Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Controversial Abortionist Dr. George Tiller Assassinated in Wichita

Controversial Abortionist Dr. George Tiller Assassinated in Wichita

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Dr. George Tiller, 67, of Wichita, Kansas, was shot to death at about ten o'clock (CDT) this morning as he entered his church, the Reformation Lutheran Church, for services. Details are still sketchy, but Wichita police have confirmed that the victim of the shooting is Dr. Tiller.

As one of the few practitioners of late term abortions in the country, Tiller was a polarizing lightning rod of a figure in the ongoing national debate about abortion, and had earned the nickname of "Tiller the Killer" among conservative opponents of abortion.

During more than two decades of notoriety, Tiller was no stranger to threats and protests at his clinic in Wichita. He had been the target of a gunman once before, in 1993, when he was shot and wounded.

Wichita police have announced they are looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

Late-term abortions are defined as those which take place after the twentieth week of gestation. They, along with partial birth abortions, are the most controversial procedures in the overall debate over abortion, which has raged ever since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in the early seventies. Opponents maintain that late-term fetuses are "viable," (capable of living) and should not be performed for that reason. The exact point at which viability occurs is variable and is at the heart of the controversy.

Powered by

About Clavos

Raised in Mexico by American parents, Clavos is proudly bi-cultural, and considers both Spanish and English as his native languages. A lifelong boating enthusiast, Clavos lives aboard his ancient trawler, Second Act, in Coconut Grove, Florida and enjoys cruising the Bahamas and Florida Keys from that base. When not dealing with the never-ending maintenance issues inherent in ancient trawlers, Clavos sells yachts to finance his boat habit, but his real love (after boating, of course) is writing and editing; a craft he has practiced at Blogcritics since 2006.
  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    A friend of mine who participates on an American Jewish list suggested that this murder may be used by the Obama boys (“never waste a crisis” Manny Rahm) as a kind of “Reichstag Fire” incident to clamp down on opposing opinions in the country. Until he produced this article from the Huffington Post on “Christian Terrorism” I was inclined to doubt him. But I’m less inclined now. So reproduced below is my comment to his original suggestion.

    Suspension of civil liberties may not come immediately, but Obama does realize that that he has only until January, 2011 to push through an agenda without serious opposition. So, I would expect some suspension of civil liberties before the 2010 elections, but not serious enough to make the elections seem entirely moot.

    Whatever he is, Obama is not an idiot and he knows not to go too far, too fast. The difference between the Weimar Republic and the States is all those guys who own guns, bless their hearts.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, will you eat your words if what you prophesize fails to occur?

    an abortionist gets murdered and you say that obama is a fascist. where the fuck is your logic coming from?

    the fact is that some crazy (most likely christian) loon shot a man. it’s not unexpected.

    i’d hate to think of what would happen if you were actually in charge of anything other than your bowel movements.

  • Clavos

    Interesting point, Ruvy. I hope you and your friend are wrong regarding the “clamping down” on dissent.

    I think Obama is too smart to make an overt move like that; he’ll find another way to neutralize his opposition; perhaps by some means of co-opting it.

  • leighann

    I heard a speech while I was in college where the speaker handed out brochures and said that in a late term abortion, the baby is turned around so it will come out of the mother feet first and just before its head comes out something is stuck in the back of its neck and the brain sucked out. If this is true then where is the outrage? Does anyone know if it is true?

  • zingzing

    “where is the outrage?”

    um. really?

  • leighann

    yes. It was wrong for someone to kill this doctor and it is an outrage. That is clear. I was not commenting on that because it goes without saying.

    If it is true what I have heard about these type of abortions then it is outragous that it is a matter of inches or minutes that decides if this is a legal abortion or a murder. That is crazy! Was this baby less of a human two minutes before when its head was still inside of its mother? I guess so.

    I have searched partial birth abortions on the internet today and find a bunch of stuff from pro-life groups so I am still not sure about the accuracy of the information but I would think that common sense would tell you that it cant be true. I mean if it is dangerous to the mother to have this baby then would it not hurt her even more to have a baby be born breeched and would not the damage of a birth already be done since the baby is already all the way out except its head? I do not understand how this can be safer for the mother. Well maybe if she is in the 5th or 6th month but not in the 7th, 8th or 9th. It seems that if the mother and doctor feel that an abortion is the only way that they could find a more humane way to go about it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    “where is the outrage?” um. really?

    Well, Leighann, at least we know who doesn’t answer to the name “daddy” on this comment thread.

    Having lost one son to an abortion because the mother never told me until after it was done, and feeling as I do that late term abortions of the type described in the article are murder of viable fetuses, I feel a certain outrage at what the late Dr. Tiller did for a living. But I feel a certain outrage that he was murdered as well – and fear for your nation how power-hungry politicians (especially those already in the White House) may use that murder to further their own nefarious ambitions..

  • zingzing

    ruvy, my point was that there is outrage. maybe leighann just doesn’t pay attention. i don’t know what you were trying to say with the “daddy” comment.

    “[i] fear for your nation how power-hungry politicians (especially those already in the White House) may use that murder to further their own nefarious ambitions..”

    how the fuck would they do that? why would they do that? what the hell are you talking about? you really think that the obama administration IS ABLE to take the murder of an abortionist and use it to destroy civil rights? explain how that would occur. then think about how crazy you are.

  • Clavos

    Ever read 1984 zing?

    Any government is capable of any atrocious act the human mind can dream up, and at one time or another, likely will.

    Your federal government, for example, has used Americans as guinea pigs, inflicting horrible diseases on them without their knowledge, for purposes of experimentation and “research.”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    you really think that the obama administration IS ABLE to take the murder of an abortionist and use it to destroy civil rights? explain how that would occur.

    Why should I speculate on the imagined follies of Mr. Obama when I can watch the real ones as he performs them? I do not want history to take a leaf from my book and use it against me, zing….

    We can all watch the fun together. I can watch it (thank G-d) from a safe distance.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, Tiller has been attacked before, including one prior assassination attempt where he was shot twice, and that was under Bush — so I hardly credit your “reichstag fire” conspiracy. You sound like Alex Jones.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Why should I speculate on the imagined follies of Mr. Obama when I can watch the real ones as he performs them? I do not want history to take a leaf from my book and use it against me,

    BTW, Clavos, I stole that line straight from H.G. Wells, just modifying a name here and there. At least you recognize what zing refuses to see. Maybe zing should borrow your glasses….

  • leighann

    Yes, there is outrage. There is outrage from your pro-life groups and crazy people who go into churches and kill doctors or blow up clinics. I am asking where the outrage is among all of the other people.

    I do not think that Ruvy is crazy. He is a product of his environment just as we are. My father is mentally ill. He digs holes in his yard and keeps his windows foiled and goes through his air conditioning ducts because he is suspicious that the army and law enforcement are out to get him. He has no logical reason to think these things so he gets a check every month and has to take medication. He is crazy. Suspicion or the actions of my father would not be a reason for us to think that Ruvy is crazy given the environment in which he lives. From his perspective (which I do not and can not fully understand), it makes sense for him to be suspicious of the current administration for the reasons he has listed many times here.

    Btw crazier things have happened.

  • zingzing

    you’re a paranoid man, ruvy. what, exactly, are you seeing? you always fail to mention that part, but that’s okay, as no one really gives a shit anymore. it’s comical.

    clavos, yes, i’ve read 1984, but if obama is capable of turning this murder into a fascist takeover, i’ll be the first to say congrats. it’s fucking impossible (setting aside the fact that there’s absolutely no reason to believe he would want to do any such thing), and it would prove him to be a political genius the likes of which the world has never seen.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    You sound like Alex Jones. I’ve heard Alex Jones talk on air, Dave. That’s a rank insult! I don’t huff and puff when speaking in public like an out of breath St. Bernard….

    Tiller has been attacked before – true, but he hasn’t been killed before. It’s murders that make these things possible and palatable to a public. A mere attack might get people outraged, but you got to get them as boiled up as owls before they will agree to limit their own freedom. That takes murder.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “Maybe zing should borrow your glasses….”

    i don’t need glasses. i’m young enough to have perfect vision, vision that isn’t distorted by bitterness and hatred.

    leighann: “I do not think that Ruvy is crazy.”

    you take me too literally. i don’t mean insane. i mean violently misanthropic and zealous in his cracked-out beliefs. that better?

    “Yes, there is outrage. There is outrage from your pro-life groups and crazy people who go into churches and kill doctors or blow up clinics. I am asking where the outrage is among all of the other people.”

    well, they don’t go shooting people and blowing up innocent people (and babies). but you really can’t say that you’ve never come across an article decrying late term birth abortion, right? that would take some serious doing. i’m impressed by your avoidance technique, if that’s true.

  • zingzing

    hrm. late term abortion… or partial birth abortion… either one, but not “late term birth abortion…”

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “You sound like Alex Jones. I’ve heard Alex Jones talk on air, Dave. That’s a rank insult! I don’t huff and puff when speaking in public like an out of breath St. Bernard….”

    ha! go dave! it’s true. i never connected the two. and ruvy, your self-description was spot on. “rank,” indeed.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Reading your comments is truly funny, zing. Looks to me like you overshot your wad, and now you;’re walking sideways, like a crab, to avoid your own foolish and overblown bullshit.

    And by the way, the idea of the “Reichstag fire” was not mine to begin with at all, and at first I doubted it. Only after reading the Huff and Puff baloney on “Christian terrorism” did it dawn on me that my friend in the States might have a point – and even then, I moderated what he imagined. It seemed to extreme to be plausible.

    Were this done, it would be done in a very sophisticated way, with “opinion leaders” like the “Grey Lady”, the LA Times and the Washington Post pushing repeats of the Huffington bullshit, with news anchors playing up the terrorism angle, etc., etc.

  • http://www.thelayoffbeard.com/ Matt Sussman

    So his life ended prematurely?

  • zingzing

    “Reading your comments is truly funny, zing. Looks to me like you overshot your wad, and now you;’re walking sideways, like a crab, to avoid your own foolish and overblown bullshit.”

    walking sideways? my foolish and overblown bullshit? how do you come away with that conclusion? you’re the one back-peddling, claiming it wasn’t your completely ridiculous idea, but your “american friend’s.” how you can claim i’ve overshot my load (which is simply that you’re a nut) is beyond me. you ARE a nut. no walking sideways here.

    why do you think obama would want to stage some sort of fascist coup? what next? we all call him caesar? where does your fantasy world end?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Tiller has been attacked before – true, but he hasn’t been killed before.

    That’s solely a function of chance, Ruvy. This assassin just happened to be a better shot than the last one.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Served him right, no?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How many times does a man have to die for one and the same crime. Isn’t it double jeopardy?

  • zingzing

    “Were this done, it would be done in a very sophisticated way, with “opinion leaders” like the “Grey Lady”, the LA Times and the Washington Post pushing repeats of the Huffington bullshit, with news anchors playing up the terrorism angle, etc., etc.”

    ok, well, let’s see who is right. i’ll say that there won’t be a obama-led fascist coup, you’ll say that there will be. what would you care to bet? tell you what, i’ll give you my first born child (he’ll be safer there anyway, if what you say comes to pass) and you can give me… oh, i dunno, a ball of lint. a recipe for chicken soup. a big bag of nothing. i don’t care.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    That’s solely a function of chance, Ruvy. This assassin just happened to be a better shot than the last one.

    You’re missing the point, Dave. An abortion doctor was killed before, during the Clinton administration. Clinton didn’t want to be a dictator – he wanted to be loved (what do you think Monica Levinsky was all about anyway? the big lug wanted to be loved – but settled for a blow-job instead. That is a nut case!). So, he never used that killing to expand his powers. I think Obama is more than anything else, power-hungry. His training at the knee of Sol Alinsky taught him how to seize power – and he has.

    In case you haven’t noticed, he has nationalized the Big Three, nationalized a good part of the banking system, and G-d knows what else he is going after when you the people aren’t watching like hawks.

    And it appears he hasn’t quite resurrected that hoary democratic right of the English and Aussies, the “writ of habeus corpus”.

  • leighann

    Not really read any ariticles on it. At first I thought that it could not even be true. I am a little suspicious myself and have a hard time determining what is true and what is not. I do not give much creedence to articles put out my extreme pro-life movements or extreme pro-choice movements since they seems to all want to bend facts to get people to come to their side. I havce a hard time telling who is who. Other than these types of articles, I have not seen many. It seems that the ones that I have seen are from very polarized groups.

    This is what I am trying to say. Why do I not hear more about it? If they were sticking things in the skulls of terrorists and sucking their brains out at Gitmo bay it would be all over the place. Just as it is with waterboarding which seems to be a lot less brutal. You can’t go anywhere without hearing about that. People are outraged. Should they be? That can be saved for another discussion. I do not see that kind of outrage. Thats all I am saying.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Leighann,

    The story just came out. I believe you’re gonna see some backlash. Give it some time.

  • zingzing

    you’re kidding leighann… this stuff was all over the place during the last few years. it was a HUGE hot button issue. it was like the “hey ya” of political controversy. inescapable, and eventually, sickening. and nearly everyone, for once, was on the same side.

  • leighann

    That is interesting Zig. Dont know where I was when all of that was happening. The last few things that I heard about it was my grandmohter telling me that Clinton vetoed the bill to make it illegal and then when Bush let it go through.

    My point is that everywhere you look you see Gitmo Bay, gay marriage, and so on (look over the last few months of articles here for instance) but I haven’t seen any about this subject of partial birth abortions (other than the somewhat related issue of botched abortions during the campaign) and they are obviously still going on. Maybe it is because as you said, most people agree on this issue. So then why are doctors still performing this procedure? Are doctors still performing this procedure?

  • Jordan Richardson

    it was like the “hey ya” of political controversy.

    Best. Line. Ever.

  • Baronius

    When I saw this, I immediately began speculating whether the gunman is evil, crazy, or stupid. But when you’re dealing with fanatics, probably “or” is the wrong word.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Mostly crazy, Baronius. Once you accept the tenets of a fanatical ideology you can no longer really be considered sane.

    Dave

  • leighann

    Dave
    Please explain what you mean by “fanatical ideology.” Just want to be clear about what you are saying.

  • zingzing

    it’s like ruvy, leighann.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    that was my reaction, zing

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    It even made the newspapers here.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    “fanatical ideology.”it’s like ruvy, leighann.

    I don’t know about the killer of Dr. Tiller. I don’t think he was crazy at all. He did what he believed in, disgusting as it was. To call him crazy is to dismiss the evil in his soul as crazy, and thus hide your head in the sand.

    Dave, zing and el bicho all write like typical bourgeois cowards, with their heads buried in the sand and their asses sticking way up in the air. They refuse to accept that evil exists and every time it manifests itself, it gives this trio (and the many who think like them) a hard kick in the butt.

