Scott Roeder says he knows there are similar events planned around the country

[Straw Man]

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.  

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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? 

[tonymctones]

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

[Straw Man]

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:

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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.

 

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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.   

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[tu_holmes]

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.

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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...

[24KT]

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.

[24KT]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.