Saturday, January 23, 2016

crowbars and labial gateways

A good while back, this blog used to entertain comments from a self-regarded Internet Sage who went by the nom-de-word-salad-building "Jack Crow."  One of the authors here called this clown "the Crowbar" because of the way Bozo used words (in salad form) when trying to lever false conclusions out of clear statements and concrete principles.

Now, nobody here would say that the Crowbar succeeded in his attempted prying and uncovering, but most everyone here would say he made dire, earnest efforts in that direction.  The labors he undertook were persistent, even if sorely misguided.

One of the key targets of the Crowbar's machinations was this blog's unified view about abortion and the living organisms involved in that surgical procedure.  Since the Crowbar was a process maven, the Crowbar concerned himself primarily with whether the surgery was a success.  What happened during the surgery was where Crowbar's numerous blind spots were revealed for all who cared to watch this e-homo habilis trying to lever falsity out of probity.

Without distortion in the bargain, we can distill Crowbar's argument neatly and concisely:  the discarded fetus at the end of the successful surgery was not human.  Rather, it was an inanimate blob of tissue, a tumor --if you will-- which was threatening the host's body.  And at most, Crowbar would admit utility in the tumor for only one particular purpose:  stem cell harvesting. Otherwise it was a foul mass of cells which needed excision and disposition in the Medical Waste bin.

If not for the homicide implicit in Crowbar's approval, we'd have laughed at his disconnect between biological truth, and preferred end result for the host which was being victimized by the ...uh... tumor.

From the moment of conception (egg + successful sperm conjunction) found within the fertilized egg, all cells within the ...uh... tumor are the foundation for the developing infant human which resides for an average of 9 months within the female human ("mother")'s uterus.  This point is one which the Crowbar could not repel or disprove, biologically speaking.  Thus he had to marshal what he considered "feminist" rhetoric which triangulated the subjects at issue, putting them outside the analysis and focusing instead on an external, third-party concept:  the "rights" of the woman who had chosen the abortion surgery.  This woman's "rights" were deemed (in Crowland, that is) paramount, and because they were paramount, the developing fetus wasn't human, and certainly couldn't have reflected a separate human life.  No, that would be impossible in Crowland, because the woman had chosen the abortion procedure, and that choice rendered the unfortunate fetus little more than a tumor.


Serendipity is a strange word and an even odder concept.  Is it really different from luck, happenstance, random occurrence?  I suppose we'll never know, and I guess it doesn't matter in the end.  What matters is the moment of synchronicity.

This morning I did my usual browse of the Silent T and found an article discussing Rand Paul.  The attention given to Paul the Younger seems a bit of a crumb tossed toward a begging starving street urchin.  Silent T has been working hard lately to push its audience of "libertarians" (read: progressives who are a bit more open about their greed and their condescension toward anyone not already wealthy) in the direction of Bernie Sanders.  Nick Gillespie and Robby Soave are eager to see Bernie as POTUS, mostly because Nick and Robbie are swishy progressives themselves, despite tenure at a "libertarian" outlet.

A skeptic may wonder why someone would be a progressive but hide behind a mask of "libertarian," and the answer may be easier to find than one might think on first review.



Regarding Rand Paul, the Silent T published this:

Paul also this week, and not for the first time, introduced a "Life at Conception Act" that would effectively federally ban abortion, an issue in which he differs with many libertarians (though it is not necessarily and obviously un-libertarian if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life).

Whoa. Did you get that condescending, Crowbar-like snark there?

if you actually believe a fetus at any stage of development is a human life

So it's about "believing" that? So it's a matter of "faith"? In other words, Nigel West Dickens would use his vaunted "science" chops to show your "belief" is irrelevant because a white lab coat wearer can excise the tumor and discard it, saving the host woman from indignity?


I'm never surprised when someone who was ...errr, ahhh... "educated" by our "public school educators" fails biology when put in practice.  You could hold 2-hour interviews with every public school graduate in your region, seeking a recount of what was learned in biology, and very few if any would remember anything about biology, other than "if you screw unprotected, she might get pregnant."  Or, that we humans die eventually.

Otherwise nothing is retained, demonstrating quite conclusively that nothing was learned.


Notice the two tidbits retained.

Both are areas where our progressive geniuses of America show their hands.

And yes, "libertarians" at the Silent T are progressives.  Including Nigel West Dickens.


Progressives wish for "science" (a hazy construct bearing oblique tangential relation to the subjects falling under its heading, including biology and its subsets of genetics and developmental biology) to make their lives easier.  And by "easier" I mean "more convenient." 

Thus, as we have recounted before in these pages, "science" for progressives (again: this includes "libertarians" at the Silent T) means anything that produces ease of trinket accumulation. 

Beyond that, there's little understanding. 

Which suggests there's no understanding. 

Because really, science is not about comfort.  It's about studying what is.


Whether the pregnant woman finds the fetus "inconvenient" for any particular reason has no bearing on what the fetus is.

This, of course, is why the triangulation happens.

This, of course, is why the focus is shifted to the pregnant woman's "rights."  That stupid tumor can't speak for itself, so it must be a tumor.  As the Crowbar said, the tumor doesn't become human until it breaches the labial gateway at birth, becoming a "baby."  Prior to that?  Medical Waste.

So, remember:  Rand Paul is a reactionary misogynist.  He overrides the pregnant woman's rights, trampling them to preserve a tumor of Medical Waste.  What a sick, disgusting thing to do, right?  How dare he infringe on the pregnant woman's convenience!  He's trying to control her uterus!


Harold Caidagh said...

Chet, back when Prissy was interviewing me at Neuwestia State Mental Hospital, she asked me about "Jack Crow" and I had nothing for her, since I didn't know anything about the person or what the person had written at this blog.

I wish I'd known then what you've recounted here. Prissy's interview could have resulted in some much more interesting back-and-forth. Well, maybe -- I guess. I still don't know what or whom is behind that "Jack Crow" character and his posts. For all I know, "Jack Crow" is Nigel West Dickens. Might even be the Ding-Dong.

Paul Behrer said...

Not the Ding-Dong, since he can't write well and makes innumerable spelling and grammatical errors despite fancying himself a Word Artist. Of course, he'd say he's just "trolling you" when he writes poorly. Also, the Ding-Dong doesn't know anything about science, he just waits for a Marxist to tell him, or listens to a TED lecture on a pseudo-science topic and assumes he's broadened his horizons as a result. That Ding-Dong is laughable in his ignorance.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I always thought "Michael J. Smith," a/k/a Sprytel J. Chimchim, was the writer behind "Jack Crow."

Isn't that "Michael J. Smith" so funny a name? Like Howard K. Smith, right! HILARIOUS!

(cough cough)

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

There's also some strong similarities between the Arch-Druid's writing style and the Crow's scratchings.

But all this may reflect nothing more than the ways in which progressives have no individual identity, and so they write and think as a hive-mind. The hive-mind's general tendency in writing is to be stuffy, polysyllabic, pompous, and intolerant of any lines of argument or proof which run contrary to the one on offer.