't be considered such, or why bestiality is only that. And there is no good evidence that homsexuality is an inborn inclination - or that environment doesn't play a greater role. You are exposing children to the aberrant behavior of a small minority to normalize and mainstream that behavior under the guise of sex education.

What is the negative effect of the normalization and mainstreaming of homosexual behavior?

[Darth Ovious]

Except that there's a reason you're in the minority, namely because you're probably wrong.

argumentum ad populum

[carpedm9587]

Nope, you are merely defining your own terms. I have no idea what an environmental inclination is, or why some homosexual behaviors wouldn't be considered such, or why bestiality is only that. And there is no good evidence that homsexuality is an inborn inclination - or that environment doesn't play a greater role. You are exposing children to the aberrant behavior of a small minority to normalize and mainstream that behavior under the guise of sex education.

Actually, there is evidence for a genetic component that has been identified and verified more than once. It has been fairly widely reported. Here is one article about it. You will find others if you look.

As with many things about us, we are a combination of nature and nurture.

[Darth Ovious]

There is a difference between "not examining the data" and "examining the data and finding it wanting."

Which is why it's pointless having this conversation because your bar is set a lot higher than mine apparently. Planned Parenthood could commit mass genocide and you would deny it.

If you "don't want me to talk to you," simply block me or stop reading my posts. If you're going to post to me, I'm probably going to respond.

Fine, our conversation is finished then.

As for what occurred at 1:25, I can see no why there was confusion. The woman is describing a separate company, not PP or PPFA, that is a for-profit business which is essentially a match-maker. Researchers approach them and they do the work of finding sources of fetal tissue. PP is one source, and there is nothing here that says PP is profiting from providing the tissue. There is also nothing about a Lamborghini, which appears to me to be a salacious comment with no supporting evidence.

Yep, the bold indicates we are done with this conversation. There is definitely a comment there even if you wish to ignore it.

Since I do not know their cost (nor do you, as far as I can tell), I have no idea why this range. She clearly stated "we are not looking to profit" in the discussion. Several investigations after the video was released determined there was no evidence that PP was profiting. Indeed, the people who made this tape, which has clearly been edited, were accused of misrepresentation and faced legal action.

If I wanted reimbursed for costs I would just send a bill for the actual costs, not haggle over a price. As for the bold, they were charged for recording in secret without permission of the people being taped.

Look, there is no question that we are uncomfortable about the idea of fetal tissue donation. There is no question this woman was showing a level of casualness that makes me uncomfortable. However, I have to wonder how callous the language is between professionals involved in organ donation, which medical establishments are also prohibited from profiting on. That means that the hospital, or any part of the medical community, cannot show a profit from the sale of any organ. They ARE, however, permitted to charge to recover costs. Given the speed with which the organ has to be handled to get it from donor to recipient, those costs can be significant. Now, although no one can profit directly from the sale of an organ, there is nothing prohibiting a hospital from paying a secondary company to provide the service of handling the logistics of the match and transporting the organ. THAT company can be a for-profit company. It's the equivalent of shipping the organ by FedEx. FedEx is certainly profiting from shipping an organ - but it is not profiting from the sale of the organ itself.

Excuses

Sorry, DO, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence here to show PP is profiting from fetal tissue donation.

Fine, then we are finished.

[carpedm9587]

Which is why it's pointless having this conversation because your bar is set a lot higher than mine apparently. Planned Parenthood could commit mass genocide and you would deny it.

First, I don't do this kind of idle speculation (i.e., what I would do in a hypothetical situation). Second, I watched the video and did not find the interpretation you put on it warranted. Third, I linked to an article about post event investigations that found the accusation unwarranted. I have no reason to doubt the investigators, so I don't.

Fine, our conversation is finished then.

As you wish...

But why are you still posting...?

Yep, the bold indicates we are done with this conversation. There is definitely a comment there even if you wish to ignore it.

I did not find a comment about a Lamborghini. But I have to admit that I watched the video at a low audio level (I do not have a headset and am currently taking a shift with my elderly aunt). If you wish to provide a timestamp, I'll review again.

If I wanted reimbursed for costs I would just send a bill for the actual costs, not haggle over a price. As for the bold, they were charged for recording in secret without permission of the people being taped.

If I am trying to cover costs, I will haggle to get them as close to the actual cost as I can. Anything less and I suffer a loss.

Excuses

Explanations.

Fine, then we are finished.

As you wish. Thanks for the chat.

[lilpixieofterror]

All subjects are debatable. Not all debates, however, make sense. I'm personally not following your line of reasoning. It's not even clear to me what point it is you are trying to make. And I don't recall suggesting that you should be having any sort of "mental issue" due to a stranger's opinion.

Pixie - I have to admit to being completely lost concerning your overall point. You started by entering into the discussion concerning Seer's views about homosexuality. Then somehow went to the "approval" theme (which I cannot seem to connect with anything I've said). Perhaps you could restate your point, so I could know what it is you are trying to say?

I connect just fine. You made the accusation, so please explain why anyone should care about what a stranger thinks about your personal relationship?

