New Death Threats Against Italian Bishops' Leader

[bones_IV]

I see you’re still having trouble with the meaning of ‘genocide’ - hint: it implies the killing of a national or racial group on the grounds of their national or racial identity. The victims of the Vendee massacres were French people being killed by French people during the course of and subsequent to an uprising against the state.

So, how were the Vendee massacres ‘genocide’?

You said, “killing of a national group” so the French people killed during the French Revolution were not French? You’re essentially contradicting yourself.

 

[Kaninchen]

You said, “killing of a national group” so the French people killed during the French Revolution were not French? You’re essentially contradicting yourself.

Amazing, really amazing.

 

[Tom317]

Sometimes actions need to be condemned without arguing, without trying to explain it away, without trying to propose defense for the criminal acts.

An Archbishop received a death threat because he voiced an opinion. I do not care if the threat came from gay(s) or people who just hate the Church, or someone that just doesn’t like the Archbishop. The point is the man’s life was threatened because he voiced an opinion.

Do we really want to live in a world where opinions are stiffled?

 

[Kaninchen]

The gay lifestyle by it’s very nature is violent.

Err? I thought that was S&M.

When a bullet gets sent to an archbishop for condemning sodomy then perhaps I have a reason to be alarmed?

Indeed but what’s that got to do with characterizing an entire group on the basis of the actions of one person?

Another thing, where was the anger of these gay militants when the bullet was sent to the Archbishop? Didn’t hear a peep out of them. The gay militants were gloating.

Please provide evidence of such gloating.

 

[fix]

Not really, the logic isn’t the same but nevermind.

Hey, sorry for interrupting a “gays eat babies and boil kittens” thread, I know some of you need an adequate ration every day.

Do you not think characterizing those who reject gay agitprop as claiming “gays eat babies” makes you guilty of what you impute to others?

 

[Kaninchen]

Sometimes actions need to be condemned without arguing, without trying to explain it away, without trying to propose defense for the criminal acts.

While that may, or may not, be true or be what has happened here, the statement doesn’t exactly rest too easily with:

Do we really want to live in a world where opinions are stiffled?

though.

 

[bones_IV]

Err? I thought that was S&M.

Indeed but what’s that got to do with characterizing an entire group on the basis of the actions of one person?

Please provide evidence of such gloating.

Hmmmm. Let’s see. The gay lifestyle is scandalous and causes other people to sin. The MSM doesn’t even bother to mention the fact that the Archbishop was threatened do they? Sounds like evidence to me. Are you an apologist for the gay militants?

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you not think characterizing those who reject gay agitprop as claiming “gays eat babies” makes you guilty of what you impute to others?

Hey, I’m just rejecting anti-gay agitprop - characterizing entire groups on the basis of the actions of an individual.

 

[Tom317]

While that may, or may not, be true or be what has happened here, the statement doesn’t exactly rest too easily with:

though.

It works perfectly well. Criminal acts need to be condemned, period. No wringing of hands or arguing, just condemn the acts and move on.

Voicing opinions should never (read that–never) be cause for violence.

BTW, no one here is taking away your right to say whatever you please, I just contend it is misplaced because you spend a lot more time arguing about “non-issues” then you do condemning the criminal act.

Evil propers when good people do nothing. Talking is worthless when it comes to stopping this sort of criminal activity.

 

[Tom317]

Hey, I’m just rejecting anti-gay agitprop - characterizing entire groups on the basis of the actions of an individual.

Using your logic, who said it is an individual? For all we know it can be thousands behind that one bullet? You don’t want others to condemn groups, which is a fair point, then you should not be willing to say it is an individual when you do not know. It could be one lone person, or it could be entire group stalking the Archbishop.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hmmmm. Let’s see. The gay lifestyle is scandalous and causes other people to sin.

And that allows you to characterize an entire group on the basis of the action of one individual in threatening an archbishop?

The MSM doesn’t even bother to mention the fact that the Archbishop was threatened do they? Sounds like evidence to me.

Evidence of the guilt of a whole group of people on the basis of the actions of an individual?

Are you an apologist for the gay militants?

Good grief.

 

[fix]

Hey, I’m just rejecting anti-gay agitprop - characterizing entire groups on the basis of the actions of an individual.

You reject agitprop by claiming the opposing group all hold that gays eat babies?

 

[Kaninchen]

It works perfectly well. Criminal acts need to be condemned, period. No wringing of hands or arguing, just condemn the acts and move on.

Had the opening post been a link to the article with a comment of “isn’t it awful”, I’d have agreed, “yes it’s awful” - I’ve said so.

That’s not what was being said in the op, though, was it?

 

[Kaninchen]

You reject agitprop by claiming the opposing group all hold that gays eat babies?

I characterized anti-gay agitprop that way.

 

[fix]

I characterized anti-gay agitprop that way.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Tom317]

Had the opening post been a link to the article with a comment of “isn’t it awful”, I’d have agreed, “yes it’s awful” - I’ve said so.

That’s not what was being said in the op, though, was it?

So what? You have made your point many, many times. Let us now see you join the rest of us and condemn the acts and cease this silly arguing.

 

[Kaninchen]

Using your logic, who said it is an individual? For all we know it can be thousands behind that one bullet?

Indeed - if there were evidence of it then the group ‘voting’ for it could be condemned. If there emerges evidence for it, the group should be condemned.

We don’t even know if it was the work of an agent provocateur (see the linked article in post 1). There was no evidence in that post that would enable anybody to characterize an entire group.

 

[bones_IV]

And that allows you to characterize an entire group on the basis of the action of one individual in threatening an archbishop? Evidence of the guilt of a whole group of people on the basis of the actions of an individual? Good grief.

Silence never helps the victim only the oppressor.

 

[Kaninchen]

A distinction without a difference.

Or with a difference, as the case may be.

 

[Kaninchen]

So what? You have made your point many, many times. Let us now see you join the rest of us and condemn the acts and cease this silly arguing.

Well, I’ll stop arguing with you because you agree with my point about characterizing sets on the basis of individuals.