To continue my ongoing discussion with Thought:
The main reason I’m responding is to make sure that it was clear, for others as well as for you. I stated it both explicitly and implicitly several times, so I’m surprised you missed it.
That is my error, so I thank you for taking the pains to clarify your point. Importantly, however, as I told you in PM, I think you would benefit from being more clear and direct, because although I must take the blame for failing to understand you...for me to completely miss a point that has been stated several times usually suggests ambiguity on the part of the speaker, which is what I think happened here.
It appears that you think that I imagine you sitting in a dark, abandoned warehouse, curling your dark and luxurious handlebar mustache with your left hand, chuckling and scheming and plotting on how to force women to have abortions. Perhaps there is a hunchbacked mook in the background, dragging bags full of unspeakable supplies along the ground, now in the light cast by broken windows, now in the darkness that the light only makes deeper.
That is certainly not the case.
Indeed not! Though I would enjoy having a luxurious handlebar moustache to twirl in contemplating my many schemes. No, dear Thought, although I have been honestly bemused as to why you have pressed your point so hard even after being proved in error, I do not suspect that you do so out of malice.
Much as you criticized the original article for its effective meanings, rather than what it plainly said, I was criticizing you for the underlying implications and effective meanings of your words and stance, not your direct statements.
Yes, this is one of our more substantive disagreements. I must confess that some of my word usages were not absolutely strict, which apparently created the ambiguity in which you made your faulty interpretation of my position. Even though I am one of the most meticulously thoughtful people on the Compendium with regard to word choice—perhaps the very most thoughtful—it’s true that in the casual environment of this board I write at a level less formal than I would use in an academic setting. The fact that everyone else, yourself included, does the same even worse than I do, is no defense for my lapse.
Our disagreement is not that I could have been more strict with my usage of language, for I concede the charge, but that someone of your intellectual caliber was confused into such a pointless and self-evidently wrong interpretation—concluding ultimately that I would be so dim and dull as to have taken years to construct a position on behalf of sexual equality which is ill-considered and oppressive to females. You have yet to properly acknowledge your mistake here, which I think it would behoove your good character to do.
It is not that I am incapable of making such a mistake, but that in this case it was not so, and yet you persisted in the criticism even when I pointed your mistake out to you in no uncertain terms. Were I genuinely guilty of holding a counterproductive position, I would be very grateful to have it pointed out to me, and immediate in my concession.
Direct statements from you assuring the world of your good intentions do not address the criticisms. You cannot “assure” these charges away, but rather must show through your actions that these were invalid in the present and, hopefully, in the past as well.
You are mistaken also on this point. Direct statements are entirely appropriate, because we were talking about the substance of a position. Any disagreement stemming from a conflicting understanding of a single concept is properly resolved by each party articulating their positions so that the conflicting conceptual framework is resolved.
At any rate, I have done more than my share to show over the years on this Compendium and elsewhere that I am very sincere in my views and efforts and have acted in accordance with my principles. The fact that the Compendium has such a vibrant discussion on issues of sexual equality, including abortion, is due mainly to the fact that I continually foment such discussion. I simply will not be accused or implied to be anything less than what I am in this most crucial endeavor to promote access to abortion care for all those who wish it.
Also, to besmirch the people who are most significant to the furtherance of a just cause is unwise even if you have a legitimate academic curiosity to explore. You may always pursue those kinds of curiosity, but in private with me. You are new to the support of abortion rights, and you have a good deal yet to learn and appreciate about the nuances of the issue. Your curiosity and skepticism are healthy, and it is always preferable to be skeptical than to be faithful when in the absence of definitive knowledge. I won’t ask to be taken on faith as to the integrity of my credentials. Rather, they are already here in abundance on this Compendium and elsewhere for you to scrutinize at your convenience. In the meantime, when it comes to making public criticisms you must also take responsibility for the social fallout of your doubts which turn out to be unfounded.
Defense of abortion is only our primary concern if abortion itself is our primary concern. If our primary concern is freedom of choice, then we must discard even easily defended positions if they are false.
You present a false dichotomy here. Abortion is relevant because it concerns a female’s right to self-determination. Choice is the means by which self-determination is executed. Abortion is, in this particular case, is the object.
The context makes it clear that the second and third sentences are in contrast to my own statement (which effectively was that if freedom of choice was our primary concern, then defense of abortion cannot be our primary concern). You are then saying that defense of abortion is our primary concern.
You are mistaken again. By insisting upon the recognition of a “primary concern,” you persist in the false dichotomy which you originally presented. In the case of self-determination at issue, both means and object are paramount in their respective class. You are structurally oversimplifying the problem.
My amusement of the day is that I am very deeply immersed in a huge project with hydra-like tentacles. To perform one task, I must move aside and complete another one first, and to complete that task, move aside and complete another...and on, and on.
Our primary task is to ensure reproductive rights. To do that, we must complete a different task first: the establishment and protection of abortion. We might direct the entirety of our efforts to that task, but it isn’t the primary task. It is the one that we are working on to accomplish that primary task. The defense of abortion certainly our current concern, as the opposition to it poses a clear and present danger to reproductive rights, that doesn’t make it primary.
I think you should give further contemplation to my previous remarks until you understand them. You continue to labor under this false dichotomy you have created. The only “primary” goal here is self-determination. Abortion itself and the choice to have an abortion are not in competition with each other.
You are quite right that the term “pro-abortion” has a hint of unsavoriness to it (if it is only a hint, then perhaps I didn’t properly vilify it). Appearing pro-abortion over pro-choice, even if you didn’t actually mean it that way, hurts the perception of you and the pro-choice movement. It gives the opposition caricature to point to as justification for their continued opposition.
Given my history on this subject and my stated views in response to your criticism, these are exactly the kinds of remarks which do you a considerable disservice. I invite you to immerse yourself in the reproductive rights movement and accuse the people in it as you have accused me. You will discover soon enough that not only do you have no ground to stand upon when you presume to speak for the movement here, but, also, that you will find yourself written off as an insincere figure in that movement when you make unfounded criticisms of the people in it.
Now, I take you at your word that your commitment is genuine, and I suspect that your original impulse for criticizing me was a noble and academic one. However, at this point you need to acknowledge that your persistent criticism of my position is simply not valid, and that by refusing to own your mistake gracefully and even going so far as to suggest that my pro-choice views harm the pro-choice movement because I used the word “abortion” instead of “choice,” you are not contributing productively to the movement. If you pursue such a tack elsewhere, you will earn easy alienation. You are fortunate that I am more forgiving than most, and the more so because I know you (a little bit) and think you are an honorable person.
I have learned that, in the pursuit of grassroots social change, it is necessary for allies to put aside as many of their differences as they can in pursuit of the common goal. I have also learned to generally take people at their word when they say they are genuinely committed, unless their words or actions speak clearly to the contrary. If pressed you would probably concede that my commitment is genuine too, in which case, even though you have maintained that my execution of that commitment is counterproductive. Since I have made my disagreement with your assertion quite clear, I think now is the point for you to make a genuine acknowledgment of your error, if you have it in you to do so.
If not, then now is the time for us to agree to disagree. It isn’t necessary that allies in a movement attain full agreement with one another, so long as there is enough cohesion for the movement to agree upon some meaningful core principles and plans of action. I have learned to accept being misunderstood by others. I don’t hold it against you, because I know your intentions are not malicious.
Just so that I am clear, which we have agreed is important, don’t mistake any of this for a suggestion on my part that people in a common movement should not criticize each other. I do not agree with that statement. A healthy movement not only needs to tolerate sincere criticism, but indeed can only be healthy by tolerating such. You have made your criticism, and there was nothing wrong with giving a voice to your suspicions—up until the point when I informed you that you were in error in your interpretation of my position. After that point, you had the opportunity to press your argument decisively, which you did, and although you did spot some minor errors on my part, for which I am grateful, your core criticism was proved to be unfounded. It is not even that you lacked the means to develop your argument. It is that you mistook me, plain and simple, and since being corrected you have stubbornly persisted in your criticism despite losing the legitimacy for your suspicion. Where pride becomes the motivating factor in your campaign is where your license ends to criticize your ally in a manner that is healthy for the movement whose goals we both share.
This is important because pro-lifers aren’t evil at their core.
I see you are not using my definition of evil, “ignorance or willful ignorance.” Rather, you are using a more convention definition, and I gather you are trying to point out that many anti-choicers (or “pro-lifers,” if you must) possess a certain measure of decency and “good” intentions. Very well, then. I agree.
Indeed, the only way that social reforms are even possible is because people are basically good. Their decency can be appealed to.
But with this I do not agree. Not necessarily, anyhow. I learned a long time ago that some people can be reasoned with, but most cannot. “Decency” be damned, which is why I would really prefer you use my definition of “evil” as it does not contain the kinds of flaws and gaps that your more conventional definition does. The people who cannot be reasoned with can only be forced, neutralized, bribed, or tricked. The vast majority of the activist core of the anti-choice movement are not capable of being reasoned with. (For that matter, a significant proportion—though not necessarily the vast majority—of the pro-choice movement’s core activist base is similarly dogmatic in its commitment.) In lieu of this juiciest recourse, wherein wisdom wins the day and humanity prevails, the alternative is to crush the enemy by marginalizing their cultural influence and setting the law against their will.
Were the underlying issue not so important, and were reason sufficient to prevail, such a ruthless policy would be necessary. As it is, however, nothing less than such a ruthless policy is just.
That is still misleading as it implies that our understanding supports, in some way, the supposition than an unborn human does not possess personhood. To the best of our understanding, our physical nature does not comment at all on the status of the personhood of an unborn child.
