3 ms·

I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the

I heard this defense when the PP-selling-baby-parts video came out and had to see for myself. On watching the unedited video, I came to the conclusion that the accusation that Project Veritas is fabricating or otherwise manipulating these videos is a complete lie.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.
- rijoja 7y ago
  mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.
  - komali2 7y ago
    This is absurdly reductionist and rhetorically dishonest. Let's try absurd reductionism on some other things, to demonstrate why it is bad and not cool to use it: > mhm, so they just arbitrarily decided that people's property, was no longer their property? On the freeing of slaves. > mhm, so she refused to fall in line with local laws and cultures to prop up her personal ideology? On Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up. > mhm, so he broke the law? On Gandhi's Salt March
    - jexah 7y ago
      You are ignoring general and subjective western morals and ethics in your comparison. I believe it is unethical for an entity to sell body parts of a human that they (likely convincing somebody to aid and abet in in the process) that they murdered. It's kind of a problem when the entity survivesby body-count. Politics aside the least they could do is donate instead of taking funds for it. Just my opinion though.
      - komali2 7y ago
        >You are ignoring general and subjective western morals and ethics in your comparison. And are you assuming what those morals and ethics are? Considering 67% of Americans think abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases?

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

In that case, they tried to prod the PP representatives into joking, and then edited down those jokes to look like serious statements. The idea was to present a false image in which PP is making a fortune out of body parts, instead of the reality, which is that they will give fetuses for research, but receive nominal compensation for the cost of doing so.

rijoja 7y ago
mhm so they gave body parts and received money? Sounds a lot like selling to me.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  It costs them money to preserve fetuses for research. They're allowed to be reimbursed for that cost. The law allows them to do so. Maybe you don't like the idea of fetuses being used in medical research, but that's a different issue. If Project Veritas were to argue that fundamental point, then that would be honest. What they did, which was dishonest, was to try to present a false picture in which Planned Parenthood was somehow getting rich off of selling fetuses. As usual, there are honest and dishonest ways of trying to argue for political change. The former relies on accurately depicting what is going on and arguing against it, while the latter relies on lying about what is going on, because one believes that one's lies serve the greater good.
- komali2 7y ago
  This is absurdly reductionist and rhetorically dishonest. Let's try absurd reductionism on some other things, to demonstrate why it is bad and not cool to use it: > mhm, so they just arbitrarily decided that people's property, was no longer their property? On the freeing of slaves. > mhm, so she refused to fall in line with local laws and cultures to prop up her personal ideology? On Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up. > mhm, so he broke the law? On Gandhi's Salt March
  - jexah 7y ago
    You are ignoring general and subjective western morals and ethics in your comparison. I believe it is unethical for an entity to sell body parts of a human that they (likely convincing somebody to aid and abet in in the process) that they murdered. It's kind of a problem when the entity survivesby body-count. Politics aside the least they could do is donate instead of taking funds for it. Just my opinion though.
    - komali2 7y ago
      >You are ignoring general and subjective western morals and ethics in your comparison. And are you assuming what those morals and ethics are? Considering 67% of Americans think abortion should be legal in "all" or "most" cases?