User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 67

  1. #31
    Junior Member oxyjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't believe this is any less newsworthy than most of the other stories news outlets cover. I think it's generally a good idea for people to be exposed to issues like these, where there's a lot of gray area.


    Did you not read the thread? I think it's obvious why people are upset about it.

    Are people not allowed to comment just because she was fired? Are people no longer allowed to complain about Clinton or Bush because neither are president anymore?


    You sound offended.
    I'm apparently not getting my point across well. What I'm getting angry about is that the lines between objective news reporting (where people report on what is happening) and news that feels manufactured (where groups like this in the video have made this their lifes' work for over 6 years and receive financial backings from politicians and DC PR firms).

    Take lowtech's example. What if there was some hidden footage of guns being sold illegally at gun shows....then you find out that they go all over gun shows in the USA asking sellers to do something illegal.....and this group receives money from DNC-related groups....and shortly thereafter, someone wants to introduce new gun-control laws. How convenient.

    I'm cynical about most media these days.

  2. #32
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Wow, this video really complicates the debate.

    See I've been going around trying to convince people that "Pimpin' ain't easy." But I have a friend who's been going around saying, "Man, pimpin's easy!" This video is going to help his side.

    Now what I have to do is figure out a way to totally marginalize what happened. I mean yeah it's totally tragic what happens to young girls...and blah, blah, blah...I'm expected to say that stuff. But the really important thing is that my side might lose! What's more important, winning a debate or addressing the tragedy of underage sex trafficking? I think it's pretty obvious.

    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #33
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    You won't see it on the news because it's not news. This is basically Lila Rose's job, setting up these videos. Here is the one from last year depicting a worker who didn't report a statutory rape case. The article is worthwhile; it goes into the quandry between putting the woman's health (and needed procedures) first, versus valid reporting of crimes which may put the patient at risk (or jeopardize or health care). Sticky wicket.

    Pertaining to the current video, the employee shown is fired so the appropriate recourse was taken. What's all this handwringing about? I don't get it.

    The people who make these videos are lucky. Give me a six figure grant, a hidden camera, and enough Burger Kings and I can show you how a simple fast food joint is actually interested in SELLING DRUGS. TO YOUR KIDS.
    Why fixate on who makes these videos and what their agenda might be? That isn't even the point... What is captured "is what it is". Either it appalls you, or it doesn't.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Wow, this video really complicates the debate.

    See I've been going around trying to convince people that "Pimpin' ain't easy." But I have a friend who's been going around saying, "Man, pimpin's easy!" This video is going to help his side.

    Now what I have to do is figure out a way to totally marginalize what happened. I mean yeah it's totally tragic what happens to young girls...and blah, blah, blah...I'm expected to say that stuff. But the really important thing is that my side might lose! What's more important, winning a debate or addressing the tragedy of underage sex trafficking? I think it's pretty obvious.

    I don't think anyone would argue that underage sex trafficking isn't a tragedy. That would be a pretty uninteresting thread.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #35
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    There are several points I would like to make here.

    1) Her behaviour was wildly unethical and unprofessional, and I'm not sure why some people are having such difficulty seeing that. She was in full possession of all necessary information about the situation (that there were underage children, whose vulnerability was only increased by the fact that some were clearly immigrants and had a poor command of English) who there were good reasons to suppose were working as prostitutes under the control of these adults, and therefore being criminally exploited by them. Nothing to debate or question here, she was as well aware of the seriousness of the situation she was dealing with as what her responsibilities were.

    What makes her behaviour unethical is NOT simply that she chose to preserve client confidentiality or "turned a blind eye" so that they got the treatment they required (which would be a whole other discussion if it were). It is that she was aware of the ethical, professional, and presumably legal duty of herself and others in the organisation to report crimes of this nature when there was clear evidence of their comission, made clear to the criminals that they had this responsibility; and then provided them with detailed advice on how to make sure that their criteria for reporting the crime were not met. This was to be done, she explained, either by withholding or distorting certain specific information that placed upon them an absolute duty to report, or avoiding those within the organisation whose principles, we may presume, were less malleable than her own. Ethically, this course of action has nothing to do with taking reasonable steps to ensure that aid reaches the vulnerable, and everything to do with abetting their exploiters in crimes against them. This even leaves aside whether she was in fact expecting or requesting a bribe for services rendered, which is to me an open question at this point.

