Hacker News Reader

Comment by kilo_bravo_3 | Hacker News Reader

>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide

This is exactly why the policy is needed.

If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated.

That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.

They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling.

And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are, people shouting about "infanticide" think that women are rushing to the doctor late in their third trimester to abort healthy babies for no good reason.

View on HN

> That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

> People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.

OK, but the problem here is that Ralph Northam, in the video, does endorse infanticide. There is nothing untrue about that analysis. Sure, there may be nothing wrong with that from my or your point of view, but you are tacking on your own narrative to the video all the same. Because you and I don't care about the mother, either, no matter what you may say to the contrary.

That viral video clip is just the VA governor saying some stuff during an interview on a radio program. You and the OP both attached your own critical analysis to that video, and that's great. Platforms which actively discourage this have alterior motives beyond sharing, beyond the truth, and beyond kindness.

You know who cares the least about the mother, out of all of us? Twitter.

> There is nothing untrue about that analysis.

I disagree. "Man endorses infanticide under x conditions" is the truth, and "Man endorses infanticide" isn't. Half of the truth isn't the truth.

This is ridiculous, no statement exists outside of context.

> "If you saw someone about to murder a child, would you punch them to stop it?"

> "Yes I'd punch that person"

> This just in: AndrewUnmuted advocating violent assault and battery.

We would never stand for a journalist making that kind of report, why?

Because it's a contextomy of the worst kind that totally twists what was said, and is tantamount to a lie even if "technically" it's true.

Why should Twitter encourage the spread of that lie?

I get and agree with the premise, but wouldn't someone punching a murderer to be fall under Defense of Another technically and not assault and battery? I think in that case saying someone was advocating assault and battery would be technically and practically untrue.

This is great proof of the point:

- You would still technically be committing the legal definition of those crimes, you just have a valid defense, under the rights afforded by defense of others

- You could aways weasel out by saying you're referring to the physical acts, not the legal definitions of those terms

Once you start arbitrarily shedding context, it becomes easier and easier to flat out lie, using the "truth", then weasel your way out once held to task for it.

Because it gives twitter, not you or I, the sole power of deciding what is a lie and not. Its a power that can be used benevolently, but strongly begs human nature to use it in a corrupt way.

Twitter already has sole power of deciding what exists on their platform... there's no freedom of speech.

They don't need the excuse or the train of action:

we don't like that => but it's true => label as lie => removed as lie.

They're allowed to go:

we don't like that => removed.

Legally, sure. Morally? Possibly not. I'm still very uncomfortable with companies (and governments) having so much power over what people see. This 'Twitter decides the truth' is 1984-bound.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Their ability to remove a post has nothing to do with morality.

Morally they have no obligation to support hate speech and that alone already excludes them from supporting free speech.

>That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

But we can all play that game by picking very selective definitions despite knowing that is not what the other person means.

>They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.

How do you know the intentions of the people making such statements? Is this any better than those who make similar assumptions about those who fight for pro-choice positions?

>They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling.

Also known as engaging voters to increase voter turn out. A valuable strategy to increase voter participation when my team does it, a despicable tactic to push partisan laws when the other team does it.

>And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are

And now you are labeling them as amoral and hinting at possibly being immoral? This goes pretty well beyond engaging in honest discourse, no?

> How do you know the intentions of the people making such statements? Is this any better than those who make similar assumptions about those who fight for pro-choice positions?

Because there's a historically consistent set of beliefs that goes along with being pro-life that includes de-funding medicare, public health, and SNAP thus letting new and expectant mothers fend for themselves.

Edit: There's a reason the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world[1].

[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-...

There are more than one. Some do believe in that, some don't. One thing to consider is that when it comes to abortions, the majority support banning some forms of abortion and the majority support legalizing some forms of abortion, with late term abortions being more in the ban category (and lots of fun with all the sorts of exceptions people want to add). This shows that the stereotypical pro-choice and pro-life views are both in the minority and do not describe the majority.

Yes, some people are against abortion and many programs that stop the need for abortions. But even their reasoning is often based on their own beliefs that they are acting in the best interest of the child.

Also, there is a distinction between supporting laws preventing harmful actions and supporting laws causing supportive actions. For example, most everyone here would support banning killing of 10 year old children regardless of where in the world they live by citizens from their home country, but generally few here would support SNAP, WIC, and medicare, or their country equivalents, being expanded as is to cover all those same children. Does this mean they don't care to protect those children? Such views would quickly lead to the conclusion that either you fully dedicate yourself 100% to fixing every possible wrong or else you don't care about anyone.

Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment.

Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing. I'm not "anti-abortion" but I found the Northam situation squicky.

YMMV, and that's the beauty of living in a free and liberal society. Your comment would probably win hearts and minds if it was more about educating folks about the medical reality some parents are faced with instead of castigating and denigrating "the other side" (which doesn't exist, it's a spectrum).

It's not just the tone - there are plenty of religious people who flatly disagree with the moral claim above.

"The baby is going to die, so this isn't murder, and it's going to suffer, so this is mercy" is not necessarily a background assumption. For some people, those claims are the debate. Deontologists actually exist, and some of them sincerely believe in souls, and eternal damnation or paradise. To them, the doctor is committing a mortal sin, and for the infant any life long enough for baptism can mean the difference between limbo and heaven. Whatever Northam's intent, they would genuinely find his position morally similar to any other infanticide.

I don't intend to argue for that position, but I think it's important to realize how quickly "simple" rulings on misinformation or malice can become judgements on entire ideologies. If Bentham, Kant, and the Pope would all disagree on whether a choice is ethical and humane, perhaps it's not a matter to be settled by Twitter moderation rules?

This post is an opinion. It's a fine opinion, and a compelling point, but it's an opinion. And an opinion shouldn't be the basis of a policy that claims to be from an impartial referee.

That’s all entirely beside the point of whether a gigantic for-profit corporation that runs the de facto public square should be policing true and false.

> That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

It's euthanasia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com