LIke a good little Social Justice Convert, Will zealously trolls through other threads, always on the look-out for evidence of sexism or patriarchy. You can't hide, miscreants! He will OUT you for the whole world to see!

You'd have made a great fundamentalist Christian, Will.

Oh, wait....

Since the thread hmm devolved already .. this is perhaps the first time I see you like this laklak.

lol, it was only a couple years ago Will was complaining about men having to support children they didn't want in response to this type of legislation.

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Anyways, a woman shouldn't have to get permission to seek an abortion.

Talk about a sexist response to women having their rights abolished.

Can this be split into a seperate thread?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Can this be split into a seperate thread?

Concur wholeheartedly. The tail has to stop wagging the dog.

The problem starts on post 24 as has already been documented:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2696014

"Will Sniffs Out Vile Heresy, Exposes the Ideologically Impure - The Iniquitous Cannot Hide!" ...could go in the Social & Fun sub-forum, maybe.

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The quality of trolling here is akin to 4Chan. Gotcha.

Try harder Spearthrower.

You've lied repeatedly, misrepresented people, tossed out a lot of personal attacks, stonewalled people asking you to cite evidence... now you're calling *me* a troll!

Is this all a prank? Did I miss the date or something?

I haven’t lied. Don’t know what your definition of lying is.

I haven’t misrepresented people. There are two nearly identical threads about the same topics. Laklak has extrapolated saying his statement wasn’t about all women, but the remark is still insensitive when the subject is an 11 year old female.

Haven’t attacked anyone, unless saying someone’s remarks are insensitive is attacking. If I said this forum has a history of sexism it does. That’s not attacking anyone. It just is observing the casual attitude towards arguing things like “pointing out the facts” and “facing reality” are typical lines used by those apathetic towards woman rights.

You’re asking evidence for things I have not stated trying to maintain a straw man to an argument I have not made. As I’ve said the attitude and statements about just “stating facts” is also insensitive. It is the kind of argument conservatives use. “Don’t like the new rules? Leave and go elsewhere.” It’s sad to see that kind of argument being used by more liberal minded people. Even if the more liberal minded people disagree with the law they shouldn’t be supporting conservative talking points by “just facing reality.” It serves no purpose in conversation against these kind of laws.

As for the trolling it is clear that dialogue doesn’t actually want to be had. It’s clear that I hit a nerve by calling out posts as insensitive, or assholish. I have not accused anyone here of being supportive of the laws. I have accused people here of being obtuse when it comes to the ramifications of their opinions. Being an ally of feminism means more than just being against the law that affects women.

But the inflammatory use of “fuck off”, “get over yourself” “grow up” hasnt been directed ant any of you guys. Just me. It’s clear the posts are trying to get a rise from me. You’re trying to get me to snap back. I won’t.

Look, I’ll admit I’m particularly not feeling well emotionally in my real life so my mood may seem irritable and antagonistic and I apologize if that’s the way I’ve come across. To be honest I feel like Ive been on the defensive in this thread and that puts me in a different frame of mind.

But regardless, that’s where I stand. I’ve been pretty clear about my position this entire time.

purplerat wrote:lol, it was only a couple years ago Will was complaining about men having to support children they didn't want in response to this type of legislation.

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Anyways, a woman shouldn't have to get permission to seek an abortion.

Talk about a sexist response to women having their rights abolished.

Wow. It’s almost as if people learn from their mistakes through education and association with actual feminists. Shocking!

I change my opinions when evidence shows I’m wrong. How many here do the same?

Eric Hoffer described this pheonomenon in his book "The True Believer". An adherent of an authoritarian philosophy often becomes the most vocal and vociferous supporter of an opposing authoritarian philosophy. In Will's case it was Christianity and, judging from those old posts, opposition to women's reproductive rights. But then he had his Damascus Moment.

