Another ardent believer in free speech, as long as you aren’t calling them on their bullshit, Gnyii has managed to append my last comment on a thread that, as usual with the deluded religious right, is strong with the fetus-fetish. Thus, in the interests of clarity, I’ll republish the last comment that I replied to.
Gnyii: “Given the level of your prose… I have great argument.”
LOL. You have great argument?
This is cliche liberal debate 101. It’s like you guys follow some kind of handbook on how to be an Internet troll. Step 1, make asinine comment on random conservative blog without actually reading the article. Step 2, attack the prose, grammar, or spelling of the original poster. Step 3, immediately follow up with bad prose, grammar or spelling.
Anyhoo, everything you stated in your response is fully and thoroughly addressed in my main article. It’s obvious you did not actually READ the article… that or you are so far entrenched in trying to justify murdering your own child that no amount of science or common sense will sway you. The humanity of the unborn is so scientifically established that to believe otherwise is akin to being a flat earther. But when it comes to justifying having your offsprings spine ripped out their skull to suit YOUR selfish needs, I’m sure intellectual suicide isn’t that extreme.
Anyway, go find some other blog to troll, I’m done feeding you. Your regurgitated and scientifically unfounded extremism has been addressed enough by me and at this point…. haters gonna hate, Proverbs 9:8. ;-)
Arb replies – @gnyii
Quite happy to let you leave this in moderation – This is just for you anyways :) (ed. and my readership)
It is fascinating really, when in the original article, you set the tone of what sort of response you are looking for.
G:”Petulant feminazis don’t realize that…”
Realize that you are not just talking to the rest of your ‘base’ high up on bullshit mountain, and if you start the slinging of mud, expect the same in return, my dear reality challenged friend.
G: “without actually reading the article.”
Why argue with stuff you pulled out of the right wing hate-o-sphere? Or did you want to cite the document where Planned Parenthood lobbied for children being able to express themselves sexually. I believe that you can’t, or won’t because the facts don’t seem particularly relevant to you.
G: “Step 2, attack the prose, grammar, or spelling of the original poster.”
Hmmm…let’s look at this exchange.
G: “And here I assumed everyone reading had an elementary school level understanding. Well, if your general education ever exceeds that of 6th grade biology, […]”
Arb:”Given the level of your prose, let me assure you, much less is necessary.”
Interesting it’s almost like you don’t see the savory hypocrisy in your statement. Of course, when you’re a denizen of bullshit mountain being right no-matter-what is the default setting. Just know that outside of BS mountain, we’re laughing at you. :)
G: “It’s obvious you did not actually READ the article…”
Again, poorly researched screeds are mostly boring (or did all those citations from the sources your claiming to quote disappear?). Concomitantly, your misogyny is nothing new under the sun.
G:”you are so far entrenched in trying to justify murdering your own child that no amount of science or common sense will sway you.”
LoL. You are calling the fetus a “child” and accusing me of being not following scientific facts? Not to mention the grand dramatic distortions, appeals to emotion that are so typical to anti-choice advocates when it comes to terminating a pregnancy.
G:”The humanity of the unborn is so scientifically established”
Wow, did you even read my argument? Huh, guilty of not doing what you accuse me of again. It’s very hard to take your sanctimony seriously when, after berating me for doing “x”, you go and do “x”.
Here is my argument. Try and read for comprehension next time.
“Women are autonomous human beings and have say as to what goes on in their bodies. It is absolutely their within their rights as human beings to decide to terminate their pregnancy, as it is their body. “
I never once call in question the humanity of the fetus. Assign it as much as humanity as you’d like. It’s rights should never supersede those of the women, as it is her body being used.
G:”But when it comes to justifying having your offsprings spine ripped out their skull to suit YOUR selfish needs,”
I know you’re just dying to show some fetus porn here, I can feel it. Maybe with the whingy caption “What about the Baaaaabeeeee?!?!?”.
Unlike you, I do trust women to make the best choices for planning their families. Also I arrived at that conclusion not having to consult any sky-daddies or related mythology to do so. Reality based argumentation is great, you should try it some time.
Funny how I’m almost sure you advocate for smaller government, except when its used to persecute women, then surprisingly, more government restrictions are a good thing.
Right-wingers and consistency – what is it??
G:”Your regurgitated and scientifically unfounded extremism”
You do know that “science” doesn’t have a position on abortion right? Science is concerned about facts, as opposed to the dramatic reading you’ve presented here.
G:”Anyway, go find some other blog to troll, I’m done feeding you”
Thank goodness. I’d hate for any of that reality based commentary to seep into your world view. Dangerous stuff.
*****
Sadly, this is almost always the way these conversations go when it comes to the attack on women and their reproductive rights.
14 comments
December 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
syrbal-labrys
You are ever so much more patient than me. I usually just snap “Oh, fuck the fuck OFF, you troll!”
