|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43296 Posts
On November 29 2015 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2015 11:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hopefully it passes and other states adopt similar laws. Hawaii likely will become the first U.S. state to ban the use of elephants, bears and other exotic wild animals for entertainment purposes.
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture board on Tuesday unanimously approved a proposed rules change that would define "dangerous wild animals" and prohibit the import of such animals "for exhibition or performance in public entertainment shows such as circuses, carnivals and state fairs." The rules make exceptions for commercial filming in television or movies and in government zoos.
Animals listed in the proposal include big cats, primates, elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, bears, hyenas and crocodiles.
The move comes just three days after "Tyke Elephant Outlaw," a documentary about a circus elephant that went on a deadly rampage in Honolulu two decades ago, made its Hawaii premiere. Source Got something against circuses? Silly Hawaiians. Organized animal abuse for profit entertainment. Why does't everyone have a problem with circuses?
You're either a vegan or a hypocrite.
I don't support circuses but I'll happily eat meat which is far less humane. It comes down to "your pleasure from animal abuse is bad, but mine is fine". That said, elephants and primates are too smart to put in circuses or eat.
|
On November 29 2015 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2015 11:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hopefully it passes and other states adopt similar laws. Hawaii likely will become the first U.S. state to ban the use of elephants, bears and other exotic wild animals for entertainment purposes.
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture board on Tuesday unanimously approved a proposed rules change that would define "dangerous wild animals" and prohibit the import of such animals "for exhibition or performance in public entertainment shows such as circuses, carnivals and state fairs." The rules make exceptions for commercial filming in television or movies and in government zoos.
Animals listed in the proposal include big cats, primates, elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, bears, hyenas and crocodiles.
The move comes just three days after "Tyke Elephant Outlaw," a documentary about a circus elephant that went on a deadly rampage in Honolulu two decades ago, made its Hawaii premiere. Source Got something against circuses? Silly Hawaiians. Organized animal abuse for profit entertainment. Why does't everyone have a problem with circuses?
or pets?
(animal abuse for entertainment)
I would agree that many circuses submit the animals to treatment that could be called abuse.... but every interaction humans have with animals could be called abuse.
I don't see any mention in that article about not abusing animals just not getting entertainment out of them in particular ways.
and the purpose (entertainment) is basically the same as pets (except pets provide that entertainment to their owner rather than to other people for their owner's profit.)
If they want to stop animal abuse say X, Y, Z are animal abuse if done on these animals and it won't be tolerated for something like entertainment.
Rather, (if the title of the law is believed) all they care about is protecting people, so you can import an elephant and torture it in your basement all you like (although that's probably covered by another law)
|
On November 29 2015 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:16 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Just to be clear, you think 'they' as in GOP candidates, said those things to incite people to shoot up PP clinics? No that's bad press. They are intentionally feeding susceptible people "red meat" in order to garner their support, and are fully aware of who and what they are appealing to. Many of them are intentionally going as far as they can to say what those people want to hear without having to be clearly responsible when they inevitably go to far. Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda would be another example along those lines. On November 29 2015 10:53 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Oh, what did they say that was inciting violence? The rest of the post is of course irrelevant, in typical GH fashion. This is part of the GH theory of "people on the right hate X, they just use code words to say it." So I suppose this is not a surprise. A recent example would be Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal when they went to a Kevin Swanson event. They don't overtly say to be violent, they just repeat lines and attend events hosted by folks who do say that kind of stuff or get as close as legally possible. I didn't see anything about this Swanson event, but that didn't really answer the question. What did they say that made this guy go violent? Surely if you wanted violence you could do better than a deranged man with a criminal history of strange things. I'm just fascinated at how much you hate people on the right that you think they are out there trying to get people killed. I said they don't actually want people to get violent (hence why they haven't said anything about it, other than Cruz's praying). When asked to clarify I mentioned they intentionally appeal to people who want to hear the worst. As an example I showed how after a guy called Wendy Davis a "TERRORIST" (emphasis mine) for filibustering an anti-choice/abortion bill, Ted Cruz proudly claims that same idiot's endorsement. It's pretty simple. If someone is a "terrorist" what isn't okay to do to/against them in these folks eyes? So for instance Bill Zedler didn't advocate for violence against Davis, but he did state that she is someone (a terrorist) who he knows his supporters believe deserve the worst treatment. To put a bow on it, you have Trump advocating to bring back waterboarding and maybe other forms of torture for "terrorists". EDIT: Couple things I missed, I don't hate people on the right, sometimes I'm disgusted, disturbed, repulsed, etc.. by some folks bigotry, and fear mongering, etc... and they tend to be on the right politically, I honestly don't have the energy to "hate" people, but I don't have a problem calling them out for their crap. Totally not surprised you hadn't heard about the Swanson event. Kwark said it better than me. I don't think they want to turn people violent, but they know that in an effort to rally people who are more ambivalent they are revving up those that are already on the edge.
