Ok, so according to the stats you posted, in the last THIRTY YEARS in two countries, there have been 7 deaths and about 1000 death threats, along with some other acts of vandalism and violence, associated with the abortion argument. You're right; that is more than one guy killing a doctor, but you must be able to see that as violence associated with issues go, that's relatively tame. The movement for women's suffrage was a bloodbath in comparison. The protests against the Vietnam war resulted in far more violence, even from the peace-promoing left, and time. So, if your ONLY point was to prove that in the last thirty years the stat is more than just the one guy, then woo hoo, point taken. Since you have NO intention of using those stats to make alots and lots of vandalism and theft. The IRS receives more death threats annually at taxny claim that opponents of abortion are violent or even to lend any credibility at all to those who make such a claim, I have no argument with you. High five.
Pro-life or Pro-choice what is your stand?
#91
Posted 21 August 2006 - 08:01 PM
Ok, so according to the stats you posted, in the last THIRTY YEARS in two countries, there have been 7 deaths and about 1000 death threats, along with some other acts of vandalism and violence, associated with the abortion argument. You're right; that is more than one guy killing a doctor, but you must be able to see that as violence associated with issues go, that's relatively tame. The movement for women's suffrage was a bloodbath in comparison. The protests against the Vietnam war resulted in far more violence, even from the peace-promoing left, and time. So, if your ONLY point was to prove that in the last thirty years the stat is more than just the one guy, then woo hoo, point taken. Since you have NO intention of using those stats to make alots and lots of vandalism and theft. The IRS receives more death threats annually at taxny claim that opponents of abortion are violent or even to lend any credibility at all to those who make such a claim, I have no argument with you. High five.
#92
Posted 21 August 2006 - 10:32 PM
Before you even had a chance to completely spin and make up things about my intentions I said this:
Now let's get to your actual response:
And I never claimed that it wasn't. I made specific statements recognizing how relatively minor these incidents are. I only wished to debunk the "one guy killed a doctor" statement.
Couldn't agree more. Both, however, are complete strawmen here. I never even came close to claiming the violence within the abortion debate is somehow "worse" than that over anything else. With the above quote, you're the only one who has done such a thing.
It was, and thank you for the condescending tone. It went great with that side of "shut the fuck up."
To be honest, I'm not sure what you're actually saying here, but as we've already established, no, I had no intentions to do anything other than what we just agreed on above.
If you can point out where I posted anything even remotely similar to comparing the abortion movement violence to the threats and attacks received by another group or organization, this might not be the rude and downright insulting response it actually is. No, you don't have an argument with me because you apparently had to rush in all hot bothered to make one up because it seems like you glossed completely over what I said and only saw the stats I posted.
Hopefully we've now clarified what my intentions were and still are. I wasn't trying to pick a fight...I was just trying to correct a small but frustrating error.
This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 21 August 2006 - 10:37 PM
#93
Posted 21 August 2006 - 10:32 PM
I have a feeling the most intense arguement would be about the babies right to live. That's the main argument that pro-life seem to use because its the only one they have that makes any sense whatsoever, as Mr. Cobant explained (accidently) for us.
Yah... as base from the video clip both sides are reasoning out their beliefs, the babies' right to live is really a sensitive issue that must be handled carefully. I hope each side will clarify their statements and show concern for the babies and mothers.
#94
Posted 21 August 2006 - 11:18 PM
Please, I stopped my 'hateful rants' pages ago.
Its not that they attack my opinions, its that they imply that Im stupid (or at the very least theres something wrong with me) for having those opinions.
Oh... thats what I ment, I just couldnt manipulate it into proper words.
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#96
Posted 22 August 2006 - 12:30 AM
#97
Posted 22 August 2006 - 01:11 AM
But that's all common sense. You can have "careless sex" with someone you've been dating or even married to for years. The issue that kept getting brought up here was "too much sex," which was then modified to "too many partners." Well, what does that mean? Is 3 OK, but 4 isn't? 7? 11? 26? What's the cut off point that designates one has now crossed over into having "too many partners?" As long as you use protection, how can you have "too many?" Sure, accidents can happen pregnancy-wise, but accidents can happen with your girlfriend or wife, too. What's the difference between having sex with 50 different people once and sex with your wife 50 times in the same timeframe? Assume protection is used in all of those times...is a pregnancy in the former category somehow "worse" than one in the latter? What if nobody in either group wants a child? Can the people in the former group be "more wrong" for wanting an abortion than someone in the latter, even if all consider it a mistake? That's the kind of twisted debates that come up when vague notions of "too much sex" and "too many partners" are tossed out in an abortion debate.
#98
Posted 22 August 2006 - 01:47 AM
Once more, as always. I was not "hot and bothered" by the way. You don't have what it takes to get that sort of reaction from me.
Citing stats to "correct" a literal statement while agreeing with its general sentiment is, well, there's a word for it. I don't see why the error (actually probably not erroneous, but rather a rhetorical "oversight") was all that "frustrating," but that's the internet for you. You get folks all the time flying off the handle about typos and grammar.
That was my point, so please don't worry. I read your entire post and still felt it was worth the response I sent, typos and all (typos mine, I mean). I got that you meant that abortion-protest-related violence was low, and that you were just trying to mouth off about a minor point with loads of boring Internet research. You in fact were making the same point made by the original post, that violence is low; you simply wanted to bring in the actual numbers so as to correct the erroneous off-the-cuff stat forwarded by another member. That effort is what was worth belittling.
Sorry you took it so badly, but how could I have any control over that? When I said "please shut the fuck up" I was referring to anyone wanting to post any more stats on abortion protest-related violence in an effort to show that pro-life people are violent, and yes, this is something folks do all the time, and have done in this thread even, which is what got this ball rolling with you in the first place. Since you weren't yourself doing that, but simply correcting a frustrating error, how could I have meant you? Trust me again, I understood your purpose. I wanted however to nip in the bud any idiotic support your stats might have raised (stats you yourself have said prove the opposite point to what they might appear to prove, ie that violence is high). So that demand is for those other people, not for you. Note you're never named in the paragraph, so etc.
#99
Posted 22 August 2006 - 02:31 AM
I dont know, 50 maybe? But I doubt that any sensible person would reach that number.
I think there are many factors to consider, though.
This post has been edited by Cobnat: 22 August 2006 - 02:32 AM
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#100
Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:15 AM
I also need to concur with Spoon that it isn't the number of partners, but practices with those partners that are the dangers. Make sure the places you're going to stick your body parts are clean before they get put there (or if you're going to have other's parts stuck in you, make sure you know where those have been too). The difference between having sex with one person 50 times and sex with 50 people is quite simply the fact that you might not know where they've all been in the past.
Anyway, after this spectacular tangent, let's get back to the debate, shall we?
#101
Posted 22 August 2006 - 08:18 AM
So what your saying is that I/people should stick to virgins?
This post has been edited by Cobnat: 22 August 2006 - 08:19 AM
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#102
Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:22 AM
Heh...that would be awful.
#103
Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:43 AM
Yes becouse then the world will run out of virgins... then who do we have sex with!? WHO!?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#105
Posted 22 August 2006 - 09:57 AM
I just want to add that this is exactly what I I wanted to say only I did not have the guts to say it aloud. Thanks, Civ.
However, I do not agree with you that abortion is about white people only. Other races are also not allowed to have abortion. USA has withdrawn any support to abotion charities operating in Africa. Moreover, they also withdrawn their support for using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in countries like Kenya. Whereas it used to be ABC against aids (Abstinence, Being faithful and COndoms) not they preach only A and B, because otherwise US would not give their funds. Well, it ends with preaching only, doesn't it.