--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:58 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:38 PM, authfriend wrote:
> >>
> >>>> He does mention the word, Judy, in reference to the trips
> >>>> he felt that MS was attempting to lay on the women who chose
> >>>> abortion.
> >>>
> >>> No, in reference to what Barry suggests the women he
> >>> consoled were feeling--not using the word explicitly,
> >>> but obviously implying it. Did you not read the last
> >>> two paragraphs of my post? I left them in below.
> >>
> >> Yes I did, and your thoughts go around in so many circles
> >> it becomes nearly impossible to follow, IMO.
> >
> > Translation: Judy's logic is airtight.
>
> (Sigh) Well, it may be, Judy, but as I said, I couldn't quite
> follow your train of thought--I'm not refuting it, just couldn't
> follow it.
OK. I'd be happy to try to explain further if you
can say where you got lost. ("Your thoughts go around
in so many circles" *sounds* as if you're saying I
use circular reasoning, or am just babbling without
getting anywhere.)
> I don't believe in reading into what people say, so it's
> difficult for me to respond when you do.
I don't think that's what I was doing.
There's a difference between mind-reading to
divine what someone is implying, and analyzing
what their words imply logically.
Barry said he refrained from judging the women,
which logically implies there was something to
be judged. He accused mainstream of being
judgmental about "wanton disregard for the
fetus," but Barry's whole argument was that
the women he consoled were torn up about what
they were doing or had done.
OK, so Barry wasn't refraining from judging them
about "wanton disregard" because he didn't think
there was any such disregard. That means he must
have refrained from judging *something else*.
What could that have been? I don't see what else
it could have been other than something they were
feeling guilty about. Note that he did *not* say
he told them there was no basis for feeling
guilty. He didn't make a *positive* judgment, in
other words. But that, in effect, *validates* the
idea that it was reasonable for them to feel
guilty. And that's what I was objecting to.
Don't know if that makes it any clearer, but I
thought I'd take a shot.
<snip>
> >> If sufficient numbers of women were really
> >> feeling that way, those idiots would be shrieking it from the
> >> rooftops.
> >
> > They've been shrieking it for years. "Abortion
> > Hurts Women" is one of the major antichoice slogans.
>
> Without any evidence, or withe highly suspect evidence, it
> doesn't mean much.
They cite lots of evidence, all kinds of published
studies about risk of depression and anxiety and
suicide, even breast cancer. It may be suspect, but
you'd need to have some expertise in evaluating
scientific studies to know how valid it was, and
most women--most people--don't have that. Folks
with an agenda trade on that fact all the time.
<snip>
> Did Barry ever use the word "compassion" to describe his
> actions? It seems it was MS pinning the word on him.
Barry said, "I tried to help the women through a
painful experience because they were in pain and
I wanted to help, in any way I could."
Seems to me "compassion" describes what Barry saw
himself as doing quite well. And he's always
touting compassion as a sign of evolution,
frequently claiming it for himself--although
usually as a putdown (do a search of his posts for
the word and you'll see what I mean).
> >>> Here's where the "guilt" comes in with regard to
> >>> Barry's consolees:
> >>>
> >>>> because it's *inherently* difficult, it's because
> >>>>> the antichoicers have *made* it difficult. Barry
> >>>>> tacitly acknowledges this in the case of the women
> >>>>> he consoled by claiming that one of the ways he
> >>>>> could be helpful was not to "judge" the women.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is there to judge other than "wanton disregard
> >>>>> for the fetus," on the one hand, or guilt on the
> >>>>> other? Barry insists it wasn't the first, so it
> >>>>> could only have been the second.
> >>
> >> Mind-reading isn't my thing.
> >
> > Translation: I can't think of any way to get
> > around Judy's logic.
>
> You know, Judy, you have so much fun talking to yourself, and
> giving answers you want to hear, that it's not really worth it
> to debate at this point.
>
> Translation: Judy's mad as hell that someone is bowing out of an
> argument, so she's going to try baiting and see if that works.
No, Sal, if you want to bow out (after having
started this discussion), that's fine with me. I
was commenting on how off base it was to suggest
that my logical analysis was "mind-reading."
Words have meanings. It's certainly possible for
a person to use words in a way that logically
implies something other than what they had in mind,
but if so, it's up to them to explain what they
*meant* to suggest. If you or I were to say, "Well,
I don't think he meant what his words logically
imply," *that* would be mind-reading.
