Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law

Yes. It isn't.
Words mean things.

This Humpty Dumpty nonsense is dull, I'm not going round the circle again.
It's not Humpty Dumpty at all. You just have a bunch of fixed ideas about which moments are the important ones within a process.

Specifically you seem to be confusing the instructions for making a thing with the thing itself. The instructions are determined at the moment of fertilisation with the gene shuffling to create a zygote. But the cells remain undifferentiated until the blastocyst finds a home for itself in the womb. It communicates with the womb to say that it is there and is accepted in the womb. Only then do the instructions kick in to begin to grow a new organism.

I say that your position, privileging the fixing of the instructions, is male-centred, because that's the place at which the male contribution ends. The woman's body doesn't know the fertilised cell is there at that point, though. It will only know this when it arrives as a bunch of undifferentiated cells at the womb. The woman's body accepts (or rejects) the cells and they can then, and only then, start to become something that can meaningfully be called an organism. A female-centred view of the process might well see that as the moment of true conception - the point of connection, the point at which those instructions can be put to work.
 
I'm going to leave you to your struggles with re-writing an alternative biology - I can't even fathom your motives for working so hard to confuse yourself about something so very simple*. The contortions must be painful; the only solution I can suggest is to stop doing them.

There are lots of nice videos on YouTube about where babies come from that you can look at once you regain your senses.

Good luck. :)

* -if I was to guess, I'd guess at a category error between the signified and signifier somewhere in your thinking. Disclaimer: I am not a metaphysician.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to leave you to your struggles with re-writing an alternative biology - I can't even fathom your motives for working so hard to confuse yourself about something so very simple*. The contortions must be painful; the only solution I can suggest is to stop doing them.

There are lots of nice videos on YouTube about where babies come from that you can look at once you regain your senses.

Good luck. :)

* -if I was to guess, I'd guess at a category error between the signified and signifier somewhere in your thinking. Disclaimer: I am not a metaphysician.
You're the one who's ended up in a strange position here. I'm quite clear about what a zygote is - and after that a blastocyst. It has the potential to develop into a human in partnership with a woman's body, but it is not a human. It's no different from saying that an acorn (or rather, just the seed inside an acorn) is not an oak tree.

Your appeal to biology is misplaced. It isn't objective in the way you think it is. You have internalised particular value judgements without, it seems, realising it. And sadly, this shit matters. The frankly nonsensical idea that 'a zygote is a human' has quite wide currency, as you have demonstrated here.
 
You're the one who's ended up in a strange position here. I'm quite clear about what a zygote is - and after that a blastocyst. It has the potential to develop into a human in partnership with a woman's body, but it is not a human. It's no different from saying that an acorn (or rather, just the seed inside an acorn) is not an oak tree.

Your appeal to biology is misplaced. It isn't objective in the way you think it is. You have internalised particular value judgements without, it seems, realising it. And sadly, this shit matters. The frankly nonsensical idea that 'a zygote is a human' has quite wide currency, as you have demonstrated here.

I said I wouldn’t be taking another trip on this particular merry-go-round.
Again, good luck getting to the other side.
 
Last edited:


He doesn't actually openly say he wants to kill anyone, but there's plenty of quite scary talk very close to the subject.
He speaks very fluently and I sense he has a good grasp of just where the line is in terms of incitement.

It's politicking over the Pride thing, but creates a kind of atmosphere where I'd have concerns of the safety at Pride in his city.
 
Last edited:
He doesn't actually openly say he wants to kill anyone, but there's plenty of quite scary talk quite close to the subject.
He speaks very fluently and I sense he has a good grasp of just where the line is in terms of incitement.

It's politicking over the Pride thing, but creates a kind of atmosphere where I'd have concerns of the safety at Pride in his city.
Idk, he kind of does? He goes on about one nation under Gd and one state under Gd and then says the punishment of homosexuality in the bible is death?
 
Idk, he kind of does? He goes on about one nation under Gd and one state under Gd and then says the punishment of homosexuality in the bible is death?

Well, he says the punishment in the Bible is death and also mentions capital punishment.
Neither of those are literally endorsing civilians to take matters into their own hands, and he is very careful to say nothing about him killing anyone.

Would have been nicer if he'd gone well over the line and got a decent shoeing.
 
