Boooooosh-pow! But the slam involved an egregious "their/they're" error, which I think (in keeping with the wrestling analogy) means I got a linguistics hernia or dislocated my own linguistics shoulder in the the process of the slam.
Also, great fucking username.
京（阪）神
Kei-Han-Shin
Yes, that would be very convenient to your argument, and yes, it would make what you're saying relevant, but no, it's not actually the thing anyone anywhere in this thread was saying, much less the statement in the article you were accusing of saying it.
Not so. What I'm doing is viewing it as tautologically obvious that someone who becomes something can said to have been that thing, even after they stop being it. It follows logically that "before they are that thing," refers to a place in time prior to they're ever having been it — in other words, to a point lying bef…
Every sentence of this post drags my spirits down a little further.
Dude. The word "before." It's not complicated. Before you are something, you are not that thing. Once you are that thing, you have been that thing, and it is no longer "before." You're creating confusion where there isn't any. The words in the sentence mean what they mean, the sentence means what it means, and the…
So good. Also, nice username.
I'm sorry, but what a douchebag way to respond to this.
This was a really thought-provoking article. Great stuff.
you don't have to go all the way to California to get a good one
Safety in engineering is in redundant safety engineering redundancy.
I realize this is totally tangential to this discussion, but since you brought it up — and since its a hugely widespread mistaken belief:
At first I skimmed down to the questions. I read them, got angry at Jezebel for straw-manning men so hard, did a search for a clever "straw man" gif (there really aren't any), came back, scrolled back up, read the intro and... feel really sad for my own gender now.
Slow it down there, cowboy.
Whoosh.
Hahahaha.
Wow. I really hope you've got your Internet accounts properly anonymized, because this is one for the ages.
I think where we disagree is the part where you think you are responding to what I'm saying. I don't know if you're not understanding me or if you're just choosing to ignore my point, but in any case what's happening is you're projecting a position onto me and then arguing with that instead of actually bothering with…
I don't think you do understand the point I was making. It had nothing to do with adoption being a viable option or the teen's maturity level.
The teen, identified only as Anonymous 5, was deemed not mature enough to make the decision herself. So then she's mature enough to raise a child?