Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on June 08, 2009, 07:45:32 PM
-
This domestic terrorist says he "knows" there are similar attacks planned throughout the country.
Should he be water-boarded?
I know the pro-torture christians on this site won't have any problem with it.
He's is also described as a "a mentally ill, unemployed anti-abortion activist"
I wonder how many of his brethren fit that same description.
Isn't mentally ill anti-abortion activist redundant?
The Feds are curious as to how this unemployed nutbag was able to stalk Dr. Tiller for years in spite of having little to no income.
It would be great if they discovered ties to Randall Terry and his organization. Supposedly when Roeder was arrested he had the phone number of one of Terry's associates on the dashboard of his car
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/07/2009-06-07_scott_roeder_charged_with_abortion_doctor_george_tillers_murder_says_more_violen.html
-
This domestic terrorist says he "knows" there are similar attacks planned throughout the country.
Should he be water-boarded?
I know the pro-torture christians on this site won't have any problem with it.
He's is also described as a "a mentally ill, unemployed anti-abortion activist"
I wonder how many of his brethren fit that same description.
Isn't mentally ill anti-abortion activist redundant?
The Feds are curious as to how this unemployed nutbag was able to stalk Dr. Tiller for years in spite of having little to no income.
It would be great if they discovered ties to Randall Terry and his organization. Supposedly when Roeder was arrested he had the phone number of one of Terry's associates on the dashboard of his car
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/07/2009-06-07_scott_roeder_charged_with_abortion_doctor_george_tillers_murder_says_more_violen.html
LOL man you really have christianity on the brain bro...its funny how you always seem to come back to that ::)
-
::)
-
LOL man you really have christianity on the brain bro...its funny how you always seem to come back to that ::)
well Roeder is a current story and the only mention of christians was the fact that some on the board are pro-water boarding for terrorist
Seems like a timely and fair question to me.
This man claims he knows of future acts of terror
Should he be water-boarded
christians and non-christians are free to share their views
-
LOL man you really have christianity on the brain bro...its funny how you always seem to come back to that ::)
Sounds like a fair question to me. He has information of imminent attacks which if revealed could save American lives. therefore, ...should he be waterboarded in order to get the info and stop eminent attacks?
-
well Roeder is a current story and the only mention of christians was the fact that some on the board are pro-water boarding for terrorist
Seems like a timely an fair question to me.
This man claims he knows of future acts of terror
Should he be water-boarded
christians and non-christians are free to share their views
what does being pro water boarding have to do with being christian?
-
Sounds like a fair question to me. He has information of eminent attacks which if revealed could save American lives. therefore, ...should he be waterboarded in order to get the info and stop eminent attacks?
I agree but what does that have to do with being christian?
-
what does being pro water boarding have to do with being christian?
nothing - except for this:
"According to commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, Americans are among the most supportive of torturing prisoners and, in America, 57% white evangelical Christians say that torture is sometimes or often justified. Significantly more Democrats, liberals, and independents answer that torture is rarely or never justified."
weird huh?
-
nothing - except for this:
"According to commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, Americans are among the most supportive of torturing prisoners and, in America, 57% white evangelical Christians say that torture is sometimes or often justified. Significantly more Democrats, liberals, and independents answer that torture is rarely or never justified."
weird huh?
LOL not really, you dont take into account here that the majority of conservatives believe that "torturing" is sometimes or often justified and that the majority of christians are conservative. LOL you simply trying to make it about religion is assinine its quite evident that their beliefs stem from their conservative views not their religious views. So to be more accurate you should have posed your question to conservatives not christians ::)
LOL get over whatever it is you have against christianity bro it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the time.
-
this is pretty funny.
He claims to KNOW about upcoming terror acts, right?
Yet I'm betting a lot of the same far-right folks who support torturing arabs, are okay with this abortion doctor killer, and wouldn't torture him to get info on upcoming acts.
Hypocrisy.
-
LOL not really, you dont take into account here that the majority of conservatives believe that "torturing" is sometimes or often justified and that the majority of christians are conservative. LOL you simply trying to make it about religion is assinine its quite evident that their beliefs stem from their conservative views not their religious views. So to be more accurate you should have posed your question to conservatives not christians ::)
LOL get over whatever it is you have against christianity bro it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the time.
ok - so you're saying my statement about evangelicals on this board is logical
so why the question about it in the first place?
-
ok - so you're saying my statement about evangelicals on this board is logical
so why the question about it in the first place?
Im saying your attributing the pro "torture" stance to christians which again is assinine. As their stance stems from being conservative instead of christian, them being christian is just a coincidence. You seem to think that b/c they are christian they believe in enhanced interrogation techniques.
-
I agree but what does that have to do with being christian?
I don't believe I mentioned Christianity anywhere in my question?
-
this is pretty funny.
He claims to KNOW about upcoming terror acts, right?
Yet I'm betting a lot of the same far-right folks who support torturing arabs, are okay with this abortion doctor killer, and wouldn't torture him to get info on upcoming acts.
Hypocrisy.
i think your wrong
arent you for places like gitmo as long as nobody knows about it? ive heard you say this on multiple occassions but your against enhanced interrogation techniques...is that just when ppl know about it of all the time?
-
I don't believe I mentioned Christianity anywhere in my question?
you quoted me darling in which i said nothing about the validity of his question as it pertains to "torturing" him... 8)
-
Im saying your attributing the pro "torture" stance to christians which again is assinine. As their stance stems from being conservative instead of christian, them being christian is just a coincidence. You seem to think that b/c they are christian they believe in enhanced interrogation techniques.
so you say
the report I cited was specifically about evangelicals - not conservatives or even Republicans
I think loco cited the same study (I could be wrong - just going from memory)
either way, who cares?
Don't get hung up on one sentence
The larger question is do you (anyone) think we should torture this terrorist who claims to "KNOW" of future acts of terrorism?
what if they decide to blow up someones car and incur some collateral damage and don't just kill their intended target (for all of you who hold some sympathy/empathy for Roeder)
-
i think your wrong
arent you for places like gitmo as long as nobody knows about it? ive heard you say this on multiple occassions but your against enhanced interrogation techniques...is that just when ppl know about it of all the time?
I've never said I'm for place like Gitmo as long as no one knows about it
Go find the quote. If anything I've said they exist and no one knows about it
If there is any confusion I'll say right here that I'm against detention without a trial for anyone
-
so you say
the report I cited was specifically about evangelicals - not conservatives or even Republicans
I think loco cited the same study (I could be wrong - just going from memory)
either way, who cares?
Don't get hung up on one sentence
The larger question is do you (anyone) think we should torture this terrorist who claims to "KNOW" of future acts of terrorism?
what if they decide to blow up someones car and incur some collateral damage and don't just kill their intended target (for all of you who hold some sympathy/empathy for Roeder)
you should go back to college and take a research methods class and perhaps a stats class to show you the fallacy that is the conclusion you are getting from that statement. Its not saying that its b/c they are christians its simply saying that they are christian...correlation does NOT equal causation.
Again you should really get over whatever it is that you have against religion b/c it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the time and just as intolerant as those you despise...
as for your question, i have no problem with the "torturing" of this man if all the other options have been exhausted.
-
I've never said I'm for place like Gitmo as long as no one knows about it
Go find the quote. If anything I've said they exist and no one knows about it
If there is any confusion I'll say right here that I'm against detention without a trial for anyone
that was for that tool 240 not for you straw, ive never heard you say anything like that but 240 has on multiple occassions but he is against "torture" i guess its just when ppl are watching though.
-
that was for that tool 240 not for you straw, ive never heard you say anything like that but 240 has on multiple occassions but he is against "torture" i guess its just when ppl are watching though.
sometimes it's hard to follow who is responding to who
Tony - please spend a few minutes watching this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31177077
Frank Schaeffer knows what he is talking about. If nothing else watch the video of the crowds and the signs they are holding
There is a fragment of this movement that is unstable and prone to losing it
-
And when you're done watching that (I watched a few snippets), read the words of liberal extremists:
::) ::) ::)
No, they just blog stuff like the following after they didn't get their way last Nov. in California:
*
"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*
"I'm going to give them something to be f--ing scared of....I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done."
*
"Burn their f--ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."
*
"I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."
*
"I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."
*
"Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics [sic] that were big supporters of Prop 8....As far as mormons and catholics...I warn them to watch their backs."
-
And when you're done watching that (I watched a few snippets), read the words of liberal extremists:
thanks beach...like beach pointed out straw their are nutjobs in every crowd in every facet of society...you dont blame the cause that doesnt advocate such actions...you seem like you so whole heartedly want to make this about christianity that you simply overlook or ignore the fact that religion is against the actions of roeder.
you blame the nut job straw
-
And when you're done watching that (I watched a few snippets), read the words of liberal extremists:
I don't know who those people are but we can probably agree that terrorists on the left and right should be treated impartially
let's treat all terrorist the same way
this man will not talk to the police
he has called news organizations to talk about future attacks which he "knows" will happen
what should we do?
-
thanks beach...like beach pointed out straw their are nutjobs in every crowd in every facet of society...you dont blame the cause that doesnt advocate such actions...you seem like you so whole heartedly want to make this about christianity that you simply overlook or ignore the fact that religion is against the actions of roeder.
you blame the nut job straw
again -I told you to forget that one sentence
the question I'm asking you is about Roeder the Terrorist
you call him a nut job
what should we do about this nut job who killed someone
won't talk to police
and claims to know of future attacks?
-
again -I told you to forget that one sentence
the question I'm asking you is about Roeder the Terrorist
you call him a nut job
what should we do about this nut job who killed someone and claims to know of future attacks
i already responded
you should go back to college and take a research methods class and perhaps a stats class to show you the fallacy that is the conclusion you are getting from that statement. Its not saying that its b/c they are christians its simply saying that they are christian...correlation does NOT equal causation.
Again you should really get over whatever it is that you have against religion b/c it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the time and just as intolerant as those you despise...
as for your question, i have no problem with the "torturing" of this man if all the other options have been exhausted.
-
I'm veyr cool with torturing bad guys, as long as you odn't trumpet it for an ego bump like bush did. You send them to egypt and you get the intel. And ya don't talk about it.
I'm not down with torturing americans. however, if a guy BRAGS that he knows about upcoming terror acts, then maybe we could treat him to a nice trip to egypt...
-
so at some point, if nothing else works, we should consider and possibly torture Scott Roeder in order to get information on these imminent attacks?
-
you quoted me darling in which i said nothing about the validity of his question as it pertains to "torturing" him... 8)
I guess that's why I posed the question to you again, since you chose to dismiss it the first time.
Here we have a terrorist with information about imminent (Thanks Straw) ;) threats to American lives.
Should he be water-boarded or tortured to save American lives?
-
so at some point, if nothing else works, we should consider and possibly torture Scott Roeder in order to get information on these imminent attacks?
I would say so...
-
haha i wonder what BILLY MIMNAUGH will say?
-
I guess that's why I posed the question to you again, since you chose to dismiss it the first time.
Here we have a terrorist with information about imminent (Thanks Straw) ;) threats to American lives.
Should he be water-boarded or tortured to save American lives?
I didnt choose to dismiss it my love i simply choose to first address the fallacy of straws comment, I answered his question after that matter was done with.
-
I would say so...
I have to disagree
-
More from angry liberals:
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, called the statements "hate crimes" for their intent to create violence against someone based on their beliefs.
"This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they're not happy with a political outcome. This is criminal activity," he said. "The homosexual lobby is always calling for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and 'hate.' Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians."
. . .
Liberty Counsel's Barber said, "This is not free speech; these are 'hate crimes' under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law."
. . .
"I hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil! BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM," wrote Angelo.
One contributor went so far as to threaten to take out his frustrations on his own family.
"You want me to come back to Idaho for Christmas? Oh wait, my partner and I can't share the same bed? We can't show any affection or any outward sign of our love for each other? Well sorry family ... no Uncle Adam and all his expensive gifts and delicious cooking for you. Your childrens' presents will now be donations in their name to the equal rights organization of my choosing. As will their and your birthday presents, wedding presents, graduation presents, and everything else I give going forward."
The writer continued, "Remember, I'm angry. And I'm strong from my years at the gym and really am ready to take my frustration out on someone or something."
Barber said the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and "other leaders within the homosexual lobby" should call immediately for an end to such threats.
There were suggestions of a different type of violence, too.
"Hope the gay waiters at their hotel p---ed in all the drinks they served these cretins," "Jake" wrote about protectors of traditional marriage.
"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."
Another even listed addresses of Mormon facilities. Mormon, Catholic and other religious groups were active in supporting the marriage definition.
"I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice," wrote Jeremy.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=80220
-
this is pretty funny.
He claims to KNOW about upcoming terror acts, right?
Yet I'm betting a lot of the same far-right folks who support torturing arabs, are okay with this abortion doctor killer, and wouldn't torture him to get info on upcoming acts.
Hypocrisy.
Ah that is a bunch of horse shit and you know it.
You can call him a Christian if you wish, but his actions say otherwise. A terrorist is a terrorist, foreign or domestic, waterboard his ass, make him listen to barney for 24 hrs. Crack the fucker like an egg to get the information.
Am I anti-abortion? Yes but I don't think it should be illegal. My postion as a Christian is that everybody has to make their own choices and answer for those choices when the time comes.
You want to talk about hypocrisy, a athiest, liberal what ever will fight tooth and nail for a worthless piece of shit that has proven that at best they don't deserver to live in out society. That has nothing to offer and probabaly is a multiple offender, to stave off execution. But has absolutly no problem ending the life of an unborn, a complete incent who has done nothing to warrant it. Did you ever stop to think that wasted life may have grown up to be the doctor the cures cancer, or is the next great leader? Guess we'll never know.
-
I have to disagree
LOL well of course you arent for "torturing" of any kind under any circumstance are you? why would it be different here?
-
Bum,
yes you can post all the quotes you want
the question is:
should or should we not treat our nutbag terrorist the same way whether on the right or left?
hint...if you can read you already know my answer
-
LOL well of course you arent for "torturing" of any kind under any circumstance are you? why would it be different here?
yeah
and I really don't like this guy
weird huh?
-
Here is a clip showing how tolerant liberal activists deal with people who disagree with them (by storming a church, throwing leaflets, shouting "Jesus is a homo," etc.).
-
yeah
and I really don't like this guy
weird huh?
not really im sure you really dont like muslim extremist either...
-
Shorter version:
-
Here is a clip showing how tolerant liberal activists deal with people who disagree with them (by storming a church, throwing leaflets, shouting "Jesus is a homo," etc.).
why do you keep saying the same thing over and over again?
how about addressing the topic of this thread
-
And here is how angry tolerant liberals deal with little old ladies who disagree with them:
-
"liberal nutbag".
I keep seeing that line posted here.
unfortunately, the only "nutbag" here is the far-right neocon who shot an unarmed doctor in a church, and is keeping future terror acts secret.
You can shit on the libs all you want, but this prick is from your team...
-
"liberal nutbag".
I keep seeing that line posted here.
unfortunately, the only "nutbag" here is the far-right neocon who shot an unarmed doctor in a church, and is keeping future terror acts secret.
You can shit on the libs all you want, but this prick is from your team...
This is what is wrong with America, I don't know what side you are on, but I'm on the USA's side. I don't give a shit who is in office, if I think they are screwing the country I call them on it.
-
This is what is wrong with America, I don't know what side you are on, but I'm on the USA's side. I don't give a shit who is in office, if I think they are screwing the country I call them on it.
I dont know whos gimmick you are bro but i like you ;D
-
not really im sure you really dont like muslim extremist either...
I don't like any kind of religious nutbag extremist
I'm primarily agaist torturing Roeder because I don't think it will be that effective
this guy is a nutjob (as you've pointed out) and he's already bitching about his accomodations
they'll get a lot more from this guy by giving little bits of comfort in exchange for any any info he might have
he might be too stupid to even know what he knows
-
why do you keep saying the same thing over and over again?
how about addressing the topic of this thread
The topic of this thread has morphed. It includes a discussion of "crowds" and "signs" held by protestors. "There is a fragment of this movement [read anyone who disagrees with radical liberals] that is unstable and prone to losing it." Like these liberals:
-
I don't like any kind of religious nutbag extremist
I'm primarily agaist torturing Roeder because I don't think it will be that effective
this guy is a nutjob (as you've pointed out) and he's already bitching about his accomodations
they'll get a lot more from this guy by giving little bits of comfort in exchange for any any info he might have
he might be too stupid to even know what he knows
what is it about his living conditions that he is not happy with?
Like i said when all other options have been exhausted...
-
I dont know whos gimmick you are bro but i like you ;D
No gimmick, just read the board for a long time and finally couldn't take it anymore and had to respond
-
The topic of this thread has morphed. It includes a discussion of "crowds" and "signs" held by protestors. "There is a fragment of this movement [read anyone who disagrees with radical liberals] that is unstable and prone to losing it." Like these liberals:
the topic of this thread is what we should do about a suspected murder and terrorist who claims to know of future attacks and won't talk to the police
the topic of this thread is Scott Roeder
-
the topic of this thread is what we should do about a suspected murder and terrorist who claims to know of future attacks and won't talk to the police
the topic of this thread is Scott Roeder
::)
Tony - please spend a few minutes watching this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31177077
Frank Schaeffer knows what he is talking about. If nothing else watch the video of the crowds and the signs they are holding
There is a fragment of this movement that is unstable and prone to losing it
-
what is it about his living conditions that he is not happy with?
Like i said when all other options have been exhausted...
to start being in jail
lhe's bitching about being "treated like a criminal" , being put in isolation, afraid he's going catch pneumonia, wants a sleep apnea machine, etc..
they can get whatever this guy has without torturing him
again, if this guy knows anything he's probably to stupid to know it and probably to stupid to not reveal it one way or another
-
man from the last clip you posted beach iono if i could stand there and let those 2 dudes talk like that to me without giving them a nice curb smile.
-
to start being in jail
lhe's bitching about being "treated like a criminal" , being put in isolation, afraid he's going catch pneumonia, wants a sleep apnea machine, etc..
they can get whatever this guy has without torturing him
again, if this guy knows anything he's probably to stupid to know it and probably to stupid to not reveal it one way or another
LOL hahahah well according to the geneva convention that is torture...
i havent been following much of anything the past few days why do you believe him to be so stupid?
-
::)
sometimes it's hard to follow who is responding to who
Tony - please spend a few minutes watching this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31177077
Frank Schaeffer knows what he is talking about. If nothing else watch the video of the crowds and the signs they are holding
There is a fragment of this movement that is unstable and prone to losing it
yes and the point of this thread (which you would get if you read the title) is Scott Roeder and what exactly we should do with him
-
man from the last clip you posted beach iono if i could stand there and let those 2 dudes talk like that to me without giving them a nice curb smile.
I think the one where they pretty much assault the old lady is worse, but yeah it would take a great deal of restraint. One of the things these clips highlight is how no political philosophy, religious viewpoint, etc. has a monopoly on extremists. But I'm preaching to the choir. :)
-
LOL hahahah well according to the geneva convention that is torture...
i havent been following much of anything the past few days why do you believe him to be so stupid?
the geneva convention says being in jail is torture?
-
the geneva convention says being in jail is torture?
as with most ppl you probably havent read the geneva convention as it pertains to torture...do yourself a favor and read it just about anything could be deemed torture under that definition. Jail itself could be deemed torture its a stretch but just depends on the conditions, solitary confinement which he more then likely is in or some form of it could be argued fairly strongly to be torture again under the definition from the geneva convention.
-
as with most ppl you probably havent read the geneva convention as it pertains to torture...do yourself a favor and read it just about anything could be deemed torture under that definition. Jail itself could be deemed torture its a stretch but just depends on the conditions, solitary confinement which he more then likely is in or some form of it could be argued fairly strongly to be torture again under the definition from the geneva convention.
by definition
have we tortured this guy so far?
I don't think so
and he's already bitching
-
I have to disagree
Give Tony credit for answering, but this is a US citizen you're ready to torture... Remember that slippery slope I mentioned before?
This is a 85 degree decline for it.
-
by definition
have we tortured this guy so far?
I don't think so
and he's already bitching
I dont know the details of his imprisonment so i cant say yes or no, i will say like i did earlier that just about anything could be deemed torture under the geneva convention so im pretty sure that it could be argued that he has been.
again go read the definition of torture from the geneva convention and you will understand that there is an arguement to be made that he is being tortured in response to just about everything.
-
Give Tony credit for answering, but this is a US citizen you're ready to torture... Remember that slippery slope I mentioned before?
This is a 85 degree decline for it.
LOL yea i definitely agree holmes i dont think it would be a far stretch from enhanced interrogation techniques for this and say for robery or something else...but then again the same arguement can be made for just about everything so...
-
I dont know the details of his imprisonment so i cant say yes or no, i will say like i did earlier that just about anything could be deemed torture under the geneva convention so im pretty sure that it could be argued that he has been.
again go read the definition of torture from the geneva convention and you will understand that there is an arguement to be made that he is being tortured in response to just about everything.
I'm familiar with it
how about just posting a link
I doubt Roeder has been tortured in any way, shape or form
he's only been in custody for a week so even total isolation is not torture at this point
-
I'm familiar with it
how about just posting a link
I doubt Roeder has been tortured in any way, shape or form
he's only been in custody for a week so even total isolation is not torture at this point
if your familiar with it theres no need to post a link and you know how loose a definition it provides and that an arguement for just about everything could be argued to be torture.
careful again like the abortion issue you need a logical reason for that statement...how long do you think that isolation has to be in place before its torture?
-
Ah that is a bunch of horse shit and you know it.
You can call him a Christian if you wish, but his actions say otherwise. A terrorist is a terrorist, foreign or domestic, waterboard his ass, make him listen to barney for 24 hrs. Crack the fucker like an egg to get the information.
Am I anti-abortion? Yes but I don't think it should be illegal. My postion as a Christian is that everybody has to make their own choices and answer for those choices when the time comes.
You want to talk about hypocrisy, a athiest, liberal what ever will fight tooth and nail for a worthless piece of shit that has proven that at best they don't deserver to live in out society. That has nothing to offer and probabaly is a multiple offender, to stave off execution. But has absolutly no problem ending the life of an unborn, a complete incent who has done nothing to warrant it. Did you ever stop to think that wasted life may have grown up to be the doctor the cures cancer, or is the next great leader? Guess we'll never know.
Kazan,
I hate to break it to you, ...but your very own stated position on the matter, ...it makes you Pro-Choice.
-
I dont know the details of his imprisonment so i cant say yes or no, i will say like i did earlier that just about anything could be deemed torture under the geneva convention so im pretty sure that it could be argued that he has been.
again go read the definition of torture from the geneva convention and you will understand that there is an arguement to be made that he is being tortured in response to just about everything.
Well, the actualy word definition of torture is:
tor⋅ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Well, none of them are isolation... You "may" be able to stretch number 4 to say it's extreme anguish of the body, BUT that's REALLY a stretch.
I think we almost all associate torture with a physical action.
-
What do gay people have to do with Dr. Tiller's murderer.
Why are you bringing all these 'gay themed' video clips into this.
This has nothing to do with whether Roeder should be tortured to obtain info about imminent threats?
-
Well, the actualy word definition of torture is:
tor⋅ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
Well, none of them are isolation... You "may" be able to stretch number 4 to say it's extreme anguish of the body, BUT that's REALLY a stretch.
I think we almost all associate torture with a physical action.
Thats exactly right, but as the defintion states extreme anguish of body or MIND...isolation can be extremely harsh on the mental component of a person and that premise could be used on just about everything...
also we never established what definition of torture we were going by the geneva conventions definition is slightly broader then that one.
-
Thats exactly right, but as the defintion states extreme anguish of body or MIND...isolation can be extremely harsh on the mental component of a person and that premise could be used on just about everything...
also we never established what definition of torture we were going by the geneva conventions definition is slightly broader then that one.
isolation is the only possible angle to your argument and he's only been in custody for a week so even if he was in isolation the entire time it wouldn't be torture...unless he's been buried in tiny underground cell or something like that
-
isolation is the only possible angle to your argument and he's only been in custody for a week so even if he was in isolation the entire time it wouldn't be torture...unless he's been buried in tiny underground cell or something like that
again what logical basis do you have for that claim? how long does a person have to be in isolation for it to be torture and why?
-
again what logical basis do you have for that claim? how long does a person have to be in isolation for it to be torture and why?
are you saying you think we've already tortured Roeder?
-
are you saying you think we've already tortured Roeder?
sighhhh
I dont know the details of his imprisonment so i cant say yes or no, i will say like i did earlier that just about anything could be deemed torture under the geneva convention so im pretty sure that it could be argued that he has been.
again go read the definition of torture from the geneva convention and you will understand that there is an arguement to be made that he is being tortured in response to just about everything.
-
sighhhh
ok
let's say Roeder has been held in isolation 23 hours a day for the last 7 days
in that example has he been tortured?
-
good thread straw man.
this whole situation reeks.
Shall I be the first to say it? :D ... It's a distraction.
240's post sums it up good. It's good ol' divide and conquer bs.
unfortunately, the only "nutbag" here is the far-right neocon who shot an unarmed doctor in a church, and is keeping future terror acts secret.
You can shit on the libs all you want, but this prick is from your team...
-
ok
let's say Roeder has been held in isolation 23 hours a day for the last 7 days
in that example has he been tortured?
hahah i cant say as i dont know the extent to his mental anguish...i can tell you if i was in isolation for 23 hours a day for 7 days that i would feel like id been tortured.
reading the definition of torture from either the geneva convention which again is a tad more broad then the one holmes posted or even holmes definition itself is problematic b/c those definition are open to interpretation.
-
hahah i cant say as i dont know the extent to his mental anguish...i can tell you if i was in isolation for 23 hours a day for 7 days that i would feel like id been tortured.
reading the definition of torture from either the geneva convention which again is a tad more broad then the one holmes posted or even holmes definition itself is problematic b/c those definition are open to interpretation.
so we might have tortured this guy but perhaps not intentionally?
but then again we might conclude at some point that we have to torture him
let's keep in mind he claims to have knowledge of imminent attacks on our country
-
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/431332.html (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/431332.html)
-
so we might have tortured this guy but perhaps not intentionally?
but then again we might conclude at some point that we have to torture him
let's keep in mind he claims to have knowledge of imminent attacks on our country
Sounds about right, you seem to think that there is some illogical thought process to that conclusion?
define extreme physical or mental anguish
how can you apply that to different ppl wouldnt the limits differ from person to person?
-
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/431332.html (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/431332.html)
ct's abound
-
Sounds about right, you seem to think that there is some illogical thought process to that conclusion?
define extreme physical or mental anguish
how can you apply that to different ppl wouldnt the limits differ from person to person?
let me be clear
I don't think we've yet tortured Roeder
I don't think we will torture Roeder
I donn't think we should torture Roeder
I do think he is a terrorist and more than likely did not act alone and also may have info on future attacks
-
ct's abound
have to love how quickly they've gotten all this information
-
have to love how quickly they've gotten all this information
true but I'm sure that alot of info already exists and maybe there is just a lot more people looking at it
I do thing there might be some coordinated effort of terror going on here
-
true but I'm sure that alot of info already exists and maybe there is just a lot more people looking at it
I do thing there might be some coordinated effort of terror going on here
Supposedly there exists a 2004 Rolling Stone article wherein the head of Operation Rescue stated he had moles that had infiltrated Dr. Tiller's church, and were keeping tabs on his movements.
-
He should've been aborted.
-
If no one talks, the best we can hope for is an accident similar to the one that happened to Ayres girlfriend where a makeshift device goes off while they're building it, ...and the only casualties are the terrorists themselves.
Now THAT would be ironic justice. :D
-
well Roeder is a current story and the only mention of christians was the fact that some on the board are pro-water boarding for terrorist
Seems like a timely and fair question to me.
This man claims he knows of future acts of terror
Should he be water-boarded
christians and non-christians are free to share their views
If you can't get him to talk any other way, I say go for it.
My question is whether those who were blubbering about "torture" have had a change of heart, now that the lives of their "heroes" (and I say that, only because some have referred to Tiller as such) are at stake.
-
If you can't get him to talk any other way, I say go for it.
My question is whether those who were blubbering about "torture" have had a change of heart, now that the lives of their "heroes" (and I say that, only because some have referred to Tiller as such) are at stake.
so we can see from this short thread that most of the christians are OK with torturing this guy.
personally, I think (as always) that it won't produce any good info.
-
so we can see from this short thread that most of the christians are OK with torturing this guy.
personally, I think (as always) that it won't produce any good info.
once again what does chrisitanity have to do with the issue at hand?
-
once again what does chrisitanity have to do with the issue at hand?
I thought we already covered this.
-
If torturing him is the option,then thats fine.It wont stop the anti-abortionists.Just as the islamic terrorists believe they are fighting for Allah,so to do the anti-abortion people think they are fighting for God.
However,again,at least that scum bag Tiller is gone.
-
I thought we already covered this.
we did and i showed you the fallacy of your statement did i not?
-
we did and i showed you the fallacy of your statement did i not?
really?
I thought you pointed out that Evangelicals tend to be conservative and conservatives support torture to which I asked why you objected in the first place since you're basically saying christians = conservative = support torture which was exactly my point to begin with.
anyway, I'm pretty sure that Roeder won't be tortured anywhere except inside his skull where he's been tortured daily by reality for a very long time
-
really?
I thought you pointed out that Evangelicals tend to be conservative and conservatives support torture to which I asked why you objected in the first place since you're basically saying christians = conservative = support torture which was exactly my point to begin with.
anyway, I'm pretty sure that Roeder won't be tortured anywhere except inside his skull where he's been tortured daily by reality for a very long time
really?
I thought you pointed out that Evangelicals tend to be conservative and conservatives support torture to which I asked why you objected in the first place since you're basically saying christians = conservative = support torture which was exactly my point to begin with.
anyway, I'm pretty sure that Roeder won't be tortured anywhere except inside his skull where he's been tortured daily by reality for a very long time
LOL well you seem to want to make the illogical jump that because a person is an Evangelical christians means that person is pro "torture" which is false again simple correlation which is what you have in you study does not imply causation...you understand that correct?
this topic as you addressed it in the question has NOTHING to do with christians it has to do with ppl who are for in favor of enhanced interrogation techniques which is far more ppl then simply evangelical christians...
again get over whatever it is that you have against christianity it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the timeespecially when your bring it up when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand...
-
LOL well you seem to want to make the illogical jump that because a person is an Evangelical christians means that person is pro "torture" which is false again simple correlation which is what you have in you study does not imply causation...you understand that correct?
this topic as you addressed it in the question has NOTHING to do with christians it has to do with ppl who are for in favor of enhanced interrogation techniques which is far more ppl then simply evangelical christians...
again get over whatever it is that you have against christianity it makes you look like a jack ass the majority of the timeespecially when your bring it up when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand...
Tony - you're entitled to your opinion
I have to say I do find it fascinating that christians (or even just religious folks) often suggest that without religion we would have no moral compass yet it seems that the more religious one is the more they tend to support things like torture (even when there is an abudance of evidence that its not even effective) and when you start getting to the really crazy end of the religious spectrum you've got guys like Roeder who's extreme relgious beliefs tell him it's ok, and even required to commit murder. I also can't get over the irony that from the Christian point of view that their saviour Jesus was tortured to death for their sins yet they still don't see the irony. That always gives me a chuckle.
Your point seems be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's got nothing to do with religion and only has to do with their political views. Do I understand you correctly?
-
Thats exactly right, but as the defintion states extreme anguish of body or MIND...isolation can be extremely harsh on the mental component of a person and that premise could be used on just about everything...
also we never established what definition of torture we were going by the geneva conventions definition is slightly broader then that one.
I meant "Mind" in my previous posting.
-
Tony - you're entitled to your opinion
I have to say I do find it fascinating the christians (or even just religious folks) often suggest that without religion we would have no moral compass yet it seems that the more religious one is the more they tend to support things like torture (even when their is an abudance of evidence that its not even effective) and when you start getting to the really crazy end of the religious spectrum you've got guys like Roeder who's extreme relgious beliefs tell him it's ok, and even required to commit murder. I also can't get over the irony that from the Christian point of view that their saviour Jesus was tortured to death for their sins yet they still don't see the irony. That always gives me a chuckle.
Your point seems be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's got nothing to do with religion and only has to do with their political views. Do I understand you correctly?
LOL well as atheists morals are fairly arbitrary this you cannot deny, so for you to say as an atheist that someones morals are not moral is pretty stupid they are simply different from yours.
there is conflicting evidence to whether torture works or not straw dont be ignorant and repeat liberal talking points.
you see you did it again "when you start getting to the really crazy end of the religious spectrum you've got guys like Roeder who's extreme relgious beliefs tell him it's ok, and even required to commit murder." those are not religious beliefs those are HIS beliefs...please show me where the christian religion says that this is ok...if you cant then its not a religious belief its HIS BELIEF...
Jesus was not tortured to get information he was tortured in the process of them killing him...totally different we didnt run around and torture ppl for shits and giggles or as a way of making death more displeasurable. Apples and oranges it seems you displeasure for religion specifically christianity causes you to lose your head straw and again make a jack ass out of yourself.
my point is that religion has nothing to do with being pro "torture" or not and neither does being conservative yes you can make a correlation between the 2 or 3 but again CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION...you can be pro enhanced interrogation techniques and be atheist or liberal...i honestly dont understand why atheist object to it at all as again morals from atheist are for the most part arbitrary and a logical stance can be made for "torture" by atheist.
-
LOL well as atheists morals are fairly arbitrary this you cannot deny, so for you to say as an atheist that someones morals are not moral is pretty stupid they are simply different from yours.
there is conflicting evidence to whether torture works or not straw dont be ignorant and repeat liberal talking points.
you see you did it again "when you start getting to the really crazy end of the religious spectrum you've got guys like Roeder who's extreme relgious beliefs tell him it's ok, and even required to commit murder." those are not religious beliefs those are HIS beliefs...please show me where the christian religion says that this is ok...if you cant then its not a religious belief its HIS BELIEF...
Jesus was not tortured to get information he was tortured in the process of them killing him...totally different we didnt run around and torture ppl for shits and giggles or as a way of making death more displeasurable. Apples and oranges it seems you displeasure for religion specifically christianity causes you to lose your head straw and again make a jack ass out of yourself.
my point is that religion has nothing to do with being pro "torture" or not and neither does being conservative yes you can make a correlation between the 2 or 3 but again CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION...you can be pro enhanced interrogation techniques and be atheist or liberal...i honestly dont understand why atheist object to it at all as again morals from atheist are for the most part arbitrary and a logical stance can be made for "torture" by atheist.
tony - can't you make your responses a bit shorter. I'd like to respond but I'm trying to work too.
regarding torture - I'm getting my info from what the interrogators have said in public hearing and not from "talking points"
regarding atheist morals I have no clue if they are arbitrary. I'm not even aware of any cohesive atheist group so maybe you can show me where you get the info to support your claims
regarding your point about religion and torture - You're saying their is zero correlation btw. religious points of view and politcal points of view. Is this correct?
-
you see you did it again "when you start getting to the really crazy end of the religious spectrum you've got guys like Roeder who's extreme relgious beliefs tell him it's ok, and even required to commit murder." those are not religious beliefs those are HIS beliefs...please show me where the christian religion says that this is ok...if you cant then its not a religious belief its HIS BELIEF...
Jesus was not tortured to get information he was tortured in the process of them killing him...totally different we didnt run around and torture ppl for shits and giggles or as a way of making death more displeasurable. Apples and oranges it seems you displeasure for religion specifically christianity causes you to lose your head straw and again make a jack ass out of yourself.
I missed this part - so you're saying torture is OK if you have a good reason and not just doing it for shits and giggles.....Gotcha
I feel pretty comfortable is saying that Roeders actions were informed by his extreme religious beliefs. I'm not saying they were correct, I'm not saying they are condoned by the religion but it's disingenous of you to deny that his personal religious beliefs did not play a large part in his actions. Why all the denial on this issue?
-
tony - can't you make your responses a bit shorter. I'd like to respond but I'm trying to work too.
regarding torture - I'm getting my info from what the interrogators have said in public hearing and not from "talking points"
regarding atheist morals I have no clue if they are arbitrary. I'm not even aware of any cohesive atheist group so maybe you can show me where you get the info to support your claims
regarding your point about religion and torture - You're saying their is zero correlation btw. religious points of view and politcal points of view. Is this correct?
sorry man there is just alot to say about your stance on these issues and alot of misinformation to correct.
they say that is produces unreliable results, not that it doesnt work...when ppl have info they give it, its when they dont have info and are "tortured" they can give false statements...theres a difference
are you atheist straw? i assume you are taken your displeasure with religion where do your morals come from?
as ive already stated...
my point is that religion has nothing to do with being pro "torture" or not and neither does being conservative yes you can make a correlation between the 2 or 3 but again CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION...you can be pro enhanced interrogation techniques and be atheist or liberal...i honestly dont understand why atheist object to it at all as again morals from atheist are for the most part arbitrary and a logical stance can be made for "torture" by atheist.
-
I missed this part - so you're saying torture is OK if you have a good reason and not just doing it for shits and giggles.....Gotcha
I feel pretty comfortable is saying that Roeders actions were informed by his extreme religious beliefs. I'm not saying they were correct, I'm not saying they are condoned by the religion but it's disingenous of you to deny that his personal religious beliefs did not play a large part in his actions. Why all the denial on this issue?
im fairly certain youre trying to be a smart ass and you totally missed my point...you tried to make a connection between the irony of the torture that Jesus went through and the torture that the US did to a FEW terrorist while the two are totally different situations in other words incomparable.
AGAIN SHOW ME WHERE THE RELIGION THAT HE FOLLOWS CHRISTIANITY ADVOCATES THESE TYPES OF ACTIONS...you cant b/c it doesnt there for his actions where do to HIS BELIEFS NOT TO HIS RELIGION. I believe that his personal beliefs contributed to his actions but again there was a point where the religious views stopped and his personal views took over I can see clearly more then likely b/c i dont have the haze of hatred covering my eyes.
Its not that there is denial im just smart enough to decipher from what the religion preachs and what a person twists it into.
-
sorry man there is just alot to say about your stance on these issues and alot of misinformation to correct.
they say that is produces unreliable results, not that it doesnt work...when ppl have info they give it, its when they dont have info and are "tortured" they can give false statements...theres a difference
are you atheist straw? i assume you are taken your displeasure with religion where do your morals come from?
as ive already stated...
I do not claim to be an atheist but I'm also not a member of any religion.
If I had to pick a religion it would be Buddhism but that's not actually a religion
My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way.
back to Roeder - he has ties to Operation Rescue whose motivation is based on their religious beliefs (right or wrong).
Roeders actions are based on taking his religious beliefs to the extreme.
-
I do not claim to be an atheist but I'm also not a member of any religion.
If I had to pick a religion it would be Buddhism but that's not actually a religion
My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way.
back to Roeder - he has ties to Operation Rescue whose motivation is based on their religious beliefs (right or wrong).
Roeders actions are based on taking his religious beliefs to the extreme.
I agree but when you have ppl who are intent on harming you, that means they arent treating you the same way...so i could logically by your moral definition logically argue for torture.
what religious belief says that you can kill ppl if you disagree with their actions? im not familiar with operation rescues beliefs but again.
if the bible says not to do what roeder did and he did that anyway even if he claims that it is b/c of his religious beliefs, whos belief is that really?
-
I agree but when you have ppl who are intent on harming you, that means they arent treating you the same way...so i could logically by your moral definition logically argue for torture.
why did you ignore the part where I said don't infringe on my rights or safety?
-
why did you ignore the part where I said don't infringe on my rights or safety?
i didnt so by your logic if someone is intent on harming you then you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated do you? by your logic anyway
-
what religious belief says that you can kill ppl if you disagree with their actions? im not familiar with operation rescues beliefs but again.
if the bible says not to do what roeder did and he did that anyway even if he claims that it is b/c of his religious beliefs, whos belief is that really?
you're not familiar with Randall Terry or Operation Rescue.
I assume you are at least aware the the radical anti-abortion crowd is mostly motivated by what "they perceive" to be religious reasons.
Let me know if you think he might have a religious motivation for his feelings about abortion:
-
i didnt so by your logic if someone is intent on harming you then you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated do you? by your logic anyway
again - why ignore the other part of what I've said.
btw - are you an atheist? christian? muslim? something else?
-
you're not familiar with Randall Terry or Operation Rescue.
I assume you are at least aware the the radical anti-abortion crowd is mostly motivated by what "they perceive" to be religious reasons.
Let me know if you think he might have a religious motivation for his feelings about abortion:
Ya i would say that his views where based on his religion...did his views in that video state that he thought it was ok? actually he denouced that roeders actions did he not?
-
again - why ignore the other part of what I've said.
btw - are you an atheist? christian? muslim? something else?
for the love of shit straw what fuking part did i ignore man? which part?
i would consider myself christian, would others iono there are some evangelicals that might not but thats really non of my concern
what level of education do you have straw? did you ever take a logics class if you went to college?
-
for the love of shit straw what fuking part did i ignore man? which part?
i would consider myself christian, would others iono there are some evangelicals that might not but thats really non of my concern
what level of education do you have straw? did you ever take a logics class if you went to college?
for the love of shit this part:
My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way.
-
for the love of shit this part:
as i stated if a person is intent on harming you, meaning YOUR SAFETY WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY(thats addressing that point) then you would by your logic have a logical stance to torture the person...what part of that dont you understand?
-
as i stated if a person is intent on harming you, meaning YOUR SAFETY WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY(thats addressing that point) then you would by your logic have a logical stance to torture the person...what part of that dont you understand?
Tony - I'm reading this while trying to work.
let's go back to your original response
I agree but when you have ppl who are intent on harming you, that means they arent treating you the same way...so i could logically by your moral definition logically argue for torture.
please clarify how I would justify torture?
first I say that I would treat others the way I want to be treated.
Ok - someone is not treating me the way I would treat them.......how does that translate into I get to torture them?
I'm not following your logic. spell it out for me
-
Tony - I'm reading this while trying to work.
let's go back to your original response
please clarify how I would justify torture?
first I say that I would treat others the way I want to be treated.
Ok - someone is not treating me the way I would treat them.......how does that translate into I get to torture them?
I'm not following your logic. spell it out for me
I understand that bro, my original response was exactly the same as my last one ;)
I didnt say that you would justify it, i said that by your statement i could justify torture.
someone is not treating you the way you would treat them b/c they are intent on harming you...you stated that you would treat them the way you want to be treated as long as they arent infringing on your rights or SAFETY...intent on harming is infringing on your safety, so according to your logic you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated any longer, do you?
maybe you should go back and reread and revise your statement b/c logically this could be a possible outcome of your beliefs.
again what level of education do you have? did you ever take a logic class in college if you attended college?
-
I understand that bro, my original response was exactly the same as my last one ;)
I didnt say that you would justify it, i said that by your statement i could justify torture.
someone is not treating you the way you would treat them b/c they are intent on harming you...you stated that you would treat them the way you want to be treated as long as they arent infringing on your rights or SAFETY...intent on harming is infringing on your safety, so according to your logic you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated any longer, do you?
maybe you should go back and reread and revise your statement b/c logically this could be a possible outcome of your beliefs.
again what level of education do you have? did you ever take a logic class in college if you attended college?
I have an undergrad degree in finance. What's your background?
Let's take your statement:
"someone is not treating you the way you would treat them b/c they are intent on harming you...you stated that you would treat them the way you want to be treated as long as they arent infringing on your rights or SAFETY...intent on harming is infringing on your safety, so according to your logic you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated any longer, do you?"
nothing in my statement suggest that I am justified in torturing someone who is intent on harming me and just using the word "logical" doesn't make it so. I'm justified in defending myself but how to you figure that I'm justified in now torturing this person. By your illogic if someone is trying to harm me I am now "justified" in doing anything I'd like. Why would I even need to torture this person. Wouldn't I just need to defend myself?
Also, mere intent does not mean that I can now do whatever I'd like.
-
I have an undergrad degree in finance. What's your background?
Let's take your statement:
"someone is not treating you the way you would treat them b/c they are intent on harming you...you stated that you would treat them the way you want to be treated as long as they arent infringing on your rights or SAFETY...intent on harming is infringing on your safety, so according to your logic you dont have to treat them the way you want to be treated any longer, do you?"
nothing in my statement suggest that I am justified in torturing someone who is intent on harming me and just using the word "logical" doesn't make it so. I'm justified in defending myself but how to you figure that I'm justified in now torturing this person. By your illogic if someone is trying to harm me I am now "justified" in doing anything I'd like. Why would I even need to torture this person. Wouldn't I just need to defend myself?
Also, mere intent does not mean that I can now do whatever I'd like.
i have a psych degree and am finishing up a degree in finance right now...
You didnt answer my question as to the logic class? I think im safe in assuming that you didnt...Im not saying that youre statement justifies torturing what im saying is that by following your logic it could be argued that it would be justified...Are you defending yourself by getting information that could lead to the thwarting of an attempt to hurt you?...LOL you are are right about the bold but thats not my logic straw thats your logic you applied and cant see why thats a logical outcome...again wouldnt gaining information that could stop you from being hurt be defending yourself?
-
i have a psych degree and am finishing up a degree in finance right now...
You didnt answer my question as to the logic class? I think im safe in assuming that you didnt...Im not saying that youre statement justifies torturing what im saying is that by following your logic it could be argued that it would be justified...Are you defending yourself by getting information that could lead to the thwarting of an attempt to hurt you?...LOL you are are right about the bold but thats not my logic straw thats your logic you applied and cant see why thats a logical outcome...again wouldnt gaining information that could stop you from being hurt be defending yourself?
I don't recall taking a logic class but I assume you did or you wouldn't be asking
Let's break this down becaus I have very little time before I get in a car to go see a client:
I'm having a really hard time following your convoluted thoughts but I think you are you saying:
if someone is intent on harming me then I am justified in torturing them to gain "info" to defend myself and you're saying that is somehow "my logic" which you've assigned to me and you think that saying I would treat people the way I want to be treated somehow justifies and perhaps even endorses this conclusion?
-
I don't recall taking a logic class but I assume you did or you wouldn't be asking
Let's break this down becaus I have very little time before I get in a car to go see a client:
I'm having a really hard time following your convoluted thoughts but I think you are you saying:
if someone is intent on harming me then I am justified in torturing them to gain "info" to defend myself and you're saying that is somehow "my logic" which you've assigned to me and you think that saying I would treat people the way I want to be treated somehow justifies and perhaps even endorses this conclusion?
im asking b/c you seem to not be able to use logic in your arguements...
again is getting information from a person through "torture" that could thwart an attack on you defending yourself or not? you really have a bad habit of not answering questions and simply asking your own...
this is important b/c if doing so could be considered defending yourself then it falls inline with your logic, you understand? I seem to think that would be considered defending yourself wouldnt you? and if thats the case then you already said you are justified in defending yourself...
-
im asking b/c you seem to not be able to use logic in your arguements...
again is getting information from a person through "torture" that could thwart an attack on you defending yourself or not? NO it is not. Is that clear enough for you
-
LOL I think it's pretty clear it could be determined that it is protecting yourself. Why do you think that's not defending yourself is that not an act that could be used to protecting yourself?
-
LOL I think it's pretty clear it could be determined that it is protecting yourself. Why do you think that's not defending yourself is that not an act that could be used to protecting yourself?
If someone does something to you or you torture them to get info, let's say to save your child.
You will be found guilty of kidnapping and assault.
There are laws against that sort of thing... It's obviously illegal.
-
If someone does something to you or you torture them to get info, let's say to save your child.
You will be found guilty of kidnapping and assault.
There are laws against that sort of thing... It's obviously illegal.
we were speaking on a moral level not a legal level...
-
LOL I think it's pretty clear it could be determined that it is protecting yourself. Why do you think that's not defending yourself is that not an act that could be used to protecting yourself?
really?
so if I think that someone has intent to do me harm then you think it the logical conclusion of my statement that I would "treat people the way I want to be treated" that I am now I'm justified in torturing this person?
Are you serious?
This is your lesson in logic?
-
really?
so if I think that someone has intent to do me harm that you think it the logical conclusion of my statement that I would "treat people the way I want to be treated" that I am now I'm justified in torturing this person?
Are you serious?
This is your lesson in logic?
??? sighhhhhhh
you said you would treat ppl the way you wanted to be treated if they "don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way." LOL you have to address the entire statement hahahhaha
So you have created an if-then statement...so if this occurs then this occurs...
if = they dont infringe on my rights or safety
then = I would treat them the way I want to be treated.
which translates into if you dont infringe on my rights or safety i will treat you the way i want to be treated...you follow me so far?
if the first part of an if-then statement does not occur then the second part does not necissarily occur either, meaning it may still occur but not for the reasons of the "if" part of the statement.
So yes by their intentions of harming you which im pretty sure you will agree with infringes upon your safety you are no longer obligated by your moral statement to treat them the way that you would like to be treated. Im not saying that this will necissarily lead to "torture" what im saying is that it leaves the door open for torture.
So if i were to follow your moral statement and i captured somebody who had plans to harm me and would not give me information it would be within your morals to torture them...
-
My question is whether those who were blubbering about "torture" have had a change of heart, now that the lives of their "heroes" (and I say that, only because some have referred to Tiller as such) are at stake.
My opinion hasn't changed. I still think torture is illegal, and would not produce any legit info.
Understand too, that this whole premise to torture him or not, has to stem from whether he is any credible source.
Does anything think he is nothing more than a patsy with a screw loose that people identified early on, and used to do their dirty work? Does anyone think this guy who most surely would have been on the radar would have been trusted with any info. Why on earth would he contact the media to say he had info, ...if not to put himself in the limelight, ...or attempt to cut himself a deal? I don't think he has anything. If that were the case to admit it would simply be to sink himself further into the whole. He's looking for a quick deal, knowing the pressure this might put on law enforcement to produce quick results.
-
If torturing him is the option,then thats fine.It wont stop the anti-abortionists.Just as the islamic terrorists believe they are fighting for Allah,so to do the anti-abortion people think they are fighting for God.
Finally an acknowledgement that what we're dealing with here are 2 sides of the very same coin.
-
My opinion hasn't changed. I still think torture is illegal, and would not produce any legit info.
Understand too, that this whole premise to torture him or not, has to stem from whether he is any credible source.
Does anything think he is nothing more than a patsy with a screw loose that people identified early on, and used to do their dirty work? Does anyone think this guy who most surely would have been on the radar would have been trusted with any info. Why on earth would he contact the media to say he had info, ...if not to put himself in the limelight, ...or attempt to cut himself a deal? I don't think he has anything. If that were the case to admit it would simply be to sink himself further into the whole. He's looking for a quick deal, knowing the pressure this might put on law enforcement to produce quick results.
thats exactly right i really believe this guy is a nut job iono if he is actually crazy or just a sociopath but either way i have a hard time believing this guy is very credible
Finally an acknowledgement that what we're dealing with here are 2 sides of the very same coin.
I dont think anybody was disagreeing with that only that you cant make the religion culpable to his actions when the religion he believes in preachs against such actions...ppl like straw want to make that connection so that they can use events like this to demonize religion but again its a logical fallacy.
-
I dont think anybody was disagreeing with that only that you cant make the religion culpable to his actions when the religion he believes in preachs against such actions...ppl like straw want to make that connection so that they can use events like this to demonize religion but again its a logical fallacy.
We see this kind of skewed logic applied to Muslims everyday. there are Muslims religious leaders who espouse violence in a divergent path from Islam. There are Christian religious leaders who espouse violence in a divergent path from Christianity. Anyone can look to the perverse nutjobs in any religion, and use these examples to paint the entire religion with the same broad brush. Just as many say moderate muslims should rise up and denounce the teachings and actions of the extremists, we can also say moderate christians should likewise rise up and denounce the teachings and actions of the extremists, ...but we're really not seeing this. On the part of western muslims, I can understand why... given the current climate of fear they're enjoying in the west, ...but in the case of Christians, I suspect it's because deep down, many approve of some of these actions and teachings.
-
We see this kind of skewed logic applied to Muslims everyday. there are Muslims religious leaders who espouse violence in a divergent path from Islam. There are Christian religious leaders who espouse violence in a divergent path from Christianity. Anyone can look to the perverse nutjobs in any religion, and use these examples to paint the entire religion with the same broad brush. Just as many say moderate muslims should rise up and denounce the teachings and actions of the extremists, we can also say moderate christians should likewise rise up and denounce the teachings and actions of the extremists, ...but we're really not seeing this. On the part of western muslims, I can understand why... given the current climate of fear they're enjoying in the west, ...but in the case of Christians, I suspect it's because deep down, many approve of some of these actions and teachings.
not true at all dear the very organization of operation rescue which has been touted by some as culpable in this event has come out against his actions...just about every religious leader around has...nobody is reporting that angle however...the vast majority of christians on this board have spoken out against roeder, i can understand why you may have overlooked this as i said that angle isnt being reported but it is and has happend since the day of the killing.
-
??? sighhhhhhh
you said you would treat ppl the way you wanted to be treated if they "don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way." LOL you have to address the entire statement hahahhaha
So you have created an if-then statement...so if this occurs then this occurs...
if = they dont infringe on my rights or safety
then = I would treat them the way I want to be treated.
which translates into if you dont infringe on my rights or safety i will treat you the way i want to be treated...you follow me so far?
if the first part of an if-then statement does not occur then the second part does not necissarily occur either, meaning it may still occur but not for the reasons of the "if" part of the statement.
So yes by their intentions of harming you which im pretty sure you will agree with infringes upon your safety you are no longer obligated by your moral statement to treat them the way that you would like to be treated. Im not saying that this will necissarily lead to "torture" what im saying is that it leaves the door open for torture.
this is simply YOUR subjective judgement and not a foregone conclusion and certainly not a logical conclusion
It doesn't leave the door open for torture because there is not even a door to begin with
I am personally against torture so the fact that someone chooses to treat me in a way in which I would not treat them does not lead to an "all bets are off/anything goes" situation. It does not allow, authorize or indemnify me from any action that I choose to do.
Seriously man - this is the best that you've got?
-
this is simply YOUR subjective judgement and not a foregone conclusion and certainly not a logical conclusion
It doesn't leave the door open for torture because there is not even a door to begin with
I am personally against torture so the fact that someone choose to treat me in a way in which I would not treat them does lead to an "all bets are off/anything goes" situation. It does not allow, authorize or indemnify me from any action that I choose to do.
Seriously man - this is the best that you've got?
LOL WOW :o man iono know what to say to your ignorance bro...I laid it out logically step by step and you still fail to see it or just plain refuse to...
what it leaves the door open to is not treating somebody the way you want to be treated, this fact opens the door to many things...
I understand you are personally against torture straw but the fact is that your statement doesnt reflect that stance of yours. your statement says that if they dont infringe upon your rights or safety then you will treat them as you want to be treated it says nothing of what will happen if they do infringe upon your rights or safety again this LEAVES THE PROVERBIAL DOOOOOOOOR OPPPPEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNN. .........
seriously man go back to college and take a logic class or two, you seriously need it after the abortion debate in which i had to show you the fallacy of your logic and now this...LOL goodness gracious
-
LOL WOW :o man iono know what to say to your ignorance bro...I laid it out logically step by step and you still fail to see it or just plain refuse to...
what it leaves the door open to is not treating somebody the way you want to be treated, this fact opens the door to many things...
I understand you are personally against torture straw but the fact is that your statement doesnt reflect that stance of yours. your statement says that if they dont infringe upon your rights or safety then you will treat them as you want to be treated it says nothing of what will happen if they do infringe upon your rights or safety again this LEAVES THE PROVERBIAL DOOOOOOOOR OPPPPEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNN. .........
seriously man go back to college and take a logic class or two, you seriously need it after the abortion debate in which i had to show you the fallacy of your logic and now this...LOL goodness gracious
tony - spare the me lecture dude. Your thought process is absurd.
Your if/then scenario makes no sense no matter how many times to you assert that it's logical.
here's your simplistic summary: if someone doesn't treat me then way I'd like them to and I perceive them to be a threat (real or imagined) / then I can do whatever the fuck I want
then you declare it's ironclad and congratulate yourself
have I missed anything?
-
tony - spare the me lecture dude. Your thought process is absurd.
Your if/then scenario makes no sense no matter how many times to you assert that it's logical.
here's your simplistic summary: if someone doesn't treat me then way I'd like them to / then I can do whatever the fuck I want
then you declare it's ironclad and congratulate yourself
have I missed anything?
LOL your in a rush and mixing up words it is I will treat them the way i would like to be treated not "if someone doesnt treat me the way i want"...
LOL it the logical take away from your premise bro...
hahaha yea you missed a shit load like 2 semester of logic class that should have straightened you out to begin with...LOL you act like i made up this if/then shit hahahah again they teach that in intro logic classes just like the "liberal double standard of abortion" and many other things on here i talk about...
You may disagree with me straw but you should know by now and i sure most ppl on here would agree I dont talk out of my ass. I either have a good idea of what im talking about or admit that im am unsure, of this topic im damn sure. ;D
do you think your logic with the abortion issue was sound before our debate? how about your logic after the debate? again bro im not simply talking out of my ass.
-
LOL your in a rush and mixing up words it is I will treat them the way i would like to be treated not "if someone doesnt treat me the way i want"...
LOL it the logical take away from your premise bro...
hahaha yea you missed a shit load like 2 semester of logic class that should have straightened you out to begin with...LOL you act like i made up this if/then shit hahahah again they teach that in intro logic classes just like the "liberal double standard of abortion" and many other things on here i talk about...
You may disagree with me straw but you should know by now and i sure most ppl on here would agree I dont talk out of my ass. I either have a good idea of what im talking about or admit that im am unsure, of this topic im damn sure. ;D
do you think your logic with the abortion issue was sound before our debate? how about your logic after the debate? again bro im not simply talking out of my ass.
I don't see anyone supporting your premise
-
I'm typing fast because I'm back at my office and want to go home
you keep harping on your superior logic but I don't see anyone supporting your convoluted and tortured thought process.
-
Here is where we started down this path.
I wrote this:
My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way.
you responded with this:
I agree but when you have ppl who are intent on harming you, that means they arent treating you the same way...so i could logically by your moral definition logically argue for torture.
in the section I've highlighted you make an absurd and illogical statement and you label it as "logic" and then pretend it makes it so.
you've never provided anything that supports this statement
feel free to keep trying if you'd like but you'll just end up running in circles again
-
I don't see anyone supporting your premise
LOL when did i ever say that should be the case? LOL i dont see anybody supporting your stance either
hahahahahahah
I said i dont talk out of my ass...
we can ask though folks who are paying attention to this thread if there are any other then me and straw
By simply reading this statement "My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way."
do you agree with the interpretation that this definition leaves the door open to other actions outside of treating others the way you would like to be treated if your rights or safety were infringed upon or the interpretation that it does not leave the door open to other actions outside of treating others the way you would like to be treated if your rights or safety were infringed upon?
-
Here is where we started down this path.
I wrote this:
you responded with this:
in the section I've highlighted you make an absurd and illogical statement and you label it as "logic" and then pretend it makes it so.
you've never provided anything that supports this statement
feel free to keep trying if you'd like but you'll just end up running in circles again
LOL OMG hahahahah i provided it half a dozen times...
-
LOL when did i ever say that should be the case? LOL i dont see anybody supporting your stance either
hahahahahahah
I said i dont talk out of my ass...
we can ask though folks who are paying attention to this thread if there are any other then me and straw
By simply reading this statement "My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way."
do you agree with the interpretation that this definition leaves the door open to other actions outside of treating others the way you would like to be treated if your rights or safety were infringed upon or the interpretation that it does not leave the door open to other actions outside of treating others the way you would like to be treated if your rights or safety were infringed upon?
no I don't agree
haven't I already made that clear?
-
LOL OMG hahahahah i provided it half a dozen times...
yeah but each time it's the same nonsense
would you like to try yet again?
-
no I don't agree
haven't I already made that clear?
LOL that question wasnt directed towards you hahahahah omg LOL hahahah
yeah but each time it's the same nonsense
would you like to try yet again?
hahahah omg ill let it be im satisfied after tonight and the abortion debate we had in which i exposed you illogical thinking that you have no concept of logic...i think ill save myself some time in the future and just let you be straw.
-
LOL that question wasnt directed towards you hahahahah omg LOL hahahah
well anyone else is free to respond if they'd like.
Tony
here is where we started. You started out with nothing and you've still got nothing.
I wrote this:
My morals come from treating others the way I want to be treated with a healthly dose of minding my own business. If you don't infringe on my rights or my safety I will treat you the same way.
you responded with this:
I agree but when you have ppl who are intent on harming you, that means they arent treating you the same way...so i could logically by your moral definition logically argue for torture.
-
not true at all dear the very organization of operation rescue which has been touted by some as culpable in this event has come out against his actions...just about every religious leader around has...nobody is reporting that angle however...the vast majority of christians on this board have spoken out against roeder, i can understand why you may have overlooked this as i said that angle isnt being reported but it is and has happend since the day of the killing.
Maybe you need to view the Randall Terry video clip Straw posted again. Listen to him carefully this time tho.
"Everyman deserves a trial of his jury and his peers, ...and then a proper execution."
WTF?! :o
He then goes on to state "We must not flinch, we must not fear or we must not waiver. We must not surrender our best weapons of rhetoric...our best weapons of our actions... We must not surrender a single inch."
He further claims to be able to see all this from "heaven's vantage point"
Just because he is clean shaven and wears a suit & tie, instead of a bearded man dressed in a thawb & turban,
does not make him any more credible than the OBL's of the world...or any less a sociopath.
These people have selected their targets and consider themselves as being engaged in a war. They have declared war and are willingly villifying, harassing, terrorizing and killing citizens who are not breaking the law. Their actions have resulted in increased costs for local, state, and federal budgets who are now required to provide round the clock security for private citizens engaged in legal professions who are not breaking any laws. They seek to disrupt businesses, induce, fear & intimidation in their victims through the constant threat of violence, and seek to remove the rights of individual Americans. In my opinion, they fit the very definition of unlawful enemy combatants.
-
Maybe you need to view the Randall Terry video clip Straw posted again. Listen to him carefully this time tho.
"Everyman deserves a trial of his jury and his peers, ...and then a proper execution."
WTF?! :o
He then goes on to state "We must not flinch, we must not fear or we must not waiver. We must not surrender our best weapons of rhetoric...our best weapons of our actions... We must not surrender a single inch."
He further claims to be able to see all this from "heaven's vantage point"
Just because he is clean shaven and wears a suit & tie, instead of a bearded man dressed in a thawb & turban,
does not make him any more credible than the OBL's of the world...or any less a sociopath.
These people have selected their targets and consider themselves as being engaged in a war. They have declared war and are willingly villifying, harassing, terrorizing and killing citizens who are not breaking the law. Their actions have resulted in increased costs for local, state, and federal budgets who are now required to provide round the clock security for private citizens engaged in legal professions who are not breaking any laws. They seek to disrupt businesses, induce, fear & intimidation in their victims through the constant threat of violence, and seek to remove the rights of individual Americans. In my opinion, they fit the very definition of unlawful enemy combatants.
he also prefaces everything by denouncing roeders action love...
-
he also prefaces everything by denouncing roeders action love...
of course he does
he knows anything different would put even more scrutiny on him
he also knows exactly what he is doing when you uses specific, inflamatory rhetoric
Watch Frank Schaeffer in this clip (you can drag the video forward to his part)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31177077
-
of course he does
he knows anything different would put even more scrutiny on him
he also knows exactly what he is doing when you uses specific, inflamatory rhetoric
Watch Frank Schaeffer in this clip (you can drag the video forward to his part)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31177077
So youre agreeing with me that he did in fact denounce roeders actions?
jags stance that no christians have or are doing so...
where do these ppl advocate the outright killing of individuals? show me that and then ill condemn them right along with you...this country has a right called free speech im sorry i dont like a whole host of shit ppl say as well but its their right to say it.
-
So youre agreeing with me that he did in fact denounce roeders actions?
jags stance that no christians have or are doing so...
where do these ppl advocate the outright killing of individuals? show me that and then ill condemn them right along with you...this country has a right called free speech im sorry i dont like a whole host of shit ppl say as well but its their right to say it.
wtf man - can't you read?
yes - it's called trying to distance yourself and claim deniablity
watch Frank Schaeffer and then we'll talk
-
he also prefaces everything by denouncing roeders action love...
And radical Islamic extremists preface their actions by saying God is great.
I could denounce terrorism all day, ...but if I then immediately turned around and handed you an explosive device, along with the blueprints of a building, ...if you blow the building up, ...my hands wouldn't exactly be clean.
If the tree that you've been growing and cultivating for years is producing poisonous fruit,
...an examination of it's roots as well as a more careful scrutiny of it's type, are more than overdue.
One will not get apples from an cherry tree. The people following these "leaders" need to take a serious look at themselves, ...not at Tiller. It's no accident Randall Terry wants people to remain focussed on an assassinated man, who he continues to villify even in death, ...it will keep them from taking a good look at themselves, and what they have grown into.
-
So youre agreeing with me that he did in fact denounce roeders actions?
jags stance that no christians have or are doing so...
No that's not my stance. Stop trying to explain my position.
You clearly lack even the ability to comprehend it, let alone explain it.
where do these ppl advocate the outright killing of individuals? show me that and then ill condemn them right along with you...this country has a right called free speech im sorry i dont like a whole host of shit ppl say as well but its their right to say it.
Well we've got one such nutjob right here on these boards.
|
|
|
v
No,I believe that the death of Tiler was justified and a great thing.Like I said,there are three known partial birth abortion doctors in the country,one down,two to go.
-
wtf man - can't you read?
yes - it's called trying to distance yourself and claim deniablity
watch Frank Schaeffer and then we'll talk
did operation rescue advocate the killing of tiller?
-
And radical Islamic extremists preface their actions by saying God is great.
I could denounce terrorism all day, ...but if I then immediately turned around and handed you an explosive device, along with the blueprints of a building, ...if you blow the building up, ...my hands wouldn't exactly be clean.
If the tree that you've been growing and cultivating for years is producing poisonous fruit,
...an examination of it's roots as well as a more careful scrutiny of it's type, are more than overdue.
One will not get apples from an cherry tree. The people following these "leaders" need to take a serious look at themselves, ...not at Tiller. It's no accident Randall Terry wants people to remain focussed on an assassinated man, who he continues to villify even in death, ...it will keep them from taking a good look at themselves, and what they have grown into.
LOL your analogy is horrible these ppl didnt advocate this violence, again show me where they did and ill condemn them with you.
we can also say moderate christians should likewise rise up and denounce the teachings and actions of the extremists, ...but we're really not seeing this.
YES jag we are seeing plenty of it
I know i cringed when i read that statement and those like it from billy it does seem that he has gone off the deep end of late...
-
did operation rescue advocate the killing of tiller?
advocate.....I'd say maybe but that won't really matter unless they can find some legally binding evidence
why are you suprised that someone who is (or might be) guilty of a crime of or even just thinks they are a target, of trying to expunge themselves of culpability, create deniability, etc..?
-
advocate.....I'd say maybe but that won't really matter unless they can find some legally binding evidence
why are you suprised that someone who is (or might be) guilty of a crime of or even just thinks they are a target, of trying to expunge themselves of culpability, create deniability, etc..?
what crime are they guilty of? LOL you try and claim your conclusion is true without proving your premise another logical fallacy...
-
what crime are they guilty of? LOL you try and claim your conclusion is true without proving your premise another logical fallacy...
none as far as I know
but when Roeder was arrested he allegedly had the phone # of some operation rescue person on a post it note on his dashboard
it's possible that phone records will show some connection
or not
there is a Federal Investigation and I'm sure this is probably being looked at closely
-
LOL your analogy is horrible these ppl didnt advocate this violence, again show me where they did and ill condemn them with you.
YES jag we are seeing plenty of it
I understand we're seeing it from some leaders, but not enough in the laity.
There just aren't enough Frank Schaeffners in the world
I know i cringed when i read that statement and those like it from billy it does seem that he has gone off the deep end of late...
I wanted to lose my lunch. :'(
-
none as far as I know
but when Roeer was arrested he allegedly had the phone # of some operation rescue person on a post it note on his dashboard
it's possible that phone records will show some connection
or not
there is a Federal Investigation and I'm sure this is probably being looked at closely
and what if that person had nothing to do with it?
what if that person did have something to do with it but was working independently of operation rescue?
you have not shown me one piece of evidence of operation rescue advocating the killing of this man NOR CHRISTIANITY...
-
and what if that person had nothing to do with it?
what if that person did have something to do with it but was working independently of operation rescue?
you have not shown me one piece of evidence of operation rescue advocating the killing of this man NOR CHRISTIANITY...
I'm ALL FOR finding everyone who was involved
-
advocate.....I'd say maybe but that won't really matter unless they can find some legally binding evidence
why are you suprised that someone who is (or might be) guilty of a crime of or even just thinks they are a target, of trying to expunge themselves of culpability, create deniability, etc..?
There's a lot of people in a lot of places doing this right about now. :D
-
I understand we're seeing it from some leaders, but not enough in the laity.
There just aren't enough Frank Schaeffners in the world
I wanted to lose my lunch. :'(
again there are plenty of ppl condeming it, but thats not the angle being reported blame cnn, msnbc, fox etc. if you want but dont be naive and think that simply b/c you dont see it on tv it isnt happening.
on the up side the new account kazan seems like a good addition i still think he is a gimmick but so far so good.
-
again there are plenty of ppl condeming it, but thats not the angle being reported blame cnn, msnbc, fox etc. if you want but dont be naive and think that simply b/c you dont see it on tv it isnt happening.
on the up side the new account kazan seems like a good addition i still think he is a gimmick but so far so good.
what is the angle on cnn, msnbc and fox?
-
what is the angle on cnn, msnbc and fox?
that dr. tiller was killed by a nut job anti abortionist...
-
that dr. tiller was killed by a nut job anti abortionist...
That damn liberal media.
-
that dr. tiller was killed by a nut job anti abortionist...
ok
what was the angle on cnn, msnbc and fox again?
-
That damn liberal media.
I suppose you like jag believe that christians arent condemning this soley b/c it isnt seen on tv? and that they secretly agree with roeders actions?
ok
what was the angle on cnn, msnbc and fox again?
Let me put it to you this way since you seem to not be able to comprehend they werent playing up the angle of how the christian community was against roeders actions.
-
I suppose you like jag believe that christians arent condemning this soley b/c it isnt seen on tv? and that they secretly agree with roeders actions?
Let me put it to you this way since you seem to not be able to comprehend they werent playing up the angle of how the christian community was against roeders actions.
like you said of me, you seem to have a problem answering questions.
In response to your statement "again there are plenty of ppl condeming it, but thats not the angle being reported blame cnn, msnbc, fox" I asked you what the angle was?
simple question - how about a simple answer
-
like you said of me, you seem to have a problem answering questions.
In response to your statement "again there are plenty of ppl condeming it, but thats not the angle being reported blame cnn, msnbc, fox" I asked you what the angle was?
simple question - how about a simple answer
that dr. tiller was killed by a nut job anti abortionist...
hmmm was that not simple enough for you?
-
I suppose you like jag believe that christians arent condemning this soley b/c it isnt seen on tv? and that they secretly agree with roeders actions?
What the hell would make you make that leap... I'll be honest, I read about it on CNN and after that, I don't really give a crap about it anymore.
This guy killed someone, the fed is investigating, what more does it have to do with me? Nothing.
I really don't give a shit. I'm not an abortion Doctor and while I'm not against it, I wouldn't be involved in an abortion, so what the hell would make you leap to think I think all of the Christians are all for this guy.
I'm sure the Christians are similar to people on here... Some think it's great, some think it's bad, some don't give a shit either way... put me in the last category.
-
What the hell would make you make that leap... I'll be honest, I read about it on CNN and after that, I don't really give a crap about it anymore.
This guy killed someone, the fed is investigating, what more does it have to do with me? Nothing.
I really don't give a shit. I'm not an abortion Doctor and while I'm not against it, I wouldn't be involved in an abortion, so what the hell would make you leap to think I think all of the Christians are all for this guy.
I'm sure the Christians are similar to people on here... Some think it's great, some think it's bad, some don't give a shit either way... put me in the last category.
You come in and comment on shit without knowing whats going on did you even read the thread before you posted and see what me and jag where talking about and what my post that you quoted was in response to?
well jag seems to think that christians or not many christians are condeming his actions i said they were it was simply that the news stations were not showing that angle of the story...straw asked what angle they were playing up and i responded with the post that you quoted...
-
You come in and comment on shit without knowing whats going on did you even read the thread before you posted and see what me and jag where talking about and what my post that you quoted was in response to?
well jag seems to think that christians or not many christians are condeming his actions i said they were it was simply that the news stations were not showing that angle of the story...straw asked what angle they were playing up and i responded with the post that you quoted...
My comment was a direct sarcastic response to you saying that "It's not what what they are reporting."
Dude... You need a sense of humor.
I know exactly what the thread is about, I know what the nonsense is all about... Again, like I said in my previous post. I, like most people, really don't give a shit about it. What you are not realizing Tony is that I'm in agreement with YOU in that it's not like Christians are jumping up and down saying, "Yay, we got one."
Sure... SOME are, but they are not the majority even, they are just a group... It's not like Christians all over the world are excited this guy is dead, but sure, some are.
The news stations are just reporting that anti-abortion groups are happy this guy is dead, well, that's probably true... You don't agree?
That's not to say Christians are happy, or any other person is happy about it... but sure, an anti-abortion loon, killed an abortion doctor and anti-abortion groups think it's ok.
I see that is pretty factual actually... You don't? We have some anti-abortion people on this board who think it's good he's dead.
-
My comment was a direct sarcastic response to you saying that "It's not what what they are reporting."
Dude... You need a sense of humor.
I know exactly what the thread is about, I know what the nonsense is all about... Again, like I said in my previous post. I, like most people, really don't give a shit about it. What you are not realizing Tony is that I'm in agreement with YOU in that it's not like Christians are jumping up and down saying, "Yay, we got one."
Sure... SOME are, but they are not the majority even, they are just a group... It's not like Christians all over the world are excited this guy is dead, but sure, some are.
The news stations are just reporting that anti-abortion groups are happy this guy is dead, well, that's probably true... You don't agree?
That's not to say Christians are happy, or any other person is happy about it... but sure, an anti-abortion loon, killed an abortion doctor and anti-abortion groups think it's ok.
I see that is pretty factual actually... You don't? We have some anti-abortion people on this board who think it's good he's dead.
you say some and i agree the VAST majority dont agree with roeders actions wouldnt you agree?
-
you say some and i agree the VAST majority dont agree with roeders actions wouldnt you agree?
I'd bet it's probably about 35% who think it's ok. That's just a guess of course and I have no basis for it except that it's my "belief"... I could be wrong though.