Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
If so, then there are many far better ways to phrase it such that it does not pick up the unintended inference. Strikingly atrocious and divisive when worded so. A little Wittgenstein awareness would go a long way. Orwell too. For sure. Retroactively picking up the pieces to clarify it means something other than it literally says, should be an indicator it’s not ideally worded. That is if one even ever encounters someone who questions it, rather than just moves on along without a word, dismissing the messenger for their grammatical ineptitude, or fallacious self contradiction, or worse, loves or loathes the idea as interpreted literally.
So, it’s just innocent grammatical ineptitude, and stubborn reluctance to consider the variety of readers outside the in-group (who know what it’s intended to really mean), to phrase it so?
Most generous I can reach for with that, is that it’s a kind of ableist bigotry. Hey ho, used to it. World not yet built for us each and all. Much to mend still. Not easy when some presume to be right and arrogantly capping what they have as best, and fight efforts to construct better (rather than actively seeking, or at least welcoming), wrapping their identity with their ideas, going all social-dominance reflexive flailing.
You’re saying females so much, i cant tell if you’re ferengi or incel.
Women are not defined by childbirth. Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
Interesting. More ad-hominem attacks here.
Money is money, but females are better. ;D
If so, then there are many far better ways to phrase it such that it does not pick up the unintended inference. Strikingly atrocious and divisive when worded so. A little Wittgenstein awareness would go a long way. Orwell too. For sure. Retroactively picking up the pieces to clarify it means something other than it literally says, should be an indicator it’s not ideally worded. That is if one even ever encounters someone who questions it, rather than just moves on along without a word, dismissing the messenger for their grammatical ineptitude, or fallacious self contradiction, or worse, loves or loathes the idea as interpreted literally.
So, it’s just innocent grammatical ineptitude, and stubborn reluctance to consider the variety of readers outside the in-group (who know what it’s intended to really mean), to phrase it so?
Most generous I can reach for with that, is that it’s a kind of ableist bigotry. Hey ho, used to it. World not yet built for us each and all. Much to mend still. Not easy when some presume to be right and arrogantly capping what they have as best, and fight efforts to construct better (rather than actively seeking, or at least welcoming), wrapping their identity with their ideas, going all social-dominance reflexive flailing.
PS, voluntary. :P
No the phrasing is fine, the issue is you’re trying to frame this as something it’s not.
Okay. We’re stuck at contradiction level of graham’s hierarchy of disagreement now. At least it’s better than the ad-hominems.
Happy to hear any counter-arguments or refutations, or even non-disagreeing explorations of the ideas.