Four police officers and an unknown number of civilians have been hurt in an "active shooter" incident in the US city of Colorado Springs, police say.
Officers were exchanging fire with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, police Lt Catherine Buckley said.
It was unclear if hostages had been taken, she said.
The city's Penrose hospital said it had received six patients, but did not say whether they were civilians or police.
The situation was still active and roads were closed, the city's police said in a tweet.
"We do not have the shooter at this point but we do have all of our resources brought to bear," Lt Buckley told local TV.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"Active Shooter" in Colorado Springs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday November 27 2015, @10:56PM
AND I WILL KILL YOU TO PROVE IT!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:02PM
Yup. Odds are this is the Tea-Taliban.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:11PM
Or teAl-Qaeda
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:43AM
double-points for getting "teal" in there as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 27 2015, @11:12PM
Yep. I've been saying it for a while. These people want Sharia law. They just don't want the Muslim branding.
(These are probably also the same useful idiots who helped the Illuminati or whoever change the TEA party from a legitimate multi-partisan grassroots movement into an astroturf movement. Never forget that detail.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:18PM
Oh, I also forgot to add: abortions are only 3% [npr.org] of Planned Parenthood's budget. Posting AC to avoid karma whoring.
All though, looking at the graph in that article, I wouldn't be surprised if the nuts who want Planned Parenthood defunded are also offended by the 76% of the budget for STD and contraception services. Woohoo, bring the Christian branded Sharia law!
On the other hand, sure, let's defund Planned Parenthood and replace it with single payer healthcare instead of the jigsaw puzzle joke we have for health care delivery in the USA.
--kurenai.tsubasa
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:35AM
3% of the budget? Utter nonsense. Those clinics in Texas which were unable or unwilling to meet new state requirements (quite reasonable requirements, after all) for hospital admission privileges where abortions are performed? Would you have us believe that abortion is only 3% of their business? Nonsense. If the clinics ONLY LOST 3% of their business as a result of those laws, then the clinics could almost certainly have continued to operate at a profit.
Those charts are lies. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure - and they manage to make nice pretty pie charts from their lies.
The facts are, abortion is the money maker for PP. They don't make money on contraception. They don't make money on women's health issues. They don't make the money from any other services or procedures that they make off of abortion.
It MAY BE accurate to say that only 3% of "customers" make use of abortion services. If that is what was meant with that statement, then why not say it plainly? For the sake of argument, let me grant that only 3% of the people who go to PP are looking for an abortion.
However - people who visit PP for contraceptives often pay nothing out of pocket. People getting a pregnancy test often pay nothing. People with STD's often pay nothing. Abortions? $600 a pop, by most accounts that I've read.
In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance
Medical procedures that end pregnancy
Safe and effective
Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures [plannedparenthood.org]
From PP's own pages, it's obvious that federal funds are used to fund abortions - exposing another lie.
What can I expect to pay for a visit at Planned Parenthood?
This depends on the type of health care service you require and your health insurance carrier. If you do not have health insurance, we can offer you services based on our discount fee scale. Our patients find that Planned Parenthood health care fees are very reasonable, especially when compared to other doctors’ offices.
Can I use my health insurance at Planned Parenthood?
Yes! We welcome most major health insurance carriers for billing for female reproductive health services (GYN). You will be asked to present your insurance card and pay your co-pay at the time of visit. Some health insurances will require you to notify them of a change in your GYN provider. Call the health center closest to you using the health center locator at the top right of the page and speak to one of our medical staff if you need assistance.
What if I can’t pay or do not have health insurance?
Planned Parenthood participates in a federal funding program called Title X (10); a program that allows us to supplement birth control, GYN care, and other reproductive health services for women who cannot pay full price for health care services. This program does not pay for abortion care. To qualify, we ask all clients seeking services at Planned Parenthood to present the most recent four week snapshot of your income (such as recent pay stubs or, if you are unemployed, proof of your unemployment benefits or inability to work). This helps our staff determine what amount you can pay under Title X’s discounted fee scale.
Additionally, Planned Parenthood can help you sign-up for other programs that will help pay for your services including Medicaid or the Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP). Call the health center closest to you and speak to one of our medical staff to see how you can apply.
Cash, credit card, certified check or Medicaid and/or your private insurance are the only ways to pay for abortion care at a Planned Parenthood health center in New York State.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-central-western-new-york/patient-resources/paying-your-health-care/about-our-fees [plannedparenthood.org]
THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS AT!! Planned parenthood doesn't make money on distributing condoms. Planned parenthood is a wholesale homicide facility. Like any other assassin, they make their money from killing.
3% my ass. Here are some meaningful numbers:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding [heritage.org]
Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.[10]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:03AM
Did you even read what you posted, Runaway? You say "From PP's own pages, it's obvious that federal funds are used to fund abortions - exposing another lie." But the stuff you quoted says:
I know you think people don't read what you post, but that's a little over the top, don't you think?
You also say that
Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.
Good. Abortion is legal. Period. End of story. If busybodies like you would mind your own damn business, we'd all be a lot happier. What right do you have to decide what another person does with their body? None. I'm reminded of one of my favorite Heinlein quotes which applies in spades to you:
As I said, abortion is legal in this country. If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled areas. It seems like their belief systems jive pretty well with yours, except for the whole Jesus thing. Then again, they have the same (non-existent) invisible sky daddy as you do, so maybe it's not such a big deal.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:44AM
Slavery was legal in this country at one point. Should the people who disagreed with it have also moved to Saudi Arabia?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:10AM
Banning abortion is much closer to slavery than allowing it is (which increases individual liberties), because banning it violates the right to control your own body. As it is the woman's body, she has the right to evict any fetus or baby, even if doing so causes its death. I am not forced to lend out my organs to save another person's life, so I don't see why women should be forced to do so to keep a person who hasn't even been born yet alive.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:35PM
Not from my perspective.
Savery: The plantation owner's business interests are are given legal precidence over the slaves' right of self possession, including freedom and life.
Abortion: The mother's life choices are given legal precidence over the child's right of self possession, including life.
In your preferred interpretation, the grown ups who acted out and got pregnant made a conscious decision (at least 95% of the time since less than 5% of pregancies are the result of rape) to participate in an activity that resulted in pregnancy more closely align with the slave who had no choice in the matter than with the slave owner who chose to participate in an economic system where they may have felt they had no way to stay economically viable when they were competing against all of the other slave owners had the economic benefits of slavery. The unborn child is the powerless entity who equates more closely to the slave in the slavery-abortion comparison, because they have no say in the matter, but the parents made the choices that put them in this situation. Under your scenario, the slave is the oppressor who puts the slave owner in the situation where he has no choice but to participate in slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:16PM
> the grown ups who acted out
Statements like that reveal you to be one of those moral avengers who think pregnancy is a punishment that people deserve as a consequence of their moral failings. You will not convince anyone who isn't already convinced that children are a punishment for the wicked.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:15PM
So if somebody makes a mistake, they should be allowed to kill somebody to make it better? Bullshit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @04:07AM
> So if somebody makes a mistake, they should be allowed to kill somebody to make it better?
And there you reveal the flaw in your argument. A fetus is not somebody. It is the potential to be somebody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @11:54PM
No, you blithering idiot! The point is that, unless the woman has been raped or otherwise coerced, she and her partner made decisions that got her pregnant. Pregnancy didn't just happen. Is it really too much to ask that you pro-choice folks at least educate yourselves on where babies come from?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:48PM
Abortion: The mother's life choices are given legal precidence over the child's right of self possession, including life.
No, the mother simply has control over her own body, and she isn't forced by government thugs to remain pregnant. You have no right to remain in someone else's body, regardless of how you got there. The death of the unborn is simply what happens when they are evicted.
In your preferred interpretation, the grown ups who acted out and got pregnant made a conscious decision (at least 95% of the time since less than 5% of pregancies are the result of rape) to participate in an activity that resulted in pregnancy
I don't care about how conscious their decision was, or how powerless the fetus/baby is. I also don't base my beliefs on a few rape cases. What I care about is the fundamental right to control your own body and nothing more. Were the baby not in the mother's body, there would be no issue here, but it is.
Under your scenario, the slave is the oppressor who puts the slave owner in the situation where he has no choice but to participate in slavery.
No, the oppressor in my scenario is the government and society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @04:10AM
> The death of the unborn is simply what happens when they are evicted.
I don't think it is possible for you to be more tone-deaf.
You are both blinded by your respective ideologies and not only are you unable to hear each other, anyone who isn't a nutjob won't hear what you either of you have to say as well.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 29 2015, @05:25AM
I don't think it is possible for you to be more tone-deaf.
I know exactly what I'm doing, what I'm saying, and what effects it will likely have.
You are both blinded by your respective ideologies and not only are you unable to hear each other, anyone who isn't a nutjob won't hear what you either of you have to say as well.
So 'sorry' for (presumably) taking a position you don't agree with.
Actually, since you don't agree with me, you must be blinded by ideology. You can't possibly have any genuine opinions of your own, so you must be blind. Anyone who isn't a nutjob won't listen to your smug content-less drivel. Most likely, you will be "unable to hear" me. I'm the Voice of Reason, after all; you may have thought that was you, but it's actually me. Now, crawl back into your tone-deaf bubble world; it's a fitting place for you closed-minded ACs.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:21AM
Slavery was legal in this country at one point. Should the people who disagreed with it have also moved to Saudi Arabia?
It's not a very good analogy (as Anal Pumpernickel pointed out [soylentnews.org])
Even so, Saudi Arabia didn't exist back then, but in principle, yes.
An alternative would be (as was done WRT slavery) to amend the constitution. It only takes approval by both houses of Congress and ratification by two thirds of state legislatures.
And before you get on to the Civil War, I'd note that the Confederate states (those who supported slavery -- which was, as you pointed out, legal) struck first (Fort Sumter [wikipedia.org]) and seceded from the U.S. while slavery was still the law of the land.
The Thirteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] abolishing slavery in the U.S. was not ratified until eight months *after* the Civil War ended.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:24AM
"This program does not pay for abortion care. [emphasis added]"
And, the fact remains, without those federal funds, PP would have to bar the doors on all of their clinics. Those funds INDIRECTLY fund abortions. I don't give a rip how imaginatively the accountants move the funds around, federal funds provide abortions.
"Good. Abortion is legal. Period. End of story."
Keep telling yourself that. There are abortion cases in the courts now. Remember Doctor Kermit? Maybe you should visit him in prison, and reassure him that abortions are legal.
"If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled areas."
Don't quit your day job - you're not going to make it as a comedian.
The ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is a breath. One single breath. If the child is given the opportunity to draw one breath, then that child can and will scream when you stab a syringe into the back of his neck, to suck his brains out. One breath.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:43AM
The ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is a breath. One single breath. If the child is given the opportunity to draw one breath, then that child can and will scream when you stab a syringe into the back of his neck, to suck his brains out. One breath.
Not so much. I invite you to educate yourself [wikipedia.org] (if you can open your mind enough to do so). From the link provided:
And even if you are a fanatic [brainyquote.com] and have all this love for these unborn children, how many children whose parents can't take care of them and/or live in places where they are forced to carry children to term have you brought into your home, adopted and raised as your own? If the answer isn't more than zero, you can't really care all that much, can you?
And since a large number of pregnancies end in miscarriage (that is, an abortion) without any intervention, should we prosecute everyone who has a miscarriage?
If you think termination of pregnancy is wrong, more power to you. If that's the case, I strongly recommend that you don't terminate your pregnancies. Beyond that, you have no right or moral authority to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies.
As I pointed out here and in a previous post, if you feel that strongly, adopt unwanted children and campaign for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Otherwise, keep your nose out of other people's uteri.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:01AM
"Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own."
That definitions is far to simplistic. It was intentionally made simplistic to disguise the suffering involved in an abortion. Those babies, especially late term babies, SUFFER PAIN. As I said, a single breath separates a "fetus" from an "infant".
The rest of your post is meant to be taken seriously? It's better to be murdered, than to grow up poor, or unwanted? The fact that I can't adopt a million babies makes me a hypocrite for opposing abortion? Really?
I'll make a deal with you. I'll keep my nose out of other people's uteri, when those other people stop taking tax money to fund their abortion centers. No matter how many accounting games are played with PP's money, the fact remains that PP would go under without federal funding.
Planned parenthood and the prison industry are pretty equal as near as I can see. One kills babies, the other imprisons people for profit.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:32AM
I would just say that we should agree to disagree, but your way would inflict suffering on millions. I can't abide that.
That definitions is far to simplistic. It was intentionally made simplistic to disguise the suffering involved in an abortion. Those babies, especially late term babies, SUFFER PAIN. As I said, a single breath separates a "fetus" from an "infant".
Fine. Kill the babies! Rip their heads off. gnaw on their tasty little bones. Hooray!
The rest of your post is meant to be taken seriously? It's better to be murdered, than to grow up poor, or unwanted? The fact that I can't adopt a million babies makes me a hypocrite for opposing abortion? Really?
Yes, quite. Not even one, huh? You obviously only care about your political ideology and don't give a rat's ass about the suffering of children. I bet you support the death penalty too. That's hypocritical.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll keep my nose out of other people's uteri, when those other people stop taking tax money to fund their abortion centers. No matter how many accounting games are played with PP's money, the fact remains that PP would go under without federal funding.
No deal. The Federal government should be funding *all* forms of family planning *including* abortion. It's dinosaurs like you in Congress who exult in the suffering of countless women. it's disgusting.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:20AM
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro-choicers-heres-why-you-cannot-support-abortion-while-opposing-puppy-murder/ [themattwalshblog.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:43AM
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro-choicers-heres-why-you-cannot-support-abortion-while-opposing-puppy-murder/
What a bunch of bullshit.
Fetuses are not "innocent humans". Fetuses are *developing* life forms, completely dependent on the sentient person gestating it.
If that sentient being does not wish to carry that fetus, it has the right to have it removed. Period. I don't have a uterus, so I have no say in that, ever.
Even if I did, the only uterus I'd have control over would be my own.
If you don't like that state of affairs, perhaps you should go somewhere where women are treated as property. Each woman makes her own choices and doesn't need you or anyone else making them for her.
I'm not going to change your mind and your irrational, paternalistic drivel isn't going to change mine.
In reading your posts and interacting with you here, you're obviously reasonably intelligent and, for the most part, seem to be a decent human being -- but not this. On this issue you're flat wrong and because of people like you, millions of women suffer needlessly. Shame on you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:01AM
No woman has a "right" to demand that I pay for her abortion. Tax money supports Planned Parenthood. Without tax money, Planned Parenthood would close most, if not all, of it's clinics. A woman may decide to do whatever she wishes with her body, but she can do it at her own expense. It's really that simple.
Defund Planned Parenthood, and properly enforce the law that says no federal funds will be spent on abortion, and I'll be a whole lot happier.
I do note that you stipulate a right to govern her body. Getting an abortion is seldom a health issue. If and when it does become a genuine health issue, that is, pregnancy seriously threatens the mother's life, then I am willing to subsidize whichever procedure(s) are necessary to save her life.
I have performed triage. I understand the necessity to decide who survives sometimes. In an instance where either the baby or the mother survives, then the mother takes priority - UNLESS the mother herself says differently.
You might want to read my most recent journal entry. I went in search of a blog that I read a decade ago, couldn't find it, so dredged up my re-posting of that blog. There's another that I'm searching for . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:46AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:51PM
THIS, plus I am sure he is perfectly fine with his tax dollars going towards purchasing all those bullets and missiles and bombs with the potential to kill every baby on this planet 20 times over. What a self-righteous hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:05PM
No problem: your tax gets spent on various pork barrels. It's the entire NotSanguine's tax that is used for PP.
Happy now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:40AM
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:37AM
It's all murder to them. So "only 3%" going to abortion is as repugnant to them as 100%. The only acceptable amount is precisely 0% because every abortion is a murder, and murder is never acceptable. They believe abortion is literally equivalent to murder. Since a zygote and yourself both have a soul of equal value (to God) killing a zygote or a phoetus is morally equivalent to killing a new born baby, or an adult. This is the sort of wacky conclusion you are forced into once you start down the path of dualism.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:08AM
These USAian Sharia nutballs are prosecuting women who dared to have a pregnancy end in stillbirth. [google.com]
...and as significant thinkers have said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:09AM
Sorry, gweg_, I have to take umbrage with that quote about men getting pregnant. If men could get pregnant, abortion would earn a capital punishment!
Yet, too much of our gender nonsense is caught up in the idea of who can get pregnant and who does the impregnating. You fail to consider the Western acceptance of genital mutilation. A man's body is expendable. A man's life is expendable. (I think they made a few movies about Expendables, the first and third were good, but I digress.) If men could get pregnant, we'd beat him and whip him and beat him some more until he took responsibility for whoever he slept with that caused the pregnancy.
Hell, if men could get pregnant, more powerful men would use that as yet another excuse to force them into slavery. I'm not questioning the right of abortion. I'm merely questioning the gender lunacy.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:14AM
Ach! I misspelled your name! My apologies.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:38AM
On the other hand, sure, let's defund Planned Parenthood and replace it with single payer healthcare instead of the jigsaw puzzle joke we have for health care delivery in the USA.
Actually, I see a big problem with single-payer, which I hadn't really thought of before, thanks to this comment of yours. I'm a supporter of single-payer healthcare, however it has occurred to me now that by putting it in the hands of the Federal government, it now becomes politicized, so your treatment and what services you have access to could be very much affected by our elected leaders. In a nutshell, good luck funding abortions with it (even for rapes or cases where the mother's life is endangered), because various political leaders will rail against this and throw wrenches into the system over it. This could happen over all kinds of things that various religious people don't like, and it could change every couple years as new leadership gets elected.
Maybe we shouldn't have Federal-level healthcare at all, and should do it at the state level instead. Over in Europe, there's no EU-wide healthcare system; each country has their own separate system.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:09AM
In Canada, health care is indeed primarily a provincial, not federal responsibility [healthycanadians.gc.ca]. Although the provinces do receive a portion of their healthcare funding from the federal level, and the feds set and administer the national healthcare principles that provinces adhere to.
Using this model, this at least allows for the possibility that some states can fund abortion while others choose not to.
In Canada the concept of pro-choice is either sufficiently ingrained, or we have enough disdain for religion telling us what we can and can't do, that even the far-right Conservative government we just voted out didn't dare touch the subject directly (they did have the gall to defund NGOs working with reproductive health abroad if they advocated any contraceptive method other than abstinence, though). We do have our whackos though, including those that dropped pamphlets with graphic abortion imagery into people's mailboxes.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Celestial on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:40AM
It's actually more like 33%, but even if we go with your figure of 3%, 3% of murder is still murder. Any amount of murder is abhorrent and should not nor cannot be tolerated.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:22AM
Depends on who does the murder in your worldview I suspect...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:30AM
Why? The key word is murder. All killing is not murder. I'd happily pull the trigger on every member of ISIS and sleep soundly. There are plenty of situations where I'd drop bombs on a city knowing civilians would be in the target area. I wouldn't point a weapon at a known non-combatant and certainly wouldn't pull the trigger. Orders be damned. For the sake of argument we will assume you are in agreement on those ground rules and therefore know the difference.
So, under what conditions would you murder a child? Knowingly end a child's life who was not harming you and had no ability to harm you and yours. Murder of the innocent.
I'm not talking about the very rare life of the mother situations. Some decide to soldier on and risk death and that should be their choice but most civilizations recognize a Right to self defense so that is also morally acceptable. I'm talking about the other 99.9%.
Progressive 'ethics experts' are already laying the groundwork to 'expand abortion' to the 2nd birthday. Are you ok with that? Is your morality so flexible that when 'they' tell you the new moral code you will salute smartly and carry on? Or is that the line you wouldn't cross, the one where you grab the nearest 'sporting goods' and get ugly?
Our current POTUS believes abortion immediately after birth (especially botched abortions) is moral. Baby is breathing air and screaming, just stick it in a closet until it stops? You ok with that? Or how about how Kermit Gosnell dealt with those problems, quick snip with a pair of scissors on the spinal column and the kid shuts the fuck up. Are you ok with any of that? Kermit went to prison but perhaps the courts just weren't enlightened enough?
How about right before natural birth? Perfectly formed child who would be delivered naturally in a few more hours, a child who would live a perfectly normal life without so much as a neo-natal ICU bill. Or a 'doctor' could dismember it and pull it out in salable stock keeping units. You ok with that? Technically that is sorta legal, PP does it at least.
Ok, how about the current battle lines at around twenty weeks. A lot of folks know somebody born that early these days when medical science has advanced so far. So is it ok to murder that child? Are we still talking about murder? The 'pro choice' side says no, but on what moral basis other than pure politics? If the mother doesn't want it, deliver it and put it up for adoption. Yes some premature babies die but a chance of life is certainly better than being parted out to the biotech industry, right? Or at that late stage is she obligated to carry it long enough for a reasonably safe delivery? Do you have answers to those questions that you can defend?
Bottom line is America has murdered a lot of children. Even if we don't count the early ones, we have wiped out a hell of a lot of perfectly viable children. And I call out America specifically because most of Europe doesn't allow late term abortion; funny the usual prog suspects aren't calling for us to follow Europe's example on this one. We might not quite be in Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot territory quite yet but we apparently have no intention of stopping. If we aren't on a top ten list of death by political action list yet we will be so maybe we should be thinking about how we want history to remember us.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:31AM
here are plenty of situations where I'd drop bombs on a city knowing civilians would be in the target area.
Then you, sir, are a war criminal, in thought if not in deed, and I hope and pray that you are never in a position to do more. Why would you be willing to bomb innocent Americans, just because they happen to live in Texas? This is a violation of the laws of war, the laws of armed conflict, and the laws of humanity. I can only hope you remain a mindless conservative on the internets, and so never have to suffer the actual liability for your criminal thoughts. Oh, and you were damn lucky your parents didn't abort you, because if they had know then, what we know now, .. . . . Nah, still not enough, without the actual war crimes. In the meanwhile, I will just pity you, you mindless coward.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:54AM
Try watching some History Channel sometimes dummy. Lots of airmen flew missions over hostile cities and did their job. They knew those factories had a lot of 'civilians' working in them, some might have even known about the forced prisoner labor the Axis were using. The also knew a lot of bombs were going to fall off target. They did their job because it had to be done. Because a lot of people were depending on not having to face the war materials those factories were cranking out. And yes that even included firebombing a few entire cities off the map. Not to mention the crews who dropped the big ones and ended the damned war without the horrific loss of life an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have involved. Maybe you are the sort of asshole who wouldn't thank one of those guys for their service, I'm certainly not.
I'm glad we aren't having this conversation in German. That means that morally I have to be willing to do it if the situation again called for it, otherwise I'm just happy other people did something I wouldn't do and that would be wrong. How about you? If you drew the Enola Gay would you fly the mission or refuse and accept the consequences?
Eventually we will get into another total war like that. History hasn't ended, the horsemen will ride again, probably sooner than most people think. And with luck idiots like you will remain free because we will still have people willing to do what it takes to win.
As for bombing Texas, probably not. Only got the joy of living in Texas for a few years but I'm only a few miles across the border. More likely I'd be on the Texas side if the poop hit the fan. If you have ever lived there you understand, if not you probably can't. Would I press the bomb release over NY to save Dallas or Houston? Damn right. So lets not have a rematch of the War of Northern Aggression, K? 'specially seeing as your side is full of pansies like yourself..... just sayin. :) Ain't like we don't have plenty of external enemies to worry about at this particular time.
And yea I'm just fine with killing ISIS. They rape children, crucify people and such. They commit crimes the Nazis at least had the sense to do in secret and they post the video to YouTube themselves. Ain't a one of em I want being allowed to return to civilization so they need to die. Those folks done gone rabid and there is only one solution to that problem, put them down. That is just a hard reality and the sooner we as a world face up to it and put an end to their madness the lower the total body count will be. Meaning every death between now and then should be equally credited to both ISIS and the Progressives/Socialists of the world.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:06AM
War criminals. Why do you think the "greatest generation" did not talk much about what they had done? They knew, unlike an armchair warrior like yourself. Vietnam vets never were called "baby-killers" by hippies, as Trump-style revisionist history holds, no, they accused themselves, and America did almost nothing to help them. The American vets from the latest American Imperialist Wars have similiar issues. Some of them are talking about it. Never again?
And, it is nice to get to know you, jmorris. But at the same time, kind of creepy.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:01PM
Why do you think the "greatest generation" did not talk much about what they had done?
Because it was horrible? That is why we thank them for their service instead of saying "Aw fuck dude, you got all the fun!" Which is why civilization depends on finding such as they every generation, those willing to accept the duty of doing whatever is required to make sure the generation after them is part of the same civilization. When that doesn't happen Mother Nature says "Next!" and another civilization gets a turn. So bottom line, are you glad Western Civ won the last round of survivor and the Axis were voted off the planet? And which side are you rooting for in the coming round? More important perhaps, are you wiling to go all in, stop being a spectator and suit up if the crap hits the fan? Because the Bear is loose again, the Dragon is watching for an opportunity and the Muslim Bros are making a bold play. Somebody wins, many will lose. Or perhaps we get lucky and somebody sane takes power in the West before all Hell breaks loose and finds the wisdom to chart a path through the next decade that doesn't involve a billion plus dead. Stranger things have happened.
That sane path probably involves killing a few tens of thousands now to put out the fires in the Middle East before it explodes into mega violence. Specifically killing each and every member of ISIS we can put a crosshair on and making Iran's Nuke program 'perfectly safe' in the Douglas Adams sense. Were we to do that, and in a splashy and no fucks given enough way, the Middle East would calm back down as the Muslim Bros realized their dream of a restored Caliphate wasn't happening this generation, Putin would see we were no longer in a mood for foolishness and China realize the window for expansion opportunities had closed. It would restore certainty to the world, which is what is greatly to be desired. Uncertainty invites adventurism and with modern weapons that gets lots of folks dead.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 29 2015, @12:12AM
That sane path probably involves killing a few tens of thousands now to put out the fires in the Middle East before it explodes into mega violence.
Yeah, because that whole world police thing has worked out the last thousand times we've tried it. Well, you know what they say: If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again. I can't wait for the government to blow even more taxpayer money on pointless wars.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:24AM
Oh, the horsemen are just saddling up!
This is the endless human tragedy. We kill, then they kill, then we get nukes, then they get nukes, and we a have a bit of a cold war, with consequences to which our friendly local philosopher from Samos eluded.
They commit crimes the Nazis at least had the sense to do in secret and they post the video to YouTube themselves.
I find this disturbing as well. Why do they broadcast it so? Are they serious?
I guess I'm awake at such an odd hour because I can't find them serious. Gas prices are at a low I haven't seen since I returned to Western civilization, since at least 2002. Daesh is known for making a profit by selling oil. That why I must repeat: the horsemen are saddling up, and this time it may be for the last time.
Maybe I've been playing too much Fallout, but my mentat computer is going crazy. Something big will happen, and soon. I just checked Google News and nothing yet. We'll see, I suppose.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:46PM
Then you, sir, are a war criminal, in thought if not in deed
So what? It's pretty clear that the term, "war criminal" has no serious meaning in your hands.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:09AM
i get that the tea party offers an easy scapegoat for religious neocon whackos whose political ideologues keep losing their seats to tea party candidates, but your accusation only shows that you have absolutely no fucking idea what the tea party is or why it is beating the shit out of right-wing neocons and left-wing socialists alike
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:10PM
Or it could be someone who is just fucked up about the way his life is going. Maybe his girlfriend had an abortion and then they broke up because they were fighting about it so he blames PP instead of accepting responsibility for managing his own relationship.
Its easy to go for the stereotype, but out of all the pro-lifers in the country there have probably been less than 5 cases of pro-lifers killing abortion clinic staff in the last 30 years.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:53AM
That is almost funny. Women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies - and you judge a man for not "managing" his relationship with a woman? It almost makes it to funny, but the irony rubs the wrong way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:54AM
What mental state do you inhabit that you think you can draw any insight by nit-picking a single word and ignoring the context of the sentence it was written in?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:11AM
The so-called context you speak of, suggests that a man should "manage" his affairs, along with his women-folk. That idea of "managing" his women comes straight out of the patriarchal societies that feminism denounces. You can't have it both ways here. Either women have the right to determine if/when they will bear children, or, men have a responsibility to "manage" the women in their lives. Make up your mind, and run with it.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:20AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:04AM
Stipulating (only for the sake of argument, this is not a position I hold or endorse) that one considers abortion to be murder, and in particular a form of murder actively condoned by the government at all levels to the point of being legal, and even financially and logistically supported ...
... then armed resistance doesn't seem quite so crazy.
There's a huge rush to condemn this sort of behaviour, but on the internet at large one doesn't tend to see reasoned, dispassionate analysis of the positions held by those who do such things. The problem with this is that if you make a mockery of your adversary, you cripple any hopes of reasoned, let alone courteous, discourse. Now, one could say that this is a particular issue where the gulf of understanding and attitudes is so hopelessly vast that all discourse is effectively unthinkable, not to say moot, but it's all too easy to fall into a hardened trap of saying that "They're all crazy!" and not bothering to examine one's own prejudices.
For myself, I think that abortion should be legal until at least a year post partum, but obviously I have differences with the person who undertook this course of desperation.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jasassin on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:32AM
Well written. Extremely articulate. If I ran a media site I would hire you!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:37AM
> ... then armed resistance doesn't seem quite so crazy.
Where does that argument stop?
Should people who work for polluting companies be killed? Is it open season on Volkswagen employees? Exxon employees?
What about members of the military? Is it reasonable to shoot anyone in uniform because drone strikes kill so many innocent people?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:11AM
Y U NO LIKE HOMEOPATHY?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:53AM
Should people who work for polluting companies be killed?
They do and they get positive press. The left won't outright encourage it but they adore violent revolutionaries so it is a wink wink, nudge nudge sort of deal. Blow up a SUV dealership, spike a few trees to maim some poor lumberjack and they will give you a Law and Order episode where you look like a hero.... ok an 'anti-hero' but the regulars will say lots of nice things about you and your dedication to a worthy cause and imply the victim deserved it.
What about members of the military?
Does the name Bill Ayers ring any bells? Or how about Nidal Hasan? One was in a gang that tried to blow up some American troops and couldn't handle explosives properly. The other committed 'workplace violence' against some with a bit more success. Both have their fanclubs among the left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:12PM
> Both have their fanclubs among the left.
It is pretty amazing how extreme partisans like yourself can turn an argument against violence into an attack on your perceived ideological enemies. It's like every post you make is nothing more insightful than, "Look at me, look at me! I hate liberals! Look at me!"
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:40AM
"The problem with this is that if you make a mockery of your adversary, you cripple any hopes of reasoned, let alone courteous, discourse."
Spoken like someone who has no idea who the adversary in this instance is.
Seriously. This all sounds like pure common sense until you examine the people you are attempting to apply it to.
At that point it sound like you have no idea what you are fucking talking about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:44AM
Condemnation of this kind of activity is appropriate no matter WHAT their reasoning is.
They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to live by the artificial boundaries around things defined by words, then the defiition of murder is given by law. If you are more reasonable, then you see it as the cancellation of a potential sentience. Unless you consider boundaries even more fuzzy, in which case you can scale the sentience of various entities and probably end up deciding to be a vegetarian. That is a defensible ethical position. You can even end up wanting everyone else to be vegetarians. But when you start being willing to kill them because they aren't vegetarians, then you lose all ethical validity.
Backing away from the analogy, it's quite reasonable to be against abortion as a form of murder, but not to then be willing to commit murder yourself to prevent it. At that point it is quite clear that you're engaged in an immoral activity. The boundaries aren't entirely clear, proper defense of another is valid, even if it does lead to your killing someone engaged in an attack. But I'm afraid that I can't accept all lives as of equal worth. I don't count the life of a squirrel as equal to the life of a child. And I don't count the life of an unborn infant as equal to the life of his mother. And I don't think it's right to coerce a woman to support a child that can't survive independently. Or a father. Please note that I didn't say anything about whether the child had been born. But if the child has been born, there are other ways for it to be supported, and if you care enough about life you should support them. Adoption is one way. If the child has not been born, and is dependant on the mother for life support, then the mother should have the right to remove that life support. Society has to right to, if it chooses, itself provide that support. It hasn't chosen to. (Currently at many stages of the process it's technically unready, but there hasn't been a lot of effort put into making the technology ready, either. What there has been is usualy more associated with agriculture than medicine.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:00AM
"They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so."
It is, most definitely, a homicide. In this, a "nation of laws", all homicides are investigated as murders, unless and until evidence indicates that it was not a murder. In the case of abortion, it is almost always "legalized murder".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:59AM
>> "They can call abortion murder all they like, but that doesn't make it so."
>
> In the case of abortion, it is almost always "legalized murder".
Did you really intend to provide a live demonstration of HiThere's point?
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:58AM
Let us not forget that Mainstream Media intentionally paints anti-abortion activists in the harshest light. MSM goes to great lengths to polarize the issue. Given two reasonable people who attempt to have a discussion, the media insists on barging into the room and shouting emotional propaganda during the discussion. No, there won't be any rational discourse on the subject, not in America.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:13AM
Let us not forget that Mainstream Media intentionally paints anti-abortion activists in the harshest light. MSM goes to great lengths to polarize the issue.
Well, since you insist, let us two reasonable people discuss this. Point one: that is not paint, that is people with guns and firebombs, people shouting and spraying spittle on sidewalks, threatening others. Point two: this issue is not polarized, it is over. Abortion is legal. It is part of the right to privacy, and you sticking your Runaway nose into it is illegal. OK, rational discourse finished. Carry on. But the rational people have already left the discussion.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:34AM
Number of babies butchered by PP - millions.
Number of abortionists killed by conservatives - couple dozen?
I'd say that your side is winning. Oh - it's not over either. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/13/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKCN0T229F20151113 [reuters.com]
Or, do you think that it's alright for a non-doctor, or even a doctor without admittance rights at a local hospital, to insert hands and instruments inside of a person's body? Like the Texas legislature, I believe that if a doctor is going to perform intrusive procedures on anyone, he should be only steps away from emergency trauma personnel and equipment.
On the one hand, PP claims to be concerned over the health and welfare of women, but on the other hand, it's terribly expensive and inconvenient to insist that a doctor performing intrusive procedures be held accountable for any unforseen emergency. How do you spell "hypocrite"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:09AM
Anti - abortions activists are nothing but religious nut cases, not all different than their middle eastern cousins, no wonder since they all share the same religion. Your kind has no problems killing other animals who are as smart or more than 4-5 years old humans but suddenly starts to be mushy about some fetus with no developed brained.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deadstick on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:40AM
When the activist walks in and starts shooting, what color paint puts him in the proper light?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:36AM
I'd have to say the same paint used for those who are butchering babies.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Sunday November 29 2015, @01:00AM
the media insists on barging into the room and shouting emotional propaganda during the discussion.
Pretty sure it wasn't the "Main Stream Media" that barged into this room shouting emotional propaganda...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:00AM
Yes, apparently 10 commandments are too many for long term memory, and even the single commandment in the second edition is kinda hard to get.
But, if someone had been using abortion as a bargaining item, and someone else has been driven mad by the situation, I do not feel much sympathy for the intended victims (hey, blame my programming).
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:13AM
How about blaming your parents for brainwashing you with religion and imaginary commandments ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:32PM
I am not religious, when I point out the breach of protocol represented by not following a commandment. AI could do it.
You are religious, when you call the commandments imaginary.
Every statement made in the domain of a hypothetical deity is religion. It's surely not science, for the simple reason that the domain of a deity is not observable, and even if it were, you could not prove your observation is genuine. Also you can't safely apply any concept you learned in this universe outside of it, including the term "therefore", because the logic system you are accustomed to merely models the world, doesn't dictate anything over or outside of it.
What I wrote has been proved here, on /., and who knows in how many places and is high school level reasoning.
All atheism should do is choosing not to believe.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:32PM
and is high school level reasoning.
That most high schoolers and beyond cannot seem to grasp, since they possess mediocre or worse intelligence and are products of a terrible education system. I always find it funny when someone says that it's trivial to understand X when they live in a society of morons where few people do understand X.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday November 30 2015, @11:29PM
Bravo.
“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Proposition 7 (1922)
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday November 27 2015, @11:07PM
Definitely someone who should not be a parent and needs to be spayed(sp?) or neutered (planned or unplanned).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Funny) by NotSanguine on Friday November 27 2015, @11:09PM
Wanting to assist in performing abortions (very, very, very late term ones) during the holiday season.
That's why I love America! Folks are always happy to help out.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday November 27 2015, @11:10PM
This thread is going to degrade really fast... I don't know if we are served at all by these stories. There is no angle here, all we got is a giant bait hook.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:01AM
Reality, the ultimate clickbait.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:41AM
Your name says it all.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:17AM
This thread is going to degrade really fast... I don't know if we are served at all by these stories. There is no angle here, all we got is a giant bait hook.
If you think so, why read and post in it? There are plenty of other stories on the front page. If they don't interest you, I suggest you submit a story you'd like to discuss.
What is more, even if the discussion does degrade, that's what the moderation system is for. Just read at +3 or higher and you'll likely avoid that which you don't want to see.
To paraphrase Justice Jackson, the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. I say, let 'em have at it. The Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org] will identify that which has merit.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:47AM
I posted mostly so people know not everyone is for this type of story. Even if it was super important (which it is not because it's another nut with a gun story), posting it while it is happening, before we have any, let alone all, the facts is just like building a coliseum for a flame war. People do not know exactly what the motives are behind the actions of the shooter, and thus are going to run in here with their agenda and make up facts to fit their point of view.
You can say that it is all fine and good, you are just allowing people to express themselves. But to me it seems like no pushing for more factual or objective discussion instead of flamewars does not do this site any good. There is plenty of sites that already cater to this type of nonsense, mainly all the comment sections on all the news sites. At very least we should strive to not be like the green site, which started to become filled with nonsense like this.
Also this site does not have as many active posters or mods that browsing at +3 makes more good and thought-provoking experience. There is not enough comments overall, and the ones rated highest usually tell one of the jackasses off, so I end up reading their stupid comment as well.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:07AM
Fair enough.
I take your point, but I won't second guess n1 for posting this story.
Whether or not we have enough information to post interesting and informed comments is a concern, but it's not like most people even bother to read TFA anyway. Just sayin'.
There are a significant number of people who complain that SN isn't on top of breaking news. There are others (yourself included) who would rather SN be more measured in the stories they choose to post, and when.
It says a lot about your affection for SN that you care enough to complain.
I'd point out that given the user base, it's unlikely that everyone will be happy with every editorial decision.
For my part, I think the editors do a creditable job and deserve to be lauded for their tireless, unpaid work. Are they perfect? No.
My suggestion about submitting articles wasn't just snark. If there are topics you'd like to see addressed, then let's have them and create a good discussion.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:16PM
...we gave everybody rocket launchers and assault rifles they could defend themselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 27 2015, @11:30PM
Seems to work out mostly fine in the Commonwealth. Just got done in Saugus Ironworks beating up some guy with a T45 power armor and energy sword using my hydraulic-action concrete block with rebars sticking out thingie. Damn, I'm so glad I found that thing. I can punch straight through power armor now!
Oh, right. On second thought, if everyone had one of those, that might not work out so well. Hmm… good thing that energy sword actually sucks.
Back to Fallout to see who needs help from the Minutemen next! (Mental note: build moar turrets!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:15AM
Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:23AM
> Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.
I just read that the clinic kept a supply of bullet-proof vests on hand. [nytimes.com]
That is fucked up.
(Score: 5, Touché) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:48AM
Isn't the word ' active' kind of redundant? Do you really get that many inactive shooters? If so, how do
you know?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:52AM
Warning! Inactive shooter on the loose! He's been letting people live left and right! Oh, the humanity!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:54AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:03AM
Gotta have them buzzwords! I think I'll do a few shooters myself this evening. Want some Jack Daniels?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:53AM
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:31AM
Since one weapon against evil is to refuse it the respect of taking it seriously --
An "active shooter" is the opposite of a "passive shooter", which is a would-be mass murderer who holds bullets stationary and waits for people to run into them.
-------
Meanwhile I feel for the innocents who lost everything, and their families, and all those now sweating the minutes at hospitals.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:42AM
"Active" as opposed to "Former" or "Captured". "Killer on the loose" and "Killer on the loose and still killing people" are 2 different things. Although given the nature of articles, it is fairly bad reporting to put such time sensitive information in the article, as it will shortly cease to be true.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:16AM
So, for all the anti-abortion types here...assuming your reasons are religious, why aren't you upset that your God (this is ALWAYS the Yahweh-cultists pulling this crap) apparently terminates somewhere north of 30% of all pregnancies himself?
I always love getting into this with the hardcore religious types because it very, very quickly forces them to tip their hand: divine command theory (I refuse to dignify that nihilistic trash with the term "metaethics"). Apparently it's okay for Yahweh to do anything from genocide to eternal torture of most of the human race, let alone terminating a few [hundred billion, historically] pregnancies because. ...er...because, well, he's GOD. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi and so on. There are no moral or immoral acts in and of themselves under DCT. Which means that Yahweh himself is *a-moral,* and this ties directly into why fanatics of all stripes do what they do with no apparent compunction.
It's hilarious, in a very dark way, to drag these people out under the sun and force them to admit their entire "moral" system breaks down to "might makes right." Even funnier, the hardest of the hardcore, the van Tillian presups, are weaker against their own argument than Metalman is to his own weapon in Rockman 2.
Any of you forced-birther types wanna respond?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:45AM
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." A further corollary to this famous quote would be that only God is wise enough to see all ends, and as such only he has the absolute right to life. If he terminates a few [hundred billion historically] pregnancies it is because he knows how these children might eventually live and he decides in his infinite wisdom (and this is not said in sarcasm as it usually is: God really is supposed to have infinite wisdom) that his plans for the world would be better served by not having them born. Perhaps some of them might eventually grow to become dictators worse than Hitler. Perhaps some of them might cause the lives of their parents to become unacceptably difficult. God only knows, and again this is meant literally.
There are lots of problems and pitfalls when attempting to deal with infinity as mathematicians since at least the days of Cantor found, and reasoning philosophically about a God with infinite wisdom, infinite power, and infinite goodness also has its problems and pitfalls.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:46AM
Problem with that is that it doesn't jibe with Yahweh's attributes. A being which is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, time-transcendent, and most importantly *absolutely-sovereign* does NOT bargain with the time stream.
You're describing a very powerful but not omnipotent, very puissant but not absolutely-sovereign being here. This is a stolen-concept fallacy. You're absolutely right about the problems with infinity, and what you're describing here is the natural tendency of the human mind to treat infinity as "a really frackin' huge number, too big for me to imagine."
One consequence of all the omni- this and perfect that and so forth is that NOTHING would exist except this Yahweh, if it truly had these attributes. Yahweh is supposedly perfect, self-sufficient, all things unto himself; to create anything else (aside from hypostases of himself like Jesus and the Holy Ghost) is by definition to create imperfection. And he would have no reason to; not boredom, not loneliness, and certainly not something as grovelingly Bronze-Age as ego massage.
This is where even the hardest of the hardcore Calvinist neo-Scholastics trip on their own dicks: they all say "for the purpose of displaying his wrath" or "to show his ultimate justice" -- no. No. That, too, is a want or a need, a lack, and contradicts divine aseity. Sometimes I think these people throw a bunch of theological-technical bullshit at the audience in hopes the critics will get overwhelmed and give up...unfortunately for them, I am the kind of person who eats entire fandom wikis whole, and this is considerably less convoluted than, say, Touhou or Sailor Moon.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:28AM
Just so you know, metaethics is not nihilistic. Nihilism is a type of metaethics. DCT isn't metaethics either, but can be treated as such. Metaethics concerns itself with if ethics is possible, it's nature and so on, like how part of phenomenology does for knowledge. DCT is about where a specific ethic comes from and the validity of that specific ethic. It doesn't have anything to do with proving the existence of ethics or the nature of ethics as a whole.
And no, DCT and acts do not mean that Yahweh is amoral. DCT describes morality as being what Yahweh commands. By definition, Yahweh can't be anything but moral under DCT because he is the personification of morality. What you are thinking of is the euthyphro argument, stemming from the euthyphro dilemma of which you have a firm grasp of one of the horns. Without the other the thought is not yet complete.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:50AM
Well fuck. "bockquote" strikes again.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Sunday November 29 2015, @01:06AM
"Blockquoth," this is a religious discussion, after all.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 28 2015, @09:30AM
> Just so you know, metaethics is not nihilistic.
Sorry for the ambiguity. I didn't mean metaethics was, I meant DCT is.
> And no, DCT and acts do not mean that Yahweh is amoral. DCT describes morality as being what Yahweh commands
This is in my opinion a category error on the part of DCT proponents and their close cousins, the "divine nature theorists" (i.e., "Yahweh commands what Yahweh commands of his own nature, which is good").
> By definition, Yahweh can't be anything but moral under DCT because he is the personification of morality
Hah, yes, "by definition." I will sing the Sye-clones the song of their people: "How Do You KNOWWWWWW That? (TM)" I can define shit all day long; doesn't mean it exists in the real world, or even COULD exist. You'd need a working ontological argument for that, which no one from Anselm to Plantinga has been able to supply. Ontological arguments themselves are cases of bad grammar if you ask me...
> What you are thinking of is the euthyphro argument, stemming from the euthyphro dilemma of which you have a firm grasp of one of the horns. Without the other the thought is not yet complete.
Yup :) I know both horns: either Yahweh is commanding something, by definition, for no reason other than his own opinion, or there is some standard he must adhere to (which can in principle be discovered without him, and therefore precedes him). DCT is impaled through the anus, shish-kebabed through all the internal organs, and topped off with its own eye out the front end on these horns; the first horn reduces "Yahweh commands what is good" down to "Yahweh commands that which he commands," and the second wrecks the idea of divine aseity, for a start.
Apologists often try to dodge this with the above "divine nature" gambit, but this merely pushes the problem back a step: is Yahweh's nature good simply because it is his nature, or is there some external standard by which we, and he, know his nature is good? ALL arguments of the form "because Yahweh's $ATTRIBUTE" are subject to this: either it is completely arbitrary and could take any value, XOR this is coming from somewhere outside of Yahweh.
> Not so hilarious when you realize that, among people that are truly devout and really have read their bible, they know might makes right already and simply believe they have the strongest entity or god on their side.
> That is why monotheism is based around praising their lord. They are literally groveling before the greatest might they believe to exist between once a week and five times a day to avoid his terrible and awesome wrath
> Hey, even note how often they use the word awesome to mean "impressive and frightening" when talking about god. Note how "God is great" in the various languages repeated over and over is just another way of subjugating themselves
> to the might of their master.
> Not so hilarious when you realize that they see themselves as mighty too...
Very, very well-spoken. What has me laughing like a Joker venom victim, and for many of the same reasons, is that these resentful, hateful, bilious little mediocrities think kissing up to the literal Platonic ideal of the schoolyard bully is going to keep them safe from its sadistic excesses for all eternity. If it is possible to be thrown out of Heaven, then as time T approaches infinity -- excuse me, *eternity* -- there is a 100% probability that it will happen. If they think their worldview through at all, EVERYONE is going to Hell. It's just a matter of when.
These people have spent 3,500 years dreaming up an omnipotent psychopath, at war with its own creation by necessity. What a mess.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @12:35AM
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "forced-birther", but I think that it seems rather obvious that your personal comfort is apparently not God's highest purpose. I will leave you to figure out what His real purpose is. Happy cogitating!
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 29 2015, @01:35AM
Oh, I would LOVE to hear you tell me what Yahweh's purpose is. I'll let you flail around a bit before pointing out that a being with the attributes commonly given to Yahweh by definition CANNOT HAVE a purpose.
...then again, if you were capable of this level of discourse and thought, you wouldn't be an Abrahamic death cultist :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @08:36PM
By definition? Really? Care to unpack that a bit? Call me skeptical but I don't think you can.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:25AM
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2015/11/27/colorado-springs-shooting-occurred-at-chase-bank/ [fireandreamitchell.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:08PM
Is it too much to ask that you do even a modicum of source checking before taking some rando conspiracy-theory blog at face value?
The very same twitter user [twitter.com] posted a follow-up tweet:
Correction, shooter in planned parenthood bldg.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:01AM
Well, mark the date, Soylentils! Not surprising for Americans that it occurs right around Turkey Day. I, for one, had no idea how crazy some of our otherwise normal appearing Soylentils actually are! I just hope it never comes to the question of aborting Chelsea Manning. That might put Runaway right round the bend.
In the mean time, all gamergaters are hereby ordered to report to their closest gay marriage center, where they will be impregnated with a suitable offspring, and kept in confinement until they come to term. That is all.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:59PM
For those against abortion, they should push for concealed handgun laws for the unborn, since we all know the way to stop armed violence is more guns. With an armed fetus, the fetus can protect itself from anyone attempting to harm it. It will no longer have to depend on the mother and the nanny state from protecting its rights.