Point of clarification
Mar. 6th, 2011 06:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
voltairinePutting words in one's mouth = making assumptions about the speaker's motivations, perspectives, etc that are unconnected or spuriously connected to what they are actually saying. (ie, PERSON A: "these pears are delicious!" PERSON B: "WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST POTATOES?!")
Putting words in one's mouth =/= rephrasing something the speaker has already said (ie, PERSON A: "having an abortion is different from having a miscarriage because a miscarriage is involuntary" PERSON B: "so you are saying that having an abortion is inherently a voluntary procedure, and having a miscarriage is inherently something that people never do voluntarily"), and/or drawing inferences based on implications that the speaker is making when the speaker is approaching their point mainly through implication instead of through direct statement (IE, saying "abortion legislation today is all about "what's best for ME!", instead of saying "choosing to have an abortion is selfish" - without the implication in the former statement, the statement is nonsensical, therefor drawing and stating the implication is not putting words in the speakers' mouth, it is clarifying).
This message has been brought to you by the department of people who are tired of disingenuous anti-choicers acting like martyrs whenever they are called on their anti-choice rhetoric.
(Also: "well, the whole 'my body, my choice' thing can also be used to justify SUICIDE!!!!!11one." Um. YES AND? arjsdklajs should not have even TOUCHED that one, just. What the fuck, people.)
Putting words in one's mouth =/= rephrasing something the speaker has already said (ie, PERSON A: "having an abortion is different from having a miscarriage because a miscarriage is involuntary" PERSON B: "so you are saying that having an abortion is inherently a voluntary procedure, and having a miscarriage is inherently something that people never do voluntarily"), and/or drawing inferences based on implications that the speaker is making when the speaker is approaching their point mainly through implication instead of through direct statement (IE, saying "abortion legislation today is all about "what's best for ME!", instead of saying "choosing to have an abortion is selfish" - without the implication in the former statement, the statement is nonsensical, therefor drawing and stating the implication is not putting words in the speakers' mouth, it is clarifying).
This message has been brought to you by the department of people who are tired of disingenuous anti-choicers acting like martyrs whenever they are called on their anti-choice rhetoric.
(Also: "well, the whole 'my body, my choice' thing can also be used to justify SUICIDE!!!!!11one." Um. YES AND? arjsdklajs should not have even TOUCHED that one, just. What the fuck, people.)