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.

 Goliath wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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!

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 skyth wrote:
Funny that the Republican congressional investigation of the videos found no wrongdoing on the part of PP.

That means nothing illegal. Please cite the results of the investigation.

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.

I think I'm going off topic. So I'll stop.

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

And not speaking for lonestarr in any way.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

And not speaking for lonestarr in any way.

#NotAllChristians #FirstWorldProblems #TheStruggleIsReal

The point of your clever Twitterisms eludes me.

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?

Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?

 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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

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.

And not speaking for lonestarr in any way.

#NotAllChristians #FirstWorldProblems #TheStruggleIsReal

The point of your clever Twitterisms eludes me.

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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.

The shooter is to be officially charged on December 9th, an auspicious day.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.