So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Have you not realized this is a white man? Clearly, we're going to need to meet a burden of proof at least equivalent to what Dave Chappelle needed to believe it was R. Kelly on that tape.
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
I don't know about that. Did you see the last few threads on Muslim terrorists here on Dakka? There were plenty of people claiming that they were just loons and them being Muslim was a coincidence.
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
Who's defending this guy?
There were 2 pages of OgreChubbs justifying / rationalizing his actions. If you didn't see them, you didn't miss much.
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
1. Did he shout out "Die for Jesus!" If not you need something called "proof."
2. Who's making excuses or giving him the benefit of the doubt? Has anyone on this thread said anything other than persecute him to the fullest extent of the law? (I'm assuming if found sane)
Is anyone saying not to investigate his background fully to see if others were involved?
Its a lot easier to say "yep thats an islamofascist terrorist" when they are on the internet cutting off the heads of disbelievers and gak.
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
Who's defending this guy?
Evidently, not assuming there is a vast Christian Conspiracy is defending him. WTF?
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Thats the main point of amazement I have reading this thread, there wouldnt be as many roadblocks, deflections and moving of goal posts if this person were a Muslim terrorists. He wouldnt have his own Dakka defense league
Who's defending this guy?
There were 2 pages of OgreChubbs justifying / rationalizing his actions. If you didn't see them, you didn't miss much.
After I posted that, I read from the beginning. (I tend to stay away from discussing the abortion topic directly as my opposition is known on this site).
I unequivocally denounce any defense what the shooter has done.
Not sure how this paints the idea that had this shooter been of islamic faith, that we would be denouncing the entire faith (as some in this thread is trying to denounce Christianity).
Frazzled wrote: 1. Did he shout out "Die for Jesus!" If not you need something called "proof."
This is exactly what I mean: we have a guy committing a crime that looks very much like previous incidents of Christian terrorism, but we hear demands to wait for more proof before applying the label. If this was a Muslim guy who murdered an anti-Muslim cartoonist would we be insisting on verifying that he said "DIE FOR ALLAH!", or would we just call him a terrorist?
2. Who's making excuses or giving him the benefit of the doubt? Has anyone on this thread said anything other than persecute him to the fullest extent of the law? (I'm assuming if found sane)
Is anyone saying not to investigate his background fully to see if others were involved?
Yes, people are saying that we should prosecute him. But they're insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident of murder, not terrorism. The excuses and benefit of the doubt are about how we put this incident into a larger context and how much blame far-right Christianity deserves, not whether this one guy should spend the rest of his (soon to be short) life in prison.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Did he shout out "Die for Jesus!" If not you need something called "proof."
This is exactly what I mean: we have a guy committing a crime that looks very much like previous incidents of Christian terrorism, but we hear demands to wait for more proof before applying the label. If this was a Muslim guy who murdered an anti-Muslim cartoonist would we be insisting on verifying that he said "DIE FOR ALLAH!", or would we just call him a terrorist?
2. Who's making excuses or giving him the benefit of the doubt? Has anyone on this thread said anything other than persecute him to the fullest extent of the law? (I'm assuming if found sane) Is anyone saying not to investigate his background fully to see if others were involved?
Yes, people are saying that we should prosecute him. But they're insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident of murder, not terrorism. The excuses and benefit of the doubt are about how we put this incident into a larger context and how much blame far-right Christianity deserves, not whether this one guy should spend the rest of his (soon to be short) life in prison.
I think you're getting hung up on terminologies...
What they all have in common is that they're insane.
I think the goal posts being moved is that extremism exists in Chrisitianity, Islam, Atheism, and others...
I guess the arguments stems from how much of an issue is this 'extremism' exists between these groups.
Yes, people are saying that we should prosecute him. But they're insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident of murder, not terrorism. The excuses and benefit of the doubt are about how we put this incident into a larger context and how much blame far-right Christianity deserves, not whether this one guy should spend the rest of his (soon to be short) life in prison.
To quote our next President, what difference does it make?
You can't impugn an entire group's speech because of someone else. ok you can is Commie Land* but nowhere else in the US. next thing you'll be putting them into camps in California just because of how they look.
There were 2 pages of OgreChubbs justifying / rationalizing his actions. If you didn't see them, you didn't miss much.
con this thread? I'll have to check again.
pg 3
OgreChubbs wrote:
Not sure why everyone is so mad. He is just a doctor preforming late term abortions. Couple months couple years whats the difference.
he compared the shooter to a doctor just performing an abortion.
why are you acting so surprised people are defending this guy, when you said you found others on a different site defending the guy.
and army of god did more than just the anthrax letters. There was also eric rudolph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American terrorist responsible for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.
FBI investigators believed Rudolph may have written letters that claimed responsibility for the nightclub and abortion clinic bombings on behalf of the Army of God, a group that sanctions the use of force to combat abortions and is associated with Christian Identity.
now lets try some statistics,
If Every clinic bombed or burned, and every clinician assaulted or killed, had been previously picketed, targeted or assailed by antiabortion groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God. Operation Rescue issued “Wanted” posters of abortion providers, often listing their home addresses. Several of the doctors listed on the posters, including David Gunn, George Patterson, John Britton and George Tiller, were killed by antiabortion zealots.
then there's a 100% chance the shooter has some association with one of those groups.
I guess I see a guy like Nidal Hassan who sought out radical clerics and was radicalized (and being investigated for the FBI for it prior to his spree), was known to defend radical brands of Islam, and who was shouting Allahhu Akbar as he gunned down folks, and then during his pre-trial incarceration demanded concessions to his Islamic faith and had been 'sane' enough to be on active duty, I have no problem saying 'Yep, Islamic terrorism'.
In this case, we have a guy who seemed off his rocker, and has not declared a motive (yet), has no known (yet) associations with some radical Christian pastors, it makes me not want to immediately call it Jesus inspired terrorism... I'll wait until we know more.
he compared the shooter to a doctor just performing an abortion.
why are you acting so surprised people are defending this guy, when you said you found others on a different site defending the guy.
Indeed, note the EDIT including the great one that is Godzilla.
and army of god did more than just the anthrax letters. There was also eric rudolph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American terrorist responsible for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.
FBI investigators believed Rudolph may have written letters that claimed responsibility for the nightclub and abortion clinic bombings on behalf of the Army of God, a group that sanctions the use of force to combat abortions and is associated with Christian Identity.
Ok that is helpful. I am sure the FBI would get them if they could get evidence sufficient for RICO or other organized crime/terrorism statutes. They live for that gak.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Did he shout out "Die for Jesus!" If not you need something called "proof."
This is exactly what I mean: we have a guy committing a crime that looks very much like previous incidents of Christian terrorism, but we hear demands to wait for more proof before applying the label. If this was a Muslim guy who murdered an anti-Muslim cartoonist would we be insisting on verifying that he said "DIE FOR ALLAH!", or would we just call him a terrorist?
2. Who's making excuses or giving him the benefit of the doubt? Has anyone on this thread said anything other than persecute him to the fullest extent of the law? (I'm assuming if found sane)
Is anyone saying not to investigate his background fully to see if others were involved?
Yes, people are saying that we should prosecute him. But they're insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident of murder, not terrorism. The excuses and benefit of the doubt are about how we put this incident into a larger context and how much blame far-right Christianity deserves, not whether this one guy should spend the rest of his (soon to be short) life in prison.
When there is scant information linking a crime to Islamic terrorism I think you see in the threads about the event calls for people to wait for more information before ascribing Islamic terrorism as the motivation behind the crime. In instances where there is clear evidence of the involvement of Wahabbist terrorist groups there is no point in denying it. There are only 2 pieces of evidence that point to a possible link to Christian terrorism in this instance: 1) The gunman said the phrase "no more baby parts" when being taken into custody but the police themselves issued a statement that there wasn't enough context to the phrase to make it clear that it was the motivation behind the attacks 2) the shootout took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Since we all know correlation =/= causation we can't say with any certainty that the location guarantees Christian motivations. Just like the location of any other crime/terrorist act doesn't guarantee the involvement of Wahabbists or any other religious terrorist group.
What you get in these threads is push back against people who claim terrorist links for crimes which contradict the statements the investigating authorities issue declaring that there hasn't been enough information collected yet to determine a motive. When people claim Islamic links prior to any clear evidence of Islamic influence or in contradiction to official statements you see the same push back.
Waiting until the investigations are concluded and more information is made public before rushing to judgment as to the particular motivation and group connections behind terroristic crimes is a good thing, regardless of the identity/affiliations of the victims or attackers.
sirlynchmob wrote: so we're just going to ignore the "army of god" then? That group I keep bringing up, the group responsible for all the attacks on clinics. Just assume the shooter was a lone wolf, and let this terrorist group attack again without ever bother to ask if there's a connection.
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/army-god-aog-united-states The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion. Army of God members have been involved in highly publicized incidents of terrorism including the Atlanta Olympic bombing, and the bombings of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta. VideoVideo: HBO Documentary
And this perpetrator was a member of this group?
sirlynchmob wrote: sorry frazz, they're real, and they're christians, don't let that stop your denials though. just circumstantial evidence so far, as long as he doesn't "mysteriously" die while in custody let's hope the lawyers bother to ask, let's hope the investigators bother to ask.
Between October 15 and October 17, 2001, Waagner allegedly mailed more than 300 anthrax threat letters to reproductive health clinics on the East Coast. The envelopes, marked “Time Sensitive” and “Urgent Security Notice Enclosed,” bore the return addresses of the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Secret Service. The letters, signed “Army of God-Virginia Dare Cell,” contained a white powdery substance that tested negative for anthrax. Between November 5 and November 8, 2001, a second wave of anthrax threat letters, again signed “Army of God - Virginia Dare Cell,” were mailed to reproductive health clinics. In addition, bomb threats were telephoned to businesses located in the buildings that house the national headquarters of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. After his arrest on December 5, 2001, Waagner indicated to investigators that he was in the process of preparing a third wave of fabricated anthrax threat letters to abortion providers. Waagner also stated that he intended to place the pipe bomb recovered from the vehicle in Memphis at a local Planned Parenthood office.
Waagner is believed to have committed several bank robberies to support his illegal anti-abortion activities and his fugitive status. By year’s end, he had been formally charged with two: the May 17, 2001 robbery of a bank in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the November 9, 2001 robbery of a bank in Morgantown, West Virginia. Each of these robberies has been designated as an act of domestic terrorism.
Nobody in this thread has denied the existence of the Army of God group, that's a straw man of your own fabrication.
You have also failed to put forward any evidence whatsoever that this particular crime is linked to Army of God in any way. You have only put forth your subjective opinion that any and all crimes against PP clinics must be attributable to Army of God or an associated group.
because every one to date has been. but feel free to ignore that and keep pretending he's a "lone wolf" who out of the blue left his cabin and decided to attack a PP clinic just for the giggles that day.[
So you have some evidence that he was acting as part of a wider group then? If so I encourage you to share it with law enforcement to prevent any more coordinated attacks
The link to the FBI only mentions a Virginia based group that made hoax anthrax alerts in 2001. So the modus operandi does not match, neither does the locale.
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
Did he shout the Christian equivalent of "Allah Akbar!!" as he conducted these attacks?
Did a far right Christian terrorist group claim responsibility for these attacks?
Did he follow a well known pattern of attack previously used by right wing Christian terror groups?
Was his choice of target one that was traditionally attacked by right wing terrorist groups? (please note not a single PP staff member was harmed during this incident)
1. Did he shout the Christian equivalent of "Allah Akbar!!" as he conducted these attacks?
2. Did a far right Christian terrorist group claim responsibility for these attacks?
3. Did he follow a well known pattern of attack previously used by right wing Christian terror groups?
4. Was his choice of target one that was traditionally attacked by right wing terrorist groups? (please note not a single PP staff member was harmed during this incident)
1. yes he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP, which was referenced by all the republican candidates.
2. no
3. yes
4. yes, he still attacked a PP clinic, and killed 3 people and wounded 9 more. He was also stopped before he made use of the propane tanks he had.
As someone who lives in said town, I just want to point out: whether this guy was a Muslim, Jew, Christian, or just some fething crazy asshat, it's really upsetting that as soon as this tragedy is resolved, everyone starts leaping to ploitics, using this as an example for gun control, Syrian refugees, what have you.
Those were people who were hurt or killed. The cop who was killed went to my Alma Mater, and my coworker knew him.
Just something I wish people would take into consideration before using this as evidence for any political motivations.
jreilly89 wrote: As someone who lives in said town, I just want to point out: whether this guy was a Muslim, Jew, Christian, or just some fething crazy asshat, it's really upsetting that as soon as this tragedy is resolved, everyone starts leaping to ploitics, using this as an example for gun control, Syrian refugees, what have you.
Those were people who were hurt or killed. The cop who was killed went to my Alma Mater, and my coworker knew him.
Just something I wish people would take into consideration before using this as evidence for any political motivations.
sirlynchmob wrote: he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP
As a Christian, I can't say I'm familiar with this particular Christian phrase. Perhaps I need to read my Bible more often.
Its usually found in the Old Testament, concerning unkosher meat. When translated it literally reads "and thou shalt not eat the beaks of chickens nor the hoofs of pigs nor other crappy ass processed American food made from body parts and other gak, and verily. What are you a goyam for crying out loud? Do you hate your heart and your liver?"
sirlynchmob wrote: he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP
As a Christian, I can't say I'm familiar with this particular Christian phrase. Perhaps I need to read my Bible more often.
Its usually found in the Old Testament, concerning unkosher meat. When translated it literally reads "and thou shalt not eat the beaks of chickens nor the hoofs of pigs nor other crappy ass processed American food made from body parts and other gak, and verily. What are you a goyam for crying out loud? Do you hate your heart and your liver?"
jreilly89 wrote: As someone who lives in said town, I just want to point out: whether this guy was a Muslim, Jew, Christian, or just some fething crazy asshat, it's really upsetting that as soon as this tragedy is resolved, everyone starts leaping to ploitics, using this as an example for gun control, Syrian refugees, what have you.
Those were people who were hurt or killed. The cop who was killed went to my Alma Mater, and my coworker knew him.
Just something I wish people would take into consideration before using this as evidence for any political motivations.
I honestly don't know what else we're supposed to do - or what you expect us to do. This is the internet. This is Dakka Dakka - a forum devoted to plastic army men, and you're in the OT section, where current events and political threads are prominent. As such, we discuss such things, and where we have an issue that includes aspects of someone owning a firearm who maybe shouldn't have, who possibly is a terrorist, and who is possibly inspired by very recent political rhetoric - that's where the discussion is naturally going to flow. I'm not trying to be insensitive: what exactly is the behavior you'd find more appropriate? No one is laughing or making light of the events that unfolded.
1. yes he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP, which was referenced by all the republican candidates.
2. no
3. yes
4. yes, he still attacked a PP clinic, and killed 3 people and wounded 9 more. He was also stopped before he made use of the propane tanks he had.
Robert Lewis Dear, the suspect in Friday's shootings at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, mentioned "baby parts" to investigators and in later interviews expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told CNN.
We have had a well known pattern of attacks by people going into PP and not killing their staff? Which incidents in the past and by which terrorist group exactly?
sirlynchmob wrote: he shouted no more body parts, a christian phrase used against PP
As a Christian, I can't say I'm familiar with this particular Christian phrase. Perhaps I need to read my Bible more often.
Pastafarious 34:63 "and thou shall knowest one of God's own whence he kneadeth the dough and saith 'no more body parts'". Look it up.
Of course most historians believe that the message there was to not use your elbows when kneading dough and had nothing to do with fetuses, but that's the nature of religious extremists-they take even the slightest mention of something in a two thousand year old text and use it to justify their personal cause.
I'd qualify that a bit. What they actually said, per CNN, was:
"We're still reaching out to confirm individuals, how they are. I believe no one of our staff was severely injured. I also believe at this time that none of our patients were injured," she told CNN.
There's a lot of wiggle room in there. The only other sites I see reporting what you're saying is Lifenews and then the derposhere. So... maybe true, but maybe not. Like a lot of things about this story too early to call, in my opinion. No one wants to be the guy fronting the orbital blowout post, or the reddit located the missing student post.
d-usa wrote: So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?
Well, was he a white guy? Because that really frames our assumptions.
d-usa wrote: So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?
d-usa wrote: So if a suicide bomber blows himself up in Paris, and nobody is injured, then it was just a plain old suicide and he didn't target anybody?
What point are you attempting to make?
The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.
But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".
Peregrine wrote: So, here's an important question: how many people would be making excuses and giving him the benefit of the doubt if he were Muslim instead of Christian? How many people would be arguing over the fine points of what is and isn't "terrorism" or insisting on indisputable proof of association with terrorist organizations instead of arguing that similar ideology and inspiration are sufficient?
With the information that's come out about him so far, in my mind, he's on the same plane as that Muslim in Britain that decapitated the old woman in her garden, or the other one that decapitated that lady at work.
I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.
He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.
Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.
d-usa wrote: The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.
But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".
No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.
Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.
An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.
BrotherGecko wrote: I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.
He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.
Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.
Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.
BrotherGecko wrote: I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.
He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.
Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.
Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.
So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?
BrotherGecko wrote: I agree with the non terrorist title. He doesn't match what a terrorist is and I hate seeing the concept thrown around for no reason outside of "Gotcha Christians." I understand non-religious types want that ah-ha moment to prove that Christians are as violent as Muslims but this isn't it. I'm not religious myself or put specific weight on one religion or the other.
He was a crazy person, yes. As of now he isn't a terrorist but a psychopath.
Are there Christian extremists? Yah, like a crap ton. Are they organized and acting out violently? No, not as a group or a faith. Some sick individuals maybe in the some low key murder cases maybe I don't know but not organized terrorism. Could we start seeing it in the future? Maybe, there is always a possibility.
Pretty sure the KKK, Christian Identity movement, certain Aryan brotherhood groups will disagree with you there. Then if you go internationally you have the LRA, The Orange volunteers, Antibalaka etc.
So you are going to take the actions of the few and paint the rest of the Christians with that?
No but if you run around and claim there aren't any christian terrorist organizations or that christians aren't violent, well you are living in another reality.
d-usa wrote: The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.
But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".
No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.
Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.
An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.
So in the "he didn't target the PP clinic" argument corner:
- Nobody at the clinic was hurt
In the "he did target the PP clinic" argument corner:
- He made it inside the PP clinic
- When talking to police he talked about "no more baby parts" and made other "anti-abortion" statements
- Both of the civilian victims killed were there to accompany friends to the clinic
But maybe the attack just happened to randomly start outside the PP clinic, randomly killed people that were at the PP clinic, and randomly ended up with him barricading himself in the PP clinic and then randomly talking to the police about anti-abortion subjects.
Or maybe some people are willfully looking the other way.
This is a shooter....not a suicide vest wearer, IED'er, financier for Insurgent operations or Bombmaker. Those guys were of clear mind and body and determined to kill Coalition Force Members. Bonus if their Americans. Fighting for a "Cause"
A shooter plain and simple. Lone Wolf. With Mental Issues. For people to equate this Asshat to Insurgents and terrorists gives to much credit to the individual himself. To justify a weakass perception of a "Cause"
Stop throwing this guy action up there with the likes of ISIS/AQ/Bakaharam/andanyotherdedicatedorganizations.
d-usa wrote: The point is that the "nobody was hurt, so they weren't targeted" argument is stupid.
But then I'm pretty sure that you know that. Because even though you are making this argument I'm still pretty sure that you would never claim that an IED that explodes early and doesn't injure anybody didn't target a convoy, or that somebody detonating a suicide vest without injuring anybody wasn't targeting a location, or that a drive-by shooting up a house without injuring wasn't targeting that house. But yet, shooting up a PP location while also talking to police about "no more baby parts" doesn't mean it was targeted because "nobody was hurt".
No, the argument was "how do we know he wasn't targeting staff?' Initial reports suggest that he shot at others not connected with PP, sought cover inside the PP building, and did not shoot at PP staff while inside the building. With the facts as they currently stand it is hard to claim that by not shooting at people from an organization he was targeting them - that may be considered by some to be a "stupid" argument.
Shooting a building in a drive by is targeting the building or the occupants therein. Reports to date do not show that this is what the assailant did with the PP building so the comparison is disingenuous.
An IED exploding early is also not an apt comparison because it detonated early. It was not deployed against its intended target. In this instance the shooter managed to get inside the building yet managed not to kill anyone.
So in the "he didn't target the PP clinic" argument corner:
- Nobody at the clinic was hurt
In the "he did target the PP clinic" argument corner:
- He made it inside the PP clinic
- When talking to police he talked about "no more baby parts" and made other "anti-abortion" statements
- Both of the civilian victims killed were there to accompany friends to the clinic
But maybe the attack just happened to randomly start outside the PP clinic, randomly killed people that were at the PP clinic, and randomly ended up with him barricading himself in the PP clinic and then randomly talking to the police about anti-abortion subjects.
Or maybe some people are willfully looking the other way.
Who really knows.
Cause a crazy man wouldn't just randomly start rambling about things.
Your last statement is correct though. Who really knows? All we "know" is that some nameless/faceless Officer, who wasn't cleared to say anything, said that the crazy guy who had just gone on a murdering spree, muttered a single statement about no more baby parts.
From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.
Seems justified. Know need to wait for any true facts or evidence, or anything of the like. We've got what we need to advance our agenda.
From such "evidence" we have a nationwide attack on Christians.
I've been attacked? My Church has been attacked? Dammed, I missed it.
You're smart enough to know what I'm talking about.
I have not seen a systematic attack on Christians as a fallout from this. The same people that always bitch and moan about anything Christianity are bitching and moaning, but nothing new is happening.
What I am seeing is that the "Islam makes people do this, nothing like this would ever come from Christianity" myth is getting busted and people are having to open their eyes and remember that extremists come from all walks of life. That doesn't mean that Christianity made him do this anymore than Islam making people do things or [whatever makes people firebomb a lab to free lab-mice] makes people do things.
And that is what people are missing and why they are feeling attacked, but which is also the same thing that a lot of those same people have made other people feel: Christianity doesn't make you do violent extremist things, but Christians can also do violent extremist things. Just like Islam doesn't make you do violent extremist things, but Islamists can also do violent extremist things.
That's not an attack against Christianity, it's just pointing out that the guy with a cross painted on his trailer and who targeted a PP clinic was a nutter and that they come from all walks of life and that contrary to popular belief no single religion has a monopoly on extremist fethwits.
I had a mirror image of this when the Paris attacks happened. I said 'oh, that's probably more Islamic terrorism." and a few friends of a friend stridently tried to argue me down because 'there's no proof, wait for proof' 'it could be Basque separatists'. I said they were yelling Allah Akbar while they killed people. 'That's just hearsay'. Then I said whoever ends up being wrong buys the other guy a coke. I have yet to receive said coke.
And because I am that kind of guy, I checked all of their pages and one of 'em was basically saying 'See, christian terrorism! He was ranting about baby parts' like three hours after this broke.
Bromsy wrote: I had a mirror image of this when the Paris attacks happened. I said 'oh, that's probably more Islamic terrorism." and a few friends of a friend stridently tried to argue me down because 'there's no proof, wait for proof' 'it could be Basque separatists'. I said they were yelling Allah Akbar while they killed people. 'That's just hearsay'. Then I said whoever ends up being wrong buys the other guy a coke. I have yet to receive said coke.
And because I am that kind of guy, I checked all of their pages and one of 'em was basically saying 'See, christian terrorism! He was ranting about baby parts' like three hours after this broke.
I think it's kind of disingenuous to conflate Islamic terrorism with Christian terrorism. While the latter is surely a thing, it's not been at the forefront of East v West ideological battles nearly as much as Islamic terrorism. The OAS was every bit as much of a bunch of disgusting pricks as the FLN in Algeria, but you don't see too many Western Christian holy warriors anymore, while you see plenty of if not increasing numbers of jihadis in recent times.
Mostly, and this is only what I think not can prove or anything, is because of the fundamental difference in Islam and Christianity in secular and governmental life. I can name a multitude of Islamic countries that are either heavily or at least somewhat dictated in their rule of law by Islam. In the West, ostensibly Christian for the purpose of this argument, not so much.
Of course we have gak politicians that try to push a Christian narrative to governing; but by and large, they are shut down, or at least heavily fought. You don't have this with many Islamic countries. America lost it's gak when an overweight backwoods Kentuckian tried to prevent marriage certificates. I am unaware of an Islamic country that doesn't persecute gay men legally, if not outright execute them.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem in Islam is its doctrine. You are required to prostrate yourself 5 times a day to be a good Muslim. Christians can be good Christians by going for an hour a week. Military's around the world learned centuries ago of the power of groups of men repeatedly performing simple tasks in union, often with vocalization, can lead to profound comradeship and espirit de corp. It's called drill and is still the forefront of any military training anywhere. And it's powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Part Two:
Anti-abortion people have always reminded me of anti-gun people: That is in America at least, they want to restrict your Constitutional right because they don't like it.
They even use the same arguments. Saving lives vs. taking lives. Bloody pictures of children. Founding father's wouldn't have wanted this; "Saving children" etc.
I just wish more people would mind their own damn business.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one or also grow a womb and then don't have one.
Don't like guns? Then don't buy one or move to somewhere they aren't allowed.
OT my friend just sold me a WW1 issue American made Enfield. I need to put a new stock on it, but damn does that fether kick! I can't believe that was the standard infantry round for 2 world wars!
motyak wrote: This thread has had enough warnings. Future off topic posts are seeing warnings given out with no more warnings. Stop it
So, what exactly is the topic then? Unless you've deleted some posts the most recent discussion has been about the appropriateness of labeling this an act of Christian terrorism and how that relates to labeling other terrorist acts, which seems entirely on-topic.
motyak wrote: This thread has had enough warnings. Future off topic posts are seeing warnings given out with no more warnings. Stop it
So, what exactly is the topic then? Unless you've deleted some posts the most recent discussion has been about the appropriateness of labeling this an act of Christian terrorism and how that relates to labeling other terrorist acts, which seems entirely on-topic.
Some guys were talking about ww1 guns for some reason
Prior to each warning post previously there was a string of off topic posts (what abortion is and isn't, whether a fetus is alive). In this case, the post needed deleting rather than just a warning, as it was "Oh yeah? I have this rifle and it does X, you should try Y rifle if you want Z". Which is in no way on topic.
DutchWinsAll wrote: While the latter is surely a thing, it's not been at the forefront of East v West ideological battles nearly as much as Islamic terrorism.
Sure, but it has been at the forefront of West vs. West ideological battles. You know, the whole "culture war" thing.
America lost it's gak when an overweight backwoods Kentuckian tried to prevent marriage certificates.
But this is a very recent thing. Even just a few years ago we had states passing gay marriage bans with overwhelming majorities, and it hasn't been all that long since the courts struck down laws against homosexuality. Attitudes have changed significantly in a very short time, and even then we still have mainstream republican presidential candidates attending a Christian "why the bible says gay people should be executed" conference. We're better at controlling our extremists, but we still have them.
So, don't get complacent and think that terrorism is something that white Christians would never do. There are violent Christian extremists in the US, and there is a larger far-right fringe that stops just barely short of criminal advocacy of violence. If the shooter in this case did in fact choose his targets as an attack on abortion then it fits into an existing pattern of similar attacks and beliefs in the US.
Peregrine wrote: Unless you've deleted some posts the most recent discussion has been about the appropriateness of labeling this an act of Christian terrorism and how that relates to labeling other terrorist acts, which seems entirely on-topic.
Aye, once some debris has been cleared.
I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
The odds of a high profile target of hate by some groups being shot up on an unrelated matter is pretty small I imagine. Short of a personal grievance with one of the staff or it being just randomly picked out of a telephone book, the attack has to be related to its function. It's far from being the first such attack. The hate whipped up by the sorts of people that protest outside abortion clinics and who are reluctant to condemn such killings doesn't help distance them from such extremists. Hell, even on the thread we've had posters say they only felt sorry for the police who died, not the staff.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
So, we have confirmed reports that the shooter was a fundamentalist Christian, anti-government agitator, and reports from the police that the fictional videos related to Planned Parenthood appear to have been a contributing factor to the crime.
What would you call this act?
Mind you, this is not the first time that a Planned Parenthood facility or an abortion provider has been attacked or murdered. In those latter instances, I will point to Dr. David Gunn, murdered after Operation:Rescue created wanted poster-style pictures of him, killed by a man who professed to be a "born-again Christian". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Gunn
Another shooting in Pensacola, FL, claimed the lives of a doctor and a clinic escort in 1994. The shooter claimed to be a member of the Army of God and had previously been a minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill
John Salvi, who killed two PP receptionists (one in 1994, the second in 1996) was a known associate of Donald Spitz, a rather infamous anti-abortion activist and leader of the group "Army of God", suspected in mass-mailings of anthrax-laced letters to abortion doctors nationwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salvihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz
And that's just four events that ended in murder, it doesn't even touch on the thousands of cases of assault, intimidation, arson, vandalism, breaking and entering, kidnapping and similar crimes staged against abortion clinics and abortion providers. It is terrorism, flat out terrorism, as defined by "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
jreilly89 wrote: As someone who lives in said town, I just want to point out: whether this guy was a Muslim, Jew, Christian, or just some fething crazy asshat, it's really upsetting that as soon as this tragedy is resolved, everyone starts leaping to ploitics, using this as an example for gun control, Syrian refugees, what have you.
Those were people who were hurt or killed. The cop who was killed went to my Alma Mater, and my coworker knew him.
Just something I wish people would take into consideration before using this as evidence for any political motivations.
I do understand your personal feeling based on your close connection to this particular incident, however if this was a general rule, no-one could ever discuss any distressing public events except in terms of general platitudes.
John Salvi, who killed two PP receptionists (one in 1994, the second in 1996) was a known associate of Donald Spitz, a rather infamous anti-abortion activist and leader of the group "Army of God", suspected in mass-mailings of anthrax-laced letters to abortion doctors nationwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salvihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz
You do know the letters were not actually laced with Anthrax, right? They did threaten, and they did send white powder they claimed was anthrax, but it was not actually anthrax...
John Salvi, who killed two PP receptionists (one in 1994, the second in 1996) was a known associate of Donald Spitz, a rather infamous anti-abortion activist and leader of the group "Army of God", suspected in mass-mailings of anthrax-laced letters to abortion doctors nationwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salvihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz
You do know the letters were not actually laced with Anthrax, right? They did threaten, and they did send white powder they claimed was anthrax, but it was not actually anthrax...
While that may be true, it still doesn't absolve it of an act of terrorism. The white powder was meant to invoke fear, for political purposes. That is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
But being a "known associate" doesn't mean a ton either. At least that's what everyone said back in 2007 whenever someone pointed out that Barack Obama was a known associate of Bill Ayers.
motyak wrote: This thread has had enough warnings. Future off topic posts are seeing warnings given out with no more warnings. Stop it
So, what exactly is the topic then? Unless you've deleted some posts the most recent discussion has been about the appropriateness of labeling this an act of Christian terrorism and how that relates to labeling other terrorist acts, which seems entirely on-topic.
Some guys were talking about ww1 guns for some reason
DurchWinsAll mentioned a rifle he has and I made one short, friendly post talking about it, which seems to be deleted.
His post seems to remain unedited though. Perhaps any OT content should be removed from it so nobody makes the mistake of paying attention to it and inadvertently gets the banhammer?
Anti-abortion people have always reminded me of anti-gun people: That is in America at least, they want to restrict your Constitutional right because they don't like it.
They even use the same arguments. Saving lives vs. taking lives. Bloody pictures of children. Founding father's wouldn't have wanted this; "Saving children" etc.
I just wish more people would mind their own damn business.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one or also grow a womb and then don't have one.
Don't like guns? Then don't buy one or move to somewhere they aren't allowed.
OT my friend just sold me a WW1 issue American made Enfield. I need to put a new stock on it, but damn does that fether kick! I can't believe that was the standard infantry round for 2 world wars!
There is wisdom here, and reflects most people (reflected in polling). They are not fans of abortion but, within limits, want it legal. I like that the WAPO article notes that this Army of God group got hammered (pun intended) by the PoPo back in the 90s. Best thing for it.
I'd bet dollars to donuts, it will come out that this is a general nutso guy, who happens to be slightly more nutso over this topic. Alternatively, he just randomly lost it. Are there links to a timeline of what actually went down and who he was shooting at? Did he go into the PP or did the first shootout occur outside and he went in after? That would help determine if the PP was the actual target.
John Salvi, who killed two PP receptionists (one in 1994, the second in 1996) was a known associate of Donald Spitz, a rather infamous anti-abortion activist and leader of the group "Army of God", suspected in mass-mailings of anthrax-laced letters to abortion doctors nationwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salvihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz
You do know the letters were not actually laced with Anthrax, right? They did threaten, and they did send white powder they claimed was anthrax, but it was not actually anthrax...
While that may be true, it still doesn't absolve it of an act of terrorism. The white powder was meant to invoke fear, for political purposes. That is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
But being a "known associate" doesn't mean a ton either. At least that's what everyone said back in 2007 whenever someone pointed out that Barack Obama was a known associate of Bill Ayers.
Not a 'may' be true. It is true.
And I made it clear they DID threaten Anthrax, which obviously was done to instill fear.
But there is a difference between mass mailing an actual bio agent that sickens and can even kill and sending talcum powder (or what ever they actually sent).
I have no idea what your 'known associate' diatribe is aimed at, I didn't mention that at all.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
It's more a case of the left painting the right with the same brush they use to paint Islam. Where at least Muslims admit they have a terrorist problem and speak out against it, unlike christians. the rights blind hatred and toxic views directly lead to these murders, and worse yet are taken up as talking points from politicians.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
The odds of a high profile target of hate by some groups being shot up on an unrelated matter is pretty small I imagine. Short of a personal grievance with one of the staff or it being just randomly picked out of a telephone book, the attack has to be related to its function. It's far from being the first such attack. The hate whipped up by the sorts of people that protest outside abortion clinics and who are reluctant to condemn such killings doesn't help distance them from such extremists. Hell, even on the thread we've had posters say they only felt sorry for the police who died, not the staff.
The gunman murdered 3 people, a police officer and two civilians who were accompanying people to the clinic. None of the people murdered were PP staff. The investigating authorities still haven't issued any statements declaring that they've determined the motivation behind the shooting but they have issued statements that they believe the gunman was working alone. Waiting until more facts become public is the best course of action at this point in determining what led up to this horrible crime.
The difficulty of course is perspective. While one crime is too many, how many events have there been in this century? What group openly advocates for it? Thats the difficulty in "painting with the same brush."
Frankly there have been as many if not more enviroterrorist attacks, but the concept of blaming the environmental movement for Earth First, blaming them for creating a hateful environment for such, or in some way linking them all to terrorism, is just stupid.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
Alot of this is sticking hands over your ears and screaming "Lalala my religion isn't terrible!" Fun fact, most of them are! They all tend to promote a level of exsclusion and bigotry! And you know what? Whatever, that's human nature. We're a violent tribe minded species and normally your 'tribes' awfulness doesn't extend beyond hurtful words, not great but hey we can live with that.
But the fact that you plant your feet, dig in hard, and refuse to admit that your faith is capable of producing monsters. Which leads to this giant loop, running in circles trying to get some of you to admit that yes, you occasionally make monsters.
Every idiology and dogma in history has made monsters. You are not special.
And it's ok. Just because some of your religion is terrible doesn't mean you're terrible. One monster does not make you all monsters. But you really need to take a hard look at the monstrous things, see them for what they are. And maybe, just maybe, find a way to end the monstrosities.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
I would. Some of the people that are the loudest about being Christian are the least Christ-like people I know. It really depends on where you are.
The problem is the decent Christians often don't identify themselves as such and would skew the perception bias towards the loud crowd of people who don't act very Christ-like.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
Alot of this is sticking hands over your ears and screaming "Lalala my religion isn't terrible!" Fun fact, most of them are! They all tend to promote a level of exsclusion and bigotry! And you know what? Whatever, that's human nature. We're a violent tribe minded species and normally your 'tribes' awfulness doesn't extend beyond hurtful words, not great but hey we can live with that.
But the fact that you plant your feet, dig in hard, and refuse to admit that your faith is capable of producing monsters. Which leads to this giant loop, running in circles trying to get some of you to admit that yes, you occasionally make monsters.
Every idiology and dogma in history has made monsters. You are not special.
And it's ok. Just because some of your religion is terrible doesn't mean you're terrible. One monster does not make you all monsters. But you really need to take a hard look at the monstrous things, see them for what they are. And maybe, just maybe, find a way to end the monstrosities.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Nah, this is the part that strains credulity:
And it's ok. Just because some of your religion is terrible doesn't mean you're terrible. One monster does not make you all monsters. But you really need to take a hard look at the monstrous things, see them for what they are. And maybe, just maybe, find a way to end the monstrosities
There is no way to stop people from doing bad things. Some people are going to do bad things, terrible horrible criminal things. There is no stopping this, there is only trying to make sure society reacts to such crimes in a pragmatic and productive manner.
Relapse wrote: If it turns out this guy was just a nut case, is all of Christianity still going to be blamed?
As long as the Muslim nut cases cause all of Islam to be blamed...
Exactly. Just because there is a Christian nutcase, doesn't mean Christianity is somehow bad. Same for Islam, same for every religion.
For that matter various political and social ideologies have enabled people to commit horrendous crimes.
The blunt fact is that every society has a number of nutjobs, who might fly off the handle for any kind of reason, and a larger number of other people who make use of a belief system -- religious or political -- to justify doing what they want to do for obscure psychological reasons.
Even if one wanted to pin this on Christianity, it really can't be done. Most Christians in the US are pro-choice.
I think the religious and political right seriously need to take a hard look at themselves as to how they go about trying to convince society to criminalize abortion. Only those with their head in the sand do not realize that the religious right and their proxies in politics have for ages been demonizing their opponents over abortion, and most recently have aimed their crosshairs on Planned Parenthood over what amounts to a dishonest hoax. The language has not been pretty nor civil. Theres a good opinion piece in the post today detailing this.
I dont completely blame the pro-life movement for the apparent fact that a lone wolf killer adopted their cause and turned it violent. But the rhetoric cannot be simply swept under the carpet.
jasper76 wrote: Even if one wanted to pin this on Christianity, it really can't be done. Most Christians in the US are pro-choice.
I think the religious and political right seriously need to take a hard look at themselves as to how they go about trying to convince society to criminalize abortion. Only those with their head in the sand do not realize that the religious right and their proxies in politics have for ages been demonizing their opponents over abortion, and most recently have aimed their crosshairs on Planned Parenthood over what amounts to a dishonest hoax. The language has not been pretty nor civil. Theres a good opinion piece in the post today detailing this.
I dont completely blame the pro-life movement for the apparent fact that a lone wolf killer adopted their cause and turned it violent. But the rhetoric cannot be simply swept under the carpet.
What rhetoric?
They were indeed giving out body parts for research. Thats not in dispute. The fact PP said it will no longer take money for it makes their other claims factual as well. The fact PP sucks off the government teat and then gives political kickbacks to politicians (just like government unions) would be criminal in other contexts.
They believe these are babies. This is not rhetoric. Its a scientific fact that makes you feel bad and then angry about when confronted with it. Most people realize that but support abortion anyway as a necessary evil.
If you and others don't recognize the pro-life movemts rhetoric as unnecessarily demonizing and incindieary, hen I guess that might be Problem 1 with the Pro Lifes PR situatiion.
1. You didn't dispute what I said.
2. Because you don't like it, its "incendiary"
3. Tough tookus. Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.
If you and others don't recognize the pro-life movemts rhetoric as unnecessarily demonizing and incindieary, hen I guess that might be Problem 1 with the Pro Lifes PR situatiion.
No. It's nothing more than an attack on free speech and the political process.
Even the very liberal Denver Post editorial his more honest on this situation:
In Colorado Springs, a familiar tale of an armed fanatic
Surely no one is surprised to learn that the man arrested for the vicious attack at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs has been described as angry, unsociable and quick to vent emphatic opinions, with hints of violence in his past.
Oh, and well-armed. But perhaps that almost goes without saying in modern America, unfortunately.
Robert Lewis Dear appears to be the latest example of a dangerous type we have become all too familiar with. And which we seem powerless to defuse. But nevertheless, let us not flinch from stating the obvious even if it has been said multiple times before.
Yes, the "easy accessibility" of weapons undoubtedly contributes to these incidents of carnage, just as President Obama said over the weekend. One can defend the Second Amendment and an individual freedom to own guns for self-defense while still acknowledging that it sometimes empowers the deranged zealots of this world.
And it is no stretch to call the incident a version of domestic terrorism, assuming the assailant's motives were in fact what every sign seems to indicate. NARAL Pro-Choice America is right to suggest that a violent attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic sends an intimidating message to employees at every other such facility in Colorado and the nation. And that's true even if the perpetrator was acting alone and without counsel or coordination with other extremists. People capable of such vile deeds may be few in number, but the last thing they need is the example of a killer in Colorado Springs.
Some commentators are blaming the harsh rhetoric of anti-abortion activists and right-wing media in the wake of undercover videos released this year by the Center for Medical Progress for inflaming the unstable. And while some rhetoric has indeed been vitriolic, the fact remains that vehement political language is a reality in a society that always has had, and always will have, deep and passionate disagreements over issues of conscience. Strong rhetoric is a far cry from threats or attempted coercion, let alone violence with a gun.
Finally, the word "hero" is grossly overused these days in a media culture always on the hunt for superlatives, but the word is apt indeed when applied to the police who responded Friday to the active shooter at the clinic and found themselves under fire. In another sad and tragic weekend for this state, their unflinching resolve to rescue innocent people in and around the clinic stands out as an exemplary contrast to the depravity that summoned them to the scene.
And here I thought shooting people was an attack on Free Speech. Apparently those that make the link between asinine rabble rousing and violence are the real terrorists.
So suggesting that people tone down their rhetoric is now an attack on free speech?
No one is suggesting that you all don't have the right to call women who've had abortions and the doctors who provided them murderers, felons, barbarians, etc.
It would just be a nice thing to do. And if the pro life movements end goal is the criminalization of abortion, or even just reductions in abortions, it's hard to see that demonizing the very people you wish to convince is helpful in any way except to make people on both sides angry. But if you believe these tactics are worthwhile, I certainly believe you have every right to do so short of directly inciting violence.
Frazzled wrote: Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.
Yet we say its wrong... Logic
Those say it is wrong have misplaced values. To be secure in their safe space they should live in a society where freedom of speech is more moderated. China perhaps?
After all, the concept is stupid. Just because HRC called Republicans her enemies, and Obama equated the Republican party with terrorism doesn't mean they are responsible for attacks that result of their incendiary language. Just because the BLM was calling for the murder of cops doesn't mean they caused the death of three police officers. Its a stupid argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: And here I thought shooting people was an attack on Free Speech. Apparently those that make the link between asinine rabble rousing and violence are the real terrorists.
There are two parts to your statement, neither of which appear related to the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if the pro life movements end goal is the criminalization of abortion, or even just reductions in abortions, it's hard to see that demonizing the very people you wish to convince is helpful
Who's the "you" I am not trying to convince anyone. I think the fervent believers on both sides are doing it wrong.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If robust, inflammatory language is a cornerstone of free speech perhaps it is sauce for the gander when someone tries to tar the anti-abortion movement with the nutjob shooter's brush. Or something.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
Its amazing, how none of what you just posted seems to tie together. Its almost like there are at least two other sides to what you are saying...
And yes I dismiss you on this issue because of your personal stated bias on this topic.
@frazzled: just a bad choice of words on my part. I dhouldve said "the prolife movement" instead of "you"
Ok gotcha. For the record that is a fair point, but I imagine, like any movement, there are the flame thrower types, and then there is the other side trying to quietly and calmly change things. Also for the record, I think its stupid of the Republican Party to tie themselves in on this issue. If the RP quit caring about this and "those rainbow types" and focused on the core issues of the economy, economic and social freedom, it would be a much different party.
Kilkrazy wrote: If robust, inflammatory language is a cornerstone of free speech perhaps it is sauce for the gander when someone tries to tar the anti-abortion movement with the nutjob shooter's brush. Or something.
Saying that the dude may have been inspired by the onslought of anti-Planned Parenthood propganda that has exploded with the release of those disingenuous videos isn't exactly tarring the pro-life movement with the same brush
Frazzled wrote: Incendiary language is the cornerstone of free speech in the USA.
Yet we say its wrong... Logic
Those say it is wrong have misplaced values. To be secure in their safe space they should live in a society where freedom of speech is more moderated. China perhaps?
After all, the concept is stupid. Just because HRC called Republicans her enemies, and Obama equated the Republican party with terrorism doesn't mean they are responsible for attacks that result of their incendiary language. Just because the BLM was calling for the murder of cops doesn't mean they caused the death of three police officers. Its a stupid argument.
the BLM did no such thing, that was another doctored video from fox. Just like the shooter quoted and all republican candidates, they all quoted the same debunked video.
Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.
Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?
free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.
Second when does free speech cross into hate speech
How do you define this? FYI... the US doesn't have hate speech laws...
and inciting violence.
There are laws against that... although, the bar is set high to achieve conviction.
Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?
You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?
free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.
You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.
Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.
No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.
"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.
So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.
No one has tested if you can yell "water" in a crowded theater. Just an interesting historical note. Tsunamis get no respect.
Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.
No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.
"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.
So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...
I can assume that either you don't like Smurfs or Democrats...
sirlynchmob wrote: Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?
You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?
Now, I know and you know that you're intelligent enough to know the difference between those two situations.
Situation A: Wanted poster is Distributed with specific people's addresses, faces and names A number of those people are then murdered in separate incidents
Situation B: Southern Poverty Law Centre creates large list of hate groups Single person attacks Family Research Council and wounds a guard
One of these situations is going "Here are some groups we disagree with and believe should be classified as hate groups based on their rhetoric" The other is a group of people specifically distributing information that led to the death of abortion providers.
Besides which, no-one here has said that what happened at the FRC was okay in any way, shape or form. At this point it's basically just whataboutism.
Come on. You're better than this.
free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.
You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.
What happens if there isn't a fire, but someone is just sort of stood there with a picture of a fire attempting to convince people that the place is burning down? What about then?
Because using the "if there's an actual fething fire" argument would imply that there is any actual credence to the claims being espoused by Fiorina and her friends, when those claims have been debunked.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I would point out to people that are saying "well, they can't be charged with a crime!" No-one here that I have seen is advocating charging people that are dealing in that sort of rhetoric with any sort of crime. Merely pointing out that, you know, actions have consequences.
If you point out how evil an organisation is every day for months on end, then maybe someone eventually might think they should do something about it in order to stop that organisation from harvesting babies.
sirlynchmob wrote: Where do you place distributing wanted posters of doctors with their personal address? just free speech? It's just a weird coincidence those doctors end up getting murdered?
You mean, like when SPLC had a targeted map for FRC's office?
Now, I know and you know that you're intelligent enough to know the difference between those two situations.
Situation A:
Wanted poster is Distributed with specific people's addresses, faces and names
A number of those people are then murdered in separate incidents
Situation B:
Southern Poverty Law Centre creates large list of hate groups
Single person attacks Family Research Council and wounds a guard
One of these situations is going "Here are some groups we disagree with and believe should be classified as hate groups based on their rhetoric"
The other is a group of people specifically distributing information that led to the death of abortion providers.
Besides which, no-one here has said that what happened at the FRC was okay in any way, shape or form. At this point it's basically just whataboutism.
Come on. You're better than this.
The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.
Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.
Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".
free speech is already moderated and for good reason, go yell fire in a movie theater and claim free speech for a defense, let us know how that works out for you.
You *can* yell fire in a movie theater if there's an actual fething fire. You cannot, however, yell fire in a movie theater for the express purpose of creating pandamonium for your enjoyment.
What happens if there isn't a fire, but someone is just sort of stood there with a picture of a fire attempting to convince people that the place is burning down? What about then?
Because using the "if there's an actual fething fire" argument would imply that there is any actual credence to the claims being espoused by Fiorina and her friends, when those claims have been debunked.
whembly wrote: The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.
Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.
Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".
And? They're both bad. Just because SPLC did it first doesn't mean it isn't also an awful situation.
Huh? What claims??
The general "They're being paid to harvest babies" falsehood that's being perpetuated by the right. Specifically Fiorina, but also a number of other people, including other presidential nomination candidates.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm not sure I'd call this terrorism (no group, no manifesto, no accomplices) but I would call it crazy. How the bleep do you justify murder when attacking an abortion clinic? Shooting cops and some insignificant nurses? If every life is sacred you shouldn'y try to end some lives just because you don't like their day job.
You're missing the point. The "left" in this country has been desperately trying for years to tie the Christian "right" to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. Thus when an abortion clinic get shot up, it must be an example of Christian motivated/conspired terrorism. It just has to be. The "left's" blind hatred of conservative Christians is so extreme they don't even see how toxic their own views have become.
I understand elections are coming up and most of the candidates suck but that isn't an excuse for the base rudeness that's welling up all over the internet. Seriously, everyone needs to just step back and take a damn chill pill.
So, we have confirmed reports that the shooter was a fundamentalist Christian, anti-government agitator, and reports from the police that the fictional videos related to Planned Parenthood appear to have been a contributing factor to the crime.
Link to your source, please. The only reports I've seen say nothing about his faith or political beliefs. In f act, CBS News reported, "The only publicly available clue to his motivation so far is that officers claim Dear said "no more baby parts," while being led away from the scene after his arrest." Even the claim that the videos are connected to this somehow is currently unsubstantiated as police have not reported a connection.
One more thing, regarding the videos. They have not been "debunked" or proven "fake" as many in this thread are claiming. Snopes doesn't call it false. Even CNN, the guys who supposedly "exposed" the fraud didn't take the position of the videos being fake or fictional. In fact, the CNN article is actually far more even handed than Planned Parenthood supported would have us believe.
"The two examples of misleading pictures and video have allowed Planned Parenthood and its supporters to label the Center for Medical Progress's entire production a fraud.
Dawn Laguens, an executive vice president with Planned Parenthood, repeated the defense the women's health group and its many supporters have been trying to convey since the first of the Center for Medical Progress's nine videos began to be released online.
"All of the tapes and footage David Daleiden has released out into the world has been heavily edited," Laguens told CNN. "And I think pretty thoroughly discredited."
Daleiden insists the two uses of video and photos are not misleading, and says the entire controversy has been manufactured by Planned Parenthood and its "allies in the mainstream media" in order to divert attention from the main point of his documentary: that Planned Parenthood uses aborted fetal tissue as a revenue source.
That's right. They reported a CLAIM by Planned Parenthood and a rebuttal by Daleiden. Daleiden further supported his claim by releasing the unedited videos (the interviews) which did nothing to exonerate Planned Parenthood or change the context of what was said in those interviews. Planned Parenthood wound up changing the way they deal with tissue donation and fees involved.
whembly wrote: The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.
Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.
Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".
And? They're both bad. Just because SPLC did it first doesn't mean it isn't also an awful situation.
Um...that was my bloody point!
Huh? What claims??
The general "They're being paid to harvest babies" falsehood that's being perpetuated by the right. Specifically Fiorina, but also a number of other people, including other presidential nomination candidates.
Ah... you were discussing fire in a theater and segued into Fiorina. I was confused.
I won't comment on that as it'll be offtopic and ya'll know my positions.
Second when does free speech cross into hate speech and inciting violence.
No such thing as hate speech legally. Thats a fantasy someone made up.
"Inciting violence?" There are a series of crimes I think you are referring to. They typically require: 1) immediacy; 2) specific person; 3) ability. Note this is a paraphrase and your jurisdiction may vary.
So one can say: "we don't cotton to no blue folk"
One can say "death to the blue folk!"
one can say "death to the blue folk right now!"
one cannot say " You, you , and you, see that blue guy over there? Kill him with your axes, now!"
Tough to be a Blue guy...
I can assume that either you don't like Smurfs or Democrats...
I'm fine with Democrats. The only good Smurf is a Dead Smurf!
If someone paints a great picture in the style of Van Gogh and passes it off as a Van Gogh, it's a fake but it's a real picture and may have value of its own.
Conversely, the video about the abortion uses real footage to make the apparently false implication that the PP organisation is in business to sell spare organs.
Naturally this finds already audience in people who are against abortion.
whembly wrote: The only difference is the outcome of both scenarios.
Corkins plotted to kill "as many people as possible" inspired by SPLC's target list and was only stopped by an armed guard.
Both scenarios involved "inflammatory rhetoric".
And? They're both bad. Just because SPLC did it first doesn't mean it isn't also an awful situation.
Huh? What claims??
The general "They're being paid to harvest babies" falsehood that's being perpetuated by the right. Specifically Fiorina, but also a number of other people, including other presidential nomination candidates.
PP said it will no longer take money for baby parts. That means they took money before.
skyth wrote: Funny that the Republican congressional investigation of the videos found no wrongdoing on the part of PP.
Claims of illegality came from politicians and pundants and when wrong they should be called on it. Make them defend their statements in front of the voters. Still, the whole thing stinks and Planned Parenthood gave the Repubican candidates much red meat to toss to the electorate.
Anti-abortion people have always reminded me of anti-gun people: That is in America at least, they want to restrict your Constitutional right because they don't like it.
They even use the same arguments. Saving lives vs. taking lives. Bloody pictures of children. Founding father's wouldn't have wanted this; "Saving children" etc.
I just wish more people would mind their own damn business.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one or also grow a womb and then don't have one.
Don't like guns? Then don't buy one or move to somewhere they aren't allowed.
OT my friend just sold me a WW1 issue American made Enfield. I need to put a new stock on it, but damn does that fether kick! I can't believe that was the standard infantry round for 2 world wars!
There is wisdom here, and reflects most people (reflected in polling). They are not fans of abortion but, within limits, want it legal.
I like that the WAPO article notes that this Army of God group got hammered (pun intended) by the PoPo back in the 90s. Best thing for it.
I'd bet dollars to donuts, it will come out that this is a general nutso guy, who happens to be slightly more nutso over this topic. Alternatively, he just randomly lost it. Are there links to a timeline of what actually went down and who he was shooting at? Did he go into the PP or did the first shootout occur outside and he went in after? That would help determine if the PP was the actual target.
Its interesting huh? That often, on both sides, end up using the same tactics as those very people they say are in the wrong and doing the wrong thing.
As I have said, Education on the issues are what is needed.
skyth wrote: Funny that the Republican congressional investigation of the videos found no wrongdoing on the part of PP.
Claims of illegality came from politicians and pundants and when wrong they should be called on it. Make them defend their statements in front of the voters. Still, the whole thing stinks and Planned Parenthood gave the Repubican candidates much red meat to toss to the electorate.
All a politician needs to do is just say the same thing over and over with no evidence and people will believe them, they dont need proof.
You know, it might be better for the pro-life movement to stop targetting abortion providers, and women who choose to have abortions. This is a legal procedure in the United States, and it's symptomatic of the wider acceptance of and approval for legal abortion. Latest Gallup Poll has Pro-Choice at 50% approval, and pro-life at 44%. It really should not be the abortion providers and consumers that draw their ire so much as the majority of the populous who support access to legal abortion .
I've said it many times, the first people that the pro-life movement should try to persuade to their cause is Christians. Since the pro-life movement is largely Christian, it does say something very significant when they can't even convince other Christians that the criminalization of abortion is a desireable goal.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
jasper76 wrote: You know, it might be better for the pro-life movement to stop targetting abortion providers, and women who choose to have abortions. This is a legal procedure in the United States, and it's symptomatic of the wider acceptance of and approval for legal abortion. Latest Gallup Poll has Pro-Choice at 50% approval, and pro-life at 44%. It really should not be the abortion providers and consumers that draw their ire so much as the majority of the populous who support access to legal abortion .
.
Maybe they should, instead of trying to make it illegal, they instead decide to provide familial assistance, work on govt programs that help women with children. Give more support to struggling families.
Y'know, the main reason people get abortions.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
`a
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
I kind of feel like you're proving my point CptJake.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
He actually specified that he was outed as nonChristian in high school, and that a direct result was horrendous treatment and a psych evaluation. I buy it. I've seen that kind of stuff happen in real life to outspoken nonChristians. Personally, I just keep a low profile and only associate with more open minded people, but Friends and relatives of mine have been ostracized, threatened, and even physically attacked by Christians specifically for being nonChristian. It happens more than you probably see.
With those kinds of personal experiences, it would be very easy for one to stereotype about all Christians. I'm not saying he's right. I'm saying I can understand where he's coming from.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
I'm here to tell you as an atheist that a very significant portion of Christians I've encountered are plenty friendly up to the point that you disclose to them that you are not a Christian, after which they treat you like gak, and all over the most trivial of trivialities...a disagreement about the probability of a divine intelligence behind the cosmos.
Now mind you, not all Christians, behave this way, not even most, but a significant subset. If you live inside the Christian bubble, this might not be apparent to you.
jasper76 wrote: You know, it might be better for the pro-life movement to stop targetting abortion providers, and women who choose to have abortions. This is a legal procedure in the United States, and it's symptomatic of the wider acceptance of and approval for legal abortion. Latest Gallup Poll has Pro-Choice at 50% approval, and pro-life at 44%. It really should not be the abortion providers and consumers that draw their ire so much as the majority of the populous who support access to legal abortion .
.
Maybe they should, instead of trying to make it illegal, they instead decide to provide familial assistance, work on govt programs that help women with children. Give more support to struggling families.
Y'know, the main reason people get abortions.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
I believe he's trying to just trying to drybush the groups that deserve that color Frazzeled.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
`a
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
I kind of feel like you're proving my point CptJake.
Unfortunately, I tend to see a guy act like an ass hat, then very openly treat him like an ass hat. I couldn't give two gaks about what religion if any you have/don't have/follow/pretend to follow/actively don't follow.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
I'm here to tell you as an atheist that a very significant portion of Christians I've encountered are plenty friendly up to the point that you disclose to them that you are not a Christian, after which they treat you like gak, and all over the most trivial of trivialities...a disagreement about the probability of a divine intelligence behind the cosmos.
Now mind you, not all Christians, behave this way, not even most, but a significant subset. If you live inside the Christian bubble, this might not be apparent to you.
Are you trying to say that there aren't Christians who treat non-Christians poorly, or are you just trying to trivialize that this is so because its not a matter of survival?
Alex C wrote: Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?
No it's not. I was just responding to what I perceived as an argument that because atheists' lives are not frequently threatened by Christians, that atheists being treated poorly and discriminated against by some Christians is somehow trivial, or that the assertion that this is so is a false one.
I'll withdraw until the discussion gets back on topic, and I apologize for my part in derailing the topic
jasper76 wrote: I'll withdraw until the discussion gets back on topic, and I apologize for my part in derailing the topic
No problem. We all get caught up in the heat of debate from time to time.
Back to the topic, has anyone noticed that this story has completely fallen off almost every major news outlet's web site? You really have to dig to even find the original story. Man, they dropped this almost at the very instant there was no more drama to be squeezed from it.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
That's a load of gak. A person isn't responsible for the actions of other people. Disputing claims that Christianity causes terrorism is no different than pointing out that Islam doesn't cause terrorism either. The idea that Frazzled, or anyone else, is somehow supporting or condoning murder and terrorism when pointing out the fact that only a tiny fraction of Christians commit acts of terrorism is lunacy. While there are extremists in Christianity just like there are in every religion and the vast majority of Christians that aren't terrorists aren't beholden to the actions of the terroristic few. None of my Muslim friends owed me any apologies or explanations or condemnations for 9/11, none of them are in Al Qaeda so they don't bear any responsibility whatsoever for the attacks. This idea that all Muslims or Christians are somehow responsible for the actions of a relative handful of zealots because the don't collectively find a way to predict the future and stop any Muslim or Christian from committing an act of terrorism is asinine. Nobody is responsible for acts of terrorism except for the people that choose to commit them. Frazzled, and any other Christian isn't responsible for Army of God attacks on abortion clinics/doctors, he has no association with the group, there's nothing he can do to prevent other people he doesn't know from choosing to do bad things, he bears no responsibility for their actions whatsoever.
*side note* You give Army of God way too much credit, they are not numerous or powerful, they aren't attacking PP clinics on a regular basis. In their entire history they've proven themselves to be about as dangerous as one bad weekend in Chicago. While all murders are wrong and tragic their terrorism has had a very negligible impact on abortion laws and availability in the US, they aren't some big boogeyman, they're a handful of zealots that most people haven't even heard of. They are terrorist zealots and their attacks are illegal, immoral and there's no place for those actions in a civil society but their biggest impact has been forcing clinics to increase security measures.
I don't know where this worrisome trend in our culture has come from but it is illogical, impractical and extremely detrimental to our society to believe that anyone with any commonality to a person or group that you dislike or is demonstrably bad, no matter how tangential that commonality might be, can then have all of the negative aspects of that bad (either subjectively or objectively bad) person or group ascribed to them for purposes of public shaming and forced condemnations. It infests politics and social media and it's makes everyone who engages in it dumber for participating in it.
jasper76 wrote: I'll withdraw until the discussion gets back on topic, and I apologize for my part in derailing the topic
No problem. We all get caught up in the heat of debate from time to time.
Back to the topic, has anyone noticed that this story has completely fallen off almost every major news outlet's web site? You really have to dig to even find the original story. Man, they dropped this almost at the very instant there was no more drama to be squeezed from it.
The breaking news aspect of it dies off within a day or two and then you have the long dry spell wherein the authorities have to complete their investigation to obtain more information to make public. Once the initial reporting is done there's no new information to report so it gets replaced by other new news. When there's more information available and later when the trial starts it might break into the headlines again. That's just how the 24 hour news cycle works, anything that is happening NOW is more important than anything that has already happened.
I think we'd all be happier talking to each other if we step back and realize that Christianity is a huge spectrum, from Portlandia-style pro-Choice hipsters to people who think you should be executed for being gay.
Its probably more helpful to speak of the Pro-Life movement than Christianity as a whole, because many Christians in the US (the majority of them?) are Pro -Choice, so generalizing about Christians really doesn't add anything except confusion.
jasper76 wrote: You know, it might be better for the pro-life movement to stop targetting abortion providers, and women who choose to have abortions. This is a legal procedure in the United States, and it's symptomatic of the wider acceptance of and approval for legal abortion. Latest Gallup Poll has Pro-Choice at 50% approval, and pro-life at 44%. It really should not be the abortion providers and consumers that draw their ire so much as the majority of the populous who support access to legal abortion .
.
Maybe they should, instead of trying to make it illegal, they instead decide to provide familial assistance, work on govt programs that help women with children. Give more support to struggling families.
Y'know, the main reason people get abortions.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
That's a load of gak. A person isn't responsible for the actions of other people. ...
....
Often they are, morally, legally or ethically, depending on circumstances.
For example, a military leader orders his troops to carry out an attack.
A religious leader instructs his followers to act because of religious principles.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
Why? If he himself isn't Christian, he probably receives different treatment than other Christians would. It's like that old Dave Barry saying, if someone is nice to you but mean to the waiter, he isn't a nice guy. While I wouldn't say most of the Christians I've met were bad people by any stretch, I Have certainly met enough of the ones who are good Christians to other Christians but are mean to unbelievers. I can kind of relate to where Lonestar is coming from.
Give me a fething break. He did not say he was treated differently, he said most he encountered are horrendous people. And I VERY seriously doubt even if the majority of christians can discern the faith (or lack there of ) of everyone they interact with and then based on that treat them so fething poorly that they end up deserving a 'horrendous person' label. When guys like lonestarr777 make statements like that, they show massive bias which in turn makes it best to ignore the statements they make on the topic.
I'm here to tell you as an atheist that a very significant portion of Christians I've encountered are plenty friendly up to the point that you disclose to them that you are not a Christian, after which they treat you like gak, and all over the most trivial of trivialities...a disagreement about the probability of a divine intelligence behind the cosmos.
Now mind you, not all Christians, behave this way, not even most, but a significant subset. If you live inside the Christian bubble, this might not be apparent to you.
Are you trying to say that there aren't Christians who treat non-Christians poorly, or are you just trying to trivialize that this is so because its not a matter of survival?
The turn of phrase struck a funny chord with me, it wasn't disputing your post, just rehashing it in a more amusing way. This thread seems to be following a familiar pattern of sweeping generalizations, followed by disputations of the generalizations, followed by anecdotal evidence, in turn followed by universal truths. There are always bad apples in every bunch, different people have different experiences with the same wider classification of people. When it comes to religion even within the same sect you tend to find people very individualized notions of proper adherence to the tenets of that religion.
In short, sometimes even serious topics remind me of the unseriousness of the internet.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
That's a load of gak. A person isn't responsible for the actions of other people. ...
....
Often they are, morally, legally or ethically, depending on circumstances.
For example, a military leader orders his troops to carry out an attack.
A religious leader instructs his followers to act because of religious principles.
Etc.
The military is a seperate issue because its an organization that operates under a different set of rules of behavior. Service members have to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is separate and distinct from the civilian court system. There is some overlap but not in the instance of your example.
A religious leader isn't responsible for other people's actions. Individuals have free will and choose to commit actions of their own volition. Religious leaders can say whatever they want and people, followers or not, can choose to obey or not. People willfully defy religious edicts all over the world on a daily basis.
jasper76 wrote: You know, it might be better for the pro-life movement to stop targetting abortion providers, and women who choose to have abortions. This is a legal procedure in the United States, and it's symptomatic of the wider acceptance of and approval for legal abortion. Latest Gallup Poll has Pro-Choice at 50% approval, and pro-life at 44%. It really should not be the abortion providers and consumers that draw their ire so much as the majority of the populous who support access to legal abortion .
.
Maybe they should, instead of trying to make it illegal, they instead decide to provide familial assistance, work on govt programs that help women with children. Give more support to struggling families.
Y'know, the main reason people get abortions.
Thats a nifty idea
Social programs already account for the majority of the federal budget. It's not as if there aren't a plethora of assistance programs that provide billions of dollars of aid to people on an annual basis. It's also not terribly difficult to avoid getting pregnant. Contraceptives are plentiful and widely available.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
My church represents several million. They have no problem with it. I don't recognize "groups" outside of "churches." I don't think the Catholic Church has a position on education per se, but I haven't chatted up the Pope lately.
That view you espoused is ass backward. By defending the whole UI can surmount any argument you make, because at the base of it, your argument toddleresque. Else under your argument all US citizens are murdering rambling animals because at least one-the person who did this thread's crime-did that. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy you educated youngins would know about here.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
That's a load of gak. A person isn't responsible for the actions of other people. ...
....
Often they are, morally, legally or ethically, depending on circumstances.
For example, a military leader orders his troops to carry out an attack.
A religious leader instructs his followers to act because of religious principles.
Etc.
The military is a seperate issue because its an organization that operates under a different set of rules of behavior. Service members have to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is separate and distinct from the civilian court system. There is some overlap but not in the instance of your example.
A religious leader isn't responsible for other people's actions. Individuals have free will and choose to commit actions of their own volition. Religious leaders can say whatever they want and people, followers or not, can choose to obey or not. People willfully defy religious edicts all over the world on a daily basis.
...
The fact you've had to move the goal posts with reference to the army shows your core point is invalid.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children.
Teachers are responsible for the actions of their pupils.
Sports coaches are responsible for the actions of their team.
Insane people are not responsible for their own actions.
oddly enough, what reduced abortions and unwanted pregnancies is a comprehensive sexual education in school. Which is another thing christian groups do not want and make a fuss anytime it's brought up. teaching abstinence only increases abortions.
SOME groups. Again thou beist guilty of painting with an overly large brush.
do you have a source for only some groups? I do know christian groups oppose teaching sex ed in school. see I added in groups as a qualifier, I didn't just say christians are against sex ed. I know you're keen on defending your religion which you probably feel is under attack right now, but just remember the first step in solving a problem is admitting there's a problem. by defending the religion as a whole you end up defending the terrorist groups within your religion. Thus supporting the christian extremest and enabling them.
you're extremist groups were probably some of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, and how was that painted? the IRS is targeting conservative groups, again shielding those that should really be brought to light and exposed for what they are.
That's a load of gak. A person isn't responsible for the actions of other people. ...
....
Often they are, morally, legally or ethically, depending on circumstances.
For example, a military leader orders his troops to carry out an attack.
A religious leader instructs his followers to act because of religious principles.
Etc.
The military is a seperate issue because its an organization that operates under a different set of rules of behavior. Service members have to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is separate and distinct from the civilian court system. There is some overlap but not in the instance of your example.
A religious leader isn't responsible for other people's actions. Individuals have free will and choose to commit actions of their own volition. Religious leaders can say whatever they want and people, followers or not, can choose to obey or not. People willfully defy religious edicts all over the world on a daily basis.
...
The fact you've had to move the goal posts with reference to the army shows your core point is invalid.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children.
Teachers are responsible for the actions of their pupils.
Sports coaches are responsible for the actions of their team.
Insane people are not responsible for their own actions.
Etc, etc.
No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.
Same with coaches. They aren't responsible for the actions of their players. When a member of a team gets charged with a crime the coach doesn't get charged too just because he's the coach. There are no legal ramifications for a coach when a player, on his/her own accord does something bad. If the school or team employing the coach feels that the coach is doing a poor job of creating a structured and disciplined environment for players and encouraging and teaching good decision making the coach can get fired but players are still individually responsible for their own actions.
Teachers are not responsible for the actions of their students. If a student assaults another student in the classroom is it the teacher's fault? Does that teaccher get charged with a crime or punished by his/her employer because students got into a fight? No, because the teacher isn't responsible for a student choosing to do something bad.
Parents are only responsible for the actions of their children under certain circumstances, primarily only if the children are under age and cannot be held legally responsible, even in that circumstance juvenile detention centers exist because underage people can still be held responsible for their crimes.
You seem to be conflating individual responsiblity for chosen actions and responsibility in the general sense of providing care. Being responsible for producing a safe and structured environment for learning or athletics or being responsible for producing a safe nurturing home is not the same as being responsible for the willful actions of other individuals.
People who have been diagnosed or adjudicated as being mentally ill may not be held legally responsible for their actions but that doesn't make anyone else responsible for their actions either. If a crazy person does something bad it's nobody else's fault except for the crazy person. The person who commits the action bears responsiblity for that action.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to rear their children without undue interference by the government. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925.) But, in the same decision, the Court upheld the power of states to force parents to ensure that their children attend school. So, parenting is by no means an unfettered right and, as with many rights, it carries significant legal responsibilities.
What Are Parental Responsibility Laws?
Each state imposes legal responsibility on parents and legal guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years. Many arose out of or supplemented laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Such laws rest on the assumption that minors commit crimes because their parents have failed to exercise proper control and oversight, and that the way to inspire parents to exert the necessary control is to punish them if they don’t.
Public demand for parental responsibility laws has fluctuated over time. The Columbine High School shootings and other similar incidents have inspired state and local lawmakers to enact parental responsibility laws. In the late 1980s, California and other states passed laws aimed at reducing what the states saw as an epidemic of gang-related crime by youths.
Reading it further it sounds like parents wouldn't be charged with the same crime as their child committed, but rather charged with leading to the delinquency of a minor.
So, RAW you are right, Prestor, but RAI, nope. You are responsible legally for the criminal actions of your children in some fashion.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA isn't the only country in the world.
Crimes aren't the only thing people are responsible for.
The only way you can dispute my assertion is to play semantic games with the definition of responsibility. Indviduals are responsible for their willful actions this has been accepted as truth throughout human history.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to rear their children without undue interference by the government. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925.) But, in the same decision, the Court upheld the power of states to force parents to ensure that their children attend school. So, parenting is by no means an unfettered right and, as with many rights, it carries significant legal responsibilities.
What Are Parental Responsibility Laws?
Each state imposes legal responsibility on parents and legal guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years. Many arose out of or supplemented laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Such laws rest on the assumption that minors commit crimes because their parents have failed to exercise proper control and oversight, and that the way to inspire parents to exert the necessary control is to punish them if they don’t.
Public demand for parental responsibility laws has fluctuated over time. The Columbine High School shootings and other similar incidents have inspired state and local lawmakers to enact parental responsibility laws. In the late 1980s, California and other states passed laws aimed at reducing what the states saw as an epidemic of gang-related crime by youths.
As I said, there are some exceptions in the parent/child relationship concerning individual responsiblity but those only apply when certain conditions are met, primarily the age of the child. Parental responsibility only extends for the duration in which their children are not mentally/emotionally capable of accepting responsiblity for their own actions. Once you become an adult nobody else is responsible for your chosen actions.
There is a difference between responsibility and liability.
For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?
If our hypothetical child commits a racist crime, do the parents hold no responsibility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.
jasper76 wrote: There is a difference between responsibility and liability.
For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?
If they commit a racist crime, do the parents hold no respinisbility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.
When the child becomes an adult that adult is now responsible for his/her own actions. A person can hold bigotted personal beliefs without breaking any laws or behaving in a malicious or uncivil manner. Merely holding racist thoughts/opinions isn't a punishable offense.
More importantly, once a child is an adult they are free to make their own choices and form their own opinions. The world is full of people who hold very different opinions on a whole host of issues than their parents even though they were raised in a manner meant to reinforce the parents' beliefs in their children.
jasper76 wrote: There is a difference between responsibility and liability.
For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?
If our hypothetical child commits a racist crime, do the parents hold no responsibility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.
Honestly once the kid is an adult I put ALL responsibility on him. There comes a point where you can and should evaluate what your parents taught you and base your life and actions on what YOU feel is best. Plenty of kids have grown up with racist parents and are not racists.
@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.
I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.
They don't magically wash away but they don't magically compel the adult to commit bad acts either. Parents can pass on all kinds of beliefs and opinions to their children but when those children are grown up, they know hat is legal and what is illegal, what is civil and what is uncivil and they can choose to act as they wish.
We can just agree to disagree at what constitutes responsibility. Im not familiar with the details of your own sons situation. If you intentionally raised him in such a way that led him to his poor life decisions (which hopefully you did not), then I would say that you would be partially responsible for those choices.
Note that I am not at all saying that parents are responsible for every action their adult children make. They're only responsible if, well, they are responsible.
To go back to my question: if parents raise a child to be racist, and a child grows up and commits a crime with racist motives, would you really believe that the parents bear no responsibility for the crime? None at all?
If you would not, ill just tell you that I would, and I would not be alone. Liable? No. Partially responsible? Yes.
jasper76 wrote: We can just agree to disagree at what constitutes responsibility. Im not familiar with the details of your own sons situation. If you intentionally raised him in such a way that led him to his poor life decisions (which hopefully you did not), then I would say that you would be partially responsible for those choices.
Note that I am not at all saying that parents are responsible for every action their adult children make. They're only responsible if, well, they are responsible.
To go back to my question: if parents raise a child to be racist, and a child grows up and commits a crime with racist motives, would you really believe that the parents bear no responsibility for the crime? None at all?
If you would not, ill just tell you that I would, and I would not be alone. Liable? No. Partially responsible? Yes.
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world
people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.
how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world
people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.
how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.
Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.
I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.
Alex C wrote: Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?
It seems to have gone in that direction.
The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here? Never mind, I was see it was a clerical error on a voter registration or some such.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.
Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.
I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.
I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.
Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.
I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.
I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.
I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.
I had a friend in high school jokingly tell a teacher I was part of the Trench Coat Mafia. This was about 2 years pre-Columbine (so Trench Coat Mafia wasn't the buzz word it later became), and I still got hauled into the principal's office and questioned for an hour about my apparel, my friends, and my social activities. Point is, school staff react stupidly sometimes.
Did one class lead to psych evaluations? Maybe. If it was a conservative, religious school and staff were "concerned" then I could see something like that happening. Maybe not, too. Maybe the class led to confrontations with other students that led to psych evals. Or something else happened. You are right that details are missing.
But nitpicking a detail in a follow explanation that has no bearing on the original point (that lonestarr777's bias towards Christians has context based on his personal experiences) seems captious.
I find the level of grief given to lonestarr's post interesting given that he deliberately used precise language not to broad stroke Christians, made it clear that he was expressing personal opinion, and still he gets trounced. People say much worse gak on here everyday and it gets ignored. But point out that your experiences with Christians have been anything but peachy and you get the book thrown at you.
Prestor Jon wrote: No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.
You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.
Prestor Jon wrote: [No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.
There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.
Prestor Jon wrote: No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.
You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.
Prestor Jon wrote: [No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.
There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.
Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.
So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world
people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.
how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.
People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.
People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.
Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.
I think both sides of the abortion debate are pro-choice. They just disagree on when the choice occurs/should occur.
Well, you do have some nutters going "No, never, not even for the life of the mother!", but they a rightly called nutters by most people.
Indeed. I think Abortions can sometimes be medically necessary, and I think that is the only acceptable time to have one.
The abortion debate is entirely about the timing. 43 states already have laws that prohibit abortions on viable fetuses unless the health if the mother is threatened. Those laws are supported by SCOTUS. Pretty much every Western country with legal abortion puts limits on late term abortions.
Fetuses change over time. A week old microscopic clump of cells =/= a 36 week old baby in the womb. It's when people want to declare two dissimilar things to be the same based only on personal opinion, whether it's based on theology or morals or politics or whatever, that the craziness comes into the debate.
The laws already have it right, eggs aren't people and babies shouldn't be killed except to save the life of another. People need to accept the existing compromise that is based on proven medical science and not push for absolutist all or nothing positions.
Prestor Jon wrote: No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.
You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.
Prestor Jon wrote: [No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.
There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.
Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.
So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)
1.) "Saying there is an incredibly high standard" is moving the goalposts. I have disproved the point that he made. What he said was "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad". This is factually inaccurate. You can indeed in the US be charged under the UCMJ for crimes committed by those under your command.
2.) Similarly, the specifics in that truancy case aren't really relevant to the principle that disproves what he was saying. It was just a handy example. I'm sure I can find more examples but it's not really needed. What Prestor John said was "Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children". I have shown that this is also factually incorrect (or, if you prefer, answered the question given); in at least 2 state there are truancy laws that mandate that children must attend school by law, that by not doing so they are violating the criminal code, and it is the parents that are prosecuted. Also, where in the article does it say she was an accomplice in her truancy - did you read the same article I did?
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world
people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.
how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.
People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.
People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.
Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.
you should write a paper on those anecdotes, I'm sure it will make every parenting magazine
who's this guy who never wanted to be married and choose to be married? I bet he just work up one day and said "today's the day, let's get married to someone" he just woke up single and alone, then ran out and met the girl he wanted to marry, he went from being single to married in a matter of hours. did it all on his own, no prompting from anyone.
I never said they were carbon copies, read what I wrote, all those changes had someone prompting the change, ie a catalyst.
Now for some facts, as we see the first 5 years lay down the foundation for behavior. This is where the parents have the most impact on the children's life and affects the rest of their lives.
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/child_development.html "In the first five years of life, your child’s brain develops more and faster than at any other time in his life. The early experiences your child has – the things he sees, hears, touches, smells and tastes – stimulate his brain, creating millions of connections. This is when foundations for learning, health and behaviour throughout life are laid down."
Parents are likewise financially responsible (in the civil suit sense) for things done by their minor children. Your kid coats someone's car in spray paint? You're paying for that, Mom and Dad, as well as any punitive fines levied by a court for the charge of vandalism.
When we talk about actions undertaken by demagogues, there are already a number of laws that apply to such. Perhaps the most often quoted is "incitement to riot". If I jump up on top of a car in front of a crowd of people and, through rhetoric (truthful or not) get them to burn down a police station and crucify the mayor, I am legally responsible for inciting a riot. I am also an accessory to murder, vandalism, destruction of property, and a list of other crimes, even if I did not personally engage in any of them myself.
Tying this back into our shooter, here's the mayor of Colorado Springs talking about this guy, following police investigation and court appearances:
The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.
ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world
people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.
how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.
People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.
People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.
Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.
you should write a paper on those anecdotes, I'm sure it will make every parenting magazine
who's this guy who never wanted to be married and choose to be married? I bet he just work up one day and said "today's the day, let's get married to someone" he just woke up single and alone, then ran out and met the girl he wanted to marry, he went from being single to married in a matter of hours. did it all on his own, no prompting from anyone.
I never said they were carbon copies, read what I wrote, all those changes had someone prompting the change, ie a catalyst.
Now for some facts, as we see the first 5 years lay down the foundation for behavior. This is where the parents have the most impact on the children's life and affects the rest of their lives.
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/child_development.html "In the first five years of life, your child’s brain develops more and faster than at any other time in his life. The early experiences your child has – the things he sees, hears, touches, smells and tastes – stimulate his brain, creating millions of connections. This is when foundations for learning, health and behaviour throughout life are laid down."
You don't need a traumatic or dramatic catalyst to change. People change behaviors and opinions all the time for various reasons. Your supposition that people most often must hit " rock bottom" to effect changes is false.
The information you posted regarding the developmental importance of the first five years of a person's life does nothing to contradict or dispute what I wrote. I've raised and coached and interacted with many five year old and younger children. The lessons they learn at that age are important, I never said they weren't. Nothing learned during those initial five years precludes or prohibits people from changing and evolving over time. People make all kinds of changes in their opinions and behaviors for a plethora of reasons throughout their lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: Parents are likewise financially responsible (in the civil suit sense) for things done by their minor children. Your kid coats someone's car in spray paint? You're paying for that, Mom and Dad, as well as any punitive fines levied by a court for the charge of vandalism.
When we talk about actions undertaken by demagogues, there are already a number of laws that apply to such. Perhaps the most often quoted is "incitement to riot". If I jump up on top of a car in front of a crowd of people and, through rhetoric (truthful or not) get them to burn down a police station and crucify the mayor, I am legally responsible for inciting a riot. I am also an accessory to murder, vandalism, destruction of property, and a list of other crimes, even if I did not personally engage in any of them myself.
Tying this back into our shooter, here's the mayor of Colorado Springs talking about this guy, following police investigation and court appearances:
Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.
Prestor Jon wrote: No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.
You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.
Prestor Jon wrote: [No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.
There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.
Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.
So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)
1.) "Saying there is an incredibly high standard" is moving the goalposts. I have disproved the point that he made. What he said was "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad". This is factually inaccurate. You can indeed in the US be charged under the UCMJ for crimes committed by those under your command.
2.) Similarly, the specifics in that truancy case aren't really relevant to the principle that disproves what he was saying. It was just a handy example. I'm sure I can find more examples but it's not really needed. What Prestor John said was "Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children". I have shown that this is also factually incorrect (or, if you prefer, answered the question given); in at least 2 state there are truancy laws that mandate that children must attend school by law, that by not doing so they are violating the criminal code, and it is the parents that are prosecuted. Also, where in the article does it say she was an accomplice in her truancy - did you read the same article I did?
1) No that is factually true the officer does not face court martial JUST[i] because somebody under his command did something bad, he could face court martial due to his own action or inaction, not JUST because of his troops actions.
2) You mean where based on her own words she knew about it ahead of time and condoned it ? So once again based on action or inaction taken by the parent with regard to the minor. I not only read the article I comprehended the article.
Yeah, I'm going to just feel like I'm right and drop it. What you're saying is in the article really isn't there, and the other thing is pure, 100% goalpost moving. I've satisfied both of the questions raised as they were written. That thing you said about how Medina was charged because of something he did after the fact (this becoming an accomplice, as you say) is simply 100% not true, at all. Among the other charges he faced were 22 counts of Murder, but at no point was he accused of personally carrying out those 22 murders - he was being held responsible for the murders committed by the men under his command that he did not stop. Not after the fact, during the action.
The idea that a commanding officer can be held criminally responsible for the crimes of their subordinates isn't a novel argument. It goes back to WW2. I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it because you even tacitly admitted as such when you initially said "there is an incredibly high standard". So, I'm satisfied I'm right. Also, this has become super off-topic so you should probably PM me about it if you want to continue.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.
I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.
Presumably you tried your best to provide a good home environment, moral instruction, and so on, for both children.
Why did you do that if you think that adults make their own choices?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The relevance of this line of discussion is that the shooter is presumed to have a variety of influences that motivated his conduct, what these might be, and whether for example if racism was one of them, the promotion of racism by other people could be considered to have contributed to the shooter's crimes.
Suffice it to say, he did in fact target Planned Parenthood, thus ending one of the more bizarre arguments that this thread offered.
But can we really be sure that he was targetting PP? I mean, might he have just been shooting people nearby and happened to have ended up in PP? I don't know about you, but being a long-term abortion opponent; condoning people that attack abortion clinics, and saying "no more baby parts" to the police just isn't enough evidence that he was specifically targeting an abortion provider.
Alex C wrote: Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?
It seems to have gone in that direction.
The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here? Never mind, I was see it was a clerical error on a voter registration or some such.
Well I for one now will be much more leery of large bearded women carrying rifles.
jasper76 wrote: @Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.
I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.
Presumably you tried your best to provide a good home environment, moral instruction, and so on, for both children.
Why did you do that if you think that adults make their own choices?
.
Likely because of hubris. We as parents feel we can pass on the tools necessary for the kids to base their decisions on when they are adults. But in the end, we do so knowing the kid, once an adult is going to make the (or in some cases not make) decisions on their own, regardless of what we did or did not do to them/for them/around them.
Do you not think adults make their own choices and are responsible for them?
I think that even in cases where they have a choice free from direct coercion, adults are heavily influenced in their decisions by many factors including upbringing, social pressure, religion and other ideas of right and wrong, as well as their own in-born drives. Therefore, no decision is taken in a vacuum and responsibility may be born by other people who helped to create the various influences on the individual's decision.
For example, I think that if a holy leader promotes the idea of violent struggle against infidels, he bears some responsibility for members of his religion engaging in violent struggle against infidels. The same thing applies in many walks of life ranging from trivial to vitally important, and encompasses positive as well as negative influences.
This is the whole basis for laws and rules like Gloryifing Terrorism, or Bring The Game into Disrepute, the Hippocratic Oath, and so on.
So in your case I would say that you have tried to promote positive values in your children, and this worked in one case but not in the other. You can take some credit, for the success of the good son, and regret the failings of the bad one while perhaps wondering what more you could have done.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that even in cases where they have a choice free from direct coercion, adults are heavily influenced in their decisions by many factors including upbringing, social pressure, religion and other ideas of right and wrong, as well as their own in-born drives. Therefore, no decision is taken in a vacuum and responsibility may be born by other people who helped to create the various influences on the individual's decision.
For example, I think that if a holy leader promotes the idea of violent struggle against infidels, he bears some responsibility for members of his religion engaging in violent struggle against infidels. The same thing applies in many walks of life ranging from trivial to vitally important, and encompasses positive as well as negative influences.
This is the whole basis for laws and rules like Gloryifing Terrorism, or Bring The Game into Disrepute, the Hippocratic Oath, and so on.
So in your case I would say that you have tried to promote positive values in your children, and this worked in one case but not in the other. You can take some credit, for the success of the good son, and regret the failings of the bad one while perhaps wondering what more you could have done.
I totally agree, it's the lament of all parents of kids who make mistakes. "where did I go wrong?"
I can honestly say I don't have that lament. Son1 made his choices. Not me. Nothing I did/did not do makes me feel even a tiny bit responsible for his actions.
Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.
Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).
"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.
Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.
Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).
"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.
No, there has to be direct linkage between the speaker and the rioters for the charge to be warranted. If you're speaking directly to people committing a crime and extolling them to commit that crime you're an accessory and can be charged with incitement. Same way that somebody that only drives the getaway car can be charged with the bank robbery even though that person only drove a car and driving isn't illegal. You lose your free speech protection when your speech is participatory in a crime. Conspiracy also only applies to participants, if a person help somebody plan a crime that is a form of assistance and makes them a participant in that crime and any other crimes that are spawned from that original crime.
In this case, there hasn't been anything released by the authorities that shows that the gunman was connected to any larger group, Christian, Pro Life or other. Without evidence of a direct connection there isn't any grounds to charge anyone else with incitement, conspiracy, etc.
Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.
I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.
When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.
I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.
By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.
So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.
If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.
Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.
I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.
I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.
You have been sheltered then. My own wife went through that kind of thing as a child for not believing in the right church. Some people, sometimes even people in power, simply won't accept that others don't believe in Jesus the same way they do. This can often lead to the person in power assuming there must be something wrong in the wrong-thinking unbeliever. It's even easier when the mob agrees with the person in power.
Grey Templar wrote: But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.
It is pretty common if you are the minority I'm afraid. Living in the far east, people would simply be unable to conceive the concept that I did not believe in any supernatural powers or spirits. Had I been subject to their powers (and local), I am sure that I would have had to spend large amounts of my time being prodded by various people to determine what was wrong with me...
I was using a personal example to illustrate a point; it is not just christian majorities that can have serious impacts on those of other and no faiths, nor is it confined to a single culture or geographic location. People will treat others differently for having alternative beliefs; the more prevelant the presiding belief in that place, the more likely it is that people who do not share it will get some form of grief. And the less likely it is a member of that homogeneous majority will see the inequality.
I had a guy who I was friends with at the gym and after he asked which church I was a member of and I told him I didn't belong to a church he stopped talking to me.
Ahtman wrote: I had a guy who I was friends with at the gym and after he asked which church I was a member of and I told him I didn't belong to a church he stopped talking to me.
I hate to tell you, but thats not why he quit talking to you. We told you before about maintaining personal space boundaries, but you just don't listen...
Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.
Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).
"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.
No, there has to be direct linkage between the speaker and the rioters for the charge to be warranted. If you're speaking directly to people committing a crime and extolling them to commit that crime you're an accessory and can be charged with incitement. Same way that somebody that only drives the getaway car can be charged with the bank robbery even though that person only drove a car and driving isn't illegal. You lose your free speech protection when your speech is participatory in a crime. Conspiracy also only applies to participants, if a person help somebody plan a crime that is a form of assistance and makes them a participant in that crime and any other crimes that are spawned from that original crime.
In this case, there hasn't been anything released by the authorities that shows that the gunman was connected to any larger group, Christian, Pro Life or other. Without evidence of a direct connection there isn't any grounds to charge anyone else with incitement, conspiracy, etc.
No, not really. And in the case of our Colorado shooter, we have definite linkage, out of his own mouth. The guy is quoting things that were brought up in the fraudulent videos. There's the guy on Facebook, Fuerstein, with nearly 2 million followers, who is calling for people to assassinate abortion providers. We have a Presidential nominee who is saying that she saw things in those videos that were not found therein to stoke the anti-abortion debate. Then you've got a guy who's reading and watching all this, with a history of action against Planned Parenthood specifically, and women in general. The hell do you think this guy is going to do?
Grey Templar wrote: But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.
Among vocal atheists, Wiccans and Satanists, it seems pretty common. For those of us who keep our heads down? Not as much.
For Christians, I bet it almost never happens. Except to Mormons. (I know 2 Mormons who went through that kind of harassment, including the teacher isolating them from playing with other kids in public school because they weren't "true" Christians.)
It should be pointed out that, some debate notwithstanding, the planet *is* spherical, and thus everywhere is "far east" from the relative vantage point of somewhere else.
Psienesis wrote: It should be pointed out that, some debate notwithstanding, the planet *is* spherical, and thus everywhere is "far east" from the relative vantage point of somewhere else.
There are some who would disagree that the earth is a sphere... and I am sure more than a few of them would also take issue with someone not believing in thier particular god or gods
Ahtman wrote: I had a guy who I was friends with at the gym and after he asked which church I was a member of and I told him I didn't belong to a church he stopped talking to me.
I hate to tell you, but thats not why he quit talking to you. We told you before about maintaining personal space boundaries, but you just don't listen...
If he didn't want to be fondled he could have said so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: It should be pointed out that, some debate notwithstanding, the planet *is* spherical, and thus everywhere is "far east" from the relative vantage point of somewhere else.
Next you'll tell us some places call a sport soccer while others call it football.
Psienesis wrote: It should be pointed out that, some debate notwithstanding, the planet *is* spherical, and thus everywhere is "far east" from the relative vantage point of somewhere else.
There are some who would disagree that the earth is a sphere... and I am sure more than a few of them would also take issue with someone not believing in thier particular god or gods
Case in point...
To refer to Japan and China as "the Far East" is weird to me because, living in Seattle like I do, I fly west to go there.
Grey Templar wrote: But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.
people get bullied in every school, bullying is quite common. all it takes to be targeted and bullied is to be perceived different. Just a few examples to show how common it really is.
"Pulliam’s story in Oklahoma is echoed by cases in the news like that of Jessica Ahlquist in Rhode Island—a high school student who challenged a prayer banner in her school and was later called an “evil little thing” by her state congressman—and Damon Fowler in Louisiana, who got his school to cancel plans for a prayer at his graduation ceremony and was kicked out of his house by his parents."
"We’ve had cases where teachers have wanted to sponsor a Secular Student Club at their high school, and the principal told them it would be a bad career move.”"
Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
While I am not a psychologist, not would I attempt to diagnose such on the internet, it sounds like there were some pretty significant warning signs that were missed.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
d-usa wrote: So religious nutter who targeted PP and praised the actions of Army of God in the past? What a surprise to many in this thread.
I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. All the evidence we have so far is the testimony of people that have known him intimately for a few decades, which is nowhere near enough to be able to make a judgement.
We can't be certain that he was targeting PP or was motivated by Army of God until we get a confession signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
I mean, that's the level of jurisprudence that's been required for every other scandal involving PP, right?
While I am not a psychologist, not would I attempt to diagnose such on the internet, it sounds like there were some pretty significant warning signs that were missed.
Well, he sounds like a charmer. The headshrinkers will have a field day with him thats for sure. I would honestly be curious to see what they find when they check which wires are shorting out.
Also, thank you to folks more eloquent than me. I probably just should have kept that post to myself so I appreciate it.
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Robert Lewis Dear, accused of killing three people last month at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, made a series of outbursts at a hearing Wednesday, saying, "I am a warrior for the babies."
On a day on which prosecutors filed 179 felony charges against him, Dear, wearing an aqua jumpsuit and leg irons, made his thoughts known -- through nearly 20 outbursts during the proceeding.
"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic," Dear said. "Atrocities, that's what they want to seal." He also said, "I am guilty. There is no trial," and "Protect the babies."
At one point, a bailiff placed a hand on Dear's shoulder in an apparent attempt to quiet him.
When lawyers spoke about a listing of victims in the incident, Dear, his facial expression framed by a shock of hair, blurted out, "Could you add the babies that were to be aborted that day? Can you add that to the list?"
Dear made reference to his public defender, Daniel King, who also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He is the lawyer for the Batman shooter -- when they drugged him all up and that's what they want to do to me."
While King told the court there were questions about his client's competence, Dear said, "You are not my lawyer."
After the tumultuous hearing, District Attorney Dan May said the litany of charges against Dear, 57, included eight options of first-degree murder, depending on the circumstances, and 131 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Nine people were wounded.
A preliminary hearing and arraignment are yet to be scheduled. May said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty would come within about two months after the arraignment...
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
Sure, but given the context of the conversation it is a little disingenuous to make the comparison as if both groups are equally affected.
One group routinely uses violence to coerce dissenters to "believe" as they do, the other group not nearly as much.
Also one group consists of the vast majority of people on this planet, while the other group is a much, much smaller minority which makes Grey Templar's "yeah but" attempt even more obtuse.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
Sure, but given the context of the conversation it is a little disingenuous to make the comparison as if both groups are equally affected.
One group routinely uses violence to coerce dissenters to "believe" as they do, the other group not nearly as much.
Also one group consists of the vast majority of people on this planet, while the other group is a much, much smaller minority which makes Grey Templar's "yeah but" attempt even more obtuse.
You don't follow world events much if you believe this.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
Sure, but given the context of the conversation it is a little disingenuous to make the comparison as if both groups are equally affected.
One group routinely uses violence to coerce dissenters to "believe" as they do, the other group not nearly as much.
Also one group consists of the vast majority of people on this planet, while the other group is a much, much smaller minority which makes Grey Templar's "yeah but" attempt even more obtuse.
So being a "minority" gives you the ability to be a donkey cave to the majority?
d-usa wrote: I just hope that someday we will find out what his actual target was...
You mean there is still doubt after previous conflicting reports have now been clarified, and a clear motive established? What else do you believe the actual target to be?
d-usa wrote: I just hope that someday we will find out what his actual target was...
You mean there is still doubt after previous conflicting reports have now been clarified, and a clear motive established? What else do you believe the actual target to be?
He's being fecesious, making fun of those who were going "We don't know this was anti-abortion terrorism!" and "maybe he attacked the PP by accident".
Co'tor Shas wrote: He's being fecesious, making fun of those who were going "We don't know this was anti-abortion terrorism!" and "maybe he attacked the PP by accident".
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
Sure, but given the context of the conversation it is a little disingenuous to make the comparison as if both groups are equally affected.
One group routinely uses violence to coerce dissenters to "believe" as they do, the other group not nearly as much.
Also one group consists of the vast majority of people on this planet, while the other group is a much, much smaller minority which makes Grey Templar's "yeah but" attempt even more obtuse.
So being a "minority" gives you the ability to be a donkey cave to the majority?
Your flag says USA I would think that was obvious.
d-usa wrote: I just hope that someday we will find out what his actual target was...
You mean there is still doubt after previous conflicting reports have now been clarified, and a clear motive established? What else do you believe the actual target to be?
He's being fecesious, making fun of those who were going "We don't know this was anti-abortion terrorism!" and "maybe he attacked the PP by accident".
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Robert Lewis Dear, accused of killing three people last month at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, made a series of outbursts at a hearing Wednesday, saying, "I am a warrior for the babies."
On a day on which prosecutors filed 179 felony charges against him, Dear, wearing an aqua jumpsuit and leg irons, made his thoughts known -- through nearly 20 outbursts during the proceeding.
"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic," Dear said. "Atrocities, that's what they want to seal." He also said, "I am guilty. There is no trial," and "Protect the babies."
At one point, a bailiff placed a hand on Dear's shoulder in an apparent attempt to quiet him.
When lawyers spoke about a listing of victims in the incident, Dear, his facial expression framed by a shock of hair, blurted out, "Could you add the babies that were to be aborted that day? Can you add that to the list?"
Dear made reference to his public defender, Daniel King, who also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He is the lawyer for the Batman shooter -- when they drugged him all up and that's what they want to do to me."
While King told the court there were questions about his client's competence, Dear said, "You are not my lawyer."
After the tumultuous hearing, District Attorney Dan May said the litany of charges against Dear, 57, included eight options of first-degree murder, depending on the circumstances, and 131 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Nine people were wounded.
A preliminary hearing and arraignment are yet to be scheduled. May said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty would come within about two months after the arraignment...
Any indication he had help or was in network with others? Any indication he was radicalized by others? (to use the FBI term from the ISIL thread). I'm fine with investigating this in similar manner, although he looks pretty damn cuckoo, he might have been a weaponized cuckoo from someone else.
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Robert Lewis Dear, accused of killing three people last month at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, made a series of outbursts at a hearing Wednesday, saying, "I am a warrior for the babies."
On a day on which prosecutors filed 179 felony charges against him, Dear, wearing an aqua jumpsuit and leg irons, made his thoughts known -- through nearly 20 outbursts during the proceeding.
"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic," Dear said. "Atrocities, that's what they want to seal." He also said, "I am guilty. There is no trial," and "Protect the babies."
At one point, a bailiff placed a hand on Dear's shoulder in an apparent attempt to quiet him.
When lawyers spoke about a listing of victims in the incident, Dear, his facial expression framed by a shock of hair, blurted out, "Could you add the babies that were to be aborted that day? Can you add that to the list?"
Dear made reference to his public defender, Daniel King, who also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He is the lawyer for the Batman shooter -- when they drugged him all up and that's what they want to do to me."
While King told the court there were questions about his client's competence, Dear said, "You are not my lawyer."
After the tumultuous hearing, District Attorney Dan May said the litany of charges against Dear, 57, included eight options of first-degree murder, depending on the circumstances, and 131 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Nine people were wounded.
A preliminary hearing and arraignment are yet to be scheduled. May said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty would come within about two months after the arraignment...
Any indication he had help or was in network with others? Any indication he was radicalized by others? (to use the FBI term from the ISIL thread). I'm fine with investigating this in similar manner, although he looks pretty damn cuckoo, he might have been a weaponized cuckoo from someone else.
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Robert Lewis Dear, accused of killing three people last month at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, made a series of outbursts at a hearing Wednesday, saying, "I am a warrior for the babies."
On a day on which prosecutors filed 179 felony charges against him, Dear, wearing an aqua jumpsuit and leg irons, made his thoughts known -- through nearly 20 outbursts during the proceeding.
"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic," Dear said. "Atrocities, that's what they want to seal." He also said, "I am guilty. There is no trial," and "Protect the babies."
At one point, a bailiff placed a hand on Dear's shoulder in an apparent attempt to quiet him.
When lawyers spoke about a listing of victims in the incident, Dear, his facial expression framed by a shock of hair, blurted out, "Could you add the babies that were to be aborted that day? Can you add that to the list?"
Dear made reference to his public defender, Daniel King, who also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He is the lawyer for the Batman shooter -- when they drugged him all up and that's what they want to do to me."
While King told the court there were questions about his client's competence, Dear said, "You are not my lawyer."
After the tumultuous hearing, District Attorney Dan May said the litany of charges against Dear, 57, included eight options of first-degree murder, depending on the circumstances, and 131 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Nine people were wounded.
A preliminary hearing and arraignment are yet to be scheduled. May said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty would come within about two months after the arraignment...
Any indication he had help or was in network with others? Any indication he was radicalized by others? (to use the FBI term from the ISIL thread). I'm fine with investigating this in similar manner, although he looks pretty damn cuckoo, he might have been a weaponized cuckoo from someone else.
So far seems to fit the 'lone wolf' definition.
Lone Wolf Cabin Fever Conspiracy believer Nutjob. To think someone was equating him to Terrorists
It came out in the press that he'd made comments expressing approval of the Army of God, but I don't think any contact with members has ever been established. He was a conservative Christian and was Pro-Life. I dont know if anything has come out about whether he followed or was an active member of a particular church or pro-life group either in person or online.
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Robert Lewis Dear, accused of killing three people last month at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, made a series of outbursts at a hearing Wednesday, saying, "I am a warrior for the babies."
On a day on which prosecutors filed 179 felony charges against him, Dear, wearing an aqua jumpsuit and leg irons, made his thoughts known -- through nearly 20 outbursts during the proceeding.
"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic," Dear said. "Atrocities, that's what they want to seal." He also said, "I am guilty. There is no trial," and "Protect the babies."
At one point, a bailiff placed a hand on Dear's shoulder in an apparent attempt to quiet him.
When lawyers spoke about a listing of victims in the incident, Dear, his facial expression framed by a shock of hair, blurted out, "Could you add the babies that were to be aborted that day? Can you add that to the list?"
Dear made reference to his public defender, Daniel King, who also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He is the lawyer for the Batman shooter -- when they drugged him all up and that's what they want to do to me."
While King told the court there were questions about his client's competence, Dear said, "You are not my lawyer."
After the tumultuous hearing, District Attorney Dan May said the litany of charges against Dear, 57, included eight options of first-degree murder, depending on the circumstances, and 131 counts of attempted first-degree murder. Nine people were wounded.
A preliminary hearing and arraignment are yet to be scheduled. May said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty would come within about two months after the arraignment...
Any indication he had help or was in network with others? Any indication he was radicalized by others? (to use the FBI term from the ISIL thread). I'm fine with investigating this in similar manner, although he looks pretty damn cuckoo, he might have been a weaponized cuckoo from someone else.
So far seems to fit the 'lone wolf' definition.
Lone Wolf Cabin Fever Conspiracy believer Nutjob. To think someone was equating him to Terrorists
So far it seems like the same type of guy that killed that lady at work, or the one in England that murdered the woman in her garden. Some of the same ones here equating this guy as a Christian terrorist I believe said those two others were lone wolf nut jobs.
jasper76 wrote: Wasn't it George HW Bush who said that atheists should not be considered Americans, because it's "One Nation Under God"?
For real, I have many little stories to tell about religious folk who do a 180 on you when they find out you're not so much into their worldview. What's crazy is that it comes not only from conservatives, but far-left liberals as well.
The same happens with Atheists too to be fair. Many of them will bite your head off for disagreeing with them.
And some religious folks will shoot you for disagreeing with them. Wanna keep going with the whataboutisms?
The point being that it isn't a one way street when it comes to people getting jumped on.
Sure, but given the context of the conversation it is a little disingenuous to make the comparison as if both groups are equally affected.
One group routinely uses violence to coerce dissenters to "believe" as they do, the other group not nearly as much.
Also one group consists of the vast majority of people on this planet, while the other group is a much, much smaller minority which makes Grey Templar's "yeah but" attempt even more obtuse.
So being a "minority" gives you the ability to be a donkey cave to the majority?
If that is the take away you got from that exchange, then I can't help you. Although, based on your posting history of single line responses to nuanced discussions I am pretty sure your whole bit is to Troll for Jesus.
