Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A&A Feedback
Comments
-
The assertion that "grass is green" is a statement that predominantly holds true in the objective sense. That there may be exceptions, such as your species of blue grass, or that the neighbour's cat may have pissed on my lawn causing it to yellow somewhat, do not make this false. If I'm colour blind, or entirely blind for that matter, and I can't personally perceive that the grass is green this does not change the colour of the grass. The grass still reflects white light at a wavelength of 560–520 nm and appears green to those who are not visually impaired.
It doesn’t though, which is my point. There was nothing indicating an attempt to be objective in robarmstrong’s statement. Without knowing what grass he was referring to, or even knowing if what he was referring to is grass (I’ll explain that in a minute, but you probably already know where I’m going), we simply have no way of being able to determine whether or not he is saying is acceptable as fact. That’s the whole point of scientific inquiry that there are checks and balances in place and an agreement or consensus on a defined set of standards so that when an individual proposes that grass is green, we’re all at least on the same page of an archaic medium of communication.
robarmstrong chose to dismiss my post out of hand as they have every right to do IMO, I thought that was fair enough. But when I read their reasoning was based upon their understanding of science, I thought to myself it’s probably a good thing for both of us that robarmstrong chose not to pursue a line of inquiry in order to seek clarity on the matter, as it would only have led to both of us becoming more frustrated and likely a Moderator having to intervene.
I wanted to make it clear to robarmstrong, without using unparliamentary language, that I wasn’t trying to break their balls (and I hope it’s clear I am speaking metaphorically), I was trying to make the point that what may well be commonly regarded as both a simplistic statement and a fact in their opinion, is in actual fact, a far more complex proposition.
I hadn’t intended to involve myself in this thread because I believe the direction it’s taking is leading to the Moderators fashioning a rod for their own backs due to what will invariably be further attempts by various groups of posters to engage in anything from urination extraction to rules lawyering. However when I read robarmstrong’s post, the fact that I had earlier in the day purchased artificial grass in Lidl or Aldi (I can never determine which, they both use the colours blue and yellow in their logo, and due to other factors which would take too long to explain, I had to call my son to ask him where I was so that I could call a taxi and give them a more accurate approximation of my location than I could when Siri and Google Assistant were about as helpful as a chocolate teapot!) inspired me to suggest that robarmstrong’s statement in and of itself did not even approach a fact without first achieving consensus, and we simply didn’t have enough data to make any sort of a determination either way from the simple statement that grass is green.
My neighbours cats urine is unlikely to have any effect on the chemical composition of my artificial grass which would affect the perception of it’s colour, unless my neighbour were Shrodinger, in which case I would prefer that he would keep his radioactive poisonous cat within the bounds of his own property at least, and I wouldn’t want to be downwind of it either!I think the moderators of this forum are attempting to construct the charter in a largely rule based manner such that it is free from their own subjective bias, which in my opinion, is commendable. My personal opinion is that in this forum we should able to support our arguments with broadly objective truths from reputable sources, which do not incidentally include the bible or koran. When we talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights, they are those of our society and not the dictates of a fading church.
I agree with much of what you’re saying there. I can see where you’re coming from in observing that the Moderators are attempting to construct the Charter in a rules based manner such that it’s free from their own subjective bias. I agree it’s commendable, I’m just not sure it can be achieved with the small number of Moderators sharing the same perspectives that there are, as a broad consensus while it is easily achievable regardless of the number of Moderators there are, the fact that they are all of the same opinion is what I call a subjective collective who perceive themselves to be objective. I don’t think the Moderators should be objective in the form they wish the forum to take, not that I’m suggesting the forum should become regarded as a support group for those experiencing and recovering from the ill effects of religious indoctrination and/or exposure to religion, but rather that they shouldn’t be concerned with allowing a small minority of posters free reign in the interests of light touch moderation and the expectation that posters of polar opposite perspectives should reach a consensus any time soon based upon the presumption that they are adults in possession of the faculty of reason. I think that small minority of posters should be nuked from the forum without prejudice, to be perfectly honest. I have no issue with disruptive influencers as long as they remain respectful and their intent is determined to be coming from a place of inquiry with the intent to further understanding between people. If however their intent is determined to be malignant, then as we’ve discussed in another thread, I would view it as entirely justifiable on the part of the Moderators to suggest that the malignant influence PFO from the forum. On the part of posters, I would simply suggest that they learn to ignore the malignant influence and deprive it of any legitimacy by entertaining it. I understand that at times I myself may be viewed as a malignant influence but I can only assure the Moderators at least that has never and will never be my intention.
On to your point about when we (and I assume you mean we as participants in conversation) talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights as they apply to a society, that they are those of our society and not those of a fading Church, I would suggest that the presence of the Vatican and it’s special status as an observer State of the UN is sufficient evidence to suggest that your beliefs may require further examination, as the fading Church in spite of it’s perceived capacity as an impotent observer, has demonstrated it’s capacity to influence the decisions made by political representatives on numerous occasions, and indeed the outcomes. While they undoubtedly had no power in the decision to include references to religion in the UNDHR, they also undoubtedly were very influential in it’s inclusion by the people responsible for the decision to include such references to religion and human rights. The reason I make that point is because I do not regard society as one homogeneous group all sharing the same beliefs, but rather I view society as sects of smaller individual groups sharing common beliefs within their own groups about other people who may or may not also share their perceptions, perspectives, beliefs, ideologies and values with respect to the direction in which they wish to steer the progress of a society. Given that there is broader consensus among the fading Church regarding their vision of the future of society than there is among people who are not within the confines of the fading Church, I would suggest that it would be remiss of anyone to assume that broad consensus is always the correct perspective from which to view anything, and worse again if they claim that they are attempting to demonstrate that they are being objective. One individual on their own is simply incapable of being objective. A group of individuals, with different perspectives, is at least a lot closer to being objective in any decision making process.I'd sincerely suggest to those* wishing to base their argument on the rule of God, or an anachronistic morality derived from 2,000 year old Middle Eastern textbook, that the grass might appear greener on the other side of the fence. As for the ruling that we cannot use words such as 'bigoted' when referring to a post that claims homosexuality is a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell unless they stop being homosexuals, I'll leave it to the mods. For my part, if I can use robust yet entirely accurate language in response to what I consider to be hateful and intentionally incendiary posts, I, and I guess many others, will simply stop responding entirely. As mods though, you might ask yourself is this the net result that you're hoping to achieve.
(* not directed at you OEJ, more a reference the the peak LGBT nonsense thread)
And for what it’s worth, again I’d completely agree with you. I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for that sort of thing. As someone who enjoyed playing tonsil tennis with the boys during my years of well spent youth, in my naivety I was unaware that this behaviour was frowned upon by wider society as I had never been exposed to anything remotely regarding sex and sexuality in childhood. It just wasn’t talked about, so I had no way of being able to determine whether or not my behaviour was inappropriate or otherwise. Even today I might be tempted to engage if it were Tom Ellis were making the invitation (to coin a phrase from another fictional reality, resistance may well be fruitful, if he was into that sort of thing). To be perfectly honest, I could make the argument either way in support of homosexuality, regardless of whether the argument were from the perspective of religion, or another perspective. The argument from a religious perspective which objects to homosexuality (as it is only a minority of religions which do, many more religions incorporate homosexuality into their world view) would immediately come a cropper if it were an attempt to appeal to nature for example. But the question I have to ask myself in the situation presented with the existence of the nonsense thread, is the same question robarmstrong was likely asking themselves upon reading my post - do I really want to bother legitimising, let alone entertaining that sort of nonsense? My immediate answer is no, no I do not. I see absolutely no reason why anyone should have to offer legitimacy to such nonsense and I see no reason why they should have to attempt to justify their opinion to anyone who is in my opinion at least, clearly endeavouring to wind people up. Their argument doesn’t even get off the ground as far as I’m concerned because it is predicated upon the assumption that posters here are answerable to the poster first of all, and secondly that any posters here share in the belief that someone should have the right to freedom of expression without limitations. Nobody has that right, so the implication of the “gotchaz all” is rendered impotent as far as I’m concerned. Other people will undoubtedly differ in their perspective and point of view, which is unfortunate to observe IMO, but I would never wish to restrict their freedom to do so unless the conversation was simply going nowhere and there appeared to be no attempt by the people involved to reach a consensus.
Incendiary posts like the thread title and opening post in that thread are a perfect example of what I personally believe should be nuked without prejudice while being entirely justified in informing the poster in as direct and concise a manner as necessary (without regard to the restriction of being unable to use unparliamentary language), that their opinions are not welcome in this forum.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I think that small minority of posters should be nuked from the forum without prejudice, to be perfectly honest. I have no issue with disruptive influencers as long as they remain respectful and their intent is determined to be coming from a place of inquiry with the intent to further understanding between people. If however their intent is determined to be malignant, then as we’ve discussed in another thread, I would view it as entirely justifiable on the part of the Moderators to suggest that the malignant influence PFO from the forum. On the part of posters, I would simply suggest that they learn to ignore the malignant influence and deprive it of any legitimacy by entertaining it. I understand that at times I myself may be viewed as a malignant influence but I can only assure the Moderators at least that has never and will never be my intention..
Incendiary posts like the thread title and opening post in that thread are a perfect example of what I personally believe should be nuked without prejudice while being entirely justified in informing the poster in as direct and concise a manner as necessary (without regard to the restriction of being unable to use unparliamentary language), that their opinions are not welcome in this forum.
Whilst assuring everyone that you are not a turkey, and never intended to be one.0 -
Just a quick update:
Discussions with catmods are continuing while we're also working to appoint new moderators to the forum.
In addition to the notes above - or the helpful ones anyway- we'd appreciate if you could note any changes, in the clear, unambiguous and lucid prose for which the forum is well-renowned, which you believe will resolve the disputed issue of how to deal with troublesome or disagreeable posters while preserving the traditional view which has prevailed in A+A over many years that posters should be free to post their views without needing to worry how much other posters might disagree with them.
Essentially, that's likely to come down to either a) a more prescriptive charter which outlines procedures, written limits regarding what is tolerated and what isn't, etc or b) a less prescriptive charter which is less laissez-faire than has been the case over the last year and which places more discretion back in the hands of the forum mods to ensure that discussion continues as peacefully and usefully as possible.
Sooner would be better for any more feedback, so mods + catmods will take on board all views until, say, Monday evening and we'll see where we are then.
Carping, unhelpful or fist-wavey posts will - it need hardly be said at this point - be deleted and the posters posting them, at the mods discretion, be dealt with cluestickwise.0 -
Essentially, that's likely to come down to either a) a more prescriptive charter which outlines procedures, written limits regarding what is tolerated and what isn't, etc or b) a less prescriptive charter which is less laissez-faire than has been the case over the last year and which places more discretion back in the hands of the forum mods to ensure that discussion continues as peacefully and usefully as possible.
I don't want a charter that says "we don't talk about X, Y or Z". That would make the forum far more boring, give us the appearance of being close-minded or afraid of those topics and, frankly, would be a win for those who have tried to disrupt this forum.
For me, I really like that this forum is open to hearing and discussing pretty much any point of view. But, again for me, the key thing in that is the "discussing" aspect.
The forum charter should say that we are perfectly happy to discuss any view, once presented cordially. But it must be a two-way discussion. Posters must be prepared to explain and defend their opinions. This is not a blog, no-one is entitled to just post their opinion. No one is entitled to have it protected from scrutiny.
If you look back over the feedback thread, most or all of the poster complaints have been in relation to posters not here to discuss - from those who constantly diverted with tedious semantics to those who simply ignore posts they can't respond to.0 -
I'm not a fan of mods deleting entire posts.
Highlighting something that is unacceptable is fine, with an accompanying reason why, and/or a warning. In the worst cases, editing out the offending part.
Mods are only human, and can be tempted to delete posts they don't agree with. In which case, nobody knows whats going on except the poster and the mod. Its leads to a lack of transparency and accountability.0 -
Advertisement
-
In addition to the notes above - or the helpful ones anyway
- we'd appreciate if you could note any changes, in the clear, unambiguous and lucid prose for which the forum is well-renowned, which you believe will resolve the disputed issue of how to deal with troublesome or disagreeable posters while preserving the traditional view which has prevailed in A+A over many years that posters should be free to post their views without needing to worry how much other posters might disagree with them.
Essentially, that's likely to come down to either a) a more prescriptive charter which outlines procedures, written limits regarding what is tolerated and what isn't, etc or b) a less prescriptive charter which is less laissez-faire than has been the case over the last year and which places more discretion back in the hands of the forum mods to ensure that discussion continues as peacefully and usefully as possible.
I think a less prescriptive Charter would be a positive step forward, as opposed to having a rather lengthy Charter which it appears not too many posters are willing to take the time to read. An example of a more simplified and straightforward Charter is the Cloud and Distributed Computing forum Charter.
Essentially - don’t be a dick.
This allows Moderators the flexibility to intervene where they feel it is necessary, rather than having to argue over the minutiae and wording of a greater than is necessarily required forum Charter. Posters then should be expected to adhere to the spirit of the Charter and not just the letter of it. That way the Feedback thread is used for feedback and not having posters running to it every time they run into trouble with another poster, and there aren’t a number of threads which become centred around an individual poster with other posters having to find new and creative ways to point out their shìtposting.
That way then I think we can actually return to a time when the forum was regarded as the place to go to witness the knowledge being passed on by posters like oldrnwisr, who appeared to be familiar with, well, everything really, but most importantly they were familiar with these two triangles -
Right now it appears to me that the forum is, quite bluntly - dying on it’s arse with no hope of resurrection (I can resist almost anything but the temptation of an opportunity to make a pun), because it appears to me that over time, the forum which once had many active threads full of many active posters with different perspectives, appears to have become a forum of a handful of very active threads with a handful of very active posters not even registering in double digits on any given day. There’s still viewers, as is evidenced by the numbers of thanks poor standards of posting (IMO) often receive, which encourages a playing to the crowd mentality, which encourages group think.
There’s a whole lot of heat being generated in the forum, yet hardly anything in the way of light, which, if you can still see the funny side, seems appropriate somehow.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I don't want a charter that says "we don't talk about X, Y or Z". That would make the forum far more boring, give us the appearance of being close-minded or afraid of those topics and, frankly, would be a win for those who have tried to disrupt this forum.
Sounds good to me, Mark.
IMHO moderators should have a reasonable amount of discretion on the question of "is this reported post contributing positively to discussion, or not." If you post something regarded as somewhat controversial, be prepared to defend that point of view. If you can't be bothered, then fine, but don't pop up again later to post the same thing as if you haven't been dismissed and/or ignored on previous occasions.
Dissenting views are essentilal, the last thing we want is an echo chamber.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Sounds good to me, Mark.
IMHO moderators should have a reasonable amount of discretion on the question of "is this reported post contributing positively to discussion, or not." If you post something regarded as somewhat controversial, be prepared to defend that point of view. If you can't be bothered, then fine, but don't pop up again later to post the same thing as if you haven't been dismissed and/or ignored on previous occasions.
Dissenting views are essentilal, the last thing we want is an echo chamber.
I agree.
People can post what they wish -but be prepared to be interrogated/questioned/mocked even (in a gentle and constructive way obvs :pac:) but when a thread becomes completely derailed because the thread becomes about that post the issues arise. If they can't/won't defend their position then the mods should step in.
Essentially - let them have enough rope but allow the mods to decide what is a reasonable length.0 -
The appointment of the two new mods is welcome and appreciated, they are excellent posters and fully deserving of the status they’ve been bestowed with.
There still lies an inconsistency in moderation from a particular moderator which is not pertaining to the above additions to the team that requires addressing.0 -
robarmstrong wrote: »The appointment of the two new mods is welcome and appreciated, they are excellent posters and fully deserving of the status they’ve been bestowed with.
There still lies an inconsistency in moderation from a particular moderator which is not pertaining to the above additions to the team that requires addressing.
Please see the PM which you received which a) includes a link to two unhelpful posts you made; b) the relevant section from the forum charter which specifically prohibits the unhelpful prose you wrote; and c) an exact description of why your (a) is not compatible with the forum's (b).
Please open a thread in DR if you wish to discuss this further.0 -
Advertisement
-
robarmstrong wrote: »The appointment of the two new mods is welcome and appreciated, they are excellent posters and fully deserving of the status they’ve been bestowed with.
There still lies an inconsistency in moderation from a particular moderator which is not pertaining to the above additions to the team that requires addressing.
Hand on heart I was reading some of your posts in light of the new additions to the charter and was about to issue an on thread warning myself. Rob merely beat me to it by seconds.
Things in that thread have, in the past, spiraled out of control - and this is not to downplay any level of annoyance/frustration/irritation (justifiable or not) people may be feeling while they are posting - but I think I speak for all the mods when I say we are not prepared to allow that to continue to happen.
For now we are mainly issuing on-thread warnings. These are simply shots across the bow to say step back, take a breath, think about what you are writing as it is on the edge of acceptability.
Should it continue cards will be issued without fear or favour.0 -
Oooh, new mods? I just noticed. Good luck to you both, and may the Force be with you.0
-
robarmstrong wrote: »The appointment of the two new mods is welcome and appreciated, they are excellent posters and fully deserving of the status they’ve been bestowed with.
There still lies an inconsistency in moderation from a particular moderator which is not pertaining to the above additions to the team that requires addressing.
Firstly, agree entirely with Bannasidhe on this one, note that a card has been issued and deservedly so. What I'd suggest is take a step back and re-read the last couple of pages on this thread in the context of the charter. If you feel another poster is not engaging in honest discussion, report them and make sure any response attacks the post and not the poster. If it persists and you can find no reasonable response, as you've already said yourself, place the poster on your ignore list and move on. I realise that this can be frustrating having had to do it myself a couple of times in the past. Constructive criticism of moderation is always welcome on this thread but only here and usual rules apply with respect to being civil and avoiding personal attacks. The mod team, i.e. almost entirely robindch up to this point, have been working hard to keep this forum the type of place where it is enjoyable that all points of view can be shared in conversation. This is no mean feat given some of the highly emotive topics under discussion and deserves to acknowledged and respected. Just my 2c as the newbie with hammer who's already got a sore thumb.0 -
It's ridiculous to be forced to use the term "pro-life" to describe anti-choicers.
"Pro-life" is a fundamentally dishonest, bulls**t PR propaganda term.
Anti-choice on the other hand is perfectly accurate, they are opposed to pregnant women having a choice in relation to abortion therefore they are anti-choice. It is not a pejorative term.
Being forced to use the invented and inaccurate terminology of the other side in the debate is conceding significant ground to them, and means the moderation of the abortion thread is no longer neutral.
It would be the similar to banning the word "foetus" and being forced to use "baby" all the time instead.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's ridiculous to be forced to use the term "pro-life" to describe anti-choicers.
"Pro-life" is a fundamentally dishonest, bulls**t PR propaganda term.
Anti-choice on the other hand is perfectly accurate, they are opposed to pregnant women having a choice in relation to abortion therefore they are anti-choice. It is not a pejorative term.
Being forced to use the invented and inaccurate terminology of the other side in the debate is conceding significant ground to them, and means the moderation of the abortion thread is no longer neutral.
It would be the similar to banning the word "foetus" and being forced to use "baby" all the time instead.
The above may well be the case, but in the interests of civil discourse we're calling the two major groups on either side of the debate by their own chosen names rather than terms to which they object. Some on the pro-life side of the debate were calling the pro-choice side the pro-abortion side which is also arguably true by your above logic yet also derogatory. The thinking is that we can all come up with far stronger arguments than simple name-calling.0 -
The above may well be the case, but in the interests of civil discourse we're calling the two major groups on either side of the debate by their own chosen names rather than terms to which they object. Some on the pro-life side of the debate were calling the pro-choice side the pro-abortion side which is also arguably true by your above logic yet also derogatory. The thinking is that we can all come up with far stronger arguments than simple name-calling.
i know that its the actual nub of each issue
but anti-choice is correct, pro abortion is not
foetus is correct. baby is not.
im sure the other (you may be able to tell which side im on!) side would very much like to have it down as board policy to agree a set of common standards but imho this aint it chief0 -
pro-life is what we are.
if we were anti-choice then we would be across the board on everything. there may be some like that but plenty of us are not.
pro-life is the accurate term.
this is a complaint over nothing tbh.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »pro-life is what we are.
we believe that one has a right to life from the beginning of their development to the time they die. the term is therefore accurate.
...apart from all those pro-death penalty "pro-lifers" out there.
That aside, as much as I dislike the "pro-life" label, it is useful to have agreed and non-antagonistic descriptions for the sides of a debate, if that debate is to be a civil one.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »...apart from all those pro-death penalty "pro-lifers" out there.
That aside, as much as I dislike the "pro-life" label, it is useful to have agreed and non-antagonistic descriptions for the sides of a debate, if that debate is to be a civil one.
well i disagree with the death penalty and believe people are wrong and incorrect to support it. even if they may call themselves pro-life they are wrong.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »i know that its the actual nub of each issue
but anti-choice is correct, pro abortion is not
foetus is correct. baby is not.
im sure the other (you may be able to tell which side im on!) side would very much like to have it down as board policy to agree a set of common standards but imho this aint it chief
'Pro-life' and 'Pro-choice' aren't simple well-defined terms like baby or foetus though, they're the names corresponding to proper nouns chosen by either side of the debate which have become accepted and well understood over time. Whether 'Pro-life' is a misnomer is neither here nor there, the point is that to have a civil debate we should make an effort not to resort to name calling. Most if not all of us who identify as "Pro-choice" are entirely cognisant of what 'Pro-life' means and does not mean in this context.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suppose you're right smacl.
Still makes me a little bit sick in my mouth typing "pro-life" though.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »I suppose you're right smacl.
Still makes me a little bit sick in my mouth typing "pro-life" though.
Same. But then I see terms like "American Intelligence" in the latest Tom Cruise blockbuster and I realise that language isn't perfect0 -
[...] I see terms like "American Intelligence" [...]
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/george-bush-center-for-intelligence0 -
I can imagine it's bigger than the George W. Bush Center for Intelligence.
Would "opponents of abortion" be acceptable?© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It's ridiculous to be forced to use the term "pro-life" to describe anti-choicers.
If pro-choicers refer to "pro-lifers" side as "anti-choice", then moderators can't really ask pro-lifers to refer to avoid using inflammatory terms like terms like "pro-abortion" or - this one could come out of "1984" - "pro-aborts".
Both sides have been known to play disjunctive language games and two wrongs do not make a right.0 -
i understand why youd do it
but its pretty much a parent ruling halfway down the line between two squabbling kids, it doesnt matter who started it or who is right ye just want peace.
understandable but im not sure it works as an actual mod position.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Would "opponents of abortion" be acceptable?
IMHO, best leave the terms as they stand - posters who believe that abortion is always morally wrong being referred to as "pro-life", while posters who believe that abortion can be ethically acceptable being referred to as "pro-choice" - and just use the terms, allowing that each side probably finds the other side's chosen appellation equally dishonest.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »[....] ye just want peace [...]
There are plenty of places out there on the internet where that kind of name-calling happens, but it's not been the position of A+A which requires posters to show some elementary degree of civility to each other.0 -
at the cost of literal inaccuracy that lends one side a legitimacy boost that has not cleanly been won through merit?
i know we're just going to toss this back and forth to no avail, but in your own post- a well-stated one imo- you can easily set out why pro-choice is fairly labelled so, but you can only set out the pro-life side in the stark factual terms- anti-abortion is the sum of the position.
i recognise that civility of discussion is desirable but, and i hope i may be frank here, the conduct, quality of argument and general pproach of pro-choice posters (indeed that entire lobby) throughout the debate does not lend itself to a moderator ensuring a draw!0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »i know we're just going to toss this back and forth to no avail, but in your own post- a well-stated one imo- you can easily set out why pro-choice is fairly labelled so, but you can only set out the pro-life side in the stark factual terms- anti-abortion is the sum of the position.
More generally, I've made the point many times - without a meaningful reply from either side - that neither side is making any noticeable effort to seek out common ground as one would expect of a civil discussion amongst opposing views. Make of that what you will.0
Advertisement