Dad Confronts Abortion Protesters At Clinic

[Odal]

Science changes based on what evidence proves is real. If tomorrow evidence surfaced that there's aliens out there, science will accept it. If tomorrow evidence surfaces which proves that Odin made us all, science will accept it.

I just can't understand how you can be blinded that way. It is a simple approach to accepting things as evidence allows. and rejecting them in the same way

You can be blinded by it because you don't know for sure.  Even if they showed live videos of aliens, I can't be sure it'd be enough to convince me.  We know that anything can be put on the screen and look real.

Unless you're simply not doing things scientifically and not going by evidence, that is. In which case, yes, I'm sure there's people who have started to believe in scientific principles without evidence behind them.

Regardless of if there's evidence or not, people are still going to trust that what they hear is true.  I know I do to an extent, because there's no way I can prove most of what I've learned in science myself.

But don't try to insinuate that science works on faith like religion does.

I'm not, but people will still put faith in it like others do with religion.  So how does religion come off as being more wrong than science?  Either way, you're still believing what some other dude is telling you.

[Odal]

@Wizzy: I'm in a hurry and just saw your reply, so I'm typing kind of fast here.  I don't agree with your definition of conservative and liberal (and I dont have time atm for semantics).  But even by your definition, TYT doesn't follow that definition at all.  They're so closed minded because they have THEIR agenda and this is obvious if you watch any of their debates it's not even a debate.  It turns into a shouting match because Cenk Uygur knows he has no substance so all he can do is yell at his opponent like a kid.

The protesters that the guy and his wife had to face made their trip a living shit and you can't defend that they were there to make those "could've-been-parents" feel bad; They weren't at the clinic to spouse their take on the matter at all.

The fact that the there was a good chance the baby was going to die according to that video and the analysis of the clip suggests that you didn't even watch it all the way. And yeah, the guy was completely justified in what he was doing and completely civil when calling them out for what they did. Dude was agitated by those people and challenged their actions. Wouldn't you?

And "Dirt Slinging"... really?

"Baby-Killers... you will burn in hell!". The two ladies were completely fine with saying trash like this, BUT NO.... possible father confronts them on public property on messages like that and they threaten to call the police for harassment.

^ Double Standard at it's best.

Haha.  Well first of all, no one can help it if someone's feelings get hurt, especially when these people were just excercising their freedom.  I have no control over others' feelings.  Does that mean I should have to tip-toe around everywhere I go?  F that.  But that's just my opinion.  Second of all, they threaten to call the police for harassment, which is ironic indeed.  BUT, Maybe HE should've called the police for feeling harassed.  And yes, stooping to the level of your opponent is similar to slinging dirt.  It makes the guy no more honorable than the people he's opposed to.

[Wiz]

They're so closed minded because they have THEIR agenda and this is obvious if you watch any of their debates it's not even a debate. It turns into a shouting match because Cenk Uygur knows he has no substance so all he can do is yell at his opponent like a kid.

No they don't. They're just calling out bullshit as they see it.

And yes, stooping to the level of your opponent is similar to slinging dirt. It makes the guy no more honorable than the people he's opposed to.

He's not getting even. He asked why they were doing what they did when he came out of the clinic.

OBVIOUSLY they have the right to do what they wish because the the 1st Amendment protects that right to protest, but that DOESN'T mean the hateful messages those idiots spewed are appropriate.

Pointing fingers at people and saying they're going to hell for aborting a baby who'd likely have a shitty life is just asking for confrontation.

Second of all, they threaten to call the police for harassment, which is ironic indeed. BUT, Maybe HE should've called the police for feeling harassed.

You're being ridiculous. Whether HE chooses (it is ultimately a choice) to feel bad or not about the matter is irrelevant. Those women CAN protest AND hurt his feelings in the process as long as it's non-violent like you suggested (1st Amendment), but the consensus by most here is that they SHOULDN'T because their actions only incite violence.

[Archael]

You can be blinded by it because you don't know for sure.  Even if they showed live videos of aliens, I can't be sure it'd be enough to convince me.  We know that anything can be put on the screen and look real. Regardless of if there's evidence or not, people are still going to trust that what they hear is true.  I know I do to an extent, because there's no way I can prove most of what I've learned in science myself.

So how does religion come off as being more wrong than science?  

Actually, the results of scientific experiments are demonstrable and peer-reviewed. Meaning, other scientists must review your evidence and confirm that it is accurate before it is published. If a claim is found by your fellow scientists to be bullshit, your credibility and your career go down the drain, and the claim is rejected.

This is worlds apart from how religion functions - where there's 5,000 different belief systems, cults, and sects each claiming that their own particular view of the world is correct and everything else is wrong, and the claims made in ancient desert holy books are inmutable and cannot be changed in the face of modern evidence. WORLDS APART.

You're right. I don't get to see it with my own eyes. But it's still 1000000x more trustworthy than every religious claim out there.

You're not going to convince me that you haven't been taught these things in school. Seriously, no one's that dumb.

[Odal]

Wizzy, there's not much for me to say except that I disagree with almost every point.

No they don't. They're just calling out bullshit as they see it.

TYT is "calling out bullshit as they see it." while painting everything they don't like red and everything they support as blue.  I guess I could say I'm just "calling out bullshit as I see it" too.

He's not getting even. He asked why they were doing what they did when he came out of the clinic.

Yeah he is.  His feelings were hurt so he's going out of his way to try to hurt theirs (because we both know that it was more than simply asking why they were doing what they were doing).

OBVIOUSLY they have the right to do what they wish because the the 1st Amendment protects that right to protest, but that DOESN'T mean the hateful messages those idiots spewed are appropriate.

Pointing fingers at people and saying they're going to hell for aborting a baby who'd likely have a shitty life is just asking for confrontation.

Second of all, they threaten to call the police for harassment, which is ironic indeed. BUT, Maybe HE should've called the police for feeling harassed.

You're being ridiculous. Whether HE chooses (it is ultimately a choice) to feel bad or not about the matter is irrelevant. Those women CAN protest AND hurt his feelings in the process as long as it's non-violent like you suggested (1st Amendment), but the consensus by most here is that they SHOULDN'T because their actions only incite violence.

The rest of your post in this quote is all really just saying the same thing.  The part I underlined is what disturbs me... as if the ones who were excercising their right were the ones to blame if someone else gets violent at them.  Do you also tell women rape victims that they SHOULDN'T have been wearing provocative clothing because it incites rape?

Actually, the results of scientific experiments are demonstrable and peer-reviewed. Meaning, other scientists must review your evidence and confirm that it is accurate before it is published. If a claim is found by your fellow scientists to be bullshit, your credibility and your career go down the drain, and the claim is rejected.

This is worlds apart from how religion functions - where there's 5,000 different belief systems, cults, and sects each claiming that their own particular view of the world is correct and everything else is wrong, and the claims made in ancient desert holy books are inmutable and cannot be changed in the face of modern evidence. WORLDS APART.

I don't disagree with you on any of this.  It just doesn't show me why one is more right to have faith in science than they are to have faith in a religion.  It shows why more people may believe in it, maybe, but not why it's more right.

You're right. I don't get to see it with my own eyes. But it's still 1000000x more trustworthy than every religious claim out there.

So it takes trust, which is another word for faith.  I'm not saying your wrong or right, I just understand that you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless, even if you think you know it for a fact.  Just as religious people... no different.

[Archael]

The fact of the matter is that science functions based on evidence, and religion does not. Don't try to semantics your way out of it, Odal.

There is a tremendous difference between me observing the effects that medicine which has been proven to work in the past has on my sick son and praying to X religious diety and putting "faith" in him being magically healed.

So yes, the process IS very different from religious faith.

Like I said, no one is this dumb.

[Wiz]

TYT is "calling out bullshit as they see it." while painting everything they don't like red and everything they support as blue. I guess I could say I'm just "calling out bullshit as I see it" too.

Still not true. Did you not see this?

TYT's more to the left politically than right I agree with that, but they're not extremists. They've attacked Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a DEMOCRAT who's the Chairman of the Banking Committee here in the USA for bailing out and deregulating the Big Banks on Wall Street (Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Chase) who stole OUR (the taxpayers) dollars by fucking around with toxic assets in which they created by handing out loans to people with bad credit scores.

As for the part of the quote below in which I put bold marks on.

Yeah he is. His feelings were hurt so he's going out of his way to try to hurt theirs (because we both know that it was more than simply asking why they were doing what they were doing).

You're right, there's more to this ever so uncomfortable confrontation; he videotaped idiots so the world could see the scene and HOW BAD and unreasonable it really was.

... as if the ones who were excercising their right were the ones to blame if someone else gets violent at them. Do you also tell women rape victims that they SHOULDN'T have been wearing provocative clothing because it incites rape?

Yes to question. Fine girls who wear short-cut pants that are rather too short while showing their sexy buns and revealing top is the perfect signal for a rapist to pick her up in the middle of the night. There are A LOT of things which are PERMISSIBLE by law, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do them.

1. You CAN do it w/o protection (condom, pill, toys) if both (possibly more) members are over 18, but a bad idea and you SHOULDN'T for the possibilities of STD's will greatly increase. Exception being prostitution because it has $$ pumped into business which government CAN'T take from you, so that's why it's illegal.

2. You CAN stick any inanimate object up your ass, but that DOESN'T mean you should do it.

spoiler: 1:20:1moy0580

3. You CAN drink out of a sick person's bottle of coke, but that DOESN'T mean you should do it.

And the list is never-ending and just keeps growing.

Again for crystal-clearness:

There are A LOT of things which are PERMISSIBLE by law, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do them.

Same goes with this ACT these women put on. The guy challenging their actions is not unreasonable and if you can't see that, then you're the one who needs to shove up an inanimate object up your ass.

P.S. Please be sensible from this point forward.

[DaveSW]

The problem with any religious 'debate' is that there are absolutely no ground rules that either side can agree on.  Using an Atheist and Protestant Christian as an example:

The Atheist will only listen to ideas that have been proven, and information that is reliable.  Something is only considered true to the Atheist if it can be consistently proven.  Circumstantial evidence, no matter how much of it there is, is ignored, as all circumstantial evidence can be justified by the laws of probability.  The Atheist also uses logic, so arguments like, "well you can't disprove it either, so it must be real" are also rejected, as anyone using logic knows that negative proof is impossible.  The Atheist could simply argue that you can't disprove the FSM either, thus he must be real too.

The Protestant Christian on the other hand cites only the most recent English translation their 'holy' book in order to prove everything.  Truth is ignored completely when compared to 'The Truth'.  They have the standpoint of "my version of god is real, thus anything at all that disagrees with my view is wrong".  This, combined with an almost complete lack of knowledge about both the contents and origins of their 'holy' book, leads to extremely ignorant statements about morals, science, politics, and anything else that they can associate with their religion.

The problem with all religions is that the only thing that 'proves' a particular religion is correct, is the book that the religion is based around.  The Bible says the Bible was written by god, thus it must be so.  This is an example of circular logic .  The Bible, which says it was written by god, says that god is all powerful, all knowing and completely righteous in all 'his' actions.  Then goes on to spend pages upon pages describing exactly how to dismember, display, and burn the corpse of an ox in order to please 'him'.  That in and of itself begs the question, "What kind of sick fuck likes to see dead animals dismembered and displayed?"   The only argument for why this is justified is because before jeebus, people had to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins.  This begs another question, "Why would an all powerful, all knowing, and completely righteous deity, one who created all of existence, including the very concept of right and wrong, want people to kill animals in order to atone for the transgressions that this deity decided to declare as 'sinful'?"  'He' supposedly made all the rules, so why such a brutal and downright evil method to atone?  The only response Christians have to that is that was why jeebus was born.  So then, why would an all powerful, all knowing, completely righteous deity create a loop-hole for the rules he created in the first place?  Does the idea of human sacrifice not sound disturbing to any one else?  Why would that please him, or rather, why would he decide that killing the only good person be the proper way of saving the souls of everyone else?  Why should people have to be saved, anyway? Why cant everyone just die when there time is up?

