Poll of the Day > lmao, Lauren bobert used to be an "escort" and has had two abortions

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jen0125 posted...

Seems to me you guys are just trying to virtue signal for a population that doesn't exist here

The only population that has anything to lose by driving fence sitters into becoming pro-lifers is women, and that demographic certainly exists here.

Jen0125 posted...

You're upset I said a male opinion on female healthcare is not as valid as a female opinion. Boo hoo lol

No, we're upset that you're acting like an asshole for no reason. You saying male opinions on female healthcare are automatically less valid is just false. Nothing about the response to that is "upset," just trying to educate you out of some thoroughly faulty logic.

Jen0125 posted...

Do you guys think white people who are allies of POC causes opinions are just as valid as the affected demographic?

As always, depends on the circumstances and the opinions at hand. A black person who insists that there are no statistically significant differences in SES between white and black people does indeed have a less valid opinion than a white person who says there are. Swap the races, and the white person would have the less valid opinion, not because of their race, but because the opinion is inherently less valid.

Again, what matters is how substantiated the opinion is. Some opinions can't be substantiated without being a part of the group in question, since the only way to substantiate them is with personal experience. In those cases, sex, race, or whatever defines the group does play a role in the opinion's validity. Others absolutely can, and in those cases, group membership doesn't matter.

Zareth posted...

That still makes you pro-choice. Lots of pro-choice people would personally never get an abortion, but they support a woman's right to choose. You're only pro-life if you belive nobody should have access to abortions.

This. Mostly, you're falling prey to the fact that these are really stupid names that exist mostly for the sake of painting the other side as "anti-choice" and "anti-life." You can, in fact, value both life and choice.

Fence sitting sounds like the next underground abortion method

Lmao so adjl feels comfortable with white people telling black people their opinion on black matters is just as valid

Lmao okay makes sense

I thought more of you but I can see how men are always disappointing once again

So far, @Far-Queue is the only man in life who has never disappointed me or my mother

Jen0125 posted...

So far, @Far-Queue is the only man in life who has never disappointed me or my mother

Did you just out farqueue as a trans girl

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

Did you just out farqueue as a trans girl

It's pride month

Jen0125 posted...

Lmao so adjl feels comfortable with white people telling black people their opinion on black matters is just as valid

adjl posted...

As always, depends on the circumstances and the opinions at hand.

I don't know why you're trying to turn this into blanket statements. It's like I'm talking to Sunny or something.

I'm over babysitting men online sorry adjl have a good day

She says, after spending the entire thread needing a fairly basic logical concept spelled out to her by an overwhelmingly-male audience (and not exactly passing the exam).

I didn't read 99% of any of your whining posts so

That sounds like you're voicing an opinion on something you haven't experienced, which in this case means you don't have a valid opinion. Whoopsie.

Okay good luck with that

Jen0125 posted...

I'm done with this topic now. Another shining example of male fragility on PotD.

After this comment, Jen spent a portion of literally every following hour of the day responding to this topic, typically with an attitude fitting of a 13 year old rather than an adult in their mid 30s.

People get way too personal on this board with their insults and grudges

for real chill

Yes I was very bored today. I also took a nap

Jen0125 posted...

I also took a nap

Good. Honestly almost everyone else ITT needed to take a nap, too.

Everyone should be allowed a nap every day human right

Every job should be required to have a mandatory half-half hour nap break for every 8 hours of work

If I'm hypocritical about anything it's the fact I constantly say I'm gonna leave a topic and never do lmao

Zangulus posted...

Thats... not what we were talking about, but ok.

I mean... I didnt even bring that opinion or or even comment on it at all. So why are you even responding to me about this?

because your answer to what you quoted isnt the actual problem... it's what I answered

From the NotTheOnion...

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/06/lauren-boebert-said-jesus-didnt-enough-ar-15s-prevent-crucifixion/

Jen0125 posted...

If I'm hypocritical about anything it's the fact I constantly say I'm gonna leave a topic and never do lmao

yea

adjl posted...

But she's not being criticized for being "off the rails"

Dude ya'll keep coming back with "no one is doing this" and now this^... I'm not gonna go back and dig up the post but I was specifically picking up on Muscles post where he said she's "off the rails" literally verbatim, and I made a joke explaining why she might be "off the rails" to point out how insensitive it is to make that comment without considering context.

If I have to keep explaining this I will.

adjl posted...

There are absolutely times when men's opinions on abortion can and should be shut down just because they're men.

Oop!

Depends on the opinion.

Oop!

The bottom line is that not all opinions on issues that exclusively or disproportionately affects a given subpopulation require experience that's exclusive to that subpopulation to be valid.

Disagree. A person who is personally affected by something should have more say about said thing than someone who is not.

Men should not be allowed to legislate women's health, or at the very least should not have a majority opinion on it and last time I checked the SC justices were numbered 6 to 3 in favor of men so...

An opinion's validity is based on how grounded it is in objective reality and logical consistency.

Agree, but personal experience of those affected must be weighed when considering passing legislation which restricts rights experienced by some, but not all.

Far-Queue posted...

Once again, saying she's "off the rails" is shaming her for voicing her opinion.

But not her opinion on abortion.

It's her opinion on men she's being taken to task for. I don't think anyone in this topic has even disagreed with her stance on abortion.

And yes, she should be shamed for her opinion on men, because it is a bad opinion.

Far-Queue posted...

That aside, would you feel comfortable with women deciding whether or not men should be circumcised? Would their opinions matter equally to men's opinions?

Just as with the issue of abortion, there's significantly more important qualifiers than gender.

If a woman said, "I have the following opinion on circumcision because I am a pediatrics doctor who has dealt with the care and aftercare of children who have been circumcised for various reasons," I would give her opinion more weight than a man who said, "I have the following opinion on circumcision because I have a penis."

The only thing men bring to the discussion of circumcision that women don't is personal experience, which counts for almost nothing because, as adjl pointed out earlier, it's a sample size of one. Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. "You had a bad experience with circumcision? How do I know it's not just because you had a shitty doctor?" "You had a good experience with circumcision? How do I know it's not just because you had an undiagnosed medical condition?". Not to mention, any experience men bring to the table can be conceptually understood by women. If I say, "The foreskin is sensitive and cutting it would hurt a lot," you don't need to actually have a dick yourself to understand that concept.

DeSantis2024 posted...

Personally I am pro-life. As in if I was somehow able to get pregnant I wouldnt have an abortion unless if carrying that pregnancy would lead to my death or that pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. But thats my body and not someone elses and its important to respect and honor the choices of the person whos body is actually being impacted.

That's pro-choice.

Saying, "I would choose to keep the pregnancy and give birth," is a valid choice. "Pro-choice" is not the same thing as "pro-abortion."

I had this conversation with a partner years ago. We talked about what would happen if there was an "Oops" and she wound up pregnant. Both of us are pro-choice, but both of us agreed we would not feel comfortable terminating the pregnancy (to be clear, because I'm sure this sounds like I got an equal say in the matter, the choice of whether to abort or not was completely hers but she wanted my opinion on it). If she got pregnant, barring any medical issues that threatened her health, she would carry the pregnancy to term and we would try to raise the child. It wound up being a null issue, as we never wound up with any surprises on that front, but we did have the discussion.

Even if you personally would never countenance an abortion, so long as you support the right of women to choose what is right for them you are pro-choice.

Far-Queue posted...

Men should not be allowed to legislate women's health, or at the very least should not have a majority opinion on it and last time I checked the SC justices were numbered 6 to 3 in favor of men so...

So, hypothetical for you here. Let's say Roe v. Wade is annulled, as it appears to be on track to be, a bunch of trigger laws take effect, abortion is made illegal in half of the US.

A year from now, a male-dominated legislature puts forward a bill legalizing abortion and rolling back the restrictions that previously-passed trigger laws put in place. The state governor, a man, is prepared to sign the bill and the state supreme court, also male-majority, is expected to rule that it is legally valid in a case defended by the state's attorney-general, who is a man.

Are you actually going to stand up and say, "No, those people are doing something bad! Only women should be allowed to legislate on this issue, so leave abortion illegal until we get women in all of those jobs!"?

I don't think you would. In fact, I think acting that way would be really stupid. The reason why laws restricting abortion are bad isn't because it's mostly men passing them; it's because they're bad laws based on shoddy logic and immoral restrictions of rights. If a congress full of Lauren Boberts passed laws banning abortion and an all-male SCOTUS was set to strike those laws down, I would be on the side of the SCOTUS - not because they're men, but because abortion bans are morally wrong, so whoever is advocating for them is also wrong, whether they are men or women.

This is what people have been saying in this topic. An opinion is not more or less weighty because of who is making it; how much weight it should be given is based on the logical and moral congruence underpinning it. Claiming otherwise is just identity politics and pretty scummy identity politics at that.

And, for the record, expecting that only women will legislate on women's health is unrealistic, because - purely by dint of statistics - you're unlikely to ever have female majority at every step of the legislative process (and, in the US, it's currently rare to have it at *any* step of the process, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). More to the point, how far does that logic go? Do we say that only parents should be able to legislate on anything to do with schools? Only military officers can decide military budgets? Only cops can decide laws on police oversight? Only felons can legislate prisons? Or do we accept that others who are not necessarily directly impacted by the laws they are passing can, at least in theory, weigh various educated opinions from those who ARE impacted and come to a reasonable conclusion?

darkknight109 posted...

A year from now, a male-dominated legislature...

Depends on the opinions of the women in the minority. Their opinions should carry more weight in the decision.

Cool that you're okay with a woman deciding that you should be circumcised, but I'd rather keep that decision for myself.

You cats need to learn brevity. You're wasting a lot of time typing out shit that doesn't matter. Stick to the core of the argument and you'll see where you're wrong.

darkknight109 posted...

But not...

And? You blokes are still on this lmao

Did Muscles say she was off the rails? Yes.

Is that shaming her and being ignorant of the underlying context? Also yes.

Far-Queue posted...

You cats need to learn brevity. You're wasting a lot of time typing out shit that doesn't matter. Stick to the core of the argument and you'll see where you're wrong.

But then other people will read my posts and respond and I can't win

Your jokes are killing by the way Bligh I feel like they're getting lost in the shuffle here but I wanted you to know

Far-Queue posted...

Cool that you're okay with a woman deciding that you should be circumcised, but I'd rather keep that decision for myself.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is a perfectly executed illogical leap.

SunWuKung420 posted...

And this, ladies and gentleman, is a perfectly executed illogical leap.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is someone who is incapable of connecting the dots

darkknight109 posted...

So, hypothetical for you here. Let's say Roe v. Wade is annulled, as it appears to be on track to be, a bunch of trigger laws take effect, abortion is made illegal in half of the US.

A year from now, a male-dominated legislature puts forward a bill legalizing abortion and rolling back the restrictions that previously-passed trigger laws put in place. The state governor, a man, is prepared to sign the bill and the state supreme court, also male-majority, is expected to rule that it is legally valid in a case defended by the state's attorney-general, who is a man.

Are you actually going to stand up and say, "No, those people are doing something bad! Only women should be allowed to legislate on this issue, so leave abortion illegal until we get women in all of those jobs!"?

I don't think you would. In fact, I think acting that way would be really stupid. The reason why laws restricting abortion are bad isn't because it's mostly men passing them; it's because they're bad laws based on shoddy logic and immoral restrictions of rights. If a congress full of Lauren Boberts passed laws banning abortion and an all-male SCOTUS was set to strike those laws down, I would be on the side of the SCOTUS - not because they're men, but because abortion bans are morally wrong, so whoever is advocating for them is also wrong, whether they are men or women.

This is what people have been saying in this topic. An opinion is not more or less weighty because of who is making it; how much weight it should be given is based on the logical and moral congruence underpinning it. Claiming otherwise is just identity politics and pretty scummy identity politics at that.

And, for the record, expecting that only women will legislate on women's health is unrealistic, because - purely by dint of statistics - you're unlikely to ever have female majority at every step of the legislative process (and, in the US, it's currently rare to have it at *any* step of the process, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). More to the point, how far does that logic go? Do we say that only parents should be able to legislate on anything to do with schools? Only military officers can decide military budgets? Only cops can decide laws on police oversight? Only felons can legislate prisons? Or do we accept that others who are not necessarily directly impacted by the laws they are passing can, at least in theory, weigh various educated opinions from those who ARE impacted and come to a reasonable conclusion?

it is way too early for such utter logical fallacies

Far-Queue posted...

Depends on the opinions of the women in the minority. Their opinions should carry more weight in the decision.

NO, that's fucking stupid.

The opposite of outlawing abortion is not giving people free choice to get one or not, it is state-mandated abortions.

If the majority of women don't want abortions, that does not mean they have the right to impose their views on the rest of women. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE.

But I'm arguing w/ a misandrist, so why should I expect any sort of logic or nuance?

streamofthesky posted...

NO, that's fucking stupid.

What's "fucking stupid" is how you, and others in this topic, keep equating statements like "less valid" or "more weight" with a complete dismissal of opposing views.

But I'm arguing w/ someone who doesn't know what a misandrist is so why should I expect any sort of logic or nuance?

streamofthesky posted...

If the majority of women don't want abortions

By the way, this ^ strawman?

streamofthesky posted...

that's fucking stupid.

Jen0125 posted...

So far, @Far-Queue is the only man in life who has never disappointed me or my mother

I know BTS taking a break is tough news but cut them a little slack

streamofthesky posted...

NO, that's fucking stupid.

The opposite of outlawing abortion is not giving people free choice to get one or not, it is state-mandated abortions.

If the majority of women don't want abortions, that does not mean they have the right to impose their views on the rest of women. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE.

in what fucking way are women who dont want abortions imposing their views on other women? No one is forcing or even suggesting anyone should get an abortion unless they choose to.

and your thing about the opposite of outlawing abortion is mandating abortion. That not only doesnt make much sense but its childishly pedantic and not at all true or relevant.

Far-Queue posted...

Depends on the opinions of the women in the minority. Their opinions should carry more weight in the decision.

OK, let's say they're uniformly against the decision and think abortion should be illegal in all cases, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or cases where the life of the mother is in danger. For context, we'll also say they make up 20% of the legislature.

So? in those circumstances, do you think that the state should leave abortion illegal?

And would your opinion change if a new poll came out that showed that strong majorities of both men and women in the state favoured the legalized abortion that the male-dominated legislature was trying to enact?

Far-Queue posted...

Cool that you're okay with a woman deciding that you should be circumcised, but I'd rather keep that decision for myself.

That's a pretty big leap from what I actually said.

I said I was fine with women having input to the discussion - that's it. I never even stated whether I was for or against circumcision, or in what contexts. I merely said that women shouldn't be locked out of the decision-making process purely by dint of them being women.

I mean, maybe you think they can't possibly be smart enough to understand the great and unfathomable mysteries of a penis? I don't know, but I know some pretty smart women and I'm fairly confident they could wrap their heads around the complexities of the issue.

Far-Queue posted...

You cats need to learn brevity.

If you want arguments that can be resolved in 140 characters or less, maybe stick to Twitter. I tend to be a fan of nuance in my arguments which, admittedly, puts me offside with the increasingly black-and-white argument style favoured by social media, but I still think there's value in backing up my statements with context.

Far-Queue posted...

And? You blokes are still on this lmao

Did Muscles say she was off the rails? Yes.

Is that shaming her and being ignorant of the underlying context? Also yes.

I never said he wasn't shaming her, merely that he wasn't shaming her for her stance on abortion, which is what you were alleging when you said this:

you're the one trying to take a woman to task for having a passionate opinion regarding her right to bodily autonomy

And this:

Nah son saying Jen is "off the rails" for arguing a point that pertains to the very real possibility that Roe could be overturned in the not too distant future is exactly that - taking her to task for having a passionate opinion

Unless I missed it somewhere, no one was saying Jen was out of line for being passionately pro-choice. Even Muscles, who was the one who actually said she was "off the rails", said he agreed with her views on abortion. You are completely - and, I'm starting to think, deliberately - misconstruing what others have been saying in this topic.

