or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Above my pay grade
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Above my pay grade - Page 3

post #81 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's because a test that carries embedded within it a heap of loaded questions and implications that no one seems to have considered......

This.

It hasn't even been addressed in this thread, ostensibly focused on exactly that.

McCain say he thinks life begins at conception. Let's take him at his word. Assuming he's not pro-murder, he's absolutely morally obligated to do everything in his power, as president, to protect the well being of every blastocyst created during his administration. Anything less, and he's just making noises. Pandering, if you will.

Right? I mean, we can all agree on this, can we not? If a blatocyst is a baby, a human being, not just sort-of-potentially-not-quite-sure-when but straight up person, then you can't just shrug and walk away from the implications, can you?

So what does that look like, as a matter of policy and law? What, exactly, is a president McCain obliged to advocate, agitate for, twist arms about?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #82 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Midwinter (and the other Frank),

Does intent matter at all in the posing of a 'loaded' question?

Do you think Warren meant the question to 'trap' Obama, or do you think he just came at it that way because of his Christian background and pastoral position?

Similarly, do you think that when the questions posed differed slightly, that he did it to favour McCain over Obama, or does it just reflect his inexperience with this kind of journalistic endeavour?

Does intent matter? The professional side of me says that it's completely irrelevant. The question is loaded, whether he meant for it to be or not.

I have no idea why he posed the questions the way he did.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #83 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This.

It hasn't even been addressed in this thread, ostensibly focused on exactly that.

McCain say he thinks life begins at conception. Let's take him at his word. Assuming he's not pro-murder, he's absolutely morally obligated to do everything in his power, as president, to protect the well being of every blastocyst created during his administration. Anything less, and he's just making noises. Pandering, if you will.

Right? I mean, we can all agree on this, can we not? If a blatocyst is a baby, a human being, not just sort-of-potentially-not-quite-sure-when but straight up person, then you can't just shrug and walk away from the implications, can you?

So what does that look like, as a matter of policy and law? What, exactly, is a president McCain obliged to advocate, agitate for, twist arms about?

Fertility clinics. Where is the war on fertility clinics?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #84 of 116
Quote:
Warren to Obama: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

So the setup here is that abortion "is a very complex issue."

Obama answered this very complex issue by stating his support of the rule of law embodied in the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision, he also stated that we should minimize the number of legalized abortions and that this was contained within the Democratic Party platform.

As to Obama's own personal opinion on this very complex issue, that should be his and his alone.

Quote:
Warren to McCain: Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that's a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

So the setup here is the issue of forty million murdered babies.

So in the span of ~20 minutes this question morphed from one that "is a very complex issue" to an apparently simple issue of a holocaust and conception being the point of no return for said holocaust.

Warren also explicitly gave McStain the correct answer in his leading question when he mentioned the word conception.

McStain's answer was that all zygotes (err babies (I'm still learning how to speak in evangelical tongues)) have the same right to life as do we all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #85 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Midwinter (and the other Frank),

Does intent matter at all in the posing of a 'loaded' question?

Do you think Warren meant the question to 'trap' Obama, or do you think he just came at it that way because of his Christian background and pastoral position?

Similarly, do you think that when the questions posed differed slightly, that he did it to favor McCain over Obama, or does it just reflect his inexperience with this kind of journalistic endeavour?

A very tentative yes (since I don't know where you are going with this line of reasoning).

I would assume he came at it from his POV, that POV being a learned behavior of the language built up around this issue over the past few decades. But having said that, he could have phrased the question differently, but then it wouldn't have had the same impact on the watching audience. The use of the word baby immediately invokes an emotional reaction from most people, so basically he had to use it, and fully understood why he was using it, and the emotional impact it would have on the listening audience.

Of course, from Obama's POV he must navigate past the "baby as a rhetorical device" question, and attempt to give an answer to what he thinks is the true underlying issue.

If this had been a real "school like" test both parties would have received the exact same verbatim set of questions, there would be no followup questions within the original set of questions, each person would be limited to the same fixed time period allotted to answering the set of questions, and each answer given must pretain only to the current question asked.

Essentially an oral essay test within a fixed time interval.

Now, I don't know if the above approach would have substantially changed the public's preception/opinion on who won this "debate."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #86 of 116
Obama on Abortion: Reviewing the Issue Responsibly and Legally

Quote:
At Saturday’s Civil Forum on the Presidency, Barack Obama delivered a clear, progressive, and moderate speech on the critical issue of abortion. To listen to the pundits, however, his position was vague, filled with umms, and deliberately evasive. Our friend at “The Big Stick” has come to this conclusion (once, twice),and the pundits have similary excoriated Obama for taking an allegedly radical position by endorsing abortion at all points prior to birth (Washington Post, The Atlantic, LifeSiteNews). They’re categorically wrong, on all points: Obama is the only candidate to offer a comprehensive and responsible position on reproductive freedom, one which he clearly stated at the Saddleback Forum… for those who were willing to listen.

