Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Toni]

I sometimes get really angry with my spouse--for good reasons, for bad reasons, and occasionally for no real reason. But insulting him? I don't understand people who do that. It's not about avoiding being offensive. It's about basic respect.

Not everyone does what they do for the reasons you would do it if you did.
Tom

True. I just never embraced the whole insult as endearment trope.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree with all that verbosity (I think) but see no answer to how your stance doesn’t proceed as I described.

Why do you not see an answer to how my stance doesn’t proceed as you described? I didn't make any "ought" claim! My discussion with LP stayed firmly in the "is" domain.

Scombrid somehow thought he had derived an "ought" from my "is". And you wrote "Show how yours doesn’t imply what he wrote.", as though the burden of proof were on me to demonstrate that his "ought" doesn't follow from my "is". That's not how it works. As Hume points out, and as you think you agree with, the burden of proof is on those who derive "ought"s from "is"s. Scombrid has burden of proof, not I.

The larger issue here, though, is that there's a weird dynamic that happens a lot in policy debates. Two people are arguing with each other over an "ought" question. (Oleg vs. Jarhyn in this case.) In the process, one of them introduces an "is" claim, presumably because he has a moral premise, possibly shared with the other disputant, that takes him from his "is" to his "ought". But the other disputant thinks his "is" claim is wrong, so a new argument about the "is" claim ensues. More "is" claims are introduced in an attempt to support one side or the other in the "is" argument; and more people may get involved (LP and me in this case) when they think they spot faulty logic and/or unevidenced premises in the "is" argument. Then when somebody makes an "is" argument that can't be refuted, somebody else pops all the way down the stack, traces the debate back to the original "ought" dispute, makes up some stupid-ass "ought" claim, and puts it in the mouth of the "is" arguer.

The problem with that dynamic is that it's operationally equivalent to "My side of the ought-dispute is entitled to just make up whatever is-claims we please and not have them challenged." That's what scombrid was doing in post #245; that's what Jimmy Higgins was doing in post #260. It's cheating.

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." - Mark Twain

 

[Elixir]

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." - Mark Twain

Scombrid was being facetious in his "ought" claim, B2. (You knew that)
He was only pointing out how an "ought" claim would flow from your "is", and did so via humorously distorted example.
But I do laud your description of how useless is/oughts develop!

 

[Bomb#20]

Exactly. The social acceptance of homosexuality doesn't give me the slightest desire to have sex with another man. The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give me the slightest desire to be a woman.

The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give you the slightest desire to be a woman. Therefore the social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give some socially excluded adolescent girl the slightest desire to be a boy? One's own tendencies are not necessarily a reliable predictor of other people's tendencies.

Why would it make her want to be a boy?

I don't know, maybe because being trans would make her one of the cool kids, or because she perceives that boys get treated better than girls, or because she's a depressed alienated teenager and she latched onto it when somebody suggested she might really a boy, or because she's a lesbian and heard that means she has a male brain, or any number of other possibilities. The point is, "The social acceptance of homosexuality doesn't give me the slightest desire to have sex with another man. The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give me the slightest desire to be a woman." is a weak argument -- people are all different and they might not think like you'd think when you put yourself in their shoes.

This reply seemed apt to the above post.

Therefore we should send anybody with these perverted ideas to Christian reeducation centers where they can get straightened out. It is only because society created the space to have these perversions that anyone ever drifts into such sinfulness. See the babbleon bee has it right after all.

Show your work.

Seems peculiar that people can have any such ideas about individuals they don't know regarding their personal struggles with identity, as well as their doctors, family, and social circle. The alt-right's doubt of the teen (or adult) and their doctor(s) and their family and their friends and their cohorts and their psychologist (likely). That only if all those people could know it just might be a phase. Rush to the mountain tops Bomb#20, hurry and yell so all of America can hear you because everyone else is stupid and incapable of judging things on their own. Incapable of knowing their patient or child or parent.

You need to tell the world it could just be a phase!

And when you are done with that, there are other psychological and medical things we need to get your opinion on. Specifically, there is a patient with Cancer and we need to know how you think it should be treated. Or treated at all. Could just be a doctor trying to look cool with a patient with cancer.

