Tiassa trolls a thread about abortion

The whole thread is insane.

James posts a poll about abortion. Everyone responds affirming a woman's right to chose. Bells comes in all upset (what's new) and Tiassa latches on to James for some strange reason.

Clueless has to be a troll since he can occasionally write a paragraph in perfectly normal english before trolling in his broken english and while Tiassa might be able to understand simple english, he certainly can't respond with simple english.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, he didn't, Bill. You need to stop lying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, they're two separate questions, and as I pointed out to Seattle, you asserted a position in one at odds with an affirmative answer to the other. Immediately following this, you have issued an infraction.

That pretty much makes your position clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the emo position on this weighty question?

 

Good, so if it's now clear, you can shut up about it, can't you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's a question that stands out: Why would Exchemist want me to shut up about human rights of a woman?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because no one is attacking the human rights of a woman?

 

Well, the issue of trolling in this particular thread set aside...

After all these years [both here and an elsewhere of the past], we can surely say that it's just a "Josh Billings" personally preferred style of writing. Like Mark Twain's use of it in "Huckleberry Finn", which contrasts with the opposite of Jack Vance's highly ornamental style.

Which might arguably correspond to the writing style of continental philosophers or especially the later obscurantism of postmodernism (in an Anglophone world context). At any rate, it's not really that unique or unfamiliar, either.
_

 

Tiassa said: ↑
"It really would have been easier just to say yes, unless, of course, that's not the actual answer."

I pick option 3) The truth... Tiassa is spot-on about James R.!!!

However:::

Im just guessin that you’r perty far from bein that stoopid… so to be generous… its more likely that you’r just plain lyin.!!!

Yes… you’r BIG LIE… that you have answerd Tiassas question.!!!

Yes… by answrin Tiassas question… but if you still refuse to answer… at least quit lyin by sayin that you have answerd.!!

Which begs the queston::: Do the rules apply to everybody... even James R.???

Spoiler

Bye Felicia

 

^^
And therein lies the matter at hand: you saying that you didn't, and Tiassa thinking that you did. All that is required now is for Tiassa to explain why he thinks you did. That is the issue here, not that there has been any trolling, as Tiassa was accused of.

The thread was about abortion, and Tiassa asked you a question that he has subsequently linked to that matter. Asking that question is not trolling. It is pertinent to the subject matter. While he hasn't yet explained why he thinks your view of the former is contrary to an affirmative response to that question, he has linked the two for purposes of the discussion. That is not trolling. That is asking a question, and probing you for your view on the matter at hand, albeit in a manner that can help (in his view) demonstrate an apparent contradiction. Again - that is not trolling. Presumably the reason he has not yet provided that explanation is because you (and others who have been asked) have been unwilling to answer that question. Pushing you to answer is not trolling, as the question is relevant to the subject being discussed. When he pushes back against people that say that the question has been answered when clearly it has not, that also is not trolling. That is simply telling the truth of the matter.

What is trolling, if anything, would be your (and others) subsequent and ongoing refusal to answer what is ostensibly a straightforward question, and to then harass for him asking it, and the manner of your responses. You didn't answer it then. You haven't now. He asked it of other people as well. They haven't answered, either.

What does remain outstanding, however, is his explanation of why he thinks your view of one is contrary to the affirmative response to the question you haven't yet answered. But, again, it is still related, clearly, to the question raised in that original thread. Not trolling.

But, given the players involved, it is not entirely surprising how events unfolded.

I, for one, assume you would provide an affirmative response to his question. I can't understand why you are doing your best to avoid answering it directly though.
What I am interested in, however, is why he thinks such an affirmative response would be contradictory to your views on abortion. Are you not interested in that? You may not agree with his analysis, but are you not interested in understanding why people might think that? Or are you just happy to assert that such a response wouldn't be contradictory, and be comfortable in what could simply be ignorance of reality?

Again, given the players involved, none of what transpired, nor the outcome, surprised.

 

Because I believe women exist solely for bearing children and the sexual gratification of men, of course, and so they have no rights. (I just thought you would like me to spell it out for you, to avoid any doubt.)

After all, what other reason could there possibly be?...............

 

Yes, you did; here it is:

And what was your reason? Apparently, it was make-believe:

Someone other than me did address that point↗, but you chose to duck it: "That's essentially what I said," you replied, ignoring the implications. The difference between the two is affecting.

And you insist:

That "most people don't know the ins and outs of late term abortion practices" does not justify your parsing, especially when you want recognition of a woman's human rights to be "essentially" the same as refusing that recognition.