With regards to the “evasive” and poorly phrased nature of Obama’s reply, the pundits are looking at the below video which, if you watch, is full of redactions and splicing -

Video...

- and completely ignores what Obama actually said. The previous video is a mash-up of clips from earlier in the Saddleback forum, and ignores the full substance of Obama’s reply on reproductive health policy, below:

Video...

In the latter video - the only one that accurately depicts Senator Obama’s full statements on abortion at Saddleback - Obama takes the responsible, moderate, and mature position of seeking common ground, by pointing out that Republicans and Democrats, pro-lifers and pro-choicer activists, all agree that decreasing the number of abortions is a priority. He reminds Pastor Warren that the theocratic position - no sex ed, no condoms, abstinence only - has utterly failed under the Bush adminisration, and refers to his comprehensive plan for “prevention [of unwanted pregnancies] first.” Calling Obama’s multifaceted abortion position “simple,” confusing, or enigmatic isn’t simply wrong: it’s irresponsible, uneducated, and insulting to the intelligence of Americans who want to be informed on the issues.

Further, the statement that Obama supports abortion at every phase of fetal development -

Quote:
And of course, as a supporter of Roe and Casey, Obama does have an answer: he thinks that a baby acquires rights when it’s born - well, perhaps depending on how and why it happens to be born - and lacks them at every juncture before birth. He just didn’t want to come out and say it.

- is categorically wrong, and misstates the law behind Roe and Casey, the dominating precedents. Roe legalized abortion at all points prior to “the quickening,” referred to today as the point of fetal viability, but allowed restrictions on abortion in the second trimester. Casey backtracked from that compromise, approving all pre-viability regulations on abortion that do not place an “undue burden” on women, and allowing states to ban abortion in the third trimester. The notion that Roe and Casey (and Barack Obama, by proxy) stand for abortion on demand is simply willful partisan ignorance.

Focusing further on the third trimester, Obama has repeatedly backed bans on partial birth abortion, a stance he reiterated in the Saddleback Civil Forum, with the caveat that he believes an exception is required for the health of the mother (a jab at Gonzales v. Carhart).

Put simply, Obama’s approach to abortion is complicated, moderate, and responsibly addresses the need for a compromise between total reproductive freedom, and respect for life. John McCain’s position, by contrast, completely ignores the complexity of the issue and uses this serious issue as just another way of pandering to his base. Abortion is a complex issue with no easy answer, one that only Barack Obama is willing to discuss fully. Don’t believe the spin: read the cases, and read the issues, yourself.

It is amazing the difference between those two videos and sad that some "journalists" lack the integrity to put out the truth.
post #87 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Does this theory apply equally to Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals?

Of course, why would it not? Did it sound like I was trying to make a cheap shot?
post #88 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Earliest reference the OED notes is 1981:

As the OED indicates, that's not quite accurate. It's typically used to mean that it's a question that's out of your league or expertise.

The president is not required to make determinations about where life begins. Without any discussion how all of this becomes policy, the question is pointless.

Atrios said it better than I could:

The question isn't pointless and this is why spinning it away doesn't make the poll numbers stop dropping.

It isn't like he steered it in a policy direction or gave qualifiers. He simply punted the ball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Honestly, please refrain from using this right wing meme concerning Obama.



McCain uses one, a lot. Haven't been able to find anything to show what Obama scores on usage. I'm sure he does. I've seen countless one-on-one interviews with reporters in backrooms and on stage where he never used one (I've cited many to you, guess you forgot).

I also admit that this wasn't "the messiah's" shining moment too. It was Jeebus territory.

But this teleprompter meme is stupid and tired.
Like Obama's opponent, with or without one.

No one has claimed that McCain hasn't used a teleprompter. The true issue is not use, but what happens apart from the use. McCain sounds like a guy who has disengaged his brain and is reading words when he is using a teleprompter. Obama sounds like a terrifically intelligent and polished speaker. You take McCain away from the teleprompter and while not Einstein, he sounds like a guy who has a brain. You take Obama away from the teleprompter and he makes gaffe after gaffe. It isn't even so much that he speaks terribly but that it is clear that he is concealing his views and motives and they come spilling out when he isn't dealing with something prepared. Later his campaign releases a more middle-ground position and it just starts to stink. He talks about no drilling, then he talks about tire pressure, afterwards, caves and starts ceding drilling.