That's a strawman. You did not have an intellectually honest reason to make up that idiotic garbage and impute it to me. As you can perfectly well see if you read the exchange you quoted for content instead of reading it for tribal markers, it was LP who was drawing an inference about individuals he doesn't know, not I. I'm the one pointing out hasty generalizations.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anybody else out there feel that the term breeder is somewhat offensive?

I think Jarhyn did that intentionally, referring to “a particular class of” all humans who procreate.

Easier to deal with someone who is merely a stereotype ....

I think using such terms shuts down discussion rather than furthers understanding.

To some extent I think stereotyping is a useful sort of shorthand... especially when it actually fits the type.
But your point is also well-taken - it's a trap that is easy to fall into, turning a communicative shortcut into a hotbed of misunderstanding.

Please forgive my use of a vulgar, ugly, bigoted term here: I see breeder in the same way I see the word faggot. And about half a step above all of the racial epithets, except, of course, the n word, which is probably the worst of the lot.

You are correct: using such terms, even the now perhaps fading from the height of its popularity: Karen, is a trap. It reduces individuals to a single stereotypical characteristic. It does the opposite of promoting understanding of meaning, of people, of issues. It is intended to insult and belittle. No one listens after they’ve been insulted.

The fact is I don't like the term much more than you do, but I have no better term with which to refer to an individual who takes "be fruitful and multiply" as a "command" rather than "a suggestion that sounds like fun".

I guess I just think of them as zealots. Their fanaticism ( or faith or bigotry) is not limited to reproduction. I’m not certain—well, I take that back: I am certain that calling such people zealots isn’t terribly helpful, either.

Please don’t take me too seriously on this knee jerk reaction to a particular word. I think I’m just in a funny kind of mood. I’m feeling really burnt out re: all of the hyperbolic angst political nonsense. I just need to take myself on a break.

Whatever you want to call the mindset, I guess my point is that some people are going to resent those who are free from such feelings of obligation, and who can't be held to it.

OK, I'm belaboring my stupid point but it seems the opposite to me: It seems those who can't/won't/don't want to reproduce are projecting some kind of ugly feeling towards those who do have children with that particular term. I don't really quite get it. I have no angst towards those who are childless by choice or by biology. I'm glad I have my children. I'd do it all over again, in a heart beat. I'd have had more if it had been wise to do so. But that's me and my spouse and our choices. I figure those who choose not to have kids know their own lives better than I do. I figure those who don't have children because they cannot have children or made the decision in order to avoid passing along some illness know their lives better than I do and I have no right to burden anyone with any expectation of explanations, etc.

Again, don't mind me. I'm in an odd kind of mood.

The term itself is in many ways a mirror of the resentment of the obligation.

It really is a hard thing to understand until you've seen how certain people seem to turn on those who don't want kids.

It's like...

You know how a lot of guys just don't understand how aggressive and threatening catcalling is, having never done it, having never experienced it firsthand, perhaps only seeing it secondhand? You know how frustrated it makes you when someone says "it doesn't seem so bad"?

Imagine this is such a behavior but experienced by those who do not have nor want children. I'm talking all kinds of aggressive, pushy behavior blossoms from that discussion from all sorts of unexpected sources.

Instead of physical, the threat for us is social. The idea that people who are not going to have children are somehow lesser, deserving derision can even generate glass ceilings.

Why does someone who is never going to have a family need job that can support a family, after all?

 

[Bomb#20]

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." - Mark Twain

Scombrid was being facetious in his "ought" claim, B2. (You knew that)

If by "facetious" you mean he was presenting it as his own position in its surface form even though it wasn't his position, then yes, obviously. If you mean he was being facetious in his insinuation that something along those lines followed from my "is" claim, then no, he appears to have been serious about that.

He was only pointing out how an "ought" claim would flow from your "is",

No, he wasn't "pointing it out". You can't point out things that aren't there. The "ought" claim would not follow from my "is". He made a reasoning error.

 

[Toni]

Anybody else out there feel that the term breeder is somewhat offensive?

I think Jarhyn did that intentionally, referring to “a particular class of” all humans who procreate.

Easier to deal with someone who is merely a stereotype ....

I think using such terms shuts down discussion rather than furthers understanding.

To some extent I think stereotyping is a useful sort of shorthand... especially when it actually fits the type.
But your point is also well-taken - it's a trap that is easy to fall into, turning a communicative shortcut into a hotbed of misunderstanding.

Please forgive my use of a vulgar, ugly, bigoted term here: I see breeder in the same way I see the word faggot. And about half a step above all of the racial epithets, except, of course, the n word, which is probably the worst of the lot.

You are correct: using such terms, even the now perhaps fading from the height of its popularity: Karen, is a trap. It reduces individuals to a single stereotypical characteristic. It does the opposite of promoting understanding of meaning, of people, of issues. It is intended to insult and belittle. No one listens after they’ve been insulted.

The fact is I don't like the term much more than you do, but I have no better term with which to refer to an individual who takes "be fruitful and multiply" as a "command" rather than "a suggestion that sounds like fun".

I guess I just think of them as zealots. Their fanaticism ( or faith or bigotry) is not limited to reproduction. I’m not certain—well, I take that back: I am certain that calling such people zealots isn’t terribly helpful, either.

Please don’t take me too seriously on this knee jerk reaction to a particular word. I think I’m just in a funny kind of mood. I’m feeling really burnt out re: all of the hyperbolic angst political nonsense. I just need to take myself on a break.

Whatever you want to call the mindset, I guess my point is that some people are going to resent those who are free from such feelings of obligation, and who can't be held to it.

OK, I'm belaboring my stupid point but it seems the opposite to me: It seems those who can't/won't/don't want to reproduce are projecting some kind of ugly feeling towards those who do have children with that particular term. I don't really quite get it. I have no angst towards those who are childless by choice or by biology. I'm glad I have my children. I'd do it all over again, in a heart beat. I'd have had more if it had been wise to do so. But that's me and my spouse and our choices. I figure those who choose not to have kids know their own lives better than I do. I figure those who don't have children because they cannot have children or made the decision in order to avoid passing along some illness know their lives better than I do and I have no right to burden anyone with any expectation of explanations, etc.

Again, don't mind me. I'm in an odd kind of mood.

The term itself is in many ways a mirror of the resentment of the obligation.

It really is a hard thing to understand until you've seen how certain people seem to turn on those who don't want kids.

It's like...

You know how a lot of guys just don't understand how aggressive and threatening catcalling is, having never done it, having never experienced it firsthand, perhaps only seeing it secondhand? You know how frustrated it makes you when someone says "it doesn't seem so bad"?

Imagine this is such a behavior but experienced by those who do not have nor want children. I'm talking all kinds of aggressive, pushy behavior blossoms from that discussion from all sorts of unexpected sources.

Instead of physical, the threat for us is social. The idea that people who are not going to have children are somehow lesser, deserving derision can even generate glass ceilings.

Why does someone who is never going to have a family need job that can support a family, after all?

Ah. That's really awful.

I think it's terrible to impute value or values or motive or rights to any person or group of persons based on their decisions or ability regarding whether or not to bear or to raise children.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anybody else out there feel that the term breeder is somewhat offensive?

I think Jarhyn did that intentionally, referring to “a particular class of” all humans who procreate.

Easier to deal with someone who is merely a stereotype ....

I think using such terms shuts down discussion rather than furthers understanding.

To some extent I think stereotyping is a useful sort of shorthand... especially when it actually fits the type.
But your point is also well-taken - it's a trap that is easy to fall into, turning a communicative shortcut into a hotbed of misunderstanding.

Please forgive my use of a vulgar, ugly, bigoted term here: I see breeder in the same way I see the word faggot. And about half a step above all of the racial epithets, except, of course, the n word, which is probably the worst of the lot.

You are correct: using such terms, even the now perhaps fading from the height of its popularity: Karen, is a trap. It reduces individuals to a single stereotypical characteristic. It does the opposite of promoting understanding of meaning, of people, of issues. It is intended to insult and belittle. No one listens after they’ve been insulted.

The fact is I don't like the term much more than you do, but I have no better term with which to refer to an individual who takes "be fruitful and multiply" as a "command" rather than "a suggestion that sounds like fun".

I guess I just think of them as zealots. Their fanaticism ( or faith or bigotry) is not limited to reproduction. I’m not certain—well, I take that back: I am certain that calling such people zealots isn’t terribly helpful, either.

Please don’t take me too seriously on this knee jerk reaction to a particular word. I think I’m just in a funny kind of mood. I’m feeling really burnt out re: all of the hyperbolic angst political nonsense. I just need to take myself on a break.

Whatever you want to call the mindset, I guess my point is that some people are going to resent those who are free from such feelings of obligation, and who can't be held to it.

OK, I'm belaboring my stupid point but it seems the opposite to me: It seems those who can't/won't/don't want to reproduce are projecting some kind of ugly feeling towards those who do have children with that particular term. I don't really quite get it. I have no angst towards those who are childless by choice or by biology. I'm glad I have my children. I'd do it all over again, in a heart beat. I'd have had more if it had been wise to do so. But that's me and my spouse and our choices. I figure those who choose not to have kids know their own lives better than I do. I figure those who don't have children because they cannot have children or made the decision in order to avoid passing along some illness know their lives better than I do and I have no right to burden anyone with any expectation of explanations, etc.

Again, don't mind me. I'm in an odd kind of mood.

The term itself is in many ways a mirror of the resentment of the obligation.

It really is a hard thing to understand until you've seen how certain people seem to turn on those who don't want kids.

It's like...

You know how a lot of guys just don't understand how aggressive and threatening catcalling is, having never done it, having never experienced it firsthand, perhaps only seeing it secondhand? You know how frustrated it makes you when someone says "it doesn't seem so bad"?

Imagine this is such a behavior but experienced by those who do not have nor want children. I'm talking all kinds of aggressive, pushy behavior blossoms from that discussion from all sorts of unexpected sources.

Instead of physical, the threat for us is social. The idea that people who are not going to have children are somehow lesser, deserving derision can even generate glass ceilings.

Why does someone who is never going to have a family need job that can support a family, after all?

Ah. That's really awful.

I think it's terrible to impute value or values or motive or rights to any person or group of persons based on their decisions or ability regarding whether or not to bear or to raise children.

As I said, it's a troubling word, no doubt about it. It IS a slur to use it, and to use it casually the way some gay folks do is dirty and wrong.

I try my utmost to avoid it except when the specific dynamic of thought is being discussed and avoid it's use in a general application.

Still, it's a word because terrible as it is people still commonly impute value and judgement to others on that basis, no matter how wrong it is to do so.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prince George's County man who was charged with spray painting 'groomer' on libraries faces child porn charges

Charles Sutherland faces at least seven charges of possessing child pornography, according to a charging document.

www.wusa9.com

TAKOMA PARK, Md. — A Takoma Park man previously charged for vandalizing two Prince George's County libraries is now charged with possessing child pornography. Charles Sutherland faces at least seven charges of possessing child pornography, according to a charging document.
Sutherland was arrested back in June for spray painting the word "Groomer" on the front door of the Greenbelt library and the New Carrolton library during Capitol Pride Week. He faced vandalism and hate crime charges after he was arrested. Sutherland worked as a school librarian at Northview Elementary School in Bowie at the time. He has been on administrative leave since his arrest in June.

At the time, Sutherland reportedly admitted to the vandalism and allowed a search of his home, according to charging documents.

Gotta protect the kiddies.

 

[Oleg]

 

[Jarhyn]

Prince George's County man who was charged with spray painting 'groomer' on libraries faces child porn charges

Charles Sutherland faces at least seven charges of possessing child pornography, according to a charging document.

www.wusa9.com

TAKOMA PARK, Md. — A Takoma Park man previously charged for vandalizing two Prince George's County libraries is now charged with possessing child pornography. Charles Sutherland faces at least seven charges of possessing child pornography, according to a charging document.
Sutherland was arrested back in June for spray painting the word "Groomer" on the front door of the Greenbelt library and the New Carrolton library during Capitol Pride Week. He faced vandalism and hate crime charges after he was arrested. Sutherland worked as a school librarian at Northview Elementary School in Bowie at the time. He has been on administrative leave since his arrest in June.