On November 29 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:20 Introvert wrote:
What "reckless actions?" Opposing abortion? Repeating and promoting what they surely knew were lies about the practices of Planned Parenthood. The claims Carly made about the contents of the Planned Parenthood video were false, they simply weren't in the video. She claimed to have seen things that she could not have seen. It scored her some points among the crowd that don't fact check but it was irresponsible to promote those lies to the nation. It's not about abortion. You could equally do it with computer games or vaccines or anything else. When you stand on a podium and talk about a link between vaccines and autism then even if you don't tell people to not get their kids vaccinated you still know that a lot of them will take that message. Public figures can speak freely but part of being presidential is knowing to hold your speech to a higher standard due to the power that speech can have.
This is some serious mental gymnastics we have going on here. Neither of you can point out anything they said that would move anyone to shoot a place up but, it's still "not really, but kind of" their fault. All you can say is something abstract about a "climate." You even have to point to other people, instead of the ones you were originally blaming.
This is all absurd. We'll find out more about this crazy guy, but he himself could quote Carly Fiorina and it would still be obvious that she doesn't have any blame in this, because of the words she actually said, vs how some nutcase heard them.
|
On November 29 2015 12:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 11:16 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Just to be clear, you think 'they' as in GOP candidates, said those things to incite people to shoot up PP clinics? No that's bad press. They are intentionally feeding susceptible people "red meat" in order to garner their support, and are fully aware of who and what they are appealing to. Many of them are intentionally going as far as they can to say what those people want to hear without having to be clearly responsible when they inevitably go to far. Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda would be another example along those lines. On November 29 2015 10:53 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Oh, what did they say that was inciting violence? The rest of the post is of course irrelevant, in typical GH fashion. This is part of the GH theory of "people on the right hate X, they just use code words to say it." So I suppose this is not a surprise. A recent example would be Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal when they went to a Kevin Swanson event. They don't overtly say to be violent, they just repeat lines and attend events hosted by folks who do say that kind of stuff or get as close as legally possible. I didn't see anything about this Swanson event, but that didn't really answer the question. What did they say that made this guy go violent? Surely if you wanted violence you could do better than a deranged man with a criminal history of strange things. I'm just fascinated at how much you hate people on the right that you think they are out there trying to get people killed. I said they don't actually want people to get violent (hence why they haven't said anything about it, other than Cruz's praying). When asked to clarify I mentioned they intentionally appeal to people who want to hear the worst. As an example I showed how after a guy called Wendy Davis a "TERRORIST" (emphasis mine) for filibustering an anti-choice/abortion bill, Ted Cruz proudly claims that same idiot's endorsement. It's pretty simple. If someone is a "terrorist" what isn't okay to do to/against them in these folks eyes? So for instance Bill Zedler didn't advocate for violence against Davis, but he did state that she is someone (a terrorist) who he knows his supporters believe deserve the worst treatment. To put a bow on it, you have Trump advocating to bring back waterboarding and maybe other forms of torture for "terrorists". EDIT: Couple things I missed, I don't hate people on the right, sometimes I'm disgusted, disturbed, repulsed, etc.. by some folks bigotry, and fear mongering, etc... and they tend to be on the right politically, I honestly don't have the energy to "hate" people, but I don't have a problem calling them out for their crap. Totally not surprised you hadn't heard about the Swanson event. Kwark said it better than me. I don't think they want to turn people violent, but they know that in an effort to rally people who are more ambivalent they are revving up those that are already on the edge. Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2015 11:20 Introvert wrote:
What "reckless actions?" Opposing abortion? Repeating and promoting what they surely knew were lies about the practices of Planned Parenthood. The claims Carly made about the contents of the Planned Parenthood video were false, they simply weren't in the video. She claimed to have seen things that she could not have seen. It scored her some points among the crowd that don't fact check but it was irresponsible to promote those lies to the nation. It's not about abortion. You could equally do it with computer games or vaccines or anything else. When you stand on a podium and talk about a link between vaccines and autism then even if you don't tell people to not get their kids vaccinated you still know that a lot of them will take that message. Public figures can speak freely but part of being presidential is knowing to hold your speech to a higher standard due to the power that speech can have. This is some serious mental gymnastics we have going on here. Neither of you can point out anything they said that would move anyone to shoot a place up but, it's still "not really, but kind of" their fault. All you can say is something abstract about a "climate." You even have to point to other people, instead of the ones you were originally blaming. This is all absurd. We'll find out more about this crazy guy, but he himself could quote Carly Fiorina and it would still be obvious that she doesn't have any blame in this, because of the words she actually said, vs how some nutcase heard them.
I think you are really underestimating the impact that high profile figures have on lowerclass people. They are like gods to some people. Insinuating that they are destroying the country could lead these kinda low-tier humans to do stuff like this.
|
On November 29 2015 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 11:15 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2015 11:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hopefully it passes and other states adopt similar laws. Hawaii likely will become the first U.S. state to ban the use of elephants, bears and other exotic wild animals for entertainment purposes.
The Hawaii Department of Agriculture board on Tuesday unanimously approved a proposed rules change that would define "dangerous wild animals" and prohibit the import of such animals "for exhibition or performance in public entertainment shows such as circuses, carnivals and state fairs." The rules make exceptions for commercial filming in television or movies and in government zoos.
Animals listed in the proposal include big cats, primates, elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, bears, hyenas and crocodiles.
The move comes just three days after "Tyke Elephant Outlaw," a documentary about a circus elephant that went on a deadly rampage in Honolulu two decades ago, made its Hawaii premiere. Source Got something against circuses? Silly Hawaiians. Organized animal abuse for profit entertainment. Why does't everyone have a problem with circuses?
Why does't everyone have a problem with every form of animal exploitation and suffering?
Pigs and cows are just unlucky not to be exotic enough
|
United States43296 Posts
I don't see how it's mental gymnastics. At all. If you are speaking to an audience you ought to be aware that your words will have influence upon that audience. Knowing this you should speak responsibly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have opinions but it does mean that you shouldn't make up inflammatory propaganda. There is a difference.
If Obama stood on a stage and said that he had received intelligence that there were terrorist cells in each and every mosque in America and that they were planning to strike if nobody stopped them I'm fairly sure that we could agree that would be irresponsible (assuming it was a lie and he knew it was a lie). Carly stood on a stage and said there was a video showing living babies with still beating hearts being chopped up and sold for parts and that it would keep happening until they stopped Planned Parenthood.
