• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-Life Advocates Plan to Protest Opening of Largest Abortion Clinic in U.S

I'm just going to shoot from the hip here, no numbers or anything. But I'm fairly certain suicide bombers answering the call to jihad somewhat outweigh the amount of Christian, er, Crusaders (?) that blow up abortion clinics.

Like I said, this is not a football game. You don't get to be morally superior based on the number of bombs you blast.

So, from that perspective, it does seem a shoe-in whether... Well, whatever salient point you two are discussing.

You don't understand the point yet, and it's not really that salient anyway which I just said, and it's spelled "shoo-in."
 
Like I said, this is not a football game. You don't get to be morally superior based on the number of bombs you blast.

Seems to me that we're not talking about the people who "blast bombs."

We're talking about the rest of the people within the same motivational group who don't do that, and the level of outrage they have over those who do such things in their names.

That does make some difference.

Look, it's not neurosurgery -- if someone's going around killing in your name, and most of you get pissed of by it, then it's far more clear that the killers really are the extremists, and they really don't represent the rank and file membership of your group, than it is if most you shrug, and only a few condemn it.

I frankly don't see how that's arguable, unless you're bent on drawing a moral equivalence. But guess what? Some things aren't morally equivalent.
 
Seems to me that we're not talking about the people who "blast bombs."

We're talking about the rest of the people within the same motivational group who don't do that, and the level of outrage they have over those who do such things in their names.

That does make some difference.

Look, it's not neurosurgery -- if someone's going around killing in your name, and most of you get pissed of by it, then it's far more clear that the killers really are the extremists, and they really don't represent the rank and file membership of your group, than it is if most you shrug, and only a few condemn it.

I frankly don't see how that's arguable, unless you're bent on drawing a moral equivalence. But guess what? Some things aren't morally equivalent.

Hey, guess what? That's EXACTLY the argument that terrorists use to justify killing civilians: the U.S. government was elected by the people, and is killing Muslims in our name, so we are responsible.
 
Hey, guess what? That's EXACTLY the argument that terrorists use to justify killing civilians: the U.S. government was elected by the people, and is killing Muslims in our name, so we are responsible.

:rofl

Riiiiiight. Yeah, that's where I'm going with this -- justifying killing anyone.

:rofl
 
:rofl

Riiiiiight. Yeah, that's where I'm going with this -- justifying killing anyone.

:rofl
Seems to me the folks closest to thinking like that are supporters of death panels and abortion.
 
:rofl

Riiiiiight. Yeah, that's where I'm going with this -- justifying killing anyone.

:rofl

Didn't say that at all. Just noting that you can't hold people responsible for something they didn't do. It's a logical fallacy. That applies to anti-abortion people, Muslims, and American voters alike. That was my point from the beginning.
 
Didn't say that at all. Just noting that you can't hold people responsible for something they didn't do. It's a logical fallacy. That applies to anti-abortion people, Muslims, and American voters alike. That was my point from the beginning.

I don't think it was your point from the beginning, but if it was, you didn't express it well.

Never said anything about holding people who didn't do anything responsible for those who do. Spoke only of the relative outrage apparent between the groups, and how it's not comparable.

Why? Because you brought it up.
 
I don't think it was your point from the beginning, but if it was, you didn't express it well.

That's true. I didn't know I would need to.

Never said anything about holding people who didn't do anything responsible for those who do. Spoke only of the relative outrage apparent between the groups, and how it's not comparable.

But the relative outrage is irrelevant. Nobody is obligated to express outrage about what someone else does.
 
But the relative outrage is irrelevant. Nobody is obligated to express outrage about what someone else does.

Then why did you find it necessary to make the comparison?
 
Back
Top Bottom