(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

I think this is mostly true. Still though, 'progressive' by definition speaks to those who actively seek liberal social change... I am progressive on a few issues. I reach lots of progressive/liberal conclusions through libertarian/conservative means. Its none of the government's damn business whom you sleep with or how you identify.

You're actually making a good distinction though... The ACLU is only progressive on 'certain' issues.... It seems they are being 'progressive' here... hence 'progressives' are doing something. If you don't support this for the reasons they state... because it will somehow impact abortion rights... then it seems self evident that you are progressively seeking more liberal social change...

(08-08-2023 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am talking about the title of this thread, Ham. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

No **** about what you're talking about...
and no **** I think you're fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

Quote:Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

Absolutely it was. 'Progessives' (as a whole) really *dont* support "child marriage".

Plain words Ham.

Even more plain words, Tanq....

Progressives aren't half of the political spectrum. And if the words are plain, why do you have to add 'as a whole'??

Democrats may be, but progressives are not. That's been made clear by me to anyone who bothers to read what people write,... but I know you can't be bothered with such things.

Quote:And your soliloquy to that was 'everyone does it'. That is your 'justification'.


The title is fundamentally dishonest. Just like saying 'Conservatives want to see pregnant mothers die'.

Yes, people shade language, people shade comment. No doubt.

That isnt a justification for the (inaccurate as ****) title though. But please tell us how it makes it better.

First you admit what I said and that is (your paraphrase) that people shade language... So you are admitting that what I said was true... and now we're just arguing about something completely trivial like 'which it is more' of...

It should not surprise you (since I've said it) that i find your comparison fundamentally dishonest because 'seeing pregnant mothers die' is abhorrent, while allowing children who WANT to get married to do so may be unfavorable, but it is hardly a death sentence. It's not as if states (like California) who currently don't have such laws are being over-run with child marriages. The comparison of something unpopular to something abhorrent is fundamentally dishonest. Just as I described, it casts someone's position in the worst possible light... comparing it to something likely universally abhorrent.... which is similar in 'style' to what the OP does, but VASTLY different in degree... to the point of not even really being comparable.

'I disagree with your statement' is vastly different from 'your statement is absurdly ignorant'. They both are statements of disagreement, but they are otherwise not really comparable.... and still don't even remotely come close to supporting the death of someone.

Quote:I can point to that crap on both sides. I dont justify it, nor blind myself to it.

Yet you ignore that you were responding to me saying that YOU PERSONALLY do it. You seem quite blind to that... and I'm sure you justify it otherwise you wouldn't do it. I also note that I said I do it, in fact I probably said EVERYONE does it... and you said 'both sides'.... So how am I blind to it, or how am I justifying it, but you aren't??

Your statement here is false on its face,

Quote:Fine get charged up about the relative number. Big fing deal.

The issue is hiding a subset in a huge catch all group. It is inaccurate. And pretty much dishonest. But in great fashion that doesnt seem to catch with you.

Another fundamentally dishonest argument.

I make the point that he said 'progressives' which is a subset of Democrats, in specific response to someone else's claim which you repeated that he was talking about 'half the political spectrum'. That was THEIR point (which you co-opted) and it is undeniably false.... so of course now you want to act as if despite it being a central point of the claim, and one you supported, that its not a BFD when I point it out.

So NOW you argue that 'progressives' is even too large of a group to assign to this

I find this to be meaninglessly pedantic.... but an equally true and pedantic response would be that the definition of the word... much like denoting an action that is democratic but not part of the Democrat(ic) party (I'm sure you note that many further Reps are careful to call them the Democrat party, not the Democratic one)... the word 'progressives' STILL 100% accurately reflects those who might be against establishing laws banning minors getting married because it might infringe upon their ability to get an abortion.

Because the only thing I can see that changes with minors getting married and abortion is the 'emancipation' of that child... such that the parents no longer have ANY input (which is an action that some PROGRESSIVE states have already put into law or are trying to put into law anyway... where children, married or not, can get abortions without parental permission.

An intellectually dishonest headline similar to killing grandma or pregnant mothers would have somehow linked denying children access to abortions without parental notifications or consent (what the ACLU is really talking about here) to life risking back-alley abortions. Saying they favor child marriage is actually 100% accurate... Not that they favor it over ANYTHING else, but that they favor it over the STATED alternative of somehow denying these same children access to abortion services.

That is precisely what they say... That they are against 'banning' child marriage (meaning they are 'more' in support of child marriage) than they are in favor of whatever sliver of abortion limits they are concerned about.

I mean pretty obviously a ban on child marriage wouldn't impact the abortion rights of anyone who wasn't a child in any way, right? And if a child mother can get an abortion whether she's married or not, she too is not in any way barred, right? So the ONLY situation impacted is where the child's decision differs from her parents.... in either direction... where the parents can force or bar an abortion... and her emancipation through marriage severs that control. Progressives here DO pretty obviously favor children being able to get married to that situation. If they didn't, they wouldn't be against this bill. The headline has a tiny bit of shade, but it is otherwise spot on....

so of course you guys now argue that he should have said 'progressives on this specific issue' or 'some progressives'.... but instead you argue (93 directly did this and you've supported it) that progressives = Democrats = 1/2 the political spectrum. Those beliefs/statements are categorically false... and you're arguing that someone else is being intellectually dishonest? I don't consider that really dishonest, but when you start pointing fingers at others, you'd better be above reproach yourself... and you're not. The assignment of 'half the political spectrum' to a headline talking about 'progressives' is an absolutely false equivalency.... especially when you note 93's complaint that it is 'Democrats' who sponsored the bill, but 'some progressive sub-set' of Democrats who are called out in the article as being those who have defeated it.

Quote:'some smaller groups of progessives <> 'progressives' as a whole.' Should be fairly obvious. With or without the ACLU red herring.

