IT always amuses me that the effete take such aim at the “high and mighty at this site who
play at being erudite” for how would the depleted of mind know it was play at all when
they have mush for brains?  It is only idiots who think 50% of America has gone atheist or
agnostic (uh, those words do not need capitalized and, by the way, FYI for the idiots who
didn’t know, agnostics may be Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or non-religious
skateboarders, oh and there are agnostic Jews too), and if there are more atheists or
agnostics in America (which is not a real statistic, it is a piece of shit statistic), it isn’t
because of the Christians, it is because more people are better educated to think for
themselves.  BandiCoot your post is trivially self-indulgent with your own ignorance.  When
you speak of “us,” include only yourself, and do get a book on logic, then read it.  Better
yet, finish school since your 3rd grade education isn’t going to hack it very far in the world
today.  But if you didn’t drop out of school then someone made a big mistake letting you
graduate.  Or maybe you like your job of cleaning out toilets.

BandiCoot said: The anti’s should be put down any way possible and the American Constitution followed to the letter and the spirit of the words written.

It is not unusual for people to contradict themselves. Time passes, people learn. Their situation changes. They see things differently so they say the opposite of what they said before.

Truthdiggers will contradict themselves, sometimes in the same thread. I have even found some who contradict themselves in same post! Usually its in two different paragraphs.

But we have a new record here at Truthdig. I mean Bandicoot didnt just inch ahead of everyone else, he finished 7 lengths ahead of the pack. He contradicted himself in just one sentence!

Lets get a close up of this. Part one of the sentence says: The anti’s should be put down any way possible which includes shooting people who are pro life. Very tough words from Bandicoot.

But then he follows that with and the American Constitution followed to the letter and the spirit of the words written. which sounds very high minded. The letter AND the spirit of the Constitution.

Except the low minded Bandicoot just got done approving of murder against dissenters(“anti’s”). Which doesnt sound in line with the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. Not in letter nor in spirit, which Bandicoot brandished so rightiously at the end of the sentence.

A statement and its contradiction contained in one sentence! Bandicoot outstrips all the Truthdiggers in stupidity. And thats saying alot.

Lets read the sentence again, and marvel at how Bandicoot compresses a lifetime of Leftist stupidy into a dense little ball: The anti’s should be put down any way possible and the American Constitution followed to the letter and the spirit of the words written.

Priceless!

Important social questions are much harder to solve when violence is the method chosen by one or both sides. 

Killing each other rather misses the whole point of the abortion conundrum, or frames it in a most painfully absurd way at the very least

aaroncrowe, astute observation, but if Abstinence only were
indoctrinated into boys and men why I’d bet $10,000 we would not
have any problem at all!

If shoes fit, I always say wear them, OM.  It was obvious I meant those
who live by Lex Talionis and the fools who need to “dominate” women
and those who have not realized their loss of power.

Leefeller, are Communists and Nazis the same people? Oh, I mean are
they people at all and what is the defining characteristic for them to be
designated people?  Surely your magical faded pink cape can whisper
the answers to you. Yeah, yeah, I know…don’t call you Shirley.

In my view there are far too many people ready and willing to tell others what they can and cannot do concerning their lives. These folk act and talk as if they had some special insight into how things “should be” and that THEY have some special ability to understand all situations and, most of all, they have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INTERFERE as they see fit.

The fetus, by definition, is UNBORN. Sure it is a living group of cells but so are most other parts of a body. Sure, the fetus cannot speak for itself or defend itself but neither can most other parts of a body. So what?

Somebody else’s abortion is simply NONE OF EVERYONE ELSE’S BUSINESS. All you loudmouth busybodies have full control over whether YOU have an abortion or not but YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE CHOICES THAT OTHERS MAY MAKE. What outrageous arrogance to assume that you do. There should be some sort of law that makes it a federal felony for anyone to, in any way, interfere with or intimidate those wrestling with this most intimate and PRIVATE of challenges.

What part of MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS do you not understand?

ITW, how goes it bro? It is good to see you active here. And ty for a discussion on the dilemma.

Leefeller, I feel a little sorry for you. I did see how MarthaA tried to frisk both you and Night-Gaunt. I think you handled it with the creativity which makes me wish we really were the same person. Yes, I like your pink cape. Did you know that marthaA started her OM witchhunt with Shenonymous? Which was just strange.

Shenonymous, who is the ‘you know who” that needs to learn from bogi666? i hope it isnt me. that would be a little insulting. Maybe i deserve it? If so, please explain.  You know i like you very much and hold you in the highest regard.

staying at hotels and living it up,

O-Mike

Did you know bogi666 that Japanese scientists have developed artificial
sperm?  No kidding.  So “in the future,” as Talking Head David Burn
would say, men will be superfluous, and might only be needed for
sexual pleasure, and even there it might be moot since all the male
enhancement drugs out these days are saying men are pretty much
impotent.  Did you notice how often the advertisements are run on tv? 
“Good grief, Charlie Brown!” says Lucy, the neighborhood shrink.  Does
that mean I have to go with Vinnie (Travolta), “give me drugs!”
hahahaha just kidding.  But it is true about what the Japanese scientists
have done!

But you are a truthteller and offer some sound advice to you know
who.

The pretend christian fundamentalists are Old Testament[OT] disciples which advocates for an “eye for an eye” as religious doctrine. This is what they understand and being kind to them is a sign of weakness. By advocating an eye for an eye they have brought this murderous retribution on themselves and they should expect it and even want it to happen. Unfortunately, this in turn justifies their eye for an eye doctrine. This same mindset is what rules Israeli, Palestinian conflict of the present day M.E., a conflict over territory which is over 3000 years old. From a scientific standpoint life does not begin at conception. This is based the fact that wolverines, badgers and kangaroos can voluntarily curtail fetal development until the mother determines that food and climatic conditions are suitable for the offspring to survive. Their is a tribe in the Amazon, an egalitarian society, where the women use a tree bark for birth control purposes. The men don’t know which tree. Until the pretend christian fundamentalists, non Jewish Zionists, show more concern for the born than for the unborn their sincerity is in disingenuous and their anti abortion protests are just men wanting to dominate women. Just this past week I heard or read a pretend christian fundamentalist minister claiming it is the male seed which creates propagation, when in fact the sperm is just the fertilizer. It is only 150 years since the female ovum, egg, was realized and men have never accepted the loss of power that resulted with this revelation.

Om, Martha A says you and I are the same person, so
do you have my pink tights and cape? I asked her to
ask you but far as I can tell she never has asked,
anyway she seems very busy reinstitution the Third. retch.

Why OM I would have thought from the recent past that you would miss MarthaA,
yo’sistah, rather than a nemesis.  But since you languish so, I will address your
devotional “What if” questions with the usual counterinterrogatives, which if read
carefully conceals the answers sought.  You do realize that questions if properly asked
always ensconce answers, don’t you?  And so intrinsically you answered your own
questions, but we will help you along a different but same path.

Let us think experimentally with this complex answer:
Does killing another ever indicate anything but a derangement of mind even if
justified?  Is it ever just to kill another:  when self-preservation is at stake, when there
was no overt provocation by a living victim? This latter is a conjunct so if separated
each question may be answered affirmatively or negatively but would depend on other
existential factors, but when said together, that is, conjunctively, each qualifies the
other.  Or, when assumption of territory or ideology is the objective?  Does ideology
ever justify killing?

I also qualified the victim as living since the question of abortion was raised not just by
you OM but by the genre of the victim as anti-abortion.  However the qualification of
personhood of a zygote, gamete, embryo, fetus, live child is a whole different question
from the acceptability of the actions of the murderer and the speculative action of the
murdered.  I would be glad to discuss that elsewhere, but it is exterior to the set of
questions here, a departure from the topic.  These are questions of qualification.

To continue:  On the other hand, can one quantify questions of morality, viz., can there
be a derangement of mind along with directed intention?  In other words, can one have
a thimbleful or a tubful of morality?  If so, then what size thimble or tub is the
measure?

Along this line of thought, since morality is manmade (isn’t it?  I am dogmatically
assuming it is), would there be indices of ranges where according to any particular
moral, one can be slightly moral in comparison with the other pole of being fully
moral?  Could the murderer be moral in all ways except for the murder of the victim? 
Would there then be a reckoning, a calculation where the murder by the murderer is
negligible when compared to the other part of the murderer’s character?  Does one
who condones violence have an equivalent culpability as perpetrators of violence?  Or
do they sit on some untouchable throne such as a Roman Pilate or an imaginary
supernatural being that condones or even summons war (this Bible thumper will use
the Biblical God as an example)?  Since the questions are hypotheticals, including an
imaginary supernatural being is allowable since for some it is believed that an
omnipotent or omniscient being guides everything, for if it didn’t then it would not be
omnipotent nor omniscient and could easily be thought to “condone” murder.  It
happened all the time in the Biblical record.  So then may we judge God to be moral or
immoral?  Also a digressive question best saved for another time?

Only a few more questions seeing that you are on vacation:  If the victim condoned
murder would he justifiably be susceptible to being murdered, in a tit for tat reciprocal
system of morality?  Are there different systems of morality, and if so, which is the best
one and does it apply to everyone?  Isn’t it true that to ask the question if any killing
has a degree of acceptability there is an implication that there already exists some
degree of acceptability?

OM:

Given your hypothetical, the answer is clear: If the victim was in the ACT of committing violence then his killing would be totally justified. 

If he had committed violence and was WANTED for it, and was fleeing prior to the police getting there, then if he violently resisted being detained, then
appropriate force would be justified.

But just shooting him because he advocated violence? No, that is not justified.

Heya friends,

on vacation still, and i miss our agreements and disagreements. Especially you, Shenonymous!

Anyway, my question after reading the article and your posts here is a thought experiment:

What if the murderer was a different person, and wasnt crazy? Would that make the killing more acceptable? Or less?

And then one more twist… what if the victim was a person who condoned violence to stop abortions? Or had used violence to stop abortions? Would that make the killing more acceptable?

Part of me agrees with Bogi666 and part agrees with Shenonymous.

The animal in me says “Yeah! Finally time to teach those fuckers a lesson! They’ve been out there egging on murderers of doctors thinking THEY were perfectly safe because liberals are too wimp-ass to fight BACK with guns.  Now they’re gonna get a taste of their own medicine and THEY can live in fear when they go to shriek at women going into WH clinics!”

OTOH, the rational person in me says “No! That’s NOT how we resolve conflicts.  Violence is ONLY justified in self-defense, never as a preemtive action.  That’s neo-con fascism.  Plus this murderer is a nut-case and should be treated as one.”

The first step to dealing with your emotional side is to recognize it for what it is with your rational side.

Don’t forget bogi666 violence begets violence and are the seeds
of war.  Maybe it is about time the Screeching Parasitic Republicans
(SPRs) do need to be taught some lessons but using murder is not the
way, ever.  Murder only shows impotence of the perpetrator.  Humans
living in a society must have rules, laws if you will, in order to avoid
and prevent chaos.  Anarchy never succeeds regardless of how much
Noam Chomsky applauds the anarchist.  He defensively yells with the
wrapping paper of pomposity while having elements of insight which is
how he attracts the most uncritical of thinkers who imagine they can
think of themselves.

Surely we can extol the rationally evolved human over the savage?

It is completely obvious the murderer of the anti-abortion protestor
was mentally deranged.  Is this how you want to be thought of?  So be
it.

Cool, it’s about time this conflict with the disciples of evil pretending to be christians is taken to the streets. The violent christians need to be taught some lessons and its about time this society started fighting back against the political and religious fundamentalists using the same weapons they use.