Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
It always gets me when people demand proof and offer none of their own for their baseless claims.

When I make claims that I expect people to take as factual and not simply my opinion and views on a matter I provide proof. When I submit my opinion and thoughts then I give my thoughts and that's that. I expect the same of others. If Sangha is just saying its his opinion that she used it to push her politics...no prob, I'd say that's potentially right but I haven't seen clear evidence yet so my opinion is neutral on the subject. However, if he wants to state it as if its fact that we should all unquestionably believe...then I expect something to back it up.

I don't believe that anyone has any default reason to believe anything anyone on these forums say. If you want someone to take your words that you profess are fact as something of value I'd suggest you provide stuff to back it up. If you want someone to take your opinion that you profess as correct as something of value, I suggest you either reevaluate why you post opinion or you understand that it'll largely have an impact based on peoples percieved worth of your opinion.

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Her quote was posted. I cant do anything to stop you from ignoring the facts and pretending it hasn't been posted

You mean the quote of what she claimed she'd do as GOVENOR?

You claimed that the critics were motivated by their own politics, and not by any honest disagreement with the way a non-profit has used its' money to pursue the political agenda of moral fascists like Karen Handel

Yep. That's my opinion and view on the subject based on the responses and statements of most of those I've seen on this board responding and that I know in my personal life, and what I know of them based on their statements and how I think they would act if Komen "used its money to pursue the political agenda" of someone they supported. I fully admit I don't claim that to be some unquestioned fact, I view it to be my opinion and belief on the situation. I in no way shape or form had any inclination what so ever that someone like you would find any worth or agreement with my opinion. However, I don't proclaim nor suggest my opinion is fact, though I do suggest that I personally believe it to be correct.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
I base my opinion, mind you...I firmly admit this, my OPINION....of this off the notion that I firmly believed that if Komen took some political stance that was in line with these peoples political views they would NOT have an issue with it because their issue is not that Komen acted politically, but that they acted politically in a way they disliked.

Why am I going to prove something I firmly admit is my opinion. I ask you for proof because you stated your comments about a specific person as if they were fact. If you believed its simply your opinion that she's a uesd it to promote her political ideology, so be it...say so and I'll retract my request. However it appeared you were trying to make the statement as if it was unquestoinable FACT, not just your feeling about the situation.

I see. When *you* state an opinion, it doesn't require proof, but when others do the same, it requires proof.

There's nothing sanctimonious or hypocritical about that :roll:

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Good thing you'd never post anything without proof!!! :roll:

Of course I do. I even at times post things that I am claiming as facts without proof. When asked for proof in such situations, I provide it. If I can't provide it I fully and honestly admit my error in suggesting that its a fact. Never claimed I was perfect, never claimed I've not made mistakes or errors in my statements on this forum...not sure why you think this is some kind of wonderful "gotcha". Its not. I have never, and will never, have an issue admitting when I've made a mistake with regards to a statement of fact or when I've been convinced in such a way to change a matter of opinion.

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
I see. WHen you state an opinion, it doesn't require proof, but when others do the same, it requires proof.

I'm sorry, please...lay it out for me.

Is it your opinion that she did it for political reasons, or are you stating its a FACT that she did it for political reasons? Pretty simple question.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
I'm sorry, please...lay it out for me.

Is it your opinion that she did it for political reasons, or are you stating its a FACT that she did it for political reasons? Pretty simple question.

Since you make it so obvious that you need it spelled out, DP is a discussion board where people post their opinions.

Maybe you can explain why you think your posts are so obviously "opinion" while mine are so obviously and purely "factual"

ARealConservative · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Since you make it so obvious that you need it spelled out, DP is a discussion board where people post their opinions.

Maybe you can explain why you think your posts are so obviously "opinion" while mine are so obviously and purely "factual"

"I cant do anything to stop you from ignoring the facts"

maybe because you label your opinion as facts?

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Since you make it so obvious that you need it spelled out, DP is a discussion board where people post their opinions.

Maybe you can explain why you think your posts are so obviously "opinion" while mine are so obviously and purely "factual"

Okay, so its just your opinion that she acted political in nature.

Okay, more power to you. I don't really know if it was or wasn't, as I've said FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, but my stance from my first post stands. Regardless of whether or not this was political, the reaction by those who were belittling what Komen does, what they've provided, encouraging people to stop donating to them without offering up alternatives, and other similar action are frankly worse in my eyes than Komen would be for taking this action even if it was political in nature. There were plenty of ways to fight the issue if people felt it was political that didn't also involve damaging the work that the organization does.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

ARealConservative said:
"I cant do anything to stop you from ignoring the facts"

maybe because you label your opinion as facts?

I was referring to the quote you asked for. It was already posted. That *IS* a fact

You're attempt at portraying that as something it was not is just as dishonest as your arguing that my posts are nothing but fact and yours are opinion

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Okay, so its just your opinion that she acted political in nature.

Okay, more power to you. I don't really know if it was or wasn't, as I've said FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, but my stance from my first post stands. Regardless of whether or not this was political, the reaction by those who were belittling what Komen does, what they've provided, encouraging people to stop donating to them without offering up alternatives, and other similar action are frankly worse in my eyes than Komen would be for taking this action even if it was political in nature. There were plenty of ways to fight the issue if people felt it was political that didn't also involve damaging the work that the organization does.

Your arguing that others have a higher burden of proof (by misportraying their opinions as facts (for no explainable reason)) has been dishonest

And claiming that other people have damaged the work of Komen is also dishonest. Komen did this to themselves. No one forced them to do it. Your victimization spiel is laughable

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Your arguing that others have a higher burden of proof (by misportraying their opinions as facts (for no explainable reason)) has been dishonest

I expect no higher burden of proof on anyone.

You mistook my statement of opinion for fact. You asked for proof. From the moment of my response to you I clarified that what I stated was my opinion based on my view and thoughts of the situation.

When I asked you for proof, you continued to fight back telling me to "look at the facts", suggesting I was being dishonest, and never once suggesting that my interpritation of your statement as a proclomation of fact was wrong. Notice that once you actually did the same thing as I did, clarify that my impression of your post was incorrect and that you were stating an opinion, I acknowledge that and ceased to ask you for proof of a fact.

So where exactly what I expecting a hire burden of proof or action on your part then I was expecting from myself?

And claiming that other people have damaged the work of Komen is also dishonest. Komen did this to themselves. No one forced them to do it. Your victimization spiel is laughable

Its not dishonest at all. Komen did something that is arguably stupid, that's true. However, their stupidity in no way forced anyone to act in any particular way towards them. There are plenty of ways that people could've protested this move and not belittled the work Komen do, insults the work they do, or encourage people not to donate to them without giving an alternative breast cancer charity to donate. Many people choose to forgo those methods to do the ones I just described. Komen didn't force them to go that route, they choose to do it. Did Komen's action spur them to act that way? Yes. But Komen isn't responsable for anyones action but their own organization....individuals are responsible for individual actions.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
I expect no higher burden of proof on anyone.

Your prior posts contradict your current claims

You mistook my statement of opinion for fact.

No, that was you

You asked for proof.

No, that was you

Since you've begun with so many dishonest claims that ignore your own words, I see no reason to address the rest of your fictions

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Since you've begun with so many dishonest claims that ignore your own words, I see no reason to address the rest of your fictions

In other words you'll chop up my post to suggest I said something I didn't, and dishonestly deal with the misrepresented edited version you created to fit your particular view point rather than what I said.

Well, if you want to go that route nothing I can really do to stop you. Anything I'd try you'd probably just edit down, misrepresent, and then disregard.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
In other words you'll chop up my post to suggest I said something I didn't, and dishonestly deal with the misrepresented edited version you created to fit your particular view point rather than what I said.

Well, if you want to go that route nothing I can really do to stop you. Anything I'd try you'd probably just edit down, misrepresent, and then disregard.

IOW, you'll try to blame me for doing what you did

I posted two opinions (that your post was dishonest and that Karen Handler did this for political reasons)

*YOU* mistook my opinion for a claim of fact, and *YOU* demanded that I post proof

Now you want to claim that you didnt mistake my opinion for fact and that you didn't demand proof. That is dishonest

Zyphlin said:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
Now you want to claim that you didnt mistake my opinion for fact and that you didn't demand proof. That is dishonest

What? Where did I claim I didn't mistake your opinion for fact? I absolutely thought you were trying to state a fact, not an opinion, by the tone of your post. ONCE you stated clearly otherwise that you were making an opinionated statement, not one of fact, I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. See post #133, my response to you after you finally clarified that your statement was one of opinion and not of fact.

