Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[buckwacker]

Without the unedited version it simply looks like they are hiding something. True or not, that is the perception.

I bet if things were flipped and it was some group you didn't agree with that made the video, you would not take their word that the missing video was all bathroom breaks and such.

Sorry, I'm with AM. There is no missing amount of missing context that can sanitize what was discussed on those videos.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Without the unedited version it simply looks like they are hiding something. True or not, that is the perception.

I bet if things were flipped and it was some group you didn't agree with that made the video, you would not take their word that the missing video was all bathroom breaks and such.

The thing is, at the end of the day, there could always be something missing, even if they uploaded an uninterrupted video with no cuts at all, there could have been interactions before or after the camera was rolling, or one separate occasions.

But that's kind of missing the bigger point, which is that nobody can dream up even a hypothetical example of something they could have cut out that would have made the video any different.

I could get people still having doubts if they were cutting off in the middle of sentences or conversations, but that's simply not the case. So far no one has given any logical explanation, nor any conceivable reason for what was said and done in these videos, other than that they were exactly as CMP presented them.

 

[Creedmoor]

Well boys, Its just not worth it.
Good day.

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well boys, Its just not worth it.
Good day.

So you cant even say the words "Killing fetuses is bad, but..." ?

I literally have no words. (at least none that wont get me a timeout.) You will be in my prayers.

Good day.

 

[KLB]

The thing is, at the end of the day, there could always be something missing, even if they uploaded an uninterrupted video with no cuts at all, there could have been interactions before or after the camera was rolling, or one separate occasions.

But that's kind of missing the bigger point, which is that nobody can dream up even a hypothetical example of something they could have cut out that would have made the video any different.

I could get people still having doubts if they were cutting off in the middle of sentences or conversations, but that's simply not the case. So far no one has given any logical explanation, nor any conceivable reason for what was said and done in these videos, other than that they were exactly as CMP presented them.

Fine. If you can't see why this would cause doubts in some peoples, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Fine. If you can't see why this would cause doubts in some peoples, I don't know what to tell you.

Well, maybe I'm coming across wrong. I do see why it would cause doubt in some people, especially those with an ideological motivation. And yes, honestly if it were me running CMP, I would've tried my hardest to find a reasonable way to release the full unedited video without breaching any privacy laws, etc.

But I can also see the other side, and that's what I'm trying to present here. They were already blasted for supposedly violating people's privacy; if they release random video of bathroom stalls, etc, how much more are they going to possibly get in trouble for that? And yes, you can blur stuff out, etc, but you run the risk of either not censoring enough to where you still violate some privacy law or other, or else you blur out so much that it may as well have been edited out, and people will still claim that you could've made an edit somewhere hard to detect. Plus there's also always going to be possible claims that stuff happened before the video starts or after it ends, that I really don't think it would lay their critics to rest. So I honestly think I can understand the decision they made.

So I'm not saying it's unreasonable to have initial doubts on the face of it; I'm just saying that for anyone who takes the time to watch the videos, sees the fact that cuts were only made at natural stopping points, for any reasonable, unbiased person it would lay to rest such doubts. That's the case I'm trying to make here. Of course, the difficulty is that it's hard for me to honestly ask someone to take 10+ hours of their life to comb through video on youtube just to confirm that what I'm saying is true, so I guess unless you find it important enough to do just that, we'll probably just be left at an impasse.

 

[chipbennett]

Well boys, Its just not worth it.
Good day.

A good solution to end the cognitive dissonance required to defend untenable positions. Enjoy your range time.

 

[KLB]

Well, maybe I'm coming across wrong. I do see why it would cause doubt in some people, especially those with an ideological motivation. And yes, honestly if it were me running CMP, I would've tried my hardest to find a reasonable way to release the full unedited video without breaching any privacy laws, etc.

