Did you not defend BURNER for both parts of that statement (blocking clinic entrances AND killing doctors), basing your defense on the idea that real pro-lifers would naturally support BOTH activities?
When in a previous post to you I showed what sniveling dishonest crap that question is:
And once again your lying ass omits the key comment, “BTW, I agree that Burner’s comment was false”, that PROVES that I did not intend to support Burner’s entire statement, but as I said, and you somehow omit, as a “SLIGHT DEFENSE.” First two words I posted. Did I intend to unconditionally support BURNER’s entire statement by SLIGHTLY DEFENDING him and by DISAGREEING with his statement?
Whatever problem you might have with my arguments, you can’t point to one instance where I concluded that BURNER was 100% correct. So in addition to the retraction of your previous lie, I now require from you a concession that I never intended to defend BURNER’s entire comment.
The buffer zone does not prevent free speech, it prevents fucking harassment. Do you understand the difference?
I admit that I don’t resort to violence because I don’t want to go to prison. I don’t try to create some bullshit sanctimonious cover for my cowardice. I really think your analogy is fallacious anyway because it presumes that I blame the military for the pending invasion, which I don’t. I blame the administration, but I am utterly powerless to do anything about it. There is no assasination I could commit which would stop the invasion. I also am not looking to demonize the pilots and charge them as criminals (I know I called them assholes, it was an ill thought, ad hoc response to a question that I really put no thought into. I retract the “asshole” accusation from the pilots and direct it at Bush, Cheney, etc. where it belongs) All I can do is be a voice in the wilderness against this war, but I have made no attempt to interfere with anyone else’s rights in doing so.
WOW!! look at the shit storm I stirred up. Thanx for a little back up Zwaldd. For some reason I feel loved now. 3 pages is a whole lot of ranting to inspire.
I never said he was entirely incorrect. I said you defended him for both pieces of his statements, that killing doctors and blocking clinic doors were universal for pro-lifers, a defense, however qualified, that was enormously stupid. You lied when you said your half-hearted defense was really because you were defending only the half of his statement dealing with blocking clinic doors.
I pointed out that you reverted to this particular argument after your initial foolishness, and only when people pointed out the stupidity of your position. You then proceeded to “dispute” my contention by providing several instances of your replies to people who called you on your stupidity where you reverted to this position. In your pea-brain, by providing evidence of the very thing I asserted, you have scored a point. I am beginning to develop a certain awe for the purity and breadth of your idiocy.
The qualifiers you applied to your support of BURNER’s noble cause were NOT because he was partly true only for the “blocking” part. The fact that you, in the same post, defended BURNER’s thoughts regarding killing doctors and obstructing doors and declared them false is not evidence of your not having defended BURNER’s thoughts. It is evidence of your tremendous imbecility.
The fact that you can’t grasp this simple point–and that you then assume that the confusion this creates in your tiny, pointed head must be the result of someone else’s lie–is further evidence of your astounding deficiencies. You now require from me a concession? No, you now require a lobotomy from a licensed professional. Now, like I said before, why don’t you run along and kill some bad guys, like you said you were going to.
**
Not according to the 2nd Court of Appeals…which is why they struck it (the 60 foot buffer) down, dumbass…
(of course, unfortunately after people were arrested) :rolleyes"
**
You admitted it only after I called you on it with an example. You never admitted it when you accused me of being gutless.
**
But you might save at least one Iraqi child…maybe you would be a martyr and inspire others to do the same? (Hey…it’s not what I would do in that situation…but it is your definition of committment to acause) Y
You admit that the reason you wouldn’t do it is because “you’re a coward” when it comes to taking violent actions that could put you in prison…so in reality, no matter WHAT the particular situation (war, abortion, slave lynching…hey if you don’t like the war scenario…pick ANY other scenario where people will die) you would choose a non violent path that doesn’t put you in prison. Fine. To flame someone else for a similar choice is the height of hypocricy.
You didn’t “call” me on anything. How am I supposed to anticipate every lame-ass analogy someone else might come up with? I still say you’re gutless. I still say you’re hypocritical, and I wish the buffer zones were 500 feet, 60 feet is way too close. Why do you feel the need to harrass these poor women anyway?
You can’t seem to get it through your head that buffer zones are constructed to protect staff and patients from harassment, not to squelch anybody’s free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want about abortion. You certainly have the right to pray about it, but you don’t have a right to harass or intimidate other people. You certainly don’t have the right the physically impede them from exercising their rights.
Now, isn’t it time to take your Bible and your megaphone and your little plastic fetus and go scream at some more people who are doing nothing to you.
Of course. Who wouldn’t? Apparently Bob Cos and beagledave, a couple folks I wouldn’t want babysitting MY kids.
You are correct. That’s very understanding coming from someone who, according to Bob Cos, ‘handed my ass’ to me on the ‘colossal stupidity’ of my line of thought.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**I still say you’re gutless.
[/quote**
A self admitted coward is accusing me of being gutless?
Oh that’s priceless. You’ve outdone yourself in logical consistency. Blue ribbon sport.
**
Ahh…so the truth comes out. The priest who was arrested for praying inside of a buffer zone…he was more than 15 feet away from the clinic…was not harrassing…was still arrested. The 2nd Court of Appeals overturns the 60 foot buffer zone…but you claim earlier to support free speech…and won’t admit that you were wrong in claiming that “no one has been prevented from praying outside of a clinic” Giggle. You’re a hoot
**
Wow…me likes your amazing ability to woosh by the relevant facts The arrested priest did NOT have the right to pray…even 15 feet away from the clinic. He was arrested for doing so, he was not arrested for harassing or intimidating other people, he was arrested for simply being on public property inside of a 60 foot buffer. It was a faulty buffer zone. It was overturned by the 2nd Court of Appeals.
Actually, a clinic is a public accomodation. Therefore, they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. In other words, the Constitution still applies, even there.
Which is what is wrong with a buffer zone. The courts are attempting to create a space wherein parts of the Constitution do not apply. It would be roughly equivalent to confining anti-globalism protestors to parts of a city where WTO officials were not meeting. Or perhaps, passing a law that hecklers could not shout down a person they had assembled to hear, but could shout all they wanted outside the auditorium.
Would you support either of these measures? Or is this going to be another example of “free speech for me, but not for thee” where it is OK for the state to censor certain ideas, and to create areas of public property where the free exchange of ideas is prohibited?
It would seem that BURNER is not the only one exhibiting a certain lack of, if not honesty, at least consistency in his application of principle.
You have already admitted that you believe people have the right to harass politicians, and to prevent others from exercising their right peaceably to assemble.
Another “lame-ass analogy” designed to point out the inconsistencies in your position - would you say that it was OK to shout down a pro-abortion politician? How about an abortionist who was participating in a public debate? Would you agree that there should be a 500-foot buffer zone around Focus on the Family headquarters to prevent harassment by radical feminists?
Or is everyone equal, but some are more equal than others?
Ooh, that looks like another lie, Bob Cos. You can retract that one along with the others if your conscience ever clicks in.
And this:
If you’re truly ‘pro-life’, and equate abortion with murder, how CAN you stand by and not at least support the practices of blocking clinic entrances and shooting abortion doctors?
only implies that I feel that the fucked-up acts referred to in BURNER’s comment are consistent with the fucked-up idea that abortion=murder. I proved that consistency by comparing predictable reactions to an act of violence that EVERYONE agrees is murder, the killing of a 5 year old. The question in no way implies that all pro-lifers kill doctors, and I never once came to that conclusion. Therefore, this:
you, in the same post, defended BURNER’s thoughts regarding killing doctors
is another lie, and you’ll need to retract that one as well. Thanks.
Diogene’s - That you’re a shrill, hystrionic, hypocritical moron is plain for the world to see so I shan’t waste any more time exposing you as such, especially since beagledave has already done such a good job already. I’m just reminding you that I answered your question as to why pro-lifers haven’t taken up arms against abortion doctors en masse on the last page and if there’s one thing I hate it’s being ignored. Care to address my points?
The praying had nothing to do with it. He was violating a buffer zone. He would have been arrested if he was eating his lunch. Law enforce creates buffer zones for the president too. Do you have a problem with that?
Shodan There is a difference between a politician who chooses to engage the community in a public dialogue and a person who is seeking private health care. It is simply nobody else’s business what a woman is doing at a private clinic., She did not choose to present herself in any public way.
Ben,
I may be shrill, histrionic (correct spelling) and hypocritical but I am far from a moron.
I didn’t address your response to my question because I didn’t have a quibble with it. This is the pit, not GD.
To Beagledave, Ben and Bob Cos,
It is a failing of mine that I tend to lose my cool and my reason when it comes to these abortion threads. I am perfectly capable of engaging in cool and rational debates with people who completely disagree with me without blowing my stack or disliking the other person. In fact, it’s the reason I love SDMB. Bullshit doesn’t fly here and it keeps me on my toes. When it comes to abortion, though, it’s like a red flag at a bull.
I don’t want to get to deep into this, but let me just say that I once had a very bad experience while accompanying another person to an abortion clinic (no, I wasn’t the father). These were the days before buffer zones (late eighties) and the protesters would just congregate in front of the doors and absolutely blockade any one who tried to get in. The girl was pregnant as a result of a rape but these people were calling her a slut, whore and murderer. It was hell to get in. I got punched in the face, kicked and spat on. There was one security guard who got the girl inside but i was on my own. I stood outside that place for two hours while these people called me names, chanted Bible verese, accused me of being a Satanist and told me they were going to follow me home to get my address. It was one of the worst afternoons of my life.
Before this happened, I was actually kind of neutral on the abortion issue. I could see both sides, and I was pretty undecided about it. I was actually young and naive enough not to even know that it was such an incendiary issue. After that day, I was so enraged and so revulsed by those protesters that I became vociferously pro-choice. (There were other reasons too, but that’s not really important here)
I know that most pro-lifers are not like the ones who assaulted me 15 years ago, but the memory of that day still makes my blood boil. When threads like these pop up, I always try to avoid them for a while because I know I get too upset to think clearly. I post a lot of things just to bait or antagonize the other side, and then later, after I calm down, I realize that I went too far.
I want to say to you guys, and any other pro-lifers who I’ve insulted, that I apologize for and retract my gratuitous accusations against the pro-life movement.
I do not back off for a second, however, of my own pro-choice position. I still think you guys are wrong, ( ) but that doesn’t make you evil.
Please try to judge me by my conduct in other threads and not by these abortion ones.
Boy howdy …I’m a broken record. It’s not just me that had a problem with a 60 foot buffer zone around the clinic. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did as well…which is why they overturned the lower court decision allowing it. It was an improper buffer, pure and simple. Unfortunately, several people were arrested before it could be ruled as such. Ergo, the notion that “nobody has ever been prevented from praying outside a clinic” is a demonstrably false statement.
**
Well…no. As Shodan said, this was a place of public accomodation. The people were protesting the actions of the clinic…they were not for example, camping out on the lawn at somebodies private residence. This would be analagous to people protesting outside the Nestle corporation, because of their formula practices…or the Boeing company, because they make (I think) aircraft used in war…or people protesting outside of logging companies.
There is no way on earth that you could get me to believe that a 60 foot (or 500 foot…is what you wanted) buffer zone would fly at those places.
**
Thank you. Accepted by me.
FWIW, I hope that it goes without saying that anyone would who would call a woman in crisis a “whore” or a “slut” (or punch/spit on people) is an ass in my book.
On the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I offer up this link.
After John Salvi entered an abortion clinic and committed his acts of violence in a Boston area clinic, Governor Weld and Cardinal Law called for both sides to lower the rhetoric and calm inflamed passions.
Six women, 3 from “each side” agreed to secretely meet with each other 4 times over a year…a series of conversations that extended seven years. NPR has covered this project.
I found the audio link quite fascinating from a dialogue point of view…and I applaud the efforts of all six women (at significant risk from hard core members of their respective viewpoints) to sit down and listen and learn from each other.
There are hard core members of the pro life community who reject any type of legitimate “conversation” or “common ground” efforts with pro choice folks (the kind espoused by one of my heroes, the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadin) …and would consider the efforts of these women to be traitorous. (I’m guessing that they’re might be similar hard core pro choice folks).
Then why should she be treated differently when she is there for an abortion, than when she is there to protest?
People have the right to express their opinions - even near an abortion clinic. For you, or anyone else to say, “It’s none of your business”, does not revoke my right to express an opinion that it is.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition their government for redress of grievances, applies on every square inch of American soil. Even if people who want to have abortions don’t like it.
Your very gracious apology is accepted with thanks. Even if I am not a pro-lifer.
Stopping people from saying things you don’t like 'cause they might go too far is called “Prior restraint”. Prior restraint is one of the keyelementsof censorship.. Censorhip does prevent free speech. Pretty much by definition.
Until those people actually engage in harrassment, they are/should be free to speak their mind. Even if they do say things you don’t like.
And if you’re cool with prior restraint, would you also approve of it being applied on the Net? After all, a quick Google search on “warez” will show you that lots of web-sites are used for illegal purposes. Would you support a law that says that requires all web-sites to be submitted for governmental approval?
I have absolutely no sympathy for jackasses who yell threats at women going into clinics. Get 'em on assault, harrassment, etc, then throw the book at 'em and lock 'em up 'till they grow moss. But don’t stop the right of others to protest within the laws or I guarantee that sooner or later, your pet cause will be censored too.
And regarding “shouting down” politicians, one of the key defining moments in my life is when I drove 100+ miles to hear Linda Chavez speak (this was in about 1983) and some assholes shouted her down. She didn’t get one word out and the event was cancelled. Were this to happen again in my presence, I would certainly be tempted to beat the shit out of said assholes.* I have the right to hear ideas that you don’t like and politicians have the right to speak ideas that you find scary. I don’t like the tyranny of the loudest.
If you think that not letting people talk 'cause they might say somthing nasty (in both your examples: the censorship/bubble-zone AND your approval of shouting down people with different ideas) is somehow pro-Free Speech, I strongly advise that you rethink your ideas.
Fenris
*I wouldn’t, mind you, but I’d be tempted. On the other hand, I’ll bet that some of the asshole “censorship-by-screaming” types aren’t nearly as brave when it’s no longer a person 100 feet away on a podium, instead it’s a 250 lb guy who’s two inches from their nose shouting back: and I can be LOUD if needed.
