https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/califo...9a8f&ei=18

(08-04-2023 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/califo...9a8f&ei=18

I see OO has gone full-GoodOwl when it comes to naming his threads. Awesome.

(08-04-2023 09:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/califo...9a8f&ei=18

I see OO has gone full-GoodOwl when it comes to naming his threads. Awesome.

Got your attention, didn't it?

But that IS the theme of the article.


California, a solidly Democratic state, was on track to be the first to pass an absolute ban on marriages for children under 18. But the legislative proposal was met with opposition from liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Children's Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The pushback comes out of concerns that imposing an age requirement could set the stage for a slippery slope when it comes to constitutional rights or reproductive choices, specifically that an age requirement could impede a minor's ability to seek an abortion.


What would you suggest for a title?

Personally, I prefer the age 16 MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE for marriage eligibility. 18 seems a bit restrictive, and unenforceable. But the Progressives are not suggesting that, apparently - afraid any restrictions could be used to keep a 15 YO from getting an abortion.

What do you think would be a sane and sound approach?

(08-04-2023 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/califo...9a8f&ei=18

I see OO has gone full-GoodOwl when it comes to naming his threads. Awesome.

Got your attention, didn't it?

Sure did, Troll. Congrats on joining GoodOwl in a race for the dumbest thread titles.

Quote:But that IS the theme of the article.

The theme of the article is that, in general, Progressives favor child marriage??

Umm... no.

Not even close.

Did you actually read the article? It seems that certain groups in CA had concerns about the bill as written specific to the idea that it could lead to issues with access to abortions for minors. Which is exactly what you put in italics below.

Quote:


California, a solidly Democratic state, was on track to be the first to pass an absolute ban on marriages for children under 18. But the legislative proposal was met with opposition from liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Children's Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The pushback comes out of concerns that imposing an age requirement could set the stage for a slippery slope when it comes to constitutional rights or reproductive choices, specifically that an age requirement could impede a minor's ability to seek an abortion.

Were you under the impression that California Republicans wanted to abolish marriage for minors but California Democrats are strongly in favor of minors getting married?

"Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California spokesperson Jennifer Wonnacott told the Los Angeles Times that it "strongly supports protecting youth from abuse of all kinds" but said those protections should "not impede on the reproductive rights of minors and their ability to decide what is best for them, their health and their lives.""

OO, have you even looked at the bill? Do you know who introduced the bill?

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB404/id/2832415

"The U.S. considers marriage under the age of 18 in foreign counties to be a human rights abuse," Assembly member Cottie Petrie Norris, a Democrat, told the Times. "The reality is this is happening in the dark corners. It is absolutely shocking and it's horrifying.

"If it's happening at all, it's too much," she said.

Yes, I read it. I try to make a practice of using article titles and/or content as thread titles. Cannot use content you haven't read. What would you rather have titled the link? I used content.

From Newsweek.

Your initial comment was not about the content, but the title. It's almost as if I was not properly respectful of the progressive movement.

Why would marriage have anything to do with abortion rights? And don't we consider people under 18 to be 'children'? Wouldn't a law against marriage before 18 be 'against' child marriage and to defeat it at least vicariously supports it?

How is that interpretation/excuse in the article any different from the title? They're both essentially 'slippery slope' arguments.

I get your point 93, but I also get OO's. He got you to read it, even if it was purely because you said to yourself 'no way that's what it said'.


The closest I can think of would be a unmarried 15yr old who wanted to get an abortion. How would this be different if they were married? The closest I can think of would be that if they are married, they are emancipated... and thus their parents have no say in their decisions... but they can also be emancipated without being married. Seems to me the goal here might be to prevent kids of 'pro life' parents from getting pregnant and then rushing off to get married so they can have an abortion against the wishes of their parents... which to me only firther severs the family relationship and encourages more mistakes by kids. I'm experiencing some of that right now (not abortion) but the TikTok generation who sees the fools videoing themselves making stupid arguments to the police or acting tough and thinking they're all tough gangsters... when most of them wouldn't last a day without the comforts of home for free.

This to me sounds more like separating the responsibilities for actions from the benefits of them... where as an obvious example, 'family' oriented parents would be responsible (at least morally) for supporting their married, minor children... but they don't have a say in their family planning.

I understand a few states have minimum ages for marriage as low as 14... surprisingly only some of which are the ones you'd expect.... and a few you probably wouldn't.

(08-04-2023 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "The U.S. considers marriage under the age of 18 in foreign counties to be a human rights abuse," Assembly member Cottie Petrie Norris, a Democrat, told the Times. "The reality is this is happening in the dark corners. It is absolutely shocking and it's horrifying.

"If it's happening at all, it's too much," she said.

Yes, I read it. I try to make a practice of using article titles and/or content as thread titles. Cannot use content you haven't read. What would you rather have titled the link?

"Concerns about Democrat-led CA bill that would abolish marriage for those under 18"

Quote:I used content.

Sure you did. You are either an idiot or you were simply trolling. This is the type of title that one sees from the Spin Room.

Quote:From Newsweek.

Your initial comment was not about the content, but the title. It's almost as if I was not properly respectful of the progressive movement.

No... it's almost as if you put out an outrageously deceptive thread title just to be a troll.

(08-04-2023 10:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Why would marriage have anything to do with abortion rights? And don't we consider people under 18 to be 'children'? Wouldn't a law against marriage before 18 be 'against' child marriage and to defeat it at least vicariously supports it?

Yeah... I'm not clear on the worries that PP/ACLU have when it comes to the slippery slope between marriage of minors and access to abortion.

Quote:How is that interpretation/excuse in the article any different from the title? They're both essentially 'slippery slope' arguments.

I get your point 93, but I also get OO's. He got you to read it, even if it was purely because you said to yourself 'no way that's what it said'.

1) Congratulations to OO, I guess? A successful troll job? Again, this thread title is more Spin Room than Quad IMO.

2) He got me to read it? Have you not heard OO complaining about the idea that I am the one that always seems to respond to his threads? Now he needs to post a completely inflammatory title just to get somebody to respond? This doesn't compute.

Quote:The closest I can think of would be a unmarried 15yr old who wanted to get an abortion. How would this be different if they were married? The closest I can think of would be that if they are married, they are emancipated... and thus their parents have no say in their decisions... but they can also be emancipated without being married. Seems to me the goal here might be to prevent kids of 'pro life' parents from getting pregnant and then rushing off to get married so they can have an abortion against the wishes of their parents... which to me only firther severs the family relationship and encourages more mistakes by kids. I'm experiencing some of that right now (not abortion) but the TikTok generation who sees the fools videoing themselves making stupid arguments to the police or acting tough and thinking they're all tough gangsters... when most of them wouldn't last a day without the comforts of home for free.

This to me sounds more like separating the responsibilities for actions from the benefits of them... where as an obvious example, 'family' oriented parents would be responsible (at least morally) for supporting their married, minor children... but they don't have a say in their family planning.

I understand a few states have minimum ages for marriage as low as 14... surprisingly only some of which are the ones you'd expect.... and a few you probably wouldn't.

In general I would oppose marriage for anybody under 18 unless I could be convinced of the abortion access argument. When it comes to my kids and friends I oppose marriage for anybody under 30.

OO... have you figured out who introduced this bill yet?

93, while I appreciate you looking for my posts, I must point out you were the first to respond, as usual, and still the only leftist.

I didn't think you would resort to name-calling this quickly. And I am supposed to be the bad guy?

Here is the first paragraph:

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.

So, perhaps your sensitive nature would be happier with a title like "Efforts to curb child marriage opposed by progressive groups like Planned Parenthood"?

Bottom line, some people in California are trying to protect children and progressives are opposing it. No amount of selective outrage at me changes that.

Odd that California and Mississippi are the two states with no age restrictions. I wonder in what other lists we would find those two together?

I can see 18 as a marriage age - that was the limit when I was young. However, saying that kids under 18 are too immature to marry but mature enough to decide on their own to have an abortion...does not compute. Either the parent is responsible for the child or they aren't.

(08-04-2023 12:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93, while I appreciate you looking for my posts, I must point out you were the first to respond, as usual, and still the only leftist.

And?

Quote:I didn't think you would resort to name-calling this quickly. And I am supposed to be the bad guy?

Sorry I called you a troll. But you were being an obvious troll.

Quote:Here is the first paragraph:

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.

So, perhaps your sensitive nature would be happier with a title like "Efforts to curb child marriage opposed by progressive groups like Planned Parenthood"?

Bottom line, some people in California are trying to protect children and progressives are opposing it. No amount of selective outrage at me changes that.

Who in California is "trying to protect children"? Have you figured out who introduced the bill yet?

The specific groups that voiced concerns over the bill are doing so because of some nebulous (to me) worry about minors having access to abortions. Those groups aren't opposing the bill because "they favor child marriage". Progressives, in general, do not favor child marriage as your title suggested.

If one were to read this article and then decide to summarize it as "Progressives favor child marriage" then I would say that person is either an idiot or a troll. Before you start crying about name-calling (idiot) my assumption has been that you were being a troll.

(08-04-2023 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not clear on the worries that PP/ACLU have when it comes to the slippery slope between marriage of minors and access to abortion.

I understand... but when faced with OO's retort, you at least somewhat relied upon this as the 'actual' reason for the bill failing and not OO's title. I'm not blaming you... at all... you're right... I'm just saying that is what politicians do. The name bills things like 'The Fairness for All' bill and then couch dissenters as not favoring fairness, whether or not the contents of the bill actually promotes fairness.... or dissenters to the bill claim that it steals lunch money from poor kids.

Quote:1) Congratulations to OO, I guess? A successful troll job? Again, this thread title is more Spin Room than Quad IMO.

2) He got me to read it? Have you not heard OO complaining about the idea that I am the one that always seems to respond to his threads? Now he needs to post a completely inflammatory title just to get somebody to respond? This doesn't compute.

1) maybe... but again, there seems to be a similar troll in the article linked going the other way. I'll admit myself that it is often hard not to respond in kind when you read things like that... It's perhaps not directed at you, but at the article.

2) I don't keep up with anyone's posting habits or even complaints about them enough to really keep track.. yes, I've seen some of that, and the obvious answer from you is to not click on his stories... but things like this are quite common, and not just 'trolls'. News has for decades closed a segment with 'are your children at risk? Tune in at 11'... or some similarly salacious headline intended to draw attention.

Bottom line is that you recognize that the 'access to abortion' though important, seems poorly related to the issue at hand... so that's probably not really the reason they're against the bill. Maybe some of them are against the bill simply because they think free people should be able to do whatever they want (reasonably)... IDK.

Quote:In general I would oppose marriage for anybody under 18 unless I could be convinced of the abortion access argument. When it comes to my kids and friends I oppose marriage for anybody under 30.

Don't disagree at all. My oldest son (30) in particular has matured so much in the last two years or so... truly impressive and makes me proud... and he just asked his GF to marry him.

I wish we had more parts of society that supported the idea that if kids make 'adult' decisions, that they bear some/more 'adult' consequences... whether it be using drugs or having sex or driving cars or drinking or talking back to your boss/parent/teacher/police etc etc... I don't remotely mean 'prison' barring something that is truly criminal, but just not how far we seem to have gone to keep our children 'children' even when they're engaging in 'adult' behaviors. Even things as seemingly silly as, if you spend your money on eating out all the time and having a pizza delivered for $20 rather than picking the exact same pizza up for $9, that M&D won't keep bailing you out and/or you don't need a $15 min wage to let you keep making bad decisions like that.

(08-04-2023 12:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 11:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... I'm not clear on the worries that PP/ACLU have when it comes to the slippery slope between marriage of minors and access to abortion.

I understand... but when faced with OO's retort, you at least somewhat relied upon this as the 'actual' reason for the bill failing and not OO's title. I'm not blaming you... at all... you're right... I'm just saying that is what politicians do. The name bills things like 'The Fairness for All' bill and then couch dissenters as not favoring fairness, whether or not the contents of the bill actually promotes fairness.... or dissenters to the bill claim that it steals lunch money from poor kids.

Quote:1) Congratulations to OO, I guess? A successful troll job? Again, this thread title is more Spin Room than Quad IMO.

2) He got me to read it? Have you not heard OO complaining about the idea that I am the one that always seems to respond to his threads? Now he needs to post a completely inflammatory title just to get somebody to respond? This doesn't compute.

1) maybe... but again, there seems to be a similar troll in the article linked going the other way. I'll admit myself that it is often hard not to respond in kind when you read things like that... It's perhaps not directed at you, but at the article.

2) I don't keep up with anyone's posting habits or even complaints about them enough to really keep track.. yes, I've seen some of that, and the obvious answer from you is to not click on his stories... but things like this are quite common, and not just 'trolls'. News has for decades closed a segment with 'are your children at risk? Tune in at 11'... or some similarly salacious headline intended to draw attention.

Bottom line is that you recognize that the 'access to abortion' though important, seems poorly related to the issue at hand... so that's probably not really the reason they're against the bill. Maybe some of them are against the bill simply because they think free people should be able to do whatever they want (reasonably)... IDK.

Wait, wut?

Do you seriously think that Planned Parenthood has issues with the bill NOT because they are worried about access to abortion for minors (which they stated was their concern) but because Planned Parenthood really likes the idea of minors being able to marry?

Sorry... I think that's bonkers.

(08-04-2023 01:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Bottom line is that you recognize that the 'access to abortion' though important, seems poorly related to the issue at hand... so that's probably not really the reason they're against the bill. Maybe some of them are against the bill simply because they think free people should be able to do whatever they want (reasonably)... IDK.

Wait, wut?

Do you seriously think that Planned Parenthood has issues with the bill NOT because they are worried about access to abortion for minors (which they stated was their concern) but because Planned Parenthood really likes the idea of minors being able to marry?

Sorry... I think that's bonkers.

By 'some of them' I didn't mean planned parenthood... I meant 'some of them' who might be against this bill.... which includes PP but is probably not exclusive to them. PP is probably against it because it keeps their issues- in the forefront of another conversation... More extreme libertarian people... MAYBE the aclu... might be against this bill because it limits individual choices... could be viewed as being against some cultures... and some cultists might be against it because it means they can't marry a 17yr old at 60. Maybe some far right pro-lifers are against it because it means they can't pressure the 17yr old father of their daughter's illegitimate child to marry her.

(08-04-2023 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 01:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Bottom line is that you recognize that the 'access to abortion' though important, seems poorly related to the issue at hand... so that's probably not really the reason they're against the bill. Maybe some of them are against the bill simply because they think free people should be able to do whatever they want (reasonably)... IDK.

Wait, wut?

Do you seriously think that Planned Parenthood has issues with the bill NOT because they are worried about access to abortion for minors (which they stated was their concern) but because Planned Parenthood really likes the idea of minors being able to marry?

Sorry... I think that's bonkers.

By 'some of them' I didn't mean planned parenthood... I meant 'some of them' who might be against this bill.... which includes PP but is probably not exclusive to them. PP is probably against it because it keeps their issues- in the forefront of another conversation... More extreme libertarian people... MAYBE the aclu... might be against this bill because it limits individual choices... could be viewed as being against some cultures... and some cultists might be against it because it means they can't marry a 17yr old at 60. Maybe some far right pro-lifers are against it because it means they can't pressure the 17yr old father of their daughter's illegitimate child to marry her.

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!

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...........

(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.

(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.

This is not a red team versus blue team thing. This is a let’s-not-post-intellectually-dishonest-crap-here thing.

OO, did you ever figure out who sponsored this California bill?

(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.

(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.