lordpasternack wrote:Seth, I already held every single view that I've articulated in this thread. I already saw the hypocrisy of some feminists. I already know… You really didn't need to shove the eggs into mouth for me to suck… (errrrr, pardon the analogy choice.
)
Glad to hear it. I refer you to Aristotle again. As for "need," since when is "need" a component of free speech, particularly here? I came, I saw, I posted. And nobody actually shoved anything anywhere, except some electrons down a wire. The thing about trolling that makes people angry is not that the provocative exercise of free speech occurred, but rather that the reader is embarassed at how they reacted to it, to their inability to control their emotions and be logical and rational, at their surrender to that little spark of outrage that leads them to, as I like to say, "post in haste, repent at leisure™." (yes, another trademarked Sethism...) I see the flash of anger and loss of rationality at being successfully trolled by, as someone here said, the "grandmaster zen troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him," as a manifestation of deep embarrassment and humiliation.
I like to refer to it as "stimulating debate." Trolling, you see, in my lexicon, is the fisherman idling along on the surface dragging a baited hook through the water, waiting for the fish below to bite, at which point he reels them in and watches them flop around on the deck before bashing their brains out. My methodology is a bit more sophisticated. I like to fish for prey with a #24 Griffith's Gnat on an 8x tippet and play the catch till it's exhausted, at which point I gently and carefully unhook and slip it back into the stream so I can play with it another day. You know, like catch and release trout fishing.
It's also something like Zen trout fishing, where you present the fly and await the strike, but the lure has no hook.
The intention, of course, in cruder terms, is to "shove the eggs into [your] mouth" to induce you to mumble around them in protest. More politely put, it's to create sufficient controversy and reaction to get the debate off and running. It's quite an effective technique that I developed way back in the Usenet Days of Yore, and have been refining ever since. In this case it was so marvelously effective that I fomented a lengthy (and at times interesting) debate in two completely different forums, one of them by successfully trolling and pwning the mighty Atheist intellect and icon, PZ Myers, who was so outraged by the debate that he thoroughly embarrassed himself and diminished his stature as an intellectual by publishing a scurrilous and defamatory post on his own blog site rather than manning-up and taking me on here, or at least showing a modicum of reasoning ability and constraint in his own pond. It was most excellent proof of the advanced state of my technique. Thanks PZ!
Remember, I warned you, my job is to be the interlocutor, to cause you to react emotionally and then eventually to think hard. I'm gratified that you previously thought hard about this subject, but there's nothing wrong with doing it again, particularly since like allergy shots, bringing the subject up in a provocative manner allows you to learn to react rationally and thoughtfully to such provocations, rather than embarrassing yourself with a knee-jerk reaction. That's part of my lesson plan as well.
To quote Aristotle again, "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I agree with Aristotle, and so I have no boundaries when it comes to entertaining thoughts and debating them. I care nothing for your feelings, they are yours to control, I care only for the examination of the subject, of the path to enlightenment, wherever it may lead one.
But to be Aristotlean about it, one must learn to control one's thoughts and emotions so as never to become irrational and emotional. Again, Aristotle: "Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." It's my habit to expose myself to provocations like PZ's quite deliberately, because it helps me to achieve excellence in self-control and rationality through an act of will.
I highly recommend the practice.
I do find your idea of opt-in fatherhood quite intriguing, though. There is actually something like that in the UK (or at least Scotland). If the father isn't present at the registration of the birth, he isn't a full legal parent in some (if not all) respects. I don't know the ins and outs of it, and the implications. I suppose it might work as an idea. I wouldn't take marriage as irrevokable consent for any future events that happen between the two parties, though...
The problem, as I see it, is that the Scottish methodology is more about denying the father full rights for failing to be present than it is permitting him escape from liability. I imagine, though I'm not familiar with Scottish law, that the father can still be held financially liable for child support, while being denied full parental access by the mother. That's not at all what I have in mind in this regard.
And just to address the other calumny involved, this discussion is specifically about the relationship between the parents, and how their power is divided, not about whether the child deserves to be supported. That's an entirely different debate.
There's still no ideal solution where the man wants a foetus that a woman doesn't. You simply cannot compel someone to remain physically attached, and physically constrained and put at risk by a foetus that they don't wish to support.
Why not? That's been the historic practice for most of human history.
And until ways are developed for foetuses to be removed from the female without significant harm done to either party (and I think the wellbeing of the mother should outweigh those of the foetus, particularly when sentience/personhood/pain perception are disputable), and the foetus brought to term independent of the mother - those are just the brakes…
I understand the "I want to be selfish and self-centered about it" argument, but what's the principled ethical argument that absolves the woman of all responsibility for accepting the consequences of her poor reproductive judgment by allowing abortion at will merely because she does not wish to be inconvenienced? Should we repeal gravity because a woman throws herself off a cliff without a parachute and then changes her mind half-way down?
This is about society refusing to facilitate bad behavior and bad judgment on the part of women who wish to engage in promiscuous sex without any regard for the consequences or the rights of others.
The simple fact is that when a child is created, even a potential child (if you insist), other legal, moral and ethical interests come into being at the same time, and those interests are due respect and consideration even if it discommodes the mother, because she is a willing party to the act and has consented to the risks, and therefore has forfeited her absolute right to control her body in whatever manner she chooses. That's the basis of this argument. I say it's bad public policy for society to recognize and support an unquestioned right to an abortion at will because it encourages sexual promiscuity and poor decision making, and that's bad for society as a whole. It harms the structure of society and of the family unit, which is an essential part of any successful culture. It violates the rights of fathers, and burdens them with guilt and anguish for a decision that they are denied any input or control over. It destroys human life without any examination of the justice or morality of the act by society on an individualized basis, and it frequently leads to more severe unintended physical and psychological consequences for the woman who has the abortion that are most often not revealed to her by those who are in the business of profiting from providing abortions. There are many, many women who come to regret their abortions, and no small number who suffer from long-term mental illness and disability, and they cost society a lot in both medical care and lost productivity, both of which are valid reasons for society to regulate abortion on demand.
One of the most heinous and reprehensible practices of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers is the minimalization and outright denial of long-term physical and particularly psychological effects of having an abortion. The propaganda spewed by the pro-abortion lobby that abortion is harmless is criminal, as are the attempts to defeat or overturn any law that requires full disclosure to a woman seeking an abortion of the truths about the procedure and it's aftermath. Whether or not I'm willing to tolerate abortion in some circumstances, and I am, it's my firm position that deliberate propagandistic suppression of the full truths about the long term physical and psychological effects of abortion is utterly reprehensible, immoral, and beneath contempt. Were it up to me, I'd shut down Planned Parenthood under the RICO laws and toss every one of its abortion-related employees in jail for fraud, conspiracy, criminal negligence and violations of mandatory sexual abuse reporting laws.
Abortion is not as simple and harmless as it's often made out to be. It's a complex issue, and I'm exploring one aspect of it at the moment. There are other debates to be had as well, and I make no apology for egg-shoving.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
