# The Ryan, you are NOT cute! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928 "2001-01-26T22:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2001, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/81 "2001-02-05T14:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Myrr21 \* > I hereby nominate this as this week’s quote that best supports the fucking OP. Use a goddamn dictionary, you hair-splitting wanker. It’s in a bunch of them; it has a neat, concise definition. > _humph_ \*\* And I nominate this as this week’s most irrational attack on me. Just how would a dictionary tell me what TwistofFate or Scylla or anyone else’s definition of “pro choice” is? How is it how is it hair-splitting to try to prevent misunderstanding by making sure that people agree on definitions of words? So far in this thread, I’ve been criticized for: responding to insults, responding to a bunch of posts with a comparable number of posts, and for asking for clarification of a vague term. What’s next? Are you going to criticize me for not having enough swear words? You people are absurd. If I **hadn’t** asked what ToF’s definition is, and instead had used the dictionary definition, you would have blasted me for “being too rigid” or some such nonsense. Don’t bother trying to deny it; I know you guys too well to fall for this. The phrase “pro choice” is used to refer to over half of the US population. Obviously it isn’t incredibly precise. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2001, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/82 "2001-02-05T14:50:43Z")
Of course all pro-choice people don’t believe the same thing, but that doesn’t change at all what pro-frickin-choice means. All pro-choice people favor leagalized abortion. Anti-choice people oppose it. There may be some individual views on related issues (rape, incest, personal feelings), but **ToF** has already explained those very well multiple times, and they are not the heart of the matter anyway. Asking then, “define pro-choice”, is just asinine. To reiterate: is there any other definition for pro-choice such that when I say it, you think something different than “someone who supports abortion being legal”? Like any other movement, there’s varying levels of dedication, fanatacism, whatever–on both sides–but that hardly changes what it means to be “pro-choice”. See, that’s the thing: nobody would care if **TheRyan** used the dictionary definition, or the common usage, and ran with it. When everybody understands what I mean when I say “pro-choice”–and there’s a perfectly valid dictionary definition–asking for a personal definition is just verbal masturbation. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2001, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/83 "2001-02-05T14:54:39Z")
Errr, pardon me: a mental lapse caused me to forget that it was \*\*TwistofFAte[/b reposting a concise form of **Scylla’s** abortion views–taken from another thread. _sigh_ It’s too damn early. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2001, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/84 "2001-02-05T14:58:05Z")
:rolleyes: Just shoot me now, and revive my corpse at about 3 pm. How about ignoring the horrible, horrible bolding error, and just substituting the one name for the other in my first post? ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2001, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/85 "2001-02-05T15:34:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*ENugent: > > > [@](#): > > > > I ask you, if another poster instructed you to “try to keep your brain on track,” would it upset you at all? > > If someone said that in a situation in which I believed my brain was on track, I would be annoyed. I don’t think the “would it upset you if someone said this to you” is a valid test in this case. Why not? Are you the only judge of whether brains are on track, both yours and Jodi’s? Or are you saying that statements that are intentionally annoying are appropriate in debate? If it’s the latter, I invite you to consider the proposition that such statements tend to distract from the purpose of the debate, by diverting attention from the debate topic to personal disputes between the posters. > [@](#): > > If someone were to say to you > > > [@](#): > > > > Finally, I’ll echo what other posters have said, that you seem to have a tendency to argue against what people say and how they say it, rather than what they mean. > > would it upset you? Most statements critical of a person’s abilities are upsetting. Does that mean they have no place in civilized discussion? Of course not. Does that mean they have no place in Great Debates? Perhaps. You’ll notice that I confined my statements about your posting style to the Pit, rather than allowing it to color debate on the topic at hand. (And to answer the possibly-rhetorical question, it would discomfit me a little, but not nearly as much as being told to keep my brain on track. I find descriptive statements about me far less upsetting than figurative instructions phrased in the imperative). ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2001, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/86 "2001-02-06T10:10:23Z")
Just coming in from the Hillborough thread to let The Ryan that he can bite my crank if he thinks that I am going to feed his idiocy anymore. good day to you all [raises hat] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/87 "2001-02-09T02:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Myrr21 \* > Of course all pro-choice people don’t believe the same thing, but that doesn’t change at all what pro-frickin-choice means. Of course it does. The statement that someone is “pro-choice” has a different meaning depending on who says it. If I were to say that someone is pro-choice, that means that that person believes that abortion should be legal in the vast majority of cases. If Scylla were to say it, it would not mean that. > [@](#): > > and they are not the heart of the matter anyway. The heart of the matter is just what Scylla meant when he claimed to be pro-choice. Therefore, the issue of just what being pro-choice entails is very much the heart of the matter as well. > [@](#): > > Asking then, “define pro-choice”, is just asinine. I didn’t ask him to define “pro-choice”, I asked him to define what he **meant** by “pro-choice”. There is a difference. > [@](#): > > See, that’s the thing: nobody would care if **TheRyan** used the dictionary definition, or the common usage, and ran with it. That’s absurd. I have repeatedly been criticized for using dictionary definitions instead of asking people what they mean by something. If you’re going to insult me for being polite and trying to understand someone’s point of view, what motive do I have to ever be polite to you? It’s people like you that make me think that the whole endeavor of being considerate of people’s feelings is futile, because no matter what efforts I apply towards reaching a common understanding, there’s always someone who just **has** to find something to be offended by. > [@](#): > > When everybody understands what I mean when I say “pro-choice” Well, obviously **I** don’t understand what people mean by it. I would think that someone who believes that abortions should be illegal for two-thirds of a pregnancy is not “pro-choice”. Apparently I was mistaken in what people consider to be pro-choice, and so I instead of continuing with my own view, which has shown to not be universal, I asked for ToF’s view. > [@](#): > > –and there’s a perfectly valid dictionary definition– Your definition is incredibly vague. Does supporting abortion being legal mean that one thinks that abortions should **always** be legal? Or just that there is **some** situation in which an abortion should be illegal? Or something in between? Someone who supports the rights of Catholics to practice their religion, but not anyone else, would be supporting a religious freedom. Would this mean that they are “pro-religious freedom”? ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/88 "2001-02-09T09:54:13Z")
But **Ryan** - you already know **Scyalla’s** stance. He reluctantly agrees that abortions should be legal for the first trimester and believes that they should be illegal after that (barring special medical cases, IIRC). So what is your problem? You’ve known all this in fact for weeks and have referred to the knowledge on several occasions, so why make even more of an issue out of it? This is the quibbling that people are objecting to. If you need clarification once or twice, then that is fair enough indeed. If you carry on quibbling over what “pro-choice” means to **Scylla** for weeks after you’ve already shown that you know what his stance is anyway, then that is just being contrary. See what I mean? pan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/89 "2001-02-10T21:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ENugent \* > > > [@](#): > > > > If someone said that in a situation in which I believed my brain was on track, I would be annoyed. I don’t think the “would it upset you if someone said this to you” is a valid test in this case. > > Why not? Are you the only judge of whether brains are on track, both yours and Jodi’s? How did you arrive at this conjecture? Since you didn’t follow the implications of my statements, let me make them more explicit. 1. I said that I probably would get annoyed. 2. I said that this is not a valid test. 3. By preceding 2 with 1, I implied that 1 was presented to explain 2. 4. By implying that 1 explains 2, I was saying that my determination that my brain is on track is not the Absolute Truth. > [@](#): > > Or are you saying that statements that are intentionally annoying are appropriate in debate? Again, I wonder where you’re getting your guesses as to what I mean. I was saying that different people are going to disagree about what is a valid conclusion, and often people will get annoyed when this happens. For instance, Jodi disagreed with my belief that her brain was not on track, and this disagreement annoyed her. It was the **disagreement** with my implication, not the implication istself, that annoyed her (unless she gets annoyed with criticism even when she believes it to be true, in which case asking me to avoid annoying statements is the same as asking me to avoid criticizing her). My post was not intentionally annoying. Rather, it was meant to express my **own** annoyance that Jodi was ignoring the point of my post. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/90 "2001-02-10T21:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > \*\*But **Ryan** - you already know **Scyalla’s** stance. This is a rather presumptuous statement. > [@](#): > > He reluctantly agrees that abortions should be legal for the first trimester and believes that they should be illegal after that (barring special medical cases, IIRC). But I never asked him whether he believes abortions after the first trimester should be illegal. What I asked was what he meant by saying that he would make an exception for rape. He refused to answer that question. > [@](#): > > So what is your problem? You’ve known all this in fact for weeks and have referred to the knowledge on several occasions, so why make even more of an issue out of it? When have I ever made an issue of his belief that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester? I have made an issue of the fact that he has directly contradicted himself, not his belief that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. > [@](#): > > If you carry on quibbling over what “pro-choice” means to **Scylla** for weeks after you’ve already shown that you know what his stance is anyway, then that is just being contrary. See what I mean? Nope. What **do** you mean by “quibbling over what ‘pro-choice’ means to **Scylla** for weeks after you’ve already shown that you know what his stance is anyway”? Can you give an example? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/91 "2001-02-11T00:47:50Z")
:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/92 "2001-02-11T09:46:23Z")
Bah. **Scylla** has stated several times that he would make **no** exception for rape, except perhaps in his own mind. I wasn’t even following the thread particularly and yet I know this. Are your reading skills really that low? pan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/93 "2001-02-11T21:26:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > Bah. **Scylla** has stated several times that he would make **no** exception for rape, except perhaps in his own mind. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/94 "2001-02-12T11:47:28Z")
Good Lord. Try the thread referred to several times already. Ah bugger it - here you go: Scylla declares several times in one post that he would [not](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1084802#post1084802) make an exception for rape. pan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/95 "2001-02-12T19:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I would not support a special exception for rape or incest victims **after the first trimester** Bolding mine. He didn’t say he would make no exception for rape, he said that he would not make an exception to rape **after the first trimester**. You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/96 "2001-02-13T08:02:35Z")
Good go **Ryan**! He had already said that supports **no** exclusions to abortion **during** the first trimester! How many times do we have to bloody go through this. So, in full:[ul][li]No exclusions to abortion in the first trimester[/li] [li]No exceptions after the first trimester, unless medically necessary[/ul]Where the bloody thundering fuck is the confusion here? Where the goddamned priapismic donkey does rape come into it _at all_?[/li] **Scylla** - I most humbly, totally, completely and irrevocably apologise. Everything you said about **The Yarn** is true and more. pan ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/97 "2001-02-13T08:13:02Z")
Er - that is Good _God_, not Good go. I only correct myself because it so drastically changes the meaning of the sentence and I would want **noone** to think that I believe **Ryan** had a “good go”. pan ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/98 "2001-02-13T10:50:26Z")
I know how you feel, **kabbes**. I thought everyone at the beginning of this thread was being unreasonable, too, until I actually got into a “debate” with **The Ryan** over [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59354). After a while, I told him I didn’t want to debate him if he wouldn’t stop playing word games, and he responded with a bunch of immature attacks, along with perhaps one of the funniest things he’s ever said: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **The Ryan** _ (!) > **Oh, and way to waste bandwith. Was that quotation really necessary?** It’s much easier if you just ignore him and let him think he’s won. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/99 "2001-02-13T20:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > Good go **Ryan**! He had already said that supports **no** exclusions to abortion **during** the first trimester! How many times do we have to bloody go through this. I see. Now that I’ve shown your cite to be invalid, you’re changing the subject. > [@](#): > > Where the bloody thundering fuck is the confusion here? If you can’t understand my confusion at such statements as > [@](#): > > I also said that I realize that I have no right to to inflict my personal morality upon another, and force her to carry a baby she doesn’t want. Therefore, I support the right of a women to choose. I am pro choice. and > [@](#): > > I support a ban abortions after the 1st trimester, with the exception of medical necessity as determined by a qualified physician. Then I don’t think I can help you. In the first, Scylla **clearly** states that he would not support restrictions on rape. In the second, he **clearly** states that he would support restrictions on rape. I would like to repeat my question to Scylla: > [@](#): > > So when would you support a special exception for rape? You’ve implied that you support the right to abort during the first trimester for any reason, which means that rape wouldn’t be a “special” exemption. You now say that you wouldn’t support an exemption for rape after the first trimester. So when exactly does this exemption apply? I clearly was asking when the exemption would apply. This is a very simple question, and can be answered quite easily. If the answer was “Never. When I said that I would make an exception for rape, I was mistaken”, then he should have said “Never. When I said that I would make an exception for rape, I was mistaken”. If the answer was “The exception only applies to my moral stance, and my moral stance is irrelevant to my political stance”, then he should have said “The exception only applies to my moral stance, and my moral stance is irrelevant to my political stance”. See how easy this is? Simply repeating what he had already said and what I had **already told him** was confusing was not a very constructive response. > [@](#): > > Where the goddamned priapismic donkey does rape come into it _at all_? Did you actually **read** the thread? What is the title??? Scylla: > [@](#): > > What I said was that I thought abortion was morally wrong **except** in instances of **rape** or medical necessity. Bolding mine. Scylla clearly states that he would make an exception in cases of rape. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2001, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/100 "2001-02-14T01:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > After a while, I told him I didn’t want to debate him if he wouldn’t stop playing word games, In other words, you didn’t have anything to counter my arguments, so you created an excuse to slink off to the Pit instead of admitting that you were wrong. I really don’t consider, for instance, pointing out that “similar” and “equal” are **different words** to be a “word game”. > [@](#): > > and he responded with a bunch of immature attacks, Oooh, what a rebuttal! Not a single explanation for why I am wrong, just “those are immature attacks”. I see why you had “debate” in quotes. I am quite willing to back up any of my claims. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly refused to back up your claims, such as > [@](#): > > They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did. Tell you what. If you find a quotation from me anywhere in that thread in which I demand that someone leave, I will admit defeat. Otherwise, I will remain convinced that you don’t know what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **The Ryan** _ (!) > > **Oh, and way to waste bandwith. Was that quotation really necessary?** Well, was it? Did it serve any purpose whatsoever? > [@](#): > > It’s much easier if you just ignore him and let him think he’s won. If you can’t rebut my arguments, I **have** won. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928.md?page=6)