[civilian_number_two]

I feel like a lot of the more vitriolic prose in this quote is directed at me, since I'm the only one that posted any stats. Please note that the only 2 people bringing up "pro-life" violence prefaced those statements, in my own case repeatedly, that these incidents represent a tiny minority of that political movement. I posted the stats ONLY because the attacks were dismissed as "just a guy who killed a doctor," and that was tremendously incorrect. Nobody was posting that information to prove the pro-life movement wrong, so please, don't tell me to "shut the fuck up."

Ok, so according to the stats you posted, in the last THIRTY YEARS in two countries, there have been 7 deaths and about 1000 death threats, along with some other acts of vandalism and violence, associated with the abortion argument. You're right; that is more than one guy killing a doctor, but you must be able to see that as violence associated with issues go, that's relatively tame. The movement for women's suffrage was a bloodbath in comparison. The protests against the Vietnam war resulted in far more violence, even from the peace-promoing left, and time. So, if your ONLY point was to prove that in the last thirty years the stat is more than just the one guy, then woo hoo, point taken. Since you have NO intention of using those stats to make alots and lots of vandalism and theft. The IRS receives more death threats annually at taxny claim that opponents of abortion are violent or even to lend any credibility at all to those who make such a claim, I have no argument with you. High five.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

How many times do I have to explicitly say that the numbers I presented do not reflect on the majority of the pro-life movement? I posted them ONLY because someone dismissed that extremist minority as "a guy that killed a doctor." Clearly, it's far more than that. No, it's not some kind of epidemic or representative of the pro-life movement as a whole, nor did I ever even come close to claiming such a thing, despite your best efforts to insinuate I did. I simply took issue with several very serious acts of criminal violence being written off as "a guy that killed a doctor." Maybe next time you should read everything before your spout of declaring who has and hasn't done what. I very clearly prefaced that entire post with this:

Secondly, while anti-abortion violence is a tiny, tiny extremist sect of that movement, to dismiss it as just "some guy killing a doctor" is appalling.

Before you even had a chance to completely spin and make up things about my intentions I said this:

In my previous post, I went out of my way to point out that pro-life supporters who attack or kill abortion doctors/health care workers are in the tiny minority of that movement, so too are these phantom women who get abortions left and right "like it ain't no thang."

Now let's get to your actual response:

Ok, so according to the stats you posted, in the last THIRTY YEARS in two countries, there have been 7 deaths and about 1000 death threats, along with some other acts of vandalism and violence, associated with the abortion argument. You're right; that is more than one guy killing a doctor, but you must be able to see that as violence associated with issues go, that's relatively tame.

And I never claimed that it wasn't. I made specific statements recognizing how relatively minor these incidents are. I only wished to debunk the "one guy killed a doctor" statement.

The movement for women's suffrage was a bloodbath in comparison. The protests against the Vietnam war resulted in far more violence, even from the peace-promoing left, and time.

Couldn't agree more. Both, however, are complete strawmen here. I never even came close to claiming the violence within the abortion debate is somehow "worse" than that over anything else. With the above quote, you're the only one who has done such a thing.

So, if your ONLY point was to prove that in the last thirty years the stat is more than just the one guy, then woo hoo, point taken.

It was, and thank you for the condescending tone. It went great with that side of "shut the fuck up."

Since you have NO intention of using those stats to make alots and lots of vandalism and theft.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're actually saying here, but as we've already established, no, I had no intentions to do anything other than what we just agreed on above.

The IRS receives more death threats annually at taxny claim that opponents of abortion are violent or even to lend any credibility at all to those who make such a claim, I have no argument with you. High five.

If you can point out where I posted anything even remotely similar to comparing the abortion movement violence to the threats and attacks received by another group or organization, this might not be the rude and downright insulting response it actually is. No, you don't have an argument with me because you apparently had to rush in all hot bothered to make one up because it seems like you glossed completely over what I said and only saw the stats I posted.

