Monday, March 02, 2009

Dedicated To Brother CNu and The Magnificent Mahndisa -

9 comments:

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

03 03 09

Hey DV:
Sorry to bring bs to your blog. I don't know how the thing between Craig and me degenerated. Basically I posted on my blog that the octo mom had a website. He said she should have been sterilized. From that point on this dialog has ensued. You have seen our responses. Pretty stupid in the end. But I could not let that slide. Just as you believe that strong families and VALUING children is important for societal growth, and will uplift Black folk in particular, I strongly believe that abortion is anathema to these principles and cannot let somebody call a baby a clump of cells. So both of us are guilty or poor conduct, and for that I apologize. BUT I cannot apologize for my stances:)

CNu said...

The.truth.is.not.in.you.Mahndisa.S.Rigmaiden!

I made that comment in the context of an entirely different post on the 12th.

You then took it upon yourself to call me out in a post on the 15th in which you imputed a whole host of your own fragmentary imaginings into my earlier simple statement of opinion;

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Regarding a comment left by Craig Nulan see below:

cnulan said...
Mahndisa, you've reached the tipping point where your professed principles have run aground on her inexcusable abuse of the commons.

This woman should have been sterilized immediately after dropping her first welfare dependent child.

2/12/2009 3:05 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
Craig, this is where you and I diverge a great deal in philosophy. I am not a Malthusian who views humans as parasitic entities who ravage the Earth and do nothing more than take its resources. Our relationship to the Earth and to each other is more complicated than that. I don't feel upset in the least that Nadya Suleman needs help to raise her children. When I look at the math and the seriousness of our economy, just about everyone with more than three or four children needs to use public assistance. Bottom line. This is because the costs of goods and services are too high for many people with that many children to afford. I would much rather pay for a person's children to have a quality of life than to pay for wars that bankrupt our nation and kill innocent women and children overseas.

Abuse of the commons? Sure, it is somewhat wrong to make a decision and then put it all on the public. However, her website soliciting private donations shows she is willing to do more than take public money. I also understand she was approached by some company for a book deal. Anyway, what you are getting at is utterly terrifying. You advocate the state telling people how many children to have and if they exceed that amount, then sterilizing them. How utterly sinister. In a sense you remind me of eugenicists who advocating sterilizing those who were 'less' than others. From a cost benefit analysis, one could easily state that children who have congenital deformities should be aborted before coming into the world because they will financially drain our systems.

But this is the problem with our society; human life has a price tag. How foul. I am quite certain that if we valued children as unique beings and didn't just look at them as resource gobblers, we'd have a paradigm shift in our society where personal responsibility rather than personal indulgence would be the main ideals..

Pro choice advocates should support choice, even if they don't agree with certain choices. Pro life advocates should support life, despite how it got here. I see a major disconnect between both of these camps and how Madame Suleman has been depicted in the media.


Having disposed of a whole slew of immoral, irrational, and irresponsible tapeworms in the past couple weeks, I must say I feel quite liberated for having hauled the load of you down to the digital curb...,

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

03 03 09


Craig:
Your rantings are so irrational that I don't know what to say. If the truth in not in me, then you don't know what truth is. YOur opinion encompassed exactly what I said it did; malthusian eugenics. I don't know why you insist on denying that fact. I suppose it is because you have the sickness called not admitting when you are wrong and this is so entrenched that you would post meaningless garbage on the web to disprove what I have said, which is just that; meaningless garbage. You got real issues man.

Undercover Black Man said...

Having disposed of a whole slew of immoral, irrational, and irresponsible tapeworms in the past couple weeks, I must say I feel quite liberated for having hauled the load of you down to the digital curb...,

No you don't. You feel oddly dissatisfied and empty.

CNu said...

YOur opinion encompassed exactly what I said it did;

No, your imagination encompassed exactly what you made up and projected onto me.

From "state" sterilization through Malthusian eugenics, you made it all up in your post and have insisted ever since that your words came out of my mouth.

You pulled a classic Ronald Barr stunt and are too unselfconscious to recognize that fact even when it's clearly pointed out to you.

This makes you a liar and polemicist of the worst and most pedestrian sort.

The record is brief enough and clear enough to make that fact very obvious from a cursory review of what you wrote in your post.

CNu said...

No you don't. You feel oddly dissatisfied and empty.

Not quite pumpkinhead.

Don't confuse my insistence on closing out the record with any misgivings about closing you out.

I have an endless penchant for keeping and settling accounts...,

Thordaddy said...

Both Nulan and Suleman are radical autonomists. In this light, there is logic in the belief that that which they will is their principle interest.

Nulan supports abortion and sterilization because he's an autonomist and it is his will to do so. It is nothing more than an exercise of his first principle. It does not matter whether Suleman is also a radical autonomist. There is no "honor" among autonomists.

On this ground, with the idea that Suleman is also a radical autonomist, sterilization becomes a legitimate topic of discussion because such radical autonomy is destructive to the whole of society and Suleman's agency can conceivably be limited with the understanding that she represents the same belief in radical autonomy as Nulan himself.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

03 03 09

Craig:
I guess you believe in lying and your memory must be poor. If you don't think that saying someone should be sterilized is Malthusian or eugenicist in nature, then you are intellectually dishonest and YOU feel empty just as Mr. Mills aptly pointed out.

ThorDaddy, now what you say has some merit to the extent that both Suleman and Nulan are two sides of the same coin; the belief in self gratification regardless of other considerations seems to be a hallmark of 'radical automotons'.

However, at least Suleman has added life and diversity to the world. Nulan has just tossed about insults and degraded those with whom he disagrees. I'd say she is beating him in positive contributions to society.

CNu said...

your quote is upthread twit! you think people can't read your words for themselves?

{{{{anything else}}}} you have to say on the subject is just so much self-justifying hot air...,