Unfortunately, those old authoritarian habits die hard, so he's still ferreting out instances of apostasy, only now it's insensitive patriarchal sexism. Authoritarians are never wrong, at least not in the current moment. If they're accused of being wrong they just double down. They've been wrong before, of course, prior to getting all Woke and shit. In fact, being wrong and then Seeing the Light is pretty much a requirement for any True Believer. Look at Christians, they love talking about what sinners they were before they let Jesus into their heart. Then dig up backups of AtheismPlus (if you can find one) and check out the self-flagellation of the few emasculated males they allowed to post there. In both cases, if reality contradicts dogma, go with dogma.

willhud9 wrote:
I haven’t lied. Don’t know what your definition of lying is.

Post 24 is a lie. You've repeated that lie several times.

willhud9 wrote:I will say the massive privilege though expressed by those saying, "Just go out of state and get an abortion" is disturbing in of itself.

Quoted speech, no one wrote it - the quote points to no one saying that in this thread, no one said anything like that whatsoever.

Lying is not telling the truth. Same definition everyone honest uses.

willhud9 wrote:I haven’t misrepresented people.

Factually you have, and I've documented it here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2696014

willhud9 wrote:There are two nearly identical threads about the same topics.

So are you then saying that you were in fact wrong to post in this thread that people here had made remarks - which you appeared to be quoting - which they factually hadn't made in this thread?

Is that an admission that - perhaps, just perhaps - you should have made 3 pages ago instead of repeatedly doubling down, tossing out all manner of personal accusations, and refusing to establish any evidence for?

willhud9 wrote:Laklak has extrapolated saying his statement wasn’t about all women, but the remark is still insensitive when the subject is an 11 year old female.

So you claim, but given that you've made claims in this thread about this thread which are manifestly false, and yet you have been absolutely insistent are true, including repeatedly likening me to whatever the buzz words are of terrible people on terrible websites that I know nothing about, that I am not inclined to consider your assertions to be meritorious. We are past the point where lending you the benefit of the doubt is naive. Given how you've misrepresented me, and the content of this thread, why should I assume that you are not similarly misrepresenting Laklak's statement in another thread?

willhud9 wrote:Haven’t attacked anyone,...

And this is lying. You might work over time to pretend you're unable to cite posts, but I am always prepared to back up my assertions:

... like some mansplaining asshole on reddit or Facebook.

like some conservative rallying against SJW

The remarks are just assholish.

This forum time and time again has shown it’s racist and sexist nature over and over again.

Sure, you can hide behind the 'but I didn't say you were an asshole, just likened you to one' - but I'm not talking about whether the FUA considers it an attack or not, or if you're linguistically competent enough to contrive sentences with ambiguous accusatives, I am talking about you intending to personally attack. Don't get me wrong, I don't give a chuff - I am certainly not going to report these childish baiting and hating statements... unlike you, of course, who's leapt to seek moderator intervention to protect you from reaping the shit you've sown. But attacks they remain.

willhud9 wrote:... unless saying someone’s remarks are insensitive is attacking.

More lying.

willhud9 wrote: If I said this forum has a history of sexism it does.

This forum has a history of many things, like a guy who came here as a Christian fundie who ranted endlessly about abortion being murder. However, I am not guilty of that just because someone else said it, but your attacks haven't been specific, instead you've gone out of your way to generalize time and time again.

willhud9 wrote: That’s not attacking anyone.

Bullshit. From someone who claims to be civil and value honest discourse, you are really deep into self-deceit here.

willhud9 wrote: It just is observing the casual attitude towards arguing things like “pointing out the facts” and “facing reality” are typical lines used by those apathetic towards woman rights.

You act like these are bad words, but they're not bad words Will - pointing out facts is not patriarchy, it's not sexism, it's not anything other than pointing out facts. It's a value neutral term. Those facts may be inconvenient for the narrative you're attempting to formulate, but you don't get to pretend they then justify the formulation of that narrative. This forum has ALWAYS been dedicated to pointing out facts: we pointed out the facts to you when you were a Christian fundie who opposed abortion calling it 'murder'. Was that sexist then? Was it opposed to women's rights then?

willhud9 wrote:You’re asking evidence for things I have not stated...

Lies. Absolute fucking lies. I asked you to cite where ANYONE had said the thing you'd written in quote marks. I even specifically quoted you saying it then asked you to support it.

I also gave a best possible reading - principle of charity - and asked you to establish where you could possibly have read it. How did you respond? By calling me names, likening me to whatever vacuous dross it is you read on other websites.

willhud9 wrote:... trying to maintain a straw man to an argument I have not made.

Lies which have already been exposed.

willhud9 wrote:As I’ve said the attitude and statements about just “stating facts” is also insensitive.

You're entitled to say it, but that doesn't make it so. You are not the Godking here to so decree upon your word. You are talking bollocks mate, and I maintain that regardless of what you call me. As for it being insensitive: insensitive to whom? This is so astoundingly vacuous on your part - there are no members partaking in this thread who are pregnant Georgian women seeking abortions, so who is it that's supposed to be having their sensibilities offended even in the kindest possible reading?

It's just you looking to take offense on other peoples' behalfs... and then throwing a tantrum when people don't respect your attempt to act as a proxy.

willhud9 wrote: It is the kind of argument conservatives use.

See? Here we go again.

No, it's not like something you're about to make up and pretend is like what I am saying. No, I am not like someone bad because you say so but can't actually respond to what I actually say.

willhud9 wrote: “Don’t like the new rules? Leave and go elsewhere.”

The point, of course, is that literally NO ONE said that. Post 24 Will - you can keep lying all you like, but it's there in black and white. The first person in the thread to say anything like 'they can just go to another state' was you... in a post where you berated other people for saying it.

willhud9 wrote:It’s sad to see that kind of argument being used by more liberal minded people.

Perhaps it would be, only you're not actually seeing it in the outside world, only in your mind, the projecting it onto other people regardless of their demands that you stop fucking misrepresenting them.

willhud9 wrote: Even if the more liberal minded people disagree with the law they shouldn’t be supporting conservative talking points by “just facing reality.”...

Another genetic fallacy. Conservative talking points aren't automatically wrong just because they're conservative. And honestly, who the fuck are you to be preaching this at me? I know perfectly well who you are, what you wrote, the positions you held... all the while I held none of those positions and was already actively engaged in defending women's rights from people like you.

willhud9 wrote: It serves no purpose in conversation against these kind of laws.

Strawmanning serves no discoursive purpose in ANY conversation. It serves other purposes, often being a rhetorical strategy employed by someone who can't formulate a sound argument, or who wants to troll people.

willhud9 wrote:As for the trolling it is clear that dialogue doesn’t actually want to be had.

Says the guy who made up a thread of conversation in order to berate people about that thread of conversation.

willhud9 wrote:It’s clear that I hit a nerve by calling out posts as insensitive, or assholish.

Oh right, so usually when calling people assholes, they're meant to enjoy it! I see. And if they don't then AHA! You've uncovered their dark agendas!

Now, who was it that started hitting reports for moderator attention? Was it me who reported you for likening me to assholes?

Or was it you when I wrote 'get the fuck over yourself Will' when you wrote something just as self-aggrandizing and condescending as the above?

So whose nerve is it that's been hit?

willhud9 wrote: I have not accused anyone here of being supportive of the laws.

No one said you had.

willhud9 wrote: I have accused people here of being obtuse when it comes to the ramifications of their opinions.

For clarity: opinions they didn't have and never expressed, but which you manufactured for them.

willhud9 wrote:Being an ally of feminism means more than just being against the law that affects women.

Being an ally of feminism doesn't involve being condescending and arrogantly preachy with people you're misrepresenting.

willhud9 wrote:But the inflammatory use of “fuck off”, “get over yourself” “grow up” hasnt been directed ant any of you guys. Just me.

Damn right, and I'd say it to your face if you started spewing this shit at me anywhere, whereas you just likened me to an asshole, likened me to a list of other bad things as if that wasn't intended to actually call me an asshole or those bad things.

willhud9 wrote: It’s clear the posts are trying to get a rise from me.

It's clear that you're working hard to become the victim in this thread, regardless of those women who actually are the victims in this thread.

willhud9 wrote: You’re trying to get me to snap back. I won’t.

Snap back?

Post 50:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2695829

The brutal reality is many woman are going to be affected by this and the response isn’t to “point out the facts” like some mansplaining asshole on reddit or Facebook.