You can see this pattern on issue after issue. The pattern of giving a speech, then an off the cuff remark undermines the position and then the presentation of a new position with claims of ignorance of all of the world about the previous position. Fool my once shame on you, fool all of us a dozen times, and watch the poll numbers drop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The use of the word baby most certainly makes this a loaded question, either that or it's a rhetorical question if one takes the word baby as defined in strictly literal common dictionary definition terms.

The usage here by the inquisitor is ambiguous, and can't be answered correctly without asking another question, something that I most certainly would have done, but something that Obama could not have done given the circumstances of this "debate."

See below

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Loaded questions contain presuppositions that are false or disputable, which is sort of like begging the question. They're also used to make statements of bias without actually being bold enough to come out with say it (which is a sort of weird paralepsis, I guess).

Here are a few examples:

Given McCain's penchant for asshattery, do you think that he's electable?
Considering Americans' unflagging support for Bush, do you think that Obama stands a chance?

Warren's question:

"at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view"

is indeed loaded, since it assumes that unborn fetuses (feti?) are "babies" that do not "get human rights." The only answer to the question is "babies have human rights," since they do. The status of unborn fetuses is what is in dispute.

If Warren has asked "Should an unborn fetus get human rights," that would have been a different question.

The president deals with policy. Obama was asked a philosophical question. It is one thing to believe that life begins at birth; it is another thing entirely to enact policy based on that belief, which, as Addabox explained, opens up a giant can of worms.

In other words, asking a candidate what he thinks about an issue is different than asking him what policies he would hope to enact about an issue.

Wow that is quite a stretch. Calling what a pregnant woman is carry a baby is now akin to saying do you still beat your wife.

It is either that or the spin machine has eaten itself since we are now are complaining that a pastor talking to a politician about a philosophical question isn't using a scientific term.

Warren, McCain, and Obama, not a single one of them is going to go up to a glowing pregnant woman and ask her when her fetus is going to come to term. They are going to ask her when her baby is due. There is nothing false or disputable about that.

Claiming that we can't discuss the philosophy because they aren't in place to enact the policy is a sort of reverse form of begging the question. We want to know the philosophy to understand how he will address policy. No one can predict which exactly law is going to clear the Congress. It is better to figure out the foundational beliefs of the person.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 116
Quote:
You take Obama away from the teleprompter and he makes gaffe after gaffe. It isn't even so much that he speaks terribly but that it is clear that he is concealing his views and motives and they come spilling out when he isn't dealing with something prepared. Later his campaign releases a more middle-ground position and it just starts to stink. He talks about no drilling, then he talks about tire pressure, afterwards, caves and starts ceding drilling.

His point about tire pressure as it related to McCain's absurd offshore drilling proposal was apt and something McCain had to scramble to agree with after using it in his sad little chucklefuck campaign ads.

And Obama hasn't agreed with offshore drilling, he's merely said he would compromise.

Obama outshines McCain with or without a teleprompter. In the gaffe count it's not even close; McCain takes the gold, silver, and bronze.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #90 of 116
Honestly, all of this is bullshit.

First of all, the ONLY reason why any of this is a question is that Obama used a rare idiom in the context of a sensitive subject. Had he said that making such a definitive moral and scientific judgement was beyond him, this would have had much less of an effect. But no, he used the synonymous expression above my pay grade and people pounce... the man was being legitimately humble and some morons can't see that.

Further, Frank777, I find your definition of the beginning of human life lacking scientific value. Is conception the act of sex? Is it when the sperm meets the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus? Is it when the mother's blood vessels start providing nutrients to the growing fetus? Or perhaps it is when the fetus begins to look like a vertebrate animal? When it takes on human characteristics?

Certainly you don't mean when god conceives of the child do you?

You see, Frank, the rate of success of fertilization isn't 100%. Not implantation. Not forming blood vessels. Not progressing to more developed states. If implantation fails more often than people get abortions then where do you draw the line? After implantation? Isn't that getting a bit wobbly? Aren't you splitting hairs? What about considerations of spontaneous abortions, known and unknown? You have already started with an ill-defined event, which doesn't exist, and based an entire moral architecture around it. It is almost as if you want to fail at logic...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The question isn't pointless and this is why spinning it away doesn't make the poll numbers stop dropping.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
It isn't like he steered it in a policy direction or gave qualifiers. He simply punted the ball.

No. He didn't steer it in a policy direction. That would not have been answering the question, either.

Quote:
Wow that is quite a stretch. Calling what a pregnant woman is carry a baby is now akin to saying do you still beat your wife.

That is totally what I said. But you are perfectly free to continue to believe that "do you still beat your wife" is the only example of a loaded question.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #92 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Enlighten yourself a bit.

Quote:
No. He didn't steer it in a policy direction. That would not have been answering the question, either.

