Rampage shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado

They failed.

Either you do think there is a difference between them, in which case there was no reason to bring war up in the first place. Or you think there isn’t a difference. There really isn’t much ambiguity here.

2 Likes

You are being very ambiguous. :wink:

1 Like

You aren’t reading very closely. I said that any of those terms could be used, which is not to say that they are synonymous.

My point is precisely that why people choose one of these terms rather than another can be relevant. It was my original question that the person I asked never replied to. The question stands: Why should I think of these people as “terrorists”? What difference does that make? I think the use of the term is ideologically motivated, and it’s not even insightful in the best case. So since people seem to feel strongly about why, I thought maybe somebody would explain this, make a case for it that I or others could consider.

I am not clear what you are asking.

Sounds like a typically egocentric self-serving bias here. There is no rational reason to assume that it matters if something happens to me versus anybody else.

Because their goal is to inspire terror in anyone willing to actively support abortion rights, specifically doctors and staff at clinics or practices that do so?

10 Likes

You realize that you often complain about how no one:

  1. reads closely what you say
  2. parses it correctly
  3. understands you

The common factor here isn’t the other people but you. Your style of communication is obtuse and clearly prone to misinterpretation. You may wish to examine this closely and change your methods if you goal is for others to understand what you are stating and engage in fruitful discussions with you.

I know I’ve pretty much given up on “getting” what you are stating and, frankly, have stopped trying to bother most of the time once you write more than a paragraph of intricate gobbleygook.

tl;dr you aren’t clear at all. Be brief and more clear.

14 Likes

Or, perhaps more accurately, you find my remarks unclear. But this is a group discussion, and your perception of it does not make it a success or failure.

There can be differences between them. They function as categories, and categories depend upon our perceptions. That people choose their pet labels for ideological rather than functional reasons was my point. I also needed to qualify that I do not endorse any of these ideologies myself. Do you understand what I mean?

For example, a group which strives to control an area by force might be recognized as a “nation state” by one group, and “insurgent faction” by another, and “terrorists” by yet a third. Since they are constructs of human conception, there is a necessary degree of subjectivity in who uses them - even though the meanings remain distinct. What is often not clear, and the motivation behind my original question here, was why/how the distinction was relevant for the person who insisted upon it. When somebody says I should perceive something differently, I might be interested to know why.

Dictionaries! How do they work! :wink:

2 Likes

In Oregon it is illegal. There. Full stop. That isn’t rhetorical, and Oregon isn’t the moon.

2 Likes

But is this more effective than simply calling them adversaries? Can either of us honestly speak for “anyone willing to actively support abortion rights”? I don’t feel this way. Since it seems disadvantageous, I am not convinced that it is a good idea. And that can be fine! I never insisted that people needed to frame their perceptions a certain way.

Dictionaries don’t answer what my question was, which was: “What is the significance?”

We have hit ultimate meta…there is nowhere to go but down from here.

22 Likes

8 Likes

with this words the meta wars commenced

7 Likes

Seriously - one can usually use these terms with the same group of people interchangeably. What label sticks and how they are perceived (in a positive or negative light) usually depends 100% on who wins, and who writes the history. And even then, the losers will look favorably upon their side and frown on the other side, trying to make themselves out to be the victims. (Examples would be the war of Northern Aggression and how Germans blamed the Nazis, which no one was actually part of, during WWII. Japan was at the mercy of the Emperor, etc.)

3 Likes

I can share a little bit of inside information from the scene…

My good friend’s nephew is on CSPD SWAT and was one of the first officers to respond to the incident. He was inside the PP building and exchanged gunfire with the suspect before he was shot in the leg.

From his description it sounds like this guy was armed with a fully automatic AK47 and was firing hundreds of rounds blindly from around corners and attempting to shoot thru the inside walls at police. One round went thru an officer’s vest so it’s apparent he was using high powered or armor piercing ammunition.

They also sent in a surveillance robot and once the suspect noticed he fired at it and took it out.

My friend’s nephew emptied several clips at the guy but never got a clean shot. He was so pissed when he got shot that he couldn’t take the guy out. Fortunately it was clean through-and-through wound right through his calf so he we treated and released the next day.

I’ll share more details as I come by them.

18 Likes

It is hard for me to know what to make of this.

I answered the question, I didn’t move goalposts, and I have examples.

In the US if you tell someone to kill someone and they do, you can be an accessory. This isn’t an opinion. Why is this funny?

3 Likes

One thing that is “funny” about it is that US law seems to try extremely hard to avoid recognizing personal responsibility, while punishing people anyway.

For instance, I am not “allowed” to use Drug X because I cannot be recognized as responsible enough. But if I use it anyway, I am liable for punishment because I then somehow magically have personal responsibility. Most US law works on similar interpretive shenanigans.

2 Likes

Dig deep enough in discussion with the forced birthers and you nearly always find that the root of their objection to abortion has nothing to do wth protecting life. It’s about maintaining forced pregnancy as a deterrent/punishment for women who have unlicensed sex.

Hence the hate for Planned Parenthood. They don’t just object to the abortions; they object to all of it.

14 Likes

This is another one we should slice off to a different discussion:) not because I think you are wrong, just cause a lot of words could be spilled.

2 Likes

Relax. I like not his argument, but the tangential reference to the Mooninites from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

I can’t find the specific scene he quoted, but as an example:

1 Like

The mooninite reference lost me,which is ironic since I am one, mutha fucka!!!

3 Likes