Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dangerous pro-choice extremists?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 113 (443914)
12-27-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by macaroniandcheese
12-27-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 10:34 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by anglagard, posted 12-27-2007 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 49 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2007 3:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 54 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 47 of 113 (443917)
12-27-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 1:48 PM


Topic?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 2:39 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 4:23 PM anglagard has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 48 of 113 (443926)
12-27-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by anglagard
12-27-2007 2:01 PM


Re: Topic?
then she should change the name on the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by anglagard, posted 12-27-2007 2:01 PM anglagard has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 49 of 113 (443933)
12-27-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 1:48 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
Then can anyone say anything about extremist pro-choice people.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 50 of 113 (443935)
12-27-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Chiroptera
12-27-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
quote:
Huh? This isn't what I have been saying, is it? Remember, it's been your contention that property damage and vandalism alone can constitute terrorism to which I've been responding.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 12-27-2007 9:19 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 51 of 113 (443943)
12-27-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 9:38 AM


Re: obvious Child obviously cannot read
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 9:38 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 52 of 113 (443945)
12-27-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
Apparently, the best obvious Child, for example, can do is to call environmentalist vandals "liberals": I think we can rule-out the terms of conservative and liberal from anyone who embraces violence.
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:
This is just to remind you of the statement that requires support.
As you can see, you need to supply evidence that ELF has burned properties when the owners are in residence, "often at night."
So we are looking for evidence of multiple cases, many of them at night.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 11:47 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 5:53 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 113 (443947)
12-27-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by anglagard
12-27-2007 2:01 PM


Re: Topic?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by anglagard, posted 12-27-2007 2:01 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 54 of 113 (443950)
12-27-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 1:48 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
Then quite a few people are way off topic.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 113 (443952)
12-27-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 9:38 AM


Re: obvious Child obviously cannot read
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 9:38 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 5:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 69 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 56 of 113 (443953)
12-27-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 4:23 PM


Re: Topic?
i think they had too much eggnog at the board party. you weren't invited

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 4:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 57 of 113 (443978)
12-27-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: obvious Child obviously cannot read
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 4:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:20 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 1:35 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 113 (443981)
12-27-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 12:49 AM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
quote:
But what you seem to ignore or completely unwilling to admit is that liberals have no problem using terrorism.
Are you going to address the OP re: pro-choice extremists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 12:49 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:09 PM nator has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 59 of 113 (443983)
12-27-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by obvious Child
12-27-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
obvious Child writes:
quote:
This is just to remind you of the statement that requires support.
As you can see, you need to supply evidence that ELF has burned properties when the owners are in residence, "often at night."
So we are looking for evidence of multiple cases, many of them at night.
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:
Vandalism? The amount of damage they do is immense per person and they have been known to commit arson when the owners of the properties are there, often at night.
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:17 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:15 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 113 (443984)
12-27-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
12-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
Like I said, both sides have nutjobs. That is an indisputable FACT. To even suggest that there isn't is dishonest in an unfathomable way.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-26-2007 6:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024