It's like when you said—

—and nobody is supposed to notice that you spent multiple posts justifying exceptions according to pretenses of ignorance and confusion.

As you were told↗, "Actually, what you said is that you 'dithered' on the point when discussing the legality of it".

And you should probably take the advice you were given: "When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant."

Because, no, you're not being heroic—

—when you "dither" for the sake of a false narrative.

(Is it always somebody else's fault, the dangers of some nebulous other? "I anticipated that my response would very likely be misinterpreted by people such as yourself," you told Bells, and thus accused that Bells would misinterpret you, endangering or upsetting "the quiet life", if you answered correctly. That is to say, ten paragraphs you spent justifying yourself by accusing a woman.)​

By the time you get to—

—you are explicitly fretting against the human rights of a woman.

And, in going on to argue a fallacious example—

—you only reinforced the prospect that you simply don't understand what you're talking about.

It's also worth noting that when you come around to "one-size-fits-all"↗, the point you try to make in #36↑ above doesn't work because what it refers to, your response to Cluelusshusbund, is an attempt to evade a simple and straightforward acknowledgment of her human rights, resulting in a formulation that you still describe what she is allowed.

If you presume her human rights, you don't need to explain what you would allow because that question goes away.

So, yes, James, not only did you assert a position at odds with an affirmative acknowledgment of the humanity and human rights of women, you insisted, over multiple posts, in excess of three weeks, and even to the point of issuing an infraction and splintering out a thread in order to protect your politics and pride.

 

And thank you for doing so. One challenge in finding common ground for discussion is when others refuse. To wit:

Reasons nobody has thought of, yet?

• e.g., Seattle↗, "I voted in most circumstances. I don't really understand what is implied by 'in all circumstances'?"; James R↗, "I voted the same way, for the same reason."​

For instance, Bells and I used to share a joke called "turducken", based on one of these mysterious reasons; a few years before that, we had a colleague who was irreconcilable about his attitudes toward pregnancy, and his version was a revenge story in which a woman decides while in labor to abort in order to get back at a man, and an innocent man, at that. And somewhere along the way, another of our former colleagues simply decided that women did not have human rights; that episode is part of the origin story leading to asking the question at Sciforums.

In the present, we might consider that DaveC426913↗ just came right out and said it: "I reserve the right to assume there are likely circumstances I haven't thought where abortion is contra-indicated."

That is to say, it's hard to find common ground when one cites their own ignorance as the basis for their moral authority.

Thus, one practical reason to refuse to acknowledge and affirm the humanity and human rights of women is if doing so disrupts one's political argument.

To further illustrate: It is striking, in this community, to observe who needs to be spared the burden of answering certain basic questions with yes/no answers. The purpose of that reluctance would actually appear, over the course of years, to be the refusing of common reference points.

This episode, for instance: It's all the difference between what is her right according to human rights, and what is her right according to what any one person would deem worthy.

But there is also this: One cannot protect the question against the whole world for all time, as such, but inasmuch as we have something like ten years at Sciforums in which some have been very reluctant to answer explicitly affirmatively, we can recognize that the question isn't new. We can also observe, of those who would choose to do so now, their prior reluctance remains significant according to what they can tell us about the difference in their outlooks before and after; they are, after all, rolling on one of the biggest and most important questions in the discussion, and what they can tell us about that threshold is very important.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Talk to planets, baby! (Look below.)​

It's a Satanic drug thing. You wouldn't understand.

(Actually, it's an old line from an American movie called Friday! The phrase has circulated in revival, for reasons I don't actually know, on social media. It's a colloquial sassy dismissal, and less expensive than an actual mic drop.)

Spoiler

​

 

Tiassa, why word the poll to include the right to choose in general vs the right to choose in all cases if the point isn't to make people think?

You (and Bells) don't like the extreme examples that I and others have come up with. Your implication is that I think those situations are common (which is not the case) and that if one doesn't pick the absolution choice that it means that one doesn't respect a woman's rights and their humanity (not the case either).

It's a silly reading of the situation and it seems to just be looking for an argument where none exists.

I believe it's called "making a mountain out of a mole hill", right?

It's clear that everyone here is for a woman's right to choose. If you ask someone "How do I look today?" and they say "You look fine" are you then incensed because they didn't say "You look fantastic. I've never seen such a fine specimen of humanity"?

Most reasonable people, when responding to a poll aren't going to pick an ill defined absolute choice.

What if the woman involved is a minor, is mentally incompetent (legally) or has been coerced to abort? Those aren't common, they are possible.

This reading of a response to the number 2 choice in the poll by you and Bells is just silly.