Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

That's a long joke there, friend

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about 6 months ago

User Journal 17

Slashdot's fake conservative really went for a long setup on this joke.. Really, really, really long. And with a few mini-jokes in it as well - really, a pretty good show there friend.Slashdot's fake conservative really went for a long setup on this joke.. Really, really, really long. And with a few mini-jokes in it as well - really, a pretty good show there friend.

I'll start with the first mini-joke, as it is right in the title. He calls his joke "The Scientific Pro-Life Argument"; the problem though is that there is quite nearly no valid science in his argument anywhere.

After all, his bit about

one or more of the following phenomenon -- mitosis (cellular division where the DNA is duplicated), cellular respiration, as a result of osmosis or photosynthesis, etc.

Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

He follows up with this logical failure:

Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

Which, presumably, was chosen just to show how conservatives can make themselves look more ridiculous when trying to sound scientific than they already look when they just embrace their ignorance.

It goes well with his interesting term

abortophiles

Which should basically mean "people who love to stop". And who runs around with giant stop signs to proclaim their political stance?

He also included an obligatory political jab as the conservative stance is often to assume that the reader isn't smart enough to figure out on their own who the favored audience is:

some Democrats consider people to be dependent children up to age 26.

Even though that has nothing to do with the matter at all.

He then pretended to be knowledgeable on medical ethics - and of course advocated for forcing the stance of a conservative male on the population of the entire world - while also pushing an unsupported line about the effects on the mother.

So what was the final punchline? It appears to be primarily the notion that conservatives support redefining "science" to push their agenda (while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent funding of scientific research, mind you) on topics that they refuse to actually become well versed on. There were a few others buried in there but by and large this seems to be much like when a certain radio host claimed to be educated in "the sciences" before repeatedly shoving his foot in his mouth on pretty much every scientific matter he could think of to lecture his audience on.

By the way, friend, if you're reading this you forgot something. Namely, you didn't have a bestiality / homosexuality / anal sex / genetic inferiority line in there. I know it's been a while since you've been here to put on your act, so I thought I'd mention it to you as a service to help you get your act back up to par sooner. Good luck.

cancel ×

17 comments

I suppose you can call 'life' an agenda (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46054545)

But only if you call 'common sense' an addiction.

Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

If you statement held validity, then we'd all be Ash in the Army of Darkness [imdb.com] scene where he's over-run by tiny copies of himself.
Picking over the rest of your rebuttal, I see you trying to nip at the edges and sound important, while falling short, e.g.:

He follows up with this logical failure:

Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

The worst thing we have here is a space character between 'some' and 'times'. If you think there is a fallacy here, then what? Name the fallacy, please.
The best I can get at for a reason not to curb abortion substantially at the federal level is that the appropriate level of the federal government is interstate and international policy, and we shouldn't be regulating wombs, homosexuality, drugs, or any other individual behavior (short of chattel slavery) from DC.
But then, I'm willing to break libertarian on these questions at the federal level, because I think it's kind of Constitutional, and permitting the power of DC to get too granular is the source of many woeful unintended consequences, e.g. the asinine notion that some pencil necks are capable of regulating your health care.
I do, however, reserve the right to pray for the blighted souls of those who are willing to treat pregnancy as some sort of recreational hunting license. Our national horrorcaust is a source of infinite shame, right along with chattel slavery itself.

Re:I suppose you can call 'life' an agenda (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46054939)

Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

If you statement held validity, then we'd all be Ash in the Army of Darkness scene where he's over-run by tiny copies of himself.

You don't seem to understand much about cellular biology. My point is that he did not name a single trait of a living cell that makes a fetal cell in any way different from an adult cell that is routinely sloughed off during life. His argument would make every person alive guilty of performing abortions many times a day.

He follows up with this logical failure:

Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

The worst thing we have here is a space character between 'some' and 'times'. If you think there is a fallacy here, then what? Name the fallacy, please.

The fallacy is the notion of "in vitro death". Three is nothing "in vitro" about traditional pregnancy. The phrase in vitro refers to being outside the regular context of life, sexual reproduction - with the exception of in vitro fertilization - is not in vitro. Furthermore the notion of "in vitro death" is not valid either as currently anything started in vitro requires more than the in vitro environment to proceed. Even if we got further with the artificial uterus, you wouldn't really be in vitro at that point any more.

I do, however, reserve the right to pray for the blighted souls of those who are willing to treat pregnancy as some sort of recreational hunting license

You can pray for whatever you like, to whomever you like. However you could do yourself a favor by learning something about the situation instead of painting people in such broad strokes.

Re:I suppose you can call 'life' an agenda (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46062443)

Point: in vitro [wikipedia.org] was used erroneously.

However you could do yourself a favor by learning something about the situation instead of painting people in such broad strokes.

If people are contending that 2+2=5, then I'm going to call them idiots. Heck, I'll even agree that it's a broad stroke. When you're talking about 57mil+ [numberofabortions.com] since Roe v. Wade, let's do this: I'll endeavor to be less reactionary about climate reporting, if you reconsider the open river of evil that is abortion.

Re:I suppose you can call 'life' an agenda (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#46074153)

Point: in vitro was used erroneously.

Thank you. I see his misuse of in vitro as being intentional, a part of his continued act. You are free to disagree.

When you're talking about 57mil+ since Roe v. Wade

I appreciate that the page you linked to does source some of their numbers. However there are a lot of problems with the numbers they post, as well.

For one, they put up a number they call

US this Year due to rape or incest

However I cannot find anywhere on their site where they describe how they come up with this numbers. I would argue that such a number is nearly impossible to ascertain with any real certainty due to patient privacy. Even worse though, one can argue that they post such a number hoping you will take ( United States this Year ) - (US this Year due to rape or incest ) and claim that all the rest were "just because". That is, to say the least, disingenuous. This leads to ...

Second, they don't say how many of these are done either for the life of the mother, or because the fetus is known to be nonviable. We have diagnostic tools available now for fetuses that allow us to diagnose with extremely high certainty which fetuses are suffering from disorders that will most likely result in stillbirth or extremely short life expectancy. If you want to present an argument that a woman should be forced to carry such a pregnancy to term, you can do that, but you are ignoring the risks that she faces by doing so.

Also interesting is their

By Planned Parenthood this year

number. They have a source for it which I do not contest. More interesting though is that by posting it they somewhat diminish the value of protesting against planned parenthood in particular as they represent less than 1/3 of all the country's abortions. Furthermore if you compare ( US since 1973: Roe vs Wade ) to ( By Planned Parenthood since 1970 ) ... which isn't even a fair metric since they are not on the same time scale ... you see that the total number from them is barely over 1/10th. The comparison of the ( United States this Year ) and ( Worldwide this Year ) also show that the US is barely 1/30th of the worldwide total, being as the US constitutes more than 1/30th of the world population our per capita abortion rate is lower than worldwide.

Finally, what point are they trying to make with

Black babies since '73 in US

?

what point? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46074943)

Only that it take an act of applied blindness not to note that the abortion numbers look as racially skewed as incarceration numbers.
In the latter case, we're instructed to decide that there is racism afoot in our legal system. And there may be.
In the former case, the explanation is: SHUT UP!

Re:what point? (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46077321)

Only that it take an act of applied blindness not to note that the abortion numbers look as racially skewed as incarceration numbers.

How exactly do those numbers support that notion in any meaningful way? If you don't have numbers on the racial makeup of people who seek abortions, you can't make that claim and support it. They most certainly did not offer any evidence to support it with any of the numbers that they had on their website (including the unsourced numbers).

That said, you should be a little ashamed of yourself for how you just opted to follow your party's endorsed strategy for discussion rather than actually approaching the discussion in a mature and reasoned manned. I directly paid a complement to your source and you responded with outrage. This is directly in line with how the conservatives in congress, when the NYT article came out that showed failings in the government preparations in Libya prior to Benghazi (hey, look I found a way to bring it up before you - are you feeling OK?), instead nearly tripped on each other trying to see who could be the first to condemn the entire article over the part that pointed out the attack was not from what could reasonably be called Al-Qaeda. You showed similar appreciation here for my complimenting your source, as I dared to question your source's unsourced bits.

Re:what point? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46079227)

See http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/ [lifenews.com]

That said, you should be a little ashamed of yourself for how you just opted to follow your party's endorsed strategy for discussion rather than actually approaching the discussion in a mature and reasoned manned.

And you should be ashamed for immediately pointing a finger and trying to shame me. The "blame first, win news cycle", while it has kept your girl in office these five years, has done about shag-all to help the economy. Your only saving grace is that our electorate is substantially composed of slow learners.

