Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
28 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar, Lammy, Theodoric (5 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,726 Year: 20,762/19,786 Month: 1,159/2,023 Week: 110/557 Day: 40/70 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dangerous pro-choice extremists?
nator
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 113 (443988)
12-27-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
quote:
Neither self-described conservative nor self-described liberal camps in the U.S. body politic embrace violence.

I disagree.

I think that many conservatives, while not publically embracing or endorsing violence, don't say too much against or get outraged enough to completely disown themselves from the violent radical extremists at the fringes of their movement.

I mean, look at the completely outrageous, violence-mongering stuff people like Fred Phelps and Ann Coulter spewed for years.

Ann's books still sold like hotcakes and she kept appearing on national mainstream news programs as though she wasn't a crackpot. Apparently, her comment that we should invade all the Arab countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity wasn't offensive, but calling John Edwards a fag crossed some kind of line.

Phelps contined to do his homo-hate thing pretty much unimpeded by the Right for many years until he started targetting the funerals of Iraq war soldiers.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 6:20 PM nator has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 62 of 113 (443990)
12-27-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
12-27-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Don't dodge the demand for evidence
See post #54.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 12-27-2007 5:51 PM nator has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 [b][u]BOMB[/u][/b] to a businessmen in a attempt to kill, maim or scare them a terrorist?

Is someone who places [b][u]potentially lethal booby traps[/u][/b] 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 responded

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

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 65 of 113 (443996)
12-27-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
12-27-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Leftists with a sordid past
nator writes:

I think that many conservatives, while not publically embracing or endorsing violence, don't say too much against or get outraged enough to completely disown themselves from the violent radical extremists at the fringes of their movement.

I take your point.

But I would still say that the common understanding of the liberal and the conservative in the U.S. does not include acts of violence or statements urging others to act violently.

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.

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.

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.

But what else has he got? Radical environmental action is the closest he can get to violence on the left in the U.S.

And he can't even get that right.


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 61 by nator, posted 12-27-2007 6:06 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:30 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 66 of 113 (443999)
12-27-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by obvious Child
12-27-2007 6:20 PM


Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
obvious Child writes:

I will ask you for the last time:

Good.

I, on the other hand, won't bother to ask you to support your assertion with evidence again.

You clearly cannot, and you apparently lack the integrity to admit it.


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 64 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:20 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:34 PM Omnivorous has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 responded

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

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 70 of 113 (444042)
12-27-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by obvious Child
12-27-2007 6:34 PM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Ah, yes--post 51.

I think you need to wipe the froth off your face, and then present the evidence for your specific assertion that ELF members torched buildings with people in residence, multiple times, often at night.

Drop the rants and raves and accusations. You know nothing about my beliefs concerning violence of any kind.

But now you do know that I expect evidence for assertions that strike me as questionable, and I am not intimidated or distracted by name-calling and self-righteous posing.

So cut the crap. Post the evidence. Don't hide behind Silent H--who, in fact, did not post any evidence to support your assertion.

I think you would post that evidence, if you had it. I think your long, strident, accusatory posts are a smokescreen for that lack.

Prove me wrong.


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 68 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:34 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 2:53 AM Omnivorous has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2434 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 responded

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

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 72 of 113 (444059)
12-28-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 2:53 AM


Re: Your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E?
Obvious, you lazy SOB.

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.

Property damage is not terrorism.
Monkeywrenching is not terrorism.
Tree spiking is not terrorism.
Arson is not terrorism.

Oh. And one more thing.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 2:53 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:16 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 73 of 113 (444090)
12-28-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by obvious Child
12-28-2007 2:53 AM


Perhaps?
How you do go on.

Yes, I saw this from you:

quote:
Perhaps I was wrong about the ELF deliberately torching houses with people in them.

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:

quote:
I was wrong.

See how easy it is?

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.

That's maturity?

I see why your nick is obvious Child, kid.


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 71 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 2:53 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM Omnivorous has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5858
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 74 of 113 (444154)
12-28-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Omnivorous
12-27-2007 5:38 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.

Your initial sentiments were to minimize the actions by the ELF as being little more than kids on a rampage. I have provided several links indicting them on very serious criminal charges -- all of which included them at the #1 terrorist organization within the United States. Of course, that was pre-9/11, but it still shows who and what we are dealing with.

I should also add that I don't particularly disagree with their passion. I think there are a lot of labs across the country that still engage in some terrible acts against beautiful animals. I used to work for a research facility that clandestinely worked on animals. I say clandestinely, not because they were torturing animals are anything, but because the "perception" of torturing animals.

I even own a cat that was once part of that facility. He was more spoiled at the facility than I can spoil him now. Those animals lived good lives there during their tenure.

Anyhow, before I started working there, ALF found out about the facility. They protested, they attacked a few employees, (employees that literally had no idea that an animal facility was in the basement of the building).

In any case, I understand and can sympathize with their plight.... To a point. Just like I can sympathize with the plight of PETA.... to a point. But when you start firebombing facilities and attacking people, you have crossed the boundary from being a patriot to being a vigilante.

They are no different, in my eyes, than an anti-abortionist, who though has good intentions to save someone less fortunate, completely undermines their efforts by murdering the supposed murderers. Its ancient eye for an eye vigilantism, which will never solve the deeper problem.

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.

If your only stipulation was whether or not the knowledge of people inside a facility that was torched is your only contention, then I don't know either. If that's what you have been going around in circles with him over, then I apologize for not picking up on that. Even so, that was not your initial sentiment.

You have minimized their actions to being kids gone wild.

Why, in response to my demand for evidence, do you try to tar me with this kind of crap:

quote:
Are you such a Leftist that you would blindly try to abet them?

Anyone who asks for evidence becomes complicit with the accused?

Because that is what I gleaned from your message. If I misread it, I apologize. :)

I don't know if there was anyone in any of the buildings they torched. I do know this though about the law. If there is an reasonable expectation of someone being on property at the time of an arson, it is considered attempted murder, whether they actually are or not.

Its basically the same difference between burglary and home invasion. A burglary generally takes place during the day, when there is a reasonable expectation that the criminal is trying to avoid the residents -- this establishes that they are not trying to harm the occupants, just trying to steal their belongings.

But a home invasion, which in many states is a 15 year minimum, is generally at night, because there is a reasonable expectation that the occupants will be home. This establishes the insinuation of the thief that is ready to maim or kill whoever gets in their way.


“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 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-27-2007 5:38 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 960 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 75 of 113 (444165)
12-28-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2007 1:35 PM


Juggs obviously cannot read
I have provided several links indicting them on very serious criminal charges ...

No, you didn't.

Had you bothered to read the first link you provided, you would have noticed, as I did, that all of the relevant material was posted by H.

The second link you provided had this to say:

scuttled two ships ... damage(d) the Icelandic whaling station

arson attack on research facilities at Michigan State University

release of mink from a nearby MSU mink research farm, wrecking equipment and opening animals' cages

dismantling a lion trap and spreading mountain lion urine

felony conspiracy to interfere with or injure a government official, misdemeanor interference with or injury to a forest officer, and misdemeanor depredation (theft or destruction or the attempt to do so) of government property

Note: He was fined $100 and served 8 months. Woo.

demonstrating the use of a destructive device

That's it.

All y'all really got (as I explained upthread) is three piddly "bombs" (none of which exploded) and one ass-kicking.

That, m'dear, is hardly "terrorism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019