[R] Flaming in “Repeal Access to Abortion”

[Nepleslia]

OOC:
Nevermind what I've said before, this is officially the worst repeal argumentation I've ever seen. You manage to set a new bar every time you come back, it's genuinely incredible.

Rather self-explanatory, in my opinion, though apologies if flaming is the wrong “category” for this kind of behavior - as my post count indicates, I’m more of a lurker then a poster.

Edit: I’m also reporting the following posts for flaming, though in both instances it - in my opinion - is a lot less “obvious” (for want of a better term).

The reasons given for repeal is largely an exercise in picking at straws. The environmental argument in particular really is laughably bad.

"Yeah, that's a big nope. I see several disingenuous arguments, the most egregious of which is the environmental impact argument. That right there is just silly."

[Farnhamia]

OOC:
Nevermind what I've said before, this is officially the worst repeal argumentation I've ever seen. You manage to set a new bar every time you come back, it's genuinely incredible.

Rather self-explanatory, in my opinion, though apologies if flaming is the wrong “category” for this kind of behavior - as my post count indicates, I’m more of a lurker then a poster.

Edit: I’m also reporting the following posts for flaming, though in both instances it - in my opinion - is a lot less “obvious” (for want of a better term).

The reasons given for repeal is largely an exercise in picking at straws. The environmental argument in particular really is laughably bad.

"Yeah, that's a big nope. I see several disingenuous arguments, the most egregious of which is the environmental impact argument. That right there is just silly."

I loomed on the first one, it's borderline. viewtopic.php?p=37496697#p37496697

The other two are not actionable.

[The New California Republic]

Edit: I’m also reporting the following posts for flaming, though in both instances it - in my opinion - is a lot less “obvious” (for want of a better term).

The reasons given for repeal is largely an exercise in picking at straws. The environmental argument in particular really is laughably bad.

I'm aware that this has been deemed not actionable, and that's great and all, but just to point out to Nepleslia that I was attacking the substance of the draft, not the person behind the draft. Nowhere in that quote do I even come close to attacking the author. I just want to point that out, because if you report all criticism of drafts in the WA subforum then you'll be here filing reports forever.

[Nepleslia]

Thanks Farnhamia and noted, NCR - I was debating on whether or not to include yours and Godular’s posts, as - prior to Farn clarifying things - they fell into what I thought was a “gray area” of sorts.