So don’t have one.
There, I fixed the abortion issue for you.
I view every abortion as the end of a unique person. I cannot be flippant about extinguishing a beautiful thing that is human life.
End of hijack.
You should do your part to prevent abortions. Get snipped.
One might go so far as to say they ARE shunned by every decent human being.
This seems more evil than stupid so I picked this thread:
https://apnews.com/article/legislature-voting-rights-ted-cruz-legislation-elections-6270306f67108ac16f4ee7b45a8afdb3
Because no one but you would interpret the word “nobody” as meaning literally nobody. All the rest of us know there are a few exceptions.
And, yes, that “no one” is also not literal. I used it without even realizing it. That’s just the normal way people talk.
Hyper-literal parsing is a very common disingenuous argument technique. It’s a great way to distract from the original point. You would do well to stop employing it.
There are several posters who think you’re a troll. Presumably that’s not something you want. It means they won’t take your arguments seriously.
What about when a guy pulls out and shoots sperm all over the sheets? I mean, technically sperm is ‘alive’ and could become a unique person.
I saw one a few years ago that TALKED. And it sounded like Bruce Willis!
I did. My doctor was in a plane crash and had badly scared hands. He said I was the only person to bring a book to read during the procedure. I didn’t want to think about what was happening, so why not keep my mind occupied?
Do you know the difference between could and is?
Yeah, a fetus could become a natural born person, but that doesn’t mean it is now.
Let’s get back to bashing people who you assume the worst of, and fail to appreciate alternative reasons why one would not back a bill.
McCain voted against a vet Bill, not because he hates vets, but because he thought the Bill did not do enough.
Similarly, voting against a Bill were the majority of the money doesn’t go to the stated purpose of the Bill , does not make one evil.
And I could say much the same about folks who toss various absolutist claims around: that strikes me as a disingenuous technique, one that can let folks who are so inclined make what look like bold and provocative statements built around sweeping claims, and then (a) if questioned, cheerfully deny that they meant what they actually said, while accusing others of being disingenuous by taking stuff literally, sheesh; or, if it goes unquestioned, (b) just leave the false assertion there, unchallenged.
And the flip side of that is, what you seem to be proposing strikes me as being plenty worse in the event that they did, as it happens, actually mean it. Because then I’m reading what they wrote, and — as you said — not taking them seriously, because I’d be chuckling while thinking to myself, oh, he clearly doesn’t mean that, it’d be silly of me to take that literally as he’s surely not silly enough to think it; I’ll just declare victory and go home, since I can figure he agrees with me that it’s not 100% — even though he’s saying it’s, y’know, 100%.
And, well, that seems like one heck of an easy road to arguing in bad faith: engaging not with what’s said, but with what I figure he’d say if he bothered to word it accurately, tra-la-la.
You say that what I’m doing can distract from the original point; I say that wording it badly can distract from the original point — and that, while I could then guess at what the original point is, I’d rather ask for clarification.
And then there’s this: Euphonious_Polemic writes that “Any intact apples we can find are very happy currently sitting in the rotten pile, and will not dare point out the rot.” And when I ask about those who ‘dare point out the rot’, he asks: “What exactly happens to Republican politicians who point out the rotten apples?” And — wait, what is that?
Let’s say you’re right: that, instead of asking a question, I should’ve dismissively figured he didn’t mean what he wrote about how any of them Will Not Dare; oh, no, surely he already agrees with me that some Will Dare, and it’d be silly of me to take that literally. But instead of making that rejoinder, which sure would’ve put me in my place by making your point, he — moves on to asking what happens to them. Seriously: what the fuck?
If his original point, worded incorrectly, was merely that many Will Not Dare, then, sure, clarify that some will, and maybe throw in a snarky quip about how damn few will, and then let’s move on to this new point. But his response flowed so naturally that it truly had me wondering if that was his original point: not that they literally won’t dare, that of course they’d so dare, but that all along he was only ever thinking of what happens to them when they do dare.
And I could’ve dismissively ignored that as phrased, the way you advise — figuring that he of course knows the answer is, uh, they’ve kept serving in the Senate; it looks like some folks thought about censuring Sasse, but then decided against it — but I’m genuinely trying to discuss this in good faith, while doing my best to treat him like he’s doing likewise: responding to his posts as he chooses to write them, instead of putting words in his mouth.
See, here’s the thing: I don’t want to misleadingly say “yes,” and then have you pop in a day from now or a week from now or whatever to when I post approvingly about some action taken by a Republican — or by a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate, or by right-wingers that Republicans voted on to the Supreme Court, or whatever.
I want — what’s the term that gets thrown around so often around here? Subtlety And Nuance? I want to lead with clarity instead of clarifying later, or getting asked to clarify later: you’ve posted in this thread that you’re taking about a through and through kind of evil, with folks who didn’t vote for Trump being “just as guilty” as those who did. You write: “Everyone who supports, enables, abets, encourages, donates, speaks for, or votes for Republicans is equally complicit.” You write: “There is no moderate sector of the party; it is all loony right to fascist right.” You write: “The Republican party that been on the wrong side of history on every issue since the Southern Strategy. That pre-Trump party.”
I could take BigT’s advice and figure you don’t literally mean any of that, and I could reply by expressing similar sentiments while figuring that anyone would know not to take me literally either; but I’d rather make clear that, while I disagree with plenty of positions advanced by the Republican Party — and would brand those as evil — I favor some of their positions, and so I still go into election after election asking whether I should vote for the Republican or the Democrat.
But enough, for the moment, about how I approach voting; you write, of me, that, “you won’t concede that they are still Republican and will vote Republican. Nobody should ever vote Republican.” I disagree with the first part; I of course concede that they are still Republican and that they will vote Republican; if I take you literally, you seem to be so glaringly incorrect that BigT may well be on to something. Now, granted, I also disagree about the second part; but that first part seems so bizarrely false that I don’t get how you came up with it to begin with.
I literally mean nobody should ever vote Republican. You say you will vote Republican. You will not brand the Party as evil. I say you should be shunned as complicit with evil. I believe that with every fiber of my body.
I know. BigT suggested that I should disregard that sort of thing — figure you don’t literally mean it, casually let it go by, what have you — but I take you seriously, by figuring you’re posting in good faith and responding in kind.
Breaking news. Complicit Republicans are finally being shunned.
I agree that Republicans are for increasing barriers to abortion*, but I’m not sure how much they are actually against abortion. There are a lot of policies they could work for that would decrease abortions, and they have not only shown no interest in supporting those policies but have often actively opposed them.
Let’s start with providing birth control, subsidized as needed, to anyone who wants it.
Then let’s move into the many services that could be provided that would remove much of the economic reasons for an abortion. You know, things like accessible and affordable pre- and postnatal health care, affordable child care, safe housing, etc.
Once Republicans work towards those policies I’ll start believing they really are against abortion.
- Republicans are for increasing barriers to safe abortion for lower and middle income women. The rich will still be able to fly to another country to get an abortion. It goes without saying that overturning Roe v Wade, which is clearly their primary (and perhaps only) goal will eliminate most safe abortions.
Anti-abortion legislation is rarely about being against abortion; it’s fake piety, the true purpose of which is to use the law to restrict the liberties of others.
Yeah. They seem highlight this by their sudden lack of concern for a baby once it’s born, especially if it dies due to the poverty of the parents.