Michigan State Rep. Lisa Brown Banned from Speaking After Opposing Abortion Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350278]Did you even read those? Half of them are mild whacks on the head. One of them was just a dude rushing another dude before stopping when someone else whipped out his gat. I said fistfights, not "one punch then recess." You're right. She's being censored because of her opinion as a woman. [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] Yes we should use secessionists as a model for proper republican representative democracy.[/QUOTE] For one, not every person who supported slavery was a secessionist. That's a stupid generalization. And two, you claimed that [QUOTE]nobody in any american legislative body has ever been censored[/QUOTE] which is factually incorrect. I agree with your overall point that she shouldn't be censored, though I also agree with the idea of her being sensationalist.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350296]define "juvenile"[/QUOTE] 'I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina' is pretty goddamn childish.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350321]'I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina' is pretty goddamn childish.[/QUOTE] But that's what it is. It's a group of bureaucrats trying to legislate how a woman is allowed to use her vagina. I don't understand how this is juvenile.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36350309]For one, not every person who supported slavery was a secessionist. That's a stupid generalization.[/QUOTE] sorry im being prejudiced against secessionists please tell me all about it let me rephrase: "nobody in the american legislative body has ever been censored except when people gave a shit what racist secessionists thought" Also, considering slave states seceded in their entirety along with their representatives, and free states universally opposed the practice: yes, every person who supported slavery was a secessionist. [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;36350321]'I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina' is pretty goddamn childish.[/QUOTE] That's not juvenile, that's called "nutshelling." It's a room full of men telling talking about [I]her[/I] reproductive organs, and refusing to hear what [I]she[/I] has to say on the matter. It's not juvenile. That's [I]exactly[/I] what was happening. She is allowed to mention that she happens to posses the organs they're trying to legislate. That sort of makes her an authority on the issue, as a matter of fact.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36350330]But that's what it is. It's a group of bureaucrats trying to legislate how a woman is allowed to use her vagina. [/QUOTE] If that were the sole point of the statement then the 'I'm flattered' part shouldn't belong. If she meant it straight-faced and literally she would not be flattered that Republicans are trying to regulate women's reproductive rights. It is very clearly a snide remark and it's a juvenile and sexual jab at the Republicans.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350369]If that were the sole point of the statement then the 'I'm flattered' part shouldn't belong. If she meant it straight-faced and literally she would not be flattered that Republicans are trying to regulate women's reproductive rights. It is very clearly a snide remark.[/QUOTE] Hello semantics thy name is catbarf. This is what is called a "deflection." You, like the dumbass republicans, are arguing her [I]choice of words[/I] instead of acknowledging the fucking [I]point[/I] of them. It's a "Tone Argument." They're dismissing her off-hand on the basis that they don't like the [I]words she used.[/I] THAT is fucking juvenile. If you get so fucking stuck on the [I]phrasing[/I] of a point that you literally can not fathom what that point was, you are a fucking child.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350374]Hello semantics thy name is catbarf.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? Semantics is taking a female equivalent of a your mom joke and saying 'well really if you take it 100% literally this is actually commentary on their views of reproductive rights'. That's semantics and pedantry at its finest.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350369]If that were the sole point of the statement then the 'I'm flattered' part shouldn't belong. If she meant it straight-faced and literally she would not be flattered that Republicans are trying to regulate women's reproductive rights. It is very clearly a snide remark and it's a juvenile and sexual jab at the Republicans.[/QUOTE] snide-remarks: too rude for congress legislating bodily autonomy: still a-ok!

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350392]Are you kidding me? Semantics is taking a female equivalent of a your mom joke and saying 'well really if you take it 100% literally this is actually commentary on their views of reproductive rights'. That's semantics and pedantry at its finest.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36350374]This is what is called a "deflection." You, like the dumbass republicans, are arguing her [I]choice of words[/I] instead of acknowledging the fucking [I]point[/I] of them. It's a "Tone Argument." They're dismissing her off-hand on the basis that they don't like the [I]words she used.[/I] THAT is fucking juvenile. If you get so fucking stuck on the [I]phrasing[/I] of a point that you literally can not fathom what that point was, you are a fucking child.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350374]This is what is called a "deflection." You, like the dumbass republicans, are arguing her [I]choice of words[/I] instead of acknowledging the fucking [I]point[/I] of them. It's a "Tone Argument." They're dismissing her off-hand on the basis that they don't like the [I]words she used.[/I][/QUOTE] They're dismissing her on the basis that they don't like the tone she is using, as the speaker immediately says after she finishes. It is not about the words used in the slightest, it is the manner in which they are being conveyed. Good god, nowhere has anyone suggested that they're outright rejecting or missing her point- they can acknowledge the point while disagreeing with the manner in which it is conveyed. She is the only one suggesting that they dismissed her because of the specific word she used. Where are you pulling this from?

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350402]They're dismissing her on the basis that they don't like the tone she is using[/QUOTE] And that isn't juvenile? "We would listen to you but you hurt our itty bitty feewings with your tone." Really? Also did you not READ that post. I called it a fucking "Tone Argument." It's right there. You aren't correcting fuck-all, you are just repeating a point I already responded to.

dismissing an argument on the basis of tone is the actual juvenile action in this situation [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] "If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to 'ask nicely'"

[QUOTE=Lazor;36350408]dismissing an argument on the basis of tone is the actual juvenile action in this situation[/QUOTE] Ma'am i don't like your tone of voice go sit in the corner. fucking ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350343]sorry im being prejudiced against secessionists please tell me all about it let me rephrase: "nobody in the american legislative body has ever been censored except when people gave a shit what racist secessionists thought" Also, considering slave states seceded in their entirety along with their representatives, and free states universally opposed the practice: yes, every person who supported slavery was a secessionist.[/QUOTE] You realize that most people in the North, even up to the 20th century, including Abraham Lincoln, would be considered racist by today's standards, right? As well, you can say "slave states seceded, so slave owners were secessionists" all you want, but it won't make it true. I'm arguing facts here and you're just dancing around the fact that what you said was wrong.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36350416]"slave states seceded, so slave owners were secessionists" all you want, but it won't make it true.[/QUOTE] yes it does. that is like the definition of a true statement. Your "factual argument" is just you defending secessionists because of an off-hand, hyperbolic remark I made in jest. Good luck with that battle.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350414]Ma'am i don't like your tone of voice go sit in the corner. fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE] You are aware that I said as much and agree that it's ridiculous and unjustified punishment? Are you just getting hung up on the fact that I am not painting her as a 100% innocent victim, or that Republicans might not be stuck in the 1700s and get angry solely over someone using a particular word?

Wait, people are actually arguing that nobody in legislature has been censored? GO READ A FUCKING BOOK. Read the constitution. Hell. There's at least a clause referring to that. When they are on the floor, they can call Obama a "Pedofile who likes to lick butts" and they can't do anything to them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350420]yes it does. that is like the definition of a true statement. Your "factual argument" is just you defending secessionists because of an off-hand, hyperbolic remark I made in jest. Good luck with that battle.[/QUOTE] [I]What?[/I] Where did I defend secession? And no, that's the definition of a generalization! What you're saying doesn't even make sense, why would slave owners enter and remain in a union debating peaceably about slavery for over sixty years if they were secessionists? It's like saying every German who fought in World War 2 was an anti-Semitic fervent Nazi. You are the worst kind of person to argue with. You literally can't accept being even one iota wrong, ever. You never respectfully concede to someone else's point, you just dance around it, ignore it, or plain deny it no matter how factually correct it is.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36350486]You are the worst kind of person to argue with. You literally can't accept being even one iota wrong, ever. You never respectfully concede to someone else's point, you just dance around it, ignore it, or plain deny it no matter how factually correct it is.[/QUOTE] off-hand hyperbolic quip You don't have a point because what you're arguing wasn't a point to begin with. You're just arguing shit that has nothing to do with anything. What do you think you're going to win, here? A trophy? Congratulations you successfully over-analyzed a hyperbolic, ancillary remark pertaining very little to the subject. I can't do this with you right now.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350498]off-hand hyperbolic quip You don't have a point because what you're arguing wasn't a point to begin with. You're just arguing shit that has nothing to do with anything. What do you think you're going to win, here? A trophy? Congratulations you successfully over-analyzed a hyperbolic, ancillary remark pertaining very little to the subject. I can't do this with you right now.[/QUOTE] Actually, it was a point. The point was that something you said was factually wrong, and it does have something to do with this argument because you went acting like this was totally unprecedented when it wasn't. I pointed that out and you proceeded to dance around the fact that what you said was wrong. At least you've now admitted that your comment was hyperbolic at this point, though one post ago you called it a "true statement".

lmao dude he said it was hyperbolic like 8 posts ago

[QUOTE=Lazor;36350574]lmao dude he said it was hyperbolic like 8 posts ago[/QUOTE] actually he said it pretty matter-of-factly 6 posts ago he at the very least didn't call it hyperbolic and actively denied it being a generalization lmao

[quote]hyperbolic remark I made in jest.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Lazor;36350609]*quote*[/QUOTE] But in the same post he called it a "true statement". *shrug*

There must be more to the story than what is being told. Simply voicing one's opinion isnt grounds for such a thing.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36350618]But in the same post he called it a "true statement". *shrug*[/QUOTE] yes because i suddenly got serious as you were telling me i was generalizing slave owners [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=kenshin6;36350639]There must be more to the story than what is being told. Simply voicing one's opinion isnt grounds for such a thing.[/QUOTE] hello welcome to the GOP

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350641]yes because i suddenly got serious as you were telling me i was generalizing slave owners [/QUOTE] Eh, I guess this is another one of those cases of lost meaning through text as opposed to personal speech. I probably took a few of your statements too seriously and dragged this out a little too far. Sorry.

man maybe the woman was being juvenile but it's not like the republicans aren't [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] this is the party pushes government to a standstill to make a point If that's not juvenile I'm the loch ness monster

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;36348509]Listen I'm going to level with you I'm PUI but honestly this is the most fun I've had on Facepunch in possibly ever but I'm out of beer and it's twenty past three and if I don't sleep soon I'm going to go all existential so I'm gone. But you were great, really wonderful I hope you've all had fun too and if not well find something else to do no-one's making you argue seriously you're all fucking lovely I love you - and by the way: not eating for a day and then drinking own brand lager is the most fun you can have for under a fiver. gOOD NIGHT nEW yORK [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m58me5a2Gw1rnbso2.gif[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("PUI" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] oh capitulazyguy, i always knew you'd slip up in that incredibly stupid moral cesspit of yours. i just didn't think it would be in a thread on abortion and women's ethics

I am really disappointed that certain people in this thread have shown support to silencing the minority during legislation. If this mind set continues on in the future, I weep for the fate of humanity.