• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

clint-eastwood-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly.gif
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your framing is just as dishonest and manipulative as your opponents! A boneless chicken wing or nugget is a dead thing in its final form. The concept of “baby” as it’s used in this debate obviously involves living potential for a fetus to become a baby, and the emotional attachment to that potential. To bring in an analogy to living things, it is a very common occurence that people plant crops and those crops are eaten by animals as soon as they sprout. In this situation, would the person mourn a sprout, or would they mourn the lost potential crop? It’s not intellectually honest for you to define that emotion for them.
Click to expand...

i'm talking about the operation/importance of language here

i wasn't comparing a fetus to a boneless wing dude jesus
 
birdman said:
please find me a vegan, just one single vegan, that calls scrambled eggs "chicken"
Click to expand...

Took 90 seconds. https://academy.plantbasednews.org/blog/do-vegans-eat-eggs

Are eggs baby chickens?
No, in most cases eggs are not baby chickens. Usually hens are kept away from cockerels so that the eggs they lay remain unfertilised. When you eat an egg, you're essentially eating part of a female reproductive cycle.

If a female chicken happens across a male, which is sometimes the case on free-range farms, then it is likely that the egg you're eating would have developed into a baby chicken had the egg been left with the mother to sit on.

Every now and then, you might find a partially formed fetus when you crack your egg open. In this case, you're eating a baby chicken.
 
TenaciousKory said:
i'm talking about the operation/importance of language here

i wasn't comparing a fetus to a boneless wing dude jesus
Click to expand...

So am I. Your fear of being manipulated by language is not an excuse to be a pedant. An argument that calls to a lack of emotion isn’t any more honest than an argument that only calls to emotion.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The concept of “baby” as it’s used in this debate obviously involves living potential for a fetus to become a baby, and the emotional attachment to that potential.
Click to expand...

you're exactly right here - and that's where the OP's (scooter?) radical insistence on "unborn baby" was a rhetorical attempt to define the emotion - which I was trying to tease out

i don't really have a side except to push back on that by introducing the fetus as another linguistic choice

i'm not necessarily insisting on it and if my OP read like that I apologize
 
One problem with the rhetorical points about “baby.” Republicans don’t care about infant mortality.
 
TenaciousKory said:
?
Click to expand...

TenaciousKory said:
rhetorical constructions designed to get you to imagine one more recognizable whole
Click to expand...

Your argument states that the usage of baby when referring to an unborn fetus is “designed to get you to imagine one more recognizable whole” when it’s very likely that the person referring to their fetus as a baby is the one who is imagining. I can promise you that ultrasound techs at the OBGYN also commonly refer to it as a baby. It’s a not a rhetorical technique, it’s language used based on a positive assumption.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your argument states that the usage of baby when referring to an unborn fetus is “designed to get you to imagine one more recognizable whole” when it’s very likely that the person referring to their fetus as a baby is the one who is imagining.
Click to expand...

sure

what does that have to do with:

1. my "fear" of language manipulation
2. me arguing that emotion is dishonest/isn't a valid resource for argument
 
also my argument is very specifically about "unborn baby" - not about the usage of "baby"
 
birdman said:
please find me a vegan, just one single vegan, that calls scrambled eggs "chicken"
Click to expand...

Why are you bothering to address this point? You know it's intellectually dishonest. Just ignore it and move on.
 
TW: critical theory

yeah i'm not afraid of language manipulation it's impossible to avoid - hell it's how we build and maintain language

it's also directly relevant in political discussions such as this because just being a little critical of the language we use can reveal some of the emotions and desires behind our own or others positions (this is not a bad thing)

another way to peer being the Imaginary we've constructed:

when we run a google image search for "baby" we don't see any ultrasounds

we think of babies as completed wholes wholesale and that's where "unborn baby" operates at a symbolic level

i think ITC pointed out that for some people "baby" represents something they're not ready for - interesting that that doesn't get represented in a google image search (lots of happy, smiling babies)
 
TenaciousKory said:
also my argument is very specifically about "unborn baby" - not about the usage of "baby"
Click to expand...

To cut to what might be the real "chase" when talking about this issue, I will make the (possibly rash) assumption that all right thinking people would agree that there is some point during the pregnancy that the "differentiating cells" that are not deserving of protection separate and apart from the mother morph into an "unborn baby" that is deserving of such protection. In other words, a point beyond which abortion should not be allowed - IIRC, even Roe agreed on that - I think the case said 24 weeks? Is that right?

Given that, the concept of referring to the fetus as an unborn baby and recognizing the fact that it is an independent life worth protecting is not so shocking or unusual. At that point, whenever that point is, it is agreed that the mother loses autonomy over her body. So the question is not really whether the state can force a woman to carry a baby to term and give birth, we know that they can - the question is when the state can do that.

As a simple framing of the question, can we agree on that?

Obviously people on opposite sides of the issue are never going to agree on defining that line - but we can recognize that there is a line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top