Well, he says the punishment in the Bible is death and also mentions capital punishment.
Neither of those are literally endorsing civilians to take matters into their own hands, and he is very careful to say nothing about him killing anyone.

Would have been nicer if he'd gone well over the line and got a decent shoeing.
A lot of people agree with him though.
 
Out of those who have turned up to that session? Or do you mean something else?

The Baptists are the worst of them and this guy has brought a lot of people with him.

The Baptists need to look to the ills in their own church before they start in on everyone else. They have a sex abuse scandal on the same scale as the Catholic church. Naturally, they did exactly what the Catholics did.


"Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye, and ignore the log in your own." (Matt. 7:3)
 
It's not Humpty Dumpty at all. You just have a bunch of fixed ideas about which moments are the important ones within a process.

Specifically you seem to be confusing the instructions for making a thing with the thing itself. The instructions are determined at the moment of fertilisation with the gene shuffling to create a zygote. But the cells remain undifferentiated until the blastocyst finds a home for itself in the womb. It communicates with the womb to say that it is there and is accepted in the womb. Only then do the instructions kick in to begin to grow a new organism.

I say that your position, privileging the fixing of the instructions, is male-centred, because that's the place at which the male contribution ends. The woman's body doesn't know the fertilised cell is there at that point, though. It will only know this when it arrives as a bunch of undifferentiated cells at the womb. The woman's body accepts (or rejects) the cells and they can then, and only then, start to become something that can meaningfully be called an organism. A female-centred view of the process might well see that as the moment of true conception - the point of connection, the point at which those instructions can be put to work.

'Gene shuffling' happens during gamete formation. In the case of female gametes, this will be years or decades prior to fertilisation.

Otherwise I agree with this.
 
I'm going to post this here because I see a growing trend on the right of trying to slander progressive female candidates as witches. It's been going on for a while, but it seems to have picked up the pace recently and it's taken on a more fevered edge. This tends to work with many far-right voters, who are mostly men who take some of the more nasty biblical verses about women literally. I used to live in the same apartment building with someone who worked for a far-right Christian radio network. They told me to my face that "when the time came they'd be putting people like me in camps or we'd have to leave the country." I see that view coming more and more out into the open.

A candidate running for supervisor in eastern Madera County named five citizens in campaign mail to voters, stating they are among an opponent’s most vocal “far left” supporters – and labeling two of them as “of the Witches and Warlocks.”

“The flyer has put a target on the back of not only myself, but also my children,” said Kriszti Mendonca, who described herself as a small business owner and community volunteer who ran a nonprofit called the Bass Lake Education Foundation for 10 years.

Mendonca and Sarah Roemer, who was also named by supervisor candidate Mark Reed as “of the Witches and Warlocks,” said they aren’t affiliated with any witch organizations – rather, they just attended a Witches and Warlocks Halloween paddle event at Bass Lake, where people dressed up in Halloween costumes.

Roemer described herself as an Oakhurst citizen who runs a meal and outreach program called Soup 4 Friends.

“I’m concerned by how Mark Reed’s divisive and libelous claims may affect our community efforts,” Roemer said. “I must also be cautious about how this might affect my job and personal life. I’m wondering if I need to fear extremists or zealots inspired to violence by his false claims.”

Roemer stood beside a large protest poster – a painting of a woman being burned at the stake in a witch hunt – during the news conference outside the Hugh Burns State Building in downtown Fresno. The other side of it read, “We will not be bullied into silence.”

In his campaign mailer sent to thousands of voters, Reed also named a founder of an Oakhurst LGBTQ+ group, a member of Yosemite Democrats and a member of the “Democratic Socialists of America Peace & Freedom Party.” (In a statement, that woman referred to the Peace and Freedom Party. Democratic Socialists of America is a separate group.) Reed additionally listed labor union SEIU and Black Lives Matter without providing names of its members.

Loralee Bergdall, who organized the news conference, read statements written by the other three women Reed named. She requested their names not be included in news coverage because they’ve been harassed and are fearful for their safety since Reed singled them out. Bergdall said while many community members agree and identify with the affiliations listed on the mailers, including them as labels on inflammatory campaign flyers in the midst of a polarized local election has created a “very unsafe environment.”

Bergdall, who lives in Oakhurst, said she was horrified when she saw the mailers. She decided to use her experience as co-director of Women’s March Fresno to help defend the five women. Bergdall said it’s unclear why Reed singled them out, and that they want a public apology from him.

