Questioning Abortion as an advance towards freedom

[ParanoiA]

But that right hasn't been lost. It's your business that's affected, and the constitution grants the power to the government to regulate this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Civil_rights

 

And via Wickard V Filburne the constitution grants the power to regulate your flower bed or build furniture in your garage. Roscoe Filburn lost his right to grow wheat and consume it because it effected how much wheat he would have bought on the open market.

 

We had the right to discriminate concerning our personal property. After civil rights legislation, we lost that right if that property happened to be a place where humans trade stuff and do commerce, as opposed to watching TV and having sex. And after Wickard V Filburn, some savvy lawyer just needs to convincingly argue that not letting someone into my house effects how much shelter they would have bought in the market, and thus, they can create laws to regulate who enters my home.

 

These are rights that were taken away by legislation and expansive supreme court interpretations of the constitution.

[swansont]

And via Wickard V Filburne the constitution grants the power to regulate your flower bed or build furniture in your garage. Roscoe Filburn lost his right to grow wheat and consume it because it effected how much wheat he would have bought on the open market.

 

We had the right to discriminate concerning our personal property. After civil rights legislation, we lost that right if that property happened to be a place where humans trade stuff and do commerce, as opposed to watching TV and having sex. And after Wickard V Filburn, some savvy lawyer just needs to convincingly argue that not letting someone into my house effects how much shelter they would have bought in the market, and thus, they can create laws to regulate who enters my home.

 

These are rights that were taken away by legislation and expansive supreme court interpretations of the constitution.

If it can be taken away by simple-majority legislation, it's not really a right, IMO. It's a privilege.

 

(related: it boggles my mind that states can and will amend their constitutions by simple majority votes)

[ParanoiA]

If it can be taken away by simple-majority legislation, it's not really a right, IMO. It's a privilege.

 

(related: it boggles my mind that states can and will amend their constitutions by simple majority votes)

 

I can accept that argument. But consider that it took more than simple majority legislation, it also took the supreme court to expand legislative authority by interpretation. The first part was not possible without the second. Of course, this is why judicial activism is such a polarizing issue. In that case, people unelected - just 9 of them in the whole country - can take our rights away. That's a by-god major-major-minority there my friend. Don't misunderstand though, it's not as if I don't appreciate the institution and how it's set up. They don't initiate and write law, after all...

 

I wholeheartedlly agree with that related bit. What is the point of constitutions if simply majority votes can change them?

[mooeypoo]

Wrong, he's talking about Civil Rights (1964-65), very clearly stated, not Abolition of slavery. Not even Fox News would spin such straight forward language.

Fine. "The rights of business owners" was to descriminate against black people at their businesses.

My point still stands, and so is the ridiculous logic.

 

 

(Read Anders' previous posts, though, please, before you accuse me of misunderstanding the blatant, repeated racism, and pointing it out loudly, with disgust)

 

You owe him an apology for grossly misrepresenting his position and flat out ignoring written words. You took someone who believes in property rights - wherein business property is considered equivalent to personal property and we all have a right to be racist tools about who comes into our homes - and tortured his position to mean he believes in slavery. That's low. Disgustingly low.

I'm sorry, what?

 

We are discussing the issue of women's rights and abortions, and are being confronted with an exaggerated emotional fallacy-salad using race and Godwin's law (the holocaust.. really?) and *I* am the one who's low?

 

I am not American, so excuse me if I mistakenly understood the racist comments as a different kind of racism. Regardless, it doesn't change my point.

Saying that by granting EQUAL rights to black people you actually took away the rights of business owners to discriminate against them is misunderstanding the meaning of rights in a society. And then comparing it to the "rights" of the so-called fetus is just mixing the subjects into an emotional appeal while setting up a false premise.

 

I have little tolerance for racism, ParanoiA. While I usually try to be polite when I criticize (though not always successfully so) when things like these blatant racist claims come up, I save no blow.

