Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
There is plenty in my post you haven't bolded that show how your selective emphasis is flat out incorrect...
I’m disappointed that you’re happy with the bold.Proves I’m no liar though, which is something you should retract, but I suspect you won’t.
The bold is s
te, if ignoring the rest of the sentences/paragraphs - which is a dick move. bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Do I think that my daughter having a child before she completes her education seriously impacts her lifestyle and economic attainment through the rest of her life? Yes - it certainly did for my other half.
Would I use that term? No.
Of course you wouldn't because it's repellent.Would I use that term? No.
But Sabinsky would that's if he didn't make her legally use contraception.
I'd caution against trying too hard to see any merit in this chap.
Slippery slope.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Where have I "seen merit" in this chap?
It's a perception thing.You seem very fixated on "show me the exact quote" type questions.
Sometimes it's just the sum total of how a series of posts come across.
Happy to accept that maybe it's me as we all interpret things differently.
What I'm not up for is having my posts twisted to try to show I'm racist, or support the evil kinds of eugenics that have been used in the past.
Nor do I think it fair that Sabisky's comments regarding contraception of adolescents has turned into him supporting sterilisation (or as DeepEnd has suggested, actually being a cover for wanting to kill people)...
Especially when DeepEnd has brought it over to a different thread, and then completely invented a quote attributed to me. After being called out on it, a lovely bit of selective emphasis again creates a completely false narrative when the full sentence and paragraph clearly shows a very different opinion to the one he claims...
gregs656 said:
Sway said:
Does it?
We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been discussing with her getting the implant in a year or two, so that all through the rest of her education it's simply not something she needs concern herself about (whilst still recommending strongly the use of barriers to prevent STD).
It's certainly not sterilisation, as presented by DeepEnd and others as being his views...
Do you not see the difference between discussing this with your daughter so she can make an informed choice and having that choice removed from her? We've a 14 year old daughter. We've been discussing with her getting the implant in a year or two, so that all through the rest of her education it's simply not something she needs concern herself about (whilst still recommending strongly the use of barriers to prevent STD).
It's certainly not sterilisation, as presented by DeepEnd and others as being his views...
Sabisky doesn’t say when the legally enforced contraception would stop, or for what reasons. It is possible that your daughter would lose the choice to have children at all and would effectively be sterilised by the state.
He statement is so far removed from the kind of discussion you are having with your daughter that I don’t understand why you mentioned it at all.
I find it absolutely incredible that on this thread we have people defending Sabisky’s comments which include the state controlling the fertility of women and on another people are losing their s
t because a private company with the support of its staff changed their expenses policy. Madness. I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.
Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.
I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.
gregs656 said:
Sway said:
Of course I can - and I wouldn't support what appears to be Sabisky's views, although it's exceptionally difficult to figure those out what as per your points there is no detail available.
I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.
Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.
I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.
If you don’t support them, why are you drawing this peculiar parallel between the discussion with your daughter and legally enforced, potentially life long, contraception for women? I mentioned it, as there is very little between the outcome of the discussions with out daughter and the limited amount that's been publicised of Sabisky's suggestion. Essentially, it's the difference between trusting parents to promote good dental hygiene, and 'forcing' fluoridated water into the supply - but much more emotive and contentious.
Is it something that should be verboten to even think about? I don't think so, even if I don't agree with the suggestion - yet others have instantly leapt to the Nazi and fascist claims, which seem an immense stretch.
I've made no comments on the expenses thread, so the conflation isn't suitable - and nor have I defended Sabisky other than to point out where posters are deliberately misrepresenting what he's said.
The only reason to do that is so show it’s not so bad, it’s just like giving sensible advice for people to do with as they please.
If we can lead a horse to water we can damn well make it drink.
There is a huge difference in outcome. Not having a choice to start is huge difference, not having a choice to stop is a huge difference.
This is like saying there isn’t much difference in outcome between the state force feeding you what ever Its likes 3 times a day and you choosing what to eat, or the state choosing your occupation, or really any other situation where the state can force you to take a course of action you were free not to choose before.
You have no autonomy. You are a slave to the state.
Who said anything about banning discussion of it? We are having this discussion, it’s been going on for pages.
If you don’t support the idea of the state forcing women to be on contraception for life (in terms of difference in outcome, this is identical to sterilisation) because they are not good enough in the eyes of Sabisky then I suggest you stop supporting it.
The outcome is clear - no babies.
Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome. It seems you can agree that such an outcome could be preferable as long as the person is willing - I agree, as there is a huge body of evidence that the biggest barrier to female social mobility is early parenthood.
The only person suggesting it would be life long, is you. Which then creates the leap to the comparable outcome that it is the same as sterilisation. Same as the concept that those young women are 'not good enough' - I've seen nothing that suggests the idea would be in anyway selective. The notion that he's aiming to prevent 'unplanned' pregnancies strongly implies a level of personal choice...
For the last time, I am NOT supporting forced contraception, regardless of whether it is lifelong or not.
The banning of the discussion is done by those that have forced Sabisky out of a job which is entirely driven by throwing out and discussing outre ideas, because of an outre idea. It seems that's only OK if those ideas are the 'correct' ones.
Saying that, some of his other personal views are sufficiently indicative of a lack of logical reasoning that I think he was the wrong man for the job anyway.
andy_s said:
turbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sabinsky said:
One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.
Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".Thought experiment:
Is there any scenario where it's deemed positive for society, the mother or the child for a young woman to have a child whilst a teenager?
From what I can tell, nothing inhibits social mobility more for women than early parenthood. As such, is there a section of society 'permanently' dependant on the state/society due to having children 'too' young? Seems entirely plausible.
How about the kids? What does the data say for their life chances?
If there's not a positive argument for teenage parenthood, then how can we as society support young women to avoid having children that young?
There is the implant, which iirc lasts five years.
Could we as a society enforce having the implant, for the 'good of all' (using a similar 'benefit to whole society as well as the individual' applied to the concept of enforced vaccinations)?
We could, but it'd be rather draconian and not acceptable for all the emotive reasons given.
Could we make the implantation of the coil a particularly easy thing to do, even easier than today? For example, much like the old 'nit nurse' or the BCG injection, conducting 'opt out' clinics in schools once a year?
Seems more reasonable, but still perhaps challenging emotionally.
Could the State reinforce the adoption of the implant at mid to late teens - through spending on increased awareness and education, use of stats to show why early years parenthood is much less likely to be a good idea AND easy drop in clinics at schools (for example).
Now that seems a decent idea to me - with likely a superb RoI for the taxpayer.
DeepEnd said:
“seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race”
Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Is it? Or are you conflating two separate views and making 5?Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Are you a mind reader?
DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
“seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race”
Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Is it? Or are you conflating two separate views and making 5?Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Are you a mind reader?
You’ve replied to many posts that say exactly that.
That does not mean that separate concepts regarding avoiding teenage pregnancies are linked to his views on race.
gregs656 said:
Sway said:
Again, a massive leap from what I've actually put...
Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
This is what you wrote Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
Sway said:
The outcome is clear - no babies.
Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
So exactly what you said. Consent or not, same outcome. Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
Which is concerning because consent is quite important. To me anyway.
I am all for teenagers being able to make informed choices about contraception and have access to it. I am not in favour and would not defend, or draw a parallel as you did, between teenagers making that informed choice and the state being able to legally force contraception on women for an undetermined length of time - perhaps life.
On that, I'm done. If you're just going to go the route of loaded statements and emotional interpretation of fairly clear words, it's not worth trying to discuss with you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff