nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:there's no merit to applying "the principle" to two entirely different situations. none.
I guess I still get the "cause I say so argument"
Irvine511 said:there's no merit to applying "the principle" to two entirely different situations. none.
Irvine511 said:
your second statement is probably one only a male could make. and i say that as not only a male, but a male who is not in danger of getting anyone pregnant, ever.
karls77 said:He was approved by a margin of 58 to 42. I'd really like to see the breakdown of who voted for and against.
the rockin edge said:
nbcrusader said:
That was the point of my interchange with Irvine. He even stated that he was being a bit humorous.
If you want to start a thread on abortion, do so. I'm not sure an independent evaluation of my interchange with Irvine is the best place to start.
Sherry Darling said:
Yes, you made that point to Irvine, and I'm making it to you. His post was a lighthearted way to make quite a serious, valid point.
You've attempted to suggest that my mention of abortion was off-subject (hence avoiding the question I raised), but it was discussed previously on this thread, so my comment was entirely appropriate.
Regarding "independent evaluation" LOL you're given me way too much credit. I simply commented that, while you often all on people to be balanced and problem-solve, you haven't attempted to do so yourself. Further, you posted from a "Well the Dems do it to", instead of simply saying that both parties should stop fearmongering. That's worth thinking about, Doug. I obviously can't force you to do so.
randhail said:During the State of the Union, Alito looked like a guy who took the short bus to school.
nbcrusader said:
Give him a break, it was his first day on the job. He probably was worried about all the forms he has to fill out and learning the secret handshake..
nbcrusader said:
I guess I still get the "cause I say so argument"
nbcrusader said:
I'm not sure if you are trying to be sexist, or just ignorant of the possible experiences of others on the board.
Irvine511 said:i'm saying that it's difficult for you, as a man (and clearly evidenced by your statement), to put your physical self in the shoes of the dead woman who's picture you can see if you click on the link in my earlier post.
Irvine511 said:no, the burden of proof is on you to draw parallels between abortion and terrorist attacks if you're going to make the comparison to begin with.
i'm anxious to hear.
nbcrusader said:
No, I saw the picture. I appreciate the decency to change it to a link instead of its original posting. And I believe we were discussing the likelihood of individuals knowing people who’ve had abortions v. “back alley” abortions. Given that abortion has been legal for about as long as you’ve been alive, the statistical probability of my statement would hold true. Nothing about my ability to “understand” because I am a male.
nbcrusader said:
My parallel was regarding the methodology of communication. Instead of an analysis of Supreme Court decisions on abortion related issues, the votes of the various members and the potential impact of Alito replacing O’Connor, we get a picture of a coat hanger. Not much different from using a change in color level to replace an explanation of a potential terrorist threat. I think we can move beyond simple pictures and look at the various factors underlying the issue.
Irvine511 said:
oh, okay, now you've created a comparison instead of implying that there simply was one and using that as the basis of an argument.
i think there's a huge, huge difference between the amount of women, pre-Roe, who had back-alley abortions (most probably not by coat hangers, but the methods use back then were probably little better) and the amount of people who have been the vicitm of a terrorist attack in the US. one is a reference to a technique that has become a symbol of a reason why abortion was made legal -- to protect women, and to enable women to determine when they will and will not be pregnant -- that has a strong historical basis in reality.
the "terror alert system" is a very modern creation, was used as little more than a political tool (as Tom Ridge has since admitted) to frighten urban residents and the nation at large with ominious warnings of unspecified threats -- you didn't know where, you didn't know when, you didn't know how, but somewhere something awful was going to happen, and the televised images of 9-11 were often invoked to lend credibility to this sense of fear.
the difference is that a coat hanger represents a long and specific history of a procedure that has affected thousands (millions?) of women with limited choice and agency, and the terror-alert system represents a murky threat that might or might not happen to someone at any given time.
there's a world of difference.
under the broad banner of "Political Symbols Used to Mean Things," there's a comparison. but that's about it.
nbcrusader said:
My point was you relied on a symbol instead of establishing an argument. The impact of the coat hanger in this context is well recognized. I only asked for substance to your base argument.
Irvine511 said:since it is so well recognized, the symbol itself is the argument.
what substance do you need that wouldn't be a repitition of established history?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In his first day on the job, Justice Samuel Alito broke ranks Wednesday night with the Supreme Court's conservatives by refusing to allow Missouri to execute death-row inmate Michael Taylor.
Alito sided with five other liberal and moderate justices in rejecting a second request to allow the state of Missouri to execute Taylor.
nbcrusader said:
A clear failure of the VRWC....
nbcrusader said:A clear failure of the VRWC....
nbcrusader said:I am sure there are plenty of energies spent advancing one political party's agenda over another, or looking for ways to undermine a political opponent. An unfortunate part of today's political landscape.
nbcrusader said:At the end of the day, it isn't about "best interests". Its about money and power.