re: #757 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I don’t go by the presumption of “they do it out of love for their children”.

Nice of you to add the “they do it out of” there, now. Because that is not what you originally said and what I responded to. What you originally said was:

First of all, I don’t presume “love for their children”; I think that’s a clich that leads to excuses and rationalizations.

So, what you originally said was that parents (or a certain, socon subset of parents) could be reasonably excluded from being presumed that they love their children. That you rationalize this exclusion of a very reasonable presumtion with “it’s a clich and that leads to excuses and rationalizations” does not change the fact that you deem it perfectly fine to not presume the presence of parental love (hence: to presume, at the very least, absence of parental love). That’s not “twisting” your words, that’s acurrately summing up their logical and semantical content. Deal with it, and drop the trite “pear clutching” phrase already.

I think it leads to excuses and rationalizations for abusive, damaging behavior.

How on earth does the reasonable premise that parents in general love their children “lead” to excuses and rationalizations for abusive, damaging behavior? Seems to me that the one making excuses and rationalizations is you so that you can continue to cling to your caricature version of never-changing, eternal and absolute evil socon parents.