Cameron Diaz issues a warning

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-01 01:14am

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

On Oprah's Wednesday 'voting party' show featuring important celebrities like P. Diddy (Vote or Die!), Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera, svelte suffragette Cameron Diaz took to shock tactics to get the female vote out.

After a discussion with Oprah on lynching and the vote, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:

Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...

WINFREY: It's your voice.

Ms. DIAZ: It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right.

Do you hear that, all you rape-decriminalization advocates? You'd better not vote!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-01 01:17am

What's her stance on puppy-kicking?

This may be the worst slippery-slope fallacy ever, but that's okay in the world of celebrity politics.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-10-01 01:20am

I assume she's on about the abortion choice debate?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-10-01 01:21am

And s&m bondage modeling video shoots?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-10-01 01:21am

Likening restrictions on abortion to rape or something?

No really, what?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-10-01 01:24am

I'm lost. What the Hell is she babbling about?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2004-10-01 01:46am

frigidmagi wrote:I'm lost. What the Hell is she babbling about?

I think she's talking about freedom for one's mouth to speak independtly from the brain.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-01 01:56am

What the fuck?

Maybe the lights in the studio got a little too hot...

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-01 02:16am

Master of Ossus wrote:What's her stance on puppy-kicking?

This may be the worst slippery-slope fallacy ever, but that's okay in the world of celebrity politics.

What, assuming she's talking about the abortion issue, her comments are differ from similar by the pro-lifers, how exactly? Or from the general lying, distortion, obfuscation and smoke & mirrors that constantly goes on in politics? But excuse me, she obviously has no right to lobby for her views because she is a celebrity...

Seriously, if again this is about the abortion debate, it is about the fucking high time the pro-life whackjobs who wish to completely outlaw it got a taste of their own tactics and have to spend time refuting bullshit as egregious as their own.

Edi

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-10-01 02:23am

Expect I have no damn clue what's she's talking about!

Slinging lies is alot more effective when I can grasp what the fuck she saying. What she's saying is flying over my head at Mach 5 and climbing!

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-01 02:41am

Edi wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:What's her stance on puppy-kicking?

This may be the worst slippery-slope fallacy ever, but that's okay in the world of celebrity politics.
What, assuming she's talking about the abortion issue, her comments are differ from similar by the pro-lifers, how exactly?

What the fuck? A pro-lifer believes that abortion should be illegal. How is that remotely similar to saying that people who think rape should be legal shouldn't vote? I see no possible connection between the two.

Or from the general lying, distortion, obfuscation and smoke & mirrors that constantly goes on in politics?

What the fuck does this have to do with her statement?

But excuse me, she obviously has no right to lobby for her views because she is a celebrity...

Ah, yes, when you wish to start a fight but can find no flaw in what your would-be-opponent said, outright lie about what he said! Excellent strategy, there.

Seriously, if again this is about the abortion debate, it is about the fucking high time the pro-life whackjobs who wish to completely outlaw it got a taste of their own tactics and have to spend time refuting bullshit as egregious as their own.

Edi

In other news, two wrongs do indeed make a right (and that doesn't remotely seem to be what she was talking about, anyway).

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-01 02:48am

frigidmagi wrote:Expect I have no damn clue what's she's talking about!

Slinging lies is alot more effective when I can grasp what the fuck she saying. What she's saying is flying over my head at Mach 5 and climbing!

I'm with you. She could has shouted out "Please vote! The Gold Faerie Queen will mail you yummy chocolate cookies!" and it would have made more sense.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-01 03:31am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Edi wrote:What, assuming she's talking about the abortion issue, her comments are differ from similar by the pro-lifers, how exactly?
What the fuck? A pro-lifer believes that abortion should be illegal. How is that remotely similar to saying that people who think rape should be legal shouldn't vote? I see no possible connection between the two.

Yes, pro-lifers believe abortion should be illegal. They also don't give a shit about how women who do not share their views feel about it, and I've heard enough to know that quite a few of these would feel being denied that choice if they faced with pregnancy would feel violated, not given control of their body. Just like rape is a violation. So why exactly is it bad to say that if somebody would support a violation of their rights, they shouldn't vote?

I don't know about you, but to me the parallel is obvious.

Master of Ossus wrote:
Edi wrote:Or from the general lying, distortion, obfuscation and smoke & mirrors that constantly goes on in politics?
What the fuck does this have to do with her statement?

That it's par for the course for political statements. Garners no more than a "garden-variety inaccurate statement" rating on my bullshitometer.

Master of Ossus wrote:
Edi wrote:But excuse me, she obviously has no right to lobby for her views because she is a celebrity...
Ah, yes, when you wish to start a fight but can find no flaw in what your would-be-opponent said, outright lie about what he said! Excellent strategy, there.

Except it's not so much an outright lie as a poorly constructed but relevant analogy with shitty presentation.

Master of Ossus wrote:
Edi wrote:Seriously, if again this is about the abortion debate, it is about the fucking high time the pro-life whackjobs who wish to completely outlaw it got a taste of their own tactics and have to spend time refuting bullshit as egregious as their own.

Edi
In other news, two wrongs do indeed make a right (and that doesn't remotely seem to be what she was talking about, anyway).

My response was predicated upon the assumption that it was the abortion issue she was talking about in the first place. With that in mind, my conclusion is that she isn't actually completely bullshitting so much as presenting (fucking poorly) an analogy. My first reaction was that it was all bullshit, but drafting this reply to you actually made me think all the way through it, and though the logic of the statement (or the premises behind it) is complicated, it is relatively sound. It might not be very well presented, but it still a fucking huge improvement over the outright lies, distortion and snivelling weasel behavior of the pro-life crowd.

Edi

Wired_Grenadier · Post by **Wired_Grenadier** » 2004-10-01 06:44am

I respect Sean Combs' efforts to make the ghetto youth vote, but I have little respect for pumped-up Hollywood divas like C. Diaz talking about stuff she most likely has no idea about.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-10-01 08:51am

Ender wrote:And s&m bondage modeling video shoots?

I'm sure she wants no one to remember that small thing in her past.

As for the quote...still nice to see that some of Hollywood still live up to the perception of not knowing what the fuck they are talking about.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 09:01am

Oooh, dems a slipp'ry slope, innit?

Diaz basically saying that criminalizing abortion deprives women of the right of their own body (which is fine), therefore legislating against abortion is alot like making rape legal, since rape too deprives a woman of rights regarding their own body. Which is a major logical "uh... huh...".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-01 12:18pm

I don't think she's trying to link rape to being pro-life, I think she's just a moron.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-01 12:22pm

It was obviously not a carefully thought-out statement, as proven by the fact that it came on the tail-end of a half-sentence where she stopped herself, started over, and muddled to the end. Don't get your panties in a knot.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-01 01:26pm

Edi wrote: Yes, pro-lifers believe abortion should be illegal. They also don't give a shit about how women who do not share their views feel about it, and I've heard enough to know that quite a few of these would feel being denied that choice if they faced with pregnancy would feel violated, not given control of their body. Just like rape is a violation. So why exactly is it bad to say that if somebody would support a violation of their rights, they shouldn't vote?

You don't see how it's a HUGE slippery-slope fallacy to suggest that rape is a similar violation to being denied an abortion? If I ran out and shot someone and took others as slaves, I would be denying them control of their bodies, too. If I wanted to, I could even argue that taxation was vaguely analogous on the same grounds. That doesn't mean that being pro-life is akin to murder and enslavement, nor does it mean that taxation is equivalent to legalized rape.

I don't know about you, but to me the parallel is obvious.

I see the parallel, but recognizing it doesn't make it any less ludicrous.

That it's par for the course for political statements. Garners no more than a "garden-variety inaccurate statement" rating on my bullshitometer.

Fair enough, although it's still unbelievably short-sighted.

Master of Ossus wrote:
Edi wrote:But excuse me, she obviously has no right to lobby for her views because she is a celebrity...
Ah, yes, when you wish to start a fight but can find no flaw in what your would-be-opponent said, outright lie about what he said! Excellent strategy, there.

Except it's not so much an outright lie as a poorly constructed but relevant analogy with shitty presentation.[/quote]

What do you mean? When did I remotely imply that she has no right to lobby for her views as a celebrity? What possible justification is there for this assertion?

My response was predicated upon the assumption that it was the abortion issue she was talking about in the first place. With that in mind, my conclusion is that she isn't actually completely bullshitting so much as presenting (fucking poorly) an analogy.

Right, I agree with that. She royally fucked up the delivery.

My first reaction was that it was all bullshit, but drafting this reply to you actually made me think all the way through it, and though the logic of the statement (or the premises behind it) is complicated, it is relatively sound. It might not be very well presented, but it still a fucking huge improvement over the outright lies, distortion and snivelling weasel behavior of the pro-life crowd.

Edi

I disagree. The analogy was piss-poor to begin with.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 02:03pm

And this is why only idiots take Hollyweird politics seriously.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-10-01 02:19pm

Stormbringer wrote:And this is why only idiots take Hollyweird politics seriously.

Yeah, it's only acceptable to take someone seriously after a laughably stupid public statement when he's the President of the United States.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-10-01 02:59pm

What piss me off is she is trying to tell pro-lifers not to vote. Well "rape advocates". So go vote if you only agree with me.

Oprah steps in and saves her ass, by saying "its your voice"

It piss me off when pro-lifers say the samething, when anybody says if you don't agree with me, don't vote.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 03:03pm

Of course, it's from the Drudge Report, so all of this may not have even happened.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-01 03:36pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Of course, it's from the Drudge Report, so all of this may not have even happened.

um yeah. Gil this happened live on Oprah.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-01 03:58pm

Jesus, calm down people. She's not saying that people who want rape decriminalized shouldn't vote; she's tacitly equating anti-abortion laws with rape of the female body and saying that if women don't get out there and vote Kerry, that's what Bush will try and do.

Christ, I've been sleep-deprived for the past 30 hours and even I figured that out.