By 'red herring' you mean 'what is reported in the article'?

If this is the way you expect people to address these subgroups then you will NEVER be able to speak about a group ever again.... because there isn't one single issue I wouldn't think where EVERY member of that subgroup is in lock-step. Even the Klan I understand has some factions who feel differently about certain races than they do about others... or even 'mixed' people... while some of them just hate everybody who isn't 100% pure 'white', which even that can have a variety of definitions.

Quote:

Quote:While certainly a more extreme example of what I described above... I find it ridiculous to compare pushing an elderly person off a cliff to not allowing children to get married.

You may not have read fully. I allowed that the 'pushing Granny off a cliff' was rhetorical for cutting welfare.

A... are you the only person I am speaking to on here? Do I need to limit my comments on a subject to ONLY those that are speaking directly to you??
B... but you DIDN'T call it intellectually dishonest, as you did here.... AND you at least by extension supported Lad's (I think it was) 'death for mothers'.

So your deflection here is demonstrably false, but at least you got in another insult towards me. This might put you in the lead!

Quote:

Quote:The entire stated purpose of Delaware and California in wanting to enact such a bill could well be paraphrased as PREVENTING children from jumping off a cliff... and it would be the ACLU supporting allowing them to do so. I wouldn't make that comparison, but comparison makes more sense than what I understand the above one to be.

Thats all fine and dandy, and wonderful air ball non sequitor. Again, expanding a smaller group as encompassing an entire population is inaccurate, and inaccurate to the point of being dishonest.

Non-Sequitur? The purpose of the bill and a reasonable rhetorical summary of it is not pertinent to a discussion of what sort of other rhetorical summaries might be reasonable??


So they're NOT progressives? If not, then what are they?

Saying 'Democrats vote Biden into office' doesn't mean that every single democrat voted for him... so why does 'progressive favor child marriage' mean that every single progressive favors it?

I mean, you want to argue intellectual dishonesty, but your claim here can't even stand up to simple logic.

Quote:Couple that with a hot button item, and the dishonesty kind of expands.

Thank you for the laugh this morning... You call my comment above a non sequitur, even though it directly speaks to the appropriateness of the comparison of language... and then you call 'favoring child marriage' a hot button item, but apparently killing grandma and pregnant moms is more of a 'rhetorical flourish' than a hot button item, lol.

Seriously, you clearly missed the point. Child marriage IMO is not a hot button. There isn't some big cultural need to fix a problem. That said, many people are against getting married before 18. Delaware already banned it and California (according to the article) should have beaten them to the punch, lead by Democrats. Murdering Mom's and Grandmom's is a hot button. The ACLU somehow mysteriously tying the hot button of abortion into this bill is.

I just made myself laugh realizing something...
You call OO 'intellectually dishonest' for saying that progressives favor child marriage, but you apparently have no problem with 93 saying that Democrats sponsored the bill... even though pretty obviously plenty of democrats don't support it. Why aren't we demanding that he say 'some sub-set' of Democrats??

Maybe its because everyone intellectually understands that NO group is 'lock step', but that it is absolutely those seeking social change... aka progressives... who are the ones most obviously concerned about children being able to get abortions without parental consent/notification.... which is about the only way I can think of that these two concepts might conflict.... and thus the only reason I can think of for the ACLU to be against it. Not every progressive, but progressives nonetheless.

Quote:One can be dishonest and not be lying due to intent, Ham.

If I state a falsehood, that may very well be dishonest.

If I do the above knowing it is false, that is a lie. No they do not mean the same thing

Context makes a difference. I suspect there will be a lot said about this regarding Trump and Biden in the not too distant future.... was something a lie or not... and do we BELIEVE that, or can we PROVE it?

That said, Apparently you and I grew up in different worlds. Likely. My grandmother (and aunt) were the British 'miss manners' sort. Although it has sadly been a very long time, my formative years were heavily influenced by them. Being dishonest is a willful act in my world. Stating something that you believe to be true, but isn't is not. It is instead being wrong/incorrect/uninformed/naive/mislead/misinformed/ignorant etc. People are often told things like... 'come on Joe... you KNOW that's not true.... you're lying to yourself'.... or also, 'you're not being honest (being dishonest) with yourself'. What people are saying is that you are lying... you've just convinced yourself that you aren't.

To be dishonest MEANS to not be truthful. To be lying. If you honestly believe something, even if it is wrong, you are obviously not being dishonest. You are not lying.... you're just wrong/incorrect etc.

Oh, and 'wilfully' one of those 'wrong' things is also by definition a willful act, hence it is not an honest belief. If may not be within your immediate control... as in someone with a trauma who can't control their thoughts... but although this person would be highly sympathetic and we would be polite and cut them slack, they are still technically lying. They know its not true... they were there... they just literally cannot bring themselves to face that truth.

(08-09-2023 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You call OO 'intellectually dishonest' for saying that progressives favor child marriage, but you apparently have no problem with 93 saying that Democrats sponsored the bill... even though pretty obviously plenty of democrats don't support it. Why aren't we demanding that he say 'some sub-set' of Democrats??

Maybe its because everyone intellectually understands that NO group is 'lock step',

Well, not everybody. I can name 2 or 3 who don't. It will be interesting going forward when in discussion we use general terms like "Left", Right", "Democrat", Republican", "progressive", and "Evangelical". Or for that matter, "christian", "Muslim", or "Jewish". Does Westboro Baptist fit into the "christian" demographic? Not mine.

Will we need to recognize that that there is variation of belief even within those broad classifications? Every time? Will it be incumbent on us to enumerate the positions of all 200,000,000 voters? Or 300,000,000 citizens? Or 400,000,000 residents? (numbers estimated, not precise)

How about when we use group designations like "Aggies" or "teenage drivers"?

