Single Women Follow

Welcome to my point! He didn't say that, yet people implied that he did. That is how his words were misconstrued.

Nah, I think abortion should be legal regardless of how many pregnancies are caused by rape.

Well, I had actually given men the choice in my response. I can only type the words - I can't make you read them.

There's sort of an Interesting parental rights case going on right now.

Jason Patric, who's supposedly a famous actor (I don't recognize the name or the face) gave some sperm to an old girl friend. His sperm, her eggs were joined in vitro fertilization. The resultant baby brought the two back together in couplehood and JP spent the next couple years fathering his son. When the couple eventually broke up again in 2012, the mother disallowed any visitation or other involvement between JP and the kid. He wants to continue being it's parent. His argument is interesting in that he claims that each of them are 'donors'. Simply because biology dictates that the women grow the embryo in her womb doesn't give her, the woman, greater rights to the baby.

This is in California, where the law essentially gives no rights to a sperm donor that is not partnered up with the egg donor.

Here's a story about the case.
Umm, no. You're giving murder your own definition. If it was murder, it would be illegal - wouldn't it? SpoilerObviously, by stand-alone I don't mean literally standing on it's own two feet. I mean living and growing without being connected to another human being.

So the guy who is arguing his true intent also implied that he said something else? That doesn't even make sense. It's seriously not that hard to admit error. There are no vulnerable soundbites that aren't altered/edited for political points. Conservatives did the same thing for Hillary's "What difference does it make" statement. It's the game of politics, apparently this is new to you. That is of no fault of mine.

Doesn't bite when said by someone who uses women and wants them to be bullet shields.

Questions for the modern world, part 3: Why can't everything be ****?

Also, everything is murder. All you cold heartless people thinking you can spit on the sidewalk and get away with killing perfectly viable human cells. For shame.

Like bad ****?

Why you gotta take Ms. Lawrence celebrating my being a heartless, immoral piece of **** and turn it into something crass?

Been ridiculously busy at work (how the hell can a vendor ***** up a postgresql installation process that badly?). Trying to pick up the conversation at a relevant point (relative to what I was talking about earlier, anyway).



Yes, it was. Massively so. And this is exactly what I was talking about. He was saying that we should not punish the child for the actions of the rapist, which is (presumably) a very acceptable and "normal" position to take. I'm assuming every single one of you would oppose someone who argued that if you were conceived via rape that you should not have the same rights as all the other children. Right? So, why then should we make determinations about abortion based on whether the fetus was conceived via rape? Think about it. To whatever degree we believe that a fetus has a right to live, that right should not change based on the conditions of conception. If you think that fetuses don't have a right to live at whatever stage of gestation we're talking about, this should be true or false. Period.

But instead of responding to the point he actually made, it got twisted into some kind of bizarre "he doesn't think rape matters" position. That was not remotely what he said.

My point is that simply avoiding talking about the issues at all isn't a great approach. The problem isn't with the position, but that the message gets distorted and misconstrued, but then instead of every single conservative speaking loudly to repeat the correct position and to say "that's not what he said", they get afraid of being associated with the demonized person and run away. This serves only to make the misconstrued statements seem more "true" to the audience. So those who gain politically by misconstruing statements made by conservatives just do it more (and in more insanely obviously incorrect ways). Which makes the whole thing worse and worse over time.

It's gotten to the point where the Left can make absolutely ridiculous claims about the Right, and the public accepts it because it matches the narrative that the Right didn't fight hard enough against the last time. It allows anyone to just speculate a bad position by the conservative, and everyone else will just assume it must be true. Even as those speculations become more and more ridiculous. The correct response is to challenge the misinformation. Not occasionally. Not once in awhile. Every. Single. Time. Do this often enough, and loud enough, and the audience starts to see a pattern of deliberately misconstrued statements, and will stop just believing them blindly like they do now.


I was listening to a liberal talk show just last night, and the guy was talking about Benghazi and someone called in and commented about how if the Rights position on this was correct, then where were the family members of the dead calling for more investigation? The host agreed that this was a great point because he had never heard of any of the family demanding anything. So everyone was agreed that this meant that the conservative claims must be false and the whole investigation was just a politically drive witch hunt.

Of course, the whole time I'm screaming at the radio (ok, not literally) that I'd seen an interview with the father of one of the dead former SEALs just a couple days earlier on Fox, with him talking about how unhappy he was with the lack of information about what really happened, and particularly upset that when he met Clinton instead of her saying that they'd get the people responsible for his son's death, she promised him that they'd go after the guy who made the damn video (which btw, they did). So basically, the caller was wrong, and the host was wrong, but if no one stands up and tells them their wrong, and does so in front of their audience, everyone listening will think that was a compelling argument.

This is how the Left wins though. They increasingly present just plain absolutely false information to a mass market of people, knowing that most of them will never hear the counter argument, or the facts that directly refute what they just said. It doesn't matter, as long as they can get people to believe them. And part of that is demonizing anyone who questions their version of the truth. Get people to dismiss conservatives. Convince them that conservative talk radio and Fox news is just a bunch of crazy people so there's no reason to ever listen to them. Succeed, and your audience will never hear or see anything other than your message.

That's what the Right has to fight against. Because if we don't, then people just accept the BS and ignore the facts.

You don't even know what the argument is.

That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that many liberals use the misconstrued version of what he said (and many other similarly misconstrued statements) as ammunition to maintain and reinforce a perception of conservative positions which is not correct. It's not about this one guy. Hell. I don't remember what the hell his name was.

I'm arguing that the only way to counter that methodology is to continually correct those misconstructions and not to just run away from them, as we've done in the past. This does not mean "defend the strawman", but "correct the statement and stay on message". Far too often conservatives in the media make the mistake of allowing the left to define the issue and the terminology, and allow themselves to be put into a lose/lose situation.

Once you accept that what-his-face actually was saying that God wants women to be raped, you've lost the argument. Period. The only way to win that is to say "that's not what he said", over and over. Do this often enough, and loudly enough and people will see a pattern of one side misquoting and misconstruing the words of the other. Unfortunately, far far too many conservatives in the media (some of which aren't really conservatives, but that's a whole different story), make the mistake of accepting the premise rather than challenging it as they should. And that's what really needs to change.



Correct. Which is why the correct response is "no one actually said that". Followed by the actual position, preferably worded in a way that turns the issue back on the other side: "Do liberals think that the child should be punished for the sins of the father? I though we left that kind of archaic justice behind us long ago". You turn it around. You make the liberal position appear to be the unreasonable and irrational one. That's how you fight this. And that's how the Right keeps losing the message battle. We allow the premise to stand unchallenged, far too often. And what's worse is that in many cases, the premise is so ridiculous, and so easily refuted, that it wouldn't take much to do this. You just have to put the right people in front of the right microphones.

It's really not a policy issue, but a messaging issue. The right has been *horrible* at this for a long time. We actually have the better positions. We just eternally make the mistake of assuming that everyone can see this already, so we don't need to actually spend time convincing people of it. The guy with the clever sales pitch will tend to win against the guy who's actually right. Sad, but true.