 

Just like I will not ask for an apology for the blatant abuse of the holocaust just to reduce the argument to cheap low-blow emotional appeal, I will hand out no apologies for criticizing the flawed logic as I've seen it, and the fact that I might have misunderstood the TYPE of racism doesn't change the overall meaning, or the point I was making.

 

A better argument would be to point out that the mother already lives, and is a person, and has been a person for quite some time, invested into human societies without question. So her rights trump the rights of the fetus, who's personhood is in question, has not even a fraction of the investment into life that the mother has.

 

We already have a huge thread on the validity or lack thereof of abortions, or whether or not they're women's/human right. There are more arguments than the one you present, though I do agree it is a good one.

 

It is, however, what I said, when I told Mr Anders that in order for his claim to fit the situation, he must first show that a fetus is alive.

 

 

 

Or maybe that's a crap argument. But ignoring the issue of one of the life forms - mom or fetus - gaining at the expense of the other is dishonest. One must lose for the other to gain. I very comfortably choose the fetus to lose (or tumor or parasite) over the mom.

 

I didn't ignore the issue of the "life forms". I simply don't treat the blastocyst as a life form until it actually is one. You can disagree with me on it. That's your right. That doesn't mean I am ignoring the fetus, though, and if you think I am, I suggest you go to the other thread and see the more thorough discussion on the matter.

 

Using (rather, abusing) emotional appeals with a huge addition of racism just to make the people who are so-called "pro choice" sound like low-life murderous bastards is the low blow, ParanoiA. My pointing out that this is a cheap trick with faulty crappy logic? That's just a response showing that these methods are ridiculous in a discussion that's supposed to at least be somewhat rational.

 

~mooey

[zapatos]

When I read your quote below, including that last bit where you made the "leap" yourself, suggests you weren't clear. You had to make a "leap" to connect business owners and civil rights to mean slave owners and civil rights. But now you offer that you were always clear, and suggested he misspoke when you - you mind you - "leaped" to associate business owners and civil rights as a statement about slaveowners and slaves. If it was clear, why was the leap necessary? Makes no sense...

My mistake for not putting [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] around the word 'leap'.

 

That was pricesly my issue. You (and mooey) had two possible interpretations, and one of them had supporting evidence and data in the same thread on the same page, on the very issue. Yet you chose the other interpretation that had none. Looks like republicans and Benghazi to me. Nothing to see here unless you spin it.

If I interpreted his words incorrectly it can be simply resolved by him telling me otherwise. Since me acknowledging from the outset that this could simply be a 'misunderstanding' is not enough for you, after this post I'll gladly fall on my sword.

 

I have yet to see any misspeak. I have yet to read anything from him to suggest pro-slavery. He's using slavery as a moral analog, and since he's conservative his opinion is considered "criminal" and his motivations questioned.

Did you read any of my previous post? If not, let me repeat one part of it: "I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery."

 

Conservatives and libertarians are not given the respect due when arguing for rights - their arguments are considered cover for bigotry. So, I am not surprised that interpretations to Ander's posts would mirror the caricature of racist republicans.

If you have managed to interpret my posts in such a negative manner, I have to believe that you harbor some prejudices yourself.

[Ringer]

How is saying 'the negro', instead of black people (I hate the term African American because not everyone is from f*#@ing America), not racist? I tend to think if someone uses a blatantly racist term they are being pretty racist. I think the argument of non-racism is pretty weak.

 

Not to mention equating the forced servitude, torture, genocide of millions, etc to the removal of a parasitic group of cells is blatantly ridiculous.

 

 

[edit] spelling mistake [/edit]

Edited November 14, 2012 by Ringer

[Moontanman]

(I hate the term African American because not everyone is from f*#@ing America),

 

 

all the really cool people are...

 

How is saying 'the negro', instead of black people (I hate the term African American because not everyone is from f*#@ing America), not racist? I tend to think if someone uses a blatantly racist term they are being pretty racist. I think the argument of non-racism is pretty weak.

 

Not to mention equating the forced servitude, torture, genocide of millions, etc to the removal of a parasitic group of cells is blatantly ridiculous.

 

 

[edit] spelling mistake [/edit]

 

 

Using a term like "the negro" is racist in the USA as well, not to mention a bit elitist as well, as though the person saying it is somehow above the station of the person being talked about, dehumanizing is the term i trying to get right.

 

I often wondered if people of predominantly

african heritage referred to themselves as black in other countries.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[Ringer]

all the really cool people are...

 

I'm OK with that distinction (I'm American )

 

 

 

[ParanoiA]

Fine. "The rights of business owners" was to descriminate against black people at their businesses.

My point still stands, and so is the ridiculous logic.

 

We are discussing the issue of women's rights and abortions, and are being confronted with an exaggerated emotional fallacy-salad using race and Godwin's law (the holocaust.. really?) and *I* am the one who's low?

 

I am not American, so excuse me if I mistakenly understood the racist comments as a different kind of racism. Regardless, it doesn't change my point.

Saying that by granting EQUAL rights to black people you actually took away the rights of business owners to discriminate against them is misunderstanding the meaning of rights in a society. And then comparing it to the "rights" of the so-called fetus is just mixing the subjects into an emotional appeal while setting up a false premise.

 

I have little tolerance for racism, ParanoiA. While I usually try to be polite when I criticize (though not always successfully so) when things like these blatant racist claims come up, I save no blow.

 

Just like I will not ask for an apology for the blatant abuse of the holocaust just to reduce the argument to cheap low-blow emotional appeal, I will hand out no apologies for criticizing the flawed logic as I've seen it, and the fact that I might have misunderstood the TYPE of racism doesn't change the overall meaning, or the point I was making.

 

This is the problem mooey: you inferred the racism. You did that. Take responsibility.

 

This is an example of how polarized the country is because we refuse to be honest about other's opinions and argue on that basis. Instead, we disparage their position and infer motives and intentions and argue those. He has said nothing racist at all. You infer racism because you appear to lack the depth and honesty to argue the actual philosophical difference of opinion: personal property rights.

 

I want you to think on this and give me a careful answer: Do you have the right to discriminate who enters your personal home?

 

If the answer is yes, then you clearly are capable of distinguishing your position as racism neutral, understanding that others have a right to be racist tools even if it offends you. They have a right to disallow entry into their home based on sexism, racism, whatever and your advocation of that right doesn't therefore make YOU a racist tool does it?

 

As I said before, if you see a partition between personal property and business property, then Civil Rights laws are equal rights to you. I get that. And, if you do not see a partition between personal property and business property, then Civil Rights laws are a transfer of rights from the owner to all of society. Do you get that?

 

Anders Hoveland, some conservatives and the entire libertarian ideology simply does not see business property any differently than personal property. How about arguing about that? Why do you have to spin this position, import racist intentions and motivations and ruin any chance of precise, honest debate?

 

This is going on all over the country. It's why we're divided. We don't want to talk, discuss, and work it out. No, we want to disparage, shame, fabricate, marginalize and defeat the happiness of others. No need for evidence, no just assume other's motivations based on the results.

 

So...with this new dysfunctional approach you like so much, I can only assume democrats are racist and are actively trying to disenfranchise illegal immigrants by keeping them illegal. They say things like "Americans won't do those jobs", and stand against any immigration reform attempted by the states to resolve it, and bring the labor market back to legal, legitimate status. But no, they vote this stuff down, and vote to keep them illegal, unprotected by the labor laws the rest of us enjoy. They like them to get paid shit wages, and they like it even more that they have earned their vote for this mistreatment and refusal to accept them as equals.

 

Does that sound like an honest take? Of course not. The immigration reforms proposed have always included disgusting "show me your papers" like laws, and mass deportations, with little appreciation for those that have established lives here. But, I could just ignore all that, pretend like democrats are racist tools, beat you all about the head with it, and what we have to show for it? More division, and bitterness.

 

Had enough of that yet? Apparently not. Hello perpetual gridlock.

 

Using (rather, abusing) emotional appeals with a huge addition of racism just to make the people who are so-called "pro choice" sound like low-life murderous bastards is the low blow, ParanoiA. My pointing out that this is a cheap trick with faulty crappy logic? That's just a response showing that these methods are ridiculous in a discussion that's supposed to at least be somewhat rational.

 

How is that any different than making libertarians out to be racists that use philosophy as cover? Huge emotional appeals to make the people who are so-called "pro personal property rights" sound like low-life racist bastards. Yes, that's a low blow.

 

And I'm sorry, but his arguments are consistent with his beliefs. If you truly believe the fetus is alive - a point of contention - then of course you would believe the fetus' rights have been violated in favor for the mother. Can't you see that? And of course you would believe this is an atrocity. Can't you get that? And further, you would likely see it as mass murder, especially if they think a blastocyst is a person. It would easily compare to slavery, the holocaust and so forth. Absolutely. If you truly believe these are people being murdered in the womb, then the scale is astonishing and comparisons to other astonishing atrocities is entirely reasonable.

 

I can't believe you really can't flex yourself to understand what pro-lifers believe and get how the logic flows once you accept their set of assumptions over your own. It's called critical thinking, and I know you're damn good at it. So give it a whirl here, will ya?

 

Personally, I'll take science's word on it. If you say it isn't alive, I believe you. I read a tiny bit on how life is defined, and it's more complex than I would have guessed. Not surprising, but not my point of contention anyway. My position simply doesn't rely on such things.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread is about abortion, not racism. How about we get back on topic?

[ParanoiA]

If I interpreted his words incorrectly it can be simply resolved by him telling me otherwise. Since me acknowledging from the outset that this could simply be a 'misunderstanding' is not enough for you, after this post I'll gladly fall on my sword.

 

It's plenty good enough for me Zapatos, but you've been defending mooey ever since I posted. That's fine, but don't act like I'm badgering you - you stepped into this, as my post was directed squarely at mooey.

 

And, if this bothers you so much, then please address my point. You had two possible interpretations - that he meant abolition of slavery, or "civil rights" (as he wrote). That he meant abolition of slavery had no evidence or data to support it. That he meant civil rights had pages of evidence and data, even on the same page FFS. But you chose the pro-slavery interpretation and called it misspeak. I understand that since you've seen clear to acknowledge he's not really pro-slavery, but you still initially chose that interpreation. That choice only makes sense if you're more interested in being hostile to someone's position, more interested in shame than actually discussing a topic with the intention of resolution, or at least understanding.

 

Did you read any of my previous post? If not, let me repeat one part of it: "I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery."

 

I did, and I believe you. My comment was about misspeak, not taking you to task for the pro-slavery charge again.

 

If you have managed to interpret my posts in such a negative manner, I have to believe that you harbor some prejudices yourself.

 

I explained what I interpreted negative, and it wasn't much. I think most of these things are unconscious choices, and I'm just as guilty as anybody else. I thought we were supposed to point these things out, always trying to make ourselves a little better, understanding that we aren't perfect. And no one is equal to their own rhetoric.

 

It's unfortunate to argue with you because I really appreciated your defense of my 401K tax and fine bitch fest. For you to support my position required maneuvering around a lot of assumptions and established norms. I really appreciate someone who can challenge assumptions like that. It's hard to find, and we need so many of you. I wasn't kidding when I said I do believe you are a fair minded, logically driven fellow. (At least I'm going to guess you are a fellow).

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

ParanoiA, please get back to the topic of this thread.

[michel123456]

Savita is dead.

