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

[24KT]

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.

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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  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

[Straw Man]

LOL WOW  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?

[tonymctones]

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. 

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.

[Straw Man]

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. 

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

[Straw Man]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

 

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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.

[24KT]

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?! 

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.

[tonymctones]

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?! 

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...

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[24KT]

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.

[24KT]

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.

[tonymctones]

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?

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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..?