Unless you are using a very exotic definition of “personhood,” you are wrong. Perhaps we should dedicate another thread to a discussion of what personhood is and what empirical evidence there is to demonstrate the presence of the physical traits which establish it.
I return to the article to make sure of this, but the author at no point advocates that woman should pursue this option before resorting to an abortion. That is entirely you.
You are incorrect. From the article:
I’d also love to pour some money into research to find ways to make embryos and first-trimester fetuses harvestable so they can be implanted in the wombs of people who can’t have their own babies...
It is implicit on the author’s part that this is being presented as an alternative to abortion.
I fully agree: it is being presented as an alternative to abortion. As I originally noted, though, nothing is said that this fanciful treatment is to be offered in place of, rather than in addition to, abortion. It is presented as another tool, the virtues and vices of which are left unsaid.
The author very strongly implies—although I cannot go so far as to conclude a definite assertion—that fetal harvesting should be considered in lieu of abortion, not simply as a third possibility but as a distinct substitute.
Now, this brings me to the enjoyable part, although I wish it weren't so brief.
My only contention is that what you speak of as a “moral” obligation...
You are quite correct: “ethical obligation” would have been the better statement. Given that I was focusing on your effective meanings, I should have been more careful! My sincerely apologies.
You see, Thought!, you are quite capable of reasonable concessions when you have decided you are willing to make them. We share this personal conceit, I think, of having difficulty accepting defeat on terms other than our own...an inevitable outcome from time to time in the pursuit of (logically) hostile argument. I still catch myself having to guard against my own conceit, occasionally, but I dare say I have made good progress over the years in attaining the appropriate measure of humility. I think you are a few paces behind me. I suggest this as an area for your active efforts at self-improvement.
And more generally, allow me to apologize for having apparently implied that you were in some way devilish. I do not quest that you have good intentions. When you speak directly, yes, you fully support reproductive rights, fully support informed decision making, etc. My criticisms were on the “effective meanings,” not your intent. So again, my apologies for any implications to the otherwise.
Indeed. I appreciate it.
As I had noted, I was trying to affect a more Joshonian style in hopes that it would facilitate communications between us. It didn’t seem to accomplish much, perhaps simply because it is contrary enough to my own style that I performed quite poorly. Anywho, I’ll discard it now and once again apologize for any offense offered.
Joshalonian Style, as you put it, has the distinct quality of being provocative to those whom it rebukes, corrects, amends, and otherwise disagrees with. I don’t recommend for you or anyone. We have seen how poorly tushantin handles it. You are not as bad, but such a style is nevertheless not in your idiom and to wield it at length you probably would end up being a fair bit more offensive than me, especially given what you have told me of your conservative and confrontational past.
But what you name as “Joshalonian Style” is just one facet of a much larger jewel. It is an unfortunate consequence of this Compendium’s breadth and scope that people here see me operating in this particular style much of the time, out of proportion to my overall character. When I join in argument against the unworthy, the misguided, the ill-intentioned, and the foolish, “Joshalonian Style” can be brutal. Even at its gleaming best it gives scant indication of my kindness, my cautious nature, my humbleness in the face of not knowing, my soft spots, and more. It’s a pity my persona here is that of a firebrand. I am a firebrand only in the pursuit of justice, a pursuit in which I never engage haphazardly. Nowhere else in my life am I so hard-edged. To see only this side of me makes me look like a hardass. I know that. Yet in the pursuit of justice there is no other way I could be, given the reality of our grossly unjust world and the failings and ignorance of those with whom I interact on these most important subjects.
If you do not hew to your principles on matters of importance, you are nothing—a philosophical zero, a human who has surrendered their most crucial judgment to the caprice of external forces. Much like the U.S.S. Enterprise, Captain Picard’s great flagship of the Federation, I have aboard me the instruments of total war, and there is no doubt that I am better-armed than most people. Yet to call me a warship would be like calling that great vessel of the stars a warship. It is a fundamentally narrow and inaccurate view.
It’s a shame that more people on the Compendium don’t have the opportunity to get to know me better (and vice versa with regards to fascinating individuals like yourself and Faust). Perhaps I should spend more time here highlighting that side of myself. The way things have worked out thus far, I have usually ended up taking the more interesting people here aside for various projects and groups, outside the view of the Compendium at large. The general audience here, as I went to the trouble to ask in the Kinks to Work Out thread, views me as needlessly offensive, confrontational, abrasive, etc., etc. That view is doubly incorrect, not only because it undervalues the importance of hewing to one’s principles in spite of all ignorance and complacency, but because that’s not the kind of person I am when I’m not fighting, and I’m usually not fighting.
Anyhow! You are in a position to appreciate this, so take it to heart again now, and be dissuaded from pursuing the Joshalonian Style for yourself. Only I could possibly wield it to good effect, and even I have yet actually master it.