Please, quote the point whre I stated that I didn't mistake your opinion for fact originally?

I stated my opinion...you mistook that as if I was stating an unquestionable fact and asked me for proof...I immedietely, upon your requets for proof, clarified my position was an opinion and noted my error in giving the wrong impressoin.

You stated your opinion...I mistook that as fact and asked for proof...you then immedietely proceeded to suggest I acted dishonestly in my first post, you responded to my request for proof of your assertion by claiming you had provided it (hardly something that suggest you were disagreeing with my notion you were claiming a fact), you then proceed to say nothing about your claim again while ignoring my statement regarding clarification of my opinion and demanding "proof", you then stated AGAIN that I was ignoring the "facts" with regards to the issue (note again, however could I have been confused you were just stating an opinion), made a sarcastic post about needing proof (twice), and then FINALLY admitted that it was simply your opinion.....at which point I no longer asked for proof.

So lets look at the difference here.

I made a post. You misread it as me stating an undisputable fact and not voicing my opinion and made a post asking for proof. I then immiedetely clarified for you my intent and meaning behind my words and stated my error in giving a false impressoin. On the flip side, I misread you and made a post asking for proof. You then proceeded to make SIX direct posts responding to me, one of which claiming you provided proof to back up what I claimed you were saying as fact and one claiming I was refusing to acknowledge your FACTS, before you finally clarified your statement was your opinion.

No Sangha, I did not expect a higher burden of proof then I expected of myself. I asked you for proof when it seemed to me you were stating a fact, which continued for multiple posts as you continued to make statements suggesting that's indeed what you were doing and failing to clarify my statements regarding your intent, until such a point that you finally clarified yourself. And at that point I treated it the same as I treat my own burden when I give opinion.

The ONLY difference was not one regarding the burden of truth, but rather the point in which each of us acknowledged the other persons mistaken understanding and informed them of the intent behind their statements. I did it the post immedietely following the evidence of your misunderstanding. You did it six posts later, after you had continued to suggest you were presenting "facts".

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
What? Where did I claim I didn't mistake your opinion for fact? I absolutely thought you were trying to state a fact, not an opinion, by the tone of your post. ONCE you stated clearly otherwise that you were making an opinionated statement, not one of fact, I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. See post #133, my response to you after you finally clarified that your statement was one of opinion and not of fact.

Please, quote the point whre I stated that I didn't mistake your opinion for fact originally?

So you admit that you did mistake my opinion for fact?

Then why are you trying to blame me for doing the same?

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
So you admit that you did mistake my opinion for fact?

Absolutely. If you're clear in stating that its your opinion it was political, and not a fact that it was, I was mistaken. I have no issue claiming it.

Then why are you trying to blame me for doing the same?

Where am I trying to blame you for doing the same? My blame on you is for claiming I applied a different burden of proof on you than I expect on myself (something demonstratably untrue). I am also blaming you for stating that my post stated that I believed it to be apolitical, which is not an opinion but you making a statement of fact about me. One can go back to my original post and clearly see, MULITPLE TIMES, that I indicated it very well COULD be politically motivated.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Absolutely. If you're clear in stating that its your opinion it was political, and not a fact that it was, I was mistaken. I have no issue claiming it.

Where am I trying to blame you for doing the same? My blame on you is for claiming I applied a different burden of proof on you than I expect on myself (something demonstratably untrue). I am also blaming you for stating that my post stated that I believed it to be apolitical, which is not an opinion but you making a statement of fact about me. One can go back to my original post and clearly see, MULITPLE TIMES, that I indicated it very well COULD be politically motivated.

I have already pointed out that my posts are opinion, so your pretending that I haven't done so is dishonest.

And here is where you asked me to prove my opinion

Zyphlin said:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.

You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required

Zyphlin · Feb 9, 2012

sangha said:
I have already pointed out that my posts are opinion, so your pretending that I haven't done so is dishonest.

Sigh.

I haven't pretended any such thing. I've stated multiple times you've clarified it was your opinion not a fact. You made it clear in post #131. In post
#133, 136, 140, and 142 I acknowledged the fact you had now made it clear in post #131 that it was a statement of opinion. Where in the world are you getting this factually incorrect notion that I'm pretending your post was not an opinion after the point where you made it clear it was

And here is where you asked me to prove my opinion

You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required[/QUOTE]

Correct, in post #113....a full 18 posts before you finally clarify that it was opinion, not fact....I asked for you to prove your statement.

