At this point, I figured my position was clear, and we could move on. Au contraire!
At this point, I realized I might be dealing with someone whose higher mental functions hadn’t kicked in yet. Ron Paul? What the fuck does he have to do with this? So, I thought- let’s try an analogy!
Unfortunately, JSLE had never seen an analogy before.
Sweet Jesus fuck. Let me spell it out for you, you drooling cretin.
I THINK ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL IN NEARLY ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON’T WANT STATES PROHIBITING IT. I just don’t think the Constitution as currently written prevents them from doing so. Seriously, what’s so fucking complicated?
FWIW, I thought your point was crystal clear, and I couldn’t understand why John was missing it. There’s a lot of that on this board though. If you don’t support every aspect of the orthodox view, you’re the enemy, and even the simplest concession cannot be made. In your case, that means you cannot possibly hold the view that Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned. That is, I don’t know, sacrilege or something. With the zealots on the board, you can almost picture their eyes getting glazed over, and you beat your head against the wall trying to make your point. You never will.
Again, though, I thought your point was very clear, and I detected no inconsistencies in your position. (I’m pro-life, for the record. So you got one vote from the true enemy. ;))
Yes, it was crystal clear. Full disclosure, though, I have the same position. I’m pro-choice through and through, but I think Roe was a stretch. And the thing is, it’s not all that uncommon for people on the left to be pro-choice but still think that Roe was poorly decided.
↑ This. I find this level of obtuseness happens all too frequently on a board with the stated aim of “Fighting Ignorance,” and is likely one of the main reasons why “It’s taking longer than we thought.”
I opened this thread think you were actually pitting John Stamos, and that his left ear was some kind of metaphor for a divided personality or something.
What’s so hard to understand? He’s pro-abortion, in the sense that he believes that any other consideration, like the Constitution, must give way before it.
He’s like a lot of people - he stopped reading once he realized you did not buy Roe v. Wade as sacred. It’s not rare - I question Roe v. Wade fairly often on the boards, and, as a result, I imagine most of the really blithering idiots here think I am anti-abortion.
Gosh, an extremist on the topic of abortion. Who would have imagined?
The funny thing is that I’ve sort of gone away from that line of thinking recently anyway. I no longer question the idea that the Constitution implies some sort of protection for privacy rights; it’s more that I don’t think an abortion is a private act (that is, because it necessarily involves someone else, the doctor, not because of the fetus).
Whoa. Until your post I had no idea John Stamos was a real person. I’d heard the name, but assumed it was some popular character on a show I’d never seen. Taking a look at his credits, it makes sense–I’ve never watched anything he’s done more than one episode of, and I’d have had no cause to recognize him as a someone in his guest star-like appearances. Actually, taking a closer look the only show I’ve overlapped with is a handful of ‘Friends’ episodes.
That was just weird.
(About as weird as the poster completely missing RNATB’s point, come to think of it.)
Huh - I’m surprised. He did start a thread on GD that has over 450 replies (the one musing on Republican voter ID efforts). That’s about the only reason I remember the name (that and it’s kind of distinctive).
