NATION

PASSWORD

(R) Bad faith/flamebait in Abortion Thread

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.
User avatar
Echo Chamber Thought Police
Diplomat
 
Posts: 935
Founded: Jan 25, 2021
Ex-Nation

(R) Bad faith/flamebait in Abortion Thread

Postby Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:48 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Kexholm Karelia wrote:Reductio ad absurdum

No. It's explicitly what you're arguing for; forcing children in the early teens (Long before their bodies, let alone brains and abilities, are developed enough) to die from childbirth, or women to suffer and/or die from medically preventable ailments (Ectopic implantation as the easiest example). You're all in favour of killing girls and women because you prefer them to die over having the right to decide for themselves what happens in their bodies, especially since in these cases, the foetus will not even be viable. You can't be pro-life, you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women, and just don't have guts to say it out loud. If you think what you're arguing for is absurd, change your opinion, because your failed, immoral, anti-human beliefs have consequences when applied in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... tions-rape
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/31/nic ... -and-lives

Kexholm Karelia wrote:Let’s look at statistics, only 6-8% of pregnancies are considered "high risk," this is a small minority of pregnancies, but looking at abortions specifically, 13% of abortions in the survey were done for medical necessity, interestingly enough in that same survey, the majority of respondent’s reason was "Having a baby would dramatically change my life."
You may want to take another pass at this argument, since you're arguing that those 13% deserve to die, and yet dare to claim that pointing it out is reducing your argument to absurdity. No; your belief that enslaving women is good because 13% of women currently having abortions (Again, according to your numbers) will suffer or die -- as, what, a warning to other women?; Biblical punishment?; their lives do not matter anyway?; 13% being acceptable sacrifice compared to the 87% who will be forced to go through with a pregnancy?; some other insane anti-human justification? -- isn't made absurd by us pointing it out. That belief is immoral from the outset. The absurd thing is that anyone holds that belief.

Kexholm Karelia wrote:I don’t think its lack of intelligence, just misinformation that’s spread and become a staple in media due to the influence of the pro abortion lobby. Many people don’t realize how much lobbying is done by these groups
There's no pro-abortion lobby outside the insane conspiracy theories of the anti-choice crowd.

Kexholm Karelia wrote:What kind of argument is this supposed to be?

I’m not seeing where that conclusion came from, please elaborate
It's the necessary consequence of foetal personhood. If a sexually active woman has a period, that egg might very likely be fertilised, which gives it personhood, but fail to implant for unknown reasons. This, as San Lumen points out, is estimated to be a high percentage (Though I seem to recall the number around 1/3-1/2). So we're at once into at least homicide for all sexually active women. Now, the pill and other hormonal birth control devices work by refusing implantation, which means all hormonal birth control devices become literal murder (Or, more likely, the outlawing of all hormonal birth control). The consequence of your policy is that sexually active women should be investigated for homicide roughly once a month, and some of the most used forms of birth control would be illegal. Again, we're into some deeply immoral shit.

The Spook Who Sat By The Door wrote:Obviously you believe that's what it's "meant" to do. For people who enjoy rhetoric and logic, that's not what it does. It reeks of immaturity and desperation.

I enjoy rhetoric and logic, and you're absolutely wrong. If an argument really is absurd (As Kexholms is), pointing out that it will have undesired consequences or implications isn't immature or desperate; it's a valid logical statement and often sound rhetoric because it convinces onlookers.

Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:Killing any fertilised human is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral dilemma. I don't think many people consider it amoral.

Prior to 20 weeks? I do consider it morally neutral. There are good reasons to minimise the number of abortions, but those are medical reasons and for the sake of the woman. The analogy here, to me at least, would be the destruction of some other unfeeling thing in the private possession of a person and with little or no impact on society. What's your argument otherwise?


Emphasis mine

AS is posting unnecessarily aggressive remarks in the abortion thread directed at other users. Especially considering AS's record of attacking other uses like this, I think this can be considered a form of flamebait or bad faith posting.
Add circa 10,000 posts on to current account, founded May 14th 2018. Agarntrop is other account.
LOHG: A UK-based political RP
OCCUPY THE HEDGEFUNDS - INVEST IN GAMESTOP
Left-leaning Social Democrat
You Have No Authority Here, Jackie Weaver

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 29418
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:10 am

It's aggressive debating but not flamebait.

"Bad faith" is a standard enforced in Moderation and Got Issues: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#bad_faith

User avatar
Echo Chamber Thought Police
Diplomat
 
Posts: 935
Founded: Jan 25, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:17 am

I'd like a second opinion, or at least a distinction between comments like these and flamebait.

The OSRS itself directly states that any post "that [is] made with the aim of angering someone indirectly" or "is designed to provoke a response from another player" is a form of flamebait.

It's blatantly clear that "you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women" is a statement made with the aim of angering other players and is an attempt at getting a rise out of someone. If suggesting someone is "in favour of killing girls and women" or using derogatory epithets like "anti choice" on a repeated basis doesn't fall into the category of a post made with the aim of angering someone and provoking them, I frankly don't know what does.

These posts are blatant flamebait, especially coupled with AS's previous record of trying to get a rise out of pro-lifers.
Last edited by Echo Chamber Thought Police on Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Add circa 10,000 posts on to current account, founded May 14th 2018. Agarntrop is other account.
LOHG: A UK-based political RP
OCCUPY THE HEDGEFUNDS - INVEST IN GAMESTOP
Left-leaning Social Democrat
You Have No Authority Here, Jackie Weaver

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Attempted Socialism » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:28 am

Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:I'd like a second opinion, or at least a distinction between comments like these and flamebait.

The OSRS itself directly states that any post "that [is] made with the aim of angering someone indirectly" or "is designed to provoke a response from another player" is a form of flamebait.

It's blatantly clear that "you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women" is a statement made with the aim of angering other players and is an attempt at getting a rise out of someone. If suggesting someone is "in favour of killing girls and women" or using derogatory epithets like "anti choice" on a repeated basis doesn't fall into the category of a post made with the aim of angering someone and provoking them, I frankly don't know what does.

Anti-choice is simply a description (Unless you want everyone who ever uses "pro-abortion" to also be flamebaiting, this is a non-starter). I have repeatedly posted a lengthy explanation of why. I also don't see how attacking an argument for having disastrous policy outcomes is against the rules.

These posts are blatant flamebait, especially coupled with AS's previous record of trying to get a rise out of pro-lifers, including describing pro-lifers as having the "mentality of a rapist", which he was subsequently warned for.
... what? When did this happen?


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Echo Chamber Thought Police
Diplomat
 
Posts: 935
Founded: Jan 25, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:30 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:I'd like a second opinion, or at least a distinction between comments like these and flamebait.

The OSRS itself directly states that any post "that [is] made with the aim of angering someone indirectly" or "is designed to provoke a response from another player" is a form of flamebait.

It's blatantly clear that "you're pro-death-anti-choice/pro-enslavement-of-women" is a statement made with the aim of angering other players and is an attempt at getting a rise out of someone. If suggesting someone is "in favour of killing girls and women" or using derogatory epithets like "anti choice" on a repeated basis doesn't fall into the category of a post made with the aim of angering someone and provoking them, I frankly don't know what does.

Anti-choice is simply a description (Unless you want everyone who ever uses "pro-abortion" to also be flamebaiting, this is a non-starter). I have repeatedly posted a lengthy explanation of why. I also don't see how attacking an argument for having disastrous policy outcomes is against the rules.

These posts are blatant flamebait, especially coupled with AS's previous record of trying to get a rise out of pro-lifers, including describing pro-lifers as having the "mentality of a rapist", which he was subsequently warned for.
... what? When did this happen?

My bad, it was Geni that did that, not you.
Add circa 10,000 posts on to current account, founded May 14th 2018. Agarntrop is other account.
LOHG: A UK-based political RP
OCCUPY THE HEDGEFUNDS - INVEST IN GAMESTOP
Left-leaning Social Democrat
You Have No Authority Here, Jackie Weaver

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 26377
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:27 am

Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:I'd like a second opinion, or at least a distinction between comments like these and flamebait.


Are you appealing the ruling?

If so, please state as much clearly; we've been having some minor issues recently with the 'I'd like a second opinion' phrasing, so where people are appealing a ruling it would be helpful if they were explicitly clear on this.

User avatar
Echo Chamber Thought Police
Diplomat
 
Posts: 935
Founded: Jan 25, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Echo Chamber Thought Police » Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:55 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:I'd like a second opinion, or at least a distinction between comments like these and flamebait.


Are you appealing the ruling?

If so, please state as much clearly; we've been having some minor issues recently with the 'I'd like a second opinion' phrasing, so where people are appealing a ruling it would be helpful if they were explicitly clear on this.

I thought appeals was the term used by defendants, and 'second opinion' by claimants?

That's been my assumption as long as I've been on NS
Add circa 10,000 posts on to current account, founded May 14th 2018. Agarntrop is other account.
LOHG: A UK-based political RP
OCCUPY THE HEDGEFUNDS - INVEST IN GAMESTOP
Left-leaning Social Democrat
You Have No Authority Here, Jackie Weaver

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13520
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:40 am

Same thread, so I'll post this here. Seems to be calling people who have abortions (which may well apply to people on-site) -- in response to what would happen if abortions were illegal -- "depraved and evil":
The Marlborough wrote:
Senkaku wrote:If there weren't parallel reforms to make it quite easy to have an unexpected pregnancy and give birth without risking your job and to give up that child to a safe and loving home, you probably would see at least some rise in the number of infanticides, and certainly in the number of unsafe abandonments

Which would only show how depraved and evil those people are.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 108887
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:52 pm

Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:
The Archregimancy wrote:
Are you appealing the ruling?

If so, please state as much clearly; we've been having some minor issues recently with the 'I'd like a second opinion' phrasing, so where people are appealing a ruling it would be helpful if they were explicitly clear on this.

I thought appeals was the term used by defendants, and 'second opinion' by claimants?

That's been my assumption as long as I've been on NS

You've assumed, incorrectly, that we're that legalistic.

I'm upholding Sedge's ruling of not actionable by reason of just being rude but not breaking the rules.
Wash Your Damned Hands!

Freedom ... or cake. ~ Ashmoria (RIP)
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13520
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:00 am

The Free Joy State wrote:Same thread, so I'll post this here. Seems to be calling people who have abortions (which may well apply to people on-site) -- in response to what would happen if abortions were illegal -- "depraved and evil":
The Marlborough wrote:Which would only show how depraved and evil those people are.

No rush, but I was wondering if it might be possible to have a ruling on this. Only asking as it has been more than twenty-four hours and, given Farn's reply to Agarntrop, it seems possible it may have been missed.

Also, relevant, the same poster does seem to be making a point of making their points in a way that seems unnecessarily provoking. Another example is calling the pro-choice side "pro-murder" (although it's not uncommon for posters to characterise the opposing view in unflattering terms, which is perhaps the unfortunate effect of such a heated issue, sans any argument, this particular instance seems more like a nickname IMO):
The Marlborough wrote:
Katganistan wrote:George had it right.

Well, it's not as if the pro-murder side doesn't have it's own hypocrites.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Giovenith
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 20770
Founded: Feb 08, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Giovenith » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:38 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Same thread, so I'll post this here. Seems to be calling people who have abortions (which may well apply to people on-site) -- in response to what would happen if abortions were illegal -- "depraved and evil":

No rush, but I was wondering if it might be possible to have a ruling on this. Only asking as it has been more than twenty-four hours and, given Farn's reply to Agarntrop, it seems possible it may have been missed.

Also, relevant, the same poster does seem to be making a point of making their points in a way that seems unnecessarily provoking. Another example is calling the pro-choice side "pro-murder" (although it's not uncommon for posters to characterise the opposing view in unflattering terms, which is perhaps the unfortunate effect of such a heated issue, sans any argument, this particular instance seems more like a nickname IMO):
The Marlborough wrote:Well, it's not as if the pro-murder side doesn't have it's own hypocrites.


Neither actionable.

The first one: It can be taken to mean that someone who murders an already-born child is depraved and evil. That's hardly an inflammatory take.

Second: Just as "pro enslavement of women" is aggressive but legitimate within the context of the argument, so it "pro murder" as this is how a pro-life person would view abortion just as a pro-choice person would view banning abortion as enslavement of women. However, I would encourage everyone to try not to make a habit of this aggressive language, as there is a thin line between acceptable and unacceptable regarding it.
❃she's ripping wings off of butterflies❃


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Daarwyrth

Advertisement

Remove ads