I wonder what we would have to call Bill Clinton using that standard?...

Maybe he is the Manchurian Candidate?

(That's twice in one day we've agreed.  Did I eat something I shouldn't have...?)

Impossible.

Everyone knows that feminists have no sense of humor.

Especially concerning words like “cunt”.

Granted, her point makes no sense, so I could see where you could have gone wrong.

Rather than as in this case making the term look like a pseudo-quote from some "liberals" who didn't actually say it?

and secondly...

Wow, so Odrama, You_Gotta_be_kidding_me and others have taken the side of... Michelle fucking Malkin on this one. congrats on officially greasing your slippery slope to hell. I think any sane adult can see the difference between "term of endearment used by a spouse in public on the stump", as is pointed out @6, and what FOX is implying here.

Simple rule, people, If Michele Fucking Malkin (or Odrama, for that matter) say it, it is batshit fucking evil. period. Is that so complicated?

criticizing ECB's false analogy = siding with Michelle Malkin and Fox News

or

You're either with us or against us.

Did I forget anything?

It's also funny to see all of these 'distinction without a difference' types tripping all over themselves to get at ECB. Yeah, Michelle O said the baby daddy thing on the stump whereas McCain only called his wife a cunty trollop-face in front of a couple of campaign staffers and a few reporters. How exactly is that the undoing of ECB's post, though?

It's also funny to see all of these 'distinction without a difference' types tripping all over themselves to get at ECB. Yeah, Michelle O said the baby daddy thing on the stump whereas McCain only called his wife a cunty trollop-face on the campaign trail in front of a couple of staffers and a few reporters. How exactly is that the undoing of ECB's post, though?

How exactly is that the undoing of ECB's post, though?

a. Pointing out that the person you called "baby mama" had herself used "baby daddy" as an affectionate label for her own husband is a plausible argument for "baby mama" not being unacceptably hurtful.

b. The overtly hostile source for "trollop-faced cunt" only reinforces its unacceptability.

Stir in context and simmer for 2-3 seconds: ECB's analogy of the two insults and defenses is false.

It's nice that you know the phrase "distinction without a difference."  It'd be nicer if you understood it.

How exactly is that the undoing of ECB's post, though?

a. Pointing out that the person you called "baby mama" had herself used "baby daddy" as an affectionate label for her own husband is a plausible argument for "baby mama" not being unacceptably hurtful.

b. The overtly hostile source for "trollop-faced cunt" only reinforces its unacceptability.

Stir in context and simmer for 2-3 seconds: ECB's analogy of the two insults and defenses is false.

It's nice that you know the phrase "distinction without a difference."  It'd be nicer if you understood it.

It's nice that you guys are trying now, but you're still not there. You need to actually bother to get ECB's point before you can rebut it. Hint: she's offered parallel if/thens, not an analogy. Further hint: if you substitute your own 'if' for hers, then you haven't engaged her argument, you've attacked her premise.

Now have at it!

Hint: she's offered parallel if/thens, not an analogy.

Now we have a distinction without a difference!

Except that ECB's if/thens aren't parallel (see @31).

you haven't engaged her argument, you've attacked her premise.

This distinction isn't quite bereft of difference, but what's your point? Revealing someone's premise as flawed is a pretty effective rebuttal.

if you substitute your own 'if' for hers...

Are you sure we're the ones who are substituting?

The flaw in ECB's "parallel if/thens" has been explicated clearly by multiple commenters, but I've yet to see a coherent explanation of your position, Bison.

Bored now.

"Michelle calls Barack her baby daddy in public" is to "Fox News calls Michelle Barack's baby mama in public" as "John calls Cindy a trollop-faced cunt in private" is to "Fox news calls Cindy a trollop-faced cunt in public"

It should be painfully obvious that the analogy is flawed. Even if you take the "in public"/"in private" modifiers out, it's *still* flawed.

(In case you still don't get it, the logical extension would be to call John the male version of a "trollop-faced cunt", which frankly doesn't really exist, further pointing out the absurdity of this post).

I am also bored now.

If case A, then x
Case B is like case A
Therefore, if case B, then x

I am even more bored now.