Reed is one of three men running for District 5 supervisor in Madera County in the June 7 primary election.

“The irony of this is that this candidate, Mark Reed, all of his opponents are men, and he doesn’t attack them, he attacks women,” said Pam Whalen, an organizing director with the Dolores Huerta Foundation, who spoke during the news conference as a concerned community partner. “This is a campaign of hate, it’s a campaign of targeting women, and calling them out and punishing them for being involved in the political process.”

Reed told The Bee he was referring to candidate Bobby Macaulay when he mentioned “my opponent” on the campaign mailer. Beau Campbell is also running for District 5 supervisor.

“No candidate should attack the residents they are seeking to earn the trust of and represent,” Macaulay wrote in a short statement. “There is no place for any attempts to intimidate voters in today’s political climate regardless of one’s beliefs. It sets a dangerous precedent and erodes election integrity.”

Campbell prepared a long response, which reads, in part, “Every citizen in this county has a duty, right and responsibility to speak out against this type of behavior. Go to the polls and vote with your voices loudly or forever suffer in silence.”

Community members are planning an 11 a.m. Saturday protest on the corner of highways 41 and 49 in Oakhurst to support the women singled out by Reed.

District 5 has traditionally just covered mountain towns in rural eastern Madera County, but its new boundary now extends all the way to the San Joaquin River in the central San Joaquin Valley, just north of northeast Fresno. The district’s longtime incumbent, Tom Wheeler, announced last year that he would retire in 2022 and endorsed Macaulay to take his place as supervisor.


I think it also works because it forces the opponents to deny being witches, which only verifies that the accusation isn't completely bonkers. It also distracts from the real issues and offers cover for a candidate who supports bad policies.
 
Last edited:
LOL! You do have a point.

I noticed something like 'witchy' rhetoric from Fox News when referring to a group of Dem women senators(?) in the States - not familiar with the names but one of them is AOC.

edit: here's something particularly barking:


and more:

 
Last edited:
I'm going to post this here because I see a growing trend on the right of trying to slander progressive female candidates as witches. It's been going on for a while, but it seems to have picked up the pace recently and it's taken on a more fevered edge. This tends to work with many far-right voters, who are mostly men who take some of the more nasty biblical verses about women literally. I used to live in the same apartment building with someone who worked for a far-right Christian radio network. They told me to my face that "when the time came they'd be putting people like me in camps or we'd have to leave the country." I see that view coming more and more out into the open.




I think it also works because it forces the opponents to deny being witches, which only verifies that the accusation isn't completely bonkers. It also distracts from the real issues and offers cover for a candidate who supports bad policies.

I'm sorry, but how does denying a bonkers accusation make it not-bonkers? Although I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the same kind of ridiculous pretzel logic that was used in the witch trials is being applied in this case. Funny how that logic always ends up with women or social outcasts being tortured and killed even if they're judged to be innocent. How the fuck can anyone not see how self-serving that is?

Fucking witches, FFS.
 
I'm sorry, but how does denying a bonkers accusation make it not-bonkers? Although I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the same kind of ridiculous pretzel logic that was used in the witch trials is being applied in this case. Funny how that logic always ends up with women or social outcasts being tortured and killed even if they're judged to be innocent. How the fuck can anyone not see how self-serving that is?

Fucking witches, FFS.

It normalizes that thought that witches (the Christian version who are servants of Satan, rather than just normal people who are using the word for their religion), are real entities that are plotting evil. In other words, it moves the Overton Window just a smudge toward crazy.
 
I'm going to post this here because I see a growing trend on the right of trying to slander progressive female candidates as witches. It's been going on for a while, but it seems to have picked up the pace recently and it's taken on a more fevered edge. This tends to work with many far-right voters, who are mostly men who take some of the more nasty biblical verses about women literally. I used to live in the same apartment building with someone who worked for a far-right Christian radio network. They told me to my face that "when the time came they'd be putting people like me in camps or we'd have to leave the country." I see that view coming more and more out into the open.




I think it also works because it forces the opponents to deny being witches, which only verifies that the accusation isn't completely bonkers. It also distracts from the real issues and offers cover for a candidate who supports bad policies.
An inevitable result of people turning their backs on the enlightenment and progress in general. My other half has been saying "they'll be burning witches at the stake next" for some time now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom