The irony is more than delicious.
Grin! But neither case was “involved in an abortion,” so they don’t serve as counterexamples.
Now…how about a (female) medical student performing abortions on lab mice? There are some abortions in which no man is involved!
The Phantom Menace count?
(bolding mine)I’m surprised y’all let this one slip by.
So, Fistful-Of-Cancelled-Postage-Stamps-For-Brains, it is your contention that it is impossible to coerce, force, or strongly pressure a woman to have an abortion, and that no woman has ever had an abortion against her will?
We couldn’t take all the fun, Czar.
Grassy Ass.
Of course, the OP made no claim about why she did not record the event.
There it is. Please tell me where you see that she states any reason for not recording? I see zero evidence that she is implying that the reason that she did not take an action was because it was illegal.
I know that this must shock you, being an attorney and all but people decide to do or not do illegal things for reasons other than it’s illegality. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that most people do whatever actions they do with zero regard to it’s legality.
It appears that you asked a question that you were uninterested in the answer to. The answer didn’t suit you so you try to pursue the red herring about the poster lying about why they didn’t record and you have zero reason other than personal prejudice for believing that.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong. So please tell me where you see any motive for not recording spelled out and if you saw it, why did you ask a question that had already been answered.
I’m the OP, not sfb. And I’m beginning to regret it already.
Fortunately, aborting threads is perfectly legal!
Sorry about that Johnny. I stand corrected.
The inference is obvious. She refers to the fact that she wanted to record, but believed it would be illegal to do so.
That’s not “zero,” in any world.
I can accept she stated that she wanted to record and I will accept that she said that it would be illegal to do so… Again though, show me the link between the two ideas above. Show me the but. Illegally was an adverb that defines the type of recording that she wished to do. What type of recording was it? It was an illegal one. It says nothing about the intent for not performing the action. The only way that would be true is if the only reason someone does not take an action is because it is illegal. I contend that it is not at all. Valid reason, sure. Only reason, not so much.
It is reasonable to believe that the poster used the word illegally to emphasize that they wanted to do something so badly that the legality was no matter. Why didn’t they? Who knows. They are saying that the illegality of the action does not affect their desire to do the action not that it was the reason that they didn’t. In that case, I didn’t have my recording device handy is a perfectly acceptable reason to not perform an action that you are stating that you wanted to do so badly regardless of it’s legality.
Of course, that would also be an assumption so I can’t say that this is the reason. The only clue to the reason was provided by the poster when asked for it. What is the basis for disregarding her clarification but be willing to play inference games from what she originally said? If you intended to disregard her clarification why bother to ask the question. You can’t possibly be swayed. Your mind is set. You saw the inference.
So I type again, it appears that you asked a question wanting one of the possibly asnswers and when you didn’t get that answer you accused the person of lying about the true answer. If your defense of this is what you typed above it’s strikingly not convincing to be honest.
Ah Bricker, resident expert at the Chewbacca defense.
Whether or not some random Utah pol did or did not yell as miss SFB is utterly irrelevant to the odiousness of the legislation, but given that the law is so odious the best that Bricker can do is to try to nail down some small bit of jello on the side whereh he might conceivably score some points.
I can just see Bricker as a defense attorney.
Bricker: So you say that you were celebrating your husbands birthday when my you allege my client stabbed him 47 times?
Witness: yes, that’s how we caught the whole thing on film, and he was still stabbing him when the police arrived.
Bricker: What kind of cake was served at the party?
Witness: Red velvet, I made it myself the night before.
Bricker: did you make it from scratch or from a mix?
Witness: From a mix.
Bricker What brand?
Witness: Duncan Hines
Bricker: Where did you buy it?
Witness: Well, we usually shop that the local Safeway…
Bricker: I’ll have you know that the Safeway near your house hasn’t sold Duncan Hines Red Velvet cake mix since 2013!
Shocked gasps fro the Jury
Bricker: This woman’s testimony is clearly a pack of lies, I move for immediate dismissal!
Judge: Granted! Bricker, your client is free to go.
So in order to stop this obvious hijack attempt can we just stipulate that there is some reasonable doubt as to whether some GOP pol in Utah may have at some point in the past couple of months raised his voice, and move on to whether or not legislation forcing Doctors to lie to their patients is a good idea?
I want Red Velvet Cake.
To answer your question, no it is not but it is probably the least reason I am against this law.
I do wonder about this. If this law passes would it be illegal to say something like. “the law requires me to say this but it my opinion it is nonsense”? I understand that you are required to present the counter argument but is there any requirement that you treat it respectfully?
Also, since this is supposedly about education what if you said what they wanted you to say then gave the patient literature that countered their argument and supported yours?
If you can do both of these things then absolutely the whole lying thing is a trivial reason I don’t support this.
The idea that someone shouted profanities at someone but they didn’t record it is so far away from being suspicious that it’s ridiculous. The idea that someone might think it was illegal to record, and also didn’t reach for their phone fast enough is not remotely odd.
This is the type of thing we see by dishonest defense attorneys on TV. It’s how they get people off by breaking apart real testimonies, by making innocuous things sound suspicious by nitpicking things to death. All while avoiding the actual main topic–somehow the distrust in that situation is supposed to spread to the entire case.
Hell, I’m still not sure it’s not something that happens for real, like in that Canadian rape case. The judge’s verdict sure sounded a lot like that sort of thing went on.
And, naturally, as a neutral observer you are open to being convinced.
Look, if you gathered up 20 random adult English-speaking listeners, read that paragraph to them, and then asked, “As best you understand, why did the speaker not record the politician’s harsh words?” we both know that most would say, “Because it’s illegal.”
But add the subject of abortion to the narrative, and it becomes vitally important to protect the pro-choice speaker and the pro-choice narrative. Which you are doing.
I’m honestly not doing that at all. You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned abortion at all because it’s irrelevant to anything I have said. In fact, I doubt very much I’ve ever said anything about abortion on this board. It’s not one of my big issues. People yelling at people and acting out publicly however does concern me and yeah, I can believe that people can do that. If my opinion is clouded it’s by this. I simply don’t find the scenario in any way unbelievable. I see no reason to presuppose any obfuscation by the poster since my knee jerk reaction wasn’t “how does this reflect on the abortion issue.”
You can call me a pedant though and that would be a fair cop. I also acknowledge that I try to read what is written not infer what I want it to say and most may well not do this.
You’re right though, I am open to being convinced. I’m under no illusions that how I interpret the language matches any social norms. How do other thread readers interpret this? I’m open to ya’ll proving me wrong. Since we both know what the answer will be, this should be a slam dunk for your point.
For what it’s worth, as someone reading this thread for funsies, I do not know most people would say that. I read the initial assertion as suggesting that the writer *believed *the action to be illegal, but had s/he thought to react and record, s/he would have done so despite the presumption of illegality. That is, s/he *thought *the action would be illegal, and that thought *might *have influenced his/her reaction, but was not the deciding factor.
:shrug: Perhaps I too am merely blinded by partisan rancor. I hope not.
I read it that the person would have recorded it regardless of the legality of it.
IOW - they thought it would be illegal to record it, would have done it anyway.
I still doubt the veracity of the comment, given that we have no evidence that the person posting it actually had the encounter - but I also have no reason to believe that such an encounter ‘could’ have happened.
I generally like to defer to the ‘benefit of the doubt’ in such anecdotes on a public message board, but its getting harder and harder to do so. (this is not to the person making this particular claim, but is a more general comment).