Exactly which is why all the spin doesn't change the reality. Claiming that one can answer policy and ignore discussion on the beliefs that will determine actions on that policy doesn't really answer the question. You've made the point perfectly. People want to know the beliefs of someone they are electing president. Spin it away but the polls will continue to drop.

Quote:
That is totally what I said. But you are perfectly free to continue to believe that "do you still beat your wife" is the only example of a loaded question.

Address it head on. The majority of people use the term baby to describe what a pregnant woman is carrying. There is no presupposition there because we don't say that term until they are pregnant. Once they are pregnant we expect what they are carrying to be human and not a racoon or horse. You claim the term is disputable and that using baby is bias. I'm sure you don't go up to a pregnant woman and ask her how her fetus is doing or when the fetus is due. You ask about a baby. The language use is appropriate and not biased.

Obama could have responded and substituted fetus in his answer instead of baby. He could have cited Roe verbatim on the matter. He punted.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

His point about tire pressure as it related to McCain's absurd offshore drilling proposal was apt and something McCain had to scramble to agree with after using it in his sad little chucklefuck campaign ads.

And Obama hasn't agreed with offshore drilling, he's merely said he would compromise.

Obama outshines McCain with or without a teleprompter. In the gaffe count it's not even close; McCain takes the gold, silver, and bronze.

No one disagrees that maintaining tire pressure is a good thing. The claim was that it would replace all the oil we would gain by using our resources. That was proven wrong.

You can tell yourself that the gaffe count is one sided, but those of us in the fifty-seven states will have to disagree with you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #94 of 116
Quote:
No one disagrees that maintaining tire pressure is a good thing. The claim was that it would replace all the oil we would gain by using our resources. That was proven wrong.

The amount of oil we would save by all properly inflating our tires eclipses the amount we would get if we started trashing our coastlines for offshore oil, and it's not even close (much less "proven wrong").

The point isn't a proposal to make tire inflation rules part of an energy policy, but to illustrate how offshore drilling is a political wedge issue and not actually something that will help the American people.

Quote:
You can tell yourself that the gaffe count is one sided, but those of us in the fifty-seven states will have to disagree with you.

The fact that you have to go back that far says a lot about how strong your argument is on this. We don't have to even wait days for another McCain screw-up, much less take the time machine back entire months.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #95 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The amount of oil we would save by all properly inflating our tires eclipses the amount we would get if we started trashing our coastlines for offshore oil, and it's not even close (much less "proven wrong").

Thanks for restating that. I feel it is so much more true now that it has been repeated.

Quote:
The point isn't a proposal to make tire inflation rules part of an energy policy, but to illustrate how offshore drilling is a political wedge issue and not actually something that will help the American people.

Energy use is now a wedge issue. I'm glad to now understand that I fill up my vehicle with a wedge issue.

Quote:
The fact that you have to go back that far says a lot about how strong your argument is on this. We don't have to even wait days for another McCain screw-up, much less take the time machine back entire months.

The topic of this thread is the most current one. Don't worry though, that information was above your pay grade.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Wow that is quite a stretch. Calling what a pregnant woman is carry what will be a baby is now akin to saying do you still beat your wife.

It is either that or the spin machine has eaten itself since we are now are complaining that a pastor talking to a politician about a philosophical question isn't using a scientific term.

Warren, McCain, and Obama, not a single one of them is going to go up to a pregnant woman and ask her when her pregnancy will come to term. They are going to ask her when her baby is due (future tense). There is nothing false or disputable about that.

Claiming that we can't discuss the philosophy because they aren't in place to enact the policy is a sort of reverse form of begging the question. We want to know the philosophy to understand how he will address policy. No one can predict which exactly law is going to clear the Congress. It is better to figure out the foundational beliefs of the person (which is most often set aside for the common good, thus one's individual opinion doesn't enter into the debate, ever).

There, fixed that for you.

Egg + sperm > zygote > blastocyst > embryo > fetus > viability > full-term > birth > new born > baby

There is no getting around when a baby is an actual baby. That being when said person is an individual outside the womb or incubation chamber. These words have commonly understood definitions, those that misappropriate these words to their own ends are evil and should be destroyed by one Don McDrain.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 116
"Hmmmmm, our candidate seems to make a lot of kinda boneheaded remarks when the cameras are rolling."

"OK, so we call them 'gaffes', and we narrowly define that as any kind of slip of the tongue or minor error. Then, we can count up Obama's 'gaffes' and, presto, once again our candidate's liability is exactly mirrored by theirs. Even better, anything that the echo-chamber gets exercised about counts as a gaffe, so we can totally dictate our own numbers!"

"But...... isn't thinking that al Qaeda is being trained in Iran sort of a different order of confusion than something like '57 states'? And comparing fuel savings from proper tire inflation to offshore drilling isn't really a gaffe at all, is it? Just, I guess, mockable..... Again, pretty much a different thing from saying that you need five million dollars to be rich."