I'm not saying Carly has blood on her hands. I am saying that making up inflammatory propaganda to a group likely to act upon it is irresponsible. I don't know how you're not getting this. It's basically just "with great power comes great responsibility". If you have millions of people listening to you and trusting you to inform them about the issues, some of whom are crazy and violent, don't make shit up to incense them on an issue.
|
That reminds me, did Fiorina ever even admit that she fabricated her description of the Planned Parenthood video? Or did that kind of just get swept under the rug in the fog of "misremembering" the candidates have been doing lately?
|
On November 29 2015 12:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 12:14 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 11:16 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Just to be clear, you think 'they' as in GOP candidates, said those things to incite people to shoot up PP clinics? No that's bad press. They are intentionally feeding susceptible people "red meat" in order to garner their support, and are fully aware of who and what they are appealing to. Many of them are intentionally going as far as they can to say what those people want to hear without having to be clearly responsible when they inevitably go to far. Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda would be another example along those lines. On November 29 2015 10:53 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Oh, what did they say that was inciting violence? The rest of the post is of course irrelevant, in typical GH fashion. This is part of the GH theory of "people on the right hate X, they just use code words to say it." So I suppose this is not a surprise. A recent example would be Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal when they went to a Kevin Swanson event. They don't overtly say to be violent, they just repeat lines and attend events hosted by folks who do say that kind of stuff or get as close as legally possible. I didn't see anything about this Swanson event, but that didn't really answer the question. What did they say that made this guy go violent? Surely if you wanted violence you could do better than a deranged man with a criminal history of strange things. I'm just fascinated at how much you hate people on the right that you think they are out there trying to get people killed. I said they don't actually want people to get violent (hence why they haven't said anything about it, other than Cruz's praying). When asked to clarify I mentioned they intentionally appeal to people who want to hear the worst. As an example I showed how after a guy called Wendy Davis a "TERRORIST" (emphasis mine) for filibustering an anti-choice/abortion bill, Ted Cruz proudly claims that same idiot's endorsement. It's pretty simple. If someone is a "terrorist" what isn't okay to do to/against them in these folks eyes? So for instance Bill Zedler didn't advocate for violence against Davis, but he did state that she is someone (a terrorist) who he knows his supporters believe deserve the worst treatment. To put a bow on it, you have Trump advocating to bring back waterboarding and maybe other forms of torture for "terrorists". EDIT: Couple things I missed, I don't hate people on the right, sometimes I'm disgusted, disturbed, repulsed, etc.. by some folks bigotry, and fear mongering, etc... and they tend to be on the right politically, I honestly don't have the energy to "hate" people, but I don't have a problem calling them out for their crap. Totally not surprised you hadn't heard about the Swanson event. Kwark said it better than me. I don't think they want to turn people violent, but they know that in an effort to rally people who are more ambivalent they are revving up those that are already on the edge. On November 29 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2015 11:20 Introvert wrote:
What "reckless actions?" Opposing abortion? Repeating and promoting what they surely knew were lies about the practices of Planned Parenthood. The claims Carly made about the contents of the Planned Parenthood video were false, they simply weren't in the video. She claimed to have seen things that she could not have seen. It scored her some points among the crowd that don't fact check but it was irresponsible to promote those lies to the nation. It's not about abortion. You could equally do it with computer games or vaccines or anything else. When you stand on a podium and talk about a link between vaccines and autism then even if you don't tell people to not get their kids vaccinated you still know that a lot of them will take that message. Public figures can speak freely but part of being presidential is knowing to hold your speech to a higher standard due to the power that speech can have. This is some serious mental gymnastics we have going on here. Neither of you can point out anything they said that would move anyone to shoot a place up but, it's still "not really, but kind of" their fault. All you can say is something abstract about a "climate." You even have to point to other people, instead of the ones you were originally blaming. This is all absurd. We'll find out more about this crazy guy, but he himself could quote Carly Fiorina and it would still be obvious that she doesn't have any blame in this, because of the words she actually said, vs how some nutcase heard them. I think you are really underestimating the impact that high profile figures have on lowerclass people. They are like gods to some people. Insinuating that they are destroying the country could lead these kinda low-tier humans to do stuff like this.
I'm not. I know how influential leaders can be, but I'm denying your third sentence, with regards to this incident.
On November 29 2015 12:30 KwarK wrote:
I don't see how it's mental gymnastics. At all. If you are speaking to an audience you ought to be aware that your words will have influence upon that audience. Knowing this you should speak responsibly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have opinions but it does mean that you shouldn't make up inflammatory propaganda. There is a difference.
