Dangerous pro-choice extremists?

quote:

---

Everything in moderation; no extreme is safe.

---

Er, right.Um, did you read the OP?

quote:

---

Do nazis count?

---

Do nazis count as what?

quote:

---

OK, from what I am reading I understand that the discussion should be related solely to the violence or threat of violence relative to each side of the issue concerning abortion and/or sexual orientation. Am I correct in this assumption?

---

It doesn't have to be that narrow. I picked the reproductive rights/gay bashing issues becasue they have such a long history of violence, and because the former was the impetus for the "each side has its wackos" comment by juggs.I also wanted to discuss the internal group reaction to these people.It seems to me that when progressives "turn the corner" into lala land (which seems to be rare), they generally get kicked to the curb and denounced by "their own". By contrast, it seems as though you can be the craziest, hatefull nutcase you want to be in the conservative world. When people do or say crazy-ass, violent or hateful things that support conservative ideals, they are not at all roundly denounced by conservatives. They are given all sorts of understanding and justification and not rejected at all, even though they would say that same attitudes and acts, if done by a progressive, would be worthy of severe punishment and censure.It seems to me that conservatism both breeds and nurtures violent extremism.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Please provide examples of hateful nutcases that are embraced by the conservatives. I think it would be helpful to get a handle of what you think constitutes hateful behavior in this context.I ask this because this statement: is an interesting observation but it needs to be bounded somehow.As an example: Every person who killed an doctor who performs abortions was immediately labeled an extremest by the pro-life movement and the churches. In one case (sorry no cites) the person was convinced to turn himself in by pro-lifers who he had asked to hide him.

Dangerous abortionists.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Not really.

LinearAq writes:

quote:

---

Please provide examples of hateful nutcases that are embraced by the conservatives.

---

When Terry Schiavo was in the news, the oh-so-respectful staff at Fox News decided to go down to Florida, set up shop right outside the hospice where she was, and make a grand example of the protestors who were preventing people from getting into the hospice to see their own dying family.One person broke into the hospice on a mission to feed Ms. Schiavo, but he had brought solid food which would have killed her if he had managed to actually get to her and attempted to force it down her throat.Not only were these people not denounced by the conservatives, they were actively promoted and hailed.The entire Congress shoved a bill through to "save" her causing the President to come back from yet another vacation to sign it.Robertson blamed gays, the ACLU, feminists, etc. for the terrorist attacks. The Republican presidential candidates are still actively seeking his endorsement. McCain, who previously claimed that he was a hatemonger, suddenly turned on his heel and embraced him (though Robertson has formally endorsed Giuliani).Shall I go on?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Please provide examples of hateful nutcases that are embraced by the conservatives. I think it would be helpful to get a handle of what you think constitutes hateful behavior in this context.

---

There is a range. Some are actually violent, some are simply nutcases, others espouse or excuse violence and extremism:Randall Terry
Ann Coulter
David Duke
Bill O'Reilly
Glen Beck
Pat Robertson
Fred Phelps (conservatives oppose him now, but their outrage at his "God Hate's Fags" demonstrations only emerged after he started targetting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq.)Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can add to the list.

I still have a problem with using rather loose and ill-defined terms such as liberal and conservative in a manner that indicates all people in the US can be divided into one or the other. One problem I feel is the implication that each of the two and only two groups holds exactly the same mutually exclusive position on all issues.The term conservative may be subdivided into three general groups, social, religious, and fiscal as per Conservatism - Wikipedia.The problem I have is implying, however indirectly or unintentionally, fiscal conservatives such as JFK or Clinton are supporters of David Duke or Ann Coulter. I think the paintbrush is too wide. Just because certain simple-minded over-generalizers such as Limbaugh or O'Reilly have demonized the word liberal, playing their game by doing the exact same thing with the term conservative, IMO, is playing into their hands.Also, I'm not so sure that most self-described conservatives are actually supporters of David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK. I'm also not so sure that the majority of the residents of Utah, the most 'conservative' state in the union are all supporters of Pat Robertson, who most likely damns them to hell as Mormons.If the term social or religious conservative was used instead of the IMO over general term 'conservative' I would feel more comfortable as I don't believe it is your intention to state there is a significant positive correlation between support for racists or religious bigots, such as David Duke, and people who desire a balanced budget.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

---

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 BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

quote:

---

I still have a problem with using rather loose and ill-defined terms such as liberal and conservative in a manner that indicates all people in the US can be divided into one or the other. One problem I feel is the implication that each of the two and only two groups holds exactly the same mutually exclusive position on all issues.

​

The term conservative may be subdivided into three general groups, social, religious, and fiscal as per Conservatism - Wikipedia.

​

The problem I have is implying, however indirectly or unintentionally, fiscal conservatives such as JFK or Clinton are supporters of David Duke or Ann Coulter. I think the paintbrush is too wide. Just because certain simple-minded over-generalizers such as Limbaugh or O'Reilly have demonized the word liberal, playing their game by doing the exact same thing with the term conservative, IMO, is playing into their hands.

---

The point is, though, that the crazy nutjobs like Ann Coulter and David Duke aren't ostracized by the more moderate segments of the overall conservative movement. They are generally tolerated by conservatives, given tacit approval from the Republican party by an absence of censure or criticism.

quote:

---

Also, I'm not so sure that most self-described conservatives are actually supporters of David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

---

Dude, don't you remember that he was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives? He actually won elections on his white seperatist platform, and came very close to winning the US Senatorial race in Lousiana in 1990. his wiki pageThere are at least tens of thousands of conservatives, at least in the South, who support him, but those are only the voters. I'd wager that there are hundreds of thousands who do if you include the people who don't vote.

quote:

---

I'm also not so sure that the majority of the residents of Utah, the most 'conservative' state in the union are all supporters of Pat Robertson, who most likely damns them to hell as Mormons.

---

Again, when have you ever heard the conservatives in Utah coming out against Pat Robertson?They give their tacit approval through their failure to say he's a hateful, lying bigot.

quote:

---

If the term social or religious conservative was used instead of the IMO over general term 'conservative' I would feel more comfortable as I don't believe it is your intention to state there is a significant positive correlation between support for racists or religious bigots, such as David Duke, and people who desire a balanced budget.

---

You can narrow this down to "social conservative" if you like, but my point remains.All of those "fiscal conservatives" sure are quiet about the social conservative extremeists like Randal Terry and Ann Coulter as long as they bring in the votes. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Ann Coulter is finally being ostracized and/or criticized by some prominent members of the Republican Party, although I agree it is a case of too little, too late.From the NYT 3/4/07:

quote:

---

The article reports that three Republican candidates for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, including John McCain, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, condemned author Ann Coulter for using an antigay epithet at the Conservative Political Action Conference held on March 2, 2007 in Washington. McCain said that the comments were wildly inappropriate. Giuliani said that there should be no place for name calling in political debate.

---

David Duke was most certainly ostracized when he tried running for President. He is rightfully an embarrassment to the right, although once again, I feel the condemnation of the former Grand Wizard was absurdly subdued prior to his presidential run.From Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report; 2/15/92, Vol. 50 Issue 7, p369, 2/3p, 1bw:

quote:

---

His failure to qualify for any primary ballot before South Carolina's on March 7 reflects both his campaign's organizational problems and the organized hostility of Republican officials. The GOP has sought to distance itself from Duke by both denouncing his past ties to the Ku Klux Klan and, in some states, denying him access to the primary ballot.

---

As his disastrous 1992 run for the Republican nomination for President shows, he has little support outside of the Deep South. Ever since he threw his support to Guliani, there has been a lot of talk on the blogs. Strange that Robertson can call the Mormons a non-Christian cult with barely a whimper, yet once he disses Romney, all are a flutter, as though politics trumps religion. If you would like quotes from Democrats or Libertarians who are fiscal conservatives condemning Ann Coulter or any of the others mentioned, I'm sure I can find plenty. After all, even Coulter has been condemned by Guliani, McCain, and Romney as I have already pointed out above.As to your point that amongst conservatives there is not enough censure, it is too mild, or that it is late in coming, I agree. I just disagree that it has never occurred, as implied by statements such as "All of those fiscal conservatives."I urge caution in implying that all members of a given group are exactly alike in their thinking or that they are all universally abhorrent in each of several categories. That would be to overgeneralize.

---

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 BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Of ELF, you said, "[T]hey have been known to commit arson when the owners of the properties are there, often at night."I challenged you to document this claim. Instead, you suggest that my challenge means that I consider "grand arson" (whatever that may be) acceptable.You again imply that ELF strikes against property "happen to kill people." Clearly, you want to continue making that claim without offering any support for it.I gather that means you cannot support your assertion.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Just to let you know, I saw a program on this thing being done by environmental extremists and I do believe it was ELF. Though I think there was only one incident where it was at night and they knew the owners were at home. They are of course not the only group using violence...You can check wiki on ALF, ELF, and a second incarnation of ELF.Some telling quotes...

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H did the job. But what you seem to ignore or completely unwilling to admit is that liberals have no problem using terrorism.It seems to me that you have no problem with people causing mass arson destruction, using pipe bombs and placing deadly traps for timber workers to be okay.I never said that they 'happen to kill people.' That argument reeks of creationist tactics. I said that their use of terrorism had lead to serious property damage, threatened the lives of people, given terroristic statements, and use explosives and other traps.Now I have a problem with people who do that regardless of what political affiliation they hold.It seems to me, your refusal to condemn these people means that you think that terrorism is okay when liberals practice it.As much as evolution believers publically detest fanaticism, they are often not above falling into its traps, as you have shown.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Too be fair, the references about ELF still just describe vandalism. I tried to get more information on the Vail arson, but I still couldn't get any information on whether anyone was actually in danger. But I suck at Google.I know less about ALF than ELF (ELF was a little more active where I used to be located, and so I'm a bit more familiar with the so-called "deadly traps placed for timber workers"), but it does appear that we now we do have a couple of examples of terrorism that are associated with causes one associates with liberals. Still nothing associated with the pro-choice movement, though.A question remains about relative numbers. I remember discussing the utility of revolutions and mass action with a colleague long ago who was also on the left: he mentioned the right is always better at violent action than the left.Anyway, in oC's subsequent post, I notice a couple of things: first, he still confuses vandalism with terrorism, and he still makes comments without back up. It is pretty weird that conservatives can't seem to do their own legwork. No wonder they seem under represented in academia, where solid scholarship counts for something.

---

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo