Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dangerous pro-choice extremists?
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 63 of 113 (443993)
12-27-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 5:53 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
No, obvious Child, creationists do not demand evidence; they do, however, refuse to provide it.
Why would I need to do it when Silent H did it? I tend do dislike redundancy, hence why I dislike Creationists. I'm getting real tired of pointing out that you keep ignoring large parts of my arguments.
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.
You do realize I have made other posts yes? Perhaps you should read them before making asinine comments like you did before, calling me a terrorist.
Furthermore, you claim not to ignore the majority of my post, but you just did!
You refused to even acknowledge my questions much less the context around them!
How can you say you don't ignore the majority when you quoted a post where you did ignore the majority!
Right now, you and people such as creationist and buzz look no different. If you removed the titles, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
quote:
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.
Again I suggest you read my other posts before making further posts.
I have not used such tactics. I do find it amusing you are essentially acting as the creationists have here. Mirror, mirror, on the wall...
See post 51

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 5:53 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 64 of 113 (443995)
12-27-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 5:38 PM


Re: obvious Child obviously cannot read
I will ask you for the last time:
Is someone who sends a BOMB to a businessmen in a attempt to kill, maim or scare them a terrorist?
Is someone who places potentially lethal booby traps on timber to maim, kill or scare timber timber workers a terrorist?
Do you know what type of people ignore simple questions?
Creationists. Are you one of them?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 5:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 6:25 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 67 of 113 (444000)
12-27-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 6:20 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
Obvious Child's notion of "liberal terrorists" is ridiculous; political liberalism describes a quite specific set of beliefs that include freedom, consensus, inclusion, etc.: terrorist violence ain't in the liberal charter.
Do you always use strawmen? So much for my belief that intelligent people try to extend that intelligence into everything. Obviously yours is very limited in scope. My argument is against the notion that liberals do not use terrorism. I did not state, as you are fallaciously saying I am (read, you are lying) that liberalism as a ideology accepts terrorism. I saying it does not reject it as a whole, as evident by liberals using terrorism (unless you consider using bombs to scare people not terrorism).
You attack creationists for being dishonest, why are you practicing their methods now?
quote:
I agree with you that the American right has a far greater appetite and tolerance for violence. But those who commit it are, by definition, extremists or radicals--the same applies on the left.
Notice I said that a long time ago. Notice you ignored it. Now can you please act like a mature person and answer very simple questions? Or will you keep up your insolent childish manner?
quote:
Obvious Child is obviously trying to tar liberals with radical environmental actions, banking on the fact that liberals tend also to be environmentalists. It is an absurd charge, especially now that increasing numbers of conservatives--and even evangelicals--are joining the environmental movement.
You'd have a point if you weren't outright lying. If you wish to debate that point, do it with someone who made it. Unfortunately that would be yourself. I never argued that liberals as a whole or that the ideology supports terrorism. You made up that point and are fallaciously saying that I did. I thought dishonesty was the realm of Creationists, guess not.
My point is very simple, and I hate being redundant but you seem incapable of understanding simple issues. Neither liberalism or conservatism is free from its followers using terrorism.
You should also read post 37 as well.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 6:20 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 68 of 113 (444001)
12-27-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 6:25 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
See post 51.
What IS your definition of terrorism?
Since trying to kill people with bombs doesn't qualify, what does?
Or does my explanation in 51 fit the bill?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 6:25 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 10:50 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 69 of 113 (444004)
12-27-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2007 4:38 PM


Re: obvious Child obviously cannot read
Do you find this whole thread disturbing?
People who deliberately destroy over $41 million in property, used pipebombs against businessmen and booby trapped timber to try to kill or maim timber workers aren't terrorists?
What kind of crazy ass logic is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2007 4:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 71 of 113 (444057)
12-28-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 10:50 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
why should I bother to respond to anything you post when you clearly are acting like a insolent child, refusing to address 95% of my posts?
Furthermore, it seems you didn't even bother to read the posts, particularly #51.
If you did bother to read what I wrote instead of just fabricating what you think I wrote and then respond to it, you would have noticed I said this:
quote:
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 see no point in talking to you when you exhibit the same qualities as the creationists you criticize.
At least you answered my question: "Let's see if you are that mature."
And it's a resounding NO.
And if you thought that using bombs and booby traps to kill people wasn't terrorism, you would have stated so. Instead you deliberately ignore simple questions. Chiroptera being a mature person has answered questions given to him. Very simple questions and made it clear that he does not hold double standards. Yet you cannot. I would ask you to explain this but given this thread's history, it's a futile effort.
So until you clarify what you consider to be a terrorist, and what constitutes terrorism I have no choice but to assume that you accept you are a terrorist by the definition in post #51 which you clearly did not read, and that people who intend to kill/maim/scare people with bombs and booby traps not to be terrorists.
And next time you try to argue that you don't ignore the majority of posts, don't ignore the majority of the posts.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 10:50 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 3:27 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 12-28-2007 9:44 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 78 of 113 (444247)
12-28-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 3:27 AM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
quote:
For god's sake hit google and come up with something besides some dude that planted 3 "bombs" (three!) and some other dude that beat the s*** out of a guy with an axe handle.
Yet oddly, pro-life people who do that are called terrorists. I'm sitting here astounding at the sheer double standards you people have.
If a pro-life conservative uses a bomb against someone, he's a terrorist. Yet if a liberal environmentalist who uses a bomb against someone, they aren't a terrorist. You people are disturbing.
quote:
Property damage is not terrorism.
Monkeywrenching is not terrorism.
Tree spiking is not terrorism.
Arson is not terrorism.
Then what IS terrorism?
quote:
Only one guy has been hurt as a result of tree spiking. And the mill admitted that their poorly maintained equipment was just as much at fault as the tree spike.
Not the point.
Since you stated destruction of property is not terrorism, then abortion clinic bombers who do not kill anyone are not terrorists.
Let's see how consistent you are.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 3:27 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:25 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 79 of 113 (444252)
12-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Omnivorous
12-28-2007 9:44 AM


Re: Perhaps?
quote:
You are halfway there. I told you I would not engage you on other points until you came clean about your unsupported claim: the full Monty takes even fewer words:
No you didn't. You deliberately ignored everything else I wrote like insolent child. You already answered my question about your maturity.
quote:
Rather than simply admit that you were wrong, you spent a great deal of time and thread-space dodging responsibility for your error by slandering me.
You accused me of being a terrorist on the basis of asking questions (which makes you a terrorist as well, which I noticed you ignored along with at least 85~95% of my posts). I accused you of doing nothing more then using the tactics of creationists and being a insolent child. Are you actually serious about your comment?
You do do a great creationists impression.
quote:
That's maturity?
I see why your nick is obvious Child, kid.
Your failure to actually address my points shows how mature you are. Not to mention massive failure to answer simple questions. Chiroptera is obviously light years beyond where you are.
Gotta admit, the creationists are right about just how fanatically narrow minded some people who accept evolution can be.
Can I send a bomb to your house with the intent of killing/maiming/scaring you and you'll be fine with not calling that an act of terrorism?
But you'll probably just pretend I never asked that.
And until you define what you consider terrorism to be mean, all of this is pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 12-28-2007 9:44 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 12-29-2007 10:19 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 81 of 113 (444255)
12-28-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 6:58 PM


Re: MB is clearly pandering
quote:
Three piddly bombs? Suppose I left three piddly bombs in your driveway, would you be this ambivalent? Suppose I set fire to your house or your business, would you be this ambivalent? These aren't acts of vandalism, these are serious felonies.
Why is that NONE OF THEM are willing to answer any of these types of questions?
It's like the mentality of "if it didn't happen to me, it's not terrorism" is rampant here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 83 of 113 (444261)
12-28-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:25 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Will you state that none of the people on this list are terrorists in the isolated context of abortion clinic bombings?
quote:
I did not say that an anti abortion wingnut is a terrorist. You did.
Let's make this perfectly clear, you consider pro-life abortion clinic bombers not to be terrorists?
We seem have to a massive problem agreeing what terrorism consists of, and omni seems to desire to keep this problem open despite my clarifications as to what I consider terrorism.
quote:
1983 Beruit Marine barracks bombing.
1993 WTC bombing.
1998 American Embassy bombing.
2000 USS Cole bombing.
911.
Alright. I'll have to wait to see if you agree that abortion clinic bombers are indeed not terrorists.
quote:
The fact is, tree spikes don't do any harm to timber industry employees.
So the act of placing potential booby traps to harm or kill workers is not an act of terrorism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:25 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:39 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 84 of 113 (444262)
12-28-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:34 PM


Re: Are you reading the thread, Obvious?
No you didn't. He asked you what you would feel if he left three bombs on your doorstep. You didn't answer.
Now, if someone tried to bomb me and my family, I'd consider that an act of terrorism. Normally, I'd state that people here would agree, but this thread has shaken my belief that people here are reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:47 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 87 of 113 (444274)
12-28-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:39 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Actually I believe the OP did that, citing off the previous thread. I was just agreeing with him.
Why is it so damn hard for people here to answer simple questions?
By your own definition, tree spiking is terrorism
"Terrorism: Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d))."
The ELF premeditated the placing of the spikes, for political reasons, against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Whether or not it actually kills anyone is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:39 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:04 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 88 of 113 (444278)
12-28-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 7:47 PM


Apparently, none of you can answer questions
Those definitions would dictate that many military actions, including Allied efforts in WWII and even the war of independence were terrorist actions (Dresden for example). Also, those definitions would imply that the Boer resistance against British occupation was terroristic. Not to mention the Zulu attacks on British colonies in response to encroachment on their territory was terroristic. And the US involvement in Iraq is terroristic as well, especially if you consider the use of white phosphorus used in Falljuah.
quote:
One person planting 3 bombs (that did not explode) one time is neither military nor systematic.
By that logic, if a million independent people all did that, none of them would be terrorists?
Those definition suck
terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)
FM 100-20 Glossary
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:08 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 91 of 113 (444287)
12-28-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 8:04 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
quote:
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Read post #1.
quote:
Really. By strangling the definition that way, picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.
hence why your definition suck.
quote:
Um, Obvious, did you check the cite? That is a definition provided by THE U.S. MARINES.
How does that refute my point?
quote:
When that day comes, I will consider changing my definition of terrorism.
But your definitions are clearly terrible.
But this who discussion is idiotic as no overarching authority has accepted a clear definition. The US military has 109 versions. The UN gave up after 18 years of trying.
Still, I like the GS one the best
"terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)"
It must be illegal, revolve around the threat or use of force, and to achieve change in a society/gov't for a political, religious, or ideological goal.
Therefore, military operations that are sanctioned are not terrorism, one key flaw on many definitions out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 8:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 9:26 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 94 of 113 (444364)
12-29-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 9:26 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
quote:
If you have a problem with the technical definition of terrorism provided by the U.S. Marines, take it up with them, not me.
Why post a definition if you won't accept it? The definitions you provide make military operations terrorist operations. There is a reason the UN gave up after 18 years of trying to come to a conclusion.
quote:
If you have a problem with war crimes, take it up with the military, not me.
What the hell are you talking about? I feel like you are jumping around randomly in the same way that omni did when he called me a terrorist for asking questions. So much for this place being reasonable. You people are just as irrational as the creationists you attack.
quote:
Using this definition picketing abortion clinics is terrorism.
Not at all. The 1st amendment clearly gives people the right to gather. Therefore as long as the protesting does not include threats of violence (and those must be reasonably backed up with capabilities as noted under the limits of free speech), their acts are in no way terroristic. Now if they were toting rifles and made it clear that they were going to shoot people who worked at the clinic, that would be different. Also merely having a firearm there does not equate to terrorism either as many states allow people to walk around with concealed firearms.
People here may understand science, but their law understanding is on par with a understanding of a infant's on super strings.
Is there even a single JD here? doesn't look like it.
quote:
And I am still waiting on those cites re: anti abortion wingnuts = terrorists.
You have twice made the claim and twice failed to provide cites.
Do you have a problem reading? I already cited where I got that, and I didn't even make it. I just repeated what the original poster did in the first post. For a bunch of so called scientists, the reading comprehension level is appalling.
And I'm waiting for you to answer several key questions.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 9:26 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 12-29-2007 11:12 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 97 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-29-2007 12:10 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 99 by molbiogirl, posted 12-29-2007 5:14 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024