Planned Parenthood hostage situation

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You mean the "witness testimony" about his rantings? Guy sounds like he's mentally deranged. Hey, it may have well beeen his motivation to shoot ppl. Crazy ppl attach to anything to do crazy things all the time. The same way one cannot blame a movie for a crazy guy who thinks he's the Joker for ppl getting shot in a cinema or video games for when kids decide to shoot up a school. As with anything, insane actions such as these tend to have a deeper cause than simple percieved "influencers" such as this.

Again, I ultimately agree that he's responsible, but you're combining a fictional movie with outright lies meant to incite an emotional reaction as being equal.

Do you honestly feel that people are completely unaccountable for what they say?

I would ask what about those killed at Charlie Hebdo? Were they partially responsible for their own deaths?

I wouldn't combine something that's obvious satire with a lie meant to incite an emotional response.

It's like saying there's no difference between calling someone a 'mother f'er' and making a speech in how they saw a video on said person having sexual relations with their mother and it's true.

Originally posted by Robtard
So coincidence in your mind? Did he not mention "baby parts"? Haven't followed since yesterday.

Again, I ultimately agree that he's responsible, but you're combining a fictional movie with outright lies meant to incite an emotional reaction as being equal.

Do you honestly feel that people are completely unaccountable for what they say?

No. Not coincidence. Irrelevant (mostly).

All rhetoric does is incite an emotional response. What we do with our emotions is wholly up to us. Crazy ppl do not need all that good a reason to do crazy things. That's what makes them crazy.

The only exception I could think of would be that if the message/lie forces us into a reaction due to it propagating a direct personal stake (such as a lie that we, or our family, will come to direct harm). And then it's even subjective as it needs to be lawfully/morally convincing enough that no other recourse was available.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wouldn't combine something that's obvious satire with a lie meant to incite an emotional response.

It's like saying there's no difference between calling someone a 'mother f'er' and making a speech in how they saw a video on said person having sexual relations with their mother and it's true.

I don't get your reasoning in this. Both were meant to incite an emotional response. One is either responsible or NOT for their own words/rhetoric/message. You cannot apply it to one thing and not the other.

False comparison. You are implying that the message has a DIRECT personal stake to the receiver at hand. It does not. The video did not say that it was selling YOUR baby's parts. It said that it was selling baby parts in general. A closer approximation would be calling someone's mother a "!(£!£er" (Hebdo) and another saying that this guy likes to f"*K mothers (PP video).

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence,

🙄

It does. We've seen this time and time yet again. Guess you don't keep up with the news that much here in the U.S. like you claim you do if you really believe what you say.

Nibedicus,

Can't quote you, I think the use of your signs has broken the KMC quote function.

But again, you're back to the "he must be crazy", which we spoke about earlier. Yes, I know you're Asian and not white, but the media and it's influence is there.

Because satire is satire. Might as well say all speech is the same, be it satire or open hate-speech.

Disagree, it was a perfect comparison. Unless you're new to the language, no one actually takes the insult of being called an "mother f'er" as a serious claim. It's little more than a figure of speech.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence, if it wanted to it could be much more aggressive and emotional (like "pro-life" rhetoric), really it is the opposite, it asks for less violence. There is of course a large level of anger and aggression in many minority communities over the (factual) racially discriminating actions of the police force and that can lead to violence.

Violence perpetrated in line with the views of the majority is still wrong.

Not entirely true

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/

Originally posted by Robtard
Nibedicus,

Can't quote you, I think the use of your signs has broken the KMC quote function.

But again, you're back to the "he must be crazy", which we spoke about earlier. Yes, I know you're Asian and not white, but the media and it's influence is there.

Disagree, it was a perfect comparison. Unless you're new to the language, no one actually takes the insult of being called an "m-f'er" as a serious claim. It's little more than a figure of speech.

Yeah, couldn't edit my message either for some reason. Forums are brokenz.

I think the reverse is true. It is not media that has influenced me to think ppl are crazy. I think ppl are influenced by media to NOT see crazy acts as done by crazy people first (due to political agendas and rhetoric). Shouldn't we consider the possibility of a person being crazy FIRST when he does crazy things? Normal ppl don't kill other ppl just because some rhetoric pisses them off. It takes a heck of a lot of brainwashing and conditioning for that to be even possible.

No it was not. Direct personal stake would almost always cause a person to react. Some general reality that makes them mad? Not as much. You tried to equivocate a message with a direct personal stake on the listener vs one that does not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, BLM's rhetoric does not incite violence,

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/08/30/black-lives-matter-chant-called-disgusting-by-police-leader/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LYvnqyIZc

That one above happened not even a day after a black p-o-s walked up to a deputy at agas station and shot him in the back of the head like the coward ass he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8#t=30

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/09/02/exposing-black-lives-matter-for-what-it-is-promotion-of-cop-jilling-n2046941

http://therightscoop.com/black-lives-matter-called-for-lynching-of-whites-and-police-days-before-deputys-murder/

Wake the ****up and take off your blinders. This is just a small sample too.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yeah, couldn't edit my message either for some reason. Forums are brokenz.

I think the reverse is true. It is not media that has influenced me to think ppl are crazy. I think ppl are influenced by media to NOT see crazy acts as done by crazy people first (due to political agendas and rhetoric). Shouldn't we consider the possibility of a person being crazy FIRST when he does crazy things? Normal ppl don't kill other ppl just because some rhetoric pisses them off. It takes a heck of a lot of brainwashing and conditioning for that to be even possible.

No it was not. Direct personal stake would almost always cause a person to react. Some general reality that makes them mad? Not as much. You tried to equivocate a message with a direct personal stake on the listener vs one that does not.

Yes, it was. "Baby killing" can get very personal to someone, especially with how the anti-choice crowd can whip things up at times. But we're not going to agree here I assume, so that's that.

Both sides can get "whipped" up, or are we just going to forget the leftist bombers?

Originally posted by Robtard
So any and all killers should be viewed as "crazy, until proven otherwise"?

Yes, it was. "Baby killing" can get very personal to someone, especially with how the anti-choice crowd can whip things up at times. But we're not going to agree here I assume, so that's that.

No. Anyone who perform crazy acts are crazy until proven otherwise. Killers have other (more realistic) motives for killing. Crimes of passion, war, scheming to get money, desperation, etc.

Something that CAN be taken personally is different from something that IS personal. One is subjective to the listener, the other is direct and quantifiably evident regardless of listener (although each listener will have a different reaction).

Replace "baby killing" with "institutional racism" and replace "anti-choice crowd" with "BLM" in your latter paragraph and see where it takes you.

Which ones?

For sure though, there's idiots on both sides. Not sure how another bad action somehow excuses this one.

The title of this thread keeps making me think there is a still a hostage situation.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No. Anyone who perform crazy acts are crazy until proven otherwise. Killers have other (more realistic) motives for killing. Crimes of passion, war, scheming to get money, desperation, etc.

Something that CAN be taken personally is different from something that IS personal. One is subjective to the listener, the other is direct and quantifiably evident regardless of listener (although each listener will have a different reaction).

Replace "baby killing" with "institutional racism" and replace "anti-choice crowd" with "BLM" in your latter paragraph and see where it takes you.

So what makes this guy killing three people "crazy", but say any black on black gang-killing not crazy; instead they're "thugs" or "those animals"?

Not sure you know Robert Dear's mindset well enough to judge what he did or didn't take personal. What we do know, he apparently did say "no more baby parts" and he did take hostages and killed three people, sounds somewhat personal to me. Unless you have an update of his motives?

Okay, I replaced those words and didn't see your point. I understood what you're trying to do, but it failed. "Institutional racism" is actually a thing, PP selling baby parts isn't. Sorry.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which ones?

For sure though, there's idiots on both sides. Not sure how another bad actions somehow excuse this one.

Well, here's one example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/charles-blow-ratcheting-up-the-rhetoric.html?_r=0

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/blacklivesmatter-leader-pigs-in-a-blanket-chant-was-just-playful/

I also don't know how you keep getting my message twisted. 😛 Do I poor communication skills or something?

Words and rhetoric are just that. One person is still responsible for his own actions.

Once you start using "inciteful words/rhetoric" as a reason for killers to kill, you need to start using an equal level of criteria for everything else.

You cannot condemn pro-lifers for this without first condemning BLM for the violence their rhetoric indirectly cause. OR Hebdo for getting killed due to their intentionally-offensive comic satire for that matter.

Funny thing is, we don't even have sufficient evidence about the truths behind the shooting at this time. Factors like mental health, criminal record, etc. haven't even been considered yet, but many are all too willing to pin this on an organization whose primary message is to protect unborn infants' lives.

Originally posted by Robtard
So what makes this guy killing three people "crazy", but say any black on black gang-killing not crazy; instead they're "thugs" or "those animals"?

Not sure you know Robert Dear's mindset well enough to judge what he did or didn't take personal. What we do know, he apparently did say "no more baby parts" and he did take hostages and killed three people, sounds somewhat personal to me. Unless you have an update of his motives?

Okay, I replaced those words and didn't see your point. I understood what you're trying to do, but it failed. "Institutional racism" is actually a thing, PP selling baby parts isn't. Sorry.

Motive really. An insane man would kill for little to no motivation. Motivation that would seem insane to a normal person. While crime would have more practical (yet completely immoral, of course) reasons. Things that can force even normal-minded people like you and me into a desperate enough mindset. Money, respect (that if you end up losing, you end up turning into prey), security, fear for one's life, hate and prejudice, revenge, etc.

I don't know his mindset, no. But I'm not the one jumping to conclusions about blaming a whole movement just because some crazy guy started ranting their rhetoric, am I? An no, "no more baby parts" doesn't sound DIRECTLY personal at all (I think we have a disconnect of our understanding of what DIRECTLY personal/personal stake means). It is something he took personally but no one took his dead babies and sold their parts (at least for now there's no information of that happening at least).

No, it's just that you failed to understand my point. Let me clarify: Is "institutional racism" a good reason for violence/killing people? Neither is "dead baby parts". The fact that one is proven to exist and the other unproven is irrelevant. It is the "message" that some ppl here are trying to appoint a certain level of causality to. Essentially, if a movement's message incites violence, then said movement should have some responsiblity for said violence. Truth and falsehoods notwithstanding. I happen to disagree. It is in the individual who is completely responsible for his actions (with only some very small, very extreme exceptions of course).

This guy apparently had motivation, it was to stop PP from killing babies and selling their parts, if he just wanted to kill people for the lolz cos he crazy-cray, he could have done it anywhere; but he chose a PP. Unless there's some update?

No one is "blaming a whole movement", in fact, I said this guy is ultimately responsible for what he did, I think everyone has. Just that people, especially people of influence should be careful with what they say, especially if it's sensationalist lies.

Again, disagree, I understood your point; while I was able to tell you it didn't fly. I can't relate BLM's actions of ruining a day at the library or decrying institutional racism to outright lies like the PP video and certain GOP candidates comments concerning PP. Institutionalized racism is actually a thing, so it needs to be spoken about.

Nib,

Couldn't edit. But how about we wait until more info comes out on his motivation and mental state; then pick up our convo. We're just spinning in circles at this point.

Originally posted by Robtard
This guy apparently had motivation, it was to stop PP from killing babies and selling their parts, if he just wanted to kill people for the lolz cos he crazy-cray, he could have done it anywhere; but he chose a PP. Unless there's some update?

No one is "blaming a whole movement", in fact, I said this guy is ultimately responsible for what he did, I think everyone has. Just that people, especially people of influence should be careful with what they say, especially if it's sensationalist lies.

Again, disagree, I understood your point; while I was able to tell you it didn't fly. I can't relate BLM's actions of ruining a day at the library or decrying institutional racism to outright lies like the PP video and certain GOP candidates comments concerning PP. Institutionalized racism is actually a thing, so it needs to be spoken about.

I do not know if you simply misunderstand my words or intentionally twist them to fit some kind of narrative you're trying to push. At this point I'm not even sure if we should continue this discussion as the disconnect seems way too wide to bridge the gap of. I already said that PP was most likely his target and explained my reasonings on why this is irrelevant many times.

No one is "blaming"? Except of course, the OP and the first few posts in this thread that implied (even without any information being available at that time) that the "hatred" being bred by pro-life is partially responsible for the event, of course.

I do agree about ppl needing to be careful about what they say. Although, I will disagree about sensationalist lies being more dangerous. I treat truths and lies equally. it is the results of what you say and your motives behind it that is important. Lies are easily disproven and forces your cause to crumble. The most destructive words are often the truth. Truth or lies, does not justify violence and truthfulness does not improve the morality of such acts.

That, is not my point. At all. Of course they should be allowed to say what they have to say. We are talking about justifications for murder/violence here. Not the validty of their platform (and fyi, pro-life is just as valid to many ppl). The PP video being truth or not does not make any kind of killing any better. The same way that the truth