At the time, Sutherland reportedly admitted to the vandalism and allowed a search of his home, according to charging documents.

Gotta protect the kiddies.

Indeed. It makes you wonder why some specific right wingers get so worked up about things that any sane person can clearly tell are innocuous (like drag queens reading for kids), vs literally marrying off 14 year old to middle age adults which they don't seem concerned with at all. It makes you wonder whether they are Gay King James going on a crusade against witches and sinners to keep people from accusing him of being... Well... "GAY" King James.

A certain kind of logic recommends, in fact, being outspoken against the things you do in private, the same logic that asks "how can _____ be a _____? ______ hates ______!"

The real question that needs to be asked every time is "is the behavior this person is asking us to be angry about actually abusive?"

If the answer is no, or there is credible controversy and challenge against the affirmative (not just "people are saying", but actual academic debate involving more than one small side clearly arguing very loudly in bad faith) you should immediately ask "does this person have a real history of abuse they are attempting to deflect from?"

 

[Oleg]

Indeed. It makes you wonder why some specific right wingers get so worked up about things that any sane person can clearly tell are innocuous

Like teaching captive children about butt plugs?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I know it's satire--my point is that it's making a claim that can't be proven.

Wut? When was this mass teen suicide Loren? How many kids in your high school killed themselves because they couldn't change their sex? The gender cult has fried your brain.

The point is that we have no way of knowing what drives most teen suicides.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know, maybe because being trans would make her one of the cool kids, or because she perceives that boys get treated better than girls, or because she's a depressed alienated teenager and she latched onto it when somebody suggested she might really a boy, or because she's a lesbian and heard that means she has a male brain, or any number of other possibilities. The point is, "The social acceptance of homosexuality doesn't give me the slightest desire to have sex with another man. The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give me the slightest desire to be a woman." is a weak argument -- people are all different and they might not think like you'd think when you put yourself in their shoes.

You're basically admitting you have no basis for your position. It's just fear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Indeed. It makes you wonder why some specific right wingers get so worked up about things that any sane person can clearly tell are innocuous

Like teaching captive children about butt plugs?

The right has no concept of education. The tweet contains no porn, it's just the tweeter doesn't understand. What's the harm in knowing about butt plugs??

 

[Oleg]

You're basically admitting you have no basis for your position.

There’s no objective basis to distinguish a gender atypical child as simply gender non-conforming, e.g., a tomboy, gay/lesbian, or trans. But the immediate assumption of the trans lobby is to “affirm” that the child as trans; even though the likelihood of that being the case is exceedingly small. Please, leave the kids alone.

 

[TomC]

The right has no concept of education. The tweet contains no porn, it's just the tweeter doesn't understand. What's the harm in knowing about butt plugs??

What's really strange about this is the idea that the kids are captive.
It's the internet era, like it or not. Kids aren't captives any more.

They've got devices that access all kinds of things, including butt plugs. Talking to them frankly about such things, rather than protecting your own ignorance about the modern world, is better for them than protecting your illusions about their innocence.
Tom

 

[Oleg]

The right has no concept of education. The tweet contains no porn, it's just the tweeter doesn't understand. What's the harm in knowing about butt plugs??

Wut? She’s a Dem who lost the Florida Dem governor primary to Charlie Crist. She was responding to a video put out by DeSantis showing the books removed from public school for pornography. In the very next Tweet she admits this shouldn’t be in public schools.

Though, please let us know why you want children to learn about butt plugs.

 

[Oleg]

The right has no concept of education. The tweet contains no porn, it's just the tweeter doesn't understand. What's the harm in knowing about butt plugs??

What's really strange about this is the idea that the kids are captive.
It's the internet era, like it or not. Kids aren't captives any more.

They've got devices that access all kinds of things, including butt plugs. Talking to them frankly about such things, rather than protecting your own ignorance about the modern world, is better for them than protecting your illusions about their innocence.
Tom

Back in my youth we could get porn mags and videos. That doesn’t mean it belongs in school. Teachers who want to sexualize children should not be teachers.

 

[Oleg]

All these adults who think they need to teach the children about sex acts. Like every excuse the guys caught on To Catch a Predator gave to Chris Hanson.