"Gaffe, I say gaffe! The gaffe count is equal! Pausing too long in sentence is a gaffe! Statements of principle I don't agree with are gaffes! Why doesn't the liberal media show you the gaffe count! I have charts! I will not be ignored!!!"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It isn't like he steered it in a policy direction or gave qualifiers. He simply punted the ball.

Obama could have responded and substituted fetus in his answer instead of baby. He could have cited Roe verbatim on the matter. He punted.

He did cite Roe v Wade. He did cite policy direction in stating his inclusion of birth control policies into the current Democratic Party platform. Therefore, you are entitled to your own opinion, even if it is in 100% opposition of the actual facts.

There was no "punting" on Obama's part, in fact it was just the opposite. He answered the question at length, consummate with the inquisitor's setup, that being "a very complex issue" something the inquisitor failed to state when asking the "same" question (err giving Don McDrain the answer by adding the words conception and holocaust) to McButtnugget.
A baby is not a baby until it is born. .
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

A baby is not a baby until it is born. .

That's you're opinion. There are plenty of both men and women who disagree with you on that point.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's you're opinion. There are plenty of both men and women who disagree with you on that point.

I'm using strict dictionary definitions. Those that do not stick to common strict dictionary definitions are evil.

So there you have it, it is a matter of fact, it is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of belief.

And we all know that Don McDrain will defeat all that is evil.

Fetus != baby
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's you're opinion. There are plenty of both men and women who disagree with you on that point.

"Joseph? You are not the father!"

post #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

"Joseph? You are not the father!"


Joseph: That is not a keeper, I took no part in this illegal abomination, throw in back in the water.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #103 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'm using strict dictionary definitions.

Yeah! There's a way to settle a moral argument.

All human knowledge - past, present and future - is contained in the dictionary! Bow before Webster!

There's a great Futurama episode in there somewhere.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #104 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'm using strict dictionary definitions. Those that do not stick to common strict dictionary definitions are evil.

So there you have it, it is a matter of fact, it is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of belief.

And we all know that Don McDrain will defeat all that is evil.

Fetus != baby

I guess you must have a special dictionary.

Dictionary.com

1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
6. Informal. a. Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a girl or woman, esp. an attractive one.
b. a person of whom one is deeply fond; sweetheart.
c. (sometimes initial capital letter) an affectionate or familiar address (sometimes offensive when used to strangers, casual acquaintances, subordinates, etc., esp. by a male to a female).
d. a man or boy; chap; fellow: He's a tough baby to have to deal with.
e. an invention, creation, project, or the like that requires one's special attention or expertise or of which one is especially proud.
f. an object; thing: Is that car there your baby?

adjective 7. of or suitable for a baby: baby clothes.
8. of or like a baby; infantile: baby skin.
9. small; comparatively little: a baby car.
10. treating babies: a baby doctor.
verb (used with object) 11. to treat like a young child; pamper.
12. to handle or use with special care; treat gently.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I guess you must have a special dictionary.

Dictionary.com

1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
6. Informal. a. Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a girl or woman, esp. an attractive one.
b. a person of whom one is deeply fond; sweetheart.
c. (sometimes initial capital letter) an affectionate or familiar address (sometimes offensive when used to strangers, casual acquaintances, subordinates, etc., esp. by a male to a female).
d. a man or boy; chap; fellow: He's a tough baby to have to deal with.
e. an invention, creation, project, or the like that requires one's special attention or expertise or of which one is especially proud.
f. an object; thing: Is that car there your baby?

adjective 7. of or suitable for a baby: baby clothes.
8. of or like a baby; infantile: baby skin.
9. small; comparatively little: a baby car.
10. treating babies: a baby doctor.
verb (used with object) 11. to treat like a young child; pamper.
12. to handle or use with special care; treat gently.

Must be those evangelical, fundamentalist, right-wing, Republican, Christian extremist nutjobs at Dictionary.com.
post #106 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I guess you must have a special dictionary.

Dictionary.com

1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
6. Informal. a. Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a girl or woman, esp. an attractive one.
b. a person of whom one is deeply fond; sweetheart.
c. (sometimes initial capital letter) an affectionate or familiar address (sometimes offensive when used to strangers, casual acquaintances, subordinates, etc., esp. by a male to a female).
d. a man or boy; chap; fellow: He's a tough baby to have to deal with.
e. an invention, creation, project, or the like that requires one's special attention or expertise or of which one is especially proud.
f. an object; thing: Is that car there your baby?

–adjective 7. of or suitable for a baby: baby clothes.
8. of or like a baby; infantile: baby skin.
9. small; comparatively little: a baby car.
10. treating babies: a baby doctor.
–verb (used with object) 11. to treat like a young child; pamper.
12. to handle or use with special care; treat gently.

Cute. But dictionary.com is hardly definitive. Particularly when the OED exists:

Baby:

A. n. 1. a. An infant, a young child of either sex. (Formerly synonymous with child; now usually restricted to an infant ‘in arms.’)
b. fig. Applied to a person's invention, achievement, concern or responsibility; so to carry or hold the baby, to be saddled with an unwelcome responsibility.
c. A girl; a girl-friend; a young woman: often as a form of address. slang (chiefly U.S.).
The degree of slanginess of the nineteenth-century examples is not easily determinable.
d. A person. slang.
In quots. 1919, 1953 ‘this baby’ = the speaker himself.
e. to empty, pour, or throw the baby out (or away) with the bath(-water) (cf. G. das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten), to reject the essential with the inessential, to discard what is valuable along with what is waste or useless.
2. A doll, puppet. Obs.
3. A small image of oneself reflected in the pupil of another's eye; hence to look babies. Obs.
4. pl. Pictures in books; perh. orig. the ornamental tail-pieces and borders with cupids and grotesque figures interworked (cf. BABERY). Still in north. dial.
5. fig. (contemptuously) A foolish or childish fellow. to smell of the baby: to be childish.
6. transf. The young of an animal; cf. B. 1a.
7. a. fig. A (comparatively) tiny thing; cf. B. 1a.
b. Applied to a small-sized bottle, jar, etc. slang.
c. spec. A small car.
8. transf. The youngest or most junior of a family, group of persons, team, etc.
B. Comb. (in which baby approaches in use to an adj.)
1. General relations: a. appositive (hence = ‘little, tiny’), as baby-boy, -figure (1606), -germ, -girl, -stream, (and of animals) baby-bird, -elephant, -snake; b. objective gen. with verbal n. or pple., as baby-eater, -minder, -seller (1634), -worship; c. similative, as baby-blind (1627), -mild; d. attrib. (of or befitting a baby), hence = ‘infantine, innocent,’ ‘little, tiny,’ ‘babyish, silly,’ as baby age, brow (1605), dance, face, hand, -language, mind, -name, -play, sole, talk; e. attrib. (for a baby's use), as baby-basket, -class, -clothes, -clouts, -harness, -linen, -things (1783); f. parasynthetic deriv., as baby-faced, -featured (1780).
g. Passing into adj. = young; small or diminutive of its kind.
2. Special combinations: baby act U.S., (a) the act of a baby; (b) an act or statute for the protection of minors; hence to plead the baby act, to enter a plea that one is not legally responsible by reason of youth or inexperience; similarly, to read the baby act; baby-blue (orig. U.S.), a light shade of blue; baby-blue-eyes (orig. U.S.), the popular name of a plant of any of several species of the Nemophila family; baby bonus Canad. colloq., a family allowance; baby boom colloq., a temporary marked increase in the birth-rate, spec. one that occurred in the years following the war of 1939-45; the children born at the time of such an increase (cf. BULGE n. 3f); hence baby boomer orig. U.S., a person born during the post-war baby boom; baby-bouncer = baby-jumper; baby buggy (N. Amer.), carriage, coach (U.S.), a perambulator; baby-doll, (a) = DOLL n.1 2; (b) (orig. U.S.) a girl or woman who has the youthful and regular good looks characteristic of a doll and an ingenuous disposition; baby-doll pyjamas, women's pyjamas consisting of a loose-fitting top worn over short trousers; also baby-doll nightdress; baby face, (a person with) a babyish face; baby food, a milk-substitute or a light diet suitable for a baby; baby-grow: see BABYGRO; baby-house, a doll's house, also, a toy-house barometer or hygrometer from which little dolls issue to indicate changes of weather; baby-jumper, a hoop or frame suspended by an elastic attachment, so that a young child secured in it may exercise its limbs; baby lace (see quot.); baby-like a., babyish, infantile, adv. as a baby does; baby pig disease, hypoglycæmia of newly-born pigs; baby powder, a skin powder for babies; baby-ribbon, narrow ribbon such as that used for babies' clothes; baby's breath, babies' breath, the popular name of any of several delicate or sweet-scented plants, esp. Gypsophila paniculata; baby's head slang, a steak (and kidney) pudding; baby show (orig. U.S.), a baby exhibition with an award for the ‘best’; baby-sitter, a person engaged to be at hand to look after a young child or children in the absence of the parents; hence baby-sit v. intr.; also trans. (chiefly N. Amer.) with child or children as obj., and in extended sense, to look after, stay with, or tend (a thing, animal, sick person, etc.); also fig.; baby-sitting vbl. n. and ppl. a. (orig. U.S.); baby-snatcher joc., a person who enters into an amorous relationship with a much younger member of the opposite sex; hence baby-snatch v. intr., baby-snatching vbl. n.; baby walker orig. U.S., a device for assisting babies to learn to walk.


Edit: I will take the oed definition over dictionary.com any day of the week... The use of baby as fetus is not accepted by the authorities whose very job it is to categorize shifting definitions...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I guess you must have a special dictionary.

Dictionary.com

1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
6. Informal. a. Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a girl or woman, esp. an attractive one.
b. a person of whom one is deeply fond; sweetheart.
c. (sometimes initial capital letter) an affectionate or familiar address (sometimes offensive when used to strangers, casual acquaintances, subordinates, etc., esp. by a male to a female).
d. a man or boy; chap; fellow: He's a tough baby to have to deal with.
e. an invention, creation, project, or the like that requires one's special attention or expertise or of which one is especially proud.
f. an object; thing: Is that car there your baby?

adjective 7. of or suitable for a baby: baby clothes.
8. of or like a baby; infantile: baby skin.
9. small; comparatively little: a baby car.
10. treating babies: a baby doctor.
verb (used with object) 11. to treat like a young child; pamper.
12. to handle or use with special care; treat gently.

TYVM

I don't mince words or engage in a false dilemma. I don't engage in idolatry or zealotry.

I do engage in precise usage of the English language, to the best of my ability, which may not meet others abilities in actual usage. \

First three medical dictionary links;

baby

[CENTER]
Quote:
1. An infant; a newborn child.

[/CENTER]

[LEFT]baby[/LEFT]

[CENTER]
Quote:
A very young child; an infant.

[/CENTER]

[LEFT]baby[/LEFT]


[CENTER]
Quote:
1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT
2 : an extremely young animal

[/CENTER]


[LEFT]Note that in all three of the above cases these are the entire definitions, meaning that there is only one meaning of the word baby, as is most commonly understood.[/LEFT]


[LEFT]Now I also went to wikipedia and found the following when searching for the single word baby which gets redirected to the word infant;[/LEFT]



[CENTER]
Quote:
In basic English usage, an infant is defined as a human child at the youngest stage of life, specifically before they can walk and generally before the age of one[1] (see also child and adolescent).

[/CENTER]


Quote:

The term "infant" derives from the Latin word in-fans, meaning "unable to speak." There is no exact definition for infancy. "Infant" is also a legal term with the meaning of minor;[2] that is, any child under the age of legal adulthood.

A human infant less than a month old is a newborn infant or a neonate.[3] The term "newborn" includes premature infants, postmature infants and full term newborns.

Upon reaching the age of one or beginning to walk, infants are subsequently referred to as "toddlers" (generally 12-36 months). Daycares with an "infant room" often call all children in it "infants" even if they are older than a year and/or walking; they sometimes use the term "walking infant".

I then went to Simple English Wikipedia and typed in the word baby;


[CENTER]
Quote:
A baby is a very young child. A child is a baby until he or she is about three years old.

[/CENTER]
Quote:

An infant is a human child at the youngest stage of life. Some people say that infancy is until someone can walk, while some say infancy is the time before the age of one. An infant less than 1 month old is a newborn. Newborns can be premature infants, postmature infants and full term newborns.

After learning to walk, infants are called toddlers, usually when they are 1-3 years old.

So, it is grossly apparent what the first meaning of the word baby represents, and that is a baby;


[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]A human baby.[/CENTER]



[LEFT]Now, let's move on to the word fetus;[/LEFT]



[CENTER]
Quote:
A fetus or foetus is the stage that an organism goes through before it is born as a baby. A fetus in humans talks about the stage (time of development) after the embryonic stage, which is the third to eighth week of development after fertilization. The fetal stage is 8 weeks until birth.

[/CENTER]



[LEFT]fetus[/LEFT]



[CENTER]
Quote:
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. 2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

[/CENTER]



[LEFT]fetus[/LEFT]



[CENTER]
Quote:
A fetus (or foetus or ftus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses, or sometimes feti. The fetal stage of prenatal development starts when the major structures have formed, and lasts until birth.[1]

[/CENTER]


Quote:

In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age (the 9th week after fertilization).[2] [3]

The word fetus is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young.[4] It has Indo-European roots related to sucking or suckling.[5]

Ftus is an English variation on the Latin spelling, and has been in use since at least 1594, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which describes "ftus" as "incorrectly written". The variant ftus may have originated with an error by Saint Isidore of Seville, in AD 620.[6] The preferred spelling in the United States is fetus, but the variants foetus and ftus persist in other English-speaking countries and in some medical contexts, as well as in some other languages (e.g., French). In technical usage, fetus is now the standard spelling throughout the English-speaking world.


