Ill respond to both Mr. Shock and the illustrious stylings of member Kailassa whom I will heretofore call the KOP (Kailassa Original post)
First the KOP,
Here is what you said
Originally posted by Kailassa
There is absolutely no point in having a conversation with someone whose reply to everything they don't want to hear is, "I don't believe you."
Here is the video you did not believe existed.
Here is what I said:
I might have believed your story also, but alas the la la la story has been told here so many times using everything from republicans to
monkeys, I am afraid it just isn't that amusing anymore.
Now the "story" I am referring to is NOT that their is no video of a woman saying la la la as I make mention of my own experience seeing them in
various situations just place (name of those you wish to disparage here) and THAT is why I said you have lied, mis represented me, not been honest in
your reporting, etc. I wish their were a warm fuzzy name to call it but any one of them is right there in the thesaurus to define just what this
poster is attempting to do and NOW it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Memory Shock said:
if there is a disagreement, then please show via links and rhetoric why the disagreement is valid. Any further Off TOPic
posts will be removed.
I take issue with the previous post having been removed when what I had done is proven the above statement about me saying there was no video was not
true. You had left the post saying it was so and again it is my defense to impeach the given testimony by this poster exploiting logical fallacy or
any other tactic one uses to win such a debate especially when the basis for an argument is fabricated. I will show the tactic the poster is using
attempts to cast herself as a be all end all first hand experienced victim, of every form of argument that can possibly be given for reasons to
support abortion and having what seems to be no alternative in all of them.
The uncanny situational politics that have thrust this woman into every kind of pregnant woman’s private hell for a no choice but pro choice
abortion, are too numerous for anyone to have first hand experience to cover all of them but those she has had the unique genetically designed uterus
where no form of contraception would be safe and of course this comes from a Doctor. Of course she is married so that takes care of any promiscuity
objections anticipated. She is jilted by her husband who is cast as the cad leaving her with the rest of the children to fend for herself. So
nothing we can sink our teeth into where she is anything other than a very unfortunate BUT RESPONSIBLE woman.
Ok, I can understand that but what about the pill?
Now what this "post" attempts to do is what we call "the professional witness" tactic. This is someone, usually in a court of law, an expert in
medicine or science etc,. Well their are expert witnesses and their are "professional witnesses" and they are expert witnesses who have been in the
same type of debate, in a court room they have memorized all the Opposing arguments and try to . them off establishing their expertise in
testimony, as they establish the character they play in the prosecution or defense of another. Almost ALL of it they seem to have a "been there done
that" kind of testimony and is what usually gives them away. It is also what gets them black listed from testifying for anyone as an expert witness
again. Many making $10,000 an appearance.
I see the same thing being done here and lo and behold, we can't bring up the pill, and why not?
Well as it turns out, this was yet another Option tried and failed where the post indicates it was not only tried but the person in the given example
I was going to ask if alternative measures were considered but the post has already anticipated that and to such an extreme that not one, not two, BUT
THREE,, count em
I got pregnant on the pill, so after that used 3 contraceptives at once.
And got pregnant again.
THREE AT ONCE!
But there is MORE!
She gets Pregnant AGAIN!
Now how can anyone even suggest this woman didn't try EVERYTHING?
Well, one might ask, what about an IUD?
Nope, been there done that. She said and besides a doctor told her not to use one so don't even ask about applications.
Well I wanted to suggest perhaps diaphragm, NKOPE not going there because why?
a doctor told me I could not take the pill, any hormonal pill, or use an IUD. I tried to manage with the Options left to me, but got pregnant
a third time.
Doctors orders again. Mmmmm can't very well go against the doctor now can we. So far what we have here is a perfect case for a woman who has NO
choice but abortion as the only alternative for contraception yet we can't even allege this as she is careful to say she is pro choice but DID NOT
have an abortion! Thereby constructing an argument that all women who are pro choice are pro abortion is not only NOT true, but again the post
suggests this by the writers own personal experience. This is not suggested because anyone made that fallacious claim, but was made INCASE THEY DID.
How can I prove that?
Glad you asked,
For the interested reader:
That's what so many people don't get. Pro choice people are not necessarily pro abortion, they are just aware that sometimes an abortion can
be the lesser of two evils.
Lesser of the two evils? What two evils? And why then the contradiction? Am I missing something?
One of the biggest pet peeves seen by circuit court judges is a coached witness who is impervious to criticism or an aggressive cross because they
have already been cast as a victim or martyr.
So there I was, doing my best for my children in a very difficult situation, and the people who despised me and gave my little family a hard
time were the staunch anti-abortionists. They were not interested in how I came to be on my own; they just wanted to throw their judgmental attitudes
around at "yet another young unmarried mother with a bunch of kids on welfare."
I learned that anti-abortionists are not pro-life at all. They are pro hate, and make it even harder for a girl to be able to have and raise her
Now we have a perfect angel and a victim of the uncanny set of convoluted circumstances all by the tender age of 24. Been dumped by an insensitive
Husband so it isn't her fault but notice,
Interlaced throughout the post is a seething cauldron of angst aggression aimed at those who the post identifies as anti abortion rights people who
have done nothing but alienate, castigate and denigrate the poster as a welfare mom sucking off the Governments taxpayers’ nipple for her assumed
sexual indiscretion. BUT WAIT! This post has already mentioned a husband but what about him? Oh that.. Well he left her! Not only that but he
left her with THREE children and TWO of them are HANDICAPPED! Yet I am expected to believe, that ALL the anti abortion people have done nothing but
make disparaging remarks, where no "logical" reason for knowing how she is supported is known to them. Now so far, anyone thinking this poor soul
who has done everything right in an everything wrong world, is nothing less than a super Mom on steroids and if you're like most of us, you'd think
the same thing.
But Ill bet their is a reason you don't.
Ill bet there is a reason this is looking like what it looks like to me and that is the most torturously construed alibi for abortion I have ever seen
and one given where the need to argue against those who influenced her for what ever the real situation in the KOP's story may or may not be, borders
on nothing less than obsession. The only argument left is the one about the back alley abortion that woman would mutilate themselves if abortion is
not an Option AND the one where what kind of life a child has who is born to someone who doesn't want a child.
Well Guess what,
The KOP guessed it correct and I think anyone who has not figured it out yet that the poster cannot cast herself in this because it just gets too far
fetched. So how can we assume one can have the same experience as an unwanted child to give first hand experience of what it is like to grow up that
way? Well GOLLY Sergeant! Yep it just so happens that the KOP grew up the daughter of just such an individual and at the same age of 24 this mom just
happened to have tried the back alley style self administered abortion but apparently she survived all of that AND had FIVE children NONE of them
successfully aborted so she cannot be held accountable and again the mother in this story tried multiple types of contraception’s, for each of them.
Now here is the best part, just help me with the math and tell me what are the odds but yes she too, was married and had a bastard for a husband so it
wasn't her fault how she lived.
We have an almost iron clad argument for pro choice given by someone who has obviously been through all the situations one can argue for getting one,
but without getting one and been the child of someone who was much the same way but given any superfluous reasons for and against are also handled by
the KOP's very own mother and again, never actually getting an abortion.
Almost Perfect testimony given by an extraordinary person who was born in humble and adversarial conditions but like the trooper her Mom was, so she
was and is now a living testimony for those who have every right to castigate, alienate and denigrate, anti abortion people while being too much of a
victim of everyone else’s faults and circumstances, a martyr, a sinless pro choice advocate with expert witness testimony for every argument that to
even question the KOP is insulting and callous given what the person in the KOP story has been through.
BUT ONE thing the KOP forgot where all the pre-rehearsed perfect answers given to all those anticipated questions and objections, left them reacting
emotionally this time and without the benefit of intellect that had the time to anticipate it. Ill explain after this summation.
So what the KOP has done is added her mother to this ongoing cosmic pre-determination to have both her mother and herself become pregnant many times
and each time we see the argument where any objection or any alternative is already diffused by her own personal experience. Not only that but she
has also made it difficult to attack the testimony without looking like a callous ogre for as we see she has done everything right a woman can do and
it was the men in her life and coincidentally her mothers life that were at fault.
So how dare anyone add insult to injury on an already dire set of circumstances being handled by this "courageous" woman who has an answer for
everything because she has first hand experience and NONE of it can be challenged without appearing to attack the poster?
The KOP wouldn't say that for that reason you say?
Yes and I deliberately tested it and the words that came back affirming my suspicion are seen below in the writer of whomever wrote it own hand.
You have to stoop pretty low to blame the women who is left "holding the baby", and who took more than reasonable care to prevent pregnancy,
for the fact that the man concerned refused to act responsibly.
You know, some men feel pretty sad having to suffer the loss of their son or daughter because of this woman’s choice only deal and then their are
men who do not want children but Oooops someone lied about their birth control and be that as it may that men can get vasectomy's, I remind you this
is someone who is having sex under the false assumption she is on the pill when she has never been.
He then has 18 years of his life to pay for the child he didn't want but it is a woman’s choice ONLY.
well I have seen some of the most silly arguments given under the guise of equal rights for things like marriage licenses when that isn't a right it
is a privilege but what about equal rights for men in this case. Are we all cads as the KOP makes us out to be? Are all anti abortion proponents to
blind to see the extraordinary class and selfless sacrifice for her three children two handicapped, that they couldn't have exalted her as someone
with exemplary moral choice and deserving not only of our respect but our help also.
Memory Shock asked in his post, if we had any disagreement to link all references and attack the post not the poster. Talk the topic and not the
person. In subject like this one, it is sometimes like saying go swimming but don't get wet.
Anyone puts two and two together, concluding that who ever this poster is,, my pointing out the fact the post is lying, seems a little like an
attorney telling the jury the words given by the defendant are lying so why then does the defendant go to jail for what the words did? Memory shock,
if this sounds like I am asking, it is because I am at a loss for any other understanding and I am not an idiot.
Example: When someone attacks anyone who believes in God, saying: Belief in God is stupid, that doesn't attack anyone personally, it attacks the
belief they say. But when you ask yourself what does that say about the believer, it attacks all of them who believe and tells us, the person
suggesting it, thinks believers are all stupid. Now the post or the argument doesn't have an I.Q and doesn't have a mind to even know what the
word stupid means much less care. So attacking the post in this way to avoid the accusation of attacking the poster seems a little insulting to ones
intelligence. I understand using a direct assault calling someone an expletive or a moron but is there really a genuine way to criticize an argument
without the poster feeling the criticism is about them?
I don't think the slogan for attacking the post and not the poster is going to alleviate a terse response especially when someone is being
mis-represented. In the same way, it could be argued that even if I was guilty of saying the video didn't exist, it was my post that said that, NOT
You see what I mean shock?
So when someone makes a case for an argument where it is SO obviously given by the poster attaching every personal experience to themselves for every
predicament one usually has in one lifetime maybe two and three it starts getting to where you say wait a minute.
Thus giving them a call from the authority that each experience suggest, I think it is only fair to have them substantiate said experience. This is
why it is difficult to cross examine a victim of rape who is lying. One has to be very careful not to appear to be badgering the victim and looking
callous at the same time you are extrapolating inconsistencies that just don't add up.
Not one time was my doubts given any proof by the KOP but rather were ridiculed by an ad-hom using a video of someone saying la la la. This is
indicative of someone using deception and the ONLY thing I can do is either point directly to the lie, OR assume the readers have also noticed I had
never said "I didn't believe the video existed" while in the same voice I am being mocked for calling this a lie.
This is EXACTLY the kind of testimony that anyone in a debate or crossing a defendant, attempts to extract and when it shows up, you now have every
right to use their testimony against them which I did and was found to be off topic. This to me is no different than O.J. Simpson’s Bloody Bronco
not being admitted for evidence because it might prejudice the jury into thinking he was guilty. (I know that is the point lol but it is a true story
So having said that, I will try as I may to use the words in her post to show the very tactic I mention is being used and what I think of her for
doing it will remain nobody's business. I just think it is a scandalous bit nebulous how we are to assume the same Opinions I have for the post, are
not automatically attached to the one who represents those very same statements.
In the future, I expect the only objection found to be without an already established alibi for this almost iron clad argument from personal
experience is when I said this:
the fact remains, your husband could have got a vasectomy. Or, is that something the doctor advised against also?
She couldn't answer that one for any reason for him wanting children for she had already established he was angry for having the three that had
already moreover anyone that against having them married to someone as fertile as the KOP describes, has no business objecting to it.
So the only argument the KOP has left is the ad-hom following it up with a straw man about cutting off a mans "bits" while he is asleep not being
If what the KOP says is true, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
But if you believe anything in the KOP, I got a bridge Ill sell ya
[edit on 19-5-2009 by Con Science]