    2) She is clearly a bad apple, who behaved unprofessionally and broke her organisation's own policies on how to deal with situations of this nature, in addition to generating a lot of bad publicity. We can infer this rather clearly from the promptness of her sacking, the statement made by the organisation that this was unacceptable conduct, and the fact that none of the other offices (I think there were 12 in total) that were targetted by the same sting operation behaved in this way, and in fact reported it. There may well be more like her, but I don't think the problem can be claimed to be one of organisational policy without compelling evidence that it is (current evidence appears to the contrary), or widespread enough to constitute an endemic problem unless such conduct is shown to be repeated by a significant proportion of staff. One person engaging in unethical and unprofessional behaviour is too many, but that's beside the point if criticisms are to be directed not at the individual, but the organisation which employs her.

    It is therefore not legitimate (at this stage anyway) to say that the organisation, Planned Parenthood, is following a policy, either open or implicit, of covering up sex trafficking, though it is perfectly correct to go even further in the case of one particular employee, and say that she was caught on camera appearing to seek complicity in abetting this crime.

    3) With regard to the legitimacy or otherwise of her conduct, it is only important that she believed that the situation was as it appeared to be, and acted as she did based upon her perceptions. The fact that it was a sting operation is irrelevant unless there are compelling reasons to think that she was manipulated or coerced into doing something she would not normally have done (which does not seem to be the situation here) and even then, she still would still bear the primary responsibility for her conduct stemming from it, both as a moral actor, and under the law (if it came down to that).

    4) The affiliations and opinions of the group that set her up and filmed her are even more irrelevant when it is the ethical content of HER actions that are under debate - unless there is some reason to believe that her actions themselves were misrepresented or taken out of context to the extent that the whole significance of the encounter was distorted. The latter possibility doesn't appear at all plausible given that the long uninterrupted shots of her speaking precluded much in the way of "creative editing" to make it appear that she was saying something else.

    5) Given my second point, what the video reveals about this woman's conduct is not at this stage sufficient evidence on which to found any kind of general claim about the ethical practices of the organisations that provide abortion, including her own, though there may be an argument for making such a claim if and when such behaviour is shown to be widespread. It is therefore as misguided to claim that her behaviour is representative of the depravity of abortionists or her organisation in general, as it is to insist that it is somehow morally defensible or not worthy of criticism at the level of personal responsibility where she has been found very wanting.

    But I do find it amusing to watch people playing marathon matches of ad homineum tennis over issues like this where there are views on either side so deeply entrenched that rational consideration of the facts that are known is not even a possibility for many - so I won't mind if people decide to keep it up either. I just felt bored enough that I went to the trouble of explaining it all, so there are no excuses any more.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  6. #36
    Junior Member oxyjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Agreed on all counts. Don't think your list refutes anything I was saying. I merely put the emphasis on point #2, which basically amounts to "A certain percentage of people will act in corrupt ways, and if you seek out enough PP's, you will eventually find one of them there."

    I subjectively disagree that that in itself is newsworthy, which people can rightfully argue against. Like I said, the bigger issue that I have is with media and in cases like this where isolated anecdotes supercede actual data when it comes to making decisions about real things that effect people's lives (such as continuing PP's funding for family planning, etc).

  7. #37
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    oxyjen can just speak for me from now on.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  8. #38
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    So you two would have been in support of less media coverage of the George Tiller murder?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #39
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Well Beefeater, there's one big difference between that and this: George Tiller was actually murdered, it was a real crime that was really committed. These guys were dressing up as pimps and hos and taping themselves attempting to hoodwink PP workers until they found one who bought it. That would be roughly analogous to someone going to pro-life events and talking about murdering abortion doctors until they found somebody who wanted to join them. And no, I don't believe that would be newsworthy. It would be duplicitous.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  10. #40
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Sorry, for some reason I thought this was the philadelphia doctor thread.

    Frankly though I don't really care about PP being treated fairly by the media or really anyone for that matter.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Top Planned Parenthood doctor talks of selling fetal organs on black market
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 08-09-2015, 03:27 PM
  2. Spirit caught on camera
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 01:04 AM
  3. Pat Tillman Murdered, Crime Covered Up?
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-28-2007, 02:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO