Edited by ralis, 15 February 2012 - 04:39 PM.
Posted 15 February 2012 - 04:34 PM
Edited by ralis, 15 February 2012 - 04:39 PM.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:00 AM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:06 AM
Talk about a straw man - looks like the democrats will do damn near anything to avoid discussing Obama's record and the direction he's taken the country. They even betrayed Stephanopolous' being in bed with them still by bringing this question "out of nowhere" when jeez, the administration had already planned this and had their media lackeys segue the national conversation right there for them!
Always relying on a jacked up context. Arguing these points are like fighting a guerrilla war, the progressives can never stand up and let their points be shown light on even par with other ideas.
Edited by ralis, 16 February 2012 - 08:30 AM.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:23 AM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:41 AM
Yes indeed, what does all of this have to do with roe vs wade?
Here's a hint: its not Obama's record! A straw man argument creates a new argument, a new focus, to shift focus away from an argument that someone does not want to have.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:01 AM
No! A straw man fallacy is to substitute a distorted version which is a misrepresentation of the original point.
As usual you are way off topic and your narrative is replete with non sequiturs.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:13 AM
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
I dont pretend to assume you'd understand how something logically follows. You cant logically follow the course of progressivism, so you're already five legs down.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:22 AM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:28 AM
Sounds like a deal to me, you stop posting contrived misinformation and I'll stop coming in and debunking it You might assert your understanding of logic but then you come up with illogical things bent on serving a particular purpose, most of which relies on spreading misinformation in order to further a political ideology.
Fact of the matter is, there is no "right wing conspiracy to deny people access to contraceptives." The argument is that people should not be forced to purchase it if they dont wish, it has absolutely zero to do with "access" unless of course "access" means "government supplied" which is not access, it is forced subsidization...
...and toss in the government attempting to dictate to religious institutions what they must do no matter if it goes against their very religion or not and you have yet another constitutional transgression by the admin,
and a straw man argument was contrived in order to create an issue for an ideology to rally around - one that steers well clear of relevant, important, issues of the day - and it is plainly transparent that this is simply a misdirection, away from the performance of the president's policies.
Edited by ralis, 16 February 2012 - 10:36 AM.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:37 AM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:51 AM
Well, I certainly wouldnt take such a narrow look at it as the "journalists" have done in writing - i.e. the rape correlation in the virgina consideration doesnt appear to be backed by the verbiage, and the Iowa one is quite devoid of information - a link to the actual bill would be helpful...unless of course if one read the entire bill one can come up with a different conclusion than the one asserted with such scant detail. It honestly seem odd that a bill would be introduced that would outlaw all abortions for any reason whatsoever in Iowa, but of course we dont know any of the other details from the OP because it was very careful in what was presented - because obviously that would go against roe vs wade, so it seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented...
Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:01 PM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:12 PM
anyone got a $20 on joeblast?
Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:24 PM
Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:25 PM
A little reading of the journalist's article in question would have given you the info. from the Iowa state legislature.
House File 2033 - Introduced HOUSE FILE 2033 BY ROGERS A BILL FOR An Act establishing prerequisites to the performance of an abortion
H.F. 2033 Section 1. NEW SECTION . 146A.1 Prerequisites for abortion.
1 1. A physician performing an abortion shall certify in
2 the woman’s medical record all of the following prior to the
3 performance of an abortion:
4 a. That the woman has undergone an ultrasound imaging of the
6 b. That the woman is given the opportunity to view the
7 ultrasound image of the fetus.
8 c. That the woman is given the option of hearing a
9 description of the ultrasound image and hearing the heartbeat
10 of the fetus.
11 2. A physician who does not comply with this section is
12 subject to license discipline pursuant to section 148.6.
13 3. For the purposes of this section, “abortion” means 14 abortion as defined in section 146.1.
Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:26 PM
I'm sure hnjt will forgive you for making a decision based on the heart at the full exclusion of the mind "tempering" the decision
my money's on ralis
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users