Comments on: Arguments are Won or Lost In How They’re Framed (Seven Dildo Edition)

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:04:13 +0000

I don’t know the right term for a deception that you don’t expect anyone to believe

“Senator Clinton’s press conference”

By: hf

hf — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:58:43 +0000

That was more of a joke. And they didn’t go after anyone, as far as I know. Check the quote. It says “plaintiffs”, not defendants. Apparently, “They sought a declaratory judgment prohibiting the enforcement of the statute.” And it sounds like the prosecutor would have gone after stores that didn’t use these idiot beards (I don’t know the right term for a deception that you don’t expect anyone to believe).

By: RonF

RonF — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:05:47 +0000

hf - what, you think women are the only people using dildos out there? Or is the point that they only asked women, not men, to make a statement on what they were going to use the dildo for?

By: RonF

RonF — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:49:36 +0000

Scientific purposes? I should have stayed a biochemist instead of going into IT. How do I get a job in that lab?

Seriously - myca, the law applied to commercial establishments selling them? I just made the presumption that they were going after private parties, not stores. Were they going door to door to sex shops, then?

By: hf

hf — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:07:14 +0000

I think the law existed not to make people enforce/obey it but to make a statement (incidentally destroying respect for the law). And I vaguely recall a Texas feminist saying they asked ~~people~~ women to promise at time of purchase that they’d use the dildos for scientific purposes. It’s the kind of oath inflation that I hate with a burning passion.

By: Myca

Myca — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:45:56 +0000

Who’s going door to door counting dildos? Was this a single purchase, or did someone pull the store’s records, or what?

I think that the limit has to do with making stores that sell vibrators/dildos/etc illegal, since they would pretty clearly need to keep more then six in stock.

—Myca

By: Bjartmarr

Bjartmarr — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:09:26 +0000

Who’s going door to door counting dildos?

Hey, it’s an honest job.

What? I needed the money!

By: RonF

RonF — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:56:42 +0000

Who’s going door to door counting dildos? Was this a single purchase, or did someone pull the store’s records, or what?

By: hf

hf — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:42:34 +0000

outlier, that quote comes from a decision overturning the law, but the quote itself just lays out the disagreement. Now let’s see if the Supreme Court reverses Lawrence v Texas. I strongly doubt it — I think they’ll uphold this decision — but then I didn’t think it would take so long for the government to admit these laws seem ridiculous in the light of Lawrence.

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:32:56 +0000

Oops! Thanks for catching that, Nomen; I’ve corrected my post.

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:07:00 +0000

wait a minute, Texas supreme court? i thought this was before the Fifth Circuit? or so, at least, says Ed Brayton: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/5th_circuit_overturns_texas_di.php

By: outlier

outlier — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:38:39 +0000

Can you clarify the aim of the first quote? I can’t tell if it is supposed to be for or against the ban.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:01:28 +0000

I really don’t get the “where does the constitution mention X” arguments. I thought the Ninth and Tenth amendments pretty much said that you can do anything NOT explicitly prohibited. Of course, that was before the commerce clause expanded to include everything under the sun so….