I don’t think you want me to speak for the pro-choice side. I will let pro-choicers do that for themselves, if you don’t mind.
Hard to believe, or just easier to mischaracterize the discussion?
In the course of any number of discussions, different perspectives have been put forth. Bricker (pretty naturally, even if incorrectly) recognized the perspective that was most easily identified as the one diametrically opposed to his own.
When you made a point of saying that he deliberately chose one argument simply to make his opponents look bad, he offered to characterize his opponents’ arguments more in line with what they preferred.
You responded, first, by insisting on claiming he was not going to do what he said, then launched into a harangue claiming he “always” behaves in certain ways. Then other posters showed up to indicate that his initial understanding was not totally wrong, yet you insist on claiming that he is deliberately being disingenuous.
At this point, when he offered to respect your position, you declared he would not.
When other posters demonstrated that his original position was not entirely incorrect, you ignored them while attacking him for his original position, not his offer to amend his position. Now you claim he is being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps you should step away for a while and come back when you can address the issue with more light and less heat.
Are you more interested in having Bricker approach this topic more even-handedly in the future? Or do you simply have a need to keep expressing your rage at perceived past wrongs?
Politicians of whatever stripe might make arguments that the rank and file have no interest in. I’m interested in the truth of people’s beliefs, not some pretty pr-driven statement. No anti abortion rights advocate is going to upset me if he or she says that some pro abortion rights advocates think it’s a lump of tissue, a parasite, or any other derogatory term. I’m not afraid of someone knowing the truth about various arguments on the pro side, and the lump of tissue argument is one that I can embrace although it doesn’t reflect my own beliefs particularly well. (Not because I believe it’s more than a lump of tissue, but because I have no interest in defining it as or as not a lump of tissue).
It would be incorrect for anyone to say that the LoT argument is the only one, or perhaps to say that it’s the most common one. But it is common, very common on this board, and completely fair to describe some arguments as that. Not all. Perhaps not most. But some.
There are so many ways I believe the anti side twists and distorts and, in some sad cases, outright lies that I am relieved when I see an honest representation of any pro abortion rights argument. And this is one.
What do you mean by “unrepresentative”, then? Certainly a view can exist, and be widely held, but still not “represent” everything that disagrees with you. It most certainly is disingenuous to continue as if the views you have not selected to discuss do not even exist, especially when they are held by at least as large a number of people as the ones you do select.
You don’t like the term “cherry-picking”? How about “filtering”, then?
The fact that there is a wide range of views out there other than one’s own means only that your opponents can’t get their act together, huh? :rolleyes: Do you have any idea how fucking *silly * a statement that is?
I certainly agree that the way in which you have deliberately distorted what I said is silly. I would not even say that it is surprising.
Now I know what the phrase offenderati was invented for.
“Distort” what you said, tom? Did I misquote you in any way? :rolleyes: much less “deliberately”, you old mindreader you? :wally: I haven’t seen such pouting since my daughter was 4 years old and shouting “You did that on purpose” with a little footstomp for a flourish.
It’s good to see you agree your claim is silly, though. If you *do * still agree, now that I’ve been the one to point it out.
Gawdamighty, are you *proud * of yourself for this? :wally:
Tell you what dipshit, I’ve got roughly 2100 posts to my name. Bring up a minimum of ten of them where I’ve used “left-wing blogs” to construct said posts, and I’ll eat a shoe of your choosing.
Of course, being the gentleman that you are, I fully expect that if you can’t fulfill said task, you’ll not only provide a full apology, but eat a shoe of my choosing.
Deal, Regards Shodan?
PS-Since we all know you’re not the brightest bulb around, I just wanted to clarify why I chose ten posts as some kind of trend.
See, even if it were true, that would mean 0.05%* of my whole posting history would have anything to do with “left-wing blogs.” Which, BTW, I know you despise, but there are a number of them that should actually make you PROUD of being an American. Why? Because they are not afraid of living in reality and have no need to make-up shit to feel good about your country – or rather the way your country used to be.
10 ÷ 2100 = 0.0476%
Yes, distort. The following that you posted is a distortion of what I said:
It’s good to see that you have stopped whining about the fact that I have had to correct your errors and have moved on to simply calling me names. Simple name-calling I can just ignore, considering the source, whereas your earlier whining required that I take the time to demonstrate your errors.
What would be the criteria to judge whether a given post was inspired by a left-wing blog?
Then you ought to be able to show the difference. You have not, and by now the presumption has to be that you cannot.
When come back, bring argument.
Wish I didn’t like one of you guys, then I could root for somebody. As it stands, it just creeps me out.
I don’t know what’s happened to him, either, and it kind of creeps me out too. Tom used to act like an adult around here. Too much time online can make just about anyone forget that they’re conversing with *real * people, it seems.
Why not ask the dude making the accusation?
The dude making the accusation said that RedFury reviews left-wing blogs and “vomits” the results up here. That’s a very general statement, very lacking in rigorous definition.
In response, RedFury issued a challenge, saying “Find ten posts…” in which he did that. That’s a very specific standard, and suggests a very rigorous method of analyzing a particular post and determining if it qualifies.
So I asked the guy who was suggesting that there was a method what the method might be.
I think it’s a very specific accusation, and I’d like to see you for once hold the people on your “side” to the standard you hold people not on your “side.”
You have a lapdog. Can’t you put him in a sit-stay position for once?
How is it specific?
Here’s what Shodan said:
You want to pretend that RedFury isn’t given to surfing the left-wing blogs to find fuel for his hatred of the US and Israel and vomiting it up onto the SDMB? He does.
Does that mean RedFury reads a left-wing blog, finds a specific issue, and posts it here with a link back to the blog? Or does it mean that he reads left-wing blogs to increase his hatred of the US and Israel and then posts about his hatred here? Does every post in which RedFury says anything negative about the US or Israel qualify? It would seem to – any post that remotely criticizes the US or Israel can be said to be “hatred” which was “fueled by left-wing blogs” and then “vomited” up here… right?
You can see that Shodan’s comment is anything but specific; if read literally, its reach is quite sweeping. It cannot be read specifically; it’s merely a generic insult, devoid of any specific meaning.
Okay, so when he comes back, as he is wont to do, and claims that RF “proved” his point, you would reply to him that he didn’t establish a point in the first place? If you hadn’t replied already, I would assume you weren’t interested in the tangent at all. But since you’ve stepped in between them, I assume you have some interest in holding the “debate” to a certain standard?
Maybe I’m missing something here, JS, but it seems to me that friend Bricker is displaying commendable respect for a political opponent. Red Furry, he seems to say, is above such a partisan sniping as implying that he merely “vomits up” what he reads on the lefty blogs.
Our efforts to gently guide him from the path of political error are bearing modest fruit. Rejoice!