In which I politely take exception to the uncouth accusations of the esteemed Michael Weiner.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Finally!

A once in a life time event has occurred: PZ Myers has put up a post covering something that I have already blogged about! I am the victor! Beat him by over a year, too!

Anyway, since I don't have much else to say right now, to anyone who happens upon this post: do you have any interest whatsoever in seeing a chapter by chapter critique of Michael Savage's The Enemy Within (published approximately 6 years ago)? I just happened to obtain it because it was being sold for $1, so it was slightly less overpriced than usual, and if anyone gives a damn at all about yet another person establishing that Michael Savage is a bit of a moron, then I might bother to go through with the ordeal of typing up quotes from the book in order to laugh at on the internet. Otherwise, I'll try to find another project to keep me active on the blog for a week or two.

Until that point, feel free to just drop by and talk about anything at all here. Open forum, if you so choose to use it as one.

Examination of the Courtier's Reply

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy that should look rather familiar to you, a young PZ Myers gave unto the world a label for a certain kind of argument that was hence forth known as a "Courtier's Reply". And there was much rejoicing. But, since it only functions as a label, it is important to know what errors, if any, are involved in the argument that fits the criteria and whether being a "Courtier's Reply" is sufficient grounds to question it. First, here is the little scenario that the Reply describes:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Okay, first things first: the elements of the argument.

• Questions the scholarship of the person receiving the Reply due to their (seeming) lack of familiarity with specific authors.
• Mentions the prevalence and mainstream acceptance of the thing that the person being Replied to himself argued against.
• Suggests that there is something bad about the person being spoken of entirely due to the latter two qualities.
• Avoids addressing "the substance" of arguments (in the case of the example above, by the very admission of the Replier), and instead focused on lack of [insert positive trait not actually associated with the truth of the argument here].
• Asserts or implies that high credentials are needed in order to make judgments about a certain subject. Presumably, this is only noteworthy if it is 1. a subject matter on which almost all people are deemed capable of making informed judgments regardless of credentials and 2. the information that they are suggesting that you acquire in the process of gaining these credentials are irrelevant to the larger issue (i.e. learning about how something works in principle when the question at hand is whether it works at all in reality).

So, what is the Courtier's Reply? In essence, it is one big ad hominem. And not an irreducibly complex one either: almost any combination of the bullet points above result in the same, general form of argument. Note that it is not an ad hominem because it is particularly mean or vicious inherently, but because it attempts to dismiss an argument solely on the grounds of perceived faults in the author of the original argument, rather than due to faults of the original argument. The criticisms may be reasonable and entirely due to the shoddy nature of the argument responded to (see here for cases where insults are not ad hominem arguments). But, without showing why this might be the case and instead posing something that amounts to a series of character attacks as an argument, it becomes difficult to believe that the Reply is a logical rebuttal. It doesn't help that the Reply, as a whole, is a complicated mish-mash of problems.

A step by step:

• Questioning scholarship is fine when you can show where, specifically, their work fell short. But, the insistence that one should be familiar with the specific writings of an individual in order to even make an argument, save in situations where you are specifically commenting on those writings in particular, seems to be inching into appeal to authority territory. Which serves as a nice transition to the other aspects of the argument, incidentally.
• The discussion of the popular acceptance of a certain idea or ideology as indicative of the accuracy of that idea or ideology is an argumentum ad populum.
• The implication that, in the written scenario, Dawkins is bad in some way due to being uninformed by authoritative sources and due to disputing a mainstream view, is the first part of the ad hominem, in addition to the larger overriding theme of presumed ignorance, obstensibly proven in the previous two parts. It is an attempt to show the author as untrustworthy or unreliable. Which, wouldn't be a problem (assuming that they pulled it off using logical arguments). Unfortunately....
• ....the ad hominem argument is completed in its full fallacious glory when the substance of the argument is intentionally ignored in lieu of simply insinuating that their arguments must be wrong due to the previously established negative traits.
• The final and most distinctive part of the Reply is the declaration that one needs to meet certain academic qualifications in order to successfully make statements on a subject. This is an interesting case of an argument from authority. Normally, an argument from authority is that a person is correct because they are authoritative. In this case, however, it is implied that you cannot even be correct unless you are authoritative. This statement seems to get credence from the fact that in discussions relevant to science, people are regularly told that they need to have X level of a qualification in order to make a certain statement for certain. In this case, qualification means that you are more likely to be correct about a relevant subject matter, but is not a guarantee, just as lack of qualification is not a guarantee of ignorance, nor ignorance a guarantee of being incorrect (lucky guesses, ya know?). And, in order to have the ability to make an argument that will have relevance to the scientific community, you need to have sufficient credentials in order to yourself have relevance within the scientific community. These things should not have any bearing on actual arguments outside of that setting, however, and suggesting that someone is wrong due to lack of "authority" rather than due to actually having said something that is incorrect is fallacious still.

