A New Day For Choice
Tweet
It’s a great day when anti-choice activists protest and don’t get a call from the president (Bush was always too chicken to appear in person). Outside the circle. Outside.
UPDATE: President Obama on a woman’s right to choose.
On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.
58 Responses to “A New Day For Choice”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Atrios noted
that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
… except when it comes to paying the bill, in which case Government should DEFINITLY step in.
Oh, goody. mccann is back. The empty calorie has returned.
j mccann: “Yeah. those pesky anti-choice activists. they’re way worse than those pro-murder advocates. haha.”
You know abortions are not murder in the Bible. If you cause a woman to miscarriage, it’s a property crime. If the woman asks you to do it, its no crime at all.
CSS: You know abortions are not murder in the Bible.
And according to the Bible
– homosexuals should be killed
– as should children who curse at their parents
– as should entire towns if one person therein worships a foreign god
– and so on
Anyone in favor of all of those?
OW: “that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”
SaveFarris: “… except when it comes to paying the bill, in which case Government should DEFINITLY step in.”
Is this an attack against Universal Health care? Because, if it is, you need to work on your understanding on how Universal Health care works.
You pay for it in taxes, and everyone gets equal access. This promotes the generally welfare of the nation, plus, plus the economy of scale and lowered overhead means it costs less. Additionally, because everyone has equal access, and free access per visit, people are more likely to have preventative health checks, which is the key in successful health care.
Sean, you missed one of the better ones: wearing blended fabrics is against the Bible, too.
As far as I can figure it out, Strowbridge is appealing to Biblical authority not to defend his own position, but to undercut the theoretical arguments (which haven’t been made) by his opponents.
That’s his style — all offense, all attacks on others, never defending any position, never taking a stand on any kind of articulated principle. If you never express an opinion of your own, you never have to defend it.
Which explains why he is always so offensive.
J.
And Jay ID Tea defends Intelligent Design which explains why he is so..well, you get the drift.
J.G. Thayer: “As far as I can figure it out…”
And no one needs to read any further. What you can figure out is meaningless.
“…never defending any position, never taking a stand on any kind of articulated principle.”
You are a liar. Nothing more needs to be said.
So, I’m sure JayTea and the rest of the conservatives have great non-religious reasons for forced pregnancy, right?
“So, I’m sure JayTea and the rest of the conservatives have great non-religious reasons for forced pregnancy, right?”
I’m sure Mr. Thayer will come up with something. I’m equally sure it won’t be logically compelling.
If I may interrupt with a return to the subject–
Read Obama’s statement attentively, with your mind’s ear attuned to the sound.
You can hear the voice of Candidate Obama laying out a campaign position to get himself elected, can’t you? I am shocked — shocked! — to find that he is taking the same positions as President, with the same clarity and reason and generally Getting It, as he did when chasing votes and not having to Act Responsibly.
So, umm, how are all the blog commenters who have been assuring us that he’s not real and just like the Repugs? Feelin good today?
[Oops, that came out at first as "Feelin good toady?" Don't know whether there was any need to change it.]
Jesse, since you asked, I don’t worry much about “forced pregnancy.” The number of pregnancies that came about against the will of the pregnant woman are minuscule, and can be handled on a case by case basis.
The vast majority of what you want to call “forced pregnancies” are better described as “oops pregnancies.” And as President Obama said in his inaugural address, it’s a matter of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions.
I’ve made damned certain that I won’t be involved in any unplanned pregnancies. There is so damned much birth control — both methods and education — around that almost no one has an excuse to not make use of it.
Abortion is, by and large, for lazy, selfish hedonists — who like to hide behind the tiny percentage of unplanned pregnancies that are a result of rape (including incest, as it usually involves an unwilling minor) or genuine failure of birth control.
J.
Jay Tea: There is so damned much birth control — both methods and education — around that almost no one has an excuse to not make use of it.</i.
Unless, of course, schools are not allowed to talk about it and the law requires doctors to not discuss it with their patients.
But other than that, yeah, what possible excuse could a teenager have for not knowing pulling out or girl-on-top aren’t effective means of birth control.
“I’ve made damned certain that I won’t be involved in any unplanned pregnancies.”
I’ve always wondered if there were a phrase similar to “gilding the lily” or “coals to Newcastle” that would convey the same sense of futile superfluousness, only in a different direction. I’m looking for something that will adequately describe the egotistical folly of a hopelessly undesirable man getting a vasectomy.
I could make a whole great post about the fact that it’s amusing that those get abortions are lazy, selfish hedonists when 1/3 of women have or will have an abortion in their lifetimes, but you’re an idiot, So, I’ll just say this. I surely hope JayTea, if you “accidently” get an STD, you never get any medical treatment for it. After all, you should be responsible and um, so nothing about it.
Jesse, care to cite your source that 1/3 of women will have an abortion? I find that absolutely incredible — in the most literal sense.
Mean Girl, I take precautions against STDs. If I get one, though, I won’t whine about it — I will get it treated appropriately, and be even more careful in the future.
One major difference: no STD has ever developed into a human being (with the possible exception of Paris Hilton).
Although there is the old observation that life itself is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate…
J.
“Mean Girl, I take precautions against STDs. If I get one, though, I won’t whine about it — I will get it treated appropriately, and be even more careful in the future.”
You can’t read, can you?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.
Abortion is, by and large, for lazy, selfish hedonists — who like to hide behind the tiny percentage of unplanned pregnancies that are a result of rape (including incest, as it usually involves an unwilling minor) or genuine failure of birth control.
Good heavens, that’s just so wrong in so many ways.
Are we including only women among the “lazy, selfish hedonists”? After all, we can be fairly certain that 100 percent of abortions are performed on women, can’t we?
Or are we also including the partners of these women? Are they also “lazy, selfish hedonists”?
And nobody is hiding “behind the tiny percentage of unplanned pregnancies that are a result of rape (including incest, as it usually involves an unwilling minor) or genuine failure of birth control.” Supporters of abortion rights are “hiding” behind the silly notion that the government has no business stepping between a woman and her own conscience.
Jesse Ewiak: when 1/3 of women have or will have an abortion in their lifetimes
That seems unbelievably high. You wanna provide any sort of legitimate source for that?
Jesse, from your own link, approximately 1 in 2 women have an unplanned pregnancy, 4 out of 10 of which end in abortion. That means something like 1 in 5 women, or approximately 20% have had or will have an abortion.
Math is our friend.
Also, from the same link
Which would seem to indicate that there is still a lot we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Southern Quaker: Which would seem to indicate that there is still a lot we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Which is really where the focus should be. Prevent the problem from happening and avoid having to deal with it once it’s arrived.
You know, close the damned door while the horse is still in the barn.
J.G.Thayer: “Abortion is, by and large, for lazy, selfish hedonists…”
Care to back that up with evidence? Cause it sounds like you are lying.
“I’ve made damned certain that I won’t be involved in any unplanned pregnancies.”
Hopefully you will not be involved in any pregnancies.
CSS, you seem to toss that word “lying” around at the drop of a hat. JGT was expressing an opinion. A fairly obnoxious one I’ll grant, but having an opinion different than yours is not the same as lying.
Southern Quaker: but having an opinion different than yours is not the same as lying.
Clearly you haven’t been in many debates with CSS before.
Abortion is, by and large, for lazy, selfish hedonists
This says alot more about you than it does about women who have abortions…
And you wonder why people say that anti-choice and anti-woman are the same thing.
Southern Quaker: “CSS, you seem to toss that word “lying” around at the drop of a hat.”
No. I only use that term when people lie, which I define as the intent to deceive. (Others define lying as, ‘Intentionally saying something that they know is wrong.’ But acting, or telling a joke, etc. would therefore be lying.)
“JGT was expressing an opinion.”
No he wasn’t. Read what he wrote. It was a statement of fact. There was nothing there to suggest what he said was just his opinion.
He made a statement of fact, and unless he has reasons to believe this fact is in fact a fact, and not just his opinion, then he lied. … Because he stated his opinion has if it was a fact.
Got it?
Further example. If I say the Porche 911 has the tightest turning circle of any of the early 1980s super sports cars, I would be lying. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. I would be lying, because I don’t have any evidence to back that up. Pure speculation. ‘Tightest turning circle’ might not even be the correct terminology.
On a side note, I find it amazing that someone would be surprised that I, or anyone, would call someone a liar over the internet. Everyone lies. especially on the internet. For example, I am not a 14 lesbian looking to experiment with an older woman, despite what I may or may not have said in the past.
I’m not at all surprised you called JT a liar. I am a bit amused that you felt the need to school me on the mores of the internet.
Your definition of lying is rather broad. For example, if I said that men who buy Porches are, by and large, self-absorbed a-holes who are insecure about their manhood, I would be expressing an opinion. I’d hardly expect to have to provide a link to a scientific study to prove my point.
Got it?
Southern Quaker: “Your definition of lying is rather broad.”
It’s in the dictionary. And it no more broad than ‘internationally telling something that is not true.’ Also, it has the added benefit of being more accurate; you are much less likely to get false positives using that definition.
“For example, if I said that men who buy Porches are, by and large, self-absorbed a-holes who are insecure about their manhood, I would be expressing an opinion.”
No. You would be making a statement of fact. If you said, “I think…” then you would be saying an opinion. Qualifiers are important in making those distinctions.
It may seem anal, but it is very important to make that distinction.
Opinions and facts are different. Expressing the former as the latter is a lie.
For example…
It is my opinions that Porches are the perfect sports car because they have all of the same qualities that a perfect woman should have, and this is again my opinion: they movie fast, they pack plenty of curves, and they have the propensity to kill you if you don’t treat them right.
I expressed two opinions above (what makes a perfect sports car and what makes a perfect woman) and three statements of fact (Porches movie fast, they are curvy, and they can kill you if you don’t treat them right). You can disagree with my opinions, but you can’t say they are wrong. (You can call them invalid, on the other hand.) But you can ask for evidence to back up the three factual statements.
Please don’t. That would be annoying, as the factually accuracy of those statements are not important to the details of the debate.
Southern Quaker: “CSS, you seem to toss that word “lying” around at the drop of a hat.”
CSS: No. I only use that term when people lie, which I define as the intent to deceive.
Which requires that you know what someone else has intended. You’ve accused me of lying several times in the past under this definition of yours when I have not been trying to mislead. Perhaps if you were less quick to assume others are always out to get you you wouldn’t be seen to be using it “at teh drop of a hat”.
—
Souther Quaker: “For example, if I said that men who buy Porches are, by and large, self-absorbed a-holes who are insecure about their manhood, I would be expressing an opinion.”
CSS: “No. You would be making a statement of fact. If you said, “I think…” then you would be saying an opinion. Qualifiers are important in making those distinctions.
Oh, god this one again.
Yes, it’s true. According to CSS in a blog where any reasonable person would recognize that the majority of comments are people expressing their opinions everyone must always preface their doing so with “I think” or “In my opinion”. Otherwise they are clearly trying to deceive by passing opinion off as fact.
I mean, how else could C throw the “liar” tag around so often and grab the debating high ground?
And it no more broad than ‘internationally telling something that is not true.’
Internationally? My, how cosmopolitan.
‘Course, that’s just my opinion.
Sean: “Which requires that you know what someone else has intended.”
Which requires having a working braincell or two. It’s not difficult to do. In every human interaction you have to judge intent.
“You’ve accused me of lying several times in the past under this definition of yours when I have not been trying to mislead.”
Really? So when you chop up my post, and respond to one half as if the other half didn’t exist it was not your intent to imply I didn’t say the other half.
Nope. Sorry. I don’t believe that.
You might believe that, but I don’t.
Changing the context changes the definition. Therefore, you lied about what I said.
It is really as simple as that.
“Oh, god this one again.”
“I mean, how else could C throw the ‘liar’ tag around so often and grab the debating high ground?”
Yes. How dare I demand people speak using the rule of English grammar. How dare I demand people use the correct definition of the words they choose.
HOW DARE I!
Your biggest complaint seems to be that I’m asking people to say what they mean, and that I’m demanding too much out of people.
“And it no more broad than ‘internationally telling something that is not true.’”
“Internationally? My, how cosmopolitan.
‘Course, that’s just my opinion.”
Would it be impolite to tell you to ‘Bite me!’?
CSS: Really? So when you chop up my post, and respond to one half as if the other half didn’t exist it was not your intent to imply I didn’t say the other half.
First, note that you’re expressing your opinion there without having said “I think”. And we all know, of course, that “Opinions and facts are different. Expressing the former as the latter is a lie.”
But in any event, implying you didn’t say the other half wasn’t my intent. I always quote the text I’m responding to so that it’s clear what I’m responding to, even when it’s in the immediately prior message and the original comment can be seen on screen at the same time as my response. And so that if it isn’t, folks know which person I’m responding to so if they want to scroll up and see the entire original post they can find it easily (as I’ve done at times when I wanted to see more of the original comment than someone posted in their reply). There is no intent or effort made to deceive.
CSS: Nope. Sorry. I don’t believe that.
You might believe that, but I don’t.
Ah, now I get it. Despite all your prior comments here and in other threads about someone’s intent*, the intent of someone isn’t what matters. It’s what you decide their intent was.
–
*“No. I only use that term [lying] when people lie, which I define as the intent to deceive.” “your intent was to convey the impression the second half never exists. Therefore, you lied.”
Prior response had link so held up in moderation, but don’t want to delay in getting out a correction:
I would think it obvious I goofed on the tags, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of intending to mislead anyone on which words were mine and which were CSS’s so in an abundance of caution, I post the corrected text here.
CSS: Your biggest complaint seems to be that I’m asking people to say what they mean, and that I’m demanding too much out of people.
Actually, it’s that you attribute evil intent to people you disagree with and tend to not apply the same standards to yourself.
“Internationally? My, how cosmopolitan.
‘Course, that’s just my opinion.”
Would it be impolite to tell you to ‘Bite me!’?
Oh, come ON!
Are you so caught up in this pork sword fight you’re having with Sean again that you can’t tell a frikkin’ joke when you see one?
Maybe you should take a time out from here for a couple of days, CS. I love ya, man, but some of us are getting concerned. I think you take some of the things said here WAY too personally. I think we can all agree that just about everything posted here that doesn’t have a fucking hyperlink should be considered an opinion.
Duros62: Are you so caught up in this pork sword fight you’re having with Sean again that you can’t tell a frikkin’ joke when you see one?
What he said.
Duros62: “Oh, come ON!
Are you so caught up in this pork sword fight you’re having with Sean again that you can’t tell a frikkin’ joke when you see one?”
Two point…
1.) I WAS FUCKING JOKING!
2.) See point one.
CSS: “Your biggest complaint seems to be that I’m asking people to say what they mean, and that I’m demanding too much out of people.”
Sean D. Martin: “Actually, it’s that you attribute evil intent to people you disagree with and tend to not apply the same standards to yourself.”
Sean, you cut a sentence in half and pretended the other half didn’t exist while using the first half to attack me.
How else should I interpret that?
Either you did it intentionally to attack me.
Or you are functionally illiterate.
Or a combination of the two.
I’m being 100% serious here. I thought I would point that out since you didn’t get my joke above.
“Maybe you should take a time out from here for a couple of days, CS. I love ya, man, but some of us are getting concerned. I think you take some of the things said here WAY too personally. I think we can all agree that just about everything posted here that doesn’t have a fucking hyperlink should be considered an opinion.”
No. Fuck no.
I will continue to demand people say what they mean and mean what they say. And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another. I will continue to take it personally when people lie about what I say.
I will continue to do this, because the truth matters. Accuracy matters.
It’s a sad day when that becomes an unpopular opinion.
Would it be impolite to tell you to ‘Bite me!’?
How the fuck did you think that was a serious question?
And you guys wonder why I swear so much.
CSS: Sean, you cut a sentence in half and pretended the other half didn’t exist while using the first half to attack me.
C, I didn’t pretend the second half didn’t exist. It was right there, a whopping 10 cm away from my response to it.
Here, for example, you make two claims. I want to respond specifically to the first one. Could I quote just that claim, or do I have to include the whole sentence to avoid being accused of misrepresenting your words? Is a sentence sufficient, or would I have to quote an entire paragraph? The entire original posting?
Perhaps I should do that from now on where you’re concerned so you won’t be able to go off on tangents about how you’re being unfairly attacked and being misrepresented rather than respond to the point actually being made. It would make it more difficult to know exactly what in the original posting I was responding to, but anything I can do to help you not feel like a victim.
CSS: No. Fuck no.
I will continue to demand people say what they mean and mean what they say. And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another. I will continue to take it personally when people lie about what I say.
I will continue to do this, because the truth matters. Accuracy matters.
It’s a sad day when that becomes an unpopular opinion.
“And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.”
Perhaps you shouldn’t take so many things personally.
“say what they mean and mean what they say” as long as it isn’t an opinion, right? Because opinions aren’t allowed and “when it comes to debates like this, opinions are meaningless.“
CSS: How the fuck did you think that was a serious question?
And you guys wonder why I swear so much.
“How the fuck did you think that was a serious question?”
But he did. Perhaps that says something about the impression you give people.
CSS: “Sean, you cut a sentence in half and pretended the other half didn’t exist while using the first half to attack me.”
Sean D. Martin says: “C, I didn’t pretend the second half didn’t exist. It was right there, a whopping 10 cm away from my response to it.”
Yes. You. Did.
Your response made no sense if the second half existed, therefore, you pretended it didn’t exist.
How can you not understand this?
“Here, for example, you make two claims. I want to respond specifically to the first one. Could I quote just that claim, or do I have to include the whole sentence to avoid being accused of misrepresenting your words? Is a sentence sufficient, or would I have to quote an entire paragraph? The entire original posting?”
If you edit the quote to change the context and that changes the meaning of what I said, then it is a lie.
For instance, in the post I was talking about, I was questioning your apparent double-standard. You questioned the motives of the person who called child welfare, but you thought naming a kid Adolf Hitler was not worthy of any further investigation.
Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.
This is clearly wrong. You did it intentionally, so the only explanation is you lied, or you are fucking stupid.
If you can’t understand this, don’t respond at all, because you will add nothing to the debate.
Me: “And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.”
Sean: “Perhaps you shouldn’t take so many things personally.”
Are you saying it is my fault for taking it personally when you lie about what I said?
Me: “say what they mean and mean what they say”
Sean: “as long as it isn’t an opinion, right?”
Are you incapable of telling the truth? This is another fucking misquote.
Remember, context matters.
CSS: For instance, in the post I was talking about, I was questioning your apparent double-standard. You questioned the motives of the person who called child welfare, but you thought naming a kid Adolf Hitler was not worthy of any further investigation.
Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.
This is clearly wrong. You did it intentionally, so the only explanation is you lied, or you are fucking stupid
“You questioned the motives of the person who called child welfare, but you thought naming a kid Adolf Hitler was not worthy of any further investigation.” That’s right. I questioned the motives of one person and I don’t think naming a kid Adolf Hitler is grounds for starting an investigation. Note, those are actually two different things.
Your original sentence: “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but naming a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.” The first part is about speculating about a person’s motives, the second part is about calling for an investigation. Yuo might have a point if you’d said something like “So you are allowed to speculate without any direct evidence, but wondering why they’d name a kid Unwanted would not be enough to warrant further investigation.”
“Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.”
Nope. At best you inferred that. My reply said only that yes, I was allowed to speculate.
“You did it intentionally”
Again, nope. No more than you intentionally misread it so you could interpret it as an attack and send the conversation off on this tangent rather than respond to any point originally made. Is that what you intended?
CSS: Are you saying it is my fault for taking it personally when you lie about what I said?
Thank you for actually asking what I meant. That’s an appreciated change of pace.
Now, since you notice so carefully when I haven’t quoted the entirety of a comment, perhaps you’ll go back and look at exactly what I was responding to and what I left off. Specifically: “And I will continue to take it personally when people say one thing and mean another.” I (yes, intentionally. You got me.) left off your next sentence because I did NOT object to your taking it personally “when people lie about what I say.” I was only suggesting you shouldn’t take comments that aren’t directed at you personally.
CSS: Are you incapable of telling the truth? This is another fucking misquote.
Remember, context matters.
Which is why I actually provided a link. You, for example, have made reference to something I said in another thread and brought the discussion over here. Referring to something I wrote out of context, as it were.
When I referenced your comments from another thread I provided a link, inviting anyone who wants to easily see your full comments in their complete context.
I do this, of course, so that I can completely misrepresent you. [/sarcasm]
Me: “Your response implied that I said you were not allowed to question the motive of the person who called child welfare.”
Sean: “Nope. At best you inferred that. My reply said only that yes, I was allowed to speculate.”
Bullshit. The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate. You are just trying to weasel out of it. And you are doing a bad job of it.
My point was the apparent double standard. We can argue whether or not there was a double-standard, but you never addressed it. You completely ignored that point in your reply.
“Which is why I actually provided a link. You, for example, have made reference to something I said in another thread and brought the discussion over here. Referring to something I wrote out of context, as it were.”
Buy a fucking dictionary. Or just look up the ‘context’ on any number of online dictionaries.
You can’t possible be this fucking stupid.
I’m posting this part twice, so you will realize how important it is…
The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate.
CSS: The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate.
Well, yeah. If you tell me I’m not allowed to do something I believe I am allowed to do, I’m going to point out that I am allowed to do it.
Two point…
1.) I WAS FUCKING JOKING!
2.) See point one.
Okay, then. My bad. Hard to tell sometimes.
CSS: “The only reason to say you were allowed to speculate, was if I said you were not allowed to speculate.”
Sean D. Martin: “Well, yeah. If you tell me I’m not allowed to do something I believe I am allowed to do, I’m going to point out that I am allowed to do it.”
Oh my god! Oh my god! Oh my god!
You are not lying; you’re stupid. It all makes sense now.
You actually don’t know what I’m saying. You actually don’t understand the words I’m using in the order I’m using them.
It all makes fucking sense.
You don’t get that cutting a sentence in half can change the meaning. So of course you can’t see how taking a quote out of context would be lying, because you don’t have the ability to comprehend context.
Okay.
Wow.
I’m glad we’ve figured that out.
And to think, all this time I thought it was intentional.
“Okay, then. My bad. Hard to tell sometimes.”
It is the internet. That does impede communication sometimes.
That does impede communication sometimes.
Clearly.
Me: “That does impede communication sometimes.”
Sean: “Clearly.”
For you it doesn’t matter.
For you it doesn’t matter.
Translation: You don’t acknowledge my infallibility so contrary to what I just implied don’t even try to suggest misunderstandings can occur.
Sean: “Translation: You don’t acknowledge my infallibility so contrary to what I just implied don’t even try to suggest misunderstandings can occur.”
Wrong, Sean.
You seem to have difficulty with basic context, as the exchange above shows. The problems in communicating over the internet pale in comparison to that.
Misunderstandings can occur, but you are just fucking stupid.
For instance…
‘If you can do X, then I should be able to do Y.’
When someone says something like that, they are not saying you can’t do X. They are saying they can do Y.
When you took my statement and claimed I said you couldn’t do X, I figured you were lying. It was the most logical conclusion.
Turns out, you just lack basic reading comprehension.
Seriously. This is basic high school English level here. Not even high school, but remedial high school.
But you don’t see it as a problem. You think you are right, and I’m just an asshole. And you will continue to make this mistake in the future, which is sad.