Planned Parenthood hostage situation

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Which is my EXACT point. Neither is a good excuse, wrong is wrong and ppl should just cut it out. Especially when they should know better.

-_-

Basically: "Hey guys, we don't really know what the motives behind the shooting just yet, is it ok for us to wait a bit til we have more information before we start jumping onto pro-lifer's throats?"

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yes, but the point remains, while such discretion is admirable it's also worth pointing out that it coincidentally only seems to exist when the alleged criminal is John Johnson White Man from who's-ville, which is the beef that people in this thread are having. When Achmed or D'vonte kill someone/get killed, it's automatically "terrorism" or "thug".

Don't get the point you're trying to make. Are you saying two wrongs make a right?

Maybe he thinks if we don't talk about the hypocrisy when it occurs we'll never change it for the better.

Maybe. Who knows!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe he thinks if we don't talk about the hypocrisy when it occurs we'll never change it for the better.

And we'd be in agreement about the existence of said hypocrisy.

But there's hypocrisy on both sides. Hell, I'm as guilty as anyone here at jumping the gun sometimes. Doesn't excuse those that should know better from falling into the same behavior that they themselves would strongly condemn had it fallen on the side that is against their own political ideologies.

Edit. As I do not remember ever assuming that a terrorist activity with no information provided as from coming from a muslim, I do not get how his little comment on "coincidentally" is coming from.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is also a way that crime breeds more crime. Someone see's someone else and thinks "so and so is doing it and appears to be getting away with it, so I can too" not realizing that the more crime there is the worse it is for the criminals just as much as the cops.

It's basically a circle that never ends. Everyone on both sides are paranoid and everyone has guns.

Depending on the specific situations, it often happens one-way to boot. One side just *assumes* the other is bad... and consistently are the ones that escalate, they just convince themselves the other side would do so given a chance.

Originally posted by Q99
Depending on the specific situations, it often happens one-way to boot. One side just *assumes* the other is bad... and consistently are the ones that escalate, they just convince themselves the other side would do so given a chance.

Ur one to talk, you don't even know the motive here.

Originally posted by Q99
Depending on the specific situations, it often happens one-way to boot. One side just *assumes* the other is bad... and consistently are the ones that escalate, they just convince themselves the other side would do so given a chance.

There is no one side that does shit more, no one side that escalates it more then the other. The cops, the gangs, racists, religious people, whatever examples you want to use.

Both sides do it, both sides have hypocrisy out the wazoo, and both need to change. Let us leave it at that.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is no one side that does shit more, no one side that escalates it more then the other. The cops, the gangs, racists, religious people, whatever examples you want to use.

Both sides do it, both sides have hypocrisy out the wazoo, and both need to change.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is no one side that does shit more, no one side that escalates it more then the other. The cops, the gangs, racists, religious people, whatever examples you want to use.

Both sides do it, both sides have hypocrisy out the wazoo, and both need to change. Let us leave it at that.

Uh, in specific matchups? Heck no.

There are plenty of cases where people who have launched precisely zero killing sprees or terrorist attacks have been hit by them.

You know, like this situation.

This is the 'golden mean' fallacy, that the truth is always in between. The true is, sometimes both sides are equally at fault, sometimes both are but one more-so, and sometimes the problem really, really is coming from one side.

This thread is misleading and stupid, its like we have to discus every time a death occurs anywhere around the world and dissect every angle of if, only to come up with nothing.

Originally posted by Q99
Uh, in specific matchups? Heck no.

There are plenty of cases where people who have launched precisely zero killing sprees or terrorist attacks have been hit by them.

You know, like this situation.

This is the 'golden mean' fallacy, that the truth is always in between. The true is, sometimes both sides are equally at fault, sometimes both are but one more-so, and sometimes the problem really, really is coming from one side.

This topic seems primed to turn into yet another thread that boils down to the following:

Person 1-Both sides are wrong, but side A more then side B
Person 2-Both sides ARE wrong, but B is obviously more wrong then side A

*repeat 80 billion times*

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This thread is misleading and stupid, its like we have to discus every time a death occurs anywhere around the world and dissect every angle of if, only to come up with nothing.

This is one valid point, if we have indeed been told not to post about every shooting that occurs then what is the criteria for what makes a shooting topic worthy? I'd have to hire a full time stuff just to post every shooting in Chicago, but I digress.

Is the criteria the number of people killed? Is it if hostages are or are not taken? Is it if the crime has racial or religious motivations behind it? Is whether or not the perpetrator has been caught a detail that matters? Does the tone of the thread or the title matter(some people post baitful titles)?

Originally posted by Surtur
There is no one side that does shit more, no one side that escalates it more then the other. The cops, the gangs, racists, religious people, atheists, whatever examples you want to use.

Fixed it for ya. 👆

Oh you special little snowflake you.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is one valid point, if we have indeed been told not to post about every shooting that occurs then what is the criteria for what makes a shooting topic worthy? I'd have to hire a full time stuff just to post every shooting in Chicago, but I digress.

Is the criteria the number of people killed? Is it if hostages are or are not taken? Is it if the crime has racial or religious motivations behind it? Is whether or not the perpetrator has been caught a detail that matters? Does the tone of the thread or the title matter(some people post baitful titles)?

Lestov is just a drama queen and looks for any opportunity to take digs at pro life people. His OP was completely misleading and he had had no solid facts about his uneducated opinion which still has not been confirmed...by anyone.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This thread is misleading and stupid, its like we have to discus every time a death occurs anywhere around the world and dissect every angle of if, only to come up with nothing.

Not to mention how the OP is baiting with "pro-life douchebag". Funny how, for example, when someone makes a thread about two black thugs killing a pastor's wife it gets closed immediately while one like this one gets to remain open.

Originally posted by Surtur
This topic seems primed to turn into yet another thread that boils down to the following:

Person 1-Both sides are wrong, but side A more then side B
Person 2-Both sides ARE wrong, but B is obviously more wrong then side A

*repeat 80 billion times*

Uh, just a reminder, we're talking about a situation where one side that has shot *no one* was attacked- for whatever reason- and was shot at, and they've been shot at before.

Even most complaints about them tend to gloss over that they lower the number of abortions and provide a whole *ton* of health services that save lives, all the time.

One side isn't in the wrong here. Someone attacked a medical clinic. They are in the wrong.

This is not a case for the golden mean fallacy. It's victim-blaming BS, especially in this case. The golden mean is a fallacy in other circumstances too, one should always look at who actually did what rather than assuming parity. Blaming a medical facility for being attacked is.... grossly inaccurate.

Surely you know this wasn't just about abortion/planned parenthood right? I mean you and I were quite literally talking about crime breeding crime and all that. I tended to think at that point we'd move beyond just that, which is why I said these things just turn into..well, what I said.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely you know this wasn't just about abortion/planned parenthood right? I mean you and I were quite literally talking about crime breeding crime and all that. I tended to think at that point we'd move beyond.

Hello? I'm talking about how you can't apply the golden mean to all situations- and shouldn't for most in general because situations tend not to be quite that simple, but in some situations it's just totally wrong, one side is simply at fault.

You've been arguing that it should... well, here's your quote:
"There is no one side that does shit more, no one side that escalates it more then the other."

If you didn't mean to apply it to all situations, and you didn't mean to imply that there's always mutual blame, what did you mean?