But, be careful with addressing a Courtier's Reply: the way that Myers' originally phrased it is a rebuke of the field of theology. The suggestion is that theology is not to be held on par with other

fields of study when it comes to these sorts of "Replies", due to the irrelevance of the bulk of theology to those who do not first accept the premise that God exists (among many others), which requires much more discussion to effectively establish without approaching that debate in the same manner that presuppositionalist apologetics approach the question of God's existence. The Replies themselves are what need to be addressed, because they are a verbiose form of a particularly interesting form of ad hominem that takes the form of "you don't understand".

Now, stating that someone else does not understand is fine, if you can show what they failed to understand before or after making such a statement. But, stating that as the entirety of a supposed rebuttal is not only an unhelpful insult, rather than an argument of any form, but it is also impossible to argue against, cleverly enough. Without pointing out the specific areas in which a person's understanding has failed, there is nothing for the person who "doesn't understand" to rebut and no means to correct their supposed errors (or indicate that they in fact do understand, and either the other person is mistaken, or the original did not express themselves effectively). Without anything more to actually address the argument it supposedly rebuts, it ends a discussion, because the person who accepts that they "do not understand" without specific errors pointed out cannot reasonably continue a discussion on the subject matter without those unknown errors being specified (since he must essentially accept that he is in error about everything mentioned thus far). Luckily, the Courtier's Reply does add more onto this basic argument, but only in the form of suggesting that one corrects their lack of understanding through years of education in a broad field and reading of specific texts, ending the discussion in a similar manner by leaving the person who accepts this declaration that they are ignorant on the subject only able to rectify the situation through days of reading and/or years of study. It is not only an insult used in place of an actual substantial argument, but it is also a tacit attempt to brush off the person that the Reply is for.

In short, in its purest form, the Courtier's Reply is a fallacious argument in many ways and an almost calculated attempt to stop any dialogue at all. It is something to avoid at all costs.

I am familiar with all internet traditions....but what is this "meme" you speak of?

This is the cover meme, which I was tagged with via Sunny Skeptic at Sunny Skeptic.  Rules:  name the worst and best covers done for a song , and tag 4 other bloggers to do the same.   I imagine it is like some sort of strange ponzi scheme, except with more Marilyn Manson.

There are oh so many options, that I can scarcely bring myself to choose.  So, I'm pretty much just going to come up with the first ones I can come up with that are worthy of mention.  It took much consideration to determine the worst, because there is such a large candidate pool.  I specifically debated including many of the covers of Personal Jesus (there's a cover that was done by Johnny Cash for fuck's sake!), Rebel Yell, and a recent rock cover of the song Careless Whisper by Seether (oh boy, was that hard to turn down).  But, I think I am going to have consider Stahlhammer's cover of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" to be the greatest crime against good music that I could manage to find.

Just so that you could have a reward for your eardrums, and in order to fully appreciate how horrible that cover was, here is the original.


For the best cover, it is a tough call.  White Zombie did an excellent cover of "I'm Your Boogieman" but by completely changing the tone of the song and repurposing too much for me to be able to say that it was actually an improvement.  The Ataris did an excellent cover of Don Henley's Boys of Summer, but did not improve it by that much and merely capitalized on what was a rather good song to begin with.  Korn did a cover of Creep that was essentially as good as the Radiohead original.  But, I've got to go with a pet favorite of mine:  Gary Jules' cover of the Tears for Fears song "Mad World". The only difference is one of tone, pacing, and sound effects, and both are very good. But, I think that the cover is an incredibly effective alteration of the original to achieve a similar purpose.

