Displaying 151 To 180 Of 213 Comments My prayers are with you all. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 5:12 am Nana, Thanks so much for the updates! (I went to bed in order to get up in time to get my little one off to school.) The devastation is incredible…they’re currently discussing possible leaks at nuclear power plants…scarier than theh tsunamis, IMHO. –RS » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 5:12 am Hurrah!! :0) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 1:09 am …northern Japan hit hard by tsunamis: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/12/world/12earthquake.html Also, a resident’s video as earthquake occurred:
» Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 12:56 am Tsunami Center Widens Warning to Include HawaiiBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS “HONOLULU (AP) — The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii has widened its tsunami warning to include Hawaii and the rest of the Pacific Ocean. The warning was issued Thursday at 9:31 p.m. HST. Sirens were sounded shortly afterward in Honolulu alerting people in coastal areas to evacuate. The warning follows a massive earthquake that has struck off the northeastern coast of Japan. The first waves were expected to arrive at 2:55 a.m. HST Friday. The warning also includes Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Central and South America. The coast of North America is not included in the warning. Tsunami warnings are issued due to the imminent threat of a tsunami.” [4:21 EST (Source CNN) Tsunami warning now for entire west coasts of U.S. and Canada.] » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 12:52 am The buildings, etc., are probably engineered well, as well. (Even though it’s much stronger than Haiti’s earthquake, I’m geussing (and hoping) there will be much less damage.) [Edit: I may have guessed incorrectly…just saw photos of devastation from tsunamis…looks extensive.] » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 12:47 am WTS, Good news ref you and yours (and Kalima and hers) are all okay–hope you get word from your wife soon. –RS » Posted By Redemption Song On March 11, 2011 @ 12:43 am Choicelady, BDM & Chase, Thanks for the recommendations. (There is an upcoming protest sponsored by US Uncut as well as a MoveOn council nearby, so I’ll check out one or the other or both. :0) All the best, » Posted By Redemption Song On March 10, 2011 @ 8:15 am All, I see reactions to some (not all) Republican shinanigans (e.g., Arizona and Wisconsin), but I don’t see any pro-active organization. Is there anyting…a group, an identifiable movement, etc.? –RS » Posted By Redemption Song On March 10, 2011 @ 6:58 am V. cool. (…and accurate.) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 10, 2011 @ 6:24 am Hilarious!! » Posted By Redemption Song On March 10, 2011 @ 6:21 am Greetings whatsthatsound, It took a while, but I found your reply! :0) “No worries” regarding your reply, and my reply to your reply…if anything, per usual, I didn’t have time to write anything remotely well-crafted and simply didn’t wish to be misunderstood due to my own lack of care. (I had tons of typo’s in that exchange.) As for the right to reproductive freedom, it means naught without proper health care, the meeting of basic needs and the acceptance simpliciter of families with children regardless of how those families are constituted. (Consistency is a lovely thing, but rare, especially in politics. ;0) Peace always, » Posted By Redemption Song On March 10, 2011 @ 6:13 am Nothing to admire…they’re the scum of the earth. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 6:05 pm Seriously. People have forgotten how bloody the fight for organized labor was…it could get ugly. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 6:03 pm …sadly it’s all of a piece. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 6:01 pm Republicans stink. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 6:00 pm Thank you for the kind words, Artist! (Logic is great fun. :0) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 5:57 pm **blush** » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 8:21 am :0) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 7:29 am All, I usually don’t write long comments–it’s not that I don’t feel that I deserve space so much as I feel space should be economized and shared. On that note, I didn’t intend to hog the floor below. It did seem, however, that the topic at hand was sensitive enough to warrant a bit of care, my breezy syntax notwithstanding. I’m off to sweat a little (both physically and mentally). Here’s wishing all a happy & productive 24 hours, » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 7:27 am Greetings whatsthatsound, I added 6 – 8 to the comment to which you’re replying after you replied (if you wish to go back and read it). 