[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]A human fetus.[/CENTER]



[LEFT]So at least I know the difference between a baby and a fetus, and I know their proper word usage, as most people do.[/LEFT]



[LEFT]Obviously, a pregnant women has a very high probability of having a baby, but what is inside her is not a baby pre se. Because if it were, it wouldn't still be in gestation inside her;[/LEFT]



[CENTER]
Quote:
Gestation is the carrying of an embryo or fetus inside a female viviparous animal, until its birth. In mammals, there is the possibility that one female can have multiple gestations at the same time. Such births are usually called twins. The time the female spends till the birth of the young is usually called gestation period. Humans have a gestation period of around 37 weeks or about 9 months and 1 week.

[/CENTER]
I rest my case.

QED

PS - Do you actually think that I would have made my previous statements and not be loaded for bear? Seriously?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yeah! There's a way to settle a moral argument.

All human knowledge - past, present and future - is contained in the dictionary! Bow before Webster!

There's a great Futurama episode in there somewhere.

I can't understand a word you're saying, maybe I should look up your words in thin air?

You think?

[CENTER]
Quote:
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

PS - Do you actually think that I would have made my previous statements and not be loaded for bear? Seriously?

No what really confounds me is that you go through all that and then use a phrase "loaded for bear" that I have never heard in my life. I notice you keep linking to medical dictionaries. When I go to regular dictionaries and type it in, the definition of unborn child is there around 50% of the time. Also within the context of this thread it is a pastor having a philosophical discussion with a politician. Claiming the lack of medical training or terminology is just desperate spin.

I like forward to the video of you going around to pregnant women and telling them that if they call what is in their stomach a baby or refer to it as a baby in any fashion, then they are biased and clearly have an agenda.

I'm sure you have time to do it. Please do when their husband or significant other is around.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #110 of 116
I'm going to stay out of this "dictionary war", since it could lead to sectarian violence.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #111 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No what really confounds me is that you go through all that and then use a phrase "loaded for bear" that I have never heard in my life.

I like forward to the video of you going around to pregnant women and telling them that if they call what is in their stomach a baby or refer to it as a baby in any fashion, then they are biased and clearly have an agenda.

I'm sure you have time to do it. Please do when their husband or significant other is around.

In the cases you mention, I know how to address the subject correctly. And I also know the proper usage is not past tense, not present tense, but is quite clearly and unambiguously future tense, implicitly and explicitly.

Which was, and will always be, the correct context, but that is not the subject of this thread.

You're the one that stepped neck deep into this one, not I. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also within the context of this thread it is a pastor having a philosophical discussion with a politician.

Perhaps the most salient thing you've stated so far in this entire thread. Are you sure you don't want to retract this sentence?

Also, we are certainly talking about a certain type of pastor that does not represent the majority of those who preach before us all their various faiths.

Because, while I saw the above wrt Obama, I did not see the same wrt McDrain.

One word answers, then pandering to the audience by looking and speaking out at them repeatedly, squeezing in a campaign ad at every opportunity.

What was obvious from McDrain is an inability to think or reflect on his own words. No introspection. I don't want a canned robot as our next president. We still have a few more months of our current canned robot president. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #113 of 116
Thread Starter 
Listen frank, just give up what the hell loaded for bear means. Everyone understands that medical use is different than formal and colloquial use. This is why it is called a medical dictionary instead of just a plain English dictionary.

How can you use colloquial language in this discussion and then throw a fit about others noting such use in the pastor/politician discussion?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #114 of 116


Mrs. X: There's a baby. It's at the hospital.
Mary X: Mom!
Mrs. X: And you're the father.
Henry Spencer: Well that's impossible! It's only been...
Mary X: Mother, they're still not sure it is a baby!
post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Listen frank, just give up what the hell loaded for bear means. Everyone understands that medical use is different than formal and colloquial use. This is why it is called a medical dictionary instead of just a plain English dictionary.

How can you use colloquial language in this discussion and then throw a fit about others noting such use in the pastor/politician discussion?

Simply because of who this particular brand of pastor claims to represent, zealots. \

We all know the literary license taken here, no one is being fooled here either, game over.

His not using the exact same verbatim questions is about as obvious as anyone can be in engaging in disingenuous questioning.

Oh, and why not post a reply to hardeeharhar's post, now there's the King's English for you.

And to suggest that this inquisitor has never heard of the word fetus is an abomination and evil to boot.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 116
Is religion the reason for being pro-life as you call it?

I think the choice of abortion should be left with the mother as an option in the early weeks of pregnancy. That is the way it is done in most parts of the world. Obama needs to come out as being more assertive. The media machine has started their campaign against his popularity and they have plenty of time to turn the tables before the election.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Above my pay grade