What a tempest in a teapot. Kind of telling when you look at the roster of those upset with me.

However, good to know I am dishonest. Quick, warn my fellow poker players - nothing they hate worse than a cheater.

(08-09-2023 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

I think this is mostly true. Still though, 'progressive' by definition speaks to those who actively seek liberal social change... I am progressive on a few issues. I reach lots of progressive/liberal conclusions through libertarian/conservative means. Its none of the government's damn business whom you sleep with or how you identify.

You're actually making a good distinction though... The ACLU is only progressive on 'certain' issues.... It seems they are being 'progressive' here... hence 'progressives' are doing something. If you don't support this for the reasons they state... because it will somehow impact abortion rights... then it seems self evident that you are progressively seeking more liberal social change...

(08-08-2023 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am talking about the title of this thread, Ham. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

No **** about what you're talking about...
and no **** I think you're fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

Quote:Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

Absolutely it was. 'Progessives' (as a whole) really *dont* support "child marriage".

Plain words Ham.

Even more plain words, Tanq....

Progressives aren't half of the political spectrum. And if the words are plain, why do you have to add 'as a whole'??

Democrats may be, but progressives are not. That's been made clear by me to anyone who bothers to read what people write,... but I know you can't be bothered with such things.

Getting into the weeds on "progressives" notwithstanding, this still has nothing to do with "[some group] favors child marriage."

It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

It's a misleading headline that the editor can get away with because it's partly true.

You can find headlines like that in the news media every day - sometimes it's bias, sometimes it's clickbait.

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

CA Democrats? You mean...ALL of them?

(08-09-2023 07:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't know if you would call gun control a social issue, but the ACLU has historically been pro-2nd amendment, and has been the enemy of the NRA's enemies. Not arguing because we aren't disagreeing, but I thought I'd post an illustrative counterexample.

The connection between marriage age and abortion hasn't been made clear. Maybe what the proponents of an 18 minimum age for marriage don't want to come out and say is that fewer alternatives for a pregnant child increases the likelihood of abortion as the choice?

You might want to double check on the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment.

Historically, at best, they have ignored the 2nd Amendment all while they fight for all other types of rights under the Bill of Rights, and whole passel of other ones they think are there.

Well, here are a couple of recent articles by the ACLU on gun control. Plenty to make people on either end of the spectrum unhappy, which means they are still centrist on this issue.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...un-control
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-libertie...expression

I'm not happy with the ACLU's recent drift toward ideological stances in lieu of constitutional stances either.

Holy cow: the first link actually includes this line:
"Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."\

Note the perverse absolutism of the organization's official position: not that the age-21 rule is just barely justifiable, but that is raises "no civil liberties issues" whatsoever. None. Even a grade-schooler can see that such a blanket statement is absurd. It really is disgusting, to use Tanq's apt description.

I wonder how the ACLU would feel about an age-21 requirement for, say, having an abortion -- or a baby?

The theory that "The government knows better than you do" is certainly classic "progressive" thinking, but it cannot remotely be considered a formula for civil liberties.

What about the age-21 requirement for, say, purchasing alcohol? Whether in favor or opposed, what's the essential difference between one age requirement and another? Whether you agree or not, can you at least understand the POV of someone who thinks buying a gun is a weightier matter than buying a six-pack?

Progressives are advocating lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. You in favor?

Mimimum age requirements are inherently "absolutist". I have no doubt that you agree with at least some of them, whatever you may have posted above. All there is to do is to differ over details like 18 vs. 21 and what should or should not be age-restricted.

(08-09-2023 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

CA Democrats? You mean...ALL of them?

I mean state legislators in California that are Democrats. The involvement of every Democrat in California is not actually required to sponsor a piece of legislature.

(08-09-2023 01:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

It's a misleading headline that the editor can get away with because it's partly true.

You can find headlines like that in the news media every day - sometimes it's bias, sometimes it's clickbait.

This. It's partly true. (not the words I would have chosen as it opens the door to 'partly a lie'... but close enough)...

93, I am following you, realizing it is a pure hypo.... What I would have said is that they DO favor 'assault rifles' over the passing this bill. That doesn't mean they are advocating for assault rifles... which would be supporting a different bill perhaps increasing access to them. That is the missing context, though it is pretty easy to infer that from the fact that they are shooting down a bill, not proposing one of their own.

I can probably say that better, but I'm struggling for how that could then be twisted... but as in most bills (like the ACA or the IRA) people are often against them for reasons not really related to their stated purposes, but instead to their belief/fear about the unintended (or at least unarticulated) consequences. I think bills like the ACA and IRA were mostly opposed from the right because of what it did... and mostly opposed from the left because of what it DIDN'T do. Nobody is against reducing inflation or making healthcare affordable. Even doctors and insurance companies aren't against that... they just don't want to be the ones bearing the costs.... yet when people talk about how no Repiblicans voted for either bill, it will be said that Republicans are against affordable healthcare or reducing inflation. That is one concept. This bill is a bit more straightforward than those bills as it seems much more narrow, but the concept remains the same. Some people actually ARE against banning children under 18 from getting married.... on both sides of the aisle... but it seems somewhat self-evident that the portions of the two sides that would be against it would have vastly different reasons. The one articulated here comes from the more progressive wing of the Democrat party.

In this case, it seems that (some) Democrats proposed the bill, but (some) progressives opposed it enough to thwart it... and despite the left slant in the government and it appearing fairly conservative in nature on its face (and the FEAR would CERTAINLY be conservative)... it didn't appeal to enough of anyone to pass it. I'm not going to bother looking up whom voted against it and speculate as to why... we're really just discussing the article and interpretations that can be drawn from it... and not the validity of the article's contention... at least not yet.

(08-09-2023 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  CA Democrats? You mean...ALL of them?

Lol

(08-09-2023 02:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean state legislators in California that are Democrats. The involvement of every Democrat in California is not actually required to sponsor a piece of legislature.

even that, do you mean every single legislator? What percentage would be required to accept the generalization?

(08-09-2023 02:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean state legislators in California that are Democrats. The involvement of every Democrat in California is not actually required to sponsor a piece of legislature.

even that, do you mean every single legislator? What percentage would be required to accept the generalization?

Good question. How many legislators are required to introduce a bill. I think the answer is one.

Clearly, the solution would be to enumerate every single CA Democrat who is a co-sponsor or supporter of the bill - full names, of course.

Headlines should always be written like this :

Some people want ____, others don't.

(08-09-2023 10:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am talking about the title of this thread, Ham. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

No **** about what you're talking about...
and no **** I think you're fundamentally wrong.

I guess you think lableing an entire set with the stance of a subset is accurate and honest.

Good for you.

Keep up that cha cha cha.

Quote:

Quote:Yes... tagging 1/2 of the political spectrum CAN BE intellectually dishonest, but that was not done in the OP here.

Absolutely it was. 'Progessives' (as a whole) really *dont* support "child marriage".

Plain words Ham.

Even more plain words, Tanq....

Progressives aren't half of the political spectrum. And if the words are plain, why do you have to add 'as a whole'?? [/uote]

Got it. BFD that progs are not 11/2 the spectrum. Good for you. Deosnt detract from the subject which is the veracity of the statement.

But good for you about the entire cha cha cha over the 1/2 statement. Making off point and stupid asides seems to be a calling there. Yay.

Quote:Democrats may be, but progressives are not. That's been made clear by me to anyone who bothers to read what people write,... but I know you can't be bothered with such things.

Great, Sounds good to me. Maybe back to the real subject after your 'sideshow' about progressives v. democrats. Good for you.

Quote:

Quote:And your soliloquy to that was 'everyone does it'. That is your 'justification'.


The title is fundamentally dishonest. Just like saying 'Conservatives want to see pregnant mothers die'.

Yes, people shade language, people shade comment. No doubt.

That isnt a justification for the (inaccurate as ****) title though. But please tell us how it makes it better.

First you admit what I said and that is (your paraphrase) that people shade language... So you are admitting that what I said was true... and now we're just arguing about something completely trivial like 'which it is more' of...

No. I am pointing out your issue there is a justification. Well, everyone does it.... still doesnt change the fact it is an exercise in dishonesty.

I guess your 'everyone does it' should shut the case on doing it. Sounds fun. Yay.

Quote:It should not surprise you (since I've said it) that i find your comparison fundamentally dishonest because 'seeing pregnant mothers die' is abhorrent, while allowing children who WANT to get married to do so may be unfavorable, but it is hardly a death sentence. It's not as if states (like California) who currently don't have such laws are being over-run with child marriages. The comparison of something unpopular to something abhorrent is fundamentally dishonest. Just as I described, it casts someone's position in the worst possible light... comparing it to something likely universally abhorrent.... which is similar in 'style' to what the OP does, but VASTLY different in degree... to the point of not even really being comparable.

First a song and dance sideshow about 'how many are in a broad group', followed by a carny spiel on 'one action is so much more worse'. Lolz.

Functionally, they are the same thing. They are using a broad label to denote the viewpoint of a sub-group under that label.

But now you chew toy under that mental exercise that seems pretty self-evident in its construction is whooly incorrect, because on action of support is so much worse. Got it. Sounds fun.

Quote:

Quote:I can point to that crap on both sides. I dont justify it, nor blind myself to it.

Yet you ignore that you were responding to me saying that YOU PERSONALLY do it. You seem quite blind to that... and I'm sure you justify it otherwise you wouldn't do it. I also note that I said I do it, in fact I probably said EVERYONE does it... and you said 'both sides'.... So how am I blind to it, or how am I justifying it, but you aren't??

Your statement here is false on its face,

I dont know what the fk you are talking about here. Maybe rephrase.

I guess the point is 'how dare I note intellectually dishonest acts', because of some arcane and incomprehensible rationale. Ohhhhtaaayyyy...

Quote:

Quote:Fine get charged up about the relative number. Big fing deal.

The issue is hiding a subset in a huge catch all group. It is inaccurate. And pretty much dishonest. But in great fashion that doesnt seem to catch with you.

Another fundamentally dishonest argument.

I make the point that he said 'progressives' which is a subset of Democrats, in specific response to someone else's claim which you repeated that he was talking about 'half the political spectrum'. That was THEIR point (which you co-opted) and it is undeniably false.... so of course now you want to act as if despite it being a central point of the claim, and one you supported, that its not a BFD when I point it out.

So NOW you argue that 'progressives' is even too large of a group to assign to this

No. try again.

Quote:I find this to be meaninglessly pedantic.... but an equally true and pedantic response would be that the definition of the word... much like denoting an action that is democratic but not part of the Democrat(ic) party (I'm sure you note that many further Reps are careful to call them the Democrat party, not the Democratic one)... the word 'progressives' STILL 100% accurately reflects those who might be against establishing laws banning minors getting married because it might infringe upon their ability to get an abortion.

Pendantic? Im not the one writeing 'War and Peace' about the issue of democrats v progressives and how that is determinative of the issue.

Here is my point in one fing sentence: "assigning the stance of a sub-group to a much larger population is dishonest' Claro, Tolstoy?

I dont care if the group is Dems, or progs, or Repubs. or conservatives. The above is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

No matter what size the group that seems to have caught your attention like a laser pointer wiith a cat. No matter ;how bad' the relative belief assigned.