    They also have trouble with people who live their beliefs, instead of just mouthing them. So, it’s easier for them to call me crazy than to every admit that I might be right. There is a reason I’m so contemptuous of them – their cowardice.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, I don’t disagree that Obama may use this incident to advance his agenda. They’ll probably call the federal choice bill the “Tiller Bill” in his honor. What I’m disputing is your suggestion that the administration set up the assassination in a reichstag-fire type operation. No evidence to support it and no real justification for speculating. Hence the comparison to Alex Jones.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Ruvy, I don’t disagree that Obama may use this incident to advance his agenda. They’ll probably call the federal choice bill the “Tiller Bill” in his honor….

    I don’t think Obama set this killing up (though I wouldn’t put it past him). I never suggested that. The “Reichstag fire” reference is not to who set the fire, but to how the Nazis used it to win control of the Reichstag a couple of months later. And here you are, agreeing with what I’ve said in principle, if not in detail….

    I always knew you were smarter than zing. I won’t comment on el bicho. I don’t read his comments often enough to judge….

  • http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sundaysurfer/index.php STM

    Sussman: “So his life ended prematurely?”

    There’s another side to that coin too, if we’re talking paradox.

    He was killed by a pro-lifer.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “I won’t comment on el bicho. I don’t read his comments often enough to judge….”

    Yet you did just that in the previous comment. Not putting it past Obama to have set up the killing of this doctor is just as nutty as the 9/11 truthers who think Bush allowed that tragedy to happen.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, if obama doesn’t use tiller’s murder in some sort of power grab, will you eat your words?

    i think not. you’re a classic conspiracy theorist, who loves the theory, but totally lacks in follow through. i’ll bet that if this thing comes and goes, you won’t have one fucking word to say and you’ll completely forget who tiller is.

    let’s watch. we’ll see what happens. then we’ll see who is smarter.

    (this is not a judgment on dave’s intelligence… this is just proving that ruvy is a ridiculous old man.)

  • Arthur Trafford

    Dear concerned citizens of the United States of America:

    Today we witnessed an end to the death ministry of Dr George Killer (oops, Tiller). Dr. Tiller and Hitler had very much in common; they both waited for the winds-of-change to blow favorably in their direction. Changing Judiciary votes, preying on the amoral mindset of the majority or minority of our population, all contributed to the victimization of hysterical pregnant mothers (over 30,000,000 who became men’s “Pleasure toys”), who later realized they are pregnant.

    Dr Tiller and his assassin are both guilty of crimes against humanity, they are both serial killers. One just has more notches on his gun than the other one does! And neither one is a victim, for they both gave their life to an unworthy cause. Dr Tiller no longer has the option to repent, but hopefully his assassin will.

    A wanted unborn = A life birthed child
    The same, but unwanted unborn = A dead suctioned fetus
    What a tragic dichotomy!

    Primary solution to the Pro-Life Pro-Choice dilemma:

    All of us do wrong and compare ourselves with others;
    We are not more righteous* than hysterical pregnant mothers.

    And if most women-with-child was loved by the child’s father
    She would smile and happily say “No abortion” why bother!

    Ask God and the person you mated with to forgive you, forgive yourself and live the abundant life!!!

    Sincerely,
    Arthur Trafford

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    ruvy, if obama doesn’t use tiller’s murder in some sort of power grab, will you eat your words?

    zing, you really do not get it, do you? Much of the power has already been seized. You have no right to a writ of habeus corpus. Major corporations are already effectively in the government’s hands due to what has amounted to a nationalization of the banking system (and subsequent payouts to companies under government conditions), the nationalization of the automobile industry, and effective nationalization of its many service industries (by forcing them to follow government policy in serving the auto firms). That’s a lot right there. Lots of print media are pretty much finished (a whole bunch of bureau chiefs and their staffs are being sent home from Jerusalem – where there is always a news story to file – in order to save money), leaving the remaining internet editions of “newspapers” under the effective supervision of the Department of Commerce, which supervises the World Wide Web.

    It’s not necessary to send jackbooted thugs through the streets proclaiming Obama “il duce”. It is not important if Republicans win elections if the important posts remain in the hands of the White House or its flunkies, or if the Republicans who control them are essentially subservient to the president.

    One big blockage is the SCOTUS. Obamaa needs to pack the supreme court if he can by 1 January 2011. The other big blockage are the thousands, if not millions of American gun owners.

    Other than that, welcome to United Soviet Socialist America, moya droogi.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #44

    A perfect example of Christian compassion.

  • zingzing

    ok, ruvy…

  • zingzing

    i know you got to test it out, but how much of the meth did you smoke?

  • Baronius

    Ruvy’s right. He didn’t accuse the Obama administration of killing Tiller. I thought he had, and I was going to slam him about it, but I reread his comments and he didn’t. The closest he came is when he said he wouldn’t put it past them.

    No one knows who set the Reichstag fire. Maybe Ruvy could use better-known historical references next time.

  • Clavos

    I think Ruvy is right on other points as well.

    1. The mantra of the Obama administration is “never waste a good crisis,” and they won’t this time. What and how they do to use it is open, that they will use it is a given.

    2. Obama has already taken significant steps to seize unprecedented control of American citizens’ lives, and has announced plans for even more.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Baronius,

    I didn’t pick the analogy of the Reichsdag fire. I saw it in an e-mail from a friend on this Jewish list I belong to. I think it appropriate – not because it accuses Obama of arranging for the killing of the late Dr. Tiller, but because the way the Nazis exploited the fire to seize power.

    Nevertheless, thank you for re-reading my comments before trying to jump down my throat.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Trafford seems to have mastered the nuances of violating Godwin’s Law.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Clavos,

    Thank you for the back-up. Too many folks in America are wearing the Sunglasses of Denial and cannot or refuse to see how their nation is being stolen from them.

  • Baronius

    Dave, on this thread at least, Ruvy already broke that law.

  • Arch Conservative

    54 comments? really?

    All that really needs to be said is “good riddance.”

  • zingzing

    maybe one day, someone will say the same thing about you. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Jordan Richardson

    Honestly, Arch, are you really that bent on proving to anyone who’ll listen to your idiotic ranting that you’re a vile human being?

    That you claim to represent “conservative values” is hilarious, but it’s even more hilarious that you claim to be a human being. You rant on and on about “King Barry” taking away your rights and your freedoms and now you say “good riddance” in reference to the death of a human being? Wow.

    I know in the past you’ve practically advocated the assassination of Barack Obama and you’ve spewed some other hateful nonsense, so I shouldn’t be all that surprised at your comments. In truth, I’m not surprised that you said it. I’m only surprised that somewhere deep inside that [personal attack deleted] brain of yours you actually think that somebody gives a flying fuck what you think.

    Honestly. A post essentially cheering the death of a human being doesn’t violate the comments policy, but zing’s “personal attack” gets deleted? Bravo.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The comment policy says the following:

    In addition, we reserve the right to edit/delete comments that are some combination of pointlessly vulgar, vile, cruel, without redeeming qualities, and an embarrassment to the site.

    Subjective? Yes, but we know them when we see them and so do you.

    It would seem to me that Arch’s comments fit the criteria pretty well, yet all that seems to be enforced around here is that of a personal attack in regards to another poster.

    Any reason to not think Arch’s cheerleading of the murder of Dr. Tiller is an embarrassment to the site?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Bing: All that really needs to be said is “good riddance.”
    Zing: maybe one day, someone will say the same thing about you….

    Someday, someone will say that about all of us, zingster – including (not necessarily especially) you. I’m off to Jerusalem today to listen to a friend say “good riddance” to quite a number of people….

    Hopefully, someone will have the sense on these comment threads to pay attention to the real threats to the planet – like the North Koreans – or in the case of your own beknighted nation, the assholes who shout down free speech – what little that remains of it, that is….

    I will be in the Eternal Capital of my people today, enjoying cheesecake and coffee, getting a haircut and trying to scare up some more work. Hopefully, a nice day.

    Laters!

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Best not to try and make sense of any of it, Jordan.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Bah, you’re probably right.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jordan, I felt that Arch’s comment was pretty mild by most measures – and especially by Arch’s standards.

  • zingzing

    by the way, my “personal attack” that got deleted was just saying that the person who says so (“good riddance”) would be just as awful as archie was. so it wasn’t a personal attack. just an attack on such thinking. take it how you will.

    actually, the line was “and that person will be an asshole,” or something like that.

    comments editor is getting a bit touchy these days.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    zing, it has to be tough keeping track of different standards for each writer.

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s just too damn easy with some of you.

    A man murders hundreds if not thousands of babies and I’m the vile one for not crying in my beer over his death?

    If I was like you Jordan, and prone to extrapolating the words of others to my own personal extreme conclusions, Imight say that your attacks on what I said constitute support of the infanticide of which Tiller was guilty of.

    I find it ironic that you and others claim I don’t matter and then actually spend so much time and effort responding to the things I write. While you’re on your little crusade to prove how morally superior you are to me Jordan don’t forget about all the people that were far more offensive in their reaction to Jerry Falwell’s death than I’ve been about Tillers.

    In any event my concious is clear. I didn’t kill Tiller. I didn’t advocate that any do what was done. I merely stated that I think the world is indeed a better place without him in it. Tiller has more blood on his hands than the man that killed him yet you losers don’t seem to have a problem with that. The fact that you mourn Tiller’s death while celebrating those of the many babies that were killed by him is what’s truly sickening.

    There’s the legal system, which was never able to hold Tiller accountable for the illegeal partial birth abortions he performed and then there’s real justice. We saw real justice yesterday.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #57 & #58, Jordan.

    I’m in total agreement with you. In fact, the comments in question don’t differ that much from those of Scott Roeder’s many comments to Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups, comments which called for “decisive action” against Tiller. In fact, the likelihood is that some of these organizations which where the recipients of Roader’s emails may be subject to criminal prosecution. IMO, Arch’s comments transcend the standards of Personal Attack as specified by the BC policy; they’re much more egregious than that.

  • Jordan Richardson

    If I was like you Jordan, and prone to extrapolating the words of others to my own personal extreme conclusions, Imight say that your attacks on what I said constitute support of the infanticide of which Tiller was guilty of.

    “Personal extreme conclusions?” So you didn’t say “good riddance?” Because that was pretty much what I addressed…if that’s not what you wrote in your post, perhaps you can tell me what you really did write.

    And in what way can you extrapolate anything beyond “what you said sickens me” from what I said addressing your comments? Oh, wait…I forgot. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you automatically opposes everything you stand for. Left, right. Republican, Democrat. I forgot you’re so damn brainwashed by the “two sides” bullshit that you can’t imagine somebody holding a third or fourth or fifth point of view (that Dems and Republicans aren’t all that different, that they’re both shitty, that left and right really doesn’t matter that much, etc.).

    Fact is that I agree that abortions are tragic. But they are legal activities and you are essentially rubber stamping TERRORISM by approving of these actions and placing women and doctors in harm’s way and inciting fear. And your grand excuse is to say “I didn’t kill him?” Wow.

    I merely stated that I think the world is indeed a better place without him in it.

    Tell that to his family. Go ahead. Shit, you’re probably callous enough to do just that. You’re probably fucked up enough to see this as some sort of disturbing atonement for his “sins.”

    The fact that you mourn Tiller’s death while celebrating those of the many babies that were killed by him is what’s truly sickening.

    Find me one person that “celebrates” abortion and I’ll find you one that celebrates terrorism and murder in his own country.

    We saw real justice yesterday.

    So domestic terrorism is real justice in your mind? Were you cool with the Oklahoma City bombing, too, or was that not terrorism because you didn’t agree with the terrorist? Is murder okay if it’s cause you agree with? I can only assume you’d answer the latter in the affirmative.

    If you want to overturn your country’s laws on abortion, go ahead. We have abortion up here in Canada, by the way, and amazingly enough people aren’t bumping off abortion doctors and cheering about it later (three doctors were attacked in the 90s, however). You truly live in a sick society that manages to politicize EVERYTHING, including basic science and basic human ethics.

    And don’t flatter yourself, Arch. It’s not like it takes the least bit of effort to respond to your nonsense. That I continue to do so says more about me than it does about any valid, meaningful point you make. And I think I know how to proceed from here…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jordan,

    What do you think about a group email to Chris? I really think it is an embarrassment to this site to let these comments stand. I’m all for freedom of expression, but this cuts against all standards of human decency.

  • zingzing

    archie, you’re just digging a nasty, black hole for yourself. yeah, the guy did some controversial stuff. maybe he was playing loose with the law. i’m not sure. he claims to have only performed it when the mother was in jeopardy of losing her life, and after having consulted another doctor on the subject. some people disagreed.

    whatever he was doing, he got shot in the head while passing out pamphlets at church and you’re calling it “justice.”

    it’s not “justice.” justice doesn’t involve sticking a gun in someone’s face and pulling the trigger. justice doesn’t involve running away like some little puss-puss after you’ve done it. if you think it does, i think you’re dangerous, a little sick and frankly, inhuman.

    you claim to luv all da widdle babies, but then here you are, playing about in this guy’s blood like it’s a kiddie pool. i don’t like abortion, but i don’t like murder either. you’re just a hypocrite.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Fuck it, zing. I don’t see why you bother engaging him. By doing so, you’re only providing him with credibility.

  • zingzing

    all of this, especially in the light of the fact that it’s this kind of internet chatter that got tiller killed, just shows what an ignorant person you can be, arch.

  • zingzing

    you’re right, roger, i’m done.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You know, zing. It really makes me wonder. The chatter you’re talking about has been going on from that guy for quite some time, Operation Rescue being one of them. I can’t find the link now to yesterday’s story, but it really puzzled me.

    If I were Attorney General, I would look into the possibility of criminal prosecution. It’s like being an accomplice.

  • zingzing

    i don’t think that’s the answer, roger. that’s just taking it one step too far. sure, those websites allow that shit to happen all the time, but that’s the great anarchic nature of the internet. i’d have it no other way.

    still, one would hope that, if operation rescue did nothing to dissuade this guy, or, worse, watched as others egged him on, that should tell you all you need to know about what kind of organization they run. people will naturally shy away from that kind of rhetoric (as most people aren’t murderers, or celebrators of murderers…), leaving them with only the hardest of the hardcore, which are very easy to watch…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, yes. But remember the chatter before Columbine and other school killings. Nobody paid any attention. As I said, I’m all for freedom of expression, but aren’t we going to listen to the clues.

    Operation Rescue, for example, may be what it is. But even if you’re sympathetic with the ideas of nuts such as Roader, there’s got to be some responsibility when they advocate “decisive solution.”

    I’m not saying that’s the answer, but a step in this direction would make some of those radical groups more wary and more accountable.