Hopefully we've now clarified what my intentions were and still are. I wasn't trying to pick a fight...I was just trying to correct a small but frustrating error.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 21 August 2006 - 10:37 PM

[natalie]

That's an American show that I can't wait to get shown over here. I would imagine that pro-life and pro-choice people would probably find some things in common, but since pro-life are majority extremist Christians, and there is no real majority over pro-choice that I am aware of, maybe not.

I have a feeling the most intense arguement would be about the babies right to live. That's the main argument that pro-life seem to use because its the only one they have that makes any sense whatsoever, as Mr. Cobant explained (accidently) for us.

Yah... as base from the video clip both sides are reasoning out their beliefs, the babies' right to live is really a sensitive issue that must be handled carefully. I hope each side will clarify their statements and show concern for the babies and mothers.

[Cobnat]

No they don't, because there is a difference in flaming someone without any reason, and pointing out the defects of someone's arguments. If you get pissed off at people because they get pissed off at your hateful rants (which don't seem to have any coherence whatsoever, by the way), then you might consider shutting up.

Please, I stopped my 'hateful rants' pages ago.

P.S. Cobnat: Just because someone disagrees with your view (which you can at least admit is eccentric) doesn't mean they are insulting you personally. So when you come back with personal insults to them because they only argued against your opinion (WHICH IS WHAT THE DEBATE CLUB IS FOR), of course they're going to insult you back. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with your views, leave the Debate Club. I don't think it would be fair to shut down an entire thread just because you can't keep your trap shut. No more flaming. Thanks.

Its not that they attack my opinions, its that they imply that Im stupid (or at the very least theres something wrong with me) for having those opinions.

Cobnat, I think you're getting "lots of sex" confused with "lots of sex with multiple partners." It's a very different thing, and before you attempt to bring this up, yes, you can have lots of sex with just one partner.

Oh... thats what I ment, I just couldnt manipulate it into proper words.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Alright, what's a "lot of partners" then? I ask this in all seriousness. Which number crosses the line?

[Spoon Poetic]

I'd say that it's not so much as a number, but that it's not a good idea to have careless sex. As in, sex without protection, without knowing your partner's history. So many people go out and just pick someone up in a bar and go have sex, without any thought to what possible STDs they might have. However, that has nothing to do with abortion. But you asked.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I'd say that it's not so much as a number, but that it's not a good idea to have careless sex. As in, sex without protection, without knowing your partner's history. So many people go out and just pick someone up in a bar and go have sex, without any thought to what possible STDs they might have. However, that has nothing to do with abortion. But you asked.

But that's all common sense. You can have "careless sex" with someone you've been dating or even married to for years. The issue that kept getting brought up here was "too much sex," which was then modified to "too many partners." Well, what does that mean? Is 3 OK, but 4 isn't? 7? 11? 26? What's the cut off point that designates one has now crossed over into having "too many partners?" As long as you use protection, how can you have "too many?" Sure, accidents can happen pregnancy-wise, but accidents can happen with your girlfriend or wife, too. What's the difference between having sex with 50 different people once and sex with your wife 50 times in the same timeframe? Assume protection is used in all of those times...is a pregnancy in the former category somehow "worse" than one in the latter? What if nobody in either group wants a child? Can the people in the former group be "more wrong" for wanting an abortion than someone in the latter, even if all consider it a mistake? That's the kind of twisted debates that come up when vague notions of "too much sex" and "too many partners" are tossed out in an abortion debate.

[civilian_number_two]

How many times do I have to explicitly say that the numbers I presented do not reflect on the majority of the pro-life movement?

Once more, as always. I was not "hot and bothered" by the way. You don't have what it takes to get that sort of reaction from me.

Hopefully we've now clarified what my intentions were and still are. I wasn't trying to pick a fight...I was just trying to correct a small but frustrating error.