No one's saying she's "off the rails" for being ardently pro-choice; she got called that because she's behaving like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. She's having a meltdown while arguing with people who agree with her simply because they happen to be men, ranting about "male fragility" and "misogynists" and how she totally doesn't care and isn't even reading what other people say, all while responding to the topic on an hourly basis. And yeah, that is bad behaviour - she's acting more like a sulky teenager than a grown woman.

VampireCoyote posted...

it is way too early for such utter logical fallacies

If you're going to be that dismissive, at least have the courtesy to call out exactly what logical fallacies you claim you're seeing.

Cant do that when your entire manifesto was filled with ridiculous shapiro-esque eyeroll inducing hypotheticals

VampireCoyote posted...

Cant do that when your entire manifesto was filled with ridiculous shapiro-esque eyeroll inducing hypotheticals

I mean, it would take you a couple words if you actually had logical fallacies to point out.

The statement I was responding to was that "men shouldn't legislate women's health".

The reason why the hypothetical was set the way it was is to show that the issue isn't that men are legislating women's health, it's that legislators are making bad decisions regarding women's health. Are those legislators predominantly men? Yes, absolutely. But the problem isn't that they're men, it's that their decisions are bad.

Those decisions would be no less wrong if it was a female-dominated legislature making them and a male minority fighting them.

Every woman should have the right to look after their own reproductive healthcare, end of discussion. If you disagree with that, you are wrong, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.

That's the point.

if is a strong word and has absolutely no basis in this argument

stop with the hypotheticals my dude, they do not mean anything.

and reading your post above mine, and yeah, you've lost the plot and are arguing something that was never argued about

you're like almost there, but your reason behind it is wrong

the argument is that men should not have a say in what a woman does with her body, saying "yeah but what if" means nothing. literally nothing. the argument is that your opinion on abortion, regardless of what it is, should only be an opinion and should not matter more than the people who are actually able to have an abortion.

you guys keep trying to argue that your opinion should matter more than a womans.

Lol, almost 200 pages of people falling for this dumb fake crap and then arguing over abortion. Great use of time for everyone involved. I'm sure you're all happier, smarter, and better informed about the world from rolling in this intellectual pigsty.

SomeUsername529 posted...

Lol, almost 200 pages of people falling for this dumb fake crap and then arguing over abortion. Great use of time for everyone involved. I'm sure you're all happier, smarter, and better informed about the world from rolling in this intellectual pigsty.

please elaborate on what you believe is fake in this topic

otherwise, leave this topic since it's clear you are on an alt and not your main, given it's a high karma low post account.

Adam_Savage posted...

stop with the hypotheticals my dude, they do not mean anything.

Why do you think that?

Again, the statement I was responding to said only women should legislate women's health. That is reaching into the realm of the hypothetical as well, because there is no legislative body in the US that I'm aware of that is majority-female, nor is there likely to be any time soon. That's not a good thing, but it is reality for the time being.

That means if you want abortion rights protected, men have to be involved purely on a practical level. And, I would argue, we should be involved even if we didn't hold legislative majorities - we may not be directly affected by those laws, but we have women in our lives that we care about who are. Don't ask me to sit on the sidelines and not support them; I'm not willing to do that.

your opinion on abortion does not matter more than a womans.

you need to stop and reflect on why multiple people are telling you this.

SomeUsername529 posted...

Lol, almost 200 pages of people falling for this dumb fake crap and then arguing over abortion. Great use of time for everyone involved. I'm sure you're all happier, smarter, and better informed about the world from rolling in this intellectual pigsty.

holy shit 200 pages

more than is allowed even!

Adam_Savage posted...

your opinion on abortion does not matter more than a womans.

you need to stop and reflect on why multiple people are telling you this.

Never said it did; I merely said it doesn't matter less than a woman's either.

You need to stop and reflect on why multiple people are telling you that.

Holy shit these dudes love typing long-winded bullshit that fails to accomplish anything more than cement how wrong they are.

The effort would be admirable if the results weren't so sad.