Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I do feel bed for the cops who got shot or anyone innocent. But for dotors nurses or patiens of said place.... Cant say I would be to sad. Allowed to pick off the old, the children and now the sick, how close in etween I guess is still up for grabs.

I'm glad you were able to rationalize murder in your head; which is of course also the kind of thing a steaming pile of human garbage would do, when said murder coincides in favor of your political views. Not that, of course, you're a steaming pile of human garbage; just that that's one one would think.

The funny thing is that you're obviously trolling, but I feel like I'm the one skirting a warning.

Sorry if it upsets you but I see them as murders getting murdered. Do you cry when a prisoner in jail kills another prisoner?

Sorry if this sounds strange but I am quite curious how you feel when a murder gets the death penalty? I see people get to sit behind glass amd cheer it on while it happens. Whcih seems a bit disturbing.

P.s. Sorry for the loss of an officers life. Around christmass is a rough time to lose someone.

The surgical removal of a lump of anthropomorphic meat is not a crime, nor should it be regarded as taboo in any way. I am still against murderers getting the death penalty, as killing in the name of shallow retribution makes the state no better than the murderer themselves.
Any death is a bad thing, as everybody can benefit the world in at least some way, at the very least as a human cautionary tale. The doctors and providers targetted are shining examples of people who desire to do good, despite ignorant religious trash targetting them as murderers for the medical treatments they provide.

 MWHistorian wrote:
To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.

Only if it is not your reglion.

In the real world there is extremists in all belife circles.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.

Yeah, I have definitely seen the posting you describe - handwaving away the violence of Christian fundamentalist terrorism over Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as a relic of the past, stop bringing up the Crusades, and so on. Not sure how that's a strawman.

And that is really the only reason for my posts on that topic. It's not for the purpose of "whataboutism", it's just to point out that it is a threat as well and that we should quit demonizing all Muslims just like we don't demonize all Christians. Both sides have extremist murderers and both sides have a vast majority of decent human beings.

Also, I just noticed you added a tiny santa hat to the ebola strand - well done.

Just be careful that you don't "catch" the Christmas spirit.

 MWHistorian wrote:
To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.

No.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.

Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.

Bingo

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you want to pretend that the thread from a week ago doesn't exist be my guest, meanwhile I won't act like those exact things weren't posted.

Yeah, I have definitely seen the posting you describe - handwaving away the violence of Christian fundamentalist terrorism over Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as a relic of the past, stop bringing up the Crusades, and so on. Not sure how that's a strawman.

And that is really the only reason for my posts on that topic. It's not for the purpose of "whataboutism", it's just to point out that it is a threat as well and that we should quit demonizing all Muslims just like we don't demonize all Christians. Both sides have extremist murderers and both sides have a vast majority of decent human beings.

Also, I just noticed you added a tiny santa hat to the ebola strand - well done.

Just be careful that you don't "catch" the Christmas spirit.

The difficulty of course is that the terrorists in group A are much more successful. How many thousands have died this year alone?
Terrorists in group B typically are pretty bad at it and there are very few of them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
To my liberal and conservative brothers and sisters, I'm confused. Is it okay to link an entire religion to the actions of a few madmen or not? You're sending mixed signals and I'm curious so I know what's considered appropriate.

No.

See, that's what I thought, but there seems to be a lot of people on both sides doing it. Hmmm....

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.

I agree. And for that matter, not sure why everyone is so mad about the 9/11 attacks. I mean it was just murderers being murdered afterall. If those ~3,000 people didn't want to get brutally killed by airplanes then they wouldn't have chosen to fund the bombs and bullets that the US Government uses to help Israel blow up Arabs. Right? Right?

If it wasn't obvious, that's literally the argument that Osama Bin Laden proposed to justify 9/11, and you're about a step away from that.

Ouze won't outright say it because he has class and because he's afraid of getting in trouble with the mods, but I don't and I'm not. If you can't understand the difference between executing a criminal who's been convicted under US court of law and murdering law abiding citizens performing law abiding acts, then one doesn't even need a pro-abortion argument. Your existence is justification in itself.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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.

I agree. And for that matter, not sure why everyone is so mad about the 9/11 attacks. I mean it was just murderers being murdered afterall. If those ~3,000 people didn't want to get brutally killed by airplanes then they wouldn't have chosen to fund the bombs and bullets that the US Government uses to help Israel blow up Arabs. Right? Right?

If it wasn't obvious, that's literally the argument that Osama Bin Laden proposed to justify 9/11, and you're about a step away from that.

Ouze won't outright say it because he has class and because he's afraid of getting in trouble with the mods, but I don't and I'm not. If you can't understand the difference between executing a criminal who's been convicted under US court of law and murdering law abiding citizens performing law abiding acts, then one doesn't even need a pro-abortion argument. Your existence is justification in itself.

A vague self superiorty complex is why you are blind and make you so violant. Why get upset about a differnt point of view? You say the goverment and the adults in your life told you this is the law and this makes it right. I simply disagree and see anyone ending a human life no matter the state of being a murder. Get upset get crazy matters little. I simply disagree and offer a differing point of view.

But remeber one who believes he is always in the right and his point of views are the correct one is the same as those the chastise. So relax little one I shall not shatter your belifes stay calm and disagree, name caling is for those with nothing better to say to make a point.

Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.

 Verviedi wrote:
Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.

So not being fully developed automatically means its not a human? Is a sprout still a plant?

TO ALL:

PLEASE dial down the rhetoric, hate, anger, etc. in this thread.

(And really, in the entire OT Forum too! )

Yellow Triangle if you think a post breaks the rules of the site...

Thanks!

Invalid comparison. A sprout is closer to a plant than a fetus is to a human. A true comparison would be more like a fertilized seed.

 Verviedi wrote:
Invalid comparison. A sprout is closer to a plant than a fetus is to a human. A true comparison would be more like a fertilized seed.

Perhaps you should take this derailment to PM or a new thread?
Either way, it's a hot button topic and will ensure high emotions on either side. Talking in absolutes isn't good for positive discussion.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Except the fetuses in question are more akin to sea sponges than human. All they are is meat. What you are saying is akin to saying a teratoma should not be excised, because the teratoma is also made of human meat.

So not being fully developed automatically means its not a human? Is a sprout still a plant?

Well, yes, just like those sea sponges are still an animal.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.

Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.

Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

[MOD EDIT - PLEASE don't even 'hint' at those terms - Alpharius]

With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

And with your logic, all humans are tumours.

Edit:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.

Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.

Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

Would be interesting to see if you have support that more than one or two wackjob churches in fact does this. Otherwise, you're again just being a bigot .

Appears the shooter lived at least part time in a cabin without water or power and was previously charged with animal cruelty.

You guys are discussing a fundamental, binary issue that cannot be rationalized.

You either are pro-life or pro-death (or don't care at all...why are you reading this?) and both sides have legit arguments for why their opinion is better than the other opinion. So you can either try to brute-force your opinion into each other's faces and most likely risk getting a timeout and / or the thread locked or move back to the topic at hand. What you do right now is the written equivalent to two groups of primates throwing poo at each other at the zoo.

Re-iterating to my previous question: I still wonder why he was able to shoot down police officers and civilians alike without /not even being harmed/ at all (if I got that right). How? Any further details?

How can something be self sustaining if it requires sustaining from someone else?

As to the guy, wasn't he talked down? They didn't have to actually take him down in a gun fight because he was holed up and submitted after the police talked to him. As to before that, he probably got the drop on the people he shot.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.

@Sigvatr
Don't you dare try to make it seem that way. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The presumption should be that while it's possible members of this guys church may be involved/related/whatever, assumption that it is the case is wrong.

Feel free to investigate possible links, but don't condemn until it's known.

Of course it's never the church with Christians. They never give someone a gun and tell them to go shoot a doctor. They just say how that doctor deserves to die and it sure would be nice if someone were to cap him, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

Got a link for this nonsense?

Confusing pro-choice with pro-death is part of the problem.

One can be both pro-choice and pro-life.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You guys are discussing a fundamental, binary issue that cannot be rationalized.

You either are pro-life or pro-death (or don't care at all...why are you reading this?) and both sides have legit arguments for why their opinion is better than the other opinion. So you can either try to brute-force your opinion into each other's faces and most likely risk getting a timeout and / or the thread locked or move back to the topic at hand. What you do right now is the written equivalent to two groups of primates throwing poo at each other at the zoo.

Re-iterating to my previous question: I still wonder why he was able to shoot down police officers and civilians alike without /not even being harmed/ at all (if I got that right). How? Any further details?

He had the element of surprise? He's a gun-ninja? He's an Eldar? The police are not good at their job? He is trained?

Endless questions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
@Sigvatr
Don't you dare try to make it seem that way. It's either pro-choice or anti-choice.

Dude, we should drop this before it escalates

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.

After 23 weeks about 1/3 of fetuses born are viable outside the womb, at 24 weeks it increases to between half and 2/3 and at 26 weeks virtually all fetuses are viable outside the womb. This is why there are limitations and restrictions on late term abortions in virtually every country. Once a fetus is viable outside the womb it becomes difficult to have an objective medical opinion that it is not a person.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
With your logic, a teratoma or a tumor is a person too.

Living tissue that can not and will not be able tp support life on its own, does not act as life. Where as a fetus is always a self substaining organisim in a self created eco dome of sorts. It is its own living creature that is feed by said parent. A parasite or tumor only grows from your cells that does nothing more then grow from your cells. A fetus is feed by your body until it leaves your body.

You are trying to speak the same nonsence they teach in highschool to kids excepting anwsers rather then searching for them.

Fetus is a self substain organism that grows off of the food givin to it. Living tissue is not it is a piece of an existing organism.

Fetuses cannot self sustain, unfortunately.

Well then you where a tumor until maybe even present. Your mother after birth either feed you with a bottle or boob til 2 or 3. So tumor life? Well i got a warning from alpha for going against his grain. So guess I am done with free speech lol.

Oh gak, we don't have free speech on a privately run forum online!