Iowa Caucus running thread

[YankeeFan]

They used the baby to advance their political agenda. Which is fine. Anecdotes are powerful, and the cause is righteous. But when you open up a discussion, you don't get to demand that it be one-sided.

Which is why I said you can question his decision to bring it up at all. Why did he tell the story? Was it cynical?

How they actually grieved? You question that? No.

 

[YankeeFan]

I can't get on board with the idea that there are no lines at all when it comes to how someone deals with grief.

What if someone propped up Grandma in the den, Jeremy Bentham-style? No discussion?

I suppose you may be right.

But, based on this thread, the WaPo article, and other sources, it's quite clear that what the Santorums did is not at all out of the ordinary.

Maybe some of the keyboard cowboys should have done a little bit of research on the subject before they chose to use such an issue to mock someone they disagree with politically.

 

[Dick Whitman]

They used the baby to advance their political agenda. Which is fine. Anecdotes are powerful, and the cause is righteous. But when you open up a discussion, you don't get to demand that it be one-sided.

Which is why I said you can question his decision to bring it up at all. Why did he tell the story? Was it cynical?

How they actually grieved? You question that? No.

And that's probably how I would handle it.

But I'm open to the notion of a hypothetical context in which their handling of it is a matter of discussion. After all, for one thing, there were other children involved.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I can't get on board with the idea that there are no lines at all when it comes to how someone deals with grief.

What if someone propped up Grandma in the den, Jeremy Bentham-style? No discussion?

I suppose you may be right.

But, based on this thread, the WaPo article, and other sources, it's quite clear that what the Santorums did is not at all out of the ordinary.

You're right. And we know that because there was a discussion. I'm quite a fan of the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Boom_70]

The bounds of decency say that this matter is private.

The Santorums did not think so.

deck it seems like you would like it to be but Santorum does not seem to be making his dead child the centerpiece of his campaign.

I don't know how the topic was brought up. Was it in a book? I honestly don't know.

But, Al Gore talked about his sisters death. John Edwards talked about the death of his child. George W. Bush talked about when his young sister died as a child.

Now, maybe you discuss whether or not they used these stories in a cynical way. (Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco...I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoped it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.)

But, I wouldn't mock how these chose to deal with their grief.

That's what was over the line.

They used the baby to advance their political agenda. Which is fine. Anecdotes are powerful, and the cause is righteous. But when you open up a discussion, you don't get to demand that it be one-sided.

Would you feel better about if The Santorums told a story of aborting baby because they knew it was not going to make it?

 

[Dick Whitman]

The bounds of decency say that this matter is private.

The Santorums did not think so.

deck it seems like you would like it to be but Santorum does not seem to be making his dead child the centerpiece of his campaign.

I don't know how the topic was brought up. Was it in a book? I honestly don't know.

But, Al Gore talked about his sisters death. John Edwards talked about the death of his child. George W. Bush talked about when his young sister died as a child.

Now, maybe you discuss whether or not they used these stories in a cynical way. (Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco...I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoped it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.)

But, I wouldn't mock how these chose to deal with their grief.

That's what was over the line.

They used the baby to advance their political agenda. Which is fine. Anecdotes are powerful, and the cause is righteous. But when you open up a discussion, you don't get to demand that it be one-sided.

Would you feel better about if The Santorums told a story of aborting baby because they knew it was not going to make it?

If the Santorums told a story of aborting the baby because they knew it was not going to make it, then that decision would be fair game for debate.

I'm not making a value decision about their decision. For the sake of this argument being constructive, I think neutrality is demanded there.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I don't like all the cries for violence we see here when someone gets arrested for a vicious crime. I don't root for criminals to get ass raped in the shower.

But, I don't think MC was out of bounds, or speaking metaphorically.

If I had been through what he (or the Santorums) had been through, and someone chose to mock me to my face, they'd be getting a throat punch.

Might not be the proper, or "adult" response. Still wouldn't fault someone for doing it either.

He didn't say that he would "curb stomp" or "throat punch" someone who mocked him.

He said he would "curb stomp" or "throat punch" anybody who thought it was "open to discussion."

Every society and religion has their own rituals for dealing with death. How did those develop but for open discussions of how to handle death?

The only person it would be "open for discussion" for would've been my wife. If people other than my wife would've chimed in, I would've done what I do as a reactionary, impulsive asshole. Believe that or not. I don't care.

You can have discussions about death, or abortion, or whatever, while still respecting someone's traumatic experience. And, you can at least not tear down someone else's views because those views were shaped by a traumatic experience that you can't fathom.

I'm just not on board with this entire philosophy. If someone wants a murderer to get the death penalty, for example, I think that is wrong. That the murderer killed that person's child/spouse/parent/sibling would not give the person affected a free pass in the debate.

And, again, this is all apples to oranges. You didn't write a book about it. The Santorums began this discussion. They did not have it thrust upon them.

 

[Dick Whitman]

They used the baby to advance their political agenda. Which is fine. Anecdotes are powerful, and the cause is righteous. But when you open up a discussion, you don't get to demand that it be one-sided.

Which is why I said you can question his decision to bring it up at all. Why did he tell the story? Was it cynical?

How they actually grieved? You question that? No.

And that's probably how I would handle it.

But I'm open to the notion of a hypothetical context in which their handling of it is a matter of discussion. After all, for one thing, there were other children involved.

My sisters-in-law let slip that my nephews and nieces could expect a cousin soon, even though I explicitly told her not to. Letting them see and/or hold their cousin would've been much easier than telling each of them to their face that their cousin was dead.

Which I did.

I am not arguing that what the Santorums did was wrong. I have never said that. I am only advocating someone's right to make that argument, which I don't necessarily agree with.

 

[Iron_chet]

Marketplace of ideas is bs in this context. Not everything is up for discussion as an abstract. I think you know that but continue to want to talk about this.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Marketplace of ideas is bs in this context. Not everything is up for discussion as an abstract. I think you know that but continue to want to talk about this.

No, I don't know that.

There are few taboos in my world. I also don't like euphemisms.

 

[LongTimeListener]

The Santorums didn't put themselves into this debate. They wrote about a terrible situation and a response that was well understood by people in that line of work or who have had similar experiences. It was not a stance or a controversial opinion. It was an anecdote and one that fits well within anecdotes of similar situations. And the situation is far from the abortion debate by an unfathomable degree.

The only reason it is an issue is the stupidity of Alan Colmes (undrstandable) and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (far more disappointing).

 

[Dick Whitman]

The Santorums didn't put themselves into this debate. They wrote about a terrible situation and a response that was well understood by people in that line of work or who have had similar experiences. It was not a stance or a controversial opinion. It was an anecdote and one that fits well within anecdotes of similar situations. And the situation is far from the abortion debate by an unfathomable degree.

This just isn't true. The anecdote was used to advance the pro-life agenda. At the margins? Sure. But make no mistake, that was what it was used for.