[jeskill]

Savita is dead.

 

Very sad.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, I inferred, but I did so based on logic. I did so based on the text that was written, the images that were posted and, admittedly, on the unique poster's general attitude overall in the entire forum. My inference was, apparently, not all that illogical, seeing as other people seem to agree with me.

 

 

And I do want to point something out here; This thread discusses abortion, but it also delves into what people should and shouldn't do with decisions regarding women's bodies, and how far up their genitalia law should go when discussing the decision women are allowed to make.

 

This might earn me a claim of being emotional. Maybe that's true, but you should take into account that while most of you here are talking *about* women, I am talking about my body. I am not sure how clearly it shines through the amount of condescending claims about women's abilities to think for themselves or control menial things like their own vaginas, how they are being used, and why, but maybe if some of yo put your pink glasses on, it may become a bit clearer.

 

I am a mostly-rational woman. I might hold a different opinion than some of you, but I actually own a vagina, which I carry with me throughout my life. And, if I move to certain states in the USA I am not just discussion what "should be done" with vaginas, I will actually have to physically submit it to the probing and poking of mostly-white mostly-religious mostly-old men who want to make sure I am not stupid enough to not consider the implications about my own body.

 

So, yes. When claims are tossed around that women are unable to control themselves because sex is cheap, as if my vagina is just this purse I bought in the mall and I don't mind sharing it with the nearest man that will buy me a new lipstic, I wonder if the poster understands what he's saying.

 

And yes, when claims are raised that equate the holocaust, a radically horrific event that purposefully eradicated millions - part of my family with it, by the way - to *my* personal decision to control *my own body*, I have to wonder if this is a real discussion or if this is just trolling.

 

And yes, when cheap low-blow emotional appeal exaggerations are raised in an attempt to equate me, a pro-choice vagina holder, with the Nazi mass murderers, it is no longer about opinion, and no longer about respect.

 

Where's my apology?

 

 

We can agree on abortions or disagree on abortions, that's perfectly reasonable to have different opinions. In fact, there were quite a number of discussions lately that were handled relatively respectfully, and had points on both sides. There are women who are on either side of that fence, this isn't a 'man vs woman' issue, clearly. But this discussion in this thread (and the other one, somewhat) went from disagreement to condescending inaccurate inappropriate remarks with a severe stench of misogyny and condescension.

 

 

No, ParanoiA. I owe no one an apology.

 

 

~mooey

[michel123456]

Very sad.

 

Not only sad. It is ugly & stupid.

[StringJunky]

Savita is dead.

 

A place where dogma walks backwards, whilst looking forward, into the arms of the Grim Reaper.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, I inferred, but I did so based on logic. I did so based on the text that was written, the images that were posted and, admittedly, on the unique poster's general attitude overall in the entire forum. My inference was, apparently, not all that illogical, seeing as other people seem to agree with me.

 

There's a reason why Joe Biden says to never question a person's motives. This inference you are practicing can be practiced by all, and is, and look how well that is working out for everyone. Neither of you are debating each other's actual positions, but rather rhetorical caricatures of each other's positions. Bravo.

 

And since you believe that the presence of logic is validated by other people agreeing with you, then Anders also enjoys this edge since the entire republican party agrees with him. How sad.

 

And I do want to point something out here; This thread discusses abortion, but it also delves into what people should and shouldn't do with decisions regarding women's bodies, and how far up their genitalia law should go when discussing the decision women are allowed to make.

 

This might earn me a claim of being emotional. Maybe that's true, but you should take into account that while most of you here are talking *about* women, I am talking about my body. I am not sure how clearly it shines through the amount of condescending claims about women's abilities to think for themselves or control menial things like their own vaginas, how they are being used, and why, but maybe if some of yo put your pink glasses on, it may become a bit clearer.

 

I am a mostly-rational woman. I might hold a different opinion than some of you, but I actually own a vagina, which I carry with me throughout my life. And, if I move to certain states in the USA I am not just discussion what "should be done" with vaginas, I will actually have to physically submit it to the probing and poking of mostly-white mostly-religious mostly-old men who want to make sure I am not stupid enough to not consider the implications about my own body.

 

I couldn't agree more. It's quite condescending. Of course, if one truly believes there is a person inside you - like if someone believed a person was inside my house - I think their exact location in America will take a back seat to their rights. Again, if someone actually believes people are inside you.

 

Now um..can you explain the "mostly-white" bit? What is the purpose of one's race in that statement, or its application? I can understand the application of religion and age, since they feed traditionalism which includes elements of female oppression. But white? What is uniquely negative about white, and how is that not a racist comment? Note that I did not make the charge, but I am questioning you, absolutely.

 

So, yes. When claims are tossed around that women are unable to control themselves because sex is cheap, as if my vagina is just this purse I bought in the mall and I don't mind sharing it with the nearest man that will buy me a new lipstic, I wonder if the poster understands what he's saying.

 

And yes, when claims are raised that equate the holocaust, a radically horrific event that purposefully eradicated millions - part of my family with it, by the way - to *my* personal decision to control *my own body*, I have to wonder if this is a real discussion or if this is just trolling.

 

And yes, when cheap low-blow emotional appeal exaggerations are raised in an attempt to equate me, a pro-choice vagina holder, with the Nazi mass murderers, it is no longer about opinion, and no longer about respect.

 

Where's my apology?

 

So that's a no, then. You are incapable of critical thinking and understanding the arguments and positions of others. Noted.

 

And that proves my point. You will never understand him, you will always infer him a bigot and then by extension be offended by his analogies with scalable atrocities. And 4 people so far agree with you.

 

Meanwhile, I understand your position. And I understand his. I never thought such a thing was that unique, or rare. How said..again.

[randomc]

 

So, yes. When claims are tossed around that women are unable to control themselves because sex is cheap, as if my vagina is just this purse I bought in the mall and I don't mind sharing it with the nearest man that will buy me a new lipstic, I wonder if the poster understands what he's saying.

 

Maybe if you were less fixated on your vagina you'd comprehend that i was doubting the ability of men to control themselves when sex is cheap just as much as women.

 

A lot of people elevate societal and moral norms above their own reasoning. That's just the way it is, education ain't going to fix it.

[Moontanman]

Maybe if you were less fixated on your vagina you'd comprehend that i was doubting the ability of men to control themselves when sex is cheap just as much as women.

 

A lot of people elevate societal and moral norms above their own reasoning. That's just the way it is, education ain't going to fix it.

 

 

This coming from the man who asserted this fantasy as the truth and couldn't support it?

 

For example, in my town, there is group of middle aged men who control a group of 16 year old girls for the purposes of sex. It's all entirely legal, the girls are willing participants. What's unusual about it other than the age of the guys is that they are a very loosely formed group. They have little in common but that they fuck these girls.

 

Quite possibly you should stop filtering your thoughts through your penis...

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

ParanoiA,

For the last time, drop this silly issue you have with something someone said pages ago, stop cherry picking small comments about race and running miles with them and get back on topic. Any more comments that have nothing to do with abortion, I will be deleting.

[swansont]

So that's a no, then. You are incapable of critical thinking and understanding the arguments and positions of others. Noted.

All other evidence to the contrary. One does not post in a vacuum. mooeypoo has a track record, as does Anders Hoveland, and that does have an effect on how one interprets posts. When one makes bigoted/prejudicial remarks, repeatedly, one tends to lose the benefit-of-doubt that a subsequent remark was innocent.

[randomc]

This coming from the man who asserted this fantasy as the truth and couldn't support it?

 

 

 

Quite possibly you should stop filtering your thoughts through your penis...

 

I'm off-topic so this might get deleted, but...

 

this sort of the situation is very difficult to prove. That's actually the basic justification for my concerns.

[ParanoiA]

!

Moderator Note

ParanoiA,

 

For the last time, drop this silly issue you have with something someone said pages ago, stop cherry picking small comments about race and running miles with them and get back on topic. Any more comments that have nothing to do with abortion, I will be deleting.

 

 

 

I do apologize. I would happy to drop it, but replies kept coming in...sorry. And I'm not sure how off topic it is when they are making charges about Anders being racist within the argument of abortion. It's spectacular how no one can accept his position as he presents it - and therefore cannot fathom how the holocaust or slavery might compare as a result. And then use that to even further disparage his position as bigotry. Unbelievable in a science forum.

 

Because of this, you aren't really talking about abortion. Not at all. And you won't, until that stops.

 

I'll bow out. I made my point. Again, sorry.

[zapatos]

It's plenty good enough for me Zapatos, but you've been defending mooey ever since I posted. That's fine, but don't act like I'm badgering you - you stepped into this, as my post was directed squarely at mooey.

Yes, I stepped into this and described the situation as I saw it, and I expected a response. So, no problem there.

 

My objection is not that I feel you are badgering me, but that you are judging me unfairly. Either I was correct in my analysis or I wasn't, and if you thought I was not correct I fully expected you to say so. What I didn't expect was that you would not only decide I was wrong, but that you would conclude I was being dishonest and biased.

When someone isn't clear, you don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality.

..interpreting him as pro-slavery - again - is convenient for hostile treatment of dissent.

I only take issue when someone is choosing an interpretation that is entirely contradictory with recent data. And when they use the excuse "he wasn't clear"...

Yet you chose the other interpretation that had none. Looks like republicans and Benghazi to me. Nothing to see here unless you spin it.

I am not surprised that interpretations to Ander's posts would mirror the caricature of racist republicans...

...he's conservative his opinion is considered "criminal" and his motivations questioned...

The above points you made were not refuting what I said, they were suggesting that what I said was based on my dishonest or biased analysis. That of course was a possibility, but why make that assumption? Since I didn't feel I was being dishonest, I took objection to your portrayal of me.

 

And, if this bothers you so much, then please address my point. You had two possible interpretations - that he meant abolition of slavery, or "civil rights" (as he wrote). That he meant abolition of slavery had no evidence or data to support it. That he meant civil rights had pages of evidence and data, even on the same page FFS. But you chose the pro-slavery interpretation and called it misspeak. I understand that since you've seen clear to acknowledge he's not really pro-slavery, but you still initially chose that interpreation. That choice only makes sense if you're more interested in being hostile to someone's position, more interested in shame than actually discussing a topic with the intention of resolution, or at least understanding.

Actually what I was doing was supporting mooeypoo's right to draw the conclusion she did. And I decided to support mooeypoo because when I read what Anders had said I concluded that she interpreted that statement correctly. I thought you were quite harsh in criticizing mooeypoo for responding to the words Anders actually wrote in that post instead of interpreting what he really must have meant based on the entire thread. The primary onus for clear communications lies with the speaker. Had you criticized mooeypoo for reaching the conclusion she did at the same time you criticized Anders for not being clear in his post, I would have said nothing.

 

I realize you don't feel there was anything to criticize Anders for, which is why I started my first post with "I'm not so sure she got it wrong.".

 

It's unfortunate to argue with you because I really appreciated your defense of my 401K tax and fine bitch fest.

No hard feelings though. I was happy to get the chance to argue with you as I find you and a few others on this site (e.g. iNow) to be a real challenge. I know that if I don't make a good argument you guys will rip me a new one.

 

(At least I'm going to guess you are a fellow).

You guess correctly.

 

EDIT: Oops! I started this post a couple of hours ago and just now got back to it. I apologize if this was too far off topic. I also hope you leave this here.

Edited November 14, 2012 by zapatos