Re:what point? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46079935)

And you should be ashamed for immediately pointing a finger and trying to shame me

I tried to discuss with you the web page that you cited. I even paid them a compliment for the fact that they had sources for some of their numbers. You then responded with anger over the fact that i dared to question some of the numbers that they posted with no source. The fact that you discarded my questions to instead display anger towards me for not being willing to take your favorite assumptions and regard them as unquestionable statements of truth is itself shameful. Why did you post that link if you did not want to talk about the contents of that web page?

If you don't want to actually discuss anything then why link to a page that has statements on it? I suggest perhaps instead in the future link to here [yarncorner.com.au] and just say that it will have information soon.

Re:what point? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46079989)

That is - at very best - a questionable conclusion there. The only data they have is the claim that planned parenthood is

putting 79% of its abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods.

Which they actually redefine later in the same article as

79% of Planned Parenthoodâ(TM)s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American and/or Hispanic/Latino communities.

They are falling victim to their own inability to separate correlation from causation. When you are close to minority neighborhoods you are generally close to the population centers of the largest cities in the country. It wouldn't make sense to place a health clinic that is interested in serving reproductive health needs of the community in a place that people cannot get to. The clinics aren't there because people of a particular ethnicity are there; the clinics are there because people are there. Furthermore in many cities the people from those communities are also the ones least likely to have access to reliable transportation to get further from that area, so placing the clinics in an area where they can get there on foot or by public transportation is important.

In other words, unless you can provide some information to support your allegation - and that website does not do the job - your claim of planned parenthood being some illuminati trick to reduce the population of some specific group of people is just another conspiracy theory.

Re:what point? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46087077)

You say "conspiracy theory" as though it whisks the dead bodies off to some corn field.
I suppose that it is with a similar hard hearts that people in other times, on other continents, have viewed other tragedies.

Re:what point? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46087739)

You say "conspiracy theory" as though it whisks the dead bodies off to some corn field.

I say conspiracy theory because you are alleging that people are conspiring to use abortion as a tool for population control and/or ethnic cleansing. There is no evidence to support such a notion, in spite of how much you want there to be - or at least you have yet to present any.

But before you invest more energy into trying to group me in with the group you most love to hate based on your assumptions of my stance on abortion, allow me to quote someone whose opinion on the matter I do share:

abortion should be safe, legal, and rare

I'll let you search for who said that. Like many, I don't see how an outright ban really helps any one.

I suppose that it is with a similar hard hearts that people in other times, on other continents, have viewed other tragedies.

And I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing me to a Nazi, there. You haven't tried to call this a holocaust before or anything.

Re:what point? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46089333)

And I'm sure you wouldn't be comparing me to a Nazi, there.

See, now, you had to get out the "N" word. ;-)

Re:what point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46090585)

I say conspiracy theory because you are alleging that people are conspiring to use abortion as a tool for population control and/or ethnic cleansing. There is no evidence to support such a notion, in spite of how much you want there to be - or at least you have yet to present any.

Incorrect.

http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_... [lifeadvocate.org]

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and admirer of Adolf Hitler, undoubtedly saw abortion as a way to cull the numbers of "undesirables". As usual, damn_registrars, you have your facts completely wrong.

Re:what point? (1, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46091355)

I presume whoever you are, you posted that as AC because the source is so embarrassingly biased as to not be even reasonable to count as a source at all. If you have meaningful information to present, feel free to try again. Something that just blindly paints someone who you disagree with as the devil won't get you far.

Re:what point? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46091579)

I presume whoever you are, you posted that as AC because the source is so embarrassingly biased as to not be even reasonable to count as a source at all.

Wrong again -- you're so wrong, it's comical. If you had bothered to read, you've have found a fully researched article complete with references.

Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a valid source.

Are we sure you're not a fake liberal trying to make liberals look bad by your horribly constructed arguments and your silly pedantic smoke screens?

That would actually make it all make sense -- your OCD, your stalking, your obsession... admit it -- you're a parody of a liberal. You're not serious, you're just goofing on the likes of Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow.

Re:what point? (1, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46093173)

I see what you're trying to do there, AC. Too bad it doesn't correlate with reality. That may explain why you are too cowardly to even propose it with a made-up slashdot name behind it.

Re:what point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46093571)

None of what you post correlates with reality, but that's doesn't stop you.

Of course, you clearly want it to not correlate with reality, because that's part of the bit. You're doing a terrific job making liberals look like absolute putzes. I was completely wrong about you -- you're a comedic genius. You're like "Liberal Larry' -- another well known liberal satire personality. But I doubt you're as cute as Sunny from Sunny TV, another liberal parody.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...