Michelle Bachmann could be our next president.

[Chaos]

"The innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy"?

Who writes this crap?

I wonder if this means that, for her, it´s perfectly okay to do all those things to those born out of wedlock...?

 

[Brainster]

Ah. What would you interpret "protection...from...all forms of pornography" to mean?

I dunno, what do you think "protection... from... prostitution" means? I guess they want to protect women from hookers?

Or could it be that some of those missing words (...) give more context?

Try putting "seduction into" in front of all those things:

Seduction into promiscuity (the first one)
Seduction into all forms of pornography
Seduction into prostitution
Seduction into abortion
etc.

 

[johnny karate]

Supposing that Bachmann doesn't actually intend to ban pornography, there's still the minor point of her homophobic bigotry and intent to deny a group of people equal treatment under the law.

 

[cwalner]

I dunno, what do you think "protection... from... prostitution" means? I guess they want to protect women from hookers?

Or could it be that some of those missing words (...) give more context?

Try putting "seduction into" in front of all those things:

Seduction into promiscuity (the first one)
Seduction into all forms of pornography
Seduction into prostitution
Seduction into abortion
etc.

Look back at your original quote and the placement of commas. Upchurch's parsing is consistent with the punctuation used. Yours is not.

 

[cwalner]

Whoa. Hold on. Wait. Wait just a second. You mean to tell me that politicians have SPEECHWRITERS? Time to start the revolution, folks.

Not even that. This is a pledge put out by a Christian Values group that Bachmann signed.

Nobody is claiming that Bachmann wrote it, but that her signature on the pledge acknowledges her agreement with the ideas.

This is why I said 'whoever wrote it'. Authorship is not made clear. I strongly disagree with the pledge, but that phrase is so chock full of emotional language in such a short phrase, I had to give kudos to the use of language.

 

[Bri]

I dunno, what do you think "protection... from... prostitution" means? I guess they want to protect women from hookers?

Or could it be that some of those missing words (...) give more context?

Try putting "seduction into" in front of all those things:

Seduction into promiscuity (the first one)
Seduction into all forms of pornography
Seduction into prostitution
Seduction into abortion
etc.

So Bachmann is OK with man-on-man porn, but not porn that has women in it?

-Bri

 

[Spindrift]

I'm going to repeat this post because I'm still waiting for someone else to pick up on what this is saying:

Correct me, if you think I am wrong, but it appears to me that that is saying that blacks were better off under slavery.

No, just that they were better off before they had an african-american president. But that's still pretty racist.

 

[Upchurch]

I dunno, what do you think "protection... from... prostitution" means? I guess they want to protect women from hookers?

Actually, "prostitution" is an act, not a person. So, protecting women from prostitution would mean preventing them from performing the act of prostitution. In essence, it would be banning them from prostitution.

So what form do you imagine "protection from all forms of pornography" might take?

Or could it be that some of those missing words (...) give more context?

The only context I removed was the "who", which seemed redundant since you had it right there, and the numerous other things that needed protection from, which is irrelevant to protecting them from pornography. Nothing that contributed to the basic premise of how one "protects" from pornography.

 

[Chaos]

So Bachmann is OK with man-on-man porn, but not porn that has women in it?

-Bri

Only if the women are the product of marital sex. Women born to unmarried parents or who are the product of rape or incest can be exploited at will.

 

[Brainster]

Look back at your original quote and the placement of commas. Upchurch's parsing is consistent with the punctuation used. Yours is not.

It's poorly worded/punctuated, whatever. But you can't parse it so that it comes out as "banning pornography", no matter how hard you try. Upchurch and the dolts at Truth Action are reading protect women from pornography as requiring its banning, but then what about men? If they were really talking about banning pornography, wouldn't they be talking about protecting everybody from it?

 

[Upchurch]

It's poorly worded/punctuated, whatever. But you can't parse it so that it comes out as "banning pornography", no matter how hard you try. Upchurch and the dolts at Truth Action are reading protect women from pornography as requiring its banning, but then what about men?

Ah, so how do you protect women from pornography?

eta:

Here, I'll get the ball rolling:

1. Ban all forms of pornography
2. ???

 

[Cleon]

It's poorly worded/punctuated, whatever. But you can't parse it so that it comes out as "banning pornography", no matter how hard you try. Upchurch and the dolts at Truth Action are reading protect women from pornography as requiring its banning, but then what about men? If they were really talking about banning pornography, wouldn't they be talking about protecting everybody from it?

I can't read it any other way than calling for porn to be outlawed. Considering that social conservatives are generally anti-porn, I don't think this is really that hard to believe.

So what the hell do you think "protection from all forms of pornography" means?

 

[cwalner]

It's poorly worded/punctuated, whatever. But you can't parse it so that it comes out as "banning pornography", no matter how hard you try. Upchurch and the dolts at Truth Action are reading protect women from pornography as requiring its banning, but then what about men? If they were really talking about banning pornography, wouldn't they be talking about protecting everybody from it?

Fine, they are only interested in protecting women and children, sorry, innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy, from all forms of pornography, and don't care about protecting men from pornography.

Please do tell how we go about protecting our women and innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy from all forms of pornography without a complete ban?

 

[cwalner]

"The innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy"?

Who writes this crap?

Well, I just requested it for my custom title.

 

[Bri]

Please do tell how we go about protecting our women and innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy from all forms of pornography without a complete ban?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean protecting women from viewing pornography. It probably means protecting women from being exploited by pornography.

But it says "all forms" which would imply banning all pornography.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's talking about banning all forms of pornography with women in it (as opposed to all other forms that don't contain women). Which would be pretty close to all pornography. I guess man-animal porn is OK though.

-Bri

 

[Cleon]

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's talking about banning all forms of pornography with women in it (as opposed to all other forms that don't contain women). Which would be pretty close to all pornography. I guess man-animal porn is OK though.

Something about hearing her husband speak gave me the impression that Michelle is A-OK with porn that just has guys in it, ifyaknowwhatImean.

 

[cwalner]

I guess man-animal porn is OK though.

except of course for sadistic, necrophilic man-animal porn because that would be beating a dead horse.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No, just that they were better off before they had an african-american president. But that's still pretty racist.

I think you're both right, although the racism comes in as I'll explain:

They're better off under slavery than under a President of their own race.

Now, here's where it's racist: This implies, rather directly, that black people were better off when white people ran their lives/were in charge. The implication is that with an African-American as the man running the show, African Americans are worse off than when WASPs ran the show.

However, that's only one interpretation of it. I'm not looking for it to be racist by overt intent, so I can see it interpreted just as an attempt at a historical fact that one race, that was incredibly disparaged, is worse off now than they have been historically, even though one of their race has managed to make it to the White House. This interpretation, while involving race, isn't quite as racist - it's just using the disparity between how our society has elected an African-American POTUS but we have bigger issues with poverty/broken homes than there was during slavery. (really, it's hard to maintain that this isn't racist, in some form or fashion since I'm well aware that it's not only African-Americans suffering from broken homes - even though broken homes are more likely to include an African-American.)

 

[bikerdruid]

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's talking about banning all forms of pornography with women in it (as opposed to all other forms that don't contain women). Which would be pretty close to all pornography. I guess man-animal porn is OK though.

-Bri

are you not aware of the huge volumes of man-man porn in the world?

 

[cwalner]

are you not aware of the huge volumes of man-man porn in the world?

not all of it yet. Do you have any titles you could recommend?