That leads to the discussion about how Christians think that all people are inherently sinful, and that no one is actually worthy of heaven.  I would agree, no one person is worthy enough to live forever in continual paradise.  The problem however, is that even the most horrendous and vile of people do not deserve to go to hell. either.  That is beyond cruel, barbaric, and pure evil.  Even if god appeared before a person and told them exactly what the consequences were, it would still be completely evil on 'his' part to allow that person to make a such a choice.  Yes, free will is NOT the end all be all of excuses.  When people cannot properly be informed about the consequences of their actions, letting them have the 'free will' to make a choice is a cop-out, and not at all fair to that person.  

To give an example, say, when my son turns five he wants to play with a firearm, he knows that guns can kill people and says he will be safe, but does he really comprehend EVERYTHING that death entails? No, of course not, he does not have a proper concept of death, or danger, or the risk involved, even though he would tell you that guns are dangerous and could kill you.  I of course would take away his free will in this situation, as it would be better for him to not make a choice about something that he cannot fully comprehend.

Now, applying that example to this part of the discussion:  Can you really comprehend infinity? Can you really imagine infinite pain and suffering?  No, of course you can't.  Whatever you imagine would be infinitely worse, as that is the nature of infinity.  No one could ever properly understand the consequences of this choice, thus any deity that actually allows the choice to be made is beyond cruel, and evil.  Then again, how could a finite existence on earth ever warrant infinite pain in hell?

Wow, that ended up being really long, and I only covered about 5% or what I wanted to.

TL;DR: Just read it, if you want to comment on it.

[Odal]

@Arch, I'm not feeding into it anymore.  I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand it if you try, but I'm not going to reiterate the same point over and over.

Yeah he is. His feelings were hurt so he's going out of his way to try to hurt theirs (because we both know that it was more than simply asking why they were doing what they were doing).

You're right, there's more to this ever so uncomfortable confrontation; he videotaped idiots so the world could see the scene and HOW BAD and unreasonable it really was.

... as if the ones who were excercising their right were the ones to blame if someone else gets violent at them. Do you also tell women rape victims that they SHOULDN'T have been wearing provocative clothing because it incites rape?

Yes to question. Fine girls who wear short-cut pants that are rather too short while showing their sexy buns and revealing top is the perfect signal for a rapist to pick her up in the middle of the night. There are A LOT of things which are PERMISSIBLE by law, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do them.

1. You CAN do it w/o protection (condom, pill, toys) if both (possibly more) members are over 18, but a bad idea and you SHOULDN'T for the possibilities of STD's will greatly increase. Exception being prostitution because it has $$ pumped into business which government CAN'T take from you, so that's why it's illegal.

2. You CAN stick any inanimate object up your ass, but that DOESN'T mean you should do it.

spoiler: 1:20:99e6twpz

3. You CAN drink out of a sick person's bottle of coke, but that DOESN'T mean you should do it.

And the list is never-ending and just keeps growing.

Again for crystal-clearness:

There are A LOT of things which are PERMISSIBLE by law, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do them.

Same goes with this ACT these women put on. The guy challenging their actions is not unreasonable and if you can't see that, then you're the one who needs to shove up an inanimate object out your ass.

P.S. Please be sensible from this point forward.

Be sensible?  Take your own advice?  You're talking about being hostile towards people who are excercising their rights.  You do not educate people by yelling at them.  Maybe just take a step back, realize that everyone is flawed, including yourself, and work to improve yourself, instead of trying to improve everyone else.  You'll realize that people will react better when you're not telling them what to do.  Friends will ask you for advice.  People will learn from you if you are a good example of what they want to be.  And to be honest, discussions like this will rarely ever lead to convincing others of your point of view, but I guess at least someone needs to say it so that you know it exists.  School can help somewhat, but the kind of learning we're talking about is largely not done in school.  A lot of it is common sense, but these days a child is just thrown in front of the TV-sitter and never really learns outside of school and TV screens.

I guess my point is: this guy did nothing to educate anyone, nor anyone who would be against abortion and see the video.  All he did was act as a child and show it to the world.  It didn't accomplish anything except maybe make himself(and I guess others who agree with him) feel better.  Retribution cannot create progress, it only fulfills justice.  If humanity ever wants to evolve we need to realize this.

[Kill_Bones]

^ Pro lifer

[Wiz]

^ Pro lifer

Actually, in his spoiler he indicates that he's pro-choice.

Be sensible? Take your own advice? You're talking about being hostile towards people who are excercising their rights.

I don't have issues when it comes to the rights of those women and the guy, but rather whether his mannerisms were appropriate or not (i.e. raising his voice).

You say the projection of his message isn't reasonable while I think just the opposite of that.

If someone or a group of people told me that I was committing an act with only evil intentions in mind, when in reality I'm making an incredibly tough decision with my wife about our could've been son/daughter who likely would've died yeah I'd be pissed and TRY to grasp AS CALMY AS POSSIBLE why they are trying to make me and the rest of my family feel worse about ourselves.

The rest I'm not responding to because it deals with ethics as a whole, being a topic that nobody truthfully needs a lecture on. Like I've said before, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest and get the most-liked award. Just doing my job and pointing out flawed reasoning as I see it.

Odal, let's just agree to disagree that some think he took it over the top and others not at all. Fair assessment?

[Odal]

Okay, I guess all I'll conclude/summarize: While I agree with the guy about abortion (yes, the troll was wrong, I am definitely not a pro-lifer), I don't agree with his method of handling the problem.

But yeah, I agree to disagree and all that good stuff.

[Asmo X]

Yeah some hillbilly motherfuckers were basically calling his wife evil at the worst moment of her life, so let's get up-in-arms about HIS attitude. Are you fucking retarded or something?

[Archael]

Odal:

The reasons why it is "more right" to place your trust in science rather than religion are all around you, and you can verify those reasons with your own senses, without having to trust or put faith in what anyone else tells you.

The computer you're on, the appliances in your house, the medicine in your cabinet, the (preserved) food in your fridge that won't rot in 1 week, the hospital you were born in, the game we are hacking, the microwave you use to make Ramen, the airplane you use to visit grandma, the car you drive, the celphone you own, the softwate we use to run AI tournaments. 

All of these and more are the result of scientific processes, and knowledge gathered through evidence, and not people putting faith in g0d. More importantly, they are verifiable, demonstrable evidence that those processes work, and that the observations and evidence used to make them are correct. More correct and real than any fucking religion.

It's undeniable, unless you close your eyes and pretend that every technology and advantage that science has ever given us doesn't exist, or if you belong to some cult (read: religion) that somehow fooled you into thinking that Zeus gave us all of it.

Anyone who thinks science requires faith or even remotely compares it to religion is trying to argue with the very reality that surrounds them and makes their daily life possible. (Especially that morning ride in the car to work!)

Very low and intellectually dishonest of you to even try and put them on a similar level. My opinion of you is diminished.

[Kill_Bones]

Yeah some hillbilly motherfuckers were basically calling his wife evil at the worst moment of her life, so let's get up-in-arms about HIS attitude. Are you fucking retarded or something?

Posts like these are why Asmo deserves his own holiday. 100% agreed with it and it made me laugh.

[GeneralStrife]

Voldemort were you athiest before or after it was cool?

[VampragonLord]

If humanity ever wants to evolve we need to realize this.

[GeneralStrife]

america is one nation under G.O.D umad?

[Archael]

Voldemort were you athiest before or after it was cool?

I wasn't aware that being an atheist ever was, is, or ever will be considered "cool". Nice attempt at trying to peg me for someone who is simply an atheist because it's the "in" thing to be, though. I think my posts make it damn clear that this is a subject which I have studied greatly, and agnostic atheism is a position I hold for very strong reasons.

I greatly dislike how you totally dismiss all the information in this thread and think it's OK and appropriate to reply with shitty 1 liner posts without any constructive or productive purpose except to act like an asshole and make insinuations.


About your other post:
The United States was founded on completely secular principles, with a major emphasis on freedom FROM religion and a separation of church and state.

Have you actually ever READ the constitution?

You ignorant?

PS: Stop 1 line trolling my thread, this isn't spam. It's pretty clear that you are just blank troll posting to bait people with your uninformed comments.

 There's rules on FFH now, follow them.

[Odal]

Lol, and the trolls come out of the woodworks.

@Voldemort, I already dropped it and you're basically trolling at this point too.  

You win.  

There...  Is that what you want?  

I really don't care about your opinion of me.  Some dude somewhere on some forum boards has a lower opinion of me?  What am I ever going to do?