1. I can’t speak for Kalima although I suspect that if we apply the principle of charity once more, what she was sensitive to is the political ploy to ease in anti-abortion law through increase penalties for harming e/f during the commission of another crime. The “easing in” has to do with the e/f standing as an entity, usually defined as a spearate person, as a harmed individual. Once the legal/moral concept of ‘person’ is applied to e/f, all bets are off on Roe v. Wade which, given the background of the medical technology and then viability of prematurely born fetuses, did an interesting parcing of competing concern for maternal rights and legal concern for maturing fetuses based on the somewhat arbitrary and colloquial demarcations of trisemesters. That is, this bill is not somehow “different from” or “apart from” anti-abortion aspirations. To assert so is at best naive. 2. I’ve already covered the issue of equivocation: logically, he is not allowed to use the concept ‘value’ in the monetary sense as a premise in order to conclude ‘value’ in the ‘equal moral status’ sense in the conclusion. There simply is no logical entailment. His anology, and argument, fail on this point alone. (Sorry. :0) 3. I cannot accept a bad argument. It’s not in my nature. If you (not personally, but generally) wish to argue for the moral status for e/f, then by all means have to. Indeed, I can think of a few doozies on my own. The cow/house analogy, however, simply is not it. It was both bad form (politically impolitic) and logically fallacious (even if it made everyone happy, it would have still been a technically bad argument). 4. I’ll leave you with one of my favorite pieces. Warm regards,
» Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 7:04 am Applying the principle of charity, let’s attempt to represent the analogy as it was intended, namely: “A pregnant cow has more value than a non-pregnant cow; the only difference between the pregnant and non-pregnant cows is the presence of an embryo or fetus; ergo, the “value-added” (or “the valuable thing”) is the embryo or fetus (e/f). Cows are less valuable than humans; ergo, cow e/f are less valuable than human e/f (or, alternatively, human f/e have value); ergo, abortion is morally wrong.” 1. The correspondence of this anaology, whether you like it or not, is: Unpregnant Cow : Unpregnant Human Mother This made the female speaker (in the video) uncomfortable at first blush for one or more of several reasons: To call a woman “a cow” is a sexist pejorative in our culture; to compare women with livestock raised for profit is tone death in this age of human trafficking; to compare women with livestock dedicated (& usualy forced through too many pregnancies) to reproducing livestock is again tone death as it corresponds to neatly to misogynist ideology that holds that women’s sole purpose is to reproduce humans at the deterimination and control of men; and so on. It’s, at best, “unfortunated”. (I would go so far as to say it’s ignorant, but that’s me.) The analogy just does have gross negative connotations that render it, if not logically uncessful, then certainly unlikely to persuade. 2. Whether one likes it or not, the speaker made two claims about what entities have value: the cow has value vis-a-vis the value of its valuable pregnancy. If we follow the analogy, not only does the human e/f have value, but a woman has value vis-a-vis her being pregnant. This isn’t so difficult to conceive…pregnant women are usually accorded some measure of consideration, hence the uproar over Huck’s attacking Portman. 3. [I have to make breakfast and run to the bus stop…”3″ is in the offing.] [Okay: back from brkfst/busstp/grocer…so editing to add.] The problem with the anology is with the conceptual slide with the concept of ‘value’: monetary/exchange value (the case of cows and calves) is simply different in kind from the value of moral status which is accorded humans and, controversially, e/f. It is here, to my mind, where the anaology fails, namely the fallacy of equivocation. 4. The plot thickens: not only is there more than one definition of “value” per se, “moral status” is itself not without complication. It would be absurd for many to say that an adult human has equal moral status with, say, your friendly neighborhood bed bug; it would be equally absurd to assert that a human e/f is of equal moral status with your friendly neighborhood bed beg. On that note, “life” per se does not seem to make an entity ‘sacred’ with nothing more. That is, the extent to which an entity has moral status is admittedly relative. 5. Here, I make an unhappy, but admitted logical jump (i.e., I’m not going “step by step”): the question isn’t whether e/f or pregnant women have “value” (which is prone to equivocation, so is thrown out (by me ;0) and the question isn’t whether e/f or pregnant women have “moral status”. The question is, “Are e/f of equal moral status with women (pregnant or not)?” Most would answer “No” (or some version of denial of a categorical “Yes”). This is the issue that is illogically over-simplified by the speaker’s analogy in the video. 6. So, there you go. I’m going to go with the consensus: the guy speaking did his position no good either intuitively or, upon inspection, logically. 7. That said, one of the most moving sights for me was the ultrasound of my little one as dot. That said, my pregnancy was absolutely, positively wanted, I has healthy physically and mentally, I’d finished my education, I was able to provide materially and so on. And, having gone through seven years of various stages of my child’s development, I have to say that it’s a 24/7 commitment that simply should not be forced on anyone both for their sake and the child’s. That said, I agree w/ President Obama that abortion rates are too high, and that the best way to lower them is through access…access to sex education, eccess to birth control and, frankly, access to higher education. (If you’re focused on getting through college, pregnancy is simply not part of the program.) Indeed, my son started age appropriate sex education last year. 8. I’ve not read your comment below…but will do so now. I don’t promise to write more as I really should go exercise and get back to work. :b And so it goes! :0) All the best, » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 5:16 am Greetings whatsthatsound, I’m prochoice, I’ve given birth and I teach logic (if any of this matters…it’s not a claim to authority so much as a claim to having a sympathetic ear). You are very correct to not automatically vilify the opposition as well to recognize that not all prochoice or all antiabortion positions are of a piece: the extremes for either position hardly represent most people’s hearts or minds. (E.g., not all prochoice positions agree that there is no separate being to consider until after delivery and not all anti-abortion positions agree that abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances and at all stages of embryonic and fetal development.) That said, in the present case, the speaker is a suspected (and I suspect a known) extremist with regard to his own anti-abortion stance. His motivations are clearly an issue for many, if not most, on this thread. Still, no one wants to be accused of a blatant ad hominem in such a serious discussion. So, fine, we’ll table motivations: we won’t care whether he’s prochoice or anti-abortion. We’re left simply, then, with the analogy itself. Not all analogies, of course, are created equal. There are “on point” analogies, “well, okay” demonstrative analogies” and there are “hey, you missed some serious disanologies” failed-to-make-the-case-analogies. You seem to be arguing that the cow/calf/value example is a simple demonstrative analogy while others argue that there are relevant disanalogies that cannot be ignored. (An example of that last one, viz. “failed to make the case analogies”), would be to analogize dogs and cats. Dogs and cats both appreciate an affectionate rub; they both require food and water; they both rebel against being left alone at home. It would be falacious, however, to then concluede that since (most) dogs have the further attribute of loving to romp at the beach, (most) cats, too, would love a romp at the beach. Cats and dogs, with regard to general species personalities, are significantly disanalogous to make such an inference absurd. The upshot is that just because two entities or class of entities share some attributes/features/characteristics does not entail that they automatically share others.) [This is “chunk one] as I might have to go in a second…] » Posted By Redemption Song On March 9, 2011 @ 4:59 am Bon appetit!! (I just had a scoop of strawberry ice cream–pure happiness. :0) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 5:49 pm 3 Possible Replies: 1) “…oh, but you are!” 2) “Yes. Have you heard about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” 3) “La-la-la-la-laaaa (I can’t heeeear you) la-la-la-la-laaaa!” » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 5:46 pm …good grief. (I swear, half the time I feel like pulling out my hair.) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 5:41 pm (I liked the Looney Tune, but your current little guy is a cutie. :0) » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 2:40 pm It’s blatantly arrogant (somehow the oil under “their” land is “ours” for the securing), and it’s blatantly untruthful (“ours” doesn’t include “mine per se” since it’s big oil, as oppose to the average Joe/Jane viewer, that will bottom-line-benefit the most). » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 2:37 pm …aw. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 10:33 am I’m all for respecting the elderly (it’s what my mama taught me :0), but the inconvenience, if there is any, is overwhelmingly to you. At the risk of sounding cold, given my personality, I’d sweetly tell her that from where I’m standing she has three choices: plane and cab fare subsidized by me, staying home this year, or finding another way (say a train or (ick) a Greyhound, again, subsidized by yours truly). I’d give her those three choices and then allow her to make a decision, loving her happily with whatever she chose. » Posted By Redemption Song On March 8, 2011 @ 9:34 amComments Posted By Redemption Song
Published: March 11, 2011 at 3:20 AM ET
–Me
–Redemption
–Redemption (Signing Off)
–Redemption (Pro-Choice w/ lots of contingencies, as is my wont)
Pregnant Cow : Pregnant Mother
Cow e/f : Human e/f
–Redemption
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats