|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dangerous pro-choice extremists? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
this thread is about extremist pro-choice people ONLY. Then quite a few people are way off topic. Bringing up the Weatherman, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, the Black Panthers, etc are all OT. Guess we need some moderation in here. Unfortunately, since I am participating, I can't do it. “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
NJ, you and Brenna may want to see Message 18 from Nator, the author of the OP.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
then she should change the name on the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Then can anyone say anything about extremist pro-choice people.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: You assume too much. If I meant that, I would have thrown in everyone else who vandalizes and destroys property. The fact that I specifically noted the ELF as terrorists is because of the intent and motivation for why they destroy things. I won't respond to the rest of your post until it appears that you're actually reading mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
For a so called academic open minded science accepting person, you sure do a great impression of a close minded, religiously fanatic maniac.
Silent H proved my points. Just because you do not like the quotes doesn't mean they are not true. In fact you are doing exactly what you criticize creationists for. Ignoring or rejecting evidence they don't like because they simply don't like it. Now that pretty much proves you have a double standard problem, if you're fine with that, whatever, not my problem. Furthermore, you and others are deliberately ignoring the other terroristic activities of the ELF. Thus unless you state otherwise, you believe that sending pipe bombs to deliberately harm or kill people is not terrorism as it planting traps to kill and maim timber workers. Yet you consider people who destroy property to be terrorists even when they do not kill anyone and do not intend to kill anyone. Would you care to explain your seemingly huge logic problem there, or will you act like the creationists you attack and run away or ignore those points? Perhaps I was wrong about the ELF deliberately torching houses with people in them. That doesn't make them not terrorists when their other activities would qualify. It seems you and others understand that as the actions given by you and others are the exact same as creationists who know they can't deal with a specific argument. I will ask you a simple question: Do you consider people who send pipe bombs to kill or maim people terrorists?
quote: I find it amusing that you have no problem engaging in the same name calling and labeling that Creationists and Republican Pundits use. Frankly, you're cut of the same cloth whether you want to admit it or not. Also please show me where I accused and condemned anyone. All I have done is make observations based on you and other's inability or direct refusal to address a few issues. Did I call you a name? No. Did I call you a terrorist? No. All I did was based on posts ignoring specific issues, assert that the poster did not consider a specific act terrorism, especially when I asked them point blank if they considered act A to be an act of terrorism. Please use another form of argumentation other then the one Ann Coulter and O'Reilly use. It is very childish. At least Chiroptera has stated that abortion clinic bombers who destroy the clinic without harming anyone are not terrorists. His logic seems to be clear that destruction of property is not terrorism regardless of reason. Would you be so kind as you express your feelings on such a notion? Do you consider it disturbing that you call those who are merely asking you questions about what you consider a to fall within the definition of terrorism to be terrorists? So by definition, those who ask questions are terrorists as are those who you consider do not provide evidence that you consider evidence. Therefore, everyone here is a terrorists according to your logic, as everyone asks questions and many creationists either completely fail to provide any evidence or just run away from doing so. Omnivorous, you by your own definition of what constitutes terrorism are a terrorist. This thread is thereby over as you are pro-choice and have by logical argumentation admitted you a terrorist. You can invalided this argument by retracting your statement that I am a terrorist. Let's see if you are that mature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Therefore I take it that you believe that people who send pipebombs to kill and maim people are in fact not terrorists? That people who set booby traps to kill and maim timber workers are in fact not terrorists? That those who send statements to terrorize investors and skiers are in fact not terrorists? If I sent a statement to a local lodge telling them to leave and never come back or they might DIE in one of my attacks, would that be an act of terrorism?
quote: Does it bother you that you are acting exactly like a creationist in ignoring the majority of a post to concentrate on one aspect? The ELF has done more then just arson. And you seem to want to pretend those incidents never happened. So if someone placed a pipebomb on your doorstep and rung your bell in a attempt to harm, kill or simply scare you, you would not consider that terrorism? Your constantly refusal to answer any of these questions is quite disturbing. Do you have a habit of turning on everyone who disagrees with you? Oddly, I have to agree with the Creationist statement, in that some scientists are extremely dogmatic and narrow minded. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
NJ, you and Brenna may want to see Re: Maybe Some Help? (Message 18) from Nator, the author of the OP Thanks for the heads up... I agree with Brenna though, she should change the title to fit the profile. Maybe one of these days we'll get some moderations in here. “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps, but it is obvious that the foundation of the argument is derived from a poor belief that conservatism is where terrorism comes from and that liberalism doesn't use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You, obvious Child, are the terrorist in this discussion, accusing and condemning anyone who refuses to accept your assertions without evidence. It is the tactic of the Inquisition and the McCarthyite. Put up or shut up. Show me your evidence. Omni, its a well-known fact that ELF and ALF have engaged in eco-terrorism. Why are you arguing over that? Are you such a Leftist that you would blindly try to abet them? Federal Bureau of Investigation Ever heard of Rod Coronado? Look at the charges... You need to just stop at this point, concede this small admission, and move on to greener pastures. http://youtube.com/watch?v=9WwhKN2fIKo&feature=related Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add link “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think they had too much eggnog at the board party. you weren't invited
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
NJ, you claim to have evidence to support obvious Child's specific statement; for some odd reason, you didn't provide it.
Quote and source the evidence. It may amaze you to learn that I am not going to read multiple links of unknown length to ferret out evidence for your position. Show me the evidence to support obvious Child's contention that members of ELF have in multiple cases set fire to buildings with people in residence.
You need to just stop at this point, concede this small admission, and move on to greener pastures. No, you need to supply the evidence for the assertion. I'd be happy to engage you in a larger discussion of eco-terrorism, but, apparently, my demand for evidence on a single, specific assertion has so outraged you and obvious Child that we cannot get there. Why, in response to my demand for evidence, do you try to tar me with this kind of crap:
Are you such a Leftist that you would blindly try to abet them? Anyone who asks for evidence becomes complicit with the accused? If the facts are well-known, the evidence must be prolific: Quote and source your evidence, or retract the charge. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are you going to address the OP re: pro-choice extremists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
obvious Child writes: quote: Does it bother you that you are acting exactly like a creationist in ignoring the majority of a post to concentrate on one aspect? The ELF has done more then just arson. And you seem to want to pretend those incidents never happened. No, obvious Child, creationists do not demand evidence; they do, however, refuse to provide it. Here is the entirety of your post (Message #4 in this thread):
quote: I did not ignore the majority of your post. You made an assertion. I demanded your evidence. You have responded with smear tactics and overblown rhetoric without supporting or withdrawing your assertion. If you now see that you overstated your case, making an assertion for which you have no evidence, you should simply say so, and the discussion can move on. Your attempt to obfuscate with groundless accusations and have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions is to no avail. Post your evidence or retract the assertion. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Originally, you claimed that both sides of the abortion debate had dangerous nutjobs. I'm still waiting for you to provide the list of dangerous pro-choice nutjobs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024