Citing stats to "correct" a literal statement while agreeing with its general sentiment is, well, there's a word for it. I don't see why the error (actually probably not erroneous, but rather a rhetorical "oversight") was all that "frustrating," but that's the internet for you. You get folks all the time flying off the handle about typos and grammar.

That was my point, so please don't worry. I read your entire post and still felt it was worth the response I sent, typos and all (typos mine, I mean). I got that you meant that abortion-protest-related violence was low, and that you were just trying to mouth off about a minor point with loads of boring Internet research. You in fact were making the same point made by the original post, that violence is low; you simply wanted to bring in the actual numbers so as to correct the erroneous off-the-cuff stat forwarded by another member. That effort is what was worth belittling.

Sorry you took it so badly, but how could I have any control over that? When I said "please shut the fuck up" I was referring to anyone wanting to post any more stats on abortion protest-related violence in an effort to show that pro-life people are violent, and yes, this is something folks do all the time, and have done in this thread even, which is what got this ball rolling with you in the first place. Since you weren't yourself doing that, but simply correcting a frustrating error, how could I have meant you? Trust me again, I understood your purpose. I wanted however to nip in the bud any idiotic support your stats might have raised (stats you yourself have said prove the opposite point to what they might appear to prove, ie that violence is high). So that demand is for those other people, not for you. Note you're never named in the paragraph, so etc.

[Cobnat]

Alright, what's a "lot of partners" then? I ask this in all seriousness. Which number crosses the line?

I dont know, 50 maybe? But I doubt that any sensible person would reach that number.

I think there are many factors to consider, though.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 22 August 2006 - 02:32 AM

[Slade]

Civ: I read that post of yours as fairly irate at Mr. Pants. Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but I found your tone to be quite vexed.

I also need to concur with Spoon that it isn't the number of partners, but practices with those partners that are the dangers. Make sure the places you're going to stick your body parts are clean before they get put there (or if you're going to have other's parts stuck in you, make sure you know where those have been too). The difference between having sex with one person 50 times and sex with 50 people is quite simply the fact that you might not know where they've all been in the past.

Anyway, after this spectacular tangent, let's get back to the debate, shall we?

[Cobnat]

I also need to concur with Spoon that it isn't the number of partners, but practices with those partners that are the dangers. Make sure the places you're going to stick your body parts are clean before they get put there (or if you're going to have other's parts stuck in you, make sure you know where those have been too). The difference between having sex with one person 50 times and sex with 50 people is quite simply the fact that you might not know where they've all been in the past.

So what your saying is that I/people should stick to virgins?

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 22 August 2006 - 08:19 AM

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

So what your saying is that I/people should stick to virgins?

Heh...that would be awful.

[Cobnat]

Heh...that would be awful.

Yes becouse then the world will run out of virgins... then who do we have sex with!? WHO!?

[David-kyo]

You missed the point.

[Madam Corvax]

Slade: You do use the "mod stick" more on people you think are smart enough to know better. I have seen this on a lot of forums. Folks who are seldom chastized ought to recognize they aren't considered intelligent enough to take scolding lightly, and they are left alone in the hopes that if we all ignore them, they will go away. I for one can't ignore them, as I like making fun of stupid trolls. So the more you don't mod them, the more you'll have to mod me. If you end up banning or chasing away guys like me, you'll see less of that, sure, but more of the ignorant and silly sort, the sort you won't mod. Take your pick.

I just want to add that this is exactly what I I wanted to say only I did not have the guts to say it aloud. Thanks, Civ.

However, I do not agree with you that abortion is about white people only. Other races are also not allowed to have abortion. USA has withdrawn any support to abotion charities operating in Africa. Moreover, they also withdrawn their support for using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in countries like Kenya. Whereas it used to be ABC against aids (Abstinence, Being faithful and COndoms) not they preach only A and B, because otherwise US would not give their funds. Well, it ends with preaching only, doesn't it.