Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12, 85, 357]

choiceone · Apr 2, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Monserrat said:
If the Professor is so ****ing immature that she loses her cool after seeing a sign that she didn't like in a free speech zone where people frequently go to express their views on issues then the problem is with her. She's a grow woman. If she cannot control herself then she has issues which she should get help for because under no circumstance is it okay for her to go up to another person take something that belongs to that person, destroy that item all while injuring her in the process. You keep excusing this woman for her poor and completely immature behavior and what's even worse is you are making up excuses, so what if she was pregnant? You don't automatically get a pass on being violent or breaking laws if you are pregnant. The protester should have informed the campus of the content of the sign, the professor actually broke laws and injured someone in result of her behavior. It's a no brainer over which behavior was more deplorable and it wasn't the kid in the free speech zone who was simply holding up a sign. I mean it's a place of higher learning and if you are too immature to be around other ideas besides your own then you do not belong there.

It's not wrong to say that all you have are assumptions when you yourself already admitted that you believe there is only one side here. You automatically cut off the other side by not even acknowledging them so yes all you have are your own assumptions when it comes to them and their viewpoints.

I did not say that my view that there is only one side on the abortion issue has any particular relationship to the behavior of the people in this campus event. However, if you honestly believe that the opposing side of this issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it, you believe that the side you support is partial and, to the extent that you believe that, you're willing to back down.

I don't believe that the anti-choice side of the abortion issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it. Hence, I don't believe that the side I support is partial, and I'm not willing to back down. There are millions of pro-choice people like me. We aren't willing to negotiate or compromise beyond the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, etc. Of course we automatically cut off the other side - that's what it means to oppose the other side. When the Allies opposed the German Nazis and Italian fascists and Japanese ultramilitarists, they cut off that side and were not willing to negotiate. That is how one wins a war against bullies.

But that said, I do think the behavior of the professor was wrong, bad, and counterproductive. I do not have any sympathy for her for behaving this way because it was a mistake on her part. However, I do not have any sympathy for the anti-choice people involved because they were promulgating untruth as if it were truth and because their behavior belied their professed concern for the well-being of actual fetuses. I'm not apologizing for that. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue is itself a threatening bully, notwithstanding that in this particular encounter, the behavior of the pro-choice person was wrong.

Monserrat · Apr 4, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

choiceone said:
I did not say that my view that there is only one side on the abortion issue has any particular relationship to the behavior of the people in this campus event. However, if you honestly believe that the opposing side of this issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it, you believe that the side you support is partial and, to the extent that you believe that, you're willing to back down.

I don't believe that the anti-choice side of the abortion issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it. Hence, I don't believe that the side I support is partial, and I'm not willing to back down. There are millions of pro-choice people like me. We aren't willing to negotiate or compromise beyond the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, etc. Of course we automatically cut off the other side - that's what it means to oppose the other side. When the Allies opposed the German Nazis and Italian fascists and Japanese ultramilitarists, they cut off that side and were not willing to negotiate. That is how one wins a war against bullies.

But that said, I do think the behavior of the professor was wrong, bad, and counterproductive. I do not have any sympathy for her for behaving this way because it was a mistake on her part. However, I do not have any sympathy for the anti-choice people involved because they were promulgating untruth as if it were truth and because their behavior belied their professed concern for the well-being of actual fetuses. I'm not apologizing for that. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue is itself a threatening bully, notwithstanding that in this particular encounter, the behavior of the pro-choice person was wrong.

1. You did say that there was only one side on the abortion issue.

2. They're called pro-life. I realize that some who are pro-choice want to spin the perception of those who are pro-life by using weighted language against them but all it does is solidify your own personal bias towards their view point so even if you didn't make the statement that there was only one side in this issue you clearly display your strong biases in it through your choice of descriptive language.

3. If you understand anything about them then you would realize that the vast majority of them are not trying to take away from a womans right to control her own reproductive health, their view point typically has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or another. They actually take the intellectual high ground in this way because they acknowledge that the fetus is a human being, it is, there's just no way of getting around that you can't magically turn it into something not alive or a different species. It's a growing, developing human being and their stance is typically just about saving that human.

3. If anyone is the bully, it's the ones using the weighted language to try to distort the image of the opposition in order to try to make them into monsters instead of actually stepping back and taking an honest look at them and at their views, remember for them it's not about taking rights away from anyone, it's about saving human lives. We are not talking about the Nazis or any other example of an extreme group that does atrocious things. Comparing pro-life advocates to Nazis shows that not only are you extremely biased but you are willing to try to dishonestly distort the truth of who they are and what they stand for.

4. What untruth was the pro-life protester "promulgating"? The only bully that I've seen in this example is the pro-choice side, you specifically with your extreme labels meant to distort the truth and the professor who injured a minor holding a sign that she didn't like.

Ikari · Apr 8, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

choiceone said:
I did not say that my view that there is only one side on the abortion issue has any particular relationship to the behavior of the people in this campus event. However, if you honestly believe that the opposing side of this issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it, you believe that the side you support is partial and, to the extent that you believe that, you're willing to back down.

I don't believe that the anti-choice side of the abortion issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it. Hence, I don't believe that the side I support is partial, and I'm not willing to back down. There are millions of pro-choice people like me. We aren't willing to negotiate or compromise beyond the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, etc. Of course we automatically cut off the other side - that's what it means to oppose the other side. When the Allies opposed the German Nazis and Italian fascists and Japanese ultramilitarists, they cut off that side and were not willing to negotiate. That is how one wins a war against bullies.

But that said, I do think the behavior of the professor was wrong, bad, and counterproductive. I do not have any sympathy for her for behaving this way because it was a mistake on her part. However, I do not have any sympathy for the anti-choice people involved because they were promulgating untruth as if it were truth and because their behavior belied their professed concern for the well-being of actual fetuses. I'm not apologizing for that. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue is itself a threatening bully, notwithstanding that in this particular encounter, the behavior of the pro-choice person was wrong.

I like how you define one side as wrong due to them having a different opinion and supporting then aggressive and oppressive acts against them.

There was a reason the professor was charged with crimes, and hopefully the University will dismiss her as assaulting visitors on campus is not something to be expected nor tolerated from educators.

minnie616 · Apr 8, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Update:

A not guilty plea was entered for the professor by her attorney during the April 4 the hearing.

Another hearing will be held on May 1st.

Ray410 · Apr 8, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

minnie616 said:
Update:

A not guilty plea was entered for the professor by her attorney during the April 4 the hearing.

Another hearing will be held on May 1st.

Do you have a link? I'd like to know who is paying for her defense.

I wouldn't think she would qualify for the public defender since she has an excellent job teaching Black Cultural Studies, Pornography and Sex Work.

Monserrat · Apr 8, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

minnie616 said:
Update:

A not guilty plea was entered for the professor by her attorney during the April 4 the hearing.

Another hearing will be held on May 1st.

Good luck to her and especially to her attorney since they have her on camera stealing the sign and admitting that she is a thief.

Ikari · Apr 8, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Monserrat said:
Good luck to her and especially to her attorney since they have her on camera stealing the sign and admitting that she is a thief.

They will likely plus down to something else.

minnie616 · May 11, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Ray410 said:
Do you have a link? ....

UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery

I have been searching the web for an update on the May 1st hearing but I have not found anything.

Has anyone found any info about the hearing?

Maybe it was dropped...if that's the case it probably was not deemed news worthy.

nota bene · May 11, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Check the Santa Barbara County courts site. I'm not going to post the link because of the homepage statement, but the referring page states that an 8:30 "R & S/Settlement Hearing" is scheduled for June 12th.

minnie616 · May 11, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

nota bene said:
Check the Santa Barbara County courts site. I'm not going to post the link because of the homepage statement, but the referring page states that an 8:30 "R & S/Settlement Hearing" is scheduled for June 12th.

Thanks for the updated date of the hearing.

choiceone · May 11, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Monserrat said:
1. You did say that there was only one side on the abortion issue.

Yes, I did. Legally, either you support or do not support the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy up to the point of fetal viability and, even if a state bans abortion after that point, if there is a medically diagnosed imminent threat to her life or health. If you support that, it means you don't support anti-abortion laws that challenge the Supreme Court's existing decisions. That's the only side.

Monserrat said:
2. They're called pro-life. I realize that some who are pro-choice want to spin the perception of those who are pro-life by using weighted language against them but all it does is solidify your own personal bias towards their view point so even if you didn't make the statement that there was only one side in this issue you clearly display your strong biases in it through your choice of descriptive language.

3. If you understand anything about them then you would realize that the vast majority of them are not trying to take away from a womans right to control her own reproductive health, their view point typically has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or another. They actually take the intellectual high ground in this way because they acknowledge that the fetus is a human being, it is, there's just no way of getting around that you can't magically turn it into something not alive or a different species. It's a growing, developing human being and their stance is typically just about saving that human.

As long as people do not support anti-abortion legislation or constitutional amendments against abortion, I don't really care what they think.

However, I don't think a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being or a member of the species Homo s sapiens just because it has human DNA. For me, DNA is not a sufficient criterion for that membership or attachment of the word "being" to its adjectival designation as human and an article indicating countability which modifies "being."

I know that no human embryo or pre-viable fetus has the capacity to live without using some of the oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies of the blood of the woman pregnant with it and for me that means it does not have life of its own and is not equal to born persons, because the latter have such a capacity.

So to me, those people who claim that a human embryo is already a human being don't have the intellectual high ground.

Monserrat said:
3. If anyone is the bully, it's the ones using the weighted language to try to distort the image of the opposition in order to try to make them into monsters instead of actually stepping back and taking an honest look at them and at their views, remember for them it's not about taking rights away from anyone, it's about saving human lives. We are not talking about the Nazis or any other example of an extreme group that does atrocious things. Comparing pro-life advocates to Nazis shows that not only are you extremely biased but you are willing to try to dishonestly distort the truth of who they are and what they stand for.

It's easy to compare pro-life advocates to Nazis when they are anti-abortion in legal terms because the Nazis made anti-abortion laws to force so-called "Aryan" women to continue pregnancies.

Any pro-lifer who is also pro-choice on the legal issue is pro-choice as far as I'm concerned. Such people aren't bullies because they are not trying to use the law to force others to behave according to their philosophy. But any pro-lifer who is anti-abortion on the legal issue is a bully.

A woman's private parts belong exclusively to her and are no other person's business, and she has a right to keep any or all human entities, persons or not, out of them, and to get a doctor's help in preventing a pregnancy from continuing if she does that before fetal viability and the doctor agrees to help her do that.

Anyone who does not recognize and respect that right and tries to prevent the government from recognizing it in order to force the woman to continue her pregnancy is using the embryo or fetus of that pregnancy as a tool for raping the woman. In other words, those who support anti-abortion lawmaking in the US are rapists who not only rape the woman, but do so by using the embryo or fetus in her as a tool for rape. And to me, that's a bully.

Monserrat said:
4. What untruth was the pro-life protester "promulgating"? The only bully that I've seen in this example is the pro-choice side, you specifically with your extreme labels meant to distort the truth and the professor who injured a minor holding a sign that she didn't like.

As I said, a human zygote or embryo or pre-viable fetus does not fit my criteria for membership in the human species, and I might add that it does not meet all scientific criteria for that membership, either. It is not even possible to claim that an embryo or pre-viable fetus has its own distinct life and prove it by separating it from the life of the woman. To me, if it can't meet the biological ecological standard of living outside the woman's body, it is not an equal member of the species.

Furthermore, there are very good legal and philosophical reasons for a woman to have the right to choose legally based on the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

In my view, pro-lifers are intellectually shallow and frivolous, and I do not understand why they think they are so intellectually superior to all the heavyweight scientists and legal scholars who disagree with them.

We let them say what they want, but it is silly and in bad taste to show sonograms or representations of embryos and fetuses publicly for a political purpose, just as it is silly and in bad taste to show photographs of the inside of person's bodies during surgical operations of all kinds publicly for such a purpose.

They use the posters deliberately for shock value, and one of these days that use is going to cause a pro-choice pregnant woman to miscarry from falling down because of the shock and then try to sue them. I'm sick of those arrogant self-righteous and smug people.

choiceone · May 11, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Ikari said:
I like how you define one side as wrong due to them having a different opinion and supporting then aggressive and oppressive acts against them.

There was a reason the professor was charged with crimes, and hopefully the University will dismiss her as assaulting visitors on campus is not something to be expected nor tolerated from educators.

There is only one side to the issue because the pro-choice side allows people with different opinions to control the insides of their own individual bodies in accord with their own individual opinions. When the pro-life people are anti-choice politically and legally, they are trying to prevent other people from controlling the insides of their own individual bodies in accord with their own individual opinions by using the law to force them to behave a certain way. THAT IS AGGRESSION AND OPPRESSION.

The professor was wrong for forcibly taking the sign away from the protester and for accidentally even touching that protester's body in her misguided but understandable zeal. What she did was wrong because that is also aggression, though the pro-lifer remains a hypocrite for caring more about her lifeless sign than the well-being of a pregnant woman despite the latter's misguided behavior.

GOT IT?

Ikari · May 12, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

choiceone said:
There is only one side to the issue because the pro-choice side allows people with different opinions to control the insides of their own individual bodies in accord with their own individual opinions.

Unless they try to publicly express their opinion apparently.

choiceone · May 12, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Ikari said:
Unless they try to publicly express their opinion apparently.

Not at all. That professor was wrong by pro-choice standards, because she used force to deprive the protester of her sign and even touched that protester's body. I wouldn't do that, wouldn't advocate doing that, and wouldn't support that.

It's true I'm somewhat dismissive of it. After all, the professor did not use or advocate using force to deprive the protester of her capacity to control her internal sexual organs, a capacity far more important than the capacity to present a distasteful visual sign in a public place, in my opinion.

And the person doing the protesting was at least suggesting that she herself was likely to be an advocate of using the force of law to ban abortion and thus deprive women of that capacity I consider so much more important. So I don't sympathize with the protester even though I think the professor was wrong.

I'm not against pro-life people advertising their opinion, and I would not make a law preventing them from showing their distasteful, vulgar signs. Among other things, I think their inappropriate behavior will eventually backfire. But don't expect me to be sympathetic. That would be like asking a Jew in 1936 Germany to sympathize with the Nazis there.

Ikari · May 12, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

choiceone said:
Not at all. That professor was wrong by pro-choice standards, because she used force to deprive the protester of her sign and even touched that protester's body. I wouldn't do that, wouldn't advocate doing that, and wouldn't support that.

It's true I'm somewhat dismissive of it. After all, the professor did not use or advocate using force to deprive the protester of her capacity to control her internal sexual organs, a capacity far more important than the capacity to present a distasteful visual sign in a public place, in my opinion.

And the person doing the protesting was at least suggesting that she herself was likely to be an advocate of using the force of law to ban abortion and thus deprive women of that capacity I consider so much more important. So I don't sympathize with the protester even though I think the professor was wrong.

I'm not against pro-life people advertising their opinion, and I would not make a law preventing them from showing their distasteful, vulgar signs. Among other things, I think their inappropriate behavior will eventually backfire. But don't expect me to be sympathetic. That would be like asking a Jew in 1936 Germany to sympathize with the Nazis there.

You're not "somewhat" dismissive, you're completely dismissive and trying to turn in around on the pro-life crowd based solely on your political opinion. That is the definition of a political hack. Godwin-ing over here like it actually adds to your argument. It doesn't.

choiceone · May 12, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Ikari said:
You're not "somewhat" dismissive, you're completely dismissive and trying to turn in around on the pro-life crowd based solely on your political opinion. That is the definition of a political hack. Godwin-ing over here like it actually adds to your argument. It doesn't.

Here is wikipedia's definition of a political hack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hack:

A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.

I have said elsewhere on these threads that I am an independent, not someone who belongs to a particular political party, so I could not possibly be part of a political party apparatus.

I do not vote on the basis of party. I support the pro-choice position on abortion by personal conviction, and I vote only for pro-choice candidates and refuse to vote for any anti-abortion law advocate.

Hence, if a Republican candidate advocating a pro-choice position on abortion ran against a Democrat who advocated making anti-abortion laws (a few years ago, this happened in an Illinois gubernatorial election, though I was not an Illinois resident), between the two, I would vote for the Republican even if I agreed with the Democrat and disagreed with the Republican on every other issue.

If only a minor party ran a pro-choice candidate and the major party candidates were both anti-choice on this issue, I would vote for the minor party candidate.

So I don't fit the definition of political hack in wikipedia at all.

nota bene · Jul 25, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

UPDATE: Miller-Young pleaded guilty yesterday to three misdemeanor crimes.

"Miller-Young will be sentenced on August 14 and will likely be ordered by Judge Brian Hill to pay a fine and restitution, perform community service, and attend anger management counseling. While her charges do carry the possibility of jail time, prosecutor Ron Zonen said he “would be surprised if [Hill] sentenced her to jail.” Miller-Young remains employed by UCSB." UCSB Professor Pleads No Contest in Theft, Battery Case

Jail time would be silly, in my opinion. But I don't think she's fit for the Academy. She can't control herself around students (and her excuse that she was pregnant was pitiable). Her battery was of a 16-year old. I think she should strike out on her own with her sex worker research and such.

Ikari · Jul 25, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

nota bene said:
UPDATE: Miller-Young pleaded guilty yesterday to three misdemeanor crimes.

"Miller-Young will be sentenced on August 14 and will likely be ordered by Judge Brian Hill to pay a fine and restitution, perform community service, and attend anger management counseling. While her charges do carry the possibility of jail time, prosecutor Ron Zonen said he “would be surprised if [Hill] sentenced her to jail.” Miller-Young remains employed by UCSB." UCSB Professor Pleads No Contest in Theft, Battery Case

Jail time would be silly, in my opinion. But I don't think she's fit for the Academy. She can't control herself around students (and her excuse that she was pregnant was pitiable). Her battery was of a 16-year old. I think she should strike out on her own with her sex worker research and such.

Jail would indeed be sill here, there's no need for that. But I would agree, her assault on a kid demonstrates that she has no business being employed in academia.

nota bene · Jul 27, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

Or anyplace else that allows/expects/celebrates diversity of opinion.

RamFel · Aug 1, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

nota bene said:
No, I can't agree. I remember ten+ years ago the California controversy about graphic billboards. There really are folks with delicate sensibilities, and you don't want someone to be sickened or so upset that he/she has a heart attack.

And you surely don't little kids to be exposed to graphic images. And that's the thing--some college students are married and walk all over campuses with their kids.

Practically speaking, it's not a sound rhetorical strategy either. You may so mightily offend those who are ambivalent that you will dissuade them from seeing your POV.

While I agree that you shouldn't offend people with who are very sensitive, and even the kids, it's something that is important to show in some form, in such a way to avoid offending anybody.

I think that the offensive nature of the photos says a lot about the abortion procedure. If you think the photos are offensive, the real thing is more so.

OKgrannie · Aug 2, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

RamFel said:
While I agree that you shouldn't offend people with who are very sensitive, and even the kids, it's something that is important to show in some form, in such a way to avoid offending anybody.

I think that the offensive nature of the photos says a lot about the abortion procedure. If you think the photos are offensive, the real thing is more so.

Most of the anti-abortion photos are fake. Many of them are pictures of stillbirths. Pictures of an early term abortion, when most abortions are performed, just don't show much to cause concern.

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths

3. "This is what an abortion looks like."
The Rev. Flip Benham
Photo: Copyright © 2006 Mark Lyon. Licensed under Creative Commons.
Almost always false. Many abortion protest photographs are artist's renderings or the result of image manipulation, and the bulk of the rest are of very late-term fetuses aborted for emergency medical reasons. The most well-known graphic abortion poster is of a 30-week-old fetus, aborted six full weeks into the third trimester. The vast majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester, and Roe v. Wade only protects first and second trimester abortions.

NGNM85 · Aug 2, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

This professor's behavior was totally unacceptable. I'm pro-choice, but I'm also pro-free speech.

nota bene · Aug 2, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

And the person upon whom Miller-Young committed battery is 16.

Scrabaholic · Aug 2, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

RamFel said:
While I agree that you shouldn't offend people with who are very sensitive, and even the kids, it's something that is important to show in some form, in such a way to avoid offending anybody.

I think that the offensive nature of the photos says a lot about the abortion procedure. If you think the photos are offensive, the real thing is more so.

So, you would have no problem with animal rights people parading around with graphic images of what happens in an abattoir?

nota bene · Aug 3, 2014

Re: Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12]

The students who were protesting were in a free-speech zone. So if PETA people wanted to protest there, why not?

Fem. Studies Prof Accused of Assaulting Teen Prolife Demonstrator[W:12, 85, 357]

certified batshit crazy