  • zingzing

    well, i would hope that such rhetoric on such sites leads to an organic, societal distaste for such sites, rather than having the government step in in any legal fashion.

    the added exposure to such sites will have two effects, i believe: a small surge in their popularity amongst the truly insane, and a much larger surge in distaste by the general public.

    i hope that operation rescue ceases to exist as a place where roader can spout their shit, either because it disappears, or has to reevaluate its course of action.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Why would they choose to reevaluate their course of action, zing, in the absence of any sanctions as regards accountability?
    I view comments by such as Roader, or the Columbine kids, on analogy with potential acts of terrorism. So I’m not for government meddling with the Internet, but there’s got to be some exceptions (like child pornography, for instance).

  • Clavos

    …sure, those websites allow that shit to happen all the time, but that’s the great anarchic nature of the internet. i’d have it no other way.

    Second.

  • Clavos

    I’m not for government meddling with the Internet…

    Coulda fooled me…

  • Baronius

    I think it’s just hilarious that Arch pwned Jordan.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    IMO, Arch’s comments transcend the standards of Personal Attack as specified by the BC policy; they’re much more egregious than that.

    This is the road to “liberal” fascism, the very same road followed by the Kennedy administration decades ago, and the precise way a comments policy designed to keep conversation civil has been twisted around on Desicritics to a pathetic and hypocritical version of political correctness.

    It was suggested that I be ignored there, and when I attempted to respond, my remarks were censored as “blathering”. So when you suggested that I be ignored here, I struck back and I struck back hard – and I am not sorry I did.

    If you don’t like what Bing says, criticize him. If his answers sting you where it hurts, maybe you should consider that he may be right – and you may be wrong. I know that is hard for “tolerant” types like you to admit, but evidently that has happened, and you do not like it; because now, you would distort the comments policy on this site and turn DD and Chris Rose into censors of things that you don’t like.

    They’ll read all this and come to their own conclusions, but if this site EVER sinks to the low level that Desicritics has sunken to in its comments editing, where Desis insult non-Desis in Hindi – I will be all over Facebook, Twitter and every other site I can get on to let people know not to click here.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “I think it’s just hilarious that Arch pwned Jordan.”

    how does making yourself look like a hateful, slimy hypocrite help you do that?

    so, you’re so against abortion that you’re willing to murder (or at least celebrate the murder) of a person? some christian you are. (unfortunately true in this case, i guess.)

    and please don’t say that p-word every again. or go play your witchcraft-filled video games if you must.

  • zingzing

    “This is the road to “liberal” fascism, the very same road followed by the Kennedy administration decades ago…”

    the kennedy admin had the internet?!

    “It was suggested that I be ignored there, and when I attempted to respond, my remarks were censored as “blathering”.”

    yeah, well. i’m not sure they were censored for being blathering.

    “So when you suggested that I be ignored here, I struck back and I struck back hard – and I am not sorry I did.”

    just ruvy being ruvy. you didn’t have to go all personal. it lowered the level of discourse. we’re all sorry you went there.

    “If his answers sting you where it hurts, maybe you should consider that he may be right – and you may be wrong.”

    or you and archie may just think that terrorism and murder is acceptable behavior. most of us don’t.

    all that said, i don’t want archie’s comments censored, nor yours. they let us all know what lurks in the dark corners of human thought, and we should be well aware that people such as the two of you exist.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Fuck it, I was wrong. Why not let the fools speak? I therefore dissociate myself from #82, effective now!

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Going back to a comment on the previous page (hopefully it won’t be too much longer before the comments are unpaginated), I think it is just hilarious that Baronius thinks that “Arch pwned Jordan”. That’s about as accurate as creation theory!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    …this cuts against all standards of human decency.

    I personally find regularly that a lot of ideas people think are acceptable and ordinary, cut against all standards of human decency.

    Should I ask for censorship?

    Is it possible that if someone stopped you from expressing your ideas would you look for some other outlet to express them?

    If someone’s idea is that abortion is murder and we succesfully shut them up. Do you think this might result in more, less, or the same number of dead doctors who practice abortion?

    Is it possible it’s better to deal head-on in the open with ideas we find potentially dangerous or destructive? Does not hearing things make them go away?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    I’m sorry I overreacted. I reneged in #84.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, either I deleted your comment, the former #82, because of a blatantly offensive remark or I am an evil censor restricting your right to free speech. You are welcome to pick either but please don’t repeat that kind of remark…

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Sorry, Roger, my post was mid-your retraction.

  • Baronius

    Ah, Zing, Zing, Zing, Zing, Zing…

    I’m not willing to murder anyone. As far as I can tell, Arch isn’t either. Neither of us said so. The “pwning” (the second time in my life I’ve used that word) came in the fact that Jordan sunk lower than Arch in that exchange, failed to understand Arch’s position, and failed to argue a coherent position of his own.

    When you accuse me of being a pro-murder hypocrite, you make the same mistake as Jordan. You’re arguing against what you hope the other person’s position is, but it’s not the position at all.

    I’m not going to blame anyone on this site for the murder of Dr. Tiller. It’s obvious that the BC person whose ideology is most similar to the murderer is Cindy, but that murder shouldn’t reflect on her. Your and Jordan’s gross extrapolations do reflect on you, however.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Clavos was indirectly saying that child pornography, among other things, falls under the right of free speech when he insinuated that I am in favor of censoring the internet. And Archie’s comment about the deserved shooting of Tiller was despicable, too, though apparently also falling under the free speech category. I think it’s worth noting that tolerating that kind of speech on Operation Rescue, rather than alerting the proper authorities, may have indirectly contributed to Tiller’s death. Just a thought.

    I already retracted what I said in #82, Chris, and no, I do not regard you as an evil censor.

    I’d like to know, however, in what manner was my remark any more offensive than Archie’s, for example. Mine was purposely ironic and obviously not meant. I’m certain you were aware of that.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I think supporting a terrorism is wrong–it’s always aimed against those who we perceive as are our ‘enemies’. So, how could it be justified on that basis?

    I think Jordan’s argument on the point of legality fails for the same reason that even if torture was legal, it would not be a justification for committing it. In Germany killing Jews was legal. Legality is irrelevant. That someone else decides something is acceptable doesn’t make it so.

    If a person believes that abortion is mass murder, then to see his POV, I’d think one would have to imagine a situation where you yourself see something as mass murder to understand this reaction to the death of the ‘murderer’.

    If someone murdered Hitler, would you say good riddance? Even if you wouldn’t murder Hitler yourself or support someone murdering him? (These are just questions, without implications intended.)

    However, I am skeptical that Arch values the fetus’ life because it is human. Arch frequently fails to value people all the time. A recent example I saw was his misogynistic comments regarding women.

    It seems to me, it’s more likely that ‘murder’ in this case isn’t a problem for Arch because he believes that life is valuable and all human beings have the right to life, so much as its simply a violation of a religious code. It’s just like breaking a rule one is forbidden to break.

    I could be wrong about Arch. If it is though, I can’t put much stake in what anyone who holds this sort of position says. This is a person who can conceivably hold all sorts of anti-human and non-empathetic views and still think abortion is murder merely because they call it a sin–God said it’s wrong.

    It’s not so much pro-life in this particular case as pro-rule.

  • zingzing

    “I’m not willing to murder anyone.”

    good.

    ” As far as I can tell, Arch isn’t either. Neither of us said so.”

    but he condoned it by celebrating it.

    “The “pwning” (the second time in my life I’ve used that word) came in the fact that Jordan sunk lower than Arch in that exchange, failed to understand Arch’s position, and failed to argue a coherent position of his own.”

    i hardly see that as true. archie sunk real low. jordan argued that such talk only reflects upon those who utter it. that’s coherant, and there’s no failure to understand archie’s position, which is that he condones murdering abortionists.

    “You’re arguing against what you hope the other person’s position is, but it’s not the position at all.”

    you celebrated it. i put that in there as an option, since you want to be so sure about what position you’re arguing.

    do you deny that archie celebrated murder? and do you deny at least celebrating archie’s celebration?

    ” It’s obvious that the BC person whose ideology is most similar to the murderer is Cindy,”

    how’s that? seriously? it’s ruvy, or archie. they both condone such violence. i haven’t seen cindy do the same.

    don’t misunderstand me. i’m not accusing you of being anything but a hypocrite in this instance. by laughing along with archie, you are laughing at this man with a hole in his head before he’s even in the ground. his family deserves better than to have christians gloating over his death. it’s disturbing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jordan’s remarks are not at issue here, Baronius, but your defense of Archie’s position is – namely that Tiller deserved to die. You may be sympathetic with Archie’s anti-abortion stance. But that should not preclude you from approving his statement about the deserved killing of Tiller. And if you do not approve it actively, at least you do so passively but not chastising him about it.

    Sure, he has the freedom of speech to say what he will. But your standing on his freedom of speech without commenting on the substance of what Archie had said speaks volumes. The least think you should have done was to say you disapprove. Instead, you’re chastising people like Jordan, zing, or myself.

    Shame!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Correction:

    “But that should not preclude you from disapproving his statement about the deserved killing of Tiller”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    If Hitler was murdered instead of committing suicide how would you react to someone who said, “Good riddance”.

    Whether you approved or not, would you at least be able to understand them saying it without considering them a monster?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “” It’s obvious that the BC person whose ideology is most similar to the murderer is Cindy,”

    Right! How on earth did he get that? I don’t remember Cindy recommending a preemptive nuclear strike on Tehran, or necessarily condoning unnecessary abortions, or the rights of pro-lifers to kill the “bad doctor.” So where does Baronius gets such strange ideas?

  • Baronius

    Zing, you’re still making assumptions. I’m as big a fan of Kool and the Gang as the next guy, but I’m not celebrating Arch’s celebration, nor am I laughing at a murder. I’m laughing at Jordan.

    Roger, I’m not standing on Arch’s freedom of speech.

    It would help if you guys kept track of who’s arguing what. The commenters here don’t necessarily fit into your preconceptions.

    I haven’t argued anything on this thread.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    I don’t understand your #96 and previous references to it. You originated that question earlier, no?

  • zingzing

    cindy, meet godwin.

    baronius, notice the conspicuous lack of your usual backers. the ones that are usually on your side in most cases, but right now, probably wouldn’t touch you with a 10-ft pole.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    I’m glad you’re not. But I find it distressing that Jordan is under attack rather than Arch (nor for the right to say what he thinks) but for what he thinks. That’s my problem here.

  • zingzing

    baronius, #98, if that’s true, and you are just laughing at jordan (as ridiculous as that is), then good for you. but i’m not buying it 100%. still, i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and remind myself of the general shock that came with reading your initial comment. i didn’t expect such… crassness out of you.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Yes, zing, I was going to make a joke about Godwin in that post. However, I think sometimes we mention Hitler a lot because extreme examples are easier to see a point with (though there are many other reasons, this was mine). I don’t hold the ‘unthinking’ view that every reference to Hitler is ipso facto unacceptable (nor am I suggesting that you do, or that you were being more than observant).

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    I don’t think you have the evidence to say anything like that about what Clav said.

    Mark’s comment to me made me reconsider a lot of things and change my opinions on some of them. But to go the other route and then trivialize using ‘facts’ wasn’t one of them. This is one, of many cases, that exemplifies why trying to be as factual in an argument as possible is necessary, imo.

    Claims can be made by anyone about anything. Being able to defend those claims requires evidence. Making assertions like that about someone should require substantial evidence–at least to a fact-oriented person, and somehow I don’t think philosophy discounts assessing truthfulness of propositions. I don’t think you have any evidence at all, let alone substantial evidence.

    Baronius,

    Same thing I said to Roger’s comment about Clav, applies to what you said about me. I hope you will give me the respect of explaining what you said about me.

    (Now, I catch up Roger with your other comments.)

  • Baronius

    It’s simple. The killer apparently has no connections to the pro-life movement, and acted in a way that pro-lifers find objectionable. He was, however, an anarchist, which is a movement that has always encouraged acts of terror.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Bar,

    When you accuse me of being a pro-murder hypocrite, you make the same mistake as Jordan. You’re arguing against what you hope the other person’s position is, but it’s not the position at all.

    It’s obvious that the BC person whose ideology is most similar to the murderer is Cindy, but that murder shouldn’t reflect on her. Your and Jordan’s gross extrapolations do reflect on you, however.

    It would help if you guys kept track of who’s arguing what. The commenters here don’t necessarily fit into your preconceptions.

    to all of the above: pot-kettle

    Do you really think you understand my position? You think you are coming from a position of analyzing what I believe and judging it based on a fair reading?

    Personally, I think I can do that in the case of your beliefs, in this particular instance. I merely don’t know which camp you’re in the ‘god said so’ or the ‘human life is valuable’ camp.

  • Baronius

    Yay! I finally got a comment though. The site has swallowed a couple of earlier tries.

    Zing, early in this thread, I thought that Ruvy had said something awful. I rechecked his comments and found that I and others had misread him. If you took the time to reread my recent comments (the ones that got through), you’d see that I wasn’t celebrating Arch’s celebration of murder. The only way for us to engage in political conversation is for us to put away our preconceptions and actually read what the other person’s writing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not saying that Clav said that. But he seemed to be insinuating that I’m was censoring the internet on the basis of the few examples I cited:

    a) child pornography;
    b) Operation Rescue inattention to Roader’s remarks to the Tiller;
    c) kids bragging about their plans prior to the Columbine and other school shootings;

    I regarded these as exceptions to free speech, and not therefore to be protected thereby. And I compared these to terrorist kind of chat. Well, does that make me a supporter of censorship on the net?

  • Baronius

    Cindy, another perfect example of not reading what the other person wrote. Please stop prejudging me.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Bar,

    The doctor was an Anarchist? Can you supply a reference please.

    Second, can you justify that comment that anarchism is a movement that justifies acts of terror?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, Baronius, it was dead.

    And Cindy! Why not a fucking outrage at Archie’s position that killing Tiller is justifiable (never mind the free speech issue)? Why not a fucking outrage at Dan’s presumable support at white supremacist theories? None of our noble defenders of freedom human rights from the conservative cample – no Nalle, no Clavos, no Baronius – none of them showed up. I sent Clavos an invitation. No, thank you – was the apparent response.

    So now they’re gonna try to ride me on small shit – like on trying to infringe on Archie’s free speech. Fuck ‘em all and the horse they all rode on!

  • zingzing

    but roeder does have connections with the pro-life movement, at least in some fashion. he took regular part on pro-life websites, and if he doesn’t have any official connection to one in particular, he’s well-known amongst them and has influenced/been influenced by the pro-life movement.

    and the pro-life movement has been known to be VERY violent, at least in extreme cases, in case you forgot about David Gunn, Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, George Patterson, June Barret, Dr. Calvin Jackson, Dr. David Gandell, Emily Lyons, Clayton Waagner and the 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid (“stink bombs”) that have occurred in north america over the past 30 years or so.

    roeder has been connected with the freemen group, but that’s not such a classical anarchist group as you’d have us believe. they’re just a christian right wing group that wants to pay even less taxes. it’s a good ol’ boys group. and besides, what kind of anarchist would want the government making laws about what you can and cannot do? what kind of anarchist calls for the outlawing of anything?

    i’m not saying that the pro-life movement condones this attack. i’m not even saying that operation rescue condones the attack. but to deny that a guy who kills an abortion doctor has no connection to the pro-life movement is ridiculous. (and to try and blame it on cindy’s brand of left wing anarchism is even more ridiculous.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    I am seeing now where Baronius is coming from. Roader was belonging to an “anarchistic” sect – against government, etc. etc. So now I see why he made that association. Except of course, Cindy never advocated using arms.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy.

