Werthead

Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

227 posts in this topic

Nobody is accusing anyone of ACTUALLY advocating criminal violence with their choice of words.  That was never the issue.  It is the use of non-PC language itself that is being challenged.

And this is relevant to what I said how?

I was exposing the flaw in your comparison to a fictional story.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the moral of the story is that when you can't argue against the actual point you argue about something else.

Let me spell it out for you.

I am against abortion.  However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence.

The argument that, if I believe as I do, I should bomb abortion clinics, is not my argument, but that other others, who believe in answering violence with violence under a wide array of circumstances.

Using the argument that abortion advocates are cowards and hypocrites if they do not blow up abortion clinics, is not only extremely insulting to other posters you disagree with, but it also comes perilously close to being criminal conduct in its own right:  the advocacy of criminal violence.

It not only insults me, but it insults GRRM, for it implies, believing as he did, he was a coward and a hypocrite for not blowing up army barracks during the Vietnam war.

Edited by ChillyPolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me spell it out for you.

I am against abortion.  However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence.

Then you're at odds with the vast majority of the US and pretty much everyone who uses the "abortion is murder" rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the argument that abortion advocates are cowards and hypocrites if they do not blow up abortion clinics, is not only extremely insulting to other posters you disagree with, but it also comes perilously close to being criminal conduct in its own right:  the advocacy of criminal violence.

The hypocrisy and moral cowardice extend far beyond the refusal to take the same violent action that you would take if you knew someone was murdering new born babies.  It is the consistent failure of the life begins at conception crowd to carry the actual implications of that belief to their conclusions.  If you think that abortion actually is murder then you need to advocate for criminal investigations of every miscarriage.  You must think that any person who ever worked at Planned Parenthood is a monster worse then Nazi death camp guards.  That anyone who ever helped someone get an abortion should be prosecuted as an accomplice to murder.  That every sexually active woman of child bearing age should be monitored to ensure they are not unknowingly pregnant and doing something that might endanger a fetus.  That every woman who ever got an abortion is worse then Casey Anthony.  

But virtually nobody who claims abortion is murder is willing to carry that belief to its logical conclusion.  That is why most who advocate that claim are moral cowards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me spell it out for you.

I am against abortion.  However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence.

The argument that, if I believe as I do, I should bomb abortion clinics, is not my argument, but that other others, who believe in answering violence with violence under a wide array of circumstances.

Using the argument that abortion advocates are cowards and hypocrites if they do not blow up abortion clinics, is not only extremely insulting to other posters you disagree with, but it also comes perilously close to being criminal conduct in its own right:  the advocacy of criminal violence.

It not only insults me, but it insults GRRM, for it implies, believing as he did, he was a coward and a hypocrite for not blowing up army barracks during the Vietnam war.

1. Please do, because you still haven't.  You see, the point is that using inflammatory language only serves to goad the gullible to take it further than using language.  Like all the rhetoric about muslims being the root of all terrorism leading to a bunch of numpties patrolling with their guns outside a mosque. 

2. Assuming it was meant to say "anti abortion advocates", please quote me where I am alleged to have said that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're at odds with the vast majority of the US and pretty much everyone who uses the "abortion is murder" rhetoric.

According to Gallup, you're looking at 29% legal under any circumstances, 51% under certain circumstances (which is little old vitriolic rhetoric me would fall into, and 19% under no circumstances.  Nothing that really falls into the "vast majority" category as of May 2015.  That 51 is split into 13% in most, 39% in a few, and 2% no opinion.

Disregarding legality, 45% is it's moral acceptable, 45% it's immoral, with the remainder a mix of only in certain circumstances, not a moral issue, no opinion.  

If Dear was motivated by abortion, it's not like his views are not shared by a small amount of Americans.  And that really doesn't matter.  Because the percentage of Americans who actually think it's okay to respond to massive social injustice by murdering random people in the same vicinity as a building is the group we should identify Dear with, not the people who hold similar views on one hot button issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Gallup, you're looking at 29% legal under any circumstances, 51% under certain circumstances (which is little old vitriolic rhetoric me would fall into, and 19% under no circumstances.  Nothing that really falls into the "vast majority" category as of May 2015.  That 51 is split into 13% in most, 39% in a few, and 2% no opinion.

Disregarding legality, 45% is it's moral acceptable, 45% it's immoral, with the remainder a mix of only in certain circumstances, not a moral issue, no opinion.  

If Dear was motivated by abortion, it's not like his views are not shared by a small amount of Americans.  And that really doesn't matter.  Because the percentage of Americans who actually think it's okay to respond to massive social injustice by murdering random people in the same vicinity as a building is the group we should identify Dear with, not the people who hold similar views on one hot button issue.  

Care to actually link the poll? Without the actual question that was asked your number are entirely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to actually link the poll? Without the actual question that was asked your number are entirely useless.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I'm not a polling expert, but I don't see anything wrong with their questions.  

The big one is "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I'm not a polling expert, but I don't see anything wrong with their questions.  

The big one is "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances"

Okay I see the issue, I wasn't talking about the legality of abortion. My response was to "However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence." specifically. Most people in the US would be perfectly fine using violence to stop someone from killing people. The bar for acceptable use of violence in the US is rather lower than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're at odds with the vast majority of the US and pretty much everyone who uses the "abortion is murder" rhetoric.

Do I look like a lemming to you?

But I'm pretty sure Gallup has no poll on this subject.   "Do you advocate resort to illegal violence" is not a popular question, I would think.

Edited by ChillyPolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I see the issue, I wasn't talking about the legality of abortion. My response was to "However, I do not believe, in most cases, in answering violence with violence." specifically. Most people in the US would be perfectly fine using violence to stop someone from killing people. The bar for acceptable use of violence in the US is rather lower than that.

Well then the burden is on you to come up with a poll supporting this iteration of the lemming argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raised Catholic, but kind of an agnostic at this point.  If I ever use the Bible as a serious source in any sort of debate not specifically about the Bible or Christianity, please drive to Houston and slap some sense into me.  

Kind of moving it back to on topic, I think it's ridiculous to blame any of the shooting on anti-abortion speech, just like it's ridiculous to blame terrorist attacks on Islam as a whole, just like it's ridiculous to blame J.D. Salinger for John Lennon's death, Regan's attempted assassination, or the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer.  

Given the mass shootings for no other reason than "just 'cause," I really don't care that this one probably had something to do with a highly contested political topic.  The problem is what drives the person to mass shooting.

You're mistakenly conflating two things here. It is wrong to blame Islam as a whole for acts of Islamic terrorism, the same way it is wrong to blame the anti-abortion movement as a whole for acts of anti-abortion terrorism. However, individuals within who have power, a platform and insight violence can and should be blamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Assuming it was meant to say "anti abortion advocates", please quote me where I am alleged to have said that.

I allege that you lent support to this foul argument, when you accused me of changing the subject because I was unable to refute this foul argument.

If you were not following the discussion, and had no idea what you were talking about, you should not have butted in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I'm not a polling expert, but I don't see anything wrong with their questions.

The big one is "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances"

I am. if you do a meta-analysis you generally wind up with 30% approve of abortions in all cases, 20% think it should be illegal in all cases, and 50% approve of abortion in some situations. The problem with the latter is that it fluctuates wildly from poll to poll, in large part because you're grouping people who oppose third trimester abortions with people who think abortions should only be legal if the life of the mother is at risk.

Which leads me to bring up Ace's comment. If you admit that there is no good metric to determine when life truly begins, it's disingenuous to then same you want the most hard line law put in place (banning abortions). Especially considering your own poll indicates only 1/5 Americans support that position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I allege that you lent support to this foul argument, when you accused me of changing the subject because I was unable to refute this foul argument.

If you were not following the discussion, and had no idea what you were talking about, you should not have butted in.

The topic of the discussion is abortion clinics.  Where people go for abortions.  It is not war.

The difference is that people who don't want abortions are not forced into having abortions.  People who object to war are often forced to do so.  You were conflating the two and that was the meaning of my post.

Whatever you assumed it meant is not my fault.

You owe me an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic of the discussion is abortion clinics.  Where people go for abortions.  It is not war.

The difference is that people who don't want abortions are not forced into having abortions.  People who object to war are often forced to do so.  You were conflating the two and that was the meaning of my post.

Whatever you assumed it meant is not my fault.

You owe me an apology.

You were not following the discussion.  Next time, read before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not following the discussion.  Next time, read before you post.

Oh the irony. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I look like a lemming to you?

But I'm pretty sure Gallup has no poll on this subject.   "Do you advocate resort to illegal violence" is not a popular question, I would think.

Hey shifting goalposts. Cause that's totally the same as "answering violence with violence."

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey shifting goalposts. Cause that's totally the same as "answering violence with violence."

Huh?  There's still no Gallup poll on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?  There's still no Gallup poll on the subject.

No, but that's hardly the only way to get an idea of people's views. A majority of states (38) have castle doctrine laws, and 30 have stand your ground laws. Laws which allow violence in a wide array of areas, and in many cases allow lethal force in response to decidedly non-lethal threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.