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:21 am
john zande
I do so enjoy your exchanges, Arb. If Gnyii ever brings up the god-front let me know. Always happy to swim in that pond :)
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:25 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
You betcha. It’s hard though to even find a place to start, the fail is strong with this one.
I like laying the smack down on the religious codswallop myself, but I must admit you have a certain knack for it. :)
Together, we are a fearsome duo indeed.
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:27 am
john zande
I ran through a few of her posts but they were all too painful for a gorgeous Sunday afternoon.
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:32 am
The Arbourist
Yeah, sometimes scaling Bullshit Mountain just isn’t worth the time or the effort.
Today though appears to be a BM day for me though, I’m currently writing with the Red Pen of Justice on this gem of a post….
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:48 am
The Arbourist
@Syrbal
Your response works for most occasions, but sometimes the need to go that extra mile surpasses the GTFO troll reaction. :)
Well, I did engage on her blog, and in the same tone she used. I’m unsurprised that the vitriol is unappreciated when coming from the other direction.
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:50 am
syrbal-labrys
Isn’t it peculiar how they are so ready to dish it out, but never to take a serving in return?
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:53 am
The Arbourist
@Srybal
Indeed it is.
But residents of Bullshit mountain are *always* right, thus my comments by default must be crazed leftist feminazi propaganda. :)
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 11:58 am
syrbal-labrys
Ah, yes. How could I forget…we crazed types. Oh, wait….there IS the ticket; we are crazed, so hey…
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 12:35 pm
john zande
Let me go see…
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 12:37 pm
john zande
No comments section! Telling :(
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm
The Arbourist
S’okay. It will be up on DWR shortly, just editing now. :)
LikeLike
December 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Mera
@arb you might find this to be of use:
What a real abortion looks like, probably around 8 weeks along.
Also, I (along with some others) am involved in a long, drawn out debate on The Friendly Atheist with the most amazing idiot like EVAR. I feel compelled to share his arguments because it’s just too damn funny. BTW, he considers himself to be an intellectual, and he won’t talk to me because I don’t treat him with the deference that he feels he deserves. (I basically asked him if he would like to be gently buttfucked to save a life, because he believes that pregnant persons should have their bodily autonomy violated for that most precious of all life, the zef):
1) In the abortion debate, ultimately the wisest person may be the one who says, “It just seems wrong to me.” They may add, “It’s wrong to just let it happen, also.” <–I duno, it's wrong to enslave women to the contents of their uterii.
2) As Dr. Maureen Condic has said, it's the DNA and the potential that make it human (not the potential to be a human being, which, she explains, it already is, but the potential to be a more developed human being)<—How convenient. A worthless semantics argument.
3) It's a good reply, but it doesn't justify abortion advocates pitting women against their unborn children MORE than nature ever did. <–After I pointed out that maternal/fetal conflict is the very essence of pregnancy.
4) In my "Personhood" article, I argued that ethics all comes down to intuition, and that some people's intuition is better developed and therefore more accurate than that of others, but that everyone's is developing in the same direction. Therefore what we should all hold as moral values is what the most intuitive people hold.<–Yes, he knows best, we should shut up and take his word for it.
5) I would say that a zygote will wake up soon enough, in the sense of "waking up" that should concern us here, and will live for 80 years. You would probably say that a sleeping person whose doctors have given her only a week to live has intrinsic value, and that that value should not be discarded. Your position can be argued, but using abstractions that would seem arbitrary to me.<—Keeps confusing potential with actual and seems to think that a zygote is a homunculus. Points out that we better not even argue our position because the science that says that a zygote is not a homunculus is 'arbitrary'.
6) o are there no absolute values? I think there are, as absolute as anything can get in this universe, but I think some people's intuition is better than that of others.Certainly (again according to my intuition) my intuition now is better than when I intuited that zygotes have no value, as I once did. <–Again, he knows best!!!!
7) Ethics only makes sense when it's future-oriented — how much future suffering and future happiness does each party stand to gain or lose? (I discussed this in a blog post called "Too Young for Rights?") It's true that the woman knows best (imperfectly, but best) what in the future she stands to gain or lose, but she cannot know how much the baby stands to gain or lose, nor could she be impartial if she did know.<—The zygote has a life ahead of it, so selfish s1uts should let it live.
8) talks about how women who regretted their abortions are now seriously depressed because they killed their fragile little babies, he cried and stuff, cuz it's like all sad that women would kill their babies
9) I cited a 2004 Guttmacher study in which none of the 1209 respondents seemed to have expressed a concern about pain as a reason for abortion. Similarly, none seem to have mentioned bodily integrity. You may say that it is bodily integrity which gave them a right to abort for their stated reasons, but if a violation of integrity is not an affliction in itself, such a statement would be to set up bodily integrity as a value arbitrarily. <–Women don't mention bodily integrity as a reason to abort, therefore, they should not be permitted to abort
LikeLike
December 30, 2013 at 10:39 pm
The Arbourist
@Mera
Thank you very much. :)
Great link!
LikeLike