    Anarchistic in the sense of the kind of Militia Movement, the Minutemen – white supremacists, against Federal government, real rednecks.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    108,

    There is no evidence he referred to all your comments, based on his statement. In fact, he need only be referring to the one comment–the exception–which proves your assertion questionable if not false.

    If I say these two things: I think talking about ice cream or child pornography should be two cases where censorship is acceptable. Then I say, I don’t generally support government interference in free speech.

    And you reply that you think I am a censor. There is no evidence you are saying anything about child pornography at all. You can make that statement by talking about my ice cream comment alone.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    109

    Baronius,

    You are continually making assertions with no explanation, evidence, or defense.

    I think you’re irrational and to some degree incapable of thinking fairly.

    And I’ll judge you any time I want. Particularly when such shallow, biased thinking such as yours seems to me, result in gross insult without the capacity for you to even have a clue what I think.

    Your assertions are bullshit. Back them up.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Cindy, another perfect example of not reading what the other person wrote. Please stop prejudging me.

    Since I feel I did read your comments and understood and replied to them appropriately, you’d have to demonstrate this.

  • Clavos

    Well, Clavos was indirectly saying that child pornography, among other things, falls under the right of free speech when he insinuated that I am in favor of censoring the internet.

    In fact, no one else even mentioned child pornography; you brought it up, it would appear, as a smokescreen behind which to hide your inclination toward censorship.

    Not only did I not say any such thing, I wasn’t even referring to that particular advocacy of censorship you expressed; I was referring to the beginning of your same statement, in which you said:

    I view comments by such as Roader, or the Columbine kids, on analogy with potential acts of terrorism. So I’m not for government meddling with the Internet, but there’s got to be some exceptions…

    Which clearly says, despite your rhetoric, that you are in favor of suppressing points of view you find distasteful.. In that, you are indistinguishable from those on the extreme right who advocate the same thing — only your intended targets are different.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Let me check out the doctor and see if he actually was an anarchist or if he is simply called an anarchist because smearing anarchists is an interest of any government.

  • Clavos

    Why not a fucking outrage at Archie’s position that killing Tiller…

    Distasteful, but protected.

    Why not a fucking outrage at Dan’s presumable support at white supremacist theories?

    Distasteful, but protected.

  • zingzing

    the doctor wasn’t an anarchist, cindy. roeder sort of, maybe, kinda, in a general, non-tax-paying, anti-government kind of silly, non-anarchist way, was.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, I assure you that I’m familiar with what you think. I’ve read at least a thousand of your comments.

    If you’re really unfamiliar with the history of violence in the anarchist movement, you should start with the assassination of McKinley. It’s too early to tell if Roeder acted alone (he hasn’t even been charged yet) but he’s definitely been linked to the Freemen, a group of anarchists. Maybe they’re not *your* type of anarchists.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, Here’s a reproduction:

    #77 (mine):

    “I view comments by such as Roader, or the Columbine kids, on analogy with potential acts of terrorism. So I’m not for government meddling with the Internet, but there’s got to be some exceptions (like child pornography, for instance)”

    #79 (Clavos’s direct response):

    “‘I’m not for government meddling with the Internet…’

    Coulda fooled me…”

    Obviously, Cindy, I’m speaking only of exceptions, on analogy with what I regard as planned acts of terrorism.

    So I ask you again, is there a basis there for suggesting that I’m in favor of censorship?

    And I don’t understand your ice-cream analogy, perhaps because I’m too heated up. So can you come again?

  • Baronius

    Roger, Arch never said that the murder was justified. He said that he’s not crying in his beer over it. Please stop perpetuating confusion on this thread.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    He said that justice has been done. (Look it up if you don’t believe it.) I don’t really know how much wiggle room you’re willing to give him.

    But I’m not really concerned with Archie right now. Archie is Archie. My point really is that Jordan became the target rather than Archie’s statement. That’s what I reacted against – not so much Archie’s right to say what he will but that none of you except Jordan, Cindy, zing and me found Archie’s statement objectionable.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But Baronius, Cindy never advocated violence in any of her remarks. You know that. So she is not that kind of anarchist, is she?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    I am not sure what you don’t understand about my comments 92 and 96.

    Is it because you would prefer to think about what my comment meant so that you know how to answer the question I posed?

    You could have misunderstood because either I was unclear or because you may have to answer my question to understand.

  • zingzing

    baronious: “Maybe they’re not *your* type of anarchists.”

    nope, not even close. unless you want to claim that your personal philosophy is the same as roeder’s because you’re a christian and so is he. eh?

    and what about archie’s “justice has been done” bit has you confused? “justice” and “justified,” i’m sure you know, have the same etymological root. he said it was justified. and “good riddance” is not the same as “meh.”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    zing,

    Godwin’s Law, btw, doesn’t make any sort of value judgment about mentioning Hitler. It just says it’s likely in a discussion of a certain length.

    Making value judgments about any mention of Hitler, in a vacuum, is a mite anti-intellectual don’t you think?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sure they’re protected, Clavos. No argument there. But you’re making the form (in this case of “rights”) more important than content. And your’re correct because form in this case supersedes and guarantees the content (and is therefore a matter of greater substance); I haven’t thought of that.

    Which makes me re-examine the nature of some of your substantive objections – whenever you raise them – which have less to do with a person’s moral standing but with their rights. Which is news to me – and I mean it with a straight face – in that you are, after all, more concerned with certain rights than with anything else.

    Good for you!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, you mean the Hitler comment?

    I’d think it an exception. I think killing Hilter, once it became apparent what his plans were, the camps and all, would be more than justifiable – in fact the right thing to do. Of course, we’re not talking here of “killing” or “murder” but of “assassination,” a special term applicable to political figures.

    Is that what you meant?

  • zingzing

    cindy: “Making value judgments about any mention of Hitler, in a vacuum, is a mite anti-intellectual don’t you think?”

    yep, it is. thing is that bringing up hitler usually is a mite anti-intellectual, at least for the continuing conversation. it’s a killer. (haha. meh.)

    it’s best to leave him out of things. he’s an exception to many, many things. except german people. i kid, i kid.

  • Clavos

    Roger,

    Of course, we’re not talking here of “killing” or “murder” but of “assassination,” a special term applicable to political figures.

    I looked up “assassination,” when I was writing the article, because I wanted to use it in the title, and did obviously, because the American Heritage Dictionary indicates it applies to the killing of “prominent” persons, not just politicians, though it most often is used in that context.

  • zingzing

    of course, you’re not saying it’s anything less than murder, are you, clavos?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    zing,

    Thanks, I thought he meant the doctor. Hard to keep track of which ‘murderer’ in this conversation.

    Bar,

    Cindy, I assure you that I’m familiar with what you think. I’ve read at least a thousand of your comments.

    You can assure me all you want. But, until I hear what I think reflected back to me in your comments, then you have no credibility as far as knowing what I think.

    Personally, I think you are too unwilling, to even begin to understand what I think. You could read my comments for a century and still not understand what I think.

    It would take your willingness to see things through completely different eyes. You don’t have that willingness. All you have is a list of things I would do, with zero understanding or insight into why and a whole lot of misconceptions and wrong assumptions.

  • Baronius

    Cindy – What does saying that accomplish?

    Zing and Roger – I see a big difference in declaring a killing to be justice and declaring it to be justified. If I’m wrong on this, I’m sorry. Arch can speak to his meaning better than I can. I just don’t have a lot of faith right now in your ability to read things objectively, considering how presumptuous you were toward my comments.

  • Baronius

    To wit: I think that Manning’s article argues that, whatever justice a person may find in Tiller’s murder, the action cannot be justified.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Anarchistic in the sense of the kind of Militia Movement, the Minutemen – white supremacists, against Federal government, real rednecks.

    These people are not anarchistic in ANY sense. Far-right anti-government extremists are not part of any anarchist movement. They are labeled anarchists by media and government authorities, who either don’t know what they’re talking about or have an interest in continuing to equate anarchism with violence because anarchists do not accept authority and state as valid.

    The killer is not a part of any anarchist movement. If he is a part of a movement, it seems to be an anti-government, right-wing style movement called ‘Freemen’ or something like that.

    Simply because someone doesn’t like government doesn’t make them an anarchist. Clueless police and media don’t get to decide what anarchism is…anarchists do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #118, Clavos, (I have just seen it):

    Since I believe we reached an agreement (as per my latest remark), I don’t want to be contrary, but you are reading things into my comment.

    “I view comments by such as Roader, or the Columbine kids, on analogy with potential acts of terrorism.”

    Please notice that each of the elements mentioned, Roeder, the Columbine, etc. did result in violent acts (not unlike potential terrorist acts in their planning stage). Many of the clues were available and after the fact, everyone keeps on saying – “had we only paid greater attention to it when …”

    Clearly, therefore, I speak only of instances where hateful speech wasn’t only a preamble to but it also resulted in a violent and abhorrent acts. So if you want to accuse my of supporting censorship for the purpose of suppressing views I don’t agree with, go ahead. “Child pornography” was not a smokescreen but just an example of where the freedom of speech is and should be curtailed, even on the net. But then again, call it a smokescreen if you like.

    Now, I’m certain you’re not against the FBI’s eavesdropping in order to keep track of the sleeping cells and prevent potential terrorist attacks; Roeder’s remarks and other examples cited fall in the same category – that’s the logic behind my thinking – not only because they could but in fact did result in acts of violence. So it’s not really a freedom of speech that’s at stake here but a monitoring of a kind, isn’t? So then again, I’m really at a loss why I should be accused of advocating censorship on the basis of those remarks; my concern was only with paying adequate attention to that kind of talk and doing something about it before it explodes in everybody’s face. (“Child pornography” was the only item appertaining to free speech on the net.)

    Thirdly, you should know by now that I don’t shy confrontation. I don’t want to suppress the view I find abhorrent; rather, it should be fairly evident from the nature of my many postings here, that I’m always trying to win the opponent over.

    Anyway, I just thought I’d explain a point or two in hope that you’ll change your opinion of me. And if you don’t, at least I tried.

  • Clavos

    @ zing #134:

    I used “assassinated” in the title, not to minimize the import of his being killed but to emphasize it, since unlike a plain vanilla murder, assassinations usually have a farther-reaching effect on the culture (or even the world) as a whole.

    Think Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. Not that Tiller was as important a figure as he, but Tiller’s death is certain to have “ripple” effects on society beyond the basic fact that he was killed, because of who he was.

  • zingzing

    “I see a big difference in declaring a killing to be justice and declaring it to be justified.”

    it’s saying the same thing, especially in this case. it’s certainly not justice to make yourself the law and shoot a man in the head just because you disagree with him. it’s justice to see him put in jail if he actually broke the law.

    somehow, this doctor was able to skirt around laws, or at least never be successfully prosecuted. sometimes, that just means that he found a loophole, and is a criminal. sometimes, however, it means that he followed the letter of the law, without exploiting it. it may be that he truly did only perform such abortions when he (and another doctor, as prescribed by the law,) found that the mother was in serious danger if the pregnancy were to continue.

    either way, this is not justice, and this is not justified.

    i can see your rhetorical point, but i can’t see it in this case.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Freemen are not anarchists just because you or anyone else says they are say they are Baronius. Do the Freemen say they are anarchists? I will buy that they can call themselves anarchists and be different anarchists if they call themselves anarchists. If they don’t, how can they be said to be practicing anarchism?

    Actually, here is something sort of funny, I found halfway through typing this.

    Freemen are an American Christian Patriot movement.

    Deal with that Barnonius. The Freemen believe nothing of anarchism. They’re Christians.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #138,

    Cindy, I said “sorta.” That’s what they call themselves (some of them at least).
    The whole point was to account for Baronius’s idea of somehow identifying you with that kind of thinking.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger? Please give me a link where some of them call themselves anarchists. Could you?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos,

    I wish I had my OED but my sister trashed it. It’s an Arabic term, (from assassin);
    I’d think, though, that it’s in politics that the distinction is more pertinent in that they’re treated as “political crimes.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    Even if you look up the Roeder’s story of two days ago, it spoke of that – special license plates. I was looking for the link earlier today but couldn’t find that story.

    The idea, Cindy, is that they’re against Federal government, even state government. The guy didn’t believe in paying taxes, etc., etc., If I find it I’ll post it.

    Meanwhile, this thread is becoming crazy. Can’t we all settle down?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Roger: That’s what I reacted against – not so much Archie’s right to say what he will but that none of you except Jordan, Cindy, zing and me found Archie’s statement objectionable.

    Good grief, of course Archie’s statement was objectionable. What d’you expect? He’s Archie.

    But it was pretty mild stuff, especially bearing in mind some of the things he’s spewed. I surely needn’t remind you that he’s been edited tediously often for various violations of site policy and banned at least once.

    As for Jordan’s better point about Archie’s remark being an embarrassment to the site, all I can suggest is read a random comments thread, especially one in the Politics section, concerning religion or on a topic likely to attract the attention of juveniles. I think it’s safe to say that Blogcritics has a high embarrassment threshold.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I could have just pointed to zing’s comment #112 had I seen it. It’s comprehensive.

    Anarchist do not accept government, at all. None. Even free-market or anarcho-Capitalists.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #133,

    I haven’t even noticed it, Clavos, as part of the title. Now you make me wonder.

  • Baronius

    Zing, please read Manning’s article and see if my distinction makes more sense.

    I can see an analogy between this and what many refer to as judicial activism. (I maybe shouldn’t bring this up, because I don’t think we see eye-to-eye on it.) A Justice of the Supreme Court may have the opportunity to hand down a decision that would settle an issue fairly, but one that doesn’t fall within the bounds of the law as it’s written. I would consider such an action to be justice, in the classical definition of each person receiving his due. But it wouldn’t be justified, because it would be an improper use of the office. So while it would resolve the original matter justly, it would be unjust in the sense that the judge would be usurping his authority.

  • Clavos

    Roger,

    You are correct that it originated in the Arabian Peninsula, specifically in Persia (modern day Iran).

    The original word (transliterated to our alphabet) was Hashashin, and popular lore has it that they were so named because they would smoke hash prior to departing on a mission, but “Edward Burman, in his The Assassins – Holy Killers of Islam, says: ‘There is no mention of that drug [hashish] in connection with the Persian Assassins – especially in the library of Alamut (‘the secret archives’).

    The Hashashin (also Hashasheen) were Shia Muslims.

  • Baronius

    “Meanwhile, this thread is becoming crazy. Can’t we all settle down?”

    Roger, the only crazy thing about this thread is that it hasn’t been dominated by two people, and organic conversation has resulted. This is what free speech looks like.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Please! That is funny. You are going to give an anarchist an authority’s opinion about what is anarchism and expect that’s not going to be problematic? lol

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #147,

    “As for Jordan’s better point about Archie’s remark being an embarrassment to the site, all I can suggest is read a random comments thread, especially one in the Politics section, concerning religion or on a topic likely to attract the attention of juveniles. I think it’s safe to say that Blogcritics has a high embarrassment threshold.”

    Can’t argue with that Doc. You’ve convinced me. I won’t make that mistake again.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I have to catch up. The pages are hard. I am just missing to many things. So, I’ll go back. Roger I think you can probably disregard my last comment to you. You were talking to Clav not me.

  • zingzing

    cindy: “I could have just pointed to zing’s comment #112 had I seen it. It’s comprehensive.”

    you’ll note, of course, that if everyone did that more often, the universe would right itself and all would be well.

    baronious: “I can see an analogy between this and what many refer to as judicial activism. [etc, etc]”

    thing is, though, your analogy doesn’t involve pointing a gun at someone’s face and pulling the trigger. i can see the (again, rhetorical) point you are trying to make, but to suggest that there is any real world comparison to be made is ludicrous.

    what justice to you see in this? did he deserve to die for the things he did?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Oh, Rog, put down the sarcasm stick, it’s giving you blisters.

    Chris and I view the comments policy as a set of guidelines rather than rigid rules. That’s why it says ‘you know them when you see them and so do we’.

    Our objective is merely to keep the discussion at a level which, if it was happening face to face, wouldn’t get you thrown out of the pub.

    We’re not going to jump on every spittle-laced thing that Archie says and bark, ‘Aha! Violation of Comments Policy Article IV, Section 14(c)! Delete!’

    No nanny state here! :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #153, Cindy:

    I hope I did not violate this dictum. If I did, please show me where so I’ll never make that mistake again.

    Baronius, #152:

    You yourself were up in arms a couple of pages ago (not other way to refer to these fuckers) that everybody was misreading everybody else. Well, my friend, that’s what happens when everybody talks and nobody listens – or like there are six cooks in a tiny kitchen.

    So you think this discussion here for the past hour or so has been orderly and productive. You call it “organic.”

    Perhaps so! It’s nerve-wracking to say the least.

    Give me a one on one anytime, two, three perhaps. Anything beyond is a crowd.

    I don’t remember where I heard it first, but I believe seven is the highest number of people you can have in a symposium (seminar) if it is to work. Anything beyond that is diminishing returns.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #157. I wasn’t sarcastic at all. Just gave Archie and friends more rope than I should have. So I simply reminded myself of the fact that Archie is Archie. And that was all I said.

  • Baronius

    Roger, I’ve said this to you on many other occasions. It’s not your right to decide if a thread is one-on-one. It’s selfish to steer a thread in that direction if you’re one of the “one”s.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Same here, Cindy. Tomorrow.

  • Clavos

    I believe seven is the highest number of people you can have in a symposium (seminar) if it is to work.

    Good thing we’re not trying to have a symposium here then.

    So you think this discussion here for the past hour or so has been orderly and productive. You call it “organic.”

    Perhaps so! It’s nerve-wracking to say the least.

    You’re a bit of a control freak, aren’t you, Roger?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    158

    Roger,

    re my #153, no you didn’t It was my mistake. I was responding to a comment you made to Clav as if it were made to me. Sorry for that confusion.

  • Baronius

    “Good thing we’re not trying to have a symposium here then.”

    Thanks for the laugh, C.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Clavos, perhaps we’re having a circus then. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a puritan.

    The sad part is, BC is my only community for now. I had better do something about it because it’s no kind of life.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #158,

    There’s one thing I’ve learned, Cindy, and that is not to cross you (just kidding).

    Baronius – symposium is a feast: great food, wine, women, even boys to those with a different taste, and good discussion.

    Nothing wrong with that!

  • zingzing

    i like circuses.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #160,

    Baronius,

    Sometimes it just happens. Not my design, if you know what I mean – just that others either steer clear of the subjects, are intimidated or not simply not interested in. So don’t try to suggest that I’m working to that end. It’s just as organic a development as the kind you mentioned later, when everyone’s involved.

    Besides, I don’t recall I have ever stopped or tried to stop anyone from jumping in. Do you?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    167,

    As long as they bring bread too, zing. And wine, and women, and young boys.

    Then we’re in business.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    There’s one thing I’ve learned, Cindy, and that is not to cross you (just kidding).

    ROFL!!! I’m sure you are only half-kidding if you are wise. :-) (Just kidding–sort of.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I knew you’d catch me on a half-truth.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    BTW,

    Have you noticed that the Culture and other sites have been taken over by body-snatchers. Baronius would have a field day conversing with all nonesuch.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Forget the forum. Tonight it’s gravy (that’s Italian for spaghetti sauce with meat) with pork Brasciole. Everyone is invited for dinner. (I can fix a goat cheese or cheddar and tomato omelet for Ruvy).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Right. I’ll think of it while I eat my Poor Man’s Shepherd’s Pie. Thanks a lot!

    I’m out of liquor and cigarettes and the check doesn’t come in till tomorrow. Perhaps that’s why so on edge. Enjoy your feast. Tomorrow then!

  • Arch Conservative

    Ruvy had it correct. The liberal,left leaning posters on this site as in society in general are pretty much fascists. Whn they don’t like what someone else has to say their first impulse is to try to have that person silenced such as Jordan did.

    Most everyone else is missing the point of my remarks.

    I do not believe it is OK to go into church and kill another peron. That’s not the point the.

    The point is that Tiller was such a despicable human being that it’s a complete waste of time showing even the slightest bit of concern for what happened to him.

    Zing said…….

    “Yeah, the guy did some controversial stuff.”

    Let’s not pull any punches shall we……

    THE MAN MURDERED BABIES FOR A LIVING.

    The he only did it to save the mom’s life argument offered up by zing is complete bullshit.

    Even if it were true that he only did it to save the mom’s life (which it’s not) he could have also tried to save the babies life rather than killing it once outside the womb.

    Would those of you critisizing my sentiments mourn the assassination of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Bin Laden. Would you lament the vileness of those who did not?

    Bottom line……..George Tiller was one of the most despicable human beings walking the planet and the loss of his life is no great loss. That’s the way it is.

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Arch, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, yes, even you. However, that doesn’t mean that people who disagree with you and are offended are fascists though and saying that just makes you and your ideas sound silly.

    If you are opposed to abortion, don’t have one; what other people do in their lives is actually none of your business and any attempts to stop them would indeed be fascistic, which you appear to be opposed to.

    As you are a big opponent of hypocrisy, remind me, are you pro or anti the death penalty?

    Hypocritical old me is pro freedom of choice on abortion, on the none of my business principle, whilst I am opposed to state execution of criminals on any grounds.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Whn they don’t like what someone else has to say their first impulse is to try to have that person silenced such as Jordan did.

    We have a comment policy. My only concern is that it was enforced. You could have expressed your point in another way instead of saying “good riddance.” Your comment was disgusting and spoke nothing to the issue of abortion or pro-life. It only spoke to the vile cruelty of someone insensitive enough to suggest such a thing.

    The fascist bullshit is more defensive posturing on your behalf and you know it.

    Tiller participated in a legal medical procedure in your country, Arch. If that makes him akin to Hitler and Pol Pot, your troubles with Tiller certainly don’t begin with the doctor and probably should run much, much deeper.

    That you regard violence as even half a solution here demonstrates what is really going on here. You aren’t concerned with changing the discourse or creating peace. You’re concerned with being right, having your point of view be the dominant view, and silencing discourse with a fucking bullet. And I’m a fascist for wanting the comment policy on a website enforced on your inarticulate nonsense?

    George Tiller was one of the most despicable human beings walking the planet and the loss of his life is no great loss. That’s the way it is.

    No, that’s not the way it is. That’s the way you think it is. The “terror” of abortion is couched in the eternal debate as to when “life” begins, not when Arch Conservative decides it does. Tell me: are women who use birth control mass murderers, too? Are they despicable human beings? Where do you draw the line between Pol Pot-style evil and medical issues?

    Instead of acting like your statements are little brown nuggets of gospel truth, perhaps you can contextualize what you’re saying and offer some background to your views. Or would that be too much to ask?

  • Jordan Richardson

    So basically the conclusion here is that Archie gets to “be Archie” but the rest of us are held to higher standards?

  • zingzing

    archie mcnasty: “The he only did it to save the mom’s life argument offered up by zing is complete bullshit.”

    you got any proof of that? i understand the man was in court many a time, but that the court always found him innocent. if what he was doing was against the law, and there are pretty strict abortion laws in place, i would have been fine with him going to prison. i’ve said this before, but you were too busy calling us all fascists to hear anything, that if he was working through loopholes, i think that’s criminal as well. but, the courts never found those loopholes. doesn’t mean he was innocent. but he was tried enough times that i’m guessing it was.

    “Even if it were true that he only did it to save the mom’s life (which it’s not) he could have also tried to save the babies life rather than killing it once outside the womb.”

    i don’t think that’s what he was doing. or at least, that’s not what the courts decided he was doing. it is, on the other hand, what roeber thought he was doing. so he killed him for it.

    face it, archie, you don’t know exactly what tiller was up to. you’re no doctor, nor a lawyer, nor a judge. neither do i know what he was up to. i am none of those things. the courts do, however, know the law, being full of lawyers and judges and juries and such. and they found him innocent. he also had to have a second doctor’s opinion for such a procedure. those doctors decided to ok the procedures. they are doctors.

    again, it’s possible he really was a despicable human being with a hardon for dead babies. i don’t know. but i’m not going to be the one who judges. roeber did. and now you are too.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I hate to be the sole ‘left-wing liberal fascist’ here who thinks that Arch was not being held to a different standard. But, so be it.

    I’m not sure they understood your Hitler et al analogy Arch. But I made the same one earlier. I have yet to go back and see if anyone understood it any better when I made it. I doubt it.

    All my comments were wasted on both left and right.

  • zingzing

    jordan, higher forms of life have to be held to higher standards. you don’t expect a turd to suddenly spout of some shakespeare do you? to offend and judge are distinct offices, and of opposed natures.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Cindy, obviously I don’t think that Archie and Jordan are being held to different standards, but then I don’t associate Anarchism with violence in the way some people do so I’m probably defective.

  • Baronius

    Nah, Chris, you’re probably just less schooled in history.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Understood.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    There may be an interesting parallel in this Daily Kos article about the “joke” by Wanda Sykes that Rush Limbaugh should experience kidney failure. I understand that those in attendance thought the “joke” quite funny. The author of the Daily Kos article said,

    Rush Limbaugh is a hateful and harmful figure, and I have no real compassion for him. I think that is [sic] there is anything to the concept of karma, Limbaugh deserves the bad karma that he would have brought upon himself.

    Oh well, that’s probably OK for those on the “left,” but I agree that those on the “right” should not sink that low.

    Dan(Miller)

  • zingzing

    “Oh well, that’s probably OK for those on the “left,” but I agree that those on the “right” should not sink that low.”

    well, no one’s going around shooting rush in the face, are they?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Zingzing, I thought it might be obvious that I was comparing Arch’s comments about Dr. Tiller with those of the author of the Daily Kos article about Mr. Limbaugh.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Jordan Richardson

    Was Arch regaling us with a piece of internet stand-up comedy?

    I agree that the author of the Daily Kos article was grossly insensitive.

    In terms of Sykes’ Limbaugh joke (and it was a joke, by the way), a majority of MSNBC viewers found that she did, indeed, go too far with her comments.

    It’s far from a left/right issue. And, again, it’s really sickening how every single piece of discourse gets automatically reduced to where somebody stands in terms of political viewpoints. Sometimes the issue is simple human compassion.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius, I may very well be less schooled in History than some but have moved through Anarchist circles off and on for quite some time now, not that I’m committed to Anarchism as a movement, way too rigid for me, ironically.

    However, I don’t see how that has any relevancy to my point. Just because there may have been violent incidents in the past involving Anarchists doesn’t mean it is inherent, just as all the killing in the name of {insert pet peeve here} does either.

    Educational and wonderful as much of our human story may be, the future is always more interesting and important as it offers hope and potential in a way the past rarely can.

  • zingzing

    “Nah, Chris, you’re probably just less schooled in history.”

    actually, baronius, there’s plenty of anarchist thought that totally dismisses the idea of violence as a form of coercion, which, of course, would make violence against the basic ideas behind anarchism.

    the ideas go back a looooong time, and i think that if you really get down to researching it, you’ll find that a vast majority of anarchists do not use/have not used violence. connecting violence to anarchism is like connecting steroids to baseball (although more baseball players do steroids than anarchists blow up things). it’s a recent, highly publicized phenomenon that doesn’t taint the entire history of the thing in question, nor does it taint those who continue to do it as it always has been done.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    wow, what a day. So much to catch up on, not that anyone was waiting.

    I don’t think Arch should be silenced or his comments censored. People deserve to see what a despicable human being he is. And since the censors found some redeeming value in Arch’s comments after the election that Obama should be assassinated and let those stand, his response here is rather mild in comparison.

    Besides, he’s just a blowhard filled with phony sanctimony. If he really did care about all those “murdered babies,” he would have done something about it. Instead, it’s just the same impotent rage spewing out of him in a world he can’t control.

    btw, if Arch doesn’t have a different standard, then why is the common refrain “oh, Arch has said much worse”?

    I find myself in agreement with most of what zing and jordan have said so no reason in repeating their fine points, although it seems ridiculous to argue with someone trying to split hairs between “justice” and “justified”. But then what do you expect from someone who obviously doesn’t understand what “pwned” means?

    And really, Baronius, Cindy is the most like Tiller’s murderer around here (I won’t dignify him by mentioning his name)? Right, because no one else has written articles or comments calling for terrorist tactics in dealing with their enemy. If you are a gentleman, you should apologize.

    Roger, if you found too many people talking at once distracting, then why didn’t you take the lead and stop commenting? You seem to constantly suffer under the delusion that this is your site and should have a say in how it’s to be run, a fact made even odder by the fact that you are still a rookie.

  • zingzing

    i mean really, baronius, you posited earlier that tiller’s killer (i like that) was an anarchist.

    that guy was part of the freemen in montana, who were not anarchists, but anti-gov’t rednecks. they were christian separatists who din’ wanna’ pay no more taxes and just stopped doing so. then, on land gone into foreclosure for over 18 months, SET UP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

    how anarchist is that?

    (not very.)

    so you’re the one that needs to get to know a little history. it doesn’t come in a bible.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch,

    You wouldn’t be poaching your remarks from Wiley Drake, would you?

  • Clavos

    “anti-gov’t rednecks who [don’] wanna pay no more taxes.”

    Sounds like the Freemen have some redeeming qualities after all.

  • zingzing

    “Zingzing, I thought it might be obvious that I was comparing Arch’s comments about Dr. Tiller with those of the author of the Daily Kos article about Mr. Limbaugh.”

    but limbaugh isn’t dead. and that makes all the difference. (gah. i really want to point something out to you, but i’m not going to fuel any fires.)

  • zingzing

    clavos, you don’t want to pay ANY taxes?

    talk to cindy, you have much in common.

  • zingzing

    “that much in common”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #192, “Roger, if you found too many people talking at once distracting, then why didn’t you take the lead and stop commenting? You seem to constantly suffer under the delusion that this is your site and should have a say in how it’s to be run …”

    Now, what makes you say the latter part? I don’t suffer from any such delusion; as to how it’s to be run – everyone’s entitled to an opinion here; and my say is as good as yours, unless you’re a stockholder.

    Next time, I’ll remember though and ask you for advice.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #178 (Jordan)

    “So basically the conclusion here is that Archie gets to “be Archie” but the rest of us are held to higher standards?”

    Jordan, shame on you! You’d like to be held up to Archie’s standard? It’d be the last time I’d as much as look in your direction.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #180, Cindy

    I did ask you a question about it, and then offered my understanding; but you did not respond.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I yi yi!!! I meant besides you or Dr.D, with regard to the comment standing, Christopher. For Pete’s sake–he and you are the ones who let the comment stand, that is a given.

    My sarcasm about the left and right was not aimed at your or Dr.D’s fairness about the comment. It was pointed to Arch in that I have actually been speaking in his defense and at everyone else because no one seems to have noticed (or maybe they don’t really give 2 hoots) that I have been defending Arch.

    So, if you took note of that, then I apologize. I couldn’t read your mind and I have a hard time figuring out what is in there unless you mention it. (But if you did then I am completely crushed that you didn’t care one way or another.)

  • Jordan Richardson

    Good riddance.

    ;)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Okay, here are 42 paragraphs of explanation.

    I’m going to try this one more time.

    Setting aside the fact that the fetus is in another human being’s body and that, imo, we never have a right to force other human beings to do what we want with their bodies. No matter how noble the cause. Setting aside my belief that it is never right to murder people or assassinate them–even if we think they are mass murderers. Now that that is out of the way, I can say I can empathize with Arch.

    Caveat: Don’t read too much into that. It has nothing to do with how I feel about this doctor’s death. It has everything to do with understanding how I a person might feel if someone they saw as a mass murderer were killed.

    I’d think it an exception. I think killing Hitler, once it became apparent what his plans were, the camps and all, would be more than justifiable – in fact the right thing to do. Of course, we’re not talking here of “killing” or “murder” but of “assassination*,” a special term applicable to political figures. (from 131 -by Roger)

    Arch feels that doctors who perform abortions have murdered more people than Hitler. That is what he feels. Whether one agrees with him or not, I doubt anyone can say they would not have the right to feel outraged by what they considered to be mass murder–even if no one else thought it was, or thought much about it.

    I have listened to casual arguments defending war or torture or sweatshops or prostitution or pornography or numerous other things I think of as either mass murder or ‘soul’ murder. I understand how Arch feels, I feel that way about a lot of things that most people don’t.

    Maybe that is why I can empathize with him. Or maybe it is because I spent several hours last night on the fetal pain issue. I looked at arguments from both sides regarding at what point the fetus feels pain and I haven’t yet seen a conclusive argument. I am not convinced. I have a very hard time with this. Enough to change my mind about what I can tell people to do with their bodies? No. But enough to understand if I was thinking of a living human fetus going through such unfathomable pain, that I might be able to understand how someone could ‘feel’ that is murder and ‘feel’ that someone who would do that is a murderer.

    *By the way Roger, assassination, to me, is a fancy word for murder. Although I use it the same way you do in speech–I don’t make special cases. Yes, I see your quotation marks there. To me it is killing and murder without quotation marks. Clearly you understand my vocabulary includes the definition of assassination. So, I conclude that you are making the point that it is somehow in a different category. I think there is a danger of clouding reality and creating comfortable illusions by changing language to make things sound different from what they are. So, I try to avoid doing it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #181,

    exactly, zing. I expressed the same sentiment in #199 before I got to your remark. I’m playing ketchup (Pulp Fiction).

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Big C,

    I would never consider you any less than a ‘left-wing liberal fascist’ :-)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Sorry about #180 Roger I was busy writing that tomb, most likely. Trying to get back to that page without responding to anything else. It’s like sinking in quicksand.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    tomb = tome, unless I actually wrote tome, in that case nevermind. I’m not sure though cuz I’m on page one and what I wrote is on page 42.

  • Arch Conservative

    I never claimed what Tiller was doing was illegal. I implied that it was ammoral, which it was.

    You dolts keep using completely irrelevent analogies to defend this guy. He took babies that were viable outside the womb and ended their lives.

    You can spin it any way you want but the fact is that most normal people, while not condoning his murder, were disgusted by what he did.

    It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which some of you will go to prove how callous and indifferent you are to the millions of lives that have been snuffed out by abortion but yet one man performing PBAs is whacked and you’re all up in arms. It’s just fodder for you to fuel secularist humanist commando agenda of painting anyone even slightly religious as some fundamentalist nutjob two minutes away from blowing up an abortion clinic.

    You can count with both your hands the number of people that have actually been killed in antiabortion violence in the last twenty years but yet the number of babies killed during that time span under the banner of “choice” were they actually born and given names would cover the Vietnam war memorial five times over if listed.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger, re your 200 mentioning my 180, you didn’t respond directly to that. What response do you mean. The Hitler one? If so, okay then we are even. If not please give me more clues.

  • M a rk

    What is most entertaining here is that some look for reasoned consistency from BC’s comment censors who are, after all, Brits.

    And, fwiw, I agree with The Con’s stance on the relationship between vigilantism and justice, but I’m not sure that this can rightfully be considered an arch conservative position.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy #204

    “I’d think it an exception. I think killing Hitler, once it became apparent what his plans were, the camps and all, would be more than justifiable – in fact the right thing to do. Of course, we’re not talking here of “killing” or “murder” but of “assassination*,” a special term applicable to political figures. (from 131 -by Roger)

    “Arch feels that doctors who perform abortions have murdered more people than Hitler. That is what he feels. Whether one agrees with him or not, I doubt anyone can say they would not have the right to feel outraged by what they considered to be mass murder–even if no one else thought it was, or thought much about it.”

    I definitely think it’s categorically wrong to make such a comparison. You can’t equate the two by virtue of “simply how a person feels.” How one simply “feels” about things is never sufficient ground for anything. There are psychopaths running around, all kinds of crazies, people without conscience, people who hear voices, people who say God told them to do so and so. Shall I keep on going ad infinitum here? So that’s the first point of radical difference between the two cases.

    Point #2. My statement was stronger, so why don’t you take it at its strength. I argue that knowing what we know about Hitler, his plans, the camps, etc., etc., – and there were good Germans who did know and were aware of Hitler’s insanity, yes, it was insanity, and who did plot against him – it wasn’t only justified to put him away (whether by assassination or some other means) but the right thing to do.

    To his credit, Archie didn’t go quite that far, although he flirted with the idea.

    Point 3) It’s arguable that Hitler was insane – which is why he was moved to the the whole world to its destruction. Dr. Tiller, on the other hand, was operating within the bounds of the Federal and or State laws; so here’s another point of radical difference.

    I understand now that you may not think much of that reason (because you may believe that laws aren’t always just and perhaps don’t mean therefore all that much). But many reasonable people would disagree. Tiller was law-bound, whereas nothing of the kind could be said of Hitler.

    So there are certain more or less objective facts about the two cases which makes them radically different – and that’s irrespective of what some crazy person merely feels.

    As regards your later point – “assassination.” You may regard it as just “a fancy word for murder.” I disagree, although I grant you that we do have in language words which are “mere fancy words” for other words. This is not the case.

    Language thrives on making pertinent distinctions, because people do. It’s one of the qualities of intelligent life forms to be able to make pertinent distinctions if and when the occasion arises, because more often than not, things are more dissimilar than similar. And so I will press with my argument here that just as homicide is a term that is different that murder, and the latter is different than killing (just as lie, e.g., is different than perjury), so is the case with assassination, which is usually a political act if you will. Clavos spoke of important personages, I narrowed it down to more or less important political figures (for emphasis sake, because political figures are important personages). Which is why “assassination” is not just a garden variety murder, if you will, for any personal reason (such as personal gain, jealousy, etc) but for reasons which transcend individual motivation and concern rather motivation of a more general nature – as part of a liberation movement, eg, to eliminate oppression, things of that nature.

    Enough of this diatribe. Back to you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #209. I just did.

    Mark, Latter part of #210. Where’s the reference? This thread has got too many trees.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Mark, they had to get the English in cos you Seppos couldn’t handle it.

    Now get back under that bridge!

  • Ma rk

    ‘Where’s the reference…’

    yer kidding, right?

    Perhaps not…so, I refer you to The Con’s statement that ‘justice’ had been done.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Let me say this much, so far. I am not trying to construct an iron-clad argument here. I am trying to write something that might help anyone see how Arch feels.

    Okay?

    I’ll get back to you after thinking about the rest of what I might say.

  • Mar k

    I propose an amendment to policy: all comments longer than the original article must be stricken.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ooookay, I’ve had two rather large responses not post for some reason. Damn internets.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Oh, you mean Archie? I thought he’d be out of the equation by now. I wasn’t even aware that he was capable of conceptualizing a relationship. What was that relationship, by the way?

  • Clavos

    zing #s 196/7:

    Actually, I think 196 was more accurate; though I’m far from being an anarchist, I find myself nodding in agreement fairly often while reading Cindy’s posts. Surprising, really, to me because, as I said, I’m no anarchist, but I am against all but the most minimal government, and no I don’t want to pay ANY taxes.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #216: It wasn’t longer, Mark. OR was it?

  • Ma r k

    Chris, I’m a privy man myself…as I’ve pointed out before, no civilized person shits where he eats.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    215, Cindy –

    “I am trying to write something that might help anyone see how Arch feels.”

    Please don’t do that! I am empathetic but I don’t want to have nightmares. I’ll hold you responsible.

  • Arch Conservative

    “It’s arguable that Hitler was insane – which is why he was moved to the the whole world to its destruction. Dr. Tiller, on the other hand, was operating within the bounds of the Federal and or State laws; so here’s another point of radical difference.”

    Are you implying that all laws are moral and that every act that is technically “within the bounds of the law” is moral Roger?

    Zing correctly pointed out that i am not a doctor but you don’t have to be a physician to educate yourself about the reality of what a partial birth abortion is and form an opinion of it. What it is taking a baby halfway from the womb very late in the pregnancy, when it is actually viable outside of that womb and crunching it’s skull.

    George Tiller did this thousands of times. Instead of fully delivering the baby Tiller would begin the normal delivery procedure and end the baby’s life at the halfway mark.

    Disusting, reprehensible, abhorent, these are the only words any reasonable person with a concsience who actually understands what a PBA is would use to describe the procedure.

    While I do not condone the killing of abortionists, even those as heinous as Tiller, I will not keep my mouth shut while he is lauded be the pro-abortion freaks. Every time they lament his death it’s an insult to the thousands of babies whose lives he so callously took.

    So I’ll say it again and maybe again Jordan’s panties will get all bunched up.

    GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Rofl @ Mark.

  • zingzing

    archie, yes, abortion is a problem. no one wants it to happen. but it does have to happen sometimes. it’s unfortunate, but it’s true. there are limits on when you can choose to do that. i would hope that it would NEVER get beyond 20 weeks before you/her could decide, but sometimes, these things happen. if it gets that far, i would say someone has had plenty of time to decide, and probably decided to keep it, but something else got in the way. very few people are that monstrous that they’ll kill a viable JUST to kill it. and i don’t think tiller was one of those people. and neither, i’ll venture, do you.

    clavos: no one wants to pay taxes, but i think we all realize the necessity. and i’m far from being an anarchist as well. i think that, like full-fledged communism, it’s a pipe-dream. we humans are too flawed.

  • Clavos

    so is the case with assassination, which is usually a political act if you will. Clavos spoke of important personages, I narrowed it down to more or less important political figures

    As I pointed out earlier, not just Clavos:

    From the American Heritage Dictionary:

    assassinate

    SYLLABICATION: as·sas·si·nate
    TRANSITIVE VERB:
    1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival’s character.”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Sometimes I think if Mark wrote more than two sentences at a time, I’d be permanently baffled. Roger did you find that reference to Arch’s position on what Mark agreed with yet?

    I’ll go look myself. I hope it wasn’t on page 3.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch, how do you approach the women who choose to have the abortion in the first place? Dr. Tiller is just providing a legal service, not forcing people to have abortions. It’s the women who are really behind the “vile atrocity,” so what do you propose to do with them?

    Lynching? Public stoning? Firing squad? What’s your flavour, chief?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Archie, #223,

    “I will not keep my mouth shut while he is lauded be the pro-abortion freaks.”

    I don’t think anyone here lauded Dr. Tiller. But you were the one who came awfully close to lauding his killing. That’s what the discussion has been about. So let’s focus.

  • zingzing

    archie: “I will not keep my mouth shut while [tiller] is lauded be the pro-abortion freaks. Every time they lament his death it’s an insult to the thousands of babies whose lives he so callously took.”

    no one is “lauding” him. we’re just disappointed that someone thought they had to murder him. we’re not as sure as you are that he deserved to die.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    wow, it’s the night crew. more comments per minute.

    I was laughing at the ‘comment size’ remark Mark, not the privy one.

    (Oh, that one is so not funny to think about. If primativists take over the world I am going to be in for a rude awakening. P.S. I never eat in the bathroom anyway. lol)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #227, Cindy,

    No, I didn’t. But I still insist that you don’t explicate Archie’s feelings. I mean it. I’d have to keep awake all night long and listen to George Noory speak of paranormal phenomena. And that’s just as bad.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos, it seems, has another hit. A half-page reportage generating a full tome of comments.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Zing, #230, mine #229 – posted simultaneously. Same wavelength.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    [psst Mark, Clav is ripe for conversion (#219), take him in the other room and show him the 12 hour film, I’ll get the weird brownies.]

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #231. Not a night crew but a Skeleton Crew – ghosts and goblins.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #235,

    You’re right. It’s unusual. A moment of self-disclosure.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Okay, it is a good think I pasted everything up to comment #160 into a document earlier. So, I think this is the comment about justice:

    #65:

    There’s the legal system, which was never able to hold Tiller accountable for the illegeal partial birth abortions he performed and then there’s real justice. We saw real justice yesterday. (Arch)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To change the mood: Another Way To Die.

  • ma r k

    I’m going on the record lauding Dr. Tiller. His conscience led him to take on some awesome nightmares.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Far preferable, I’d say, than the one Archie had suggested, especially if Alicia Keyes will do the killing.

  • James

    Tiller reaped what he had sown!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Good article here.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jordan,

    Didn’t you copy your comments before you tried to post them? I guess not.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Very deep, James. Shows you’re a bible scholar.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    211 – Roger,

    I will take each point separately.

    1) I definitely think it’s categorically wrong to make such a comparison. You can’t equate the two by virtue of “simply how a person feels.” How one simply “feels” about things is never sufficient ground for anything.

    Tell me how deciding on the issue of what is murder has nothing to do with how people feel?

    For example: You feel that Hitler was a monster. How is that different from how Arch feels about the doctor?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Further to that point, how is that different from some vegans who feel that eating meat is “murder?”

    Where do we draw the line, if ever, would be my question? How far do we go as a society to empathize with those whose qualities of belief draw different lines in the sand than what benefits the whole?

    Arch starts off with a feeling, but the danger is that the “man” who killed Tiller also started off with a similar feeling. Do you empathize with the murderer also?

    I’m not purposely attempting to be confrontational, by the way. I’m only trying to see how deep this thought process runs before it becomes dangerous to society as a whole.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It goes beyond feelings. I gave you a list of the crazies. People hear voices and have feelings. Don’t you think that reasons come into it as well?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Why don’t you listen to the Alicia Keys video? It’s great.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    225 (sings imagine to zing)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So you like John Lennon better?

  • zingzing

    which lines are you singing, cindy? you can’t sing them all.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    I know you gave me a list of crazy people. It has nothing to do with my point. Are you unwilling to try and understand what I’m saying?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #247, Jordan,

    Exactly. To reduce it all to the level of feelings is tantamount to suggesting we should therefore act on the feeling simply because it strikes. See my #248.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Read my #248 again, as well as Jordan’s #247. To say that emotions and feelings underlie and prompt our rational processes is one thing. We all have that common base. But are we therefore all the same in regard to how we act and behave? Of course not. So rational processes also figure in – and they should – when it comes to what we think and how we act. What is it then that I am not understanding about what you’re saying?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    You have no idea and no way of having one, where I am going with my relationship to feelings. You can’t have my perspective because you are not me.

    I take this as a dismissal. That is okay. I think you can’t handle an idea much different than the one you have.

  • zingzing

    roger, cindy.

    you two bitch and bicker like a couple. just to let you know. it’s all buddy-buddy one moment, then fsk-fsk another. you know this, right?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I don’t want to discuss what it is as a topic. It will never help to do that. I want to show you. In order to do that you would have to try to cooperate with me. It’s your choice.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I really don’t understand what you’re saying. Obviously I don’t have your perspective for that very reason. Why do you say I’m being dismissive when I tell you I don’t understand. Do you want be to lie?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Well, that’s ironic.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    zing never watched the addam’s family…i can sing all the line of imagine at once…like that ophelia chick

  • Clavos

    Cindy #235:

    ROFLMAO!

    Bring on the brownies, but just give me the Cliff’s Notes for the flick…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Alright. Show me then!

  • Clavos

    I was just looking at the list of articles with the most comments. One of them says:

    Controversial Abortionist Dr. George Tiller Assassinated in Wichita by Clavos

    No wonder I’ve been hearing those strange clicks and pops on my phone the last couple of days…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jordan,

    Did I misread your #247?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Okay now for a moment forget about Arch. Imagine we have been /are talking about Irene. (Not that I know just what Irene thinks–but I don’t have too. Just anything I say, relate it to Irene.)

    Let me go retrieve my previous comments, this is hard work.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    You feel that Hitler was a monster. How is that different from how Arch feels about the doctor?

    (Don’t second guess me) Just say how it’s different?

  • Clavos

    [Tap, Tap] Is this on?

    I’ll be here all week, folks. Don’t forget to tip your waitress!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    ROFLMAO @ Clav!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    IF we’re talking about feelings qua feelings (and as simples) – at their most primitive, I guess – pure hatred, perhaps, being one example – then PERHAPS there isn’t that much of a difference.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Alright. Give me your response but I’ll resume tomorrow, OK? Everybody’s giving me a hint and I don’t want Baronius to think that this thread is for my benefit only. OK?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Did I misread your #247?

    Nope.

  • zingzing

    cindy, do you feel like you’re pulling teeth? that’s because everyone feels like hitler deserved everything that came to him.

    unfortunately, for lots of people, he was the architect of a racial genocide. there was no one who benefited, in any real way, from his actions. abortion isn’t quite like the holocaust.

    right wingers may paint it that way, but that’s not how it is. abortion isn’t just about one person’s life. it’s about two, and the choice between one or the other, even if that choice isn’t a choice someone wants to make.

    you may come out with your “imagine” thing thang, but i’m not falling for it. there’s a choice in abortion, and it’s not mine or yours or archie’s or anyone’s who isn’t involved to make.

    so an abortionist is not hitler. so yes, hitler deserved what he got. i’d have liked it better if he’d rotted in jail (suffered a rape or two thousand, ate shit strudel, etc.) for the rest of his life, living out his days in his own head, full of spitsenvinegar, but an empty shell of his former self, preaching to his walls. that would have been his most fitting end. a quick end is too good for him, and, if, like tiller never had a chance to be, he was never tried for his true crimes, it makes a mockery of justice.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I see you gliberals are still blabbing away over this murder. Life goes on – and so does death. While you have blabbed on and on and on and on like old women about this, you have all managed to be as silent as a dead lamb about the assassination of William Long, outside of an army recruiting office in Little Rock, AR. It was the same kind of terrorist execution – except that William Long was not a fellow that gliberals admire – he recruited for the US Armed Forces – and his killer was a Moslem convert. We can’t criticize Moslems for murder, can we?

    This talkback was recorded at the Huffington Post article condemning “Christian Terroroism”

    William Long was murdered in a parking lot outside an army recruiting office in Little Rock, AK. Both he and Quinton Ezeagwula were shot at by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim. I have yet to see any article, written by you, Ms. Moore, that would call this man a terrorist. Yet, you are quick on the draw to spout ‘Christian Fundementalist Terrorism’ the moment someone of the christian faith commits murder. If the murderer of this abortion doctor was committed by a Jewish man, would you call this ‘Jewish Fundementalist Terrorism’? … Are you brave enough to be honest with your readers and yourself and write an article that calls this man for what he is? A terrorist? Or not? And if not, why?

    Something for you gliberals with your “nuanced” morals to think about

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks, Jordan.
    Cindy, I’ll respond in the AM. Thank you.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Agreed. However, it’s not really just you I am talking to. I am talking to anyone who doesn’t understand or disagrees with what I said and cares to discuss it. You just happened to challenge me by not answering my questions. Jordan made a challenge too, but I am too tired to keep up with reading.

    (And several refusals to cooperate always gets my attention best.)

  • zingzing

    to #274: is there an article here about that, ruvy?

    or are you just spouting hot air?

    do you know where we’ve been and what we’ve been talking about?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    247 – Jordan,

    I have to think about what you are saying there. I will come back tomorrow.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Ruvy,

    We are solving the world’s major problems in here.

    btw, I made you an omelet, I hope you’re hungry.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    zing i was singing imagine in regard to a specific comment you made about why you couldn’t be an anarchist or a communist. not the rest of the discussion. please try to pay attention, i gave you a comment number to work with, it was right there on page 42.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cindy, your point appears to be that, if you set aside your own beliefs, you can empathize with what Arch believes regarding Dr. Tiller and his murder. That isn’t to say that you agree with him or his assessment or his beliefs, but that you are able to place yourself apart from your self and all that entails in order to see where he’s coming from.

    Is that about right?

    I think that’s a given, quite frankly, and that it almost goes without saying. What I think Roger and the rest of us are trying to get at is where Arch’s feeling goes next. It’s all well and good to empathize with one another, and I strive and frequently fail to do so, but there has to be something more to it.

    In other words, when does empathy become passive acceptance of wrong-headed and potentially dangerous philosophy/theology/ideology?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ruvy, go write an article about it and draw everyone’s attention to it on a larger scale. Or would you rather shamelessly use a murder to criticize individuals having a discussion about another issue?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    btw, I made you an omelet, I hope you’re hungry.

    A woman after my own heart! How the hell did you know I was hungry? I am! Yesterday, in J-lem, I bought 60 pita for 30 shekels (about $7.40). And now, this morning, I intend to have some with houmus, and a cup of coffee. Then it’s off to compose a letter or two to get more work, then it’s off to Ari’el to pay bills – just another day for a write/editor in Samaria.

    Good morning!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jordan,

    I saw no empathy. It didn’t seem to go without saying as far as I saw the reaction. People said his comments should be erased, they were so unconscionable. People said they wouldn’t dare think such things under any circumstance.

    To be reluctant to go where Arch goes next, I can understand.

    Is empathy like a slippery slope?

    Is it necessarily true that understanding turns into passive acceptance?

    If you understand that your three year old got so angry that he struck you, does that imply you accept violent behavior or that you ever would? I guarantee, as a parent you will need to empathize with that three year old to make the right choice for how to approach that problem. If you repeatedly don’t, you will have a problem on your hands. Like teachers who don’t understand students and simply judge them to be miscreants always have problems with their students.

    What if it only opened up our awareness and enabled us to see another person’s perspective more often?

    What if it solved problems rather than created them?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t know that Arch’s two-word response deserves more than it got, quite frankly. I think, through reading Arch’s posts here, most of us gather Arch’s feelings and emotions. That his comment was referenced as being “mild for Archie” and so forth is reflective of the idea that we “know where he is coming from.” And, in this case, where he was coming from was somewhere particularly vile. Thus, you wind up with the response he received.

    Empathy does not mean compassion, agreement, comfort, sympathy, and so forth. It can mean gratuitous attack and even insult once a position of understanding has been reached. When I understand where Arch is coming from, in that he believes abortion is murder and so forth (this, again, was a given when one considers past conversations, etc.), I can then continue to attack or provoke or whatever.

    Empathy is purely just the desire to see or the ability to understand where someone is coming from. Again, not to be repetitive, but we know where Arch is coming from when he says “good riddance” in regards to the murder of another human being.

    In my suggestion that his comments should be erased, that was in reference to the comments policy and I was essentially talked down from that position later on. I understand why the comments should remain. It was not the nature of the comments, but rather the flippant way in which Arch essentially served as cheerleader for a man’s death.

    I don’t know that anyone said they wouldn’t dare think such things under “any circumstance.” I do think that the response was contextualized in what Arch was directly references. Subsequent comments and elaboration reveal support for this thought, too.

    Is it necessarily true that understanding turns into passive acceptance?

    Absolutely not. But it certainly can and it often does. In this case, there are massive similarities in thought process between Arch’s “good riddance” attitude and that of the Army of God and other extremist abortion groups. Arch also, in the past, advocated the assassination of the president. Shall I go on? Again, this argument needs to be contextualized properly.

  • Jordan Richardson

    If you understand that your three year old got so angry that he struck you, does that imply you accept violent behavior or that you ever would?

    I think that’s the wrong question to ask. I think the sheer action of experience the “striking” via three year old is enough to facilitate my capacity to understand. How much more do I need to get, in other words? Transferring to Archie, how much more do I really need to understand in order to fashion a response to “good riddance?”

    Back to the three year old, my empathy then provokes a response. It is ensured, instantaneously, that my child knows that hitting is not okay.

    Like teachers who don’t understand students and simply judge them to be miscreants always have problems with their students.

    I think this is a bit of a different analogy to the three year old AND Arch’s nonsense, but that may be because less detail was provided for my slapping three year old. A teacher who lumps his or her students into the same category lacks empathy, sure, but he or she also incorporates judgment and stereotyping. There are other variables at play. A lack of empathy doesn’t imply that someone’s quick to judge or that someone’s stereotyping. That’s a helluva tangent, too, and I’ll leave that be for now because I want to make some effort to stay on topic without boring the shit out of myself and others…(too late!)

    What if it only opened up our awareness and enabled us to see another person’s perspective more often?

    Always a good idea. We should put ourselves in the shoes of others and so forth. I can put myself in the shoes of Hitler and realize why he felt he needed to kill Jews and wear a ridiculous mustache. “It’s okay; I get it, Hitler,” I can say. But should I say that? No. And should I say “It’s okay; I get it, Archie?” No. The reason I shouldn’t say this is because in order for me to “understand” Hitler (I’m sorry to use Archie alongside Hitler, here, it really is a stupid contrast) I have to violate my own principles to an egregious degree. I get why Hitler acted as he did to a certain extent (I can never have complete empathy with him because I’m not him), but I don’t sympathize or accept or whatever.

    Now do you think Hitler wouldn’t have done what he did had he been more empathetic? Doubtful. I think his ability to empathize, like all of ours, is arranged by our understanding of the world. How much (or how little) we can and will empathize with certain others is impacted by who we are. How much I’ll understand Arch’s perspective is always going to be limited by my own frail human nature. And vice versa. So while I can attempt to grasp that Arch said what he said for his own reasons (honestly, that is a given and really overcomplicates this needlessly), I can’t ever totally put myself “in his shoes” because I’m not him and I don’t want to be. And I bet dollars to donuts he affords me the same treatment.

    What if it solved problems rather than created them?

    Another nice idea in theory, but this requires much more than just empathy and draws an unreasonable conclusion from the entire concept in the first place. That we’d all just agree and create solutions if only we knew where we were coming from is, I think, erroneous.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    288 – Jordan

    Possibly, but Roger wasn’t contextualizing it. He was arguing on the merits. zing too, i think (maybe). No one saw Dan (Miller)’s point that I noticed.

    As far as I know you are the only one that even saw my point (maybe) let alone ‘it went without saying’.

    And really this is not just about Arch. This is about a person who is pro-life. I can show you article written today all over the internet treating everyone like Arch. Now, either Arch gets around a lot or a lot of people seem very much like the people here for some other reason.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Further to empathy, there are some distinctions:

    The extent to which someone has to go in order to imagine him or her self as another person is elaborate and time doesn’t always permit it nor is it always entirely possible.

    Empathy as recognizing other emotions or feelings, however, is probably innate and is often ushered in unconsciously whether we like it or not. In other words, I automatically digest where Arch is coming from and respond in kind. It “goes without saying” because my response automatically predicates how/why/when/where I empathized with Arch and how/why/when/where I interacted with his emotions or feelings.

    This is somewhat related to using tone of voice or facial expressions to empathize with someone. When your kid raises his little arm up to wallop you one across the cheek, you have all the stimuli you need in order to “empathize” because it’s innate.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Well, Arch is far from alone in terms of what his reaction was. I even pointed out a few “soundalikes” in this thread. It’s sadly not uncommon for extreme pro-lifers to react to the murder of a “baby killer” with rousing applause and cheers. Shit, I bet they even had a BBQ.

  • Jordan Richardson

    No one saw Dan (Miller)’s point that I noticed.

    I did and I’m pretty sure I responded a few times, too.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I didn’t say we’d all just agree, did I? I think I even said we might not go where the other person would.

    But, again this isn’t about Arch and now it’s not even about pro-life people. Arch presented an opportunity to speak to a larger issue.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yes it is about a larger issue. Arch happens to be my useful idiot.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Anyways, I’m done with this.

    I hope you’re able to flesh out this larger issue further in the next while, Cindy. From where I sit, it seems pretty damn general and, as such, pretty damn vague.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Yeah, it’s hard to believe that an article not about the tragic murder of William Long filled with comments not about the tragic murder of William Long didn’t generate any discussion about the tragic murder William Long.

    At El Modena High School, just a few blocks from my house, a janitor has been charged today with sexually assaulting a special-needs student over the course of four months.

    Using your “logic,” Ruvy, it appears you support the assailant, since you have not yet spoke out against him.

  • zingzing

    ruvy likes killing, one could say

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jordan,

    About 293. Sorry then, too many pages and I didn’t see your reply to Dan(M). Or I did and I’m just too tired to remember what you said. :-)

    I doubt working on a better definition of empathy will help. We’re not talking about the same experience. People don’t ‘empathize’ with a culture that conflicts with their own in any way that is ‘natural’ or innate, that I can see. It can be a disturbing experience. Most of the time people avoid it. It takes work to do. Rather than being innate–failure to be capable of doing this results in numerous interpersonal problems, including the scores you see every day–broken relationships, generation gaps, wars…etc.

    I hope you’re able to flesh out this larger issue further in the next while, Cindy. From where I sit, it seems pretty damn general and, as such, pretty damn vague.

    The larger issue is the largest issue there is–why is the world the place of conflict it is. I’ll tell you with all the innate empathetic response, I am shocked that people don’t seem to understand one another. Parents have rebellious children blah blah blah… Well, you live here, you know what it’s like.

    I’m sorry, I understand I’m vague and general. I’m not sure I will be able to spell it out or correct that any time soon. It’s a personal failing, so far.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    But if, as you say, you do that to Arch, he does that to you…everyone does that to everyone…(and I agree–everyone does do it to everyone) there are a million reasons why, you either won’t or you can’t (because of your human nature) change it–so, it’s not worth bothering to try. Then, I guess all is as it should be. Everyone is one big happy family. I guess I just didn’t see that there is really no problem.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    257 – zingzing

    you two bitch and bicker like a couple. just to let you know. it’s all buddy-buddy one moment, then fsk-fsk another. you know this, right?

    yeah, reminds me of you and clav. (really, you think i’m kidding)

    all relationships have dynamics…with Dan(Miller) or someone else, i can make a wisecrack. i tried that with Roger a bunch, he didn’t like that.

    with you, i just don’t get annoyed (i guess we’re a happy couple zing too bad you are already clav’s biotch haha!)

  • Jordan Richardson

    I am shocked that people don’t seem to understand one another.

    I’m shocked that people are able to understand each other as well as they do, actually. I’m shocked that human beings are able to communicate at all. Empathy doesn’t guarantee clarity, it just denotes that you “get it.” It doesn’t mean accord, harmony, agreement (yes, I know you didn’t say that), and so forth. We humans disagree because we’re destined to by our very nature and by the very fact that we have nature. We’re born from conflict, we’ll die in it. Conflict with the natural world, with each other, with our own biology.

    I think, frankly, that you’re equating too many traits with empathy. To use dictionary.com, empathy is “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” That’s it. It’s a way of affirming that you “get why Person A thinks what they do.” We are, of course, limited in the degree of empathy we can feel or gather. There’s only so much we can gather in terms of understanding the why. Again, this speaks to the human condition and no amount of effort will fully allow us to transfer into another’s psyche in order to fully grasp where they’re coming from. So by definition, we can only have limited empathy.

    In terms of it being innate, I still maintain that a degree of it is. Cases of Asperger’s or autism are often (not always) characterized by a lack of empathy, for instance. Kids as young as age two develop empathy, even without any clear instruction, because they can respond to facial triggers or emotions. So there’s proof that a basic capacity of emotional recognition may be entirely innate.

    I think the reason there are broken relationships, etc. isn’t necessarily related to empathy. Instead, I think it’s more closely related to what has to come after empathy. As I was getting at with my comments regarding Arch, etc., what comes next is a more important component to the overall equation. There is not one part of me that doesn’t get it when it comes to why Arch thinks what he thinks. But I’m also limited, as he is, in not having his life experiences. There’s only so much empathizing I can do before I need to begin formulating my own dialogue and my own responses. With the information I have received from the stimuli (in this case, what Arch said), I then choose my reaction. That’s the important part: what is done with the empathy.

    In this case, I got angry and I reacted poorly. The solution didn’t lie with a lack of understanding his perspective (that Tiller is worse than Hitler or whatever). It lied with what I did with my understanding. So it wasn’t a lack of empathy but more a lack of self-control and restraint, at least in this case. Other situations call for other actions, and so on. And I frame this in my own understanding, too. For others, such a response might have been appropriate; confrontational responses may be expected, etc. In sum, it’s where you go after the empathy that matters most.

    I guess I just didn’t see that there is really no problem.

    There is a problem, though. It’s that we’re only human. And, honestly, thank god for that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #276.

    I’ll get back to you. I’m certain we can sort this out, to your satisfaction.
    Later.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Very interesting discussion. I totally concur with Jordan that it’s amazing we’ve gotten as far as we have without getting at one’s another throat. A true miracle considering it’s online.
    But as I said, Cindy, the elements of the solution are all there, in the open. All that remains is to flesh it out.
    I’ll get back to you as soon as I make headway with my little piece.

  • Baronius

    ‘It’s sadly not uncommon for extreme pro-lifers to react to the murder of a “baby killer” with rousing applause and cheers. Shit, I bet they even had a BBQ.’

    Care to back that up, Jordan?

  • zingzing
  • Clavos

    zinjg,

    How long have you been posting on these threads? You know you’re not supposed to post raw URLs.

    Sheesh…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And interesting to note that Zing’s post links to a right-wing blog where they are fed up with the pro-life nuts. Good news for the GOP.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Did you read the comments? Not much celebrating. The comments could be split into three categories, with the same ideas that were expressed on this thread:

    – he deserved it / no loss
    – this is going to hurt the pro-life movement / Reichstag fire
    – murder is wrong no matter what

    If there was mention of a celebratory barbecue, I didn’t notice it.

  • zingzing

    dave, if i had posted that from a left-wing blog, you would have bashed me for that. the comments are still the same. of course, some right-wingers are fed up with such nonsense. but it doesn’t change the fact that SOME pro-lifers are having a blast right now.

    and clavos, i so rarely post urls that i sometimes don’t bother to care.

  • zingzing

    baronius, what did you read?

    “It’s too bad the suspect didn’t poke a roto rooter through his skull and then suck him into a vacuum cleaner instead of just shooting the bastard.”

    “One less nazi as far as I am concerned.

    “What goes around comes around…”

    “Hope the guy gets away.”

    “Whatever “church” Tiller attends must be worshipping satan.”

    “One down—how many left to go? The shooter is a martyr, my prayers are with him.”

    “He was aborted….no big deal. Hooray to the gunman.”

    you are blind.

  • Baronius

    Zing, this is what I read:

    “Thou Shalt Not Murder. Both the shooter and the victim will be judged.”

    “Pro-lifers should condemn this as antithetical to their philosophy and beliefs. Hopefully, the perpetrator will be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I will shed no tears that Teller is gone — but MURDER is MURDER.
    Murder is wrong, period, regardless of who commits it.”

    “Hearts need to be changed in order to end abortion. This will not change hearts.”

    “I don’t hope he gets away. I don’t hope a jury is lenient. This is premeditated cold blooded murder and he ought to get the chair.”

    “It’s a bad end for a bad man; and it’s a bad thing.”

    As one of the regulars around here loves to quote, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. The funny thing is, I remember reading the “roto rooter” comment, and immediately forgot about it. We ARE blind to the crazies on our wing. But if “what comes around goes around” looks like a rousing celebration to you guys, then I’m never going to party with you.

  • zingzing

    well, baronius, i never said that “everyone on the right (or pro-life) side is celebrating.” and it’s true that they’re not. but the point was that some pro-lifers are celebrating. and it’s true that they are. you asked for back-up on jordan’s comment, and i was happy to supply. even took it from your side’s blog, so that it wouldn’t be disputed on those grounds.

    so, my point stands, even if i do agree with your final paragraph.

  • zingzing

    “But if “what comes around goes around” looks like a rousing celebration to you guys, then I’m never going to party with you.”

    not a justin timberlake fan, i see.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Care to back that up, Jordan?

    Zing provided some evidence.

    You can also google Army of God. You’ll find the website. I’ve already discussed that particular group elsewhere, so I’d rather not get into linking them again. Disgusting webpage, so be forewarned.

    There are others exactly like that, Bar. Do I really have to wade through more filth in order to prove to you that extreme anti abortion groups celebrate the death of Dr. Tiller? Is it really that hard a point to believe? I didn’t say all pro lifers, I didn’t say moderate pro lifers, etc. I said extremists are celebrating. How much proof do you really need of that statement?

  • Baronius

    It’s not uncommon for extreme pro-lifers…who are uncommon…so it is actually uncommon.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Jordan, there’s no point in proving your position to Baronius. He’s already made clear he will just ignore it.

    “The funny thing is, I remember reading the “roto rooter” comment, and immediately forgot about it.”

    Yeah, funny how selective amnesia allows a person to remain in a state of denial.

  • Baronius

    EB, that statement was introspective candor. It’s hard to rub introspective candor in someone’s face.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Please. If you are blind to the crazies, how exactly do you expect to have to have an honest dialogue about the crazies Jordan was talking about?

    It’s fair to ask for proof of Jordan’s contention, but then when it’s offered by Zing, you conveniently forget it, and choose to focus on his obvious, and likely intentional, hyperbole.

    So no one mentioned bringing potato salad. You certainly showed Jordan.

  • leighann

    I think that the reason Arch (and others?) may think that all pro-lifers are being called extreme terroists is becuase it is often stated something like “extreme pro-lifers” or “extreme, right-wing terrorist christians” so that it seems like the words “extreme” and “terrorists” are being used as adjectives to describe all pro-lifers or christians rather than a way to specify a very small group of pro-lifers or SO CALLED christians. Maybe is is just a misunderstanding.

    I personally do not think that someone who would kill an abortion doctor or be happy that someone killed him is truely a christian (if so they are very misguided) or pro-life. That being said I detest partial birth abortions, I do think it is murder and I will say it to anyone who asks. That does not mean that I am encouraging the murder of people who are practicing it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    If you’d like to pursue our discussion, I’m game. I provided you with an answer to your last question, so you see that I’m cooperating. I know the resolution is in sight, if you’re willing of course.

    I’ve progressed enough with the article I’m working on, so I’ll be able to give you my undivided attention. And I know you deserve nothing less.

    Roger

  • Jeannie Danna
  • Jeannie Danna

    #317 here is a perfect example of right wing terrorism! (O’Reilly: ‘If I Could Get My Hands on Tiller … ’)
    I don’t hear anyone on MSNBC calling out the wolves…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Hi, Jeannie. Good to hear from you.
    I’m still alive.

  • Jeannie Danna

    Hi Roger :), I figured even after that “little terrorist act” on me and my political opinions that I still have a voice here whether everyone likes it or not. Did you read my Kinzua Dam article Roger? It is a nice break from this and it would relax you.
    Glad you are still alive!!!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m going to read it shortly after I’m done with my next article.
    Thoughts of my demise have been postponed for at least a month. So you’ll have to put up with me for the next thirty days, it seems.

  • Jeannie Danna

    Oh we will will keep you around longer than that.Think of all the hot debate you would miss…:)

  • Jeannie Danna

    What’s your next article about?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    On torture. But let me forewarn you. You might disagree.

    But you’re right. There’s still enough life left in me. I’ll try to stick around.

    Have you looked at “Love & Murder in Cyberspace”?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I provided you with an answer to your last question, so you see that I’m cooperating.

    Ah, I see you got my point on cooperation. (That you’d have to answer the questions–setting aside your defense/offense for a moment.) But I don’t find the answer you are referencing. (confused)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Answering the questions may be past purpose. Maybe you’d just rather say how the discussion resolves.

    (It’s not the format that is important.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    Well, you put the question to me about raw feelings. And I think it’s on the right track, which is why I’d like to stick with it. I gave you a qualified response. So why don’t you carry the ball for the next ten yards.

    See, I’m cooperating.

    BTW, I’m going to take a nap for an hour or so. Just finished my article (you’re gonna hate me for it) and submitted it to Clavos. Was working on it since four AM. So I deserve a rest.

    Post your response and I hope a provocative question. I don’t want you to think that no one’s listening. And I’ll do my best not to “contextualize.” I think I do understand why you want to keep the discussion on a general level. And I can deal with it.

    Later.

    Roger

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Sorry. I am confused. I have no idea what you mean.

    Well, you put the question to me about raw feelings.

    I don’t think I did. I don’t think you understood I only meant to guide you through a scenario that would be parallel, so I could hope to get you to see something yourself.

    ‘Cooperation’–try not to read too much into what I meant by that. It was factual assessment not a judgmental complaint. By not answering the direct questions I kept posing—you failed to cooperate with what I was trying to do. That’s all I meant.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #330:

    I’m referring to your #267 and my #270. Your move was next. But if you want to drop it, fine with me.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Thanks for the reference. I needed it. And sure I will continue.

    I am not sure if I am only speaking about ‘raw feelings’. I think you are reading something into what I’m saying. Or taking my scant question and heading off somewhere else.

    That’s why I asked if you were willing to just answer the questions (cooperate) without reading into my motives. It complicates things when you do that. You’re smart (you can likely often second guess people). But not that smart (you are, after all, talking to me :-) LOL –I couldn’t resist!)

    Now, I don’t know if what you are saying has anything to do with where I was going or not. So, why not take the lead and continue your explanation as I hardly can take the lead from where you derailed me.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’ll have to do it little later, Cindy. OK? I’m just about wiped-out; the article’s just been published.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Any time Roger. Have a good rest.

  • Jeannie Danna

    Hi Cindy, You know, I wanted to comment on the video “The really old revolutionary” but I am not a member of that site. So I’ll comment to you directly. I like him…:)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hiya Jeannie :-)

    I am sure I just missed you again.

    I am so glad you like him. The wise old revolutionary is one of my very favorites. I have grown used to seeing him once in awhile as a reminder.

  • woodzee

    He destroyed himself.