First indications to support PP shooting as anti-abortion terrorism

[SwimExpert]

So that makes him less evil? Are the dead people less dead?

How is that relevant?

You're the one who said it was, so you tell me.

It is far more likely that you would be killed by one of the millions of muslims world wide who desire the death of all infidels and have organizations devoted to that end than you would be killed by one of a handful of American extremists who have no such organizations. IOW, the dead are just as dead, but which is more likely to produce more dead?

There are not millions of Muslims who want to exterminate all non-Muslims.

What percent of Muslims do you believe adhere to the belief that infidels must convert or die? There are about one and a half billion Muslims in the world. If only 1% so believe, that means that 150 million think you should convert or die. A 2013 Pew poll found that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. Now, I don't know about you, but if 13% of AMERICAN Muslims believe violence is acceptable to "defend Islam" (which, as we have seen, can mean death for someone who so much as draws a picture of Mohammed), then the percentage of Muslims world wide who look favorably on violence is surely higher. There are millions of Muslims who believe killing you because you do not embrace Islam is an acceptable thing to do.

You know, this is absolutely amazing. This thread is about a domestic attack by someone who was not Muslim, and had nothing to do with Islam. And yet you continue to talk about Muslims being terrorists, as if you were a kid in a candy store and you were overflowing with excitement to tell everyone about how much you love candy.

This is not healthy. You have an obsession problem. Why the hell is there any discussion about Muslims going on at all? Let it go. Make an appointment to see a therapist. Join a gym and go work out and take your mind off things. And when you're feeling especially bad, and cold showers aren't cutting it anymore, there are some nice girls out there who will give you companionship for the low, low price of $250/hr.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh no, he is a terrorist. I would dispute his Christianity, since Christ clearly did not advocate such activity, but he's a terrorist, because his goal is to produce terror. That, however, is NOT the goal of the pro-life movement. Note that there are no pro-life organizations claiming credit for this guy's actions, as there usually are when a Muslim extremist kills innocent people.

If Christian extremists stop being Christian when they do something extreme, then Muslim extremists stop being Muslim when they do something extreme. Both ways, or neither.

Not when Christian scripture clearly advocates love and peace, while Muslim scripture advocates violence and domination by force.

You're the one applying a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a faulty argument, but if you're going to apply it then apply it consistently.

 

[hadit]

How is that relevant?

You're the one who said it was, so you tell me.

It is far more likely that you would be killed by one of the millions of muslims world wide who desire the death of all infidels and have organizations devoted to that end than you would be killed by one of a handful of American extremists who have no such organizations. IOW, the dead are just as dead, but which is more likely to produce more dead?

There are not millions of Muslims who want to exterminate all non-Muslims.

What percent of Muslims do you believe adhere to the belief that infidels must convert or die? There are about one and a half billion Muslims in the world. If only 1% so believe, that means that 150 million think you should convert or die. A 2013 Pew poll found that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. Now, I don't know about you, but if 13% of AMERICAN Muslims believe violence is acceptable to "defend Islam" (which, as we have seen, can mean death for someone who so much as draws a picture of Mohammed), then the percentage of Muslims world wide who look favorably on violence is surely higher. There are millions of Muslims who believe killing you because you do not embrace Islam is an acceptable thing to do.

You know, this is absolutely amazing. This thread is about a domestic attack by someone who was not Muslim, and had nothing to do with Islam. And yet you continue to talk about Muslims being terrorists, as if you were a kid in a candy store and you were overflowing with excitement to tell everyone about how much you love candy.

This is not healthy. You have an obsession problem. Why the hell is there any discussion about Muslims going on at all? Let it go. Make an appointment to see a therapist. Join a gym and go work out and take your mind off things. And when you're feeling especially bad, and cold showers aren't cutting it anymore, there are some nice girls out there who will give you companionship for the low, low price of $250/hr.

It would behoove you to go back and find out why Islam entered the discussion.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Incidents of harassment at Planned Parenthood jumped ninefold after release of undercover videos

 

[hadit]

Oh no, he is a terrorist. I would dispute his Christianity, since Christ clearly did not advocate such activity, but he's a terrorist, because his goal is to produce terror. That, however, is NOT the goal of the pro-life movement. Note that there are no pro-life organizations claiming credit for this guy's actions, as there usually are when a Muslim extremist kills innocent people.

If Christian extremists stop being Christian when they do something extreme, then Muslim extremists stop being Muslim when they do something extreme. Both ways, or neither.

Not when Christian scripture clearly advocates love and peace, while Muslim scripture advocates violence and domination by force.

You're the one applying a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a faulty argument, but if you're going to apply it then apply it consistently.

That's like saying Rachel Dolezal is a real black woman because she wants us to think she is, or that Bruce Jenner is a real woman because he wears a dress. There are criteria, you know.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh no, he is a terrorist. I would dispute his Christianity, since Christ clearly did not advocate such activity, but he's a terrorist, because his goal is to produce terror. That, however, is NOT the goal of the pro-life movement. Note that there are no pro-life organizations claiming credit for this guy's actions, as there usually are when a Muslim extremist kills innocent people.

If Christian extremists stop being Christian when they do something extreme, then Muslim extremists stop being Muslim when they do something extreme. Both ways, or neither.

Not when Christian scripture clearly advocates love and peace, while Muslim scripture advocates violence and domination by force.

You're the one applying a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a faulty argument, but if you're going to apply it then apply it consistently.

That's like saying Rachel Dolezal is a real black woman because she wants us to think she is, or that Bruce Jenner is a real woman because he wears a dress. There are criteria, you know.

You're right, there are criteria. In order to make a rational argument that makes sense, there are criteria. Those criteria are called the rules of logic.

You're not fitting the criteria.

 

[whitehall]

It's interesting that the latest fad among low information lefties concerns "rhetoric" as in "rhetoric caused the attack on PP".. The hypocrites don't even realize that they use outrageous rhetoric when they blame Christians for a maniac shooting up a PP clinic. You almost gotta laugh that the political term "rhetoric" is Orwellian for "words that offend democrats".

 

[hadit]

Oh no, he is a terrorist. I would dispute his Christianity, since Christ clearly did not advocate such activity, but he's a terrorist, because his goal is to produce terror. That, however, is NOT the goal of the pro-life movement. Note that there are no pro-life organizations claiming credit for this guy's actions, as there usually are when a Muslim extremist kills innocent people.

If Christian extremists stop being Christian when they do something extreme, then Muslim extremists stop being Muslim when they do something extreme. Both ways, or neither.

Not when Christian scripture clearly advocates love and peace, while Muslim scripture advocates violence and domination by force.

You're the one applying a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's a faulty argument, but if you're going to apply it then apply it consistently.

That's like saying Rachel Dolezal is a real black woman because she wants us to think she is, or that Bruce Jenner is a real woman because he wears a dress. There are criteria, you know.

You're right, there are criteria. In order to make a rational argument that makes sense, there are criteria. Those criteria are called the rules of logic.

You're not fitting the criteria.

There are things Jesus told us by which the world would know us as His disciples. Killing people is not one of them. Dolezal can claim to be a black woman all she wants to, but she's not. Rules of logic indeed apply. If someone does what Jesus said, he is a follower of Jesus. If he does not, he is not. It's really simple, when you actually look at it. I do not have to accept Dolezal as a black woman because she is not a black woman.

 

[mikegriffith1]

"Anti-abortion terrorism"? How about "anti-slavery terrorism"? Or "anti-genocide terrorism"? Or "anti-Holocaust terrorism"?

I do not advocate violence against abortion clinics, but it's passing strange that you would see abortion clinics as innocent victims.