(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Maybe "conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by selectively rejecting electoral voters that are not voting for their candidate" would be just as honest a headline...........

What headline would you garner from this paragraph in the article, Amigo?

As I said to your friend, I take the headlines from context in the articles.


With child marriage still legal in California, advocates are mounting a campaign to push the state to enact a ban, but their effort is facing surprising opposition from progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

Opposition to legislation outlawing child marriage? Does that not favor child marriage?

But your proposed headline does sound familiar, to ones I've heard like "Conservatives want people to starve" or "Conservatives want to push Grandma off a cliff".

Don't let your Trump-hate turn you blue.

My headline takes context from the plethora of reporting supporting the efforts of Trump on the actions taken re: the certification vote on Jan 6.

Criminy, just watch Fox news.

I am *not* saying it is an honest headline, but it is the direct equivalence to yours. Uses the same verb, uses the same relationships, uses the same implications.

It also uses a massive expansion of one political group and lumps them idiotically into a stewpot with others in that group.

My proposed headline is *not* holistically honest in that regard. In the same manner that yours is not.

Your counterpoint of 'conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff' simply makes up a result and assigns it to a group.

Actually, thinking about it, mine should be rewritten to be more accurate: "Conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by violating the law", that is violating the Electoral Counting Act.

That is a much better fit to your headline. Because there is a significant portion of the conservative movement that truly believe that even the 'pause' (which is now the reason de jure according to the Trump attorneys, and repeated solidly up and down the chain today) is acceptable, yet that 'pause' is in direct violation of the ECA. Admitted to by Trump's clown car attorney in a text to Pence.

I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

It has not gone unnoticed that the one thing which so-called "progressives" claim to be passionately, irredeemably libertarian about is the freedom to destroy a potential human life. On most other topics they are decidedly illiberal; most other human behaviors they are eager to regulate to death.

Given the "progressive" yearning to impose authoritative control on every other aspect of human activity, it has always seemed bizarre that they choose this one activity as the exceptional color to nail to their mast. It's almost as if they wouldn't support abortion at all if many conservatives weren't against it.

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Maybe "conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by selectively rejecting electoral voters that are not voting for their candidate" would be just as honest a headline...........

What headline would you garner from this paragraph in the article, Amigo?

As I said to your friend, I take the headlines from context in the articles.


With child marriage still legal in California, advocates are mounting a campaign to push the state to enact a ban, but their effort is facing surprising opposition from progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

Opposition to legislation outlawing child marriage? Does that not favor child marriage?

But your proposed headline does sound familiar, to ones I've heard like "Conservatives want people to starve" or "Conservatives want to push Grandma off a cliff".

Don't let your Trump-hate turn you blue.

My headline takes context from the plethora of reporting supporting the efforts of Trump on the actions taken re: the certification vote on Jan 6.

Criminy, just watch Fox news.

I am *not* saying it is an honest headline, but it is the direct equivalence to yours. Uses the same verb, uses the same relationships, uses the same implications.

It also uses a massive expansion of one political group and lumps them idiotically into a stewpot with others in that group.

My proposed headline is *not* holistically honest in that regard. In the same manner that yours is not.

Your counterpoint of 'conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff' simply makes up a result and assigns it to a group.

Actually, thinking about it, mine should be rewritten to be more accurate: "Conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by violating the law", that is violating the Electoral Counting Act.

That is a much better fit to your headline. Because there is a significant portion of the conservative movement that truly believe that even the 'pause' (which is now the reason de jure according to the Trump attorneys, and repeated solidly up and down the chain today) is acceptable, yet that 'pause' is in direct violation of the ECA. Admitted to by Trump's clown car attorney in a text to Pence.

I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

(08-04-2023 09:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What headline would you garner from this paragraph in the article, Amigo?

As I said to your friend, I take the headlines from context in the articles.


With child marriage still legal in California, advocates are mounting a campaign to push the state to enact a ban, but their effort is facing surprising opposition from progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

Opposition to legislation outlawing child marriage? Does that not favor child marriage?

But your proposed headline does sound familiar, to ones I've heard like "Conservatives want people to starve" or "Conservatives want to push Grandma off a cliff".

Don't let your Trump-hate turn you blue.

My headline takes context from the plethora of reporting supporting the efforts of Trump on the actions taken re: the certification vote on Jan 6.

Criminy, just watch Fox news.

I am *not* saying it is an honest headline, but it is the direct equivalence to yours. Uses the same verb, uses the same relationships, uses the same implications.

It also uses a massive expansion of one political group and lumps them idiotically into a stewpot with others in that group.

My proposed headline is *not* holistically honest in that regard. In the same manner that yours is not.

Your counterpoint of 'conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff' simply makes up a result and assigns it to a group.

Actually, thinking about it, mine should be rewritten to be more accurate: "Conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by violating the law", that is violating the Electoral Counting Act.

That is a much better fit to your headline. Because there is a significant portion of the conservative movement that truly believe that even the 'pause' (which is now the reason de jure according to the Trump attorneys, and repeated solidly up and down the chain today) is acceptable, yet that 'pause' is in direct violation of the ECA. Admitted to by Trump's clown car attorney in a text to Pence.

I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

Otay. Glad you are all on board with both, or either, being such a desired paradigm of balanced and accurate portrayal of an issue.

(08-05-2023 07:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My headline takes context from the plethora of reporting supporting the efforts of Trump on the actions taken re: the certification vote on Jan 6.

Criminy, just watch Fox news.

I am *not* saying it is an honest headline, but it is the direct equivalence to yours. Uses the same verb, uses the same relationships, uses the same implications.

It also uses a massive expansion of one political group and lumps them idiotically into a stewpot with others in that group.

My proposed headline is *not* holistically honest in that regard. In the same manner that yours is not.

Your counterpoint of 'conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff' simply makes up a result and assigns it to a group.

Actually, thinking about it, mine should be rewritten to be more accurate: "Conservatives favor deciding Presidential elections by violating the law", that is violating the Electoral Counting Act.

That is a much better fit to your headline. Because there is a significant portion of the conservative movement that truly believe that even the 'pause' (which is now the reason de jure according to the Trump attorneys, and repeated solidly up and down the chain today) is acceptable, yet that 'pause' is in direct violation of the ECA. Admitted to by Trump's clown car attorney in a text to Pence.

I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

Otay. Glad you are all on board with both, or either, being such a desired paradigm of balanced and accurate portrayal of an issue.

How about it being a balanced and accurate portrayal of an ARTICLE? The entire thrust of the ARTICLE was the opposition by progressive groups to proposed legislation meant to curtail child marriage.

You Smurfs seem to continually miss that point, despite me saying it time after time.

You bring up a skewed and inaccurate statement about Trump supporters and Fox News (how very blue of you) that has nothing to do with me or my views.

I will reiterate my views, since you seem to have missed the first few hundred times.

I think it very possible that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, mostly if not entirely on the part of the DNC. Please go back and reread the word “possible”. Look up the definition of it.

Whether of not there was election changing fraud, it is a fait accompli. Biden is the President, and has been since Inauguration Day.

Even if Bidenwon the election, it was done through biased reporting, DOJ manipulation, and hysterical opposition.

The way to correct this is to vote out the SOBs.

Now, regarding 1-6, I opposed that march on Washington. I was afraid it would get out of hand, and it did.

Blue team had a lot to say about stolen elections in previous years. If the GOP wins in 2024, I expect they will have a lot to say then.

Now, I have better things to do than this.

(08-05-2023 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 07:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

Otay. Glad you are all on board with both, or either, being such a desired paradigm of balanced and accurate portrayal of an issue.

How about it being a balanced and accurate portrayal of an ARTICLE? The entire thrust of the ARTICLE was the opposition by progressive groups to proposed legislation meant to curtail child marriage.

You Smurfs seem to continually miss that point, despite me saying it time after time.

You bring up a skewed and inaccurate statement about Trump supporters and Fox News (how very blue of you) that has nothing to do with me or my views.

I will reiterate my views, since you seem to have missed the first few hundred times.

I think it very possible that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, mostly if not entirely on the part of the DNC. Please go back and reread the word “possible”. Look up the definition of it.

Whether of not there was election changing fraud, it is a fait accompli. Biden is the President, and has been since Inauguration Day.

Even if Bidenwon the election, it was done through biased reporting, DOJ manipulation, and hysterical opposition.

The way to correct this is to vote out the SOBs.

Now, regarding 1-6, I opposed that march on Washington. I was afraid it would get out of hand, and it did.

Blue team had a lot to say about stolen elections in previous years. If the GOP wins in 2024, I expect they will have a lot to say then.

Now, I have better things to do than this.

You just admitted here, that it is progressive groups, which narrows the issue down significantly. When one says “progressive” it is inclusive of all progressives. Groups, while still being overly broad, narrows the scope significantly already.

(08-05-2023 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 07:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

Otay. Glad you are all on board with both, or either, being such a desired paradigm of balanced and accurate portrayal of an issue.

How about it being a balanced and accurate portrayal of an ARTICLE? The entire thrust of the ARTICLE was the opposition by progressive groups to proposed legislation meant to curtail child marriage.

You Smurfs seem to continually miss that point, despite me saying it time after time.

You bring up a skewed and inaccurate statement about Trump supporters and Fox News (how very blue of you) that has nothing to do with me or my views.

I will reiterate my views, since you seem to have missed the first few hundred times.

I think it very possible that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, mostly if not entirely on the part of the DNC. Please go back and reread the word “possible”. Look up the definition of it.

Whether of not there was election changing fraud, it is a fait accompli. Biden is the President, and has been since Inauguration Day.

Even if Bidenwon the election, it was done through biased reporting, DOJ manipulation, and hysterical opposition.

The way to correct this is to vote out the SOBs.

Now, regarding 1-6, I opposed that march on Washington. I was afraid it would get out of hand, and it did.

Blue team had a lot to say about stolen elections in previous years. If the GOP wins in 2024, I expect they will have a lot to say then.

Now, I have better things to do than this.

Because you keep responding to this topic, I will keep asking the same question to you. Have you figured out who sponsored the child marriage bill in CA?

You continue to argue the point that it is a reasonable takeaway from your article to say that “progressives favor child marriage”. You really should not be surprised at the pushback to your statement because it is frankly idiotic not to mention completely intellectually dishonest.

(08-05-2023 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 07:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My headline was drawn from the body of the linked article, as I have explained twice now. Yours was drawn from the ether.

Yes, I watchFox among others, and never seen anybody make a statement like that. Got a link?

Personally, I would prefer the law be followed. But by BOTH sides.

The push Gramdma off a cliff was the subject of a TV ad by the Democrats.

All night last night the Republican lawyers, and conservative commentators were saying how Trump was only asking for a pause in the certification. And I have seen that claim proclaimed rather loudly and proudly today from various conservatives. Although itself is an admission of the crime charged, but why stop them in that exercise....

Eastman himself characterized a pause as a "another ... violation of the [ECA] law" to Pence in a tweet asking him to do it.

I stand by my comment.

In fact perhaps more so than your headline.

I would like the law to be followed. Period.

I understand where the cliff thingy came from. Came from the same election that Bush showed the wolf in the forest to scare us all, iirc.

To repeat: I dont think it fair to slander conservatives as a whole with my headline. But it is the mirror equivalent of yours with that change I just put out.

Disagree in total.

Otay. Glad you are all on board with both, or either, being such a desired paradigm of balanced and accurate portrayal of an issue.

How about it being a balanced and accurate portrayal of an ARTICLE? The entire thrust of the ARTICLE was the opposition by progressive groups to proposed legislation meant to curtail child marriage.

You Smurfs seem to continually miss that point, despite me saying it time after time.

You bring up a skewed and inaccurate statement about Trump supporters and Fox News (how very blue of you) that has nothing to do with me or my views.

There is a difference between the bolded above and 'progressives' as a whole.

Much as there is a difference between 'conservative groups' and conservatives as a whole.

One aspect is measurably smaller in scope. Maybe the actual changed language you have to employ in your spirited defense might be the better route. I mean, you have to employ it to show the issue yourself, right?

Yes, my comment *is* skewed and inaccurate. Admittedly so. Exactly in the manner that yours is.

That seems to elude you.

Quote:I will reiterate my views, since you seem to have missed the first few hundred times.

I think it very possible that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, mostly if not entirely on the part of the DNC. Please go back and reread the word “possible”. Look up the definition of it.

Whether of not there was election changing fraud, it is a fait accompli. Biden is the President, and has been since Inauguration Day.

Even if Bidenwon the election, it was done through biased reporting, DOJ manipulation, and hysterical opposition.

The way to correct this is to vote out the SOBs.

Now, regarding 1-6, I opposed that march on Washington. I was afraid it would get out of hand, and it did.

Blue team had a lot to say about stolen elections in previous years. If the GOP wins in 2024, I expect they will have a lot to say then.

Now, I have better things to do than this.

I dont think I have made any comment on your views in the above comment about the testimony on Trump's actions, not on the alleged steal of the election by the Democrats, or by any other of the smorgasbord of issues you bring forth -- I am making a point on the language constructs you have used in your headline.

(08-04-2023 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... I don't really disagree with any of those examples that you gave. Interestingly none of these examples support OO"s inflammatory thread title!

Of course. but that was intentional. I speculated on why 'some of them' would be against the bill that clearly weren't 'left'... but that still leaves 'the rest of them'. I just didn't care enough to try and break it down that far. I suspect there were even people who were against it, but voted for it (or vice versa) for optics (that wouldn't change the outcome)

Issues surrounding 'children' often create strange bedfellows so it doesn't really matter to me who sponsored it.... what matters to me is 'what it does'... with a secondary position of 'why' other people are for or against it. Said differently, I don't care if someone supports what I think are the right thing for what I think are the wrong reasons.... and I only use their support as perhaps an indication of what I need to watch out for.

As an example, a reason someone might be against this bill would be so adults can marry children... which is quite often horrible... but it could also be to take power away from parents... which is also quite often horrible,

I get the idea about allowing pregnant children to have abortions that their parents won't allow (or vice versa)... but I also get that these are children making 'adult' decisions, often with no way to provide as adults putting them into the welfare system, potentially for their whole lives and even potentially for generations. To me this isn't really about left or right for the reasons I described above... but more about- perhaps how you view being a parent.

I'm not really trying to get too deep into your debate with OO... I see the reasons to do what he did... because that is what everyone to one degree or another does... but I also see the reason to not 'appreciate' it.

(08-07-2023 12:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... I don't really disagree with any of those examples that you gave. Interestingly none of these examples support OO"s inflammatory thread title!

Of course. but that was intentional. I speculated on why 'some of them' would be against the bill that clearly weren't 'left'... but that still leaves 'the rest of them'. I just didn't care enough to try and break it down that far. I suspect there were even people who were against it, but voted for it (or vice versa) for optics (that wouldn't change the outcome)

Issues surrounding 'children' often create strange bedfellows so it doesn't really matter to me who sponsored it.... what matters to me is 'what it does'... with a secondary position of 'why' other people are for or against it. Said differently, I don't care if someone supports what I think are the right thing for what I think are the wrong reasons.... and I only use their support as perhaps an indication of what I need to watch out for.

The fact that is was a Democratic-sponsored bill certainly flies in the face of the thread title.

Quote:As an example, a reason someone might be against this bill would be so adults can marry children... which is quite often horrible... but it could also be to take power away from parents... which is also quite often horrible,

I get the idea about allowing pregnant children to have abortions that their parents won't allow (or vice versa)... but I also get that these are children making 'adult' decisions, often with no way to provide as adults putting them into the welfare system, potentially for their whole lives and even potentially for generations. To me this isn't really about left or right for the reasons I described above... but more about- perhaps how you view being a parent.

I'm not really trying to get too deep into your debate with OO... I see the reasons to do what he did... because that is what everyone to one degree or another does... but I also see the reason to not 'appreciate' it.

Disagree that everyone titles threads in such an inflammatory/intellectually dishonest manner. You find this over at the Spin Room but not over here (with the exception of GoodOwl).

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fact that is was a Democratic-sponsored bill certainly flies in the face of the thread title.

The headlines says Progressives... which to my understanding is a subset of the party. Aren't you guys similarly arguing in another thread where someone said 'democrats' and they really should have said 'some democrats'??

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Disagree that everyone titles threads in such an inflammatory/intellectually dishonest manner. You find this over at the Spin Room but not over here (with the exception of GoodOwl).

I wasn't talking about thread titles or 'even on here'... I was just talking about how everyone (of course a generalization) to one degree or another describes 'the other side' of an argument in the least favorable ways... sometimes its minor, sometimes its an outright fabrication...

I think the headline is certainly inflammatory... but I don't think 'intellectually dishonest' as a charge is anything but a clear demonstration of precisely what I'm talking about.

(08-07-2023 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fact that is was a Democratic-sponsored bill certainly flies in the face of the thread title.

The headlines says Progressives... which to my understanding is a subset of the party. Aren't you guys similarly arguing in another thread where someone said 'democrats' and they really should have said 'some democrats'??

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Disagree that everyone titles threads in such an inflammatory/intellectually dishonest manner. You find this over at the Spin Room but not over here (with the exception of GoodOwl).

I wasn't talking about thread titles or 'even on here'... I was just talking about how everyone (of course a generalization) to one degree or another describes 'the other side' of an argument in the least favorable ways... sometimes its minor, sometimes its an outright fabrication...

I think the headline is certainly inflammatory... but I don't think 'intellectually dishonest' as a charge is anything but a clear demonstration of precisely what I'm talking about.

Well have to agree to disagree about the title of the thread being intellectually dishonest I guess.

(08-07-2023 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fact that is was a Democratic-sponsored bill certainly flies in the face of the thread title.

The headlines says Progressives... which to my understanding is a subset of the party. Aren't you guys similarly arguing in another thread where someone said 'democrats' and they really should have said 'some democrats'??

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Disagree that everyone titles threads in such an inflammatory/intellectually dishonest manner. You find this over at the Spin Room but not over here (with the exception of GoodOwl).

I wasn't talking about thread titles or 'even on here'... I was just talking about how everyone (of course a generalization) to one degree or another describes 'the other side' of an argument in the least favorable ways... sometimes its minor, sometimes its an outright fabrication...

I think the headline is certainly inflammatory... but I don't think 'intellectually dishonest' as a charge is anything but a clear demonstration of precisely what I'm talking about.

When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Your comment on 'how everyone does it' doesnt change that. It is more of a justification.

Many comments have a certain delta in that 'presentment' that is small enough where it really isnt worth the effort to denote it.

The ones of 'Republicans think so little of social security, they want to throw Granny off the cliff' and this one of 'Progressives (impliedly as a whole) defend child marriage' are enough over the top in that 'shading' to warrant a comment.

If one were to say 'Conservatives want women to carry their pregnancy, even if it kills them' would be one that might be a decent present day analagous comment that is equivalent.

And yes, at least a few conservatives would prefer a 'no exception' to abortion policy.

Just because 'everyone does it' doesnt shade from the inherent 'dishonesty through blurring the people' that is present.

(08-07-2023 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 01:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The fact that is was a Democratic-sponsored bill certainly flies in the face of the thread title.

The headlines says Progressives... which to my understanding is a subset of the party. Aren't you guys similarly arguing in another thread where someone said 'democrats' and they really should have said 'some democrats'??

(08-07-2023 12:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Disagree that everyone titles threads in such an inflammatory/intellectually dishonest manner. You find this over at the Spin Room but not over here (with the exception of GoodOwl).

I wasn't talking about thread titles or 'even on here'... I was just talking about how everyone (of course a generalization) to one degree or another describes 'the other side' of an argument in the least favorable ways... sometimes its minor, sometimes its an outright fabrication...

I think the headline is certainly inflammatory... but I don't think 'intellectually dishonest' as a charge is anything but a clear demonstration of precisely what I'm talking about.

When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Your comment on 'how everyone does it' doesnt change that. It is more of a justification.

Many comments have a certain delta in that 'presentment' that is small enough where it really isnt worth the effort to denote it.

The ones of 'Republicans think so little of social security, they want to throw Granny off the cliff' and this one of 'Progressives (impliedly as a whole) defend child marriage' are enough over the top in that 'shading' to warrant a comment.

If one were to say 'Conservatives want women to carry their pregnancy, even if it kills them' would be one that might be a decent present day analagous comment that is equivalent.

And yes, at least a few conservatives would prefer a 'no exception' to abortion policy.

Just because 'everyone does it' doesnt shade from the inherent 'dishonesty through blurring the people' that is present.

Not to mention that nothing in his article supported the idea that progressives favor child marriage. The point was that there were some sub-groups that worried about how the bill affected access to abortion. Not that there were groups that, in general, thought that minors getting married was a good idea.

(08-07-2023 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

I'll say it more slowly.

While that may have happened in another thread... I only read the post with the 'complaint' about it and didn't read the entire thread.... the exact opposite happened here.... the 'some groups within it' was clearly in the OP... as in Progressives are a subset of Democrats... and 'here' is where the intellectual dishonesty is being alleged.

In this case (though not a big deal) it seems that 93 is actually doing what was alleged there... where 'democrats' sponsored this bill, but according to the OP, progressives would be against it. I stand by my comment, and nothing above changes or counters that perspective. Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

Quote:Your comment on 'how everyone does it' doesnt change that. It is more of a justification.

I think that 'more of' speaks more to your predispositions than it does to my comment. The line after the above was something like 'to varying degrees'. I spoke about politicians and their naming of bills... and while I wasn't remotely addressing you, since you chose to chime in here.... You are rather infamous for your trite rephrasing of the positions of others, often in order to diminish them... and that is also an example of someone doing what I was speaking about.... describing their position in the least favorable way. That's precisely what the headline here does.

I find it funny that this seems to bother (particularly) you, as you do it a lot.

Quote:Many comments have a certain delta in that 'presentment' that is small enough where it really isnt worth the effort to denote it.

The ones of 'Republicans think so little of social security, they want to throw Granny off the cliff' and this one of 'Progressives (impliedly as a whole) defend child marriage' are enough over the top in that 'shading' to warrant a comment.

Progressives aren't 1/2 the political spectrum. I don't know how much they make up of the left, but they aren't anywhere near 100% of them... and THEY are 1/2 the spectrum.

As to 'enough to warrant a comment'... your opinion is fine but you seem to be missing his connection. You may not agree with it, nor may I, but it does not make it invalid simply for that reason. The FACT is that the ACLU, which USED to be a more libertarian organization and now seems to be more progressive, and they are certainly seen as 'left'... are the ones speaking out against this bill... and associating it with 'abortion rights' for these same people under 18... which IS a leftist dog-whistle.

While certainly a more extreme example of what I described above... I find it ridiculous to compare pushing an elderly person off a cliff to not allowing children to get married. The entire stated purpose of Delaware and California in wanting to enact such a bill could well be paraphrased as PREVENTING children from jumping off a cliff... and it would be the ACLU supporting allowing them to do so. I wouldn't make that comparison, but comparison makes more sense than what I understand the above one to be.

Quote:If one were to say 'Conservatives want women to carry their pregnancy, even if it kills them' would be one that might be a decent present day analagous comment that is equivalent.

I've heard that one... and if such a bill were presented by 'evangelicals' I would expect that there would similar to this issue be quotes from other Republicans against such a bill for that very reason.... Strange bedfellows as I mentioned before... where Republicans who only wanted to allow exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother would essentially vote alongside those who would allow abortion on demand under any circumstances as long as the baby was still in utero. They wouldn't agree on anything else, but they would agree that 'this' was too far.

Quote:Just because 'everyone does it' doesnt shade from the inherent 'dishonesty through blurring the people' that is present.

You got very upset when I referred to doing just that to lying. The difference between 'being dishonest' and 'lying' is mostly a matter of how rude one is trying to be at the moment. They mean the same thing.... hence the 'to one degree or another' or however I phrased it earlier.

(08-08-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

I'll say it more slowly.

While that may have happened in another thread... I only read the post with the 'complaint' about it and didn't read the entire thread.... the exact opposite happened here.... the 'some groups within it' was clearly in the OP... as in Progressives are a subset of Democrats... and 'here' is where the intellectual dishonesty is being alleged.

In this case (though not a big deal) it seems that 93 is actually doing what was alleged there... where 'democrats' sponsored this bill, but according to the OP, progressives would be against it. I stand by my comment, and nothing above changes or counters that perspective. Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

What was intellectually dishonest was OO implying that progressives favor child marriage which upon reading the article was not in any way supported. That's why I said (and I stand by it) was that OO is either an idiot or a troll if that's what he got out of the article. My presumption was that he was being a troll.

I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

(08-08-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

A breakdown between "democrats" and "progressives" does not interest me because I intensely dislike both groups.

What intellectual dishonesty?

As I read it, the article describes efforts by Planned Parenthood, perhaps the prototypical progressive organization, to oppose a proposed law to outlaw child marriage in California.

(08-08-2023 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

What intellectual dishonesty?

As I read it, the article describes efforts by Planned Parenthood, perhaps the prototypical progressive organization, to oppose a proposed law to outlaw child marriage in California.

OMG have you not read any of the previous posts? These specific groups (not all progressives, duh) do not oppose the bill because they favor minors getting married (duh). They oppose the bill because they worry about the possibility of it affecting the ability for minors to access abortions.

This was a bill introduced by CA Democrats (progressives) BTW.

Tanq... I should have said... I do it as well... I did not mean to imply that you were alone in doing it... just that you do it as a means of trying to support my claim that 'everyone does it to some degree'...

(08-08-2023 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not sure how you see the breakdown between the definition of "democrats" vs. "progressives" on this forum but it's not really interesting to me and it's not relevant to the intellectual dishonesty of OO's title.

A breakdown between "democrats" and "progressives" does not interest me because I intensely dislike both groups.

What intellectual dishonesty?

As I read it, the article describes efforts by Planned Parenthood, perhaps the prototypical progressive organization, to oppose a proposed law to outlaw child marriage in California.

Pro-choice Republicans favor pregnant mothers dying.

I hope that example makes it clear how the title is intellectually dishonest.