If Obama stood on a stage and said that he had received intelligence that there were terrorist cells in each and every mosque in America and that they were planning to strike if nobody stopped them I'm fairly sure that we could agree that would be irresponsible (assuming it was a lie and he knew it was a lie). Carly stood on a stage and said there was a video showing living babies with still beating hearts being chopped up and sold for parts and that it would keep happening until they stopped Planned Parenthood.
I'm not saying Carly has blood on her hands. I am saying that making up inflammatory propaganda to a group likely to act upon it is irresponsible. I don't know how you're not getting this. It's basically just "with great power comes great responsibility". If you have millions of people listening to you and trusting you to inform them about the issues, some of whom are crazy and violent, don't make shit up to incense them on an issue.
I take issue with multiple parts of what you said, but...
What "group." This is one guy, who for all we know (as some initial reports said) had a long history of crazy.
This is just really stretching. You have to be really sure before you go pointing fingers at people, espeically when they don't say anything that would lead to violence.
|
On November 29 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 12:20 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2015 12:14 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 11:16 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:51 heliusx wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Just to be clear, you think 'they' as in GOP candidates, said those things to incite people to shoot up PP clinics? No that's bad press. They are intentionally feeding susceptible people "red meat" in order to garner their support, and are fully aware of who and what they are appealing to. Many of them are intentionally going as far as they can to say what those people want to hear without having to be clearly responsible when they inevitably go to far. Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda would be another example along those lines. On November 29 2015 10:53 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 10:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 10:38 Introvert wrote:
Wait, there are actually human beings who use the "blood on their hands" line about stuff like this? Are you sure you guys aren't programmed robots?
Remember everyone, we should all love abortions or else random people will start shooting! LOL. Neither the makers of the videos nor any candidate suggested violence. Leftist delusion really is a remarkable thing. No, they know just what to say to incite it without leaving themselves culpable for it. Because everyone was at PP for an abortion and not the many other health services they provide (not that terrorists like this guy know or believe they provide other services thanks to the constant propaganda out of the Republican party). Oh, what did they say that was inciting violence? The rest of the post is of course irrelevant, in typical GH fashion. This is part of the GH theory of "people on the right hate X, they just use code words to say it." So I suppose this is not a surprise. A recent example would be Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal when they went to a Kevin Swanson event. They don't overtly say to be violent, they just repeat lines and attend events hosted by folks who do say that kind of stuff or get as close as legally possible. I didn't see anything about this Swanson event, but that didn't really answer the question. What did they say that made this guy go violent? Surely if you wanted violence you could do better than a deranged man with a criminal history of strange things. I'm just fascinated at how much you hate people on the right that you think they are out there trying to get people killed. I said they don't actually want people to get violent (hence why they haven't said anything about it, other than Cruz's praying). When asked to clarify I mentioned they intentionally appeal to people who want to hear the worst. As an example I showed how after a guy called Wendy Davis a "TERRORIST" (emphasis mine) for filibustering an anti-choice/abortion bill, Ted Cruz proudly claims that same idiot's endorsement. It's pretty simple. If someone is a "terrorist" what isn't okay to do to/against them in these folks eyes? So for instance Bill Zedler didn't advocate for violence against Davis, but he did state that she is someone (a terrorist) who he knows his supporters believe deserve the worst treatment. To put a bow on it, you have Trump advocating to bring back waterboarding and maybe other forms of torture for "terrorists". EDIT: Couple things I missed, I don't hate people on the right, sometimes I'm disgusted, disturbed, repulsed, etc.. by some folks bigotry, and fear mongering, etc... and they tend to be on the right politically, I honestly don't have the energy to "hate" people, but I don't have a problem calling them out for their crap. Totally not surprised you hadn't heard about the Swanson event. Kwark said it better than me. I don't think they want to turn people violent, but they know that in an effort to rally people who are more ambivalent they are revving up those that are already on the edge. On November 29 2015 11:23 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2015 11:20 Introvert wrote:
What "reckless actions?" Opposing abortion? Repeating and promoting what they surely knew were lies about the practices of Planned Parenthood. The claims Carly made about the contents of the Planned Parenthood video were false, they simply weren't in the video. She claimed to have seen things that she could not have seen. It scored her some points among the crowd that don't fact check but it was irresponsible to promote those lies to the nation. It's not about abortion. You could equally do it with computer games or vaccines or anything else. When you stand on a podium and talk about a link between vaccines and autism then even if you don't tell people to not get their kids vaccinated you still know that a lot of them will take that message. Public figures can speak freely but part of being presidential is knowing to hold your speech to a higher standard due to the power that speech can have. This is some serious mental gymnastics we have going on here. Neither of you can point out anything they said that would move anyone to shoot a place up but, it's still "not really, but kind of" their fault. All you can say is something abstract about a "climate." You even have to point to other people, instead of the ones you were originally blaming. This is all absurd. We'll find out more about this crazy guy, but he himself could quote Carly Fiorina and it would still be obvious that she doesn't have any blame in this, because of the words she actually said, vs how some nutcase heard them. I think you are really underestimating the impact that high profile figures have on lowerclass people. They are like gods to some people. Insinuating that they are destroying the country could lead these kinda low-tier humans to do stuff like this. I'm not. I know how influential leaders can be, but I'm denying your third sentence, with regards to this incident. Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 12:30 KwarK wrote:
I don't see how it's mental gymnastics. At all. If you are speaking to an audience you ought to be aware that your words will have influence upon that audience. Knowing this you should speak responsibly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have opinions but it does mean that you shouldn't make up inflammatory propaganda. There is a difference.
If Obama stood on a stage and said that he had received intelligence that there were terrorist cells in each and every mosque in America and that they were planning to strike if nobody stopped them I'm fairly sure that we could agree that would be irresponsible (assuming it was a lie and he knew it was a lie). Carly stood on a stage and said there was a video showing living babies with still beating hearts being chopped up and sold for parts and that it would keep happening until they stopped Planned Parenthood.
I'm not saying Carly has blood on her hands. I am saying that making up inflammatory propaganda to a group likely to act upon it is irresponsible. I don't know how you're not getting this. It's basically just "with great power comes great responsibility". If you have millions of people listening to you and trusting you to inform them about the issues, some of whom are crazy and violent, don't make shit up to incense them on an issue. I take issue with multiple parts of what you said, but... What "group." This is one guy, who for all we know (as some initial reports said) had a long history of crazy. This is just really stretching. You have to be really sure before you go pointing fingers at people, espeically when they don't say anything that would lead to violence.
It's not a group with a top down organized structure. It's just crazy people (some in political office, or national news sources,and some crazier than others) who say and think crazy stuff inspiring each other to go just a bit further in an effort to be less "PC" or be "stronger" than the next person.
Like Kevin D. Williamson writer for the National Review suggesting he thinks people should be hanged for abortions and quickly hopped on the "this was a bank robbery that had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood" misinformation train.
These things aren't coincidences like you seem to be trying to suggest.
|
Nvm, I'm not going to go around on another rabbit trail. Abortion is murder is not the topic here.
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here.
|
On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here.
EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post?
We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation...
The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this:
One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' "
Source
At the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.”
Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby.
And so on...
Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen.
|
On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: Show nested quote +One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceShow nested quote +At the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen.
Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. You know me (well not really), I try to avoid rabbit trails.
And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument.
This connection is so hilariously tenuous.
This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking.
|
On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking.
No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up.
Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda.
|
On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda.
Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside...
lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd.
|
On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd.
It's not a ridiculous comparison.
I'm not saying that because they said it, he did it. I'm saying it contributes. I'm not just talking about this particular terrorist either. But you're doing a great job of refuting points no one here is making though.
