Reply #139: Yes. I used hyperbole to make a point.

[Pithlet]

In response to your posts that seem to defend the government in such a policy. Your contention that there is no reason to discontinue this practice if it is based on someone's moral objection. I'd forgotten that I'd used those exact words, but it is obvious to anyone who isn't trying to distort my position that it was indeed hyperbole. It's obvious from the rest of all my posts what my position clearly is. And frankly, if you have no money and no means to obtain food and shelter, you die. They may not be putting a literal gun to her head, but in the end, the result could very well be the same.

If this story is indeed true, please explain to me how the government cutting off her only means of food, medical care and housing, unless she sleeps with strangers against her will, is materially different than what I said? The government may not actually be killing her, but it is clearly telling her that it will do nothing to help her stay alive unless she sleeps with men against her will. There is no moral code that I feel obligated to respect that would defend such actions. If you do; if you think there is nothing wrong with denying people the means food, medicine, and housing unless they sleep with people against their will, then I'm not particularly obligated to respect your moral code. No matter how you parse this, no matter how many outs you look for, no matter how much you try to soften the language, this all boils down to a very simple choice. Fuck these people whether you want to or not, or we will take away your ability to pay for food, medicine and housing. That's it. That is all that is about, and there is no other issue. If you defend the government in any way in this issue, and that is what you're defending. Period. End of story.