After that, I started 'snapping back' - if reaping what you sow makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should stop?

willhud9 wrote: Look, I’ll admit I’m particularly not feeling well emotionally in my real life so my mood may seem irritable and antagonistic and I apologize if that’s the way I’ve come across. To be honest I feel like Ive been on the defensive in this thread and that puts me in a different frame of mind.

50 posts ago, I may have said 'oh ok, no worries', in fact I would typically have given you the benefit of the doubt even after the first round of nonsense you dished out - but now? Fuck me, Will - I don't give a fuck about your victimhood after the shit you've been tossing at me here. Cry me a fucking river.

Given that you're typing this after reporting me for finally responding dismissively after pages of you fucking about, I think that's incredibly two-faced of you.

willhud9 wrote: But regardless, that’s where I stand. I’ve been pretty clear about my position this entire time.

Being pretty clear isn't a Get Out Of Jail Free card when that clarity has involved acting "like an asshole", to use your words.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:lol, it was only a couple years ago Will was complaining about men having to support children they didn't want in response to this type of legislation.

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Anyways, a woman shouldn't have to get permission to seek an abortion.

Talk about a sexist response to women having their rights abolished.

Wow. It’s almost as if people learn from their mistakes through education and association with actual feminists. Shocking!

I change my opinions when evidence shows I’m wrong. How many here do the same?

The problem is that you change your opinion without any apparent self reflection. Then you turn around and project your past mistakes on others.

This is accomplishing nothing.

willhud9 wrote:
Wow. It’s almost as if people learn from their mistakes through education and association with actual feminists. Shocking!

Learned a new tune, but still playing it the same way as before.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This is accomplishing nothing.

Apparently, in the absence of having Georgian legislators here, we turn on our own to express our frustration.

Lordy, lordy.

laklak wrote:It's not meant as a joke. If you want an abortion and you're from Georgia, and you're over about 6 weeks, you're going to have to leave the state to have it done. That's a fact. Pointing out a fact is not disgusting, and the fact does not change based on the gender of the person stating it. If a person can't afford to leave the state for an abortion then I feel for them, but all the fee-fees in the universe aren't going the change the fact that Georgia has passed a fetal heartbeat abortion restriction.

So with the context that Laklak posted that an 11 year old girl should leave Ohio to get an abortion I posted post 24. It gets defended in post 45 and elsewhere as just facing the facts.

So yes, Laklak did say the should leave the state. He said it under the guise of “what other options” do they have.

Fine. That still doesn’t invalidate the callous disregard it has nor the amount of male privilege it takes to say that. He is not a woman affected by these abortion laws. AFAIK not one of us is, but the amount of empathy I am seeing towards that when using “gender neutral” terms is disheartening.

So stop saying I’m lying. I have yet to lie.

Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

The assumption that option is readily available to the eleven-year-old is the problem.

willhud9 wrote:So with the context that Laklak posted that an 11 year old girl should leave Ohio to get an abortion I posted post 24. It gets defended in post 45 and elsewhere as just facing the facts.

Context you claim after spending dozens of posts misrepresenting the same argument in this thread.

No.

If you want that to float, cite the full post so others can see the context.

willhud9 wrote:So yes, Laklak did say the should leave the state. He said it under the guise of “what other options” do they have.

So, even assuming that your rendition is correct - what other options do they actually have?

Please reply seriously now, don't call me names or talk about some random other person on another website who once allegedly said something you're paraphrasing.

willhud9 wrote:Fine. That still doesn’t invalidate the callous disregard it has nor the amount of male privilege it takes to say that.

So it's fine when you say it's fine, and not callous disregard and male privilege when you say it... only when Laklak says it?

willhud9 wrote: He is not a woman affected by these abortion laws.

Nor are you - a fact that doesn't seem relevant somehow, ironically.

willhud9 wrote:AFAIK not one of us is, but the amount of empathy I am seeing towards that when using “gender neutral” terms is disheartening.

So this latest condescending preaching is based on yet another thread with a different topic which you also disagree with some people in?

willhud9 wrote:So stop saying I’m lying. I have yet to lie.

You lied in post 24. I've documented this already.