When one of the first quotes out of the shooter's mouth is "no more baby parts" I think you're the one going a long way to presume it wasn't related to the propaganda with the same rhetoric.
|
On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd.
See, I disagree with calling it a "ridiculous ISIS comparison" because that it the real double standard. People don't blame Islam for ISIS, but try to blame Cruz, Fiorina and the rest of the pro life movement for anti abortion violence? The idea men are always the cause, but liberals only make that connection here (where it is particularly tenuous) but not in the other case (where it is particularly strong). Ideas, and influencers are what matter, and the reason why the comparison is a bad one is because being pro-life is not nearly as bad an idea as Sharia and establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
|
On November 29 2015 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd. It's not a ridiculous comparison. I'm not saying that because they said it, he did it. I'm saying it contributes. I'm not just talking about this particular terrorist either. But you're doing a great job of refuting points no one here is making though. When one of the first quotes out of the shooter's mouth is "no more baby parts" I think you're the one going a long way to presume it wasn't related to the propaganda with the same rhetoric.
"it contributes" is a useless statement in this case.
ok, this is going nowhere. Either Fiorina does or does not have some responsibility, and I'm saying she doesn't. You are saying, through the word play, that she does. As if she had opposed abortion, but not used the video, all would have been better. That makes no sense.
I contend that even if he was perfectly sane, that she still wouldn't, because nothing that these candidates have said could be interpreted as violent or endorsing violence. Or excusing violence. Or whatever else you want to say they were doing. I don't know what more you can ask from a person than for them to peacefully make their point.
I'm more curious how this guy, if he was insane, was allowed to access a gun.
|
On November 29 2015 14:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd. See, I disagree with calling it a "ridiculous ISIS comparison" because that it the real double standard. People don't blame Islam for ISIS, but try to blame Cruz, Fiorina and the rest of the pro life movement for anti abortion violence? The idea men are always the cause, but liberals only make that connection here (where it is particularly tenuous) but not in the other case (where it is particularly strong). Ideas, and influencers are what matter, and the reason why the comparison is a bad one is because being pro-life is not nearly as bad an idea as Sharia and establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
Perhaps one of us misunderstands the other. I think hundreds (thousands) of young, often times well off, Islamic men going to some hellhole to fight for a brutal organization with full knowledge of what they are about to do is different than one crazy guy from the backwoods who for some reason had access to a weapon. And that would be true even if it wasn't religious in nature.
edit: my grammar and sentence structure is falling to pieces.
|
On November 29 2015 14:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd. See, I disagree with calling it a "ridiculous ISIS comparison" because that it the real double standard. People don't blame Islam for ISIS, but try to blame Cruz, Fiorina and the rest of the pro life movement for anti abortion violence? The idea men are always the cause, but liberals only make that connection here (where it is particularly tenuous) but not in the other case (where it is particularly strong). Ideas, and influencers are what matter, and the reason why the comparison is a bad one is because being pro-life is not nearly as bad an idea as Sharia and establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
While I know what you're talking about and it certainly does exist on the left, I think I, and many others, have a more balanced perspective.
I don't mean to generically lump all of an exclusive Christendom in with all this as I would expect the same between ISIS and Islam. There are plenty of more or less reasonable Christian folk who don't say this kind of stuff and are about equally vocal against the various forms it takes. The Christians calling out the Republicans on their refugee rhetoric come to mind.
I imagine myself and others don't have a problem seeing the similarities. I personally don't think it's the posters leaning left here that have a hard time seeing the similarities or the distinctions but others can speak for themselves.
The comparison had nothing to do with the specific ideas, it was about how (particularly) western born terrorists are receptive of radicalizing propaganda whether they be terrorist claiming they are fighting for a caliphate or terrorists claiming they are saving the white race or stopping the sale of baby parts.
I'd agree that the Republican nominees don't share the propaganda level of a group like ISIS, but there are certainly fair comparisons at the propaganda level when compared to what would be termed as "sympathizers" or something similar on the Muslim side.
Just to restate what was actually being suggested behind some of the snark from myself and others, was that the notion that there isn't a relationship between the rhetoric and propaganda and people who get violent is absurd and people on both sides should disabuse themselves of that notion.
|
On November 29 2015 14:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2015 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 14:05 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 29 2015 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2015 13:28 Introvert wrote:
Doubt that's what he said, but now you are bringing up yet another person?
I didn't say anything about coincidences, the case you guys are making is really weak.
What's even worse is that if this guy is a crazy loner with a long history of non-abortion related incidents, the case you are making has nothing left. But I think it's pretty weak even w/o that part.
Listen, it's entirely possible that someone in power can say something to intentionally stir people to take violent action, but this isn't one of those cases as far as I can see. That's really the deal here. EDIT: Presuming you realized he did in fact say it and that's why you changed your post? We've all agreed on the bold part since before you joined the conversation... The part that we seem to disagree on is that rhetoric like this: One of the Planned Parenthood videos shows "a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' " SourceAt the Value Voters Summit last fall, Cruz repeatedly referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.” https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516280132085227521https://twitter.com/KevinNR/status/516218876066287616Various candidates hedging (Rubio comes to mind) on whether they think women should be forced to have their rapist's (even if incestuous) baby. Doesn't contribute to an echo chamber and make things like things like shooting up a planned parenthood saying "no more baby parts" or murdering a doctor in his church more likely to happen. Nah, as I read back my post I realized it wasn't relevant. If he said it, whatever. And thanks for proving my point, none of those things would incite anyone with a half functioning brain to shoot someplace up. If this is really the best you can do then that's too bad. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and since I don't share that assumption, I don't buy the argument. This all seems like more of a way to vent at Carly Fiorina, which is kind of amusing, but considering the tizzy this thread was in during the debate it's hardly shocking. No one accused these terrorists of having "half functioning brains", that's the point. These influential voices/platforms know that those people are listening and rather than temper their rhetoric with facts and reality they spread propaganda and fear and act like it had nothing to do with it and people like you come in with the most disingenuous lines backing them up. Basically the total opposite of what the same folks tend to say/do when a mentally unstable/insecure person buys into ISIS's propaganda. Ridiculous ISIS comparison aside... lol. You have no idea if "propaganda and fear" had anything to do with it, much less that it's somehow, in some way, the responsibility of public figures who were speaking out on abortion. We don't even know if he was religious or particularly political. Essentially, you are saying this wouldn't have happened if they would "temper their rhetoric with facts and reality" which is of course unknowable and absurd. It's not a ridiculous comparison. I'm not saying that because they said it, he did it. I'm saying it contributes. I'm not just talking about this particular terrorist either. But you're doing a great job of refuting points no one here is making though. When one of the first quotes out of the shooter's mouth is "no more baby parts" I think you're the one going a long way to presume it wasn't related to the propaganda with the same rhetoric. "it contributes" is a useless statement in this case. ok, this is going nowhere. Either Fiorina does or does not have some responsibility, and I'm saying she doesn't. You are saying, through the word play, that she does. As if she had opposed abortion, but not used the video, all would have been better. That makes no sense. I contend that even if he was perfectly sane, that she still wouldn't, because nothing that these candidates have said could be interpreted as violent or endorsing violence. Or excusing violence. Or whatever else you want to say they were doing. I don't know what more you can ask from a person than for them to peacefully make their point. I'm more curious how this guy, if he was insane, was allowed to access a gun.
You know that Fiorina didn't really use the videos right? Her account was completly fabricated. She lied about seeing doctors talk about keeping a baby alive to harvest its brain. Nothing resembling that appeared in any of the videos.
How can you say that telling a lie about an organization dismembering living babies doesn't potentially influence violent acts against said organization? It's not a coincidence that there has been a rise in vandalism, threats, and violence directed at PP since the videos came out and Fiorina lied about what was in them.
I don't think she's directly at fault, but when a person tells an awful lie, and crazy people act pedictably based upon it, the person who lied has some responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
