Was that intended seriously?
A hyperbole is an example of a statement that is not intended to be a factual statement.
You know what they say about people that assume?
90% of them should have been aborted.
Hyperbole is a figure of speech, such as “I could sleep for a week”, or “This backpack weighs a ton”
Hyperbole is not a Senator changing a 3% figure to 90%, and saying it as if it were a matter of accurate reporting.
So there is no difference between a lie and a hyperbole?
Step 1: Deny that there is a hole.
Step 2: Deny that there is a hole while you are standing in it and shouting up at people.
Step 3: Deny that there is a hole while you are standing in it, shouting up at people, and picking up clods of dirt and flinging it skyward at others.
Seems kind of like your nitpicking unnecessarily. 90% vs 3% seems like a large difference, but the point he was making was true, Plant Parenthood provides abortions. And you’re further nitpicking on what “abortion” means.
Sort of like how 125million and 47million are pretty much the same thing…
I never said they were the same thing in that other thread you’re referring to. You could look it up.
If Kyl said a lot, some or a substantial part of PPHs budget was used in abortion. it would have been wrong but could not have been nailed down. He stood in front of the Senate and said 90 percent. That is an exact amount that can be substantiated or not. He was wrong . But how does one defend his words by saying they should not be taken as a statement of fact? Should all of his statements now be seen as possibly not intended as factual ?
He was not only wrong, but not even close. Less than 3 percent is involved in abortion.
We need a dictionary here, so people can understand what “hyperbole” and “nitpicking” mean.
“Nitpicking” means
which doesn’t quite fit someone saying that almost everything an organization does is provide abortions, when only 3% of their effort goes to that.
Yes, 90% does seem like a lot more than 3%. Because it is.
His point was clearly that a major portion of PP’s effort was directed toward abortions, not merely that they did some providing of effort. That’s a fairly substantial difference, and your effort to characterize it otherwise isn’t at all convincing.
Damn it Cort, we’re trying to masturbate here. Questioning the realism of the porn doesn’t help.
Now who’s nitpicking?
If you’re uncomfortable with facts and logical analysis here, perhaps RedState.org would be more to your satisfaction.
Bullshit. If I claimed “The vast majority of women who claim to have been raped were lying”, even though the actual number was vanishingly small, would you accuse me of mere hyperbole?
I remember a Tuesday a few months ago it was snowing so badly I got into work two hours late and then we decided to shut down early. If you looked at my productivity that day you could probably conclude: 90% was spent taking a dump.
What happens if we can find one PP office that on one day spent 90% of its resources on abortion? Essentially one day when they had one client and all they did was perform an abortion.
I bet if we work hard enough we can prove the initial statement true in the most limited possible fashion.
That still counts as winning right?
What if you claimed 125million people spend every penny on basic living.
Then it turned out the number is 47million, and basic living means $22,000 a year.
Perhaps we could conclude that hyperbole and partisan rhetoric sucks, and that you should back up your statements or just stop talking.
The headline here isn’t, “Republican caught lying,” or even “Politician caught lying.”
It’s “bullshit political rhetoric annoys opposing side.”
Ew, that fetish stuff creeps me out.
It’s not really 3%. I’ve pointed this out earlier.
The difference is in what message it’s intended to convey and how it’s likely to be taken.
If the underlying point is essentially the same regardless of the accuracy of the statement, then you have grounds for making a hyperbolic statement. If the underlying point depends on the accuracy, then you can’t.
In this case, Kyl was making the point that PP spends a lot of their money on abortions, and that money is fungible. That’s a valid point.
That said, I think it crossed the line, because I personally would assume he meant 90% or at least close to it. But I can see someone seeing things differently, so it’s very possible that he did mean it as a hyperbolic statement.
Okay, let’s be honest about something for a moment.
The people who vote for him don’t give a shit that he lied about this, why? Because they are against abortion and he is against abortion, that’s all that matters. To them 3% and 90% are both of the set of numbers n>0
The people who don’t vote for him (and I assume he runs unopposed) don’t care if he lies or not. They support abortion rights so they don’t care if the number is 3% or 90%, all they care about is that again n>0 (in the sense this time that abortion is allowed to happen not that they want it to).
If you want to pit something and be really really super angry, the mistake here is the fact that a senator spent time on the senate floor talking about abortion when they were supposed to be talking about a budget (where t[sub]abortion[/sub]>0).
And even in that pit thread I was take a dump then say, “why is any amount of campaign time spent talking about abortion?” You should be mad that this fucker is elected or one simple position that should have vanished into obscurity in 1974.
When you claim that that a hyperbole was made, and his office says it was an untruth, is your claim a lie, or a hyperbole? And would you like a shovel?
Okay, I can spin this, how? Because I’m that good:
Woman goes to PP for an abortion, in the process they notice she has has HPV so they tester her for cervical cancer, then provided contraception in the form of RU486. That’s pretty close to 90%
And here you witness the beauty of the conservative position: there is no lie. If Rush had said this he’d spend the rest of the week pushing further until PP is included in voter fraud.