I really don't think Eggers "borrowed" Deng's story in "what is the what", it's explained in the book and in interviews why Eggers wrote Deng's memoir, and it's told from Deng's perspective. Deng himself doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Umm, I don't see "encouragement" and "bullying" as the same things. And yes, they have the right, I've never talked about taking away people's rights to believe differently, only questioning and challenging those beliefs to hopefully change them into something less harmful. Where have I talked about taking those…

I was wondering this too.

I've had it happen when I've already ejaculated several times that day. Basically I "run dry". It's not as satisfying though.

Perhaps. This discussion started because I questioned someone's description of Anita Perry's viewpoint as "perfectly valid". I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good (or however that saying goes) but I do have a problem with not questioning attitudes like her's.

Yes, you're right, it's difficult. There was another poster talking about feeling shamed because she mourned her miscarriage (I believe). It's a tough area to tread without silencing people from expressing their own emotions.

If you go back to my original post you'll see that I was questioning how harmful it is to believe that abortion is evil but necessary, that it's wrong but also a right. To use your own analogy, if you were going around saying "gay marriage is a constitutional right, so those sinful, immoral heathens still have a right…

That's really admirable, but I'm not sure that your viewpoint is one that I'm arguing against. As I stated in the post you replied to, I'm talking about people who see it as something wrong but necessary, as a necessary evil, as something "bad" which is neverhteless a right. You, on the other hand, explicitly state…

But personal beliefs can still affect those around and in this wonderful age of internet comments we do get to hear the personal beliefs of pretty much everyone. They don't need to be inserted into a "national or political dialogue" in order to discourage women from seeking medical attention. I don't care about people…

Oh please. Fascist would be the state punishing them legally, not private individuals using social pressure and education to encourage less harmful opinions. Next you'll be telling me that criticising people who use hate speech is censorship.

Maybe not, I know my own viewpoint changed from thinking of abortion as "wrong but necessary" into something morally neutral, so personally I would hope others can do the same. But who knows.

Not different viewpoints, just different harmful viewpoints, like the kind that discourage women from accessing medical treatment. And no, you can't shame someone just by having a belief, but you can by voicing that belief. So yeah, I would still encourage people with those beliefs to revise them.

No, I said that casting moral judgement on a medical procedure could discourage women from using, and therefor isn't perfectly valid because it's still harmful. I don't see adultery and abortion as equivalent at all, and my statement didn't apply to adultery.

Yes, I do, but since neither of us apparently think that the same applies to abortion, I'm not sure why it's relevant.

A cogent argument but somehow I remain unconvinved. I guess I just didn't understand your reasoning.

Yeah, fair enough, though you also described them as "anti-abortion" in your first post, which also threw me a little. I guess it still felt too loaded.

I guess it's semantics but to me "personally against it" is not the same thing as "personally doesn't believe she would have one". The former, to me, implies a judgement about the procedure itself, rather than a statement of personal intent. So I guess we're talking at cross-purposes here? I don't have a problem with…

If their material was weak enough that they needed to rely on lazy stereotypes to show how entitled the characters on Girls (of all things) is, then they need to work on it some more, not double down. No comedy is better than bad comedy.

I didn't say that it wasn't a pro-choice viewpoint, it is, I questioned whether it's a "perfectly valid" one. And yes, you're right, pro-choice as a label would probably be more widely accepted if people stuck to the "it's wrong but necessary" line of argument, portraying it as something tragic but unavoidable. But…

The sad thing is that it's both. They could have had a perfectly normal character, a "straight man" to play off against. They could have had a middle-class American girl. But they didn't, they chose another nationality and went full Borat on it, perpetuating stereotypes for the laughs.