Its oretty easy to fathom in scope.

Quote:Because the only thing I can see that changes with minors getting married and abortion is the 'emancipation' of that child... such that the parents no longer have ANY input (which is an action that some PROGRESSIVE states have already put into law or are trying to put into law anyway... where children, married or not, can get abortions without parental permission.

An intellectually dishonest headline similar to killing grandma or pregnant mothers would have somehow linked denying children access to abortions without parental notifications or consent (what the ACLU is really talking about here) to life risking back-alley abortions. Saying they favor child marriage is actually 100% accurate... Not that they favor it over ANYTHING else, but that they favor it over the STATED alternative of somehow denying these same children access to abortion services.

That is precisely what they say... That they are against 'banning' child marriage (meaning they are 'more' in support of child marriage) than they are in favor of whatever sliver of abortion limits they are concerned about.

I mean pretty obviously a ban on child marriage wouldn't impact the abortion rights of anyone who wasn't a child in any way, right? And if a child mother can get an abortion whether she's married or not, she too is not in any way barred, right? So the ONLY situation impacted is where the child's decision differs from her parents.... in either direction... where the parents can force or bar an abortion... and her emancipation through marriage severs that control. Progressives here DO pretty obviously favor children being able to get married to that situation. If they didn't, they wouldn't be against this bill. The headline has a tiny bit of shade, but it is otherwise spot on....

so of course you guys now argue that he should have said 'progressives on this specific issue' or 'some progressives'.... but instead you argue (93 directly did this and you've supported it) that progressives = Democrats = 1/2 the political spectrum. Those beliefs/statements are categorically false... and you're arguing that someone else is being intellectually dishonest? I don't consider that really dishonest, but when you start pointing fingers at others, you'd better be above reproach yourself... and you're not. The assignment of 'half the political spectrum' to a headline talking about 'progressives' is an absolutely false equivalency.... especially when you note 93's complaint that it is 'Democrats' who sponsored the bill, but 'some progressive sub-set' of Democrats who are called out in the article as being those who have defeated it.

And in the above, you call me 'pendantic'. Fing rich.

Quote:

Quote:'some smaller groups of progessives <> 'progressives' as a whole.' Should be fairly obvious. With or without the ACLU red herring.

By 'red herring' you mean 'what is reported in the article'?

Again in simpler terms "progressives <> ACLU" -- satisfied?

In fact 'ACLU <> all members of ACLU'.

But keep up that ACU fixation for us.



Sorry but not going to respond to the remainder of your 10,000 word novel.

Keep up the awesome job of telling us how honest that headline is.

(08-09-2023 02:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 01:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

It's a misleading headline that the editor can get away with because it's partly true.

You can find headlines like that in the news media every day - sometimes it's bias, sometimes it's clickbait.

This. It's partly true. (not the words I would have chosen as it opens the door to 'partly a lie'... but close enough)...

93, I am following you, realizing it is a pure hypo.... What I would have said is that they DO favor 'assault rifles' over the passing this bill.

OK and and I appreciate that you are making my point.

Intellectually honest: "Planned Parenthood favors assault rifles over the passing of this bill."

Intellectually dishonest: "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles."

(08-09-2023 01:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 01:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's like if CA Democrats tried to introduce a bill outlawing assault rifles (no definition fights please). Then Planned Parenthood says that they object to the bill because they are worried about how this could possibly lead to sanctions against minors accessing abortions (who knows but stay with me). Would a title of "Progressives favor ownership of assault rifles" be intellectually honest?

It's a misleading headline that the editor can get away with because it's partly true.

You can find headlines like that in the news media every day - sometimes it's bias, sometimes it's clickbait.

I agree but that doesn't mean that we typically hold ourselves to the same standards as clickbait websites, the mainstream news media, and GoodOwl.

(08-09-2023 02:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean state legislators in California that are Democrats. The involvement of every Democrat in California is not actually required to sponsor a piece of legislature.

even that, do you mean every single legislator? What percentage would be required to accept the generalization?

No generalization necessary. The legislators that introduced this bill in California were Democrats.

Are you asking me what percentage of Democrats have to support something in order to say "Democrats support xyz"? IDK... my opinion would be 2/3 - 3/4 of them. Not that this is either here or there when it comes to this discussion.

"Republicans favor a strong military" is (IMO) a reasonable statement.

"Progressives favor child marriage" is (IMO) an asinine statement that was not supported by the original article.

Some observations:

The people most upset are the Amigos.

The first person to be upset was very predictable (Post #2)

Name-calling and insults seem to be the chosen tool of persuasion. (Seems to be standard among a lot of Lefties)

(08-09-2023 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you think lableing an entire set with the stance of a subset is accurate and honest.

Good for you.

Keep up that cha cha cha.

Dude... seriously... you need to stop with this nonsense and your penchant to completely mischaracterize what people said so that you can argue with that.... THAT is intellectually dishonest.... and you know it.

Progressives ARE a subset of Democrats.... and I was responding to those (including you) claiming that this was 'half the political spectrum'. If your argument is that this is a smaller subset of that subset, that's fine... but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be arguing that, and then support the claim that they represent 'half the political spectrum'.

You're quite literally ignoring the plank in your own eye while trying to draw attention to the splinter in OO's.

Quote:Got it. BFD that progs are not 11/2 the spectrum. Good for you. Deosnt detract from the subject which is the veracity of the statement.

But good for you about the entire cha cha cha over the 1/2 statement. Making off point and stupid asides seems to be a calling there. Yay.

93 said it, You agreed with it. If you don't see the similarity between the two of you mischaracterizing progressives as 'half the political spectrum' and OO mischaracterizing SOME Progressives as 'progressives' then that's on you.

It's DIRECTLY related to my comment that 'everyone does it', which you also took issue with.

So I'm right on point, despite your own tap dance.

Quote:Great, Sounds good to me. Maybe back to the real subject after your 'sideshow' about progressives v. democrats. Good for you.

Translated... "let's take the focus off of 93 and me doing precisely the same thing and put it back on OO, and you (Ham) for supporting him and pointing out out clear hypocrisy".

And before you start, from my perspective that is PRECISELY what you are doing. There is literally no other explanation for your repeated attempts to deflect from and diminish my point in favor of your own. OO NEVER said 'all' progressives... He just said progressives. If you think these people who are against this bill aren't progressives, that's fine. What are they then? THAT is the question... not this pedantic one.

Quote:The title is fundamentally dishonest. Just like saying 'Conservatives want to see pregnant mothers die'.

Again, for a number of reasons I disagree...
A) it isn't nearly as bombastic... by a long shot... so not remotely 'just like' and
B) by your own admission you've had to add words like 'all' to have your opinion make sense.

Said simply.... The primary concern about the comment about 'pregnant mothers' isn't that it is assigning it to 'all' Conservatives... it would be that it is assigning it to ANY conservatives. If that isn't clear to you, then I can't help you.

I listed plenty of 'non progressives' who would be against this bill, as well as plenty of 'non progressives' who might support it... but the ARTICLE is about people who are concerned that it might somehow infringe upon abortion rights for (clearly) minors... keeping them from being somehow emancipated from their parents. There IS no other explanation that I can think of or that anyone else has suggested... and the ONLY people who would be in favor of that are reasonably described as 'progressives'.

Quote:First a song and dance sideshow about 'how many are in a broad group', followed by a carny spiel on 'one action is so much more worse'. Lolz.

Again with your 'the best defense is a good offense'. YOU go down the 'broad group' pathway and its somehow my fault that I demonstrate the error of your comparison... and then you go down the path of a bombastic comparison and it is again somehow my fault that I again demonstrate the error of your comparison.

The people doing this are reasonably described as progressives. You have not denied that. Progressives are doing this. Not ALL progressives, like not all Democrats elected Biden... but Progressives none-the-less.

You dance around that comment, preferring instead to engage in your typical snide comments about 'chew toys' etc.

Quote:Functionally, they are the same thing. They are using a broad label to denote the viewpoint of a sub-group under that label.

I'm glad you said this. Please tell me... what sub-group of Republicans wants pregnant mothers or grandmothers to die?

Those people would be sociopaths. People favoring minors (under 18... the status quo in California) getting married are not sociopaths.

Quote:

Quote:I can point to that crap on both sides. I dont justify it, nor blind myself to it.

Yet you ignore that you were responding to me saying that YOU PERSONALLY do it. You seem quite blind to that... and I'm sure you justify it otherwise you wouldn't do it. I also note that I said I do it, in fact I probably said EVERYONE does it... and you said 'both sides'.... So how am I blind to it, or how am I justifying it, but you aren't??

Your statement here is false on its face,

I dont know what the fk you are talking about here. Maybe rephrase.[/quote]

I suspect you do know... but I'll rephrase anyway...

You claim that you are pointing to crap on both sides... that you are not justifying it... that you don't blind yourself to it...

yet when I point out where you have done it, you refer to my comments as non-sequiturs. So all but by definition you are deflecting from crap from 'the other' side of OO's comment... are justifying their use of bombastic comparisons, and are blinding yourself to it by claiming that it is not pertinent to the discussion.

Quote:Pendantic? Im not the one writeing 'War and Peace' about the issue of democrats v progressives and how that is determinative of the issue.

Yes... you are well known for your brevity... lol

Quote:Here is my point in one fing sentence: "assigning the stance of a sub-group to a much larger population is dishonest' Claro, Tolstoy?

SUre. Nobody did that... certainly not any more than anyone else on here including you.... and I've demonstrated it repeatedly. Maybe if you weren't so busy deflecting and attacking, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:'some smaller groups of progessives <> 'progressives' as a whole.' Should be fairly obvious. With or without the ACLU red herring.

By 'red herring' you mean 'what is reported in the article'?

Again in simpler terms "progressives <> ACLU" -- satisfied?

No. The ACLU didn't vote on this bill. Legislators did.... so the people who voted against this bill are a subset of the legislature... In this case, I suspect that those legislators are 'progressives'... for the numerous reasons I have articulated. That is certainly reasonably implied in the article because of the reason put forth there for its defeat.

Again, we have not actually looked to see why the bill was really voted down... we are merely discussing the rationale put forth in the article... which was articulated by the ACLU.

Quote:In fact 'ACLU <> all members of ACLU'.

But keep up that ACU fixation for us.

lol at 'fixation'.

You're not really making a good argument that it is somehow improper to say that 'progressives' did this, since you note that the same specificity could have applied to quotes attributed to the ACLU (as a whole?) in the article... and yet you said nothing there.... like you didn't with 93.

I have no problem with anyone thinking that he should have been more specific. I can see that argument... but if you're going to do that, you need to be held to the same standard... and you need to at least TRY and be even handed, especially while claiming to be so.

You chastised OO when he did it.
You supporter 93 when he did it.
You ignored the article when they did it, until you thought it might 'work for you' to notice it....
You did it yourself...

all the while claiming that you 'call it out on both sides' and 'don't blind yourself to it'

Yep... EVERYONE does it to some degree... and UNLESS your position is that being concerned about 16yr olds losing the ability to get abortions without parental consent is NOT a concern of 'progressives' but instead some other as yet unnamed political faction, then OO's use of it is one of the LEAST egregious ones on this thread.

(08-09-2023 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some observations:

The people most upset are the Amigos.

Did you think that inflammatory post that was insulting to one side of the spectrum would upset people who are on the opposite side of the spectrum? That wouldn't make any sense.

Quote:The first person to be upset was very predictable (Post #2)

The person that posted such an intellectually dishonest and inflammatory post was not predictable (Post #1). Usually these are reserved for GoodOwl.

Quote:Name-calling and insults seem to be the chosen tool of persuasion. (Seems to be standard among a lot of Lefties)

Which names were you called exactly? Please fill me in.

(08-09-2023 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you think lableing an entire set with the stance of a subset is accurate and honest.

Good for you.

Keep up that cha cha cha.

Dude... seriously... you need to stop with this nonsense and your penchant to completely mischaracterize what people said so that you can argue with that.... THAT is intellectually dishonest.... and you know it.

Progressives ARE a subset of Democrats.... and I was responding to those (including you) claiming that this was 'half the political spectrum'. If your argument is that this is a smaller subset of that subset, that's fine... but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be arguing that, and then support the claim that they represent 'half the political spectrum'.

You're quite literally ignoring the plank in your own eye while trying to draw attention to the splinter in OO's.

Quote:Got it. BFD that progs are not 11/2 the spectrum. Good for you. Deosnt detract from the subject which is the veracity of the statement.

But good for you about the entire cha cha cha over the 1/2 statement. Making off point and stupid asides seems to be a calling there. Yay.

93 said it, You agreed with it. If you don't see the similarity between the two of you mischaracterizing progressives as 'half the political spectrum' and OO mischaracterizing SOME Progressives as 'progressives' then that's on you.

Wait, Ham. Where did I say "Progressives are 1/2 the political spectrum."? Please provide a post #.

(08-09-2023 05:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you think lableing an entire set with the stance of a subset is accurate and honest.

Good for you.

Keep up that cha cha cha.

Dude... seriously... you need to stop with this nonsense and your penchant to completely mischaracterize what people said so that you can argue with that.... THAT is intellectually dishonest.... and you know it.

Progressives ARE a subset of Democrats.... and I was responding to those (including you) claiming that this was 'half the political spectrum'. If your argument is that this is a smaller subset of that subset, that's fine... but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be arguing that, and then support the claim that they represent 'half the political spectrum'.

You're quite literally ignoring the plank in your own eye while trying to draw attention to the splinter in OO's.

Quote:Got it. BFD that progs are not 11/2 the spectrum. Good for you. Deosnt detract from the subject which is the veracity of the statement.

But good for you about the entire cha cha cha over the 1/2 statement. Making off point and stupid asides seems to be a calling there. Yay.

93 said it, You agreed with it. If you don't see the similarity between the two of you mischaracterizing progressives as 'half the political spectrum' and OO mischaracterizing SOME Progressives as 'progressives' then that's on you.

Wait, Ham. Where did I say "Progressives are 1/2 the political spectrum?". Please provide a post #.

I think I said it. Mr “I am always right” seems to be incorrect.

Again, BFD on it given the ultimate topic. He’s acting like he found the holy grail or something with that supposed ‘gotcha’.

These Ham rabbit hole chases are always fun events.

Apparently In his mind tagging everyone who is progressive as supporting child marriage *isnt* asinine and *isnt* a dishonest characterization. Sounds fun. And he keeps providing geometric and number crunching proofs of that in multi thousand word format. Again sounds fun.

(08-09-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 05:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 04:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-09-2023 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you think lableing an entire set with the stance of a subset is accurate and honest.

Good for you.

Keep up that cha cha cha.

Dude... seriously... you need to stop with this nonsense and your penchant to completely mischaracterize what people said so that you can argue with that.... THAT is intellectually dishonest.... and you know it.

Progressives ARE a subset of Democrats.... and I was responding to those (including you) claiming that this was 'half the political spectrum'. If your argument is that this is a smaller subset of that subset, that's fine... but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be arguing that, and then support the claim that they represent 'half the political spectrum'.

You're quite literally ignoring the plank in your own eye while trying to draw attention to the splinter in OO's.

Quote:Got it. BFD that progs are not 11/2 the spectrum. Good for you. Deosnt detract from the subject which is the veracity of the statement.

But good for you about the entire cha cha cha over the 1/2 statement. Making off point and stupid asides seems to be a calling there. Yay.

93 said it, You agreed with it. If you don't see the similarity between the two of you mischaracterizing progressives as 'half the political spectrum' and OO mischaracterizing SOME Progressives as 'progressives' then that's on you.

Wait, Ham. Where did I say "Progressives are 1/2 the political spectrum?". Please provide a post #.

I think I said it. Mr “I am always right” seems to be incorrect.

Again, BFD on it given the ultimate topic. He’s acting like he found the holy grail or something with that supposed ‘gotcha’.

Seriously. The ultimate topic is whether or not the title of this thread was dishonest. I can't believe there have been so many words written in opposition to this idea.

Quote:These Ham rabbit hole chases are always fun events.

Apparently In his mind tagging everyone who is progressive as supporting child marriage *isnt* asinine and *isnt* a dishonest characterization.

I know right? Is this an episode of The Black Mirror? I mean... of course it is dishonest. It's as clear as can be.

(08-09-2023 03:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Wait, Ham. Where did I say "Progressives are 1/2 the political spectrum."? Please provide a post #.

Tanq is the one who said it in post 33...
When one tags an entire 1/2 of a political spectrum, and has to immediately retreat to 'some groups in it' -- that is a pretty good indication of at least a decent amount of intellectual dishonesty.

He did this in support of your claim from an earlier post that it was intellectually dishonest.

Post 38 you said...
This was a bill introduced by CA Democrats (progressives) BTW.

so you equated the two groups.... and were just as 'broad' as you accused OO of being.... even moreso because you said 'Democrats'.

Post 41, after Lad made his ridiculous 'pro-choice Republicans favor pregnant mothers dying'... which is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.... YOU responded...

No reason to apply any signifiers to the title apparently.

"Right-wingers favor women dying."

So you went in the other direction., gong even MORE broad.

While Tanq actually alluded to it first, you guys have repeatedly gone back and forth on whether generalizations are okay or not. You say the bill was sponsored by Democrats (whom we are obviously referring to (progressives) but I'm sure you don't mean that ALL Democrats (or even ALL Progressives) sponsored this. Yet when OO does the exact same thing and says 'Progressives did something', you all seem upset that he has been overly broad in assigning this charge.

SO yeah... you supported Tanq on the 'half' comment rather than Tanq supporting you, but YOU started it with the 'Intellectual dishonesty' comment that he was supporting with his 'half' comment, while repeatedly engaging in it yourself.

That's why I then went down the 'so how bad is the charge' path, because obviously people would be more upset about having 'their side' be accused of wanting to kill mothers or grandmothers than they would about being accused of 'supporting the troops'.... so the question is now... hoe 'offensive' is it to be accused of 'favoring child marriage'... to which my response is that it is an absolute fact that those opposed to this bill are more in favor of kids under 18 getting married than they are in somehow having kids under 18 lose access to abortions through this bill. That is just a demonstrable fact. If they weren't, they wouldn't be against it.

(08-09-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think I said it. Mr “I am always right” seems to be incorrect.

You're right that I was wrong about which one of you said it and which one of you then supported it... as if THAT is the important thing... when you're admitting that 'what was said' was an absolute falsehood and mischaracterization of the conversation. You can't deny that it was a false statement.... that you were wrong... You can't deny that you have both done precisely the same thing, repeatedly in this thread... so you make a huge deal out of me saying 'he said it and you supported it' when I should have said 'you said it and he supported it'

Yep... I'm Mr Incorrect... but at least I'm not Mr bull****.

Quote:

Quote:Again, BFD on it given the ultimate topic. He’s acting like he found the holy grail or something with that supposed ‘gotcha’.

Seriously. The ultimate topic is whether or not the title of this thread was dishonest. I can't believe there have been so many words written in opposition to this idea.

Quote:These Ham rabbit hole chases are always fun events.

Apparently In his mind tagging everyone who is progressive as supporting child marriage *isnt* asinine and *isnt* a dishonest characterization.

I know right? Is this an episode of The Black Mirror? I mean... of course it is dishonest. It's as clear as can be.

Yep... foolish me for confusing you two on this lol...

Yes, had he said ALL progressives, it would be clear... but he didn't... just like you didn't say ALL Democrats (progressives) sponsored the bill. Was your comment intellectually dishonest? If not, WHY not? How is it different?

I earnestly ask you to answer that simple question 93...

Assuming your answer, I then move on to the other area where you might object. As I said, the comments about dead mothers was not an objection over scope, but an objection over the 'reason'.

So let's start with this. I've already opined on numerous reasons why someone might be against this bill, but none of those people as you mentioned are in the conversation. The major reason given in the article comes from someone representing the ACLU and their 'official' position... and paraphrasing it, they are against it because of the slippery slope to banning abortions for these same people. I think we generally agree on that.... despite how silly that seems, especially in California.

Please tell me how those opposing the bill aren't FAVORING allowing children to get married (child marriage) over this bill that bans that act? Isn't that precisely what they are doing by voting against it? This (allowing children a way to get married) is not some twisted interpretation of a potential side effect of the defeat of this bill, it is specifically the point of it... to prevent kids under 18 from getting married.

That ends my 'ask'... so the rest of this is my position.

People like me who are pro choice (not pro-life, but would almost always choose life) ABSOLUTELY favor abortion being available over (as an example) the death of the mother... so if there were a bill that supported life/banned abortion, but didn't allow for that exception... I would be against it. If someone said that I favored abortion, in that case they would be 100% correct... even though it was also 100% correct that I favored life over abortion. So the comment is true, it just isn't the WHOLE truth. People who are pro-life with no exceptions at all favor the death of the mother (to abortions). I suspect they would prefer that you say that they prefer God's will, and that if he wants one or the other or both or neither to die then that is His will.... but it is still true that they favor allowing the mother to die to an abortion.... and pretty obviously, saying that someone 'favors' the death of someone else is vastly more 'weighty/emotional' than saying someone favors child marriage (to this ban on it)

I believe that to be the case here and have said so repeatedly. If you disagree, that's fine... but your belief that it is dishonest and Tanq's agreement with that doesn't make it so.... it just makes you aligned... like me and OO and I believe, Numbers... The FACTS (whatever they are, and we can debate that) make things 'so'... and I don't think you'd disagree with the counter to what I said above... that people who shoot down an abortion banning bill for the stated reason that it ALLOWS for exceptions to the ban are absolutely 'favoring' death of the mother (to abortions)... and if that is the case, then I don't see how the headline here is not at least that accurate. Like most headlines, you have to read the context to understand what the 'over what alternatives',,, but at the end of the day, that is still the case.

Of course there is a difference between
Progressives favor child marriage
and
All Democrats want children to be married

The latter IMO IS intellectually dishonest as it is factually inaccurate in scope AND in 'the desire'. The former does not contain any false information... it just doesn't contain all of the details. If it did, it wouldn't be a headline now, would it?

The only other thing i can think of is that you might prefer the headline say The ACLU favors child marriage, and that of course would be true... but the ACLU isn't the ones not voting for the bill in the legislature. Those would be politicians.... and if the reason given in the article for those politicians to vote this down is accurate (and it IS the topic here) then I don't see that expecting that those people would come from the progressive side of the party is an unreasonable, and certainly not a 'dishonest' belief. It may be wrong, but it is not lacking in logic.