[Tassman]

argumentum ad populum

Or, in this instance, the common-sense majority opinion uncontaminated by the unsubstantiated religious opinion of a few.

[carpedm9587]

Prejudice and bigotry contribute to the atmosphere of marginalization and hatred. Seer's attitude and stance contributed to a society that denied the LGBTQ community common rights and privileges for many years. I gave a couple of examples of the kind of harm that has resulted from those attitudes. Prejudice perpetuates prejudice. It harms everyone.

You assisted him of doing harm to gay men, so beyond disagreeing with their life choices, what direct harm has Seer done?

Yes, I accused him of doing harm. I believe you added the "direct." As far as I know, Seer has not done "direct" harm to someone (e.g. personally hit them, etc.). Of course, I have no idea who has read his "sodomizing degenerates" and other similar language. This is a publicly visible forum, so it is possible he has done direct harm and I don't know about it. He has apologized for that, however.

I connect just fine. You made the accusation, so please explain why anyone should care about what a stranger thinks about your personal relationship?

Hopefully, my response (above) provides clarification.

[lilpixieofterror]

Prejudice and bigotry contribute to the atmosphere of marginalization and hatred. Seer's attitude and stance contributed to a society that denied the LGBTQ community common rights and privileges for many years. I gave a couple of examples of the kind of harm that has resulted from those attitudes. Prejudice perpetuates prejudice. It harms everyone.

Yes, I accused him of doing harm. I believe you added the "direct." As far as I know, Seer has not done "direct" harm to someone (e.g. personally hit them, etc.). Of course, I have no idea who has read his "sodomizing degenerates" and other similar language. This is a publicly visible forum, so it is possible he has done direct harm and I don't know about it. He has apologized for that, however.

Hopefully, my response (above) provides clarification.

[lilpixieofterror]

Or, in this instance, the common-sense majority opinion uncontaminated by the unsubstantiated religious opinion of a few.

[carpedm9587]

Pixie - hatred and prejudice and bigotry are harmful. When the white supremacist screams, "you will not replace us," we are harmed. When we perpetuate hatred and discrimination, we are contributors to the harm that results in our society. You may choose to dismiss them, but I do not. And I will always speak out when I encounter it.



There is a difference between "being accepted by" and "perpetuating hatred and bigotry against."

[lilpixieofterror]

Pixie - hatred and prejudice and bigotry are harmful.

When the white supremacist screams, "you will not replace us," we are harmed. When we perpetuate hatred and discrimination, we are contributors to the harm that results in our society. You may choose to dismiss them, but I do not. And I will always speak out when I encounter it.

There is a difference between "being accepted by" and "perpetuating hatred and bigotry against."

[carpedm9587]

We definitely have a disagreement on the nature of homsexuality and bisexuality. You apparently see it as a life choice. Actions are things we choose. Identity, not so much. We also apparently have different points of view concerning the effects of bigotry/hatred on society, and I frankly think your view is a bit naive. It took decades (after the civil war) for the civil rights process for black people to begin. That was because of the collective effects of the prejudice of individuals. Meanwhile, people were being lynched, forced to the back of buses, denied jobs, and terrorized in countless ways. To dismiss that as "only has as much effect as you let it," is a little callous, IMO, and amazingly insensitive to history.

Then it took decades after the civil rights era for the same kind of movement to take root for the LGBTQ community. That was because of the collective effects of the prejudice of individuals. You have the privilege of not having to deal with that, assuming you are not black, and not a member of the LGBTQ community, so you can blithely insist that prejudice/racism only affect you if you let it. Unfortunately, it does far more than just that, and its effects continue on.

I have no clue what most of this means, so I have no response.

Not sure where you got the impression that I "can't handle it." Calling it out for the prejudice and bigotry it is doesn't mean I "cannot handle it." I simply will not let such things pass in silence. As Edmund Burke said, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

My reference was not to "hurt feelings," though that can be a problem for the very young. When a young teenager is struggling with their sexual identity, and is told their attraction to same-sex partners makes them "sodomizing degenerates," the damage can be quite real. If it comes from enough people, and especially from people of importance (parents, teachers, friends), the damage can be significant. Some children will dig in and fight. Some will end their lives. And pretty much anything in between is possible.

[seer]

And you are specifically choosing "values" that are rare, most people consider "trivial" as a way of diminishing/ridiculing the position (Technique #2). I truly wish you had something more substantive.

There you go with an argumentum ad populum again!

Actually - no double standard exists. A relative/subjective moral framework predicts exactly this dynamic. And I am reading into your motivations, it is true. But your consistent use of things widely held as "trivial preferences" to compare to things widely held as "core values," is somewhat revealing of your agenda. You still have not said anything about why a relative/subjective moral framework is non-functional.

Again with the fallacy! If the vast majority thought a particular minority was inferior what do we learn from that - one thing alone - the vast majority believe a particular race is inferior. So saying that the vast majority hold certain values does not tell us anything about the worth, rightness or importance of those values. And you labeling certain preferences as trivial has no weight.