# I pit Gov. Scott Walker for mandating the unnecessary inserting of objects into women **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 5, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746 "2013-07-05T20:19:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 61
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1201 "2013-08-12T13:25:30Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > If Delegate Gilbert’s amendment directing the money from the plates to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund had passed would Planned Parenthood have been able to have someone arrested and charged with theft? Could Planned Parenthood/plate buyers have been able to successfully sue the government to get the funds? Theft? No, because that’s not theft. Sue over the switch? I think so, yes. People bought the plates with the intention of funding X and instead the funds go to anti-X organization Y? Sure, I think there’s a successful lawsuit in there. > [@](#): > > Could Planned Parenthood go to court now and get the ‘no using these funds for abortion’ amendment added by Gov. McDonnell overturned? No – because that was in place when the plates were issued. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that somewhere between the money belonging to the plate purchasers, and belonging to Planned Parenthood that the state gained the power to decide who gets the money and how it can be spent. And if that power doesn’t make it ‘state money’ I’m curious what would. The state’s position is: I won’t collect money for you if you use it for abortion. That doesn’t make the money it collects for you into state money. If I ask you to hold the stakes for a bet between **Bryan Ekers** and me, and you agree, does that money become yours? And if you refuse to hold those stakes because you can’t stand the thought of paying me if I win, does THAT make it your money? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1202 "2013-08-12T13:52:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What matters is the acknowledgment of error on the point. Even if it’s a completely meaningless point? Fine, it’s wrong to call it state money. And it’s also wrong to NOT call it state money. In fact, I propose that state money is neither stately nor monetary, discuss. Although mockery aside, I’ll gladly concede any meaningless point you want, if you’ll concede everything of ACTUAL significance. You’ve pretty much done that already anyway. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1203 "2013-08-12T13:57:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The state’s position is: I won’t collect money for you if you use it for abortion. That doesn’t make the money it collects for you into state money. > > If I ask you to hold the stakes for a bet between **Bryan Ekers** and me, and you agree, does that money become yours? > > And if you refuse to hold those stakes because you can’t stand the thought of paying me if I win, does THAT make it your money? That is a good argument, but I don’t that your analogy exactly matches the situation as I understand it. The state isn’t ‘refusing to hold the stakes’ until all sides agree to its stipulations. The state is saying ‘okay I’ll hold your stakes’ ie. “Trust Women/Respect Choice” plates will be issued, and then unilaterally adding on the no-abortions restriction on funding. If there was negotiation between PP and the governor’s office and the no-abortions funding amendment was agreed to by PP to avoid a veto then your analogy is a good fit. And I agree that calling it “state funds” at that point would be wrong. Personally, I think some kind of warning to potential plate purchasers of the (unique) funding restrictions at the point of sale would be fair. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1204 "2013-08-12T14:04:17Z")
Oh, don’t say “point of sale” because LEGALLY the issuance of a license plate is not a sale and Bricker will spend his next five posts citing why. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1205 "2013-08-12T14:13:39Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > That is a good argument, but I don’t that your analogy exactly matches the situation as I understand it. The state isn’t ‘refusing to hold the stakes’ until all sides agree to its stipulations. The state is saying ‘okay I’ll hold your stakes’ ie. “Trust Women/Respect Choice” plates will be issued, and then unilaterally adding on the no-abortions restriction on funding. > > If there was negotiation between PP and the governor’s office and the no-abortions funding amendment was agreed to by PP to avoid a veto then your analogy is a good fit. And I agree that calling it “state funds” at that point would be wrong. > > Personally, I think some kind of warning to potential plate purchasers of the (unique) funding restrictions at the point of sale would be fair. The funding restriction was passed before the plates were ever issued. I don’t disagree that a warning about the abortion restriction would be fair. However, the restriction matches a number of similar funding restrictions across the board in Virginia law. For example: § 32.1-326.3(I) - forbidding the Department of Education and the Department of Medical Assistance Services from using any state funds to fund abortion services § 32.1-325(A)(7) - state pass-through of Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion § 38.2-3451 - funds from Obamacare health plans cannot be used for abortion So while I agree that more transparent disclosure of the license plate funding would be better, the restriction is in line with all other cases of Virginia accepting pass-through money, such as federal Medicaid dollars, but refusing to use it for abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1206 "2013-08-12T14:15:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Even if it’s a completely meaningless point? Fine, it’s wrong to call it state money. > > And it’s also wrong to NOT call it state money. In fact, I propose that state money is neither stately nor monetary, discuss. > > Although mockery aside, I’ll gladly concede any meaningless point you want, if you’ll concede everything of ACTUAL significance. You’ve pretty much done that already anyway. How can I possibly agree to such a sweeping claim without knowing what you regard as having actual significance? Although if you believe I’ve already agreed with you on those points, then I guess we’re good. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1207 "2013-08-12T14:45:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The funding restriction was passed before the plates were ever issued. Yes, but it not like PP could, if they found the restriction unacceptable, stop the government from issuing the plates and collecting the fees. The state **is** going to ‘hold the stakes’ to use your analogy whether PP likes it or not. It’s the ultimate and seemingly unilateral control of how the money is spent that makes it look like it’s the government’s money. > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t disagree that a warning about the abortion restriction would be fair. However, the restriction matches a number of similar funding restrictions across the board in Virginia law. For example: > > § 32.1-326.3(I) - forbidding the Department of Education and the Department of Medical Assistance Services from using any **state funds** to fund abortion services Bolding Mine Your not suggesting that the portion of plate fees going to PP are state funds are you? 😃 > [@Bricker](#): > > § 32.1-325(A)(7) - state pass-through of Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion > § 38.2-3451 - funds from Obamacare health plans cannot be used for abortion > > So while I agree that more transparent disclosure of the license plate funding would be better, the restriction is in line with all other cases of Virginia accepting pass-through money, such as federal Medicaid dollars, but refusing to use it for abortion. Ah, I was using ‘state’ in ‘state funds’ in more of a pol sci sense than in the American ‘state’ sense (I really should be more careful with that when discussing American issues). But I meant unique in terms of restricting the plate fee money, not unique in terms of other state sources of money not being available for abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1208 "2013-08-12T15:09:29Z")
The Virginia law actually says “Obamacare”? That’s hilarious. Any you were given ample opportunity to meaningfully define “special” but if you’d rather retreat to the safe ground of legal minutiae, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1209 "2013-08-12T15:24:27Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Yes, but it not like PP could, if they found the restriction unacceptable, stop the government from issuing the plates and collecting the fees. The state **is** going to ‘hold the stakes’ to use your analogy whether PP likes it or not. It’s the ultimate and seemingly unilateral control of how the money is spent that makes it look like it’s the government’s money. No, I disagree. The plate issuance started with PP’s request to issue them. And they can stop them: simply stop using the plates – the law provides that plates don’t get continued that have fewer than 200 active sets of plates. > [@](#): > > Your not suggesting that the portion of plate fees going to PP are state funds are you? 😃 Not at all – I was simply illustrating the animus in Virginia law against abortions, period. > [@](#): > > Ah, I was using ‘state’ in ‘state funds’ in more of a pol sci sense than in the American ‘state’ sense (I really should be more careful with that when discussing American issues). But I meant unique in terms of restricting the plate fee money, not unique in terms of other state sources of money not being available for abortion. Got it. I agree: the treatment of these fees is unique. Virginia has a boatload of other fee recipients; not one of them is restricted. The list is quite varied, and includes supporters of: Virginia lighthouses Pharmacists Civil Air Patrol Coast Guard Auxiliary, Class-J No. 611 steam locomotives Sons of Confederate Veterans (restricted in the sense that the Confederate Flag logo of this group is not allowed on the plate) Virginia Breast Cancer Foundation Chesapeake Bay preservation Virginians for the Arts naval aviators Family and Children’s Trust Fund Boat U.S FOX HUNTING UNLOCKING AUTISM victims of attack on USS Cole Parrothead Club supporters of the Washington Redskins football team United We Stand (911) EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME NASA Langley Research Center Urban League of Hampton Roads FRIENDS OF TIBET; fees organ donor program Virginia Sheriffs’ Institute bicycle enthusiasts Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; fees Surfrider Foundation Jaycees Kiwanis Lions of Virginia Rotary International Ruritan National Freemasons Shriners Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia Order of the Eastern Star And my own plate: Knights of Columbus Among many, many others… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1210 "2013-08-12T19:57:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME There’s a surcharge if you want it spelled correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1211 "2013-08-12T20:32:36Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There’s a surcharge if you want it spelled correctly. Huh? It is spelled correctly, unless you mean it’s all upper-case letters. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1212 "2013-08-12T20:41:59Z")
How do your blood cells carry oxygen with such a crippling irony deficiency? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1213 "2013-08-13T17:13:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I offered those links as proof of an argument against abortion that is not tied to religion. They needn’t be strong enough to convince you or me of their position, only that it is a sound and reasonable position. The last link, the YouTube link shows famed atheist Christopher Hitchens presenting on of the philosophical underpinnings. Again, an argument needn’t convince me or you to adopt that position in order to be valid. Sure, they are not overtly religious, just like how Intelligent Design is not overtly religious (well to me it is, but it was designed not to be), but I wouldn’t just accept an argument at face value. It seems you want people to think that just because somebody doesn’t mention god in his argument, that one cannot poke at it and expose the gooey god-ness within. Like a later poster said, how many of them are for free birth control? There are a lot of ways to reduce abortion and it the most religious people favor only stopping it at the door. Rather, all of their efforts to reduce abortion can actually be more effective by supporting health care, birth control, contraceptives, and sex education. One cannot be secularly against abortions and still be against those things. It ties together > [@magellan01](#): > > I’m still a bit confused. But I feel the need to say that I don’t think any religionist would dismiss a position out of hand simply because it had no foundation or support in religion. But that may not be what you mean at all. That’s sort of what I mean, but there are nuances. As you may know, some religious people consider atheism to be a religion. For the purposes of this debate, do you think there are those who would invalidate an argument if its based on atheism, if they count atheism as a religion? Just as I discount an argument based on religion, those religionists might discount my argument thinking, falsely, that atheism is a religion. How that ties into the argument is that atheism is most definitely not a religion, and anything grounded in atheism should be strictly logical and grounded in secular objectivity. Atheism isn’t a religion so it can’t make a religious argument; it is a neutral, objective one. I ask you if you think that religious people in general would accept that, or would they consider atheism to be biased (especially biased against their religion) rather than neutral. Because if they do, that’s bad logic and they are objectively wrong. > [@magellan01](#): > > One thing that I think might be confusing is that some posters have tried to use **Bricker** , the individual, as proxy for society at large. It appears, that some think that if they can show that his motivation is not purely secular that a purely secular position against abortion does not exist. His link to non-Christian and Atheist sites that are opposed to abortion should have put a stop to that point of attack, but no such luck. I personally think that a lot of people are familiar with Bricker’s debate style and therefore assume, with some objective confidence, that he will tie it back to religion. If he doesn’t want that to happen, then it should be up to him to make a purely secular argument because that is the neutral and objective argument ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1214 "2013-08-13T17:26:43Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Like a later poster said, how many of them are for free birth control? I am. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1215 "2013-08-13T17:28:29Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I personally think that a lot of people are familiar with Bricker’s debate style and therefore assume, with some objective confidence, that he will tie it back to religion. If he doesn’t want that to happen, then it should be up to him to make a purely secular argument because that is the neutral and objective argument What the fuck? When, in ANY debate not about religion, have you ever seen me tie the debate back to religion? I have been on this board for thirteen years, and made nearly 40,000 posts. Find me one debate (that wasn’t about religion in the first place) that I “tied back to religion.” ONE. Go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1216 "2013-08-13T18:23:56Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Sure, they are not overtly religious, just like how Intelligent Design is not overtly religious (well to me it is, but it was designed not to be), but I wouldn’t just accept an argument at face value. It seems you want people to think that just because somebody doesn’t mention god in his argument, that one cannot poke at it and expose the gooey god-ness within. I do. The purely secular demand cuts both ways. I think it is incumbent that people argue from a purely secular position and leave God and religion out of it. Conversely, if someone does that, you don’t get to revert to nonsense like, “yeah, you SAY that, but I know what you really mean” or to point to their motivation. The motivation is immaterial. And if they can argue without bringing God or religion into it, I feel it is incumbent upon you or me to not then bring religion into it on our own. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Like a later poster said, how many of them are for free birth control? There are a lot of ways to reduce abortion and it the most religious people favor only stopping it at the door. Rather, all of their efforts to reduce abortion can actually be more effective by supporting health care, birth control, contraceptives, and sex education. One cannot be secularly against abortions and still be against those things. It ties together Oh, come on. While I agree with your overall point, I don’t agree that someone who opposes abortion must necessarily sign on for every single thing that may contribute to reducing them. There are costs associated with each item, both monetary and societal. Each needs to be weighed on their own. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > That’s sort of what I mean, but there are nuances. As you may know, some religious people consider atheism to be a religion. For the purposes of this debate, do you think there are those who would invalidate an argument if its based on atheism, if they count atheism as a religion? Just as I discount an argument based on religion, those religionists might discount my argument thinking, falsely, that atheism is a religion. While I’ve seen some people claim that strong atheism can be viewed a religion, I never—not once—seen anyone seek to win argument by claiming that the atheist is arguing from a point of religion. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > How that ties into the argument is that atheism is most definitely not a religion, and anything grounded in atheism should be strictly logical and grounded in secular objectivity. Atheism isn’t a religion so it can’t make a religious argument; it is a neutral, objective one. I ask you if you think that religious people in general would accept that, or would they consider atheism to be biased (especially biased against their religion) rather than neutral. Because if they do, that’s bad logic and they are objectively wrong. I agree completely. I also think it is objectively wrong to not argue directly against the argument being made. If a religionist does not bring God or religion into it—even if it’s The Pope—you need to counter similarly. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I personally think that a lot of people are familiar with Bricker’s debate style and therefore assume, with some objective confidence, that he will tie it back to religion. If he doesn’t want that to happen, then it should be up to him to make a purely secular argument because that is the neutral and objective argument It matters not one iota. If you’re right, then he’s really saying that his position IS based on religion. But until he does so, it is incumbent upon those arguing with him to argue against what he presents. Not what they think he might be holding in his hand behind his back. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1217 "2013-08-13T18:29:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What the fuck? > > When, in ANY debate not about religion, have you ever seen me tie the debate back to religion? I have been on this board for thirteen years, and made nearly 40,000 posts. Find me one debate (that wasn’t about religion in the first place) that I “tied back to religion.” ONE. > > Go ahead. Calm down. I’m not actually arguing with you or your debates, I’m arguing with magellan about your debate style. I didn’t even read what you wrote in this thread, my first post was a support of how some people find your style to be overly religious ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1218 "2013-08-13T18:48:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Calm down. I’m not actually arguing with you or your debates, I’m arguing with magellan about your debate style. I didn’t even read what you wrote in this thread, my first post was a support of how some people find your style to be overly religious Sorry. I still don’t see how that could be, unless people are simply saying to themselves, _a la Lobo sans exemplica_, “He’s Catholic, therefore he must be resting his debate on Catholic principles.” In fact, I am careful to rest my debate on legal principles, and it’s that tendency that has earned me much criticism. Many times, debate opponents will exasperatedly say, “But what’s your _opinion_? Forget the law – what’s RIGHT?” Those are the kind of questions that lead to answer which might well be derived from a religious base, and which I am careful not rely upon. I rely upon the law as a proxy for questions of right and wrong, not because I believe the law is always right, but because the law is a source of objective finality. We probably disagree on the origins of morality and the calculations of what actions are moral or immoral – but that’s why the country has a system of crafting public policy when people disagree on what it should be. I am happy to debate religion _when the subject is religion_ – but no one has ever seen me say, “This should be law because that’s what the Catholic Church says is right,” and so I’m surprised indeed to hear you say that “…some people find [my] style to be overly religious.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1219 "2013-08-13T19:23:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …some people find [my] style to be overly religious." **Yog** , I’m wondering if you typoed the word “overtly”? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746/1220 "2013-08-13T19:47:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I invite any third party (even magellan01) to comment, in case I’m being opaque and don’t realize it. > [@Bricker](#): > > And I also extend this invitation. > > I don’t think, any more, that **Bryan** is being deceptive. I think what I believed was evasiveness was simply my inability to get what he was saying, but I still don’t. And it may well be that I am the opaque one here, so if there’s a translator that can help, please step up. I can’t see how this statement “killing humans is wrong because humans are special” can be discarded as semi-religious an the tautology “Killing humans is wrong because killing killing humans is wrong” can be used as an argument. By definition, tautologies are not valid as proofs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=60) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gov-scott-walker-for-mandating-the-unnecessary-inserting-of-objects-into-women/662746.md?page=62)