hell’s handmaiden

There are currently 28 responses to “Plan B - Make up something really silly, because you can”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On March 12th, 2007, MInTheGap said:

   Hey, thanks for the link– even if you don’t have anything nice to say.

   Let’s see, where do I begin? First, the whole point of the post was to draw attention to the FDA’s move to make a drug available to those who are not the woman. I would assume that you would have gotten that from the title. You know, the part about “Buy it for your Underaged Girlfriend.” While it is true that I am pro-life (beginning that life begins at conception), the specific topic is how this particular pill is ripe for abuse.

   Much like the law that was debated last year about crossing state lines to avoid parental notification, this pill has a potential for abuse that I was attempting to highlight.

   Did I recommend a course of action? I don’t believe I did, though you did a good job of constructing a strawman to rant against. I believe I stated that there was a problem, that the FDA allowed this drug to be purchased over the counter by any 18-year-old and over. I did not talk to outlawing the drug. You did.

   So I’m sorry that you spent a lot of time fighting against what my post did not say or suggest, but I recommend that before you call people silly or suggest that they’re making up silly things that you actually read what’s written in the context it is written and figure out what the point is. Perhaps you might be open to actually consider things with your mind instead of relying on your faith and belief about what people are saying.

2. 2 On March 12th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Very, very fine lines you are drawing there, M. So fine, in fact, I’d say it looks like backpedaling.

   Where do you begin? You begin by saying that the FDA made a bad call and that the reason is was a bad call, which you repeat here, is that the law is subject to abuse by rapists and pedophiles. To which I responded that is a silly reason to object and the reason is that there are a hell of a lot of other things that are subject to abuse as well, and gave examples. Yet you’d look like a nut if you complained about those things. Sorry, no straw man, just examples pointing out the error in your scare-tactic connection between Plan-B, rape, incest, and sex with minors.

   Certainly, you can quibble about whether or not you used the word ‘ban’ or suggested any particular action, but that is quibbling. The point does not concern what action you did or did not suggest. The point concerns the connection you made between rape, statutory rape, incest and a birth control pill. That connection is the “silly thing you made up”.

3. 3 On March 12th, 2007, Chris Bradley said:

   Did I recommend a course of action? I don’t believe I did, though you did a good job of constructing a strawman to rant against. I believe I stated that there was a problem, that the FDA allowed this drug to be purchased over the counter by any 18-year-old and over. I did not talk to outlawing the drug. You did.

   This is some of my favorite type of misreasoning. “Just because I didn’t explicitly say for something to be that way means I am unaware of how the audience will likely take what I say.” Because we all that inference doesn’t exist!

   M, you’ve pretty clearly engaged in plausible deniability. But, c’mon. If you say that there’s a problem you can’t actually believe that people will think that you’re all OK with the problem existing, right? Generally, in human conversation, when someone calls something a problem it is with the intent of doing something about it, not just abstractly bringing it up for “discussion”. That is normal.

4. 4 On March 12th, 2007, Chris Bradley said:

   I mean, for crying out loud, you named your article “Buy it for your underaged girlfriend”! But, nooooo, you’re not trying to suggest that we stop this practice! *boggled*

5. 5 On March 12th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Chris,

   I was tempted to take the tact you did, but ultimately left most of it out of my reply, just mentioning that M’s reply seems like backpedaling. I agree with you. Definitely an effort at plausible deniability, though I’m not sure if was planned or if it was improvised as a response to my post.

6. 6 On March 12th, 2007, nowoo said:

   Plan B is a contraceptive, not a “drug that terminates a pregnancy after conception”. It prevents ovulation in case it hasn’t already happened, just like other birth control pills already do. It has not been shown to prevent pregnancy in the event that ovulation has already occurred.

7. 7 On March 12th, 2007, Chris Bradley said:

   themaiden,

   I dunno if it was improved or planned, either, but . . . it’s pretty silly for him to try to claim that, y’know, after saying that this pill is going to be for incest, rape and child molestation it is wrong to assume he was opposed to it. It was just insulting, IMO, to any half-way intelligent reader.

   It’s like conservative forces don’t get it that we’ve cracked their code, or if they just keep insisting that their code doesn’t exist that we can’t figure out that it does exist and what they’re saying when they say things like this.

8. 8 On March 12th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Chris,

   I know. It is insulting, and not just a little bit weird. I didn’t expect M to be happy about my post, but this reaction– “I didn’t say that”– I didn’t expect at all.

9. 9 On March 13th, 2007, MInTheGap said:

   I have to admit that I’m amused by the mutual admiration society that exists on this board.

   Point 1: A logical human would say that I’m against this pill being available to anyone and everyone that comes up to the counter and asks for it that satisfies the prerequisite age. Regardless of my stance or beliefs on abortion (which I clearly discuss in my comments), and regardless of how frequent or infrequent the case of misuse is, the choice of the FDA to do this was reckless and irresponsible.

   How many times is someone who is not a woman going to seek this drug in this fashion? How many times would she not have access to a doctor and could get a prescription? In what scenario is it mandated that this drug be offered to men?

   Point 2: Read the Plan B website, nowoo. Clearly those that put together the site claim that the drug works in two ways 1) preventing ovulation/conception and 2) preventing implantation/pregnancy. Since the site made up by doctors and those promoting/selling the drug state that this is how the drug works I take their word over yours.

   I am impressed that there is intelligent conversation here, but please come up with something new to say. Attacking the person and spouting off “facts” that aren’t true is getting a little old to comment on.

10. 10 On March 13th, 2007, themaiden said:

    “I’m amused by the mutual admiration society that exists on this board.”

    Yes, yes… typical “I’ve got the moral high ground” rhetoric, typically used by someone running from moral floodwaters. Why do you think that no one will notice these tactics?

    “… the choice of the FDA to do this was reckless and irresponsible.”

    This is exactly the point of contention. This is exactly the point I addressed. This is exactly the point you did not make. Repeating yourself while ignoring the objections is kinda slimy.

    “How many times is someone who is not a woman going to seek this drug in this fashion?”

    How many times am I, a man, going to go to the store to get tampons or maxi pads or ordinary birth control pills? I have no need for such things. For that matter, at least until the mid-80s, I did’t need condoms either. I’m not going to get pregnant. I don’t get migranes. How many times am I going to go to the store to migraine medication? I guess I’m a fool because because I’ve been to the store for all these things more times than I can count. If you’d think for a minute you’d realize that you go to the store for things you personally don’t need, and you do it all the time.

    “How many times would she not have access to a doctor and could get a prescription?”

    This one is just foolish. Waiting for an appointment with a doctor and then for a prescription just might delay things too long for the pill to work. Technically, it is supposed to be effective within 72 hours, but the docs say earlier is better. Then, of course, access to a doctor is not an easy option for far too many people.

    “In what scenario is it mandated that this drug be offered to men?”

    Mandated? That has things backwards. You don’t legislate who can have something. By default, everyone has access. You legislate who can’t have it, and you have provided no good reason to ban– oh dear, did I say ban?– the sale of this pill to men. Your suggestion that men might rape young girls and then give them Plan-B out of– I don’t know– kind heartedness is just silly. Rapists are going to rape. Plan-B has nothing to do with it.

    Your position is based in two assumptions– one, that rapists care about the well-being of their victims, and two, that access to Plan-B, and hence to the ability to be a considerate rapist, is going to encourage compassionate rapist to rape. Neither assumption makes even the slightest bit of sense.

    “Read the Plan B website, nowoo.”

    I read the Plan-B website.

    “Remember that Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill). Because Plan B® is used to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, it will not work if you’re already pregnant. If you take Plan B® and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy.”

    And…

    “It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb).”

    They aren’t sure about that implantation part. Its main action is just what nowoo stated.

    Still, no implantation; no pregnancy. Unless you want to argue that a woman is pregnant as soon as sperm and egg unite at the fertility clinic? Or maybe she’s pregnant as soon as those eggs from the clinic are inserted into her uterus? Tough case to argue.

    “I am impressed that there is intelligent conversation here, but please come up with something new to say.”

    Again… Yes, yes… typical “I’ve got the moral high ground” rhetoric, typically used by someone running from moral floodwaters. Why do you think that no one will notice these tactics?

    You M, are the one needing to come up with something new.

11. 11 On March 13th, 2007, MInTheGap said:

    Why do you assume everything is a tactic? My opening comments was just pointing out what is common on a lot of blogs– except more so in the first few comments I read here. I’m not a part of any conspiracy. I’m not devising ways with which to talk, and I have no “secret code to crack.”

    You continue to attempt to attack my position by relating Plan B to some common household item– something that you’d pick up at the store on a regular basis. Correct me if I’m wrong, but women who are sexually active are more than likely going to be on some kind of pill or using a contraceptive measure that she has been doing over a period of time rather than constantly running to the store to pick up a Plan B when she has an “oops” moment or to buy the stuff in bulk.

    Obviously, anything that has to do with hormones are going to be more protective if used over time rather than when caught after an act. So, I add to the irresponsibility of the FDA in releasing this drug in this fashion the expectation that they can replace the routine use of the pill or other method with this one time pill.

    The site itself states that this is not a replacement for the pill, and that the data suggests the effectiveness of the pill is not the same if used in a routine way.

    So, again, give me the circumstances where someone with a legitimate reason to purchase and “oops” pill is going to be a male. Even in a husband/wife scenario, you have the husband going to pick up the pill for the wife, who would have no reason to go get it herself. Now, I could see the wife inflicting this on a husband for not using protection in some kind of twisted way, but in reality, it’s in the woman’s best interest (if she doesn’t want the child) to get this pill– she’s the one carrying the baby.

    You also take the radical part of the argument– focusing on a rapist that doesn’t care about the woman– and probably do that from my one illustration. Obviously, to some degree, a rapist that does not know the victim probably wouldn’t care– just as you posit. However, in the case of date rape or incest, there is obvious reasons why the man would not want a child produced, and would therefore get the drug for the girl/woman.

    So, get me that data on usage, sex of the customers that would buy, and the activity that lead up to it before you go talking about what you think the general use of it would be. Since you have no data on percentages (and even a small percentage of use in the commission of a crime as ugly as rape or incest would demand some amount of thought), generalizing or marginalizing my argument proves to let you continue your name calling (”silly”), but provides nothing of substance.

    Actually, in this case, you do legislate who can have a drug. Are you aware of the process of how any particular drug becomes available to the populace? A drug company produces a drug, they submit it to the FDA who then have to approve its distribution and the methods of distribution.

    Granted, there are street drugs that are available and illegal, but when it comes to drugs in your local store and provided by your pharmacists the FDA approves who can have the drug by offering it to people group X. So, the government is, in effect, mandating that men can have access to this drug, and this is a change. Prior to this ruling men did not have access– it was only for women, and only by prescription. So, I stand by my statement. No good reason that it has to be available to a man.

    I guess the question is how you read the phrase “may also work.” You read it as “we’re not sure if it does this.” I read this as “if you catch it after conception, then it can work by preventing implantation.” The question goes back to the hormones themselves. According to my understanding, the hormones that go into all BC involve not just effecting the egg’s release, but also the quality of the uterine wall (the state at which the wall has to be in order to accept the fertilized egg). If this is the case, and you believe that life begins at conception then you are killing a baby.

12. 12 On March 13th, 2007, Chris Bradley said:

    M,

    Who knew that people with similar interests and values might associate together?! *rolls eyes*

    I know you’ve been worked over pretty hard, already, but, c’mon! You can’t keep an argument straight from post to post. First you’re all, “Oh, that’s not what I said!” and when it gets point out that is what you meant you completely drop the first point to work on the “You people are so mean and ignorant” canard, like we forgot that the reason we spoke up in the first place is to point out that, indeed, you are opposed to Plan B and really would like someone to stop it from being sold. But that’s not even an issue, anymore. The issue is poor you being attacked by mean ol’ us and how we’re so stupid and ignorant.

    I’m play nicer with you, but I can’t seem to reach the goal because the posts keep moving around.

13. 13 On March 14th, 2007, themaiden said:

    M,

    I called it a tactic, because it looks like a tactic. Chris Bradley picked up on it too. It is a very common way to respond. I’m not suggesting that you are part of some conspiracy but your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well” and “ad hominem“– an ad hominem not being the same as calling “silly”, “silly”, so please don’t go there.

    You continue to attempt to attack my position by relating Plan B to some common household item– something that you’d pick up at the store on a regular basis.

    Yes, indeed I do. Argument by analogy is valid and very useful. It is not my fault that you do not like how your arguments sound when placed in other contexts. That is the power of argument by analogy. A good argument should still sound reasonable if key elements are substituted for different but similar items.

    Now, your original position has very little to do with “women who are sexually active”. It has to do with women who are raped. My responses that mentioned birth control pills and condoms were targetted very specifically at your statements to the effect that “men don’t need to buy the pill because men don’t need the pill”. Pointing out that men don’t need condoms of regular birth control pills by the same criteria is perfectly valid, in that context. So why exactly are you talking about sexually active women? Women who are raped may or may not be on birth control, or may just want additional protection.

    So, again, give me the circumstances where someone with a legitimate reason to purchase and “oops” pill is going to be a male.

    Think about it, M.

    • The condom breaks. Wife/girlfriend is frantic.
    • Wife/girlfriend is raped.
    • Boy and girl are just plain stupid and get carried away. Oops!

    And maybe, in fact, the guy just wants to be nice and help out. That can happen, although…

    Now, I could see the wife inflicting this on a husband for not using protection in some kind of twisted way, but in reality, it’s in the woman’s best interest (if she doesn’t want the child) to get this pill– she’s the one carrying the baby.

    … got to go. I’ll have to finish this later. M, I’d appreciate it if you’d not respond until I finish the comment. Otherwise things get confusing.

    Okay… continuing…

    That last bit strikes me a damned callous and perhaps misogynistic. Perhaps that is why you have such a hard time connecting ‘rape’ with ‘doesn’t give a damn about the victim’.

    You also take the radical part of the argument–

    Of course I took the radical part of the argument. That is the part you provided. The radical part is your argument. There isn’t any other part. There isn’t any nuanced sane section, at least not in the post to which I responded. It is all shock and awe with hot button words about sex with minors and incest.

    However, in the case of date rape or incest, there is obvious reasons why the man would not want a child produced, and would therefore get the drug for the girl/woman.

    Still trying to make rapists out to be nice guys. M, rapists have had easy access to condoms for a good forty years and yet they are not known for using them. Why, if rapists were so concerned about the victim becoming pregnant, would they not use condoms? The answer is that rapists do not give a damn.

    So, get me that data on usage, sex of the customers that would buy, and the activity that lead up to it before you go talking about what you think the general use of it would be. Since you have no data on percentages…

    That is bloody laughable, M. I saw no statistics in your post. I saw no data. Holding me to different standards than you hold yourself makes you look like… oh, what’s that word… oh yes!… a hypocrit. But I’m sure the ride on that moral hobby horse felt good.

    Actually, in this case, you do legislate who can have a drug.

    Again, you have it backwards, but it is tangential and I am going to drop it.

    Prior to this ruling men did not have access– it was only for women, and only by prescription.

    M, if it was by prescription, of course it would only be available to women. You’d prescribe it to the person who is going to take it. The simple act of making it available without a prescription changes that. But this has very little to do with with your contention that it ought not be sold to men because rapists will use it.

    So, I stand by my statement. No good reason that it has to be available to a man.

    M, so far, all you’ve done is repeat your original assertions about rapists caring enough about the victim to give her birth control. You can stand by the statement, but you haven’t done anything to strenghten it.

    According to my understanding, the hormones that go into all BC involve not just effecting the egg’s release, but also the quality of the uterine wall (the state at which the wall has to be in order to accept the fertilized egg). If this is the case, and you believe that life begins at conception then you are killing a baby.

    There are some very interesting consequences that go along with this position, but that too is tangential.

14. 14 On March 15th, 2007, Stephen Kingston said:

    Where to start?

    You claim that God does not exist, which is your opinion. But you go further. You claim that no one can give any good reasons as to why he does exist.

    I cannot give any good reason why *anything* exists. Why is there something rather than nothing? But I don’t assert that the world and everything within it does not exist.

    If suggest a hasty analogy between belief in God and Winnie the Pooh and Darth Vader. However, no-one over the age of about 5 believes in Winnie the Pooh and Darth Vader. The same is true of analogies with the tooth fairy and santa claus. This fact alone should show that the analogy is flawed. There is a fundamental difference between belief in God and belief in mythical creatures.

    So the evidence of belief itself, amongst intelligent people is evidence for the existence of God, or at least that there are people who believe in God for intelligent reasons. The evidence of many intelligent people *coming* to a belief in God as adults demonstrates that belief in God is fundamentally different from belief in mythical creatures.

    So on to the actual point of your post.

    … Let’s ban alcohol. That is the world’s premier ‘date rape’ drug and has been for centuries. Minors might be violated via its mind numbing powers. How about candy? Lets ban that too. Pedophiles use it to lure children. And cotton candy, and balloons, and dolls… And city parks… those too!
    . . .

    There are good arguments for banning alcohol, because it is a drug that causes more damage in society than any other recreational drug. However, the strongest argument for not doing so is that alcohol can be enjoyed for purely social uses without any of the ill effects. It is, essentially, dual use. Your other examples get increasingly ludicrous, but in each case it is clear that there is a dual use. An adult may quite happily purchase balloons for a variety of purposes, most of them both normal and pleasant.

    The plan B pill has only one use - to prevent pregnancy. The man buying the pill does so for only one reason - to prevent pregnancy in a woman. A woman who, if through a free consensual act now needs this pill, should not find it onerous to get it herself. If she needs it because of rape or somesuch, then she really needs the support that can be provided through approaching a healthcare practitioner, who can also allay her fears and give authorative advice that can deal with fealings of guilt surrounding the event. In the balance of issues, I do not think this unreasonable.

    So what was the point being made on the Minthegap blog? That a pill that was (as I understand it) only made available through prescription could now be made available to anyone over the age of 18 who bought it, and that this was problematic, because in not restricting it to the person who would use the pill, it is possible that someone else might purchase it for an under-age child.

    Now we suppose that there is an age restriction in place for a good reason. Why is it that someone under the age of 18 cannot get this pill themselves? And yet there is an obvious means to circumvent the restriction.

    In the UK the legal age for drinking alcohol is 18, but children as young as 11 or 12 (probably younger) have no difficulty in finding someone to buy the alcohol on their behalf.

    So to me it seems reasonable that such a drug should only be made available to the person who needs it (whether under 18 or over). That would be why there was previously the need for a prescription.

    The problem, as someone states, is that it may be hard to access a doctor at suitably short notice. But the answer to this is simple enough. Dispensing pharmacists are well trained healthcare professionals themselves. I do not see why they could not be asked to only give the medication to the intended recipient. Maybe there is some difference in the US medical system that would make this impractical - but I don’t see it.

    Without such a restriction there is the possibility for abuse. You make much of the fact that rapists do not care enough about their victims to provide such a pill, but it is apparent that your preconceptions about rapists are too narrow. For instance, people who get drunk and force themselves on their girlfriends are still rapists. It does not mean that they will not regret what they have done when they are next sobre. Human psychology is a complex thing, and whilst some rapists are no doubt as you describe them, many are not.

    You also point out that all incest is in the family. I do not see why you did not therefore make the next logical step to realise that a father, uncle or older brother would not want the added complication of a baby in the family born through their incest. Again, they could buy this pill - not because they necessarily care for the victim - although it may well be that they do - but because they care about themselves.

    It only makes sense that “the person interested in Plan-B would be the victim” if and only if the medicine were only dispensed to the person who will be taking it. That appears to be the extent of the point being made. If it is only dispensed (say by a healthcare practitioner) to someone who will then take the medicine then it does indeed make sense that this person is the victim. Otherwise, no such statement stands scrutiny.

    To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over? That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.

    Comment 6 seems to be saying two different things. The statement on Minthegap’s piece is too black and white. If ovulation is prevented then there is no conception, but if implantation is prevented, there *is* conception. We can’t expect people to accept that life begins at conception and prior to implantation uncritically, but neither can you argue that a conception without implantation is not a conception!

    Now to the issues of logic:

    your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well”

    You provide no examples to demonstrate your point. You assert this, and in so doing it is *you* that has poisoned the well. How is the writer supposed to respond to this? If he answers in the same vein he has been using before, you will not listen to or answer his arguments, because you have claimed they are ad hominem. If he tries a different tack, he implicitly agrees that his previous line was fallacious.
    This is why the poisoning the well fallacy is so insidious. It is a fallacy that prevents an answer by the other party. This is your fallacy, not his.

    You then say:

    Argument by analogy is valid and very useful.

    Argument by analogy is an easy way to introduce slippery slope fallacies and such like. It is only useful if the comparable particulars are truly comparable.

    Any good argument can sound stupid if you change the analogy enough. What you end up with is often a straw man argument. You need to be very careful with analogies.

    An argument from analogy, in the absence of anything better, is very weak. And like any straw man argument, it encourages people to attack and defend the analogy rather than the actual issue at hand.

15. 15 On March 16th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Imagine the heavy sigh and the exasperated voice.

    Where to start?

    That section about God is largely tangential to the ongoing discussion. I’ll copy that section to a new post, and you can have a ball.

    First, I want to cover two items you placed last.

    You provide no examples to demonstrate your point. You assert this, and in so doing it is *you* that has poisoned the well.

    M made a comment(s), which I called a ‘tactic’. Chris Bradley noticed the same thing. M then asked why I refered to it as a tactic. I then explained my comment. Now tell me, Stephen, what do you think I was talking about? Could it have been the ‘tactics’ that started the exchange to begin with? Probably so, huh? In other words, the examples you say I did not provide are the things that started the conversation. Pay attention. You are coming into the conversation late. Read it carefully before further comment.

    Argument by analogy is an easy way to introduce slippery slope fallacies and such like. It is only useful if the comparable particulars are truly comparable.

    You are exactly right, but I have introduced nothing in which the comparable particulars are not truly comparable. M, and now you, are asserting– and occasionally attempting to demonstrate– otherwise, but so far you have not done so successfully, in my opinion.

    Now…

    Thank you for the analysis of the arguments for and against banning alcohol. You’ve illustrated my point exactly. Plan-B is, like the other examples, “dual use” as you called it. I realize that you and M disagree here.

    [Still under construction. Please do not reply to this comment until it is completed.]

16. 16 On March 16th, 2007, Stephen Kingston said:

    The section about God is largely tangential to the ongoing discussion

    But not to the post I was answering, where you have placed it right up in the opening paragraphs. If it is tangential, what is it doing there? What was your motive in making those points? Can we say “ad hominem”?

    To the point you say was poisoning the well, you refer me back to the bit you called “a tactic”. That then would be this:

    I’m amused by the mutual admiration society that exists on this board.

    Now how exactly is this “poisoning the well”?

    Notice how this differs from the actual poisoning the well fallacy, when you say “your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well”".

    Now consider - a “poisoning the well” attack is a special type of ad hominem that seeks to prevent an answer, by allowing no “water” to be “drawn” from that particular well. What wells are poisoned if you are accused of being a mutual admiration society? I suppose that any argument of the form “in my opinion X is right” is now coloured by the view. (But then again, rightly so - as you are exhibiting confirmation behaviours when you do this).

    What about your response? You don’t defend that, but you say “your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well”". Thus the implication of dishonesty accrues to his writing. The very confirmation behaviours he has drawn attention to will lead others on this forum to agree with you. Now when he writes in his normal style, you can say “we need not listen to you. You are using a dishonest writing style”.

    Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!

    On argument by analogy, you say:

    but I have introduced nothing in which the comparable particulars are not truly comparable.

    All evidence points to the contrary. Let’s go over them again:

    You compare “war with God” with “war with Winnie the Pooh”. And yet no-one comes to a belief in Winnie the Pooh in their life. They are only ever disabused of such a belief. So not actually comparable.

    You compare Plan B birth control with alcohol, candy floss, balloons and city parks, teachers, parents and other silly things. These are not comparable because whilst Plan B does just one thing (preventing pregnancy in someone who has recently had sexual intercourse), alcohol can be enjoyed sociably without ill effect, candy floss can be eaten or intermeshed with two-year-old hair, balloons can be given to small children to teach them not to let go of things, city parks can be enjoyable places to walk, teachers teach children to think (not always successfully), parents are somewhat important in the process of procreation and nurture and so on.

    The closest you came to a comparable item was the ordinary pill, but even this can be given for reasons other than birth control.

    And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use. One does not enjoy a pleasant night out, sipping liquidated Plan B. One does not give it to children because it tastes nice, or because it makes an enjoyable toy. You cannot walk in a park of plan B trees, nor is it versed in the didactic method. It does not nurture us nor do anything else but prevent pregnancy in a woman who has recently had sexual intercourse.

    It is also only available to those over the age of 18. But as I pointed out, the only way to prevent under-age use (which certainly ought to be detected and dealt with carefully and compassionately) would be to only dispense to the woman who has had the sexual intercourse.

    I know it was meant as a rhetorical device when you say “I realize that you and M disagree here”, but in fact my position may well be subtly different from his (why shouldn’t it). On the other hand it is strongly different from yours. Nevertheless, I don’t think it is very helpful to suggest that someone is crazy because they disagree with you on this issue.

17. 17 On March 16th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Stephen, Stephen, Stephen…

    [Still under construction. Please do not reply to this comment until it is completed.]

    Thanks for cooperating.

    Secondly, since you replied to the comment I asked you, and everyone else, not to, I assume you read it. In that comment I suggested that you read the thread carefully. Had you done so you would have noticed that in the thread– thirteen deep when you posted your first comment– there is little, perhaps no, mention of those first lines in the post– lines which, explicitly, are not the point of the post. In other words, it is “largely tangential to the ongoing discussion”. Please note, I am not dismissing your objections outright. If you wish to discuss it, I’ve already offered to dedicate a post and a thread to that discussion. I think that is fair. I am not going to address the issue any further in this thread. Things become very messy, very fast when arguments start to run in many directions. You ignored my last request. Please do not ignore this one.

    Now consider - a “poisoning the well” attack is a special type of ad hominem that seeks to prevent an answer, by allowing no “water” to be “drawn” from that particular well. What wells are poisoned if you are accused of being a mutual admiration society?

    You do know what “poisoning the well” means. Perhaps you do not know what “mutual admiration society” means? It means, “A group of people who meet for the sole purpose of stroking one another’s ego by extolling the virtues of whatever statements happen to be uttered by the participants without regard to facts, reasons, arguments, evidence or anything else remotely related to rational discourse.” It is entirely disparaging and, usually, is mean to diffuse the strength of any of the opinions coming out of the “mutual admiration society’ by suggesting that said members support one another for no good reasons whatsoever. Very, very, very classic “poisoning the well”.

    Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!

    It is absurd to take the position that pointing out a fallacy is itself the commission of a fallacy.

    And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use.

    Sorry, but it is, but I have to say that it looks like you are using “dual use” somewhat differently than in your previous post, and you are certainly using it in a way that is inconsistent with your own alcohol example.

    Alcohol does one thing. It makes people drunk. Likewise, Plan-B does one thing. It is an emergency contraceptive. But what about dual use? Alcohol can be legitimately purchased and consumed by people neither intending nor committing any harm to anyone else. It can also be used by people intending to do harm to other people. In that sense it is dual use. It is dual use in the sense that the purchase of the product could be for either good or ill. But in both cases, alcohol is purchased for its ability to make people drunk.

    Plan-B might have only one specific action– to prevent pregnancy– but I’ve already given a list of reasons why a man might legitimately purchase this product.

    • The condom breaks. Wife/girlfriend is frantic.
    • Wife/girlfriend is raped.
    • Boy and girl are just plain stupid and get carried away. Oops!

    I have also suggested that a man might, just to be nice, run down to the store to purchase things not strictly needed by men, like tampons, as men do all the time as favors for their wives and girlfriends. That list has thus far been entirely ignored.

    In fact, Plan-B is “dual use” in the same way that alcohol is. It could conceivably– accepting for the moment the “kind-rapist” hypothesis that both you and M are pushing– be purchased for either good or ill. It is not, however, “dual use” if you equivocate on the term like you do when you start talking about “sipping liquidated Plan B”, walking “in a park of plan B trees”, or having it well “versed in the didactic method”. I’ve never had a good conversation with alcohol while walking in a park of alcohol trees. And I am not quite sure it would mean to sip liquidated anything. Or maybe you mean this liquidated? No… no… that doesn’t help…

    Really, to make this– not necessarily every– case against Plan-B you are going to have to show that no man could ever legitimately buy this product. You will fail. It isn’t hard to imagine why I might want to buy a birth control product. I don’t want my girlfriend to get pregnant.

    And failing that you are going to have to demonstrate that the illegitimate uses far outway the legitimate ones. As far as this conversation goes, the illegitimate uses involve rapists who feel compelled to give birth control to their victims.

    There are a couple of problems with this.

    First, even now and without Plan-B, pregnancies from rape or incest are very low, so it is small worry. This is hardly the kind of thing that is going to provide strong motivation to purchase and administer the pill.

    Second, in the case of father/daughter incest, a father could very likely get some kind of birth control for his victim anyway, thus weaking the case against Plan-B.

    Third, any rapist– father, brother, date or stranger– already has access to birth control in the form of condoms. True, rapists have begun to use them more frequently, but it looks like the motivation is HIV not the victim’s health and well-being.

    These last two points, by the way, provide support for my much earlier comments abouts about banning condoms and ordinary birth control pills.

    I know it was meant as a rhetorical device…

    Rhetorical device? No device. It means exactly what it looks like at first glance. You and M both disagree with me on this point. I did not say that you agree with each other.

18. 18 On March 16th, 2007, hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » God is to Winnie the Pooh, like… said:

    [...] I quipped in a recent post that: Well, first, nobody is warring with God. God doesn’t exist, at least no one can give any good reasons as why he exists. Warring with him would therefore be like doing battle with Winnie the Pooh, or Darth Vader. [...]

19. 19 On March 17th, 2007, Stephen Kingston said:

    Stephen, Stephen, Stephen…
    [Still under construction. Please do not reply to this comment until it is completed.]
    Thanks for cooperating.

    Well, of course, I wrote my reply before you had added that comment. When I came to post it, I saw you had added this request. I then waited over 7 hours for something more to appear, and when it did not, and I had to go to bed, I added my comment.

    Now notice how I wrote my reply. I took a copy of your message and wrote my reply offline in a text editor (so that I can use the data integrity tools on my computer), and when I was ready I posted it (or in this case, delayed posting until late at night, knowing that the following day I would not be at my computer until the following evening).

    I commend this method of working to you. Then you will not have to leave half completed and possibly abandoned replies on your forum, where someone might uncharitably suppose that you were attempting to stifle debate by replying to some issues and requesting no further comments.

    I suggested that you read the thread carefully.

    Which, of course, I had. Before writing my first reply, I sketched out individual responses to each of the comments. When I then wrote my reply, I consolidated the points into a single message for reasons of space, ensuring that I did not duplicate points (but replying to individual comments when there was no duplication - thus my reply to comment 6 for instance).

    Had you done so you would have noticed that in the thread– thirteen deep when you posted your first comment– there is little, perhaps no, mention of those first lines in the post

    But, of course, having read the whole thread, I was replying to the whole thread. The points that I have made, and that you have not acknowledged, is that this point was (a) ad hominem and (b) an example of a bad analogy, because despite its deceptiveness, the particulars are clearly not comparable. Both points are important to the way you have proceeded with the discussion.

    You do know what “poisoning the well” means. Perhaps you do not know what “mutual admiration society” means? It means, “A group of people who meet for the sole purpose of stroking one another’s ego by extolling the virtues of whatever statements happen to be uttered by the participants without regard to facts, reasons, arguments, evidence or anything else remotely related to rational discourse.”

    You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”

    This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made. You can keep re-asserting this over and over, but it is clearly *not* the poisoning the well fallacy, and your continued assertion otherwise looks like an attempt at proof by repeated assertion.

    Consider:

    A makes a point against X

    B says “A, I was tempted to take that line… I agree with you”

    A says “B, its pretty silly for X to claim that. It was insulting to the intelligent reader. We have cracked X’s code and he doesn’t know it”

    B says “I agree it is insulting. It is also weird. I didn’t expect that reaction”.

    X then observes that A and B are a mutual admiration society and makes two more points

    What part of X’s observation is (a) untrue and (b) prevents either A or B from adequately answering the further points that X makes?

    You can argue that the term, because it has a negative connotation, is ad hominem. But as we have seen, your opening paragraphs were ad hominem, as was the exchange being complained about. So you can hardly claim the intellectual high ground here.

    “Thus poisoning the well. (Neatly done, btw. I have never seen this achieved before whilst actually accusing the other party of doing the same)!”
    It is absurd to take the position that pointing out a fallacy is itself the commission of a fallacy.

    This is incorrect. It is perfectly possible to point out a fallacy and to introduce such a fallacy yourself. But note:

    a) You did *not* point out a fallacy. You suggested that his writing style bears resemblance to some fallacies. There was no demonstration of the alleged fallacies, merely assertion.

    b) You were incorrect in saying that there was a poisoning the well fallacy.

    c) Your own arguments are frequently ad hominem

    “And this is a point you seem to have missed, because Plan B is not dual use.”
    Sorry, but it is, but I have to say that it looks like you are using “dual use” somewhat differently than in your previous post, and you are certainly using it in a way that is inconsistent with your own alcohol example.

    The alcohol example was yours, not mine.

    Dual use - something that can be put to two different uses. Thus:

    Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment

    Plan B can be take to prevent pregnancy or… ?

    Plan B has only one *use*, despite the motive behind that use.

    Alcohol does one thing. It makes people drunk.

    Without bothering to equivocate over what we mean about alcohol, it remains clear that you are wrong. If its only purpose is to make people drunk, then everyone would drink vodka.

    If you *intended* to equivocate, and you meant particularly CH3CH2OH or one of its chemical variants, then I note that even pure alcohol has multiple uses (you can use it to sterilise things, you can put it in a car, you can throw it at police in a riot etc.)

    Plan-B might have only one specific action– to prevent pregnancy– but I’ve already given a list of reasons why a man might legitimately purchase this product.

    There was never any doubt that a man *could* legitimately purchase it. The point is that there is a *potential* for abuse that can be eliminated if the person who purchases the product is the person who will take it.

    Thus:

    Condom breaks: Wife goes and purchases it.

    Someone is raped: they need the help of a healthcare practitioner, and the medical assurances that this person can give as the pill is administered. (Consider - your wife has been raped, she tells you and the first thing you do - because you have to be quick - is nip out and buy emergency contraception! How callous is that?)

    Boy and girl are just plain stupid? Then the girl purchases the pill. The boyfriend goes with her.

    But if the girl is under age?

    Ahh.. I see a tie in with Minthegap’s title!

    I have also suggested that a man might, just to be nice, run down to the store to purchase things not strictly needed by men, like tampons, as men do all the time as favors for their wives and girlfriends. That list has thus far been entirely ignored.

    Purchase of emergency contraception is not comparable. Tampons are a simple and ongoing sanitary need. Emergency contraception is required as the result of a sexual act, where insufficient precautions have been taken.

    In fact, Plan-B is “dual use” in the same way that alcohol is. It could conceivably– accepting for the moment the “kind-rapist” hypothesis that both you and M are pushing–

    I have given an example where the provision of emergency contraception by a rapist is *not* a kindness, but in the rapists interest (a family member having committed the act). In such cases, the family member is also in a position of power whereby he can insist the pill is taken.

    be purchased for either good or ill. It is not, however, “dual use” if you equivocate on the term

    I did not equivocate. Plan B is not dual use. It has one use. The other examples are all dual use.

    like you do when you start talking about “sipping liquidated Plan B”, walking “in a park of plan B trees”, or having it well “versed in the didactic method”. I’ve never had a good conversation with alcohol while walking in a park of alcohol trees. And I am not quite sure it would mean to sip liquidated anything. Or maybe you mean this liquidated? No… no… that doesn’t help…

    No, I mean the kind of liquidated from which company liquidation is derived. I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). I mean liquidated as found in Thomas Blount’s first edition (1656) of “Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting such hard words as are now used”. I mean liquidate as used in this journal article: “The heat of the ship’s hold being sufficient to partially liquidate its substance” (speaking of rubber).

    Now I understand that certain backward colonials have so doctored the tongue of the English people that it is barely recognisable as the same language, but I presume you must have known what I meant. So why make an issue of this? I can assure you I can find a much rarer vocabulary than this (as I frequently read some fairly antiquated documents).

    Tell you what, if you avoid grammar flames over words such as “liquidate”, “experimental”, “octopodes” and other such terms I am apt to use, and I will try not to get annoyed by the meaning you attach to “momentarily”, “gender” and other such.

    That way we can stay on track rather than getting onto a very tangential discussion of English etymology and usage (fascinating as such a discussion might be).

    Really, to make this– not necessarily every– case against Plan-B you are going to have to show that no man could ever legitimately buy this product.

    Rubbish.

    Should we allow the unregulated sale of plutonium, unless we can show that no-one could ever legitimately buy this product?

    Should we allow unregulated sale of all prescription medicines for the same reason?

    And failing that you are going to have to demonstrate that the illegitimate uses far outway the legitimate ones.

    And therein lies the problem. I am glad you got there in the end. Notice I said:

    “To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?
    That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”

    Stephen.

    P.S., All spelling errors are deliberate so as to give you something to wittily berate me over.

20. 20 On March 17th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Stephen,

    Well, of course, I wrote my reply before you had added that comment.

    As per your own admission, you posted before I’d finished the reply. Again, thanks for cooperating.

    And you follow it by suggesting something malicious.

    I commend this method of working to you.

    Very nice.

    You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”

    This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made.

    And this is very funny. Poisoning the well has nothing to do with preventing an answer. I’m not sure where you got this idea. It does have to do with poisoning any answers that might come from the ‘well’, which is quite effectively done by suggesting that people might be locked into somekind of cabal. That two people agree does not a cabal make. Sorry.

    Secondly, I’m happy that you have access to the OED, but the definition you give is substantially the same as the one I gave, so what is the point?

    Besides, we both agree that the comment was fallacious. We desagree on which fallacy, so again, what is the point?

    The alcohol example was yours, not mine.

    … which you elaborated upon quite extensively to make your point. That this elaboration was the thing to which I refered should have been obvious in context.

    Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment

    Effect? Enjoyment? Please, you are just quibbling. You can’t make this dichotomy stand. Alcohols effect in both cases is drunkenness. The intent can vary of course, but that is my point. The effect of Plan-B is the prevention, hopefully, of pregnancy. The intent can vary, just as with the use of alcohol.

    There was never any doubt that a man *could* legitimately purchase it. The point is that there is a *potential* for abuse that can be eliminated if the person who purchases the product is the person who will take it.

    Then everything you’ve been arguing falls apart. First, the argument made by ‘M’, which you defend, pretty strongly depends upon the idea that men have little legitimate reason to purchase the product– which is odd given that you admit that the majority would likely not be rapists– that is illegitimate purchasers of the product.

    From your first comment on this thread:It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be.

    What then, is the point of defending this position?

    Secondly, we could likewise eliminate potential abuse by banning or greatly restricting the sales of other products too. We could restrict the sale of condoms only to females who need them, and thus eliminate the possibility that a rapist might use one to prevent the pregnancy of his victim or, more likely, protect himself from HIV which means that condoms should actually be more prone to abuse than Plan-B. Plan-B doesn’t protect the rapist from disease. Of course, such a restriction is a little absurd and that is exactly why I chose the example. You know that such restrictions are absurd, yet you argue for the same thing in the case of Plan-B. And spin the hell out of fact to try to make that position look reasonable.

    Condom breaks: Wife goes and purchases it.

    Why shouldn’t I have the option of going to get it? Oh… wait, its the woman’s problem isn’t it?

    Someone is raped…

    Someone who is raped does not always behave rationally, does not always want the crime reported, does not always want to go to the hospital…

    You are not dealing with the real world with your examples. Certainly, these cases could occur, but these are not the only cases that might occur.

    Purchase of emergency contraception is not comparable. Tampons are a simple and ongoing sanitary need. Emergency contraception is required as the result of a sexual act, where insufficient precautions have been taken.

    Did you miss the point? The point was that the male involved might just want to be nice. Is that really so hard to imagine? It doesn’t matter what product he goes to purchase. Fill in anything you want.

    I did notice what you said.

    “To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?

    That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”

    You’ve gone a long way toward undercutting your own position. It is unlikely that rapists would use the pill, so why exactly are you going to such lengths to defend an argument that depends fairly heavily upon the idea that this pill will be used by rapists?

    By the way…

    I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

    Ah… you must have looked long and hard for that. Something like a dozen dictionaries and many more web sites give nothing of the sort. You made a poor choice of words. Sounds like ‘liquid’, must mean ‘liquify’. Nope. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, using a meaning from the 1600s certainly qualifies as making a bad choice of words. It was funny. Still is. I can have fun can’t I? We both know its pretty trivial.

21. 21 On March 18th, 2007, Stephen Kingston said:

    And you follow it by suggesting something malicious.
    “I commend this method of working to you.”

    You are far too quick to impute motive. I commend the practice to you, because it is a better way to write a reply.

    ‘You do not reference this quotation, and I cannot match it to anything. The OED has: “a coterie of people who flatter one another and promote each other’s reputations.”’

    ‘This is not “poisoning the well”, because whilst it *is* ad hominem, it does not prevent an answer to the points being made.’
    And this is very funny. Poisoning the well has nothing to do with preventing an answer. I’m not sure where you got this idea.

    That would be Cardinal John Newman, who coined the term. You apparently were unaware that he did so in response to an attack by Charles Kingsley, where Kingsley wrote:

    “Mr. Kingsley writes, ‘as much as any honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write. How can I tell that I shall not be dupe of some cunning equivocation, of one of the three kinds laid down as permissible by the Blessed Alfonso da Liguori and his pupils, even when confirmed by an oath, because “then we do not deceive our neighbour, but allow him to deceive himself? … It is admissible, therefore, to use words and sentences which have a double signification and leave the hapless hearer to take which of them he may choose.” What proof have I, then, that by “Mean it? I never said it!” Dr. Newman does not signify, “I did not say it, but I did mean it”?”
    Newman rightly objected that if Kingsley had so sowed doubt into every word that he (Newman) could make in response, then there was really nothing that he could do to answer Kingsley, for every word would be taken as mere sophistry. Thus unable to respond, it was as though Kingsley had poisoned the wells, such that no water could be drawn.

    So there you are. Now you know what the term actually means, perhaps you can stop this silliness and accept that Minthegap introduced no such fallacy, whereas *you* did.

    Secondly, I’m happy that you have access to the OED, but the definition you give is substantially the same as the one I gave, so what is the point?

    Well of course I have access to it. It is the definitive dictionary of the English language!

    There is substantial difference in the definition, only you are too invested in the argument to see it.

    Besides, we both agree that the comment was fallacious. We desagree on which fallacy, so again, what is the point?

    The point is that you had already opened with an ad hominem line, and it was *you* who poisoned the wells.

    “Alcohol can be drunk for effect or drunk for enjoyment”
    Effect? Enjoyment? Please, you are just quibbling.

    Apparently not. It may be that you never drink for enjoyment without drinking for any noticeable effect. There are people who do so. Drunkenness is not the inevitable result of partaking of alcohol.

    Secondly, we could likewise eliminate potential abuse by banning or greatly restricting the sales of other products too. We could restrict the sale of condoms only to females who need them,

    A fair point. However, there is a use for female contraception other than as contraception. Barrier contraception could not be controlled in the same manner as drugs can be controlled. Would the benefits of such control outweigh the loss?

    Ultimately though, the only major difference here is that Plan B is *emergency* contraception, rather than the “plan A” normal contraception as used by people worldwide. The rationale for a more stringent regime lies in the fact that in normal and responsible use, the need for emergency contraception should be very low.

    Moreover, the chances of it being used in illegitimate uses (e.g. for inappropriate relations with minors) are increased because it can be used by someone in a position of power (who are likely to take their chances when they arise) to reduce the risks to them from the encounter.

    Someone who is raped does not always behave rationally, does not always want the crime reported, does not always want to go to the hospital…
    You are not dealing with the real world with your examples.

    Neither are you. This person must have told *someone* of the attack if they are not going to get the emergency contraception themselves. So they can either get it themselves with no questions asked, or else tell someone of the attack. If they do the latter, and if there is a restriction on availability of the pill, then it is up to the other person to involve a healthcare practitioner - which in fact is ultimately more in her interests then just nipping out and returning with the drugs.

    Did you miss the point? The point was that the male involved might just want to be nice. Is that really so hard to imagine? It doesn’t matter what product he goes to purchase. Fill in anything you want.

    I want to be nice to my wife. But I don’t see any benefit to going to a doctor’s appointment on her behalf. I can be nice with a bunch of flowers, or a meal out.

    I did notice what you said.

    “To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?
    That is a judgement call - but not nearly as black and white as you portray it.”
    You’ve gone a long way toward undercutting your own position.

    Except that was up front in my first post, so it *is* my position! You perhaps just failed to spot it.

    By the way…

    I mean the liquidated as “to liquefy, melt” as found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

    Ah… you must have looked long and hard for that.

    Not really. It was right there, under the entry for “liquidate”, as I expected. The OED is the standard dictionary of English. This is one of the meanings of liquidate. You were ignorant of this, now you are not.

    I notice that the American Heritage Dictionary does not list this definition, but then again, the American Heritage dictionary lists the plurals of “ocotopus” as “octopuses” and “octopi”. With such grammatical bungling, I am not really surprised at anything else it cares to say.

    (Octopuses is, of course, fine. Octopodes is pedantic but also fine, even though it is not listed. Octopi is simply wrong, as Octopus is not a second declension latin noun).

    Something like a dozen dictionaries and many more web sites give nothing of the sort.

    Are these *American* dictionaries? As for websites, actually you are wrong.
    Google turned these up straight away:

    “Must all of them and their families be physically abolished? Of course not? They must be ‘liquidated’ or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian masses.

    Walter Duranty”

    “Environment contamination with petroleum products is considered to be a crisis. Ground water that is the main source of drinking water supply is the most vulnerable. Lead the liquidation results of petrochemical contamination of underground waters on storage territory fuel of lubrication materials air-port “Borispol”.”

    “Wide range alloys have a tendency to separate into their basic components if heated too slowly (liquidation).”

    I could go on, but you get the point. My usage is by no means unknown.

    Funnily enough, my daughters are sitting here watching the Wizard of Oz, and after Dorothy throws the bucket of water on the wicked witch that melts her away, the tinman says:

    “Oh - you liquidated her, eh? Very resourceful! Dorothy”

    So even Americans might use the word in this manner (or at least, they might have in 1938).

    You made a poor choice of words. Sounds like ‘liquid’, must mean ‘liquify’.

    No, you were mistaken because of your ignorance of the meaning of the word. Not that I care. We cannot all have very large vocabularies, and if we start picking on people who we think have misused a word, we start sounding like primary school teachers.

    Nope. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, using a meaning from the 1600s certainly qualifies as making a bad choice of words.

    What, a word like “benefit” or “qualify” perhaps?

    Let me make it clear once more. The usage of “liquidate” to mean melt or turn to a liquid is attested since the 17th century, and is a listed meaning of the word today in the Oxford English Dictionary. It may still take that meaning, despite its usage to speak of liquified assets and the like, just as “hike” still means a walk in the hills despite the vulgar usage these days to describe a rise such as a rise in interest rates as a hike.

    Oh, and vulgar can still mean “of the mob” even though people often use it to mean something unmentionable or taboo… and taboo can still mean… oh, you get the point I am sure.

    It was funny. Still is. I can have fun can’t I? We both know its pretty trivial.

    The aside is certainly amusing, even though you were wrong to make an issue of it.

    Now, the Wizard of Oz has finished, so it’s time to do something important - like playing with my girls.

22. 22 On March 18th, 2007, themaiden said:

    Stephen,

    You do like to be distracting don’t you? Chris, in the other thread, hit that on the nose.

    I don’t care who coined the term “poisoning the well” because it doesn’t matter who coined the term. Any standard informal logic reference will tell you the same thing I’ve already told you. I quoted one such reference to you. Here is another.

    To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way.

    Poisoning the Well

    I also do not care what a word meant in the 1700s, unless reading something from the period.

    Apparently not. It may be that you never drink for enjoyment without drinking for any noticeable effect. There are people who do so. Drunkenness is not the inevitable result of partaking of alcohol.

    You are reaching so far with this that it is becoming comical. Yes, one does not have to get utterly wasted when one drinks but arguing that intoxication, in some degree, is not the reason people brew alcoholic beverages and not the people drink alcoholic beverages isn’t sensible.

    Barrier contraception could not be controlled in the same manner as drugs can be controlled.

    Why not? Barrier condoms could be restricted in exactly the same way that it has been suggested Plan-B be restricted. Condoms could be sold only to the woman who was to use them. Sure, she lie to the doctor of pharmacist and then give them away. She could do the same with Plan-B. There is no substantial difference.

    Ultimately though, the only major difference here is that Plan B is *emergency* contraception, rather than the “plan A” normal contraception as used by people worldwide. The rationale for a more stringent regime lies in the fact that in normal and responsible use, the need for emergency contraception should be very low.

    Yes, that Plan-B is an emergency contraception is a difference, but why is that relevant? And so what if the need is low, on paper anyway? Additionally, it is the emergency contraceptives that one would need quickly, not the planned contraceptives. Yet, restricting access slows down access. Something is not adding up.

    This person must have told *someone* of the attack if they are not going to get the emergency contraception themselves.

    Obviously.

    … then it is up to the other person to involve a healthcare practitioner - which in fact is ultimately more in her interests then just nipping out and returning with the drugs.

    Which, if the victim does not want to involve doctors and almost certainly the police, is also trampling on that victim’s rights. I’m sure it would be in the victim’s best interest to get medical attention, but that is the victim’s call– not mine, and not yours, at least in the case of adult victims.

    I want to be nice to my wife. But I don’t see any benefit to going to a doctor’s appointment on her behalf. I can be nice with a bunch of flowers, or a meal out.

    You’ve changed the subject. I never said anything about going to a doctor’s appointment. That would serve no purpose. Going to the pharmacy to get to get medication is a different thing.

    Except that was up front in my first post, so it *is* my position! You perhaps just failed to spot it.

    Then what in the hell are you doing?

    If in fact you believe…

    To what extent are these fears rightly grounded? That is very hard to say. It is unlikely that the majority of men buying this pill would be rapists, but it is possible that some would be. Is the concern sufficient to make a fuss over?

    … then what are you doing here, arguing for all intents and purposes, the opposite? Or perhaps I should rephrase that to, “Making arguments that very much suggest a very different position?”

    1. ‘M’ suggested that we ought to regulate this product because men will use it in the commission of rape.
    2. You admit that few men will actually do so.

    So what are you doing here?

    I have to assume, since you have chosen to argue this topic, that you think that there is sufficient concern to make a fuss over it, but that, curiously, is not something you’ve argued. You’ve focused on the ‘dual use’ idea, on the idea that there is something significantly different about Plan-B compared with alcohol or other potentially abusable items, yet such a stance is pointless if you already admit that not many men will use the drug maliciously. In fact, in making that admission, you are conceding that the drug is dual use in a significant way– most men will by it for non-criminal purposes. You’ve contradicted yourself again.

    ‘Criminal purposes’ vs. ‘non-criminal’ purposes, by the way, is what matters. I’ve been trying to make that point all through the discussion of ‘dual use’ products. It matters very little whether Plan-B can be enjoyed while walking through a forest of ‘liquidated’ alcohol or whether alcohol can be consumed in small enough quantities that its effects aren’t felt.

23. 23 On March 19th, 2007, MInTheGap said:

    It is the government’s obligation to protect its constituents. That being the case, Stephen’s point is to the point… Is the possible harm caused worth the access that the FDA has granted.

    Now, start with the entire population. You could divide it up into those that use some kind of birth control and those that will not. Of those that do not (or use a method that could possibly result in the need for emergency contraception) the numbers are far fewer than those that do (I would assume statistically and will argue in a consensus fashion unless someone chooses to quibble.)

    So, we are left with a small population made up of people who are not on the pill, the patch, or practicing with a barrier method. Who is in this population? The under aged, the QuiverFull, Catholic and otherwise religious who have a conviction about this, and the abstinent. Clearly, those that are raped but are on the pill have little need for emergency contraception. And yes, the numbers suggest more men are picking up condoms to commit rape because of fear of disease, but we’re not even talking about them.

    No, the question is a numbers question. Of those that are left, the religious probably would not be purchasing emergency contraception because of their convictions against the pill. Those with a barrier method that fails, the abstinent, and the underage would also be perceived customers.

    So, now that we’ve looked at the customer base (and I’ll be more than happy to entertain other entrants) of these groups does it make good sense to protect those that would take advantage of one of the three main groups?

    Tangentially, it is part of the Pro-Choice practice in the U.S. that since they derive their money from abortions that questions will not get asked in regards to underage sex, and it is not in their interest to protect the underage statistically. It is also not in the interest of the makers of Plan B to not have someone in the position that they have to stop a pregnancy from occurring (regardless whether a child was created at fertilization or not). Therefore, we cannot trust these people to be overly concerned about proper usage.

    And so we’re back to Stephen’s question and the point of my post. Should we allow a drug which could be used to cover up sexual relations to be obtained so easily or should it be harder than buying Claritan D? Since it has a single use (unlike alcohol, which, I may add, is being consumed in small portions as treatments for the heart as prescribed by some doctors that do not advocate drunkenness because of the effect on the liver) it deserves at least the pharmacist counseling the woman rather than a man popping out to pick up some Plan B.

    Of course, the next argument will be, “some woman can go out and buy it for a man to commit an act,” and I guess that’s why Stephen said it should be for the woman with the pregnancy. Is the life and well being of an under-aged girl not enough to recommend a little more caution on the part of the government? If not one, how many lives would have to be effected– or better question, what would the percentage of Plan B customers who would purchase this over the counter have to be under-aged children before you would stand with me and say that it was wrong to allow a man to pick this up instead of the person that needs it? Same question– what percentage of male purchasers of the product over the counter? Because, looking at the populations and statistics, I don’t know that there will be that many men buying the drug either way.

24. 24 On March 19th, 2007, Stephen Kingston said:

    I don’t care who coined the term “poisoning the well” because it doesn’t matter who coined the term. Any standard informal logic reference will tell you the same thing I’ve already told you. I quoted one such reference to you. Here is another.
    To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way.
    Poisoning the Well

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

    Nicely quoted btw. I like the way that you select a page that gives exactly the history and derivation of the term that I gave you, which you ignore so as to quote just the paragraph that *seems* to bolster your point.

    I note that the page repeats the myth that the term is ultimately derived from the alleged poisoning of wells in medieval Europe, but as mohammed writes a sura that tells his followers not to poison the wells of their enemies, I think we can only note that the ultimate derivation of the term comes from unpleasant practices in warfare. But this page quotes Newman’s disputation with Kingsley and adds these examples (probably taken from the quoted text books):

    1. “Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water.” (Abusive)
    2. “My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business.” (Circumstantial)
    In (1) the person is prevented from making an answer, because in making his answer he agrees he is an ignoramus. (This is only loosely a poisoning the well fallacy, but as informal fallacies are often rather loosely defined, that is not a problem). In (2) we see the classic form of the fallacy, whereby the dentist is prevented from making a reply by the implication of the preceding remark. This is akin to the “only women may speak about abortion” argument one hears ofetn (also mentioned on this page), and it is also akin to Kingsley’s original remarks about Newman’s slippery sophistry.
    So once again, on your evidence, it was you who poisoned the well: ‘your writing, like it or not, bears striking resemblances to some dishonest debate tactics like “poisoning the well” and “ad hominem“’. That *is* poisoning the well. It is saying that the writer is writing in a manner that is dishonest (*your* word), and if it is dishonest, you can ignore it.
    You are well and truly hoisted on your own petard.

    I also do not care what a word meant in the 1700s, unless reading something from the period.

    1700s? Cardinal Newman was very much a 19th century man. I believe he coined this term in 1864.

    You are reaching so far