| Author | Post |
|---|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
And you guys are so terrified of Obama winning the election, when a lunatic like Palin is (literally) a heartbeat from the presidency if McCain wins.
Oh, but wait - she can see Russia from her house, so that makes it all okay...
Moonbat. 
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
That's not on!!
You're surprised?
Yes, of course I am. Because I don't think anyone can split hairs over what a terrorist act is. It is to further an agenda through violence by instilling terror, any agenda.
She's splitting hairs. Sure, the terrorist acts against government may be considered "politically" motivated, she called it "domestic"? huh? But the Abortion Clinic bombings still employ the same tactics so it's still an act of terrorism.
It is terrorism and I don't understand why she didn't just say "yes." Why would that damage her campaign?
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
I can't figure it out. It's an act of terrorism and the thought that someone is afraid or cagey about acknowledging that is beyond me.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
If she said that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, she'd piss off a lot of US conservative Christians who tacitly support the destruction of abortion clinics.
2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
She - like a lot of the people she was brought in to "buy" - doesn't think that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
A fundamentalist Christian-run theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: 1) It would damage her campaign because she's there to buy the conservative Christian vote. You figure it out.
If she said that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists, she'd piss off a lot of US conservative Christians who tacitly support the destruction of abortion clinics. SA: Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree. 2) Why didn't she say "yes"? Again...figure it out.
She - like a lot of the people she was brought in to "buy" - doesn't think that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists. SA: Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something. 3) When you've answered both those questions, ask me again why the idea of fundamentalist Christians in positions of power terrifies me...
A fundamentalist Christian-run theocracy would be no different from the Taliban. SA: I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:38 am by Sally-Anne |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
SA: I'm not a mind-reader, I do not know. Maybe she needs schooling in understanding what terrorism is.
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something. I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. SA: Well, we'll have to ask them because I don't get it. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base. SA: oh. Well, she would p*** me off by not understanding what terrorism is.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do. You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban. SA: Hang on, that's a bit premature, I don't know why she answered the way she did but I would like to know why. It annoys me that these interviews and things don't go futher into things....
Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:47 am by Sally-Anne |
manonfire
Manofire
|
Aldaron wrote:
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Aldaron wrote:
Well, I surely want the end of abortion clinics too so I agree with conservative Christians. But through terrorist attacks? No, that is wrong and I'm sure a great many cc's would agree
So explain why Palin refused to label them terrorists?
Well, you explain to me how it's different? The way I understand terrorism is to employ tactics of violence and instill terror to make a point about something.
I don't think it's different. But the Palinist-type Christians do. That's why she refuses to acknowledge the similarity (identicality?) - she doesn't want to piss off her voter base.
I disagree, I am a fundamentalist Christian and I don't support terrorism, the Taliban do.
You don't. However, this incident with Palin amply demonstrates that she (and her voter base) have a double-standard with regard to terrorism. They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism. The Taliban don't consider the bombing of a synagogue to be terrorism, either.
But both counts are terrorism. Hence my reason for thinking that a Christian theocracy would be no different from the Taliban.
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board? Wouldn't you say Declin is a lesser class than you also? You always talk down to him like you're above him. You continue to illustrate my point over and over again. You're always telling this grown man to go play somewhere. Why are you on a liberal board to begin with?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
|
met
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1500 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
how is a bridge gonna help him with that, ald?
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote:
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
First of all, your phrasing gives the impression you see a moral equivalence between Obama's relationship with Ayers and Palin's "relationship" with abortuary bombers. Obama didn't just have "some kind of contact" with Ayers, he worked closely with him for years, even knowing his past. The article you cite shows no hint of such a relationship between Palin and any abortuary bomber, nor does it show her expressing endorsement or acceptance of such, it merely shows her disputing the lable of "terrorist."
Second, the author of the article seems to be somewhat of a commentator as well as reporter. The author used the expression "refused to call people...," "Refused" carries an implication stronger than would seem to be merited by her actual quote. The author also opined that at first Palin "circumvented the question" -- not exactly objective reporting of facts.
Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote:
Palin refuses to label abortion clinic bombers "terrorists"
I was wondering when something like this would come out. Seems that Obama having some kind of contact with Ayers is a mortal sin, but she wouldn't go as far as to label those who would blow up buildings on US soil as "terrorists".
First of all, your phrasing gives the impression you see a moral equivalence between Obama's relationship with Ayers and Palin's "relationship" with abortuary bombers. Obama didn't just have "some kind of contact" with Ayers, he worked closely with him for years, even knowing his past. The article you cite shows no hint of such a relationship between Palin and any abortuary bomber, nor does it show her expressing endorsement or acceptance of such, it merely shows her disputing the lable of "terrorist."
Second, the author of the article seems to be somewhat of a commentator as well as reporter. The author used the expression "refused to call people...," "Refused" carries an implication stronger than would seem to be merited by her actual quote. The author also opined that at first Palin "circumvented the question" -- not exactly objective reporting of facts.
Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed.
Ah, Sally-Ann? *points*
This is what I was referring to...
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne. 
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Cajun wrote: Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne.
Sally-Ann? Yoohoo!
You were asking about which fundamentalist Christians that don't consider blowing up abortion clinics to be an act of terrorism?
Here's a couple of home-grown ones.
And you still wonder why the idea of a Christian theocracy terrifies me? Wayne and Cajun just need their beards and they fit right into the modern American Taliban wannabes...
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Cajun wrote: Well, Declin, here's another Christian nutter that agrees with Wayne.
And here's another one. ME! (I don't think declin's listening; he seems to be looking frantically for sally-anne for some reason.)
|
J2R
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 263 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
I would think my agreement with Wayne on the issue would go without saying, but what's the fun in that--
I agree!
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Aldaron wrote:
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
You are full of shit. I heard the interview.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron, I already have a beard... and it's long... and it's getting longer... I only need to trim my moustache really, really short... and I'll look like a western convert to Islam in a flash. 
Heck, I even have a grey, muslim men's tunic to boot along with a haji cap and red checkered head scarf. I only need the black braid/rope thing for the head covering, and I'm good to go. I also have a couple of Qurans and a summary of some of Buhkari's hadiths... which are very revered in most muslim circles.
There is no God but Yahweh, and Jesus Christ is His Son.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Aldaron wrote:
They don't consider the bombing of an abortion clinic to be an act of terrorism.
Hiram: Stop the lies, Declin.
Doesn't Australia have a atheist/communist chat board you can play on. Why don't you join Icemonkey on that socialist Canadian board?
Lies? What lies? It was your fucking heroine who refused to call them terrorists, not me.
I don't remember you being shy about posting on TalkBeliefs when it was run by an Australian.
I realise you lose your erectile function when someone disagrees with you, but what can I say? Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
You are full of shit. I heard the interview.
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Should be a piece of cake, right?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 12:11 am by stiggywiggy |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Ah...and that makes three.
You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Mind you, with Stiggy I suspect he's just being a pain in the prat and nitpicking definitions. I guess the Nuremberg Files were just lists of building addresses for people to blow up when empty, eh?
But that's cool. The more you claim that the murderers and bombers and arsonists of the anti-abortion movement aren't terrorists, the more you make my point: it's only terrorism if <insert favourite bad guy here> is doing it. The Taliban don't think blowing up American buildings is terrorism. "Palinist"-style Christians obviously don't think blowing up abortion-related buildings and people as terrorism.
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Now, I'm sure you'll be delighted and apalled to know that my own view aligns with Palin's, and in fact is probably even more (in your view) unhinged: I agree that bombing abortuaries is not necessarily "terrorism," because in many cases, the intent is not to "instill fear," but to destroy the means of killing the unborn. My main moral objection to the practice is that it is impossible to be sure that only property, not people, will be harmed. YO: ...I don't even know what to say at this point. Aldaron, what's property selling for in Australia these days?
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Oh, and Wayne has earned himself another FSTDT citation 
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Ah...and that makes three.
You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Mind you, with Stiggy I suspect he's just being a pain in the prat and nitpicking definitions. I guess the Nuremberg Files were just lists of building addresses for people to blow up when empty, eh?
But that's cool. The more you claim that the murderers and bombers and arsonists of the anti-abortion movement aren't terrorists, the more you make my point: it's only terrorism if <insert favourite bad guy here> is doing it. The Taliban don't think blowing up American buildings is terrorism. "Palinist"-style Christians obviously don't think blowing up abortion-related buildings and people as terrorism.
I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:00 am by stiggywiggy |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
HardyHeaven wrote:
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills
If she can't afford birth control pills, then she ought not be having sex.
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
From Dictionary.com
ter⋅ror⋅ism var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", " /ˈtɛr əˌrɪzəm/  [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ism var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", " (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: HardyHeaven wrote:
How did we make the jump that abortion clinic bombers only bomb abortion clinics at 3:00 in the morning, when no one is there?
Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills
If she can't afford birth control pills, then she ought not be having sex.
Whatever. That's not the point being discussed though, is it?
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
No wonder that dictionary.com page was so slow to load a minute ago. LOL. Stop posting what I'm about to post a few minutes from now, Aldaron!!
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:06 am by HardyHeaven |
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
You're making it too complicated. I'm only saying that terror is an EMOTION, which a building (if the target of the alleged terrorism) cannot feel.
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: I take it you too are unable to supply an actual OBJECT of terror for the abortion clinic bomber. Your failure to do so implies that we're now up to FOUR...., hear that sally-anne. FOUR! Declin joined us, albeit an implicit membership. Uh, sally-anne. That is who we're all talking too here, right?
Your mistake is in assuming that there has to be a specific target of terror generated by terrorist activities.
Tell me, who was the actual OBJECT of terror on 9/11? The whole of America? New York? Joe the Plumber?
Let's have a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "terrorism", shall we?
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
You're insisting that a terrorist meet definition #2, and completely ignoring definition #1.
Abortion clinic bombing is about the best example you could find of "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes", that political purpose being, of course, the elimination of abortion.
The only reason I'm mentioning Sally-Ann is that she simply couldn't grok why a Christian wouldn't think that abortion-clinic bombing was terrorism. She thought Palin was on the lunatic fringe with that, and couldn't believe it when I suggested that a lot of "Palinist" type Christians - fundie Christians - would agree with Palin.
So now whenever some Christian comes out and says abortion-clinic bombings aren't acts of terrorism, or that the perpetrators of such aren't terrorists, I simply draw her attention to the increasing number of people just on this board who take the same position.
You're making it too complicated. I'm only saying that terror is an EMOTION, which a building (if the target of the alleged terrorism) cannot feel.
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
I think that blowing up abortion clinics is indeed terrorism. It's an intent to cause fear, and an intent to sway public opinion through violent means. If a government condones blowing up abortion clinics, simply because some people don't agree with the laws that state that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion, women who desire to go to such clinics are going to be in fear.
I don't care about your analogy. Abortion is still legal in this country, at least it was the last time I checked. You're basically condoning the vigilante who doesn't like the fact that abortion is legal.
I don't like businesses that clean people's carpets. Those chemicals are harmful to the poor little dustmites who count on dirty carpets in which they live. If I started a rampage across America, bombing carpet cleaning businesses, would you not consider me to be a terrorist?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Oh, and by the way, did Palin write a book blurb for an abortion clinic bomber? Did she kick off her campaign for governor in the living room of Eric Rudolph? Did I miss something?
|
limana
Supercalafragalistic Limana
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1270 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Oh, and by the way, did Palin write a book blurb for an abortion clinic bomber? Did she kick off her campaign for governor in the living room of Eric Rudolph? Did I miss something?
Yes, as usual.
This thread is about the term "terrorism," not about your revered Sarah's company.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: I think that blowing up abortion clinics is indeed terrorism. It's an intent to cause fear, and an intent to sway public opinion through violent means. If a government condones blowing up abortion clinics, simply because some people don't agree with the laws that state that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion, women who desire to go to such clinics are going to be in fear.
I don't care about your analogy. Abortion is still legal in this country, at least it was the last time I checked. You're basically condoning the vigilante who doesn't like the fact that abortion is legal.
I don't like businesses that clean people's carpets. Those chemicals are harmful to the poor little dustmites who count on dirty carpets in which they live. If I started a rampage across America, bombing carpet cleaning businesses, would you not consider me to be a terrorist?
If you bombed carpet cleaning businesses at NIGHT, you mean? When no one was there to actually BE terrorized?
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
limana wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Oh, and by the way, did Palin write a book blurb for an abortion clinic bomber? Did she kick off her campaign for governor in the living room of Eric Rudolph? Did I miss something?
Yes, as usual.
This thread is about the term "terrorism," not about your revered Sarah's company.
Well limana, looks like ya done screwed up again. No wonder you like your new sig with my quote. Maybe you're subconciously admitting all the blunders of which you're aware, and are confessing them through me. I'm flattered and glad to oblige.
Anyway, check out the very post which spawned this very thread, fer Christ sake.
|
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: I think that blowing up abortion clinics is indeed terrorism. It's an intent to cause fear, and an intent to sway public opinion through violent means. If a government condones blowing up abortion clinics, simply because some people don't agree with the laws that state that it is perfectly legal to have an abortion, women who desire to go to such clinics are going to be in fear.
I don't care about your analogy. Abortion is still legal in this country, at least it was the last time I checked. You're basically condoning the vigilante who doesn't like the fact that abortion is legal.
I don't like businesses that clean people's carpets. Those chemicals are harmful to the poor little dustmites who count on dirty carpets in which they live. If I started a rampage across America, bombing carpet cleaning businesses, would you not consider me to be a terrorist?
If you bombed carpet cleaning businesses at NIGHT, you mean? When no one was there to actually BE terrorized?
And again I ask, what makes you think that terrorists only bomb abortion clinics at night? You introduced the idea. Can you support it?
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: And again I ask, what makes you think that terrorists only bomb abortion clinics at night? You introduced the idea. Can you support it?
Support what? That SOME abortion clinic bombers (most in fact) bomb abortion clinics at night? Yeah, you know I can. And those are the ones I'm talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote. I was only speaking of them. THEY are not terrorists. Empty buildings cannot experience terror.
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
I see. So you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children. You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:32 am by stiggywiggy |
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: And again I ask, what makes you think that terrorists only bomb abortion clinics at night? You introduced the idea. Can you support it?
Support what? That SOME abortion clinic bombers (most in fact) bomb abortion clinics at night? Yeah, you know I can. And those are the ones I'm talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote. I was only speaking of them. THEY are not terrorists. Empty buildings cannot experience terror.
If you admit that SOME or MOST bomb abortion clinics at night only, then you're also admitting that there are SOME also, who bomb abortion clinics during the day.
The fact SOME bomb during the day is certainly enough to instill fear in those who may consider entering a perfectly legal abortion clinic.
What is your point anyway?
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
I see. So you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children. You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
Are you now going so far as to endorse the bombing of abortion clinics, Stiggy?!? Surely not!!
By that logic, you should also endorse Hamas and AlQueida. After all, why should they sit around and wait for America to retract it's bad laws that endorse religious freedom, since they obviously do not respect the great Allah.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story.
You wont ever see me condoning or agreeing with terrorism, not from anyone and not for any reason, cause, or agenda. If that puts me out in the cold from my Christian brothers in here, so be it. I don't agree with terroristic violence against civilians like that. It is evil and so is abortion.
The end.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:19 am by Sally-Anne |
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: And again I ask, what makes you think that terrorists only bomb abortion clinics at night? You introduced the idea. Can you support it?
Support what? That SOME abortion clinic bombers (most in fact) bomb abortion clinics at night? Yeah, you know I can. And those are the ones I'm talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote. I was only speaking of them. THEY are not terrorists. Empty buildings cannot experience terror.
If you admit that SOME or MOST bomb abortion clinics at night only, then you're also admitting that there are SOME also, who bomb abortion clinics during the day.
What do you mean admit it? I never denied it or implied otherwise.
The fact SOME bomb during the day is certainly enough to instill fear in those who may consider entering a perfectly legal abortion clinic.
What is your point anyway?
That buildings cannot be terrorized. People can. That's why I typed this to declin:
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
That's what I asked declin. What would you say?
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
I see. So you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children. You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
Are you now going so far as to endorse the bombing of abortion clinics, Stiggy?!? Surely not!!
Where did I do that? Let's stick to the subject. Are you telling me that you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children? You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
By that logic, you should also endorse Hamas and AlQueida.
By what logic? Whose logic are you using? Maybe if you can tell me where I endorsed anything, you can then tell me what logic I used in doing so, and how that logic relates to Hamas and AlQaida blowing up human beings.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:08 am by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Yeah, and I'm rather shocked, I didn't imagine that any of them would be trying to paint it and justify it as anything else.
I vehemently disagree with them. That's all I have to say on the matter.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story.
You wont ever see me condoning or agreeing with terrorism, not from anyone and not for any reason, cause, or agenda. If that puts me out in the cold from my Christian brothers in here, so be it. I don't agree with terroristic violence against civilians like that. It is evil and so it abortion.
The end.
So let me ask you:
If I lived in nazi Germany in 1943, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: I think that blowing up abortion clinics is indeed terrorism.
So do I, and I'm shocked that all the Christian guys in here who I love and respect, Josh, X, Cajun, and Stiggy, are disagreeing.
I guess I'll just have to live with it.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
I'm against bombing abortion clinics. We need to arrest the abortion doctors who have made a lucrative profession from murdering unborn children. Then, try them for murder in a court of law.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Yeah, and I'm rather shocked, I didn't imagine that any of them would be trying to paint it and justify it as anything else.
I vehemently disagree with them. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Except I'm not among them, and I don't think Wayne, JR and Cajun are either. I even specified NO PEOPLE!! I also called the bombers dumbasses. That's an ENDORSEMENT?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:16 am by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Yeah, and I'm rather shocked, I didn't imagine that any of them would be trying to paint it and justify it as anything else.
I vehemently disagree with them. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Except I'm not among them, and I don't think Wayne, JR and Cajun are either. I even specified NO PEOPLE!! I also called the bombers dumbasses. That's an ENDORSEMENT?
Oh sorry, please accept my apologies, I thought you agreed. Ok, it's only Josh, X, and Cajun then.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Yeah, and I'm rather shocked, I didn't imagine that any of them would be trying to paint it and justify it as anything else.
I vehemently disagree with them. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Except I'm not among them, and I don't think Wayne, JR and Cajun are either. I even specified NO PEOPLE!! I also called the bombers dumbasses. That's an ENDORSEMENT?
Oh sorry, please accept my apologies, I thought you agreed. Ok, it's only Josh, X, and Cajun then.
No problem. But since you thought wrong about me. maybe you're thinking wrong about them too. Where do you see any of the three defending the bombing of people, much less endorsing it?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Yeah, and I'm rather shocked, I didn't imagine that any of them would be trying to paint it and justify it as anything else.
I vehemently disagree with them. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Except I'm not among them, and I don't think Wayne, JR and Cajun are either. I even specified NO PEOPLE!! I also called the bombers dumbasses. That's an ENDORSEMENT?
Oh sorry, please accept my apologies, I thought you agreed. Ok, it's only Josh, X, and Cajun then.
No problem. But since you thought wrong about me. maybe you're thinking wrong about them too. Where do you see any of the three defending the bombing of people, much less endorsing it?
I didn't say they were defending it or even endorsing it. But trying to argue that it isn't terrorism, is, in my opinion, justifying something. You may disagree with me, that's ok, but I regard it terrorism and I wont be dressing it up or justifying it as anything else.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:26 am by Sally-Anne |
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: And again I ask, what makes you think that terrorists only bomb abortion clinics at night? You introduced the idea. Can you support it?
Support what? That SOME abortion clinic bombers (most in fact) bomb abortion clinics at night? Yeah, you know I can. And those are the ones I'm talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote. I was only speaking of them. THEY are not terrorists. Empty buildings cannot experience terror.
If you admit that SOME or MOST bomb abortion clinics at night only, then you're also admitting that there are SOME also, who bomb abortion clinics during the day.
What do you mean admit it? I never denied it or implied otherwise.
If you want to mincemeat, allow me to re-phrase:
Stiggy, since you stated that SOME bombings occur at night, then you are also admitting that OTHER bombings must happen during the day, thereby leading to the potential that some who attend abortion clinic facilities MIGHT feel threatened by the potential of being terrorized.
The fact SOME bomb during the day is certainly enough to instill fear in those who may consider entering a perfectly legal abortion clinic.
What is your point anyway?
That buildings cannot be terrorized. People can. That's why I typed this to declin:
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
That's what I asked declin. What would you say?
Ahhh, I see where I made my fatal mistake. I thought you said that initially to me, not to Declin. At which time I answered you with my own little analogy about poor dustmites and evil carpet cleaning companies.
But since you're insisting that I provide a clearer answer, here it is:
HaHa! Gotcha!! lol. I already gave my answer. Deal with it.
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
I see. So you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children. You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
Are you now going so far as to endorse the bombing of abortion clinics, Stiggy?!? Surely not!!
Where did I do that? Let's stick to the subject. Are you telling me that you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children? You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
No, I'm not talking about your analogy. The subject is not gas chambers for jews or killing infants. The subject is whether blowing up an abortion clinic is a terrorist act. I say it is. I say that people who don't follow the laws of this society, who take matters into their own hands by use of violence are terrrorists.
By that logic, you should also endorse Hamas and AlQueida.
By what logic? Whose logic are you using? Maybe if you can tell me where I endorsed anything, you can then tell me what logic I used in doing so, and how that logic relates to Hamas and AlQaida blowing up human beings.
No thanks. This is the part of the evening where I look up, see a cord, and pull it, thereby signalling to the bus driver that this is my stop, and it's time for me to get off.
I don't enjoy discussing things with you, Stiggy. Too many twists and turns. Reminds me of a corn maze. I hate those.
I've been told that doing the same thing over and over, all the while expecting a different result, is one of the definitions of insanity. I choose to remain sane this evening. Life is too short (or long, depending on how you look at it  ) to waste a whole evening stiggying. **shrug**
Bus driver!!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: If you admit that SOME or MOST bomb abortion clinics at night only, then you're also admitting that there are SOME also, who bomb abortion clinics during the day.
What do you mean admit it? I never denied it or implied otherwise.
If you want to mincemeat, allow me to re-phrase:
Stiggy, since you stated that SOME bombings occur at night, then you are also admitting that OTHER bombings must happen during the day, thereby leading to the potential that some who attend abortion clinic facilities MIGHT feel threatened by the potential of being terrorized.
Right. They'd feel threatened by the bombers who are bombing PEOPLE. Why would they feel threatened by those who are bombing buildings at 3 am, unless they were planning on being in the bulding at that time?
The fact SOME bomb during the day is certainly enough to instill fear in those who may consider entering a perfectly legal abortion clinic.
What is your point anyway?
That buildings cannot be terrorized. People can. That's why I typed this to declin:
You're right. Elements of fear among those who are not the target might ensue. But if I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
That's what I asked declin. What would you say?
Ahhh, I see where I made my fatal mistake. I thought you said that initially to me, not to Declin. At which time I answered you with my own little analogy about poor dustmites and evil carpet cleaning companies.
But since you're insisting that I provide a clearer answer, here it is:
HaHa! Gotcha!! lol. I already gave my answer. Deal with it.
But you didn't, so let me ask you again:
If I lived in nazi Germany in 1938, and I saw that a new gas oven for Jews was being constructed, I might attempt to blow it up. My motive would be to save Jews, NOT to terrorize nazis, even though some nazis might become fearful by my act.
But I don't think I'd consider myself a terrorist in that hypothetical scenario. Would you?
A simple yes or no will do.
No, I'd just consider you to be a dumbass who had weird priorities. Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Would you consider someone who bombed a (hypothetical) legal infanticide clinic to be a terrorist?
I'd consider him to be a hero.
I'd consider him to be a vigilante terrorist who doesn't want to work through legal channels to change the laws he disagrees with.
I see. So you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children. You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
Are you now going so far as to endorse the bombing of abortion clinics, Stiggy?!? Surely not!!
Where did I do that? Let's stick to the subject. Are you telling me that you'd put your trust in the "legal channels" of a society that condoned killing infant children? You'd wait until those wise legal channels changed the laws, and tough shit for the babies who are killed during the years of legal wrangling?
No, I'm not talking about your analogy. The subject is not gas chambers for jews or killing infants. The subject is whether blowing up an abortion clinic is a terrorist act. I say it is.
Yeah. That's been established. And I say it isn't. Do you think that blowing up a legal and unoccupied infanticide clinic would be a terrorist act?
I say that people who don't follow the laws of this society, who take matters into their own hands by use of violence are terrrorists.
Fine. As long as you recognize that you now find northern abolitionists in the 1800's and French resistance fighters in 1943 occupied France to be terrorists.
I don't enjoy discussing things with you, Stiggy.
I wouldn't imagine so. And that being the case, you can always decline sending me posts or replies. That's what I do with people I don't want to discuss stuff with.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:51 am by stiggywiggy |
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: I wouldn't imagine so. And that being the case, you can always decline sending me posts or replies. That's what I do with people I don't want to discuss stuff with.
Sending you posts or replies? Snert. 
mmmm, ok then ....
I'll try to refrain from sending you any posts or replies in the future, hon.
**smooches**
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: I wouldn't imagine so. And that being the case, you can always decline sending me posts or replies. That's what I do with people I don't want to discuss stuff with.
Sending you posts or replies? Snert.
mmmm, ok then ....
I'll try to refrain from sending you any posts or replies in the future, hon.
**smooches**
Good. I like you. I'd hate to see you doing something you admit you don't like doing.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinics, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:15 am by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinincs, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Talk to yourself Stiggy.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote:
I've known at least one woman who was afraid to go to Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills because she was 'terrified' that some nut would bomb the clinic while she was in there.
Yep, I don't blame her.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: HardyHeaven wrote: Attacks on doctors who practice abortion and on family planning clinics in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s left several people dead and scores wounded.
That's terrorism. The subject here was blowing up buildings, not doctors.
So what? The French tried to blow up the Rainbow Warrior, human beings were never the target. But oops, they accidentally murdered a photographer in the process who was on it. But by your argument it wasn't really terrorism because they didn't mean to kill anyone. Whatever.
Again, I'd say that if we are to call person A a terrorists, at a minimum person A should be trying to instill TERROR in someone, somewhere.
Blowing up empty abortion clinics, empty infanticide clinics or empty gas-ovens meant for Jews simply does not qualify. Buildings cannot experience terror.
Talk to yourself Stiggy.
OK. Hey, stiggy, how 'bout me and you doin' some real stiggying together?
Let's start by discussing the apparent optical illusion you undergo, stiggy, when you read your reply in the box above. Notice how the two bold words "instill terror" look like they are inclined to the right.
That's weird, ain't it, stiggy? You think it's politically significant, stiggy?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:15 am by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote:
So tell me where she agrees that abortion-clinic bombers are terrorists.
Why should she? It seem to me that by definition a terrorist must have as a motive for his acts to: instill terror. At a minimum, that is.
Now this phrase demands an object. If an abortion clinic bomber blows up a building that he THINKS is absolutely vacant of humans (and chances are he'll probably be wrong, since after all, most abortion clinic bombers aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars), then who can his inteneded target be to terrorize? The building? No. Pregnant women who might have 3AM appointments?
It would be a stretch to say that the bombings are intended to terrorize prenant women who are considering having their unborn children killed. The only deterrent is to make sure you don't visit totally vacant abortion clinics at 3 AM, for example.
No, they might be dumbasses, but they are not terrorists. But somehow when Ayers planned to bomb the Pentagon, I doubt he was waiting for the largest building in the USA to be empty.
Ah...and that makes three.
You still watching, Sally? There's three on this board already who don't think blowing up people and buildings are acts of terrorism.
Mind you, with Stiggy I suspect he's just being a pain in the prat and nitpicking definitions. I guess the Nuremberg Files were just lists of building addresses for people to blow up when empty, eh?
But that's cool. The more you claim that the murderers and bombers and arsonists of the anti-abortion movement aren't terrorists, the more you make my point: it's only terrorism if <insert favourite bad guy here> is doing it. The Taliban don't think blowing up American buildings is terrorism. "Palinist"-style Christians obviously don't think blowing up abortion-related buildings and people as terrorism.
I agree with you Declin. And if some evil nutcase blew up an empty building in my neighbourhood I'd be terrified that there was some lunatic on the loose thinking they can blow up buildings any time they want.
And here's another thing Declin, I've heard terrorists justify their actions with the very same lines I'm seeing in here. They rarely admit to wanting to harm human life, they always claim that they try to minimise it by giving warnings. This is how the IRA operated. They never ever regarded themselves as terrorists because they always claimed that people were not the targets and that's why they gave warnings and chose the areas they bombed selectively.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:21 am by Sally-Anne |
HardyHeaven
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1808 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Let's try this. I'll just talk about Stiggy as though he isn't here. That way, I can discuss Stiggy's ideas, without having to have an actual rabbit-hole discussion with Stiggy himeslf.
Stiggy seems to be asserting that terrorists who bomb abortion clinics are mere revolutionaries who simply have not come into their time. The country in masse has yet to change the evil laws so as to prohibit abortion, so really, bombing an abortion clinic is simply a way to get the (wrong) laws changed.
That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong, and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist. They are, by definition, mere building- bombing revolutionaries. Sarah is good. Building-bombing revolutionaries are good. Abortion is evil. Killing jews is evil too, therefore, bombing abortion clinics is justified.
Further, since a revolutionary doesn't consider himself to be a terrorist, he isn't a terrorist. It doesn't matter what others think an abortion clinic bomber is ... it only matters that the bomber doesn't consider himself a terrorist, and since he doesn't, he isn't.
Oh, and bombing buildings that people frequent during the day, but which aren't occupied during the evening hours, simply isn't terrorism, by any definition. Even though it is only MOST (but not ALL) of the time that the building bombers bomb the buildings.
I think I've got it all straight now. I'm glad I got to have this conversation with myself. I feel all better now.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: Let's try this. I'll just talk about Stiggy as though he isn't here. That way, I can discuss Stiggy's ideas, without having to have an actual rabbit-hole discussion with Stiggy himeslf.
Stiggy seems to be asserting that terrorists who bomb abortion clinics are mere revolutionaries who simply have not come into their time.
Looks like your soliloquy isn't off to a good start. I never suggested anything of the sort, and I don't think that for a minute. Perhaps in these little talks with yourself, you can provide yourself with some documentation for your claims; like maybe a quote or something.
The country in masse has yet to change the evil laws so as to prohibit abortion, so really, bombing an abortion clinic is simply a way to get the (wrong) laws changed.
No. I've never bombed an abortion clinic and don't plan on doing so, but if I did have the balls to do it, it would only be to keep a particular building from being used to butcher unborn boys and girls. I don't think burning down buildings is a good way to get a law changed.
That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong,
No. Again, if you are to have soliloquies, maybe they should be better informed. I never said that bombing abortion clinics was OK with me. I said it was not a terrorist act, becase bulidings cannot be terrorized. They can't laugh or cry either.
and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist.
No, I specifically stated that killing people was an act of terrorism.
They are, by definition, mere building- bombing revolutionaries. Sarah is good. Building-bombing revolutionaries are good. Abortion is evil. Killing jews is evil too, therefore, bombing abortion clinics is justified.
So now that you combined the three, let me ask you this. (You can address the reply to yourself, if you wish to continue your weirdness). Would bombing an infanticide clinic or a nazi built gas oven for Jews be "justified?" Wait. I think you already answered that. You'd wait for "legal channels" to make things right.
Further, since a revolutionary doesn't consider himself to be a terrorist, he isn't a terrorist. It doesn't matter what others think an abortion clinic bomber is ... it only matters that the bomber doesn't consider himself a terrorist, and since he doesn't, he isn't.
I have no idea where you got that bit of nonsense. Is someone in this place going around claiming that A can be NOT A, simply by claiming it?
Oh, and bombing buildings that people frequent during the day, but which aren't occupied during the evening hours, simply isn't terrorism, by any definition.
No, it would be terrorism by any definition that would be able to explain how an empty building gets scared.
I don't think soliloquies are your thing, HH.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:34 am by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
HardyHeaven wrote: That Sarah fails to call those who bomb abortion clinics 'terrorists' is ok with Stiggy, since abortion is wrong, and since MOST of the time, the bombers are only bombing buildings, not people. If there are only people in the buildings occasionally, then the people who bomb the buildings aren't terrorist.
Yeah, just insert "IRA" next to the word "bombers" throughout that paragraph and you've got the introduction to their terrorist handbook on "how to be a non-terrorist in a worthy cause."
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 03:43 am by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork.
ETA: Now do you get why the idea of a US Christian theocracy scares the crap out of me??
The American Taliban
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:43 am by Aldaron |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork.
Yeah, I'm kinda sad too, I didn't expect this. And I kinda feel all on my lonesome now. I dunno if hiram will wade in, not from what he wrote anyway....good for him.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: I think my point's being nicely made, actually.
Thanks guys (Wayne, Cajun & Stiggy, specifically).
Yep, they did. I didn't want it to be true and thought you were stirring it Dec, but I have to admit that you were telling me the truth.
Looks like Coadie and Hiram are going to wade in with it, too. *sigh*
Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it, but the terrorist apologists were apparently just looking for their heroine Sarah to make excuses before they too came out of the woodwork.
Yeah, I'm kinda sad too, I didn't expect this. And I kinda feel all on my lonesome now. I dunno if hiram will wade in, not from what he wrote anyway....good for him.
It looks to me, from the "Terrorism" thread, that he already has...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building, I guess I'd start by terrorizing that Amityville House, since it seems to have started the terror. Is that it? You and declin believe in haunted houses? But I don't think that will help you here, since even the most staunch pro-lifer probably wouldn't think that abortion clinics are haunted; not even by the spirits of the millions of unborn babies who are slaughtered before having a chance to enter into yours and declin's and my world.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
And you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time telling us over and over that buildings can't experience emotion.
Gee, Stiggy. Thanks for that.
Now go back and read the definition of "terrorism" again. Here's a hint: it does not exclusively mean eliciting feelings of terror in a particular target.
It also means the use of violence to intimidate people to gain a political point. Bombs are violent. They are set off to intimidate people to make a political point. They are, by definition, acts of terrorism.
I know you want to split semantic hairs so the abortion-clinic bombing fanatics aren't quite as bad as, say, the IRA or Al-Qaeda, but you're fighting a losing battle. They set off bombs to make a political point. They have killed people as part of making their political point.
They are terrorists.
Stop being an apologist for them. It's unbecoming.
|
darwiniac
Coadie who has been banned
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 505 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Please alderoonie. The black Panteres will couple with the Weather Underground and you before they would go hear Billy Graham.
Richard dawkins now calls taking kids to church is child abuse and violence.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
darwiniac wrote: Please alderoonie. The black Panteres will couple with the Weather Underground and you before they would go hear Billy Graham.
Richard dawkins now calls taking kids to church is child abuse and violence.
Look, get back to me when your borderline literate personality comes online, will you? Until then, just keep heaping abuse on people over their spelling/grammar errors...it's kinda funny to watch you do it.
"Yu canit speel pruply. you must be idito"
*sigh* Never gets old...
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
And you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time telling us over and over that buildings can't experience emotion.
I know. It is astounding to me that I have to do so.
"
Gee, Stiggy. Thanks for that.
Think nothing of it, man.
Now go back and read the definition of "terrorism" again.
OK. Here's Wikipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.
So if one blows up a building where children are being killed and when no one is in the building, it obviously does not qualify as an act intended to create fear, since as we SHOULD know by now, buildings cannot expeerience fear. Is there an "ideological goal?" Is saving someone from sure death that will occur in a building an "ideological cause?" If so, then firemen are ideologists. Does it deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants? No: In fact, PRECISELY the opposite, if the bombings occur intentionally when no one is around.
Meanwhile Obama pals around with a guy who tried to actually kill PEOPLE and encouraged students to kill their parents. And even if buildings COULD experience emotion, you STILL don't have Palin palling around with bombers of empty buildings.
So you guys screwed this entire thread up.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:30 pm by stiggywiggy |
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
And you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time telling us over and over that buildings can't experience emotion.
I know. It is astounding to me that I have to do so.
"
Gee, Stiggy. Thanks for that.
Think nothing of it, man.
Now go back and read the definition of "terrorism" again.
OK. Here's Wikipedia:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.
So if one blows up a building where children are being killed and when no one is in the building, it obviously does not qualify as an act intended to create fear, since as we SHOULD know by now, buildings cannot expeerience fear. Is there an "ideological goal?" Is saving someone from sure death that will occur in a building an "ideological cause?" If so, then firemen are ideologists. Does it deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants? No: In fact, PRECISELY the opposite, if the bombings occur intentionally when no one is around.
Meanwhile Obama pals around with a guy who tried to actually kill PEOPLE and encouraged students to kill their parents. And even if buildings COULD experience emotion, you STILL don't have Palin palling around with bombers of empty buildings.
So you guys screwed this entire thread up.
I don't know about this one, Stiggy. This is a tricky one. At first glance it seems an obvious act of terror to bomb a building. But you said something that made me think. You likened blowing up a place where babies will be killed to ovens for jews. If someone bombed an area where jews were to be gassed, i wouldn't consider that an act of terror.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Stiggy, if it were anything other than abortion clinics, they would all agree with you. However, the means to mass slaughter unborn children via abortion clinics, are the liberals sacred cow. Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:34 pm by manonfire |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it. And I hope some old granny doesn't get terrified when some nutcase in her community decides they can take the law into their own hands and blow up buildings anytime they fancy.
Oh, that's right, people can't possibly be terrified at empty things being blown up. On that I'd agree, it's the nutcase bomber on the loose I'd be terrified of.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:05 pm by Sally-Anne |
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it. And I hope some old granny doesn't get terrified when some nutcase in her community decides they can take the law into their own hands and blow up buildings anytime they fancy.
Oh, that's right, people can't possibly be terrified at empty things being blown up. On that I'd agree, it's the nutcase bomber on the loose I'd be terrified of.
Stiggy struck a cord with me. All that aside, how would you feel hearing ovens were being blown up that were intended for jews? I would think that would make the bomber a hero. If the laws say that jews must be gassed and someone decides that's not right and goes against it and blows the entire thing up so that jews can't be gassed, would that strike you as a terrorist act? Idk, that analogy hit me hard.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building, I guess I'd start by terrorizing that Amityville House, since it seems to have started the terror. Is that it? You and declin believe in haunted houses? But I don't think that will help you here, since even the most staunch pro-lifer probably wouldn't think that abortion clinics are haunted; not even by the spirits of the millions of unborn babies who are slaughtered before having a chance to enter into yours and declin's and my world.
I'm as pro-life as it gets, but I don't believe that people can just go around employing vigilante tactics which have the potential to maime and kill other innocent people in the process just to make my point.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it. And I hope some old granny doesn't get terrified when some nutcase in her community decides they can take the law into their own hands and blow up buildings anytime they fancy.
Oh, that's right, people can't possibly be terrified at empty things being blown up. On that I'd agree, it's the nutcase bomber on the loose I'd be terrified of.
Stiggy struck a cord with me. All that aside, how would you feel hearing ovens were being blown up that were intended for jews? I would think that would make the bomber a hero. If the laws say that jews must be gassed and someone decides that's not right and goes against it and blows the entire thing up so that jews can't be gassed, would that strike you as a terrorist act? Idk, that analogy hit me hard.
There were no laws that said the Jews must be gassed, that's why they were done in secret. It's not legal to commit genocide. I do regard abortion as genocide and it's a screwed up world that allows that to be legal. But I don't believe I have any right to plant a bomb somewhere which could potentially maime and kill another innocent person who may be in the vicinity, and I don't believe I am in a position to send fear through the local community by taking it upon myself to bomb a building.
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it. And I hope some old granny doesn't get terrified when some nutcase in her community decides they can take the law into their own hands and blow up buildings anytime they fancy.
Oh, that's right, people can't possibly be terrified at empty things being blown up. On that I'd agree, it's the nutcase bomber on the loose I'd be terrified of.
Stiggy struck a cord with me. All that aside, how would you feel hearing ovens were being blown up that were intended for jews? I would think that would make the bomber a hero. If the laws say that jews must be gassed and someone decides that's not right and goes against it and blows the entire thing up so that jews can't be gassed, would that strike you as a terrorist act? Idk, that analogy hit me hard.
There were no laws that said the Jews must be gassed, that's why they were done in secret. It's not legal to commit genocide. I do regard abortion as genocide and it's a screwed up world that allows that to be legal. But I don't believe I have any right to plant a bomb somewhere which could potentially maime and kill another innocent person who may be in the vicinity, and I don't believe I am in a position to send fear through the local community by taking it upon myself to bomb a building.
Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it.
Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
But we're all making too big an issue out of a word. How do the deeds of the "building only" bomber differ from Ayers? Well, Ayers wanted to kill people; he boasted of it. He even advised kids to off their parents. He bombed a judge's home.
And has Palin had any association that anyone knows of with abortion clinic bombers? Or does anyone still remember the subject of the post that started this thread?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 07:36 pm by stiggywiggy |
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it.
Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
But we're all making too big an issue out of a word. How do the deeds of the "building only" bomber differ from Ayers? Well, Ayers wanted to kill people; he boasted of it. He even advised kids to off their parents. He bombed a judge's home.
And has Palin had any association that anyone knows of with abortion clinic bombers? Or does anyone still remember the subject of the post that started this thread?
No i don't remember and don't care. I only got into it because of something you said. The topic of interest for me was is it a terrorits act to bomb a building in which people will be killed when they shouldn't be.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it.
Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
But we're all making too big an issue out of a word. How do the deeds of the "building only" bomber differ from Ayers? Well, Ayers wanted to kill people; he boasted of it. He even advised kids to off their parents. He bombed a judge's home.
And has Palin had any association that anyone knows of with abortion clinic bombers? Or does anyone still remember the subject of the post that started this thread?
No i don't remember and don't care.
Sorry, I was talking to sally-anne. Give Nunny and Simmy a swipe for me and we'll both be OK. Now if anyone ever bombed a Pet Smart on a Saturday "adopt-a-pet" afternoon, I'd consider him a terrorist of the highest level.
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it.
Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
But we're all making too big an issue out of a word. How do the deeds of the "building only" bomber differ from Ayers? Well, Ayers wanted to kill people; he boasted of it. He even advised kids to off their parents. He bombed a judge's home.
And has Palin had any association that anyone knows of with abortion clinic bombers? Or does anyone still remember the subject of the post that started this thread?
No i don't remember and don't care.
Sorry, I was talking to sally-anne. Give Nunny and Simmy a swipe for me and we'll both be OK. Now if anyone ever bombed a Pet Smart on a Saturday "adopt-a-pet" afternoon, I'd consider him a terrorist of the highest level.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Well, like many of Stiggy's "what-if's" they're not rooted in reality so the question is irrelevant.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Sorry, Sal. I wish I was wrong about it
So do I. Maybe it's a huge cultural gulf or something? What do you think?
I have no idea, to be honest. Except that it's the obsessive mindset that is at work with the likes of the Taliban, which was my original point: "If you're not with me you're against me". Combine that with the fear that seems to pervade these people and it's not really surprising they cling on to anything that gives them comfort and excuse all manner of evils committed in its name.
I wish I could understand it, because you seem to deem it Christian but I am a Christian and yet I don't think like an American. I'm not taking sides either, because I acknowledge that I could well be wrong, but I have a different life experience, and come from a different culture so we wont always see eye to eye on absolutely everything.
And another thing, do you think terrorism is a new concept in America, p'haps?
You and declin are spending a lot of time tut-tutting over the fact that a large number of people in this place apparently recognize that buildings cannot experience emotion.
If it were that easy and I COULD evoke terror from a building,
Yeah, lets hope some innocent person isn't walking past an abortion clinic when they decide to bomb it.
Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
But we're all making too big an issue out of a word. How do the deeds of the "building only" bomber differ from Ayers? Well, Ayers wanted to kill people; he boasted of it. He even advised kids to off their parents. He bombed a judge's home.
And has Palin had any association that anyone knows of with abortion clinic bombers? Or does anyone still remember the subject of the post that started this thread?
I'm not interested in any of Palins associations. I regard the bombing of abortion clinics as terrorism. She disagrees. Cest la vie.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
Not even if he should accidentally kill an innocent person in his bombing? You would still regard him as a "dumbass" not accountable under the law for his terrorist action? Oh right, he's not a terrorist so he can't be held accountable according to you because he just accidentally killed someone. He's not a terrorist, he's just a silly man according to you.
Gee, lets hope one of your loved ones never gets caught up in the bungled bombing of the "dumbass" you're describing here. You'll have to be reminded that the end justified the means even if it meant your loved one died as a result of someone elses "dumbass" actions.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:09 pm by Sally-Anne |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Okay, let's say I think Walmart is evil. It rips off its workers. It mistreats them. Its anti-competitive practices destroy the livelihoods of small business owners. It sources products from the fruits of child slave labour.
Should I be called a terrorist for going out and blowing up Walmarts at 3 AM? Abso-fucking-lutely!
There are two important points here:
1) Stiggy seems to be under the impression that abortion clinic bombers are vewy vewy careful not to hurt anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google "Nuremberg Files" to see just how "careful" they are.
2) You can take Stiggy's analogy any way you wish, and claim that abortion clinics are a new Holocaust which must be stopped at all costs. But you then open the door for anyone to make similar claims about anything. "I'm just fighting the good fight against the evil oppressors!" becomes the catchcry, and the word "terrorist" becomes precisely what Stiggy and his ilk would like it to be: a label applied to Muslims that blow up buildings.
This entire debate is precisely what I said would happen, right at the outset. fundie Christians agree with Sarah Palin. They don't think blowing up abortion clinics is terrorism, because they think abortion clinics are a Bad Thing.
The Taliban don't think blowing up Americans is terrorism, because America is a Bad Thing.
It's all 100% point-of-view dependent, and exactly why I continue to maintain that Christian fundamentalist theocracy is every bit as scary as Muslim fundamentalist theocracy: NorrinRadd, Cajun, Josh, Hiram, Coadie continue to demonstrate this.
Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions. He's even tried to deflect back onto me by starting a new thread about medical definitions.
Oh, and I've ragged on his beloved Sarah, so he's getting all manly...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: It's all 100% point-of-view dependent, and exactly why I continue to maintain that Christian fundamentalist theocracy is every bit as scary as Muslim fundamentalist theocracy: NorrinRadd, Cajun, Josh, Hiram, Coadie continue to demonstrate this.
Well, they all agree up to a point, but you put one of their loved ones who accidentally gets killed walking past a bungled bombing of one of their "dumbasses" and I think you'll find that their position changes pretty swiftly. No doubt they'd be baying for the blood of the "dumbass."
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
I can see it now ----> "He was just a dumbass your Honour, and bombed the place because he is a dumbass, he is not responsible for the death of the innocent person who happened to be walking past."
Oh well, in that case, let the dumbass go free, he's not guilty of anything except being a dumbass.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:23 pm by Sally-Anne |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Here's the website for some of Stiggy's "non-terrorists".
Army of God
Take note: the images on the page didn't come up on my browser, so I have no idea what they are. Be aware they could well be graphic images of aborted foetuses (oh, I'm sorry Stiggy....did I use a medical term again?) for all I know.
And some news on these non-terrorists:
Army of God involvement in terrorist activities
Or a book review and article on anti-abortion violence:
Targets of Hatred
I especially liked the paragraph:
No other area of medicine in the United States forces a doctor to hire full-time security, wear bullet-proof vests, and worry that they may not be alive for their families tomorrow. The tactics of intimidation include sabotage, stalking, arson, bombings, murder, chemical attacks, and more - all over the course of the last two decades.
Oh, but, noooooo! It's not terrorism!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Stiggy, if it were anything other than abortion clinics, they would all agree with you.
Do you have brain damage or something? "If it were anything other than abortion clinics" I'd think it wasn't terrorism?
You'd better amend that to "anything other than abortion clinics or Walmarts", because I've used that as an example of terrorism, too. What else do you magically think I believe it isn't terrorism to blow up? Pet stores? Shoe shops? The Oklahoma City Federal Building?
In fact, your comment would be more applicable to yourself: if it was anything other than an abortion clinic, you would agree that it was terrorism.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Stiggy, if it were anything other than abortion clinics, they would all agree with you.
No, I wouldn't, it's you lot who view terrorism selectively, not me.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:25 pm by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Stiggy, if it were anything other than abortion clinics, they would all agree with you.
Do you have brain damage or something? "If it were anything other than abortion clinics" I'd think it wasn't terrorism?
You'd better amend that to "anything other than abortion clinics or Walmarts", because I've used that as an example of terrorism, too. What else do you magically think I believe it isn't terrorism to blow up? Pet stores? Shoe shops? The Oklahoma City Federal Building?
In fact, your comment would be more applicable to yourself: if it was anything other than an abortion clinic, you would agree that it was terrorism.
He's trying to make the point that bombing abortion clinics is a worthy cause. Yeah, I've heard the EXACT same reasonings from the IRA so they don't regard themselves as terrorists either and their "victims" were never supposed to be there because they gave warnings so they think that by technicality they can't be regarded as terrorists or held accountable under the law for terrorism even when they murder.
And then there's al-Qaeda who will have the same reasonings for 9/11 except in that one they did intend to kill and are even proud of it.
But they all use the same reasonings which is "we're not terrorists, we're all in worthy causes and if anyone gets caught up in it, tough luck."
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:40 pm by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: In fact, your comment would be more applicable to yourself: if it was anything other than an abortion clinic, you would agree that it was terrorism.
I dunno, he used the same selective process when he challenged me about the IRA, but he accuses others of it, go figure.
It's a bit like slamming Hype's wife and Buttons daughter, but calling Loryn out for having a go about coadies kids. You know, hypocritical.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:48 pm by Sally-Anne |
darwiniac
Coadie who has been banned
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 505 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
A lot of bodies carried out of these clinics daily. Who is the terrorist? 45 million dead.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
darwiniac wrote: A lot of bodies carried out of these clinics daily. Who is the terrorist? 45 million dead.
That's exactly the argument I'd agree with. That is legal terrorism. The real terrorism is committed against the unborn and the law condones it.
Sick.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
Not even if he should accidentally kill an innocent person in his bombing? You would still regard him as a "dumbass" not accountable under the law for his terrorist action?
Not accountable under the law if he kills someone? Do me a favor, find your phantom strawman opponent making such stupid claims and take it up with him.
Oh right, he's not a terrorist so he can't be held accountable according to....
So YOU introduce the concept of accountability, and just decide to willy-nilly attribute something about it to me, even though I never mentioned it? You're absurd. Do me a favor and write private pms to whatever dipshit you have me confused with, who thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for blowing up buildings and killing people.
But leave me out of it.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:17 pm by stiggywiggy |
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Okay, let's say I think Walmart is evil. It rips off its workers. It mistreats them. Its anti-competitive practices destroy the livelihoods of small business owners. It sources products from the fruits of child slave labour.
Should I be called a terrorist for going out and blowing up Walmarts at 3 AM? Abso-fucking-lutely!
There are two important points here:
1) Stiggy seems to be under the impression that abortion clinic bombers are vewy vewy careful not to hurt anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google "Nuremberg Files" to see just how "careful" they are.
2) You can take Stiggy's analogy any way you wish, and claim that abortion clinics are a new Holocaust which must be stopped at all costs. But you then open the door for anyone to make similar claims about anything. "I'm just fighting the good fight against the evil oppressors!" becomes the catchcry, and the word "terrorist" becomes precisely what Stiggy and his ilk would like it to be: a label applied to Muslims that blow up buildings.
This entire debate is precisely what I said would happen, right at the outset. fundie Christians agree with Sarah Palin. They don't think blowing up abortion clinics is terrorism, because they think abortion clinics are a Bad Thing.
The Taliban don't think blowing up Americans is terrorism, because America is a Bad Thing.
It's all 100% point-of-view dependent, and exactly why I continue to maintain that Christian fundamentalist theocracy is every bit as scary as Muslim fundamentalist theocracy: NorrinRadd, Cajun, Josh, Hiram, Coadie continue to demonstrate this.
Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions. He's even tried to deflect back onto me by starting a new thread about medical definitions.
Oh, and I've ragged on his beloved Sarah, so he's getting all manly...
EXCELLENT ONTOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHICAL TRUSIM: "STIGGY IS JUST BEING STIGGY." Thanks for allowing me to be a poster child for ontological truth all these months. But I'd say it's time someone else can take the mantle for this universal philosophical truth, and I'm here to inaugurate it right now:
Declin, when you type stuff, "YOU'RE JUST DECLIN BEING DECLIN." Should we call it declining when you write? No, that would be too much hilarity for one post.
Anyway, no one seems to be able to answer my question as to whether the bombers of empty gas oven in nazi Gernmany could only be done by terrorists. Wonder why. And no one seems to be able to tell me if bombers of infanticides WOULD be terrorists if infanitide were legal. Sally says she can't answer that question BECAUSE infanticide isn't legal, which is weird. She suddenly can't deal in hypotheticals.
Meanwhile, everyone also seems silent on the questionable connection of this subject matter to Obama and Ayers as expressed in your post that spawned all these replies. Even if we do consider abortion clinic bombers the equivalent of AlQaida, you still have this problem:
Palin never blurbed a book for an abortion clinic bomber.
Palin never served on a board with an abortion clinic bomber.
Palin never used an abortion clinic bomber's home to inaugutae her political career.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
ILast edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:38 pm by stiggywiggy |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:44 pm by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
Not even if he should accidentally kill an innocent person in his bombing? You would still regard him as a "dumbass" not accountable under the law for his terrorist action?
Not accountable under the law if he kills someone? Do me a favor, find your phantom strawman opponent making such stupid claims and take it up with him.
Oh right, he's not a terrorist so he can't be held accountable according to....
So YOU introduce the concept of accountability, and just decide to willy-nilly attribute something about it to me, even though I never mentioned it? You're absurd. Do me a favor and write private pms to whatever dipshit you have me confused with, who thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for blowing up buildings and killing people.
But leave me out of it.
You're the one calling abortion clinic bombers dumbasses who don't engage in terrorism.
So what would they be tried for if someone got killed in one of their bombings?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:49 pm by Sally-Anne |
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter. Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:46 am by Sally-Anne |
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter.
Yes. That is textbook manslaughter.
Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Drunken drivers who don't MEAN to kill people are also not terrorists, but that hradly means we have nothing to fear from them.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:07 am by stiggywiggy |
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter. Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:11 am by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Drunken drivers who don't MEAN to kill people are also not terrorists, but that hradly means we have nothing to fear from them.
Some who have been convicted and released over and over again are akin to terrorists.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Oh, you let terrorists walk away? Yeah, that sounds about right. Osama is still on the loose.
Funny thing America, I was flying through on my way to Canada and the customs guy gave me the ninth degree on being in America and why I was there.
Me: Um, I'm not here sir, I'm flying through to Canada and there are no direct flights.
He: Well, people come through and don't leave.
Me: I don't want to be here, I have no choice because there is no direct flight from NZ.
He: Well, what do you intend to do in America.
Me: Um, nothing, catch my onward plane out of it?
He: Well you know, people come in and don't leave and we have security.
Sally-Anne's secret thoughts: "Um, you let terrorists fly planes into buildings, I don't exactly feel safe in your country, but you grill me over my freedom to come and go but let terrorists get away?"
Blimey. :::rolly eye::::
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:27 am by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:25 am by Sally-Anne |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
Yes, because they still had freedom of religion. They weren't stopped from worshipping whatever they wanted and being part of the dissenting religions of Christianity and they were very outspoken about it. No prob. But they still had to pay duties for things like being buried. They didn't want to pay.
It was about money not freedom of religion. You could be any religion you liked but you still had to pay towards the upkeep of the parish which provided certain services to the community.
You Americans have been brainwashed into believing that people fled because they were being religiously oppressed, in some romaticised notion of "freedom," but that wasn't the case at all.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:48 am by Sally-Anne |
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
Yes, because they still had freedom of religion. They weren't stopped from worshipping whatever they wanted and being part of the dissenting religions of Christianity and they were very outspoken about it. No prob. But they still had to pay duties for things like being buried. They didn't want to pay.
It was about money not freedom of religion. You could be any religion you liked but you still had to pay towards the parish which provided certain services to the community.
You Americans have been brainwashed into believing that people fled because they were being religiously oppressed, and not "free" in some romaticised notion of the term, but that wasn't the case at all.
Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State hiram, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago and I care about America. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are telling me that it already is happening.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:03 am by Sally-Anne |
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
Well, not entirely. I'm talking about secularism more than socialism, but it's true that wanting tons and tons of rights for every man and his dog (literally) is something that is aligned with the left.
What has happened in Britain, is that they have disregarded the Christianity in favour of secularism. When the settlers left England for what they regarded as religious freedom, not being tied to a church and state, England set about changing its laws to accomodate those who would not and did not want to leave for the Americas. They did that by undermining the authority of the Bible and pointing out that the Church was corrupt and people should be free to not to have to pay it. The scientists jumped on the bandwagon and that's where Darwin and his crowd come in even further to undermine the authority of both the Bible and God. They made strong arguments for why we shouldn't have church and state but they could only do that by attacking the Bible to undermine the authority of the Church.
So they did succeed in separating Church and State by making it more secular and believing more and more in science and stuff like that. Thinking that God belonged to a by-gone and antiquated Britain and that they were now modern with the "sciences." These men were all Christians, and even the prominent voices in the Church were believing that science was to be believed over the Bible.
There were many factors that converged to make what we see today in Britain. It was political, and yes, in a sense, the Christians loyal to Crown and Country tended to be right-wing. But they too gave way to secularism. It's very sad. What you see in Britain today was brought about by Christians, and they're doing it again by thinking that Islam is no threat because our superior Christian tolerance for appeasement, accommodation, and tolerance will keep us safe as they think it did when they separated Church and State. But they are deceived hiram. Once Islam gets a foothold, they can kiss goodbye to Western democracy, but they are still burying their heads in the sand.
They are asleep, hiram.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:25 am by Sally-Anne |
manonfire
Manofire
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
Well, not entirely. I'm talking about secularism more than socialism, but it's true that wanting tons and tons of rights for every man and his dog (literally) is something that is aligned with the left.
What has happened in Britain, is that they have disregarded the Christianity in favour of secularism. When the settlers left England for what they regarded as religious freedom, not being tied to a church and state, England set about changing its laws to accomodate those who would not and did not want to leave for the Americas. They did that by undermining the authority of the Bible and pointing out that the Church was corrupt and people should be free to not to have to pay it. The scientists jumped on the bandwagon and that's where Darwin and his crowd come in even further to undermine the authority of both the Bible and God. They made strong arguments for why we shouldn't have church and state but they could only do that by attacking the Bible to undermine the authority of the Church.
So they did succeed in separating Church and State by making it more secular and believing more and more in science and stuff like that. Thinking that God belonged to a by-gone and antiquated Britain and that they were now modern with the "sciences." These men were all Christians, and even the prominent voices in the Church were believing that science was to be believed over the Bible.
There were many factors that converged to make what we see today in Britain. It was political, and yes, in a sense, the Christians loyal to Crown and Country tended to be right-wing. But they too gave way to secularism. It's very sad. What you see in Britain today was brought about by Christians, and they're doing it again by thinking that Islam is no threat because our superior Christian tolerance for appeasement, accommodation, and tolerance will keep us safe. But they are deceived hiram. Once Islam gets a foothold, they can kiss goodbye to Western democracy, but they are still burying their heads in the sand.
They are asleep, hiram.
Hiram: Yes, secular humanism has taken a strong hold here in America. Secular humanism and the radical left go hand and hand. Where you see one, you see the other. Political correctness is one of the tools used to keep the silent majority, silent. Our public schools and intitutions of higher learning have been infiltrated with secular humanists teachers brainwashing our chidren with Marxist ideology.
I sincerely believe that at this point, a revolution will be the only hope of taking our country back from the evil known as secular humanism.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:38 am by manonfire |
limana
Supercalafragalistic Limana
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1270 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter.
Yes. That is textbook manslaughter.
Uhh, no. That would be depraved-heart murder.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Yes, the British "freedom of religion" was so splendid that it caused my ancestors to come to America as indentured servants just to get away from it.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Well, like many of Stiggy's "what-if's" they're not rooted in reality so the question is irrelevant.
Sorry, but the "reality" is that many who have engaged in bombing of abortuaries have the mindset Stiggy analogized.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: ...
I don't know about this one, Stiggy. This is a tricky one. At first glance it seems an obvious act of terror to bomb a building. But you said something that made me think. You likened blowing up a place where babies will be killed to ovens for jews. If someone bombed an area where jews were to be gassed, i wouldn't consider that an act of terror.
I was surprised everyone else just seemed to ignore that analogy. To me, and I suspect to those who agreed with my post, it's obvious.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
Agreed.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
For me it is. I believe that bombing abortion clinics is an act of terrorism. Ok, a building can't feel terror, but I'm sure the people in the surrounding area feel terrified when they wake up and find their neighbourhood resembles Beiruit because some nutcase is on the loose blowing up buildings.
And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:24 pm by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Cajun wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
Agreed.
I don't and I wont ever agree. I lived in London surrounded by IRA terrorism and every line that has been used in here to argue against what is terrorism was used by them. Different cause, same justification.
I don't agree with you lot and I never will, because if I do then I will have justified the IRA's arguments and I wont ever do that. I opposed them but if I start using double standards then I'd have to agree with the IRA because they used the same reasonings that you lot are. It aint ever gonna happen.
Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:20 pm by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Cajun wrote: There is no God but Yahweh, and Jesus Christ is His Son.
Hallelujah to that! That is the best line in this entire thread.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
For me it is. I believe that bombing abortion clinics is an act of terrorism. Ok, a building can't feel terror, but I'm sure the people in the surrounding area feel terrified when they wake up and find their neighbourhood resembles Beiruit because some nutcase is on the loose blowing up buildings.
And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
You've been one of my best friends here, so I'm sorry to see that we're probably not going to be able to find agreement on this. I consider "intent" to be relevant when assigning the label. In the bombing of abortuaries, I would reserve the "terrorist" label for those who perform the act with the *intent* causing terror (presumably as a way of changing behavior), not for those who only seek to destroy the means of pre-birth infanticide.
Sally-Anne also wrote:
I don't and I wont ever agree. I lived in London surrounded by IRA terrorism and every line that has been used in here to argue against what is terrorism was used by them. Different cause, same justification.
I don't agree with you lot and I never will, because if I do then I will have justified the IRA's arguments and I wont ever do that. I opposed them but if I start using double standards then I'd have to agree with the IRA because they used the same reasonings that you lot are. It aint ever gonna happen.
Well, I'm sorry you had those experiences, and that they have so colored your views. I have to say I'm kind of puzzled as to how the IRA would liken their activities to the destruction of one of the Holocaust gas chambers, but then I don't recall the active days of the IRA that well.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: You've been one of my best friends here, so I'm sorry to see that we're probably not going to be able to find agreement on this.
Tha's ok. I feel the same way about you. It wont be posible to always see eye to eye on everything but it doesn't change how I feel about you.
Me still loves you.
|
J2R
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Wed Aug 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 263 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
People sometimes burn down churches and I don't even give it a second thought. Doesn't terrorize me a bit.
I lived in Colorado Springs when one Sunday morning a gunman shot up New Life Church (Ted Haggard's church before it was discovered he was sleeping with a male prostitute). I had only been to a couple of Sunday services (I didn't like them that much) but I went to a college-age service there on Friday nights sometimes. The shooting didn't bother me a bit (besides being sad for the victims' families) and I didn't feel even remotely terrorized. I went to the Friday night services just as I had before the shooting. Violence/destruction and terrorism simply aren't the same thing.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
J2R wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
People sometimes burn down churches and I don't even give it a second thought. Doesn't terrorize me a bit.
I lived in Colorado Springs when one Sunday morning a gunman shot up New Life Church (Ted Haggard's church before it was discovered he was sleeping with a male prostitute). I had only been to a couple of Sunday services (I didn't like them that much) but I went to a college-age service there on Friday nights sometimes. The shooting didn't bother me a bit (besides being sad for the victims' families) and I didn't feel even remotely terrorized. I went to the Friday night services just as I had before the shooting. Violence/destruction and terrorism simply aren't the same thing.
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: J2R wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
People sometimes burn down churches and I don't even give it a second thought. Doesn't terrorize me a bit.
I lived in Colorado Springs when one Sunday morning a gunman shot up New Life Church (Ted Haggard's church before it was discovered he was sleeping with a male prostitute). I had only been to a couple of Sunday services (I didn't like them that much) but I went to a college-age service there on Friday nights sometimes. The shooting didn't bother me a bit (besides being sad for the victims' families) and I didn't feel even remotely terrorized. I went to the Friday night services just as I had before the shooting. Violence/destruction and terrorism simply aren't the same thing.
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
Yes, I have to agree with Declin.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
J2R wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
People sometimes burn down churches and I don't even give it a second thought. Doesn't terrorize me a bit.
Arson is something that is more common than blowing up buildings, and no, arson doesn't terrorise me, but having lived around bomb blasts and the threat of them, they are terrifying.
Last edited on Thu Oct 30th, 2008 01:58 am by Sally-Anne |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
J2R wrote: New Life Church (Ted Haggard's church before it was discovered he was sleeping with a male prostitute).
WTH?
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Arson is something that is more common than blowing up buildings, and no, arson doesn't terrorise me, but having lived around bomb blasts and the threat of them, they are terrifying. YO: Where was this? The UK? NZ??
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
..... Attachment: whoosh.bmp (Downloaded 30 times)
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Merlin wrote: .....
Maybe you can look through one of Palin's ears and see Russia out the other one?
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: ...
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
I'm impressed with your Pylean aura-reading skills that allow you to state so certainly and unambiguously the intentions of the abortuary bombers.
Strange, though, that it is usually the atheists that bark out the, "Oh, so you think you can read our minds?" line at Christians who allude to Scripture that suggests that unbelievers are "suppressing" their own knowledge of the truth that God exists.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote: ...
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
I'm impressed with your Pylean aura-reading skills that allow you to state so certainly and unambiguously the intentions of the abortuary bombers.
Strange, though, that it is usually the atheists that bark out the, "Oh, so you think you can read our minds?" line at Christians who allude to Scripture that suggests that unbelievers are "suppressing" their own knowledge of the truth that God exists.
So you don't think there is a pro-life agenda to outlaw abortion?
Wow...news to me.
ETA: Besides, I'm not Pylean...I don't need them to sing.
Last edited on Thu Oct 30th, 2008 07:48 am by Aldaron |
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Torquemada wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Arson is something that is more common than blowing up buildings, and no, arson doesn't terrorise me, but having lived around bomb blasts and the threat of them, they are terrifying. YO: Where was this? The UK? NZ??
London when the IRA were active.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote: ...
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
I'm impressed with your Pylean aura-reading skills that allow you to state so certainly and unambiguously the intentions of the abortuary bombers.
Strange, though, that it is usually the atheists that bark out the, "Oh, so you think you can read our minds?" line at Christians who allude to Scripture that suggests that unbelievers are "suppressing" their own knowledge of the truth that God exists.
So you don't think there is a pro-life agenda to outlaw abortion?
Wow...news to me.
ETA: Besides, I'm not Pylean...I don't need them to sing.
There's a pro-choice agenda for abortion, that's for sure, and the holocaust in killed unborns is their version of "terrorism." Terrorism of the unborn, the defenseless one who is not even protected by law. Pro-choice really means pro-kill, otherwise why the need to keep killing unborns to further that agenda? It's a choice to kill and that's all it is, why pretend it's even a "choice."
Abortion is the cost for furthering the pro-choice agenda, paid on blood, and at nearly 50million killings, the numbers that have been hurt in abortion clinic bombings pales in comparison. And yes, I still think bombing abortion clinics is terrorism, and so is abortion only its legal which is sick.
Last edited on Thu Oct 30th, 2008 11:57 am by Sally-Anne |
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote: ...
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
I'm impressed with your Pylean aura-reading skills that allow you to state so certainly and unambiguously the intentions of the abortuary bombers.
Strange, though, that it is usually the atheists that bark out the, "Oh, so you think you can read our minds?" line at Christians who allude to Scripture that suggests that unbelievers are "suppressing" their own knowledge of the truth that God exists.
So you don't think there is a pro-life agenda to outlaw abortion?
Wow...news to me.
ETA: Besides, I'm not Pylean...I don't need them to sing.
There's a pro-choice agenda for abortion, that's for sure, and the holocaust in killed unborns is their version of "terrorism." Terrorism of the unborn, the defenseless one who is not even protected by law. Pro-choice really means pro-kill, otherwise why the need to keep killing unborns to further that agenda? It's a choice to kill and that's all it is, why pretend it's even a "choice."
Abortion is the cost for furthering the pro-choice agenda, paid on blood, and at nearly 50million killings, the numbers that have been hurt in abortion clinic bombings pales in comparison. And yes, I still think bombing abortion clinics is terrorism, and so is abortion only its legal which is sick.
You people are "pro-kill" as well. You oppose stem-cell research that could save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives. You oppose the destruction of a clump of two-dozen undifferentiated cells in order to further your agenda of allowing victims of Huntingtons Disease, Parkinsons Disease, etc to die.
The incurability of these diseases is the cost for furthering the pro-life agenda, paid in blood, in innumerable and probably incalculable numbers.
Wow? Geez, it's so easy to make up shit about what your opponents think and feel and want.
I should have tried it years ago...
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Aldaron wrote: ...
Precisely. Terrorism has to have a goal - that is, change of government or government policy by the means of intimidation, violence and the fear of violence.
Which is precisely what the abortion clinic bombers are trying to do...
I'm impressed with your Pylean aura-reading skills that allow you to state so certainly and unambiguously the intentions of the abortuary bombers.
Strange, though, that it is usually the atheists that bark out the, "Oh, so you think you can read our minds?" line at Christians who allude to Scripture that suggests that unbelievers are "suppressing" their own knowledge of the truth that God exists.
So you don't think there is a pro-life agenda to outlaw abortion?
Wow...news to me.
ETA: Besides, I'm not Pylean...I don't need them to sing.
There's a pro-choice agenda for abortion, that's for sure, and the holocaust in killed unborns is their version of "terrorism." Terrorism of the unborn, the defenseless one who is not even protected by law. Pro-choice really means pro-kill, otherwise why the need to keep killing unborns to further that agenda? It's a choice to kill and that's all it is, why pretend it's even a "choice."
Abortion is the cost for furthering the pro-choice agenda, paid on blood, and at nearly 50million killings, the numbers that have been hurt in abortion clinic bombings pales in comparison. And yes, I still think bombing abortion clinics is terrorism, and so is abortion only its legal which is sick.
You people are "pro-kill" as well. You oppose stem-cell research that could save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives. You oppose the destruction of a clump of two-dozen undifferentiated cells in order to further your agenda of allowing victims of Huntingtons Disease, Parkinsons Disease, etc to die.
The incurability of these diseases is the cost for furthering the pro-life agenda, paid in blood, in innumerable and probably incalculable numbers.
Wow? Geez, it's so easy to make up shit about what your opponents think and feel and want.
I should have tried it years ago...
50 million dead babies to further the "pro-choice" agenda. I don't even know anything about stem cell research so you must be talking to someone else. Meanwhile, 50 million dead unborns furthering your pro-KILL agenda.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
50 million dead babies to further the "pro-choice" agenda. I don't even know anything about stem cell research so you must be talking to someone else. Meanwhile, 50 million dead unborns furthering your pro-KILL agenda.
See, this is why I was arguing with Stiggy over the use of emotion-laden terms.
There are not "50 million dead wittle babies", so you can stop wringing your hands. There are 50 million (if that figure is accurate - pro-lifers aren't exactly known for sombre precision) dead embryos and foetuses that had fewer neural connections than a goldfish.
So let's just be accurate here. Painting images of fifty million dead babies in bonnets and jumpsuits might suit the accuracy level of the average pro-lifer, but it's absurd hyperbole.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Meanwhile, 50 million dead unborns furthering your pro-KILL agenda.
Let me just fetch my SS jacket and swastika flag, and a portable dinner plate so I can eat all those babies! Yeah! I'm a pro-KILL sonofabitch who gets off on seeing millions of dead little babies being dumped in the trash!
That's me!
And you wonder why I want to approach the abortion debate rationally. I'm starting to think it simply can't be done, because you lot start foaming at the mouth the moment the issue comes up.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Merlin wrote: .....
Man-o-man, that is one attractive feminist!
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: London when the IRA were active.
Summer of 2001, the neighborhood I stayed in, Shepherd's Bush had just had an IRA bombing prior to my arrival, and in a nearby town a subway station was bombed and there was an IRA bomb threat one Sunday at Hyde Park while we were at Speaker's Corner. I was more concerned with the Muslims who got physically intimidating with me than the IRA.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Glad you liked it. Attachment: clothes.bmp (Downloaded 13 times)
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Merlin wrote: Glad you liked it.
You could dress her up in a burlap bag, and she would still be an attractive feminist.
|