But I can also see the other side, and that's what I'm trying to present here. They were already blasted for supposedly violating people's privacy; if they release random video of bathroom stalls, etc, how much more are they going to possibly get in trouble for that? And yes, you can blur stuff out, etc, but you run the risk of either not censoring enough to where you still violate some privacy law or other, or else you blur out so much that it may as well have been edited out, and people will still claim that you could've made an edit somewhere hard to detect. Plus there's also always going to be possible claims that stuff happened before the video starts or after it ends, that I really don't think it would lay their critics to rest. So I honestly think I can understand the decision they made.

So I'm not saying it's unreasonable to have initial doubts on the face of it; I'm just saying that for anyone who takes the time to watch the videos, sees the fact that cuts were only made at natural stopping points, for any reasonable, unbiased person it would lay to rest such doubts. That's the case I'm trying to make here. Of course, the difficulty is that it's hard for me to honestly ask someone to take 10+ hours of their life to comb through video on youtube just to confirm that what I'm saying is true, so I guess unless you find it important enough to do just that, we'll probably just be left at an impasse.

Ah, OK. We are on the same page.

 

[JCSR]

 

[bwframe]

Bloomington City Council approves $100,000 for emergency reproductive health services

The money will be used to support local organizations that assist Bloomington residents who are negatively impacted by SB-1.

www.idsnews.com

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Bloomington City Council approves $100,000 for emergency reproductive health services

The money will be used to support local organizations that assist Bloomington residents who are negatively impacted by SB-1.

www.idsnews.com

Linked article is extremely sparse on details of how the money will actually be spent; but from what I heard from people who were at the city council meeting most of it is going to the local Planned Parenthood or the "All Options" clinic to supposedly be used to reimburse travel expenses for any woman who wants to travel out of state to get an abortion. Never mind that the law isn't even in effect yet...

 

[HoughMade]

I'll be damned, I never knew the defendant picked where to file for a lawsuit.
I always thought that was the plaintiffs attorneys job. Thanks!

So you're saying a plaintiff's attorney can pick any court they want?

Neither the plaintiff, nor defense can pick whatever court they want.

 

[Ingomike]

So you're saying a plaintiff's attorney can pick any court they want?

Neither the plaintiff, nor defense can pick whatever court they want.

I believe this line of thinking comes from corporations and companies, that have operations in many areas, trying, at least, to pick the most favorable jurisdiction to file a case in.

 

[BugI02]

Linked article is extremely sparse on details of how the money will actually be spent; but from what I heard from people who were at the city council meeting most of it is going to the local Planned Parenthood or the "All Options" clinic to supposedly be used to reimburse travel expenses for any woman who wants to travel out of state to get an abortion. Never mind that the law isn't even in effect yet...

I believe the usual gameplay for such unrestricted funding is a kickback agreement between PP and the campaigns of Democratic legislators who furnished the money

Logrolling at its finest

 

[BugI02]

So you're saying a plaintiff's attorney can pick any court they want?

Neither the plaintiff, nor defense can pick whatever court they want.

But I notice that you are not saying court shopping is not a thing, either

 

[HoughMade]

I believe this line of thinking comes from corporations and companies, that have operations in many areas, trying, at least, to pick the most favorable jurisdiction to file a case in.

There is still a limited number of choices. It gets complicated, but I, as a plaintiff, can't choose to sue a company anywhere it has a presence. Generally, I can sue where the incident at issue occurred or where the defendant "resides". A corporation "resides" where it is incorporated or where it's "principal place of business" is. Often, these are the same place. Of course, there are also cases that define what "principal place of business" is.

 

[HoughMade]

But I notice that you are not saying court shopping is not a thing, either

It's not as much of a thing as people think.

Choosing where to file within the limits of what places are available is a thing. Of course, In Indiana, we have the automatic right to change of judge.

 

[Ingomike]

It's not as much of a thing as people think.

Choosing where to file within the limits of what places are available is a thing. Of course, In Indiana, we have the automatic right to change of judge.

I was not refuting your point, just explaining why I think folks believe that…

 

[Creedmoor]

So you're saying a plaintiff's attorney can pick any court they want?

Neither the plaintiff, nor defense can pick whatever court they want.

That was sarcasm.