The original:

And the cover version:

Well, that's that, I suppose. I tag you: mac, Pliny, Mandar, and Maze Monster. Have fun.  Over and out.

Edit: Changed version of the original "Another Brick in the Wall" video to one that has less filler.

The Worth of a Man (Spoilers: less than a fetus)

The death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller at the hands of a pro-life fanatic (who once tried to bomb an abortion clinic prior to the murder) has revealed a particularly nasty streak in some members of the pro-life movement. No, I am talking about the killer himself.  I am talking about the people who refuse to say a bad word about him. First up, a published comment on the part of Randall Terry, founder of the organization Operation Rescue (which protested Tiller at length about 15 years back):

 "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.   I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder."

The key points are to note that George Tiller was "a mass murderer" only according to the deranged, subjective opinion of people who insist that killing undeveloped fetuses is the moral equivalent of killing fully cognizant human beings, and not the opinion of the law.   In addition, isn't it rather telling that there is not one word expressing actual sympathy for the sentient human being that was killed?  The one with friends, and family, who was doing a job that few have the skills to provide and was doing it perfectly legally?  Whether what he did was deemed "murder" by a group of politically and religiously minded people or not is irrelevant to the objective fact that killing him is murder by the law.  Sadly, it appears that this individual cares more about not being politically inconvenienced by someone who took the "most effective rhetoric" of the "pro-life" movement too literally than about someone actually being killed due to the divisive and irrational political climate they are contributing to wholeheartedly.

And, since that was nice, succinct, and savory, how could you settle for just one?

Here's a good number more wingnut nuggets:

• Crap, I always forgot hashtags. I'm happy Tiller's dead. - Jennifer Waite, Selah, Washington
  
• UPDATE... Doctor George Tiller was aborted today in his 204th trimester - aren't paybacks a bitch - Punch
• oh HAPPY DAY! Tiller the baby killer is DEAD! - Samantha Pelch 
• George Tiller the baby killer was shot dead this morning. God bless the gunmen who hopefully won't be caught. - readnwatchchris, Creedmor. NC
• was George Tiller the baby killers brain scrambled the way he scrambled full term fetuses.. one can only hope - Brad S
• Infamous baby killer George Tiller gunned down at (irony) church. Why do I not feel sorry for him? Have fun at Judgment Day. - James Fiddler
• tiller the baby killer shot dead...wow. is it insensitive of me to say what goes around comes around? - Brad M. Negulescu Cleveland.
• George Tiller the Baby Killer shot dead. May he rot in Hell. - Amy Strong
• Tiller Baby Killer was shot and killed this morning Justice has been served. - Shirl Ledeux
• Thinking about "Tiller the baby killer" He now knows the wages of sin is death. - Dianne McDowell
• May Tiller rot in Hell , infanticide is the murder of babies, he WAS a provider of death like Hitler, Bundy the list goes on.... - Dennis, A People Voip Company
• Burn in hell George Tiller - mikedanben Sparta, NJ (41.005501,-74.672)
• No need to pray for George Tiller. We know he went straight to hell!!!!! - Laurie D. Bailey Olive Branch, MS
• Good ridence to Tiller - babies will not be murdered because he is now gone. Wonder how he likes hell! - Jay Emess, Southern, NJ
• Karma is a beautiful thing. Cheers to the hero who sent George Tiller where he belongs... straight to hell. - Matthew Kamar
• omg!george tiller abortion dr. was killed n his church parkn lot! hell yea! - Sarah Gulick, Wtichita, Ks
• George Tiller: Burning in Hell for the last three hours. - darthdilbert Kettering, Oh
• Hmm, I know it's wrong, but I feel like the Late-Term Abortion Doctor George Tiller, got what was he deserved..... - Mary Keogh London England
• Boom Boom Boom. George Tiller was served a very very late term abortion this morning. - Chad Coleman, coeur d'alene, Id

A few more added 6:54 PM Pacific Time

• Guy shoots a Dr. to death in Church. Me I'm willing to bet that Jesus was his co-pilot. - jeremyawhitman 
• Tiller the Killer goes to Church and ends up in Hell - mshellisright, Tulsa
• Tiller the Baby Killer is finally dead....God took