When you finally actually admitted your statement was Opinion, not fact, in post #131 my very next post to you stated in regards to it being your opinion:

Zyphlin said:
Okay, so its just your opinion that she acted political in nature.

Okay, more power to you.

Note, that was not me asking for you to provide facts to back it up but acknowledging that you meant it as opinion and accepting that without additional facts required.

You're simply not making sense.

sangha · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Sigh.

I haven't pretended any such thing. I've stated multiple times you've clarified it was your opinion not a fact. You made it clear in post #131. In post
#133, 136, 140, and 142 I acknowledged the fact you had now made it clear in post #131 that it was a statement of opinion. Where in the world are you getting this factually incorrect notion that I'm pretending your post was not an opinion after the point where you made it clear it was

You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required

Correct, in post #113....a full 18 posts before you finally clarify that it was opinion, not fact....I asked for you to prove your statement.

When you finally actually admitted your statement was Opinion, not fact, in post #131 my very next post to you stated in regards to it being your opinion:

Note, that was not me asking for you to provide facts to back it up but acknowledging that you meant it as opinion and accepting that without additional facts required.

You're simply not making sense.[/QUOTE]

I'll try to make it simple for you

I posted my opinon. You mistook it for fact, and asked me for proof.

Later on, you accused me of mistaking your opinion for fact (when that was you who did that) and accused me of demanding that you prove your opinion (again, that was you who did that). Here's where you accused me

Zyphlin said:
You mistook my statement of opinion for fact. You asked for proof.

You accuse me of mistaking YOUR opinion for fact and asking you for proof when it was YOU who mistook MY opinion for fact and asked ME for proof.

I responded by pointing out that it was you who did what you were accusing me of:

sangha said:
Your prior posts contradict your current claims

No, that was you

No, that was you

Since you've begun with so many dishonest claims that ignore your own words, I see no reason to address the rest of your fictions

And you responded by denying the truth and accused me of being dishonest:

Zyphlin said:
In other words you'll chop up my post to suggest I said something I didn't, and dishonestly deal with the misrepresented edited version you created to fit your particular view point rather than what I said.

Well, if you want to go that route nothing I can really do to stop you. Anything I'd try you'd probably just edit down, misrepresent, and then disregard.

In this post I just quoted, you deny saying what you are now admitting you said. Which is it?

Did you mistake my opinion or fact, or did you not?

ThePlayDrive · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Oh, so she was acting as Govenor of Komen? Oh, wait...no, that was a quote when she was running for governor of GEORGIA. Sorry, I must've made the same mistake as you.

What mistake? I said that she said it when she was governor. It's too bad you prefer snide remarks than actual debate.

I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen.

I didn't say it was "damning proof". I used it as evidence. It's too bad that you prefer putting words in my mouth to actual debate.

You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.

You do realize that, in this case, 'anecdotal evidence' is the only evidence that would show SGK acted for political reasons right?

And here we finally come to something worth while and possibly useful. Now, I have heard that Planned Parenthoods contract came up and thus they did not renew it due to this rule. Is it true that Planned Parenthoods contract came up? Has Penn State or the Parkland Memorial Hospital contracts come up during the point in which they were under investigation? If so, then I would agree it would appear that action was taken for political reasons.

In which case.....see my earlier post in this thread where I repeatedly stated my feelings in regards to peoples response to this whether or not it was done for political reasons or not.

Oh so now you're changing the goalposts. First you asked, "Is there any proof that SGK wasn't just cutting funding to PP because of their rule about not funding organizations under investigation?" Now, it's, "Is there any proof that SGK wasn't just cutting funding because of the rule AND the end of the contract?"

Whatever, dude. Your games aren't amusing anymore.

nonpareil · Feb 9, 2012

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Zyphlin said:
Question, because I honestly don't know....

What are "emergency contraception kits"? If its the "morning after pill" then that somewhat skews the numbers as that is one of those things that is a bit controversial in regards to whether or not its viewed as a "contraceptive" or if its viewed as "abortion".

IF that is what those "emergency contraception kits" are...and as I said, I'm not versed on this enough to know for sure which is why I'm asking...then that skews things a bit. For those that view any killing after conception, such as the morning after pill, as "abortoin" and not contraception then it'd move those emergency kits from Contraception to Abortion services. That changes the numbers as such...

Contraception would becoming 21.7% of their total 2008 costs where as Abortion services would make up 16.1%. Still a smaller fraction than their contraceptive, STD, and cancer screening expenditures, but significantly more than the 3% that is being presented.

Also, since I saw it mentioned...in 2008 their resources spent in regards to adoption is was .02% of their total funds.

I disagree with the notion that planned parenthood is primarily about abortion, and I have no issues with contraception being provided...but I do think its worth while to paint an honest picture based on the mentality and views of BOTH SIDES regarding their expenditures if that $1.5 million of emergency contraception kits actually is the morning after pill.

If this definition of "abortion" to include any contraceptive that kills a fertilized egg were used for all clinics, then Planned Parenthood would not be the only one to be investigated for what they do with their federal funding, whether they were used for "abortion". Contraceptives that kill fertilized eggs also include IUD.

nonpareil · Feb 9, 2012

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Dickieboy said:
While I’ve heard all the ruckus in this thread about cancer/abortion accusations my understanding about the specifics have little to do with it. True the players have underlying agendas but on face they seem legitimate. Consider:

Allegiance Defense Fund sent a report to Cliff Stearns that stating “These ten state audits found numerous improper practices resulting in significant Title XIX-Medicaid overpayments of nearly $8 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates for family planning and reproductive health services claims,” the report said. “Furthermore, thirty-eight federal audits of state family planning programs by HHS-OIG found between $88 million and $99 million in overbilling.” I have yet to find these HHS reports but 38 sounds pretty compelling.

One in Five Planned Parenthood Affiliates Face Financial Controversy, Report Says | CNSnews.com

Cliff Stearns initiated an investigation and sent a letter to PP stating ‘The Committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion’. Further they request information that details ‘how much PPFA and each affiliate expended and received in Title XIX Medicaid funding…”.

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/letterplanedparenthoodinvestivation.pdf

Notwithstanding the additional funding restrictions of abortion this would appear a legitimate investigation considering the allegations specific to the misuse of Medicaid funds.

SGK stated their ‘cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities’

Cancer charity halts Planned Parenthood grants - CBS News

Again, while I understand the presumed underlying agenda if this investigation was allowed to proceed to fruition AND nothing was found one could presume that SGK would reinstate the grant monies as if they didn't it would look very hypocritical. If on the other hand PP was found guilty of whatever it would legitimize SGK’s denial of the grant. Ultimately what is PP afraid of if they are innocent? Personally I could care less but $88-99 million in overbilling is a pretty large chunk of change...

Who said Planned Parenthood is afraid? Did you ask the Planned Parenthood board? The investigation cited for the Komen foundation's decision to withdraw funding was one over whether Planned Parenthood had used Federal funding for abortion.

nonpareil · Feb 9, 2012

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Harshaw said:
I understood the English; it just didn't say anything.

If you think you can understand English, then try re-reading the thread again and again until you finally do understand it.

nonpareil · Feb 9, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Oh, so she was acting as Govenor of Komen? Oh, wait...no, that was a quote when she was running for governor of GEORGIA. Sorry, I must've made the same mistake as you.

I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen. You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.

And here we finally come to something worth while and possibly useful. Now, I have heard that Planned Parenthoods contract came up and thus they did not renew it due to this rule. Is it true that Planned Parenthoods contract came up? Has Penn State or the Parkland Memorial Hospital contracts come up during the point in which they were under investigation? If so, then I would agree it would appear that action was taken for political reasons.

In which case.....see my earlier post in this thread where I repeatedly stated my feelings in regards to peoples response to this whether or not it was done for political reasons or not.

There's 2 very simple facts: 1. the rules aren't "established", it's a new rule. 2. the rule is only enforced against Planned Parenthood.

The Komen foundation's board can decide to act for political reason all they want, they have a right to do so, who's to say that their decision to reverse the previous decision is not political in nature? So are the people who think the first decision was stupid and let them know it. The Komen Foundation made a decision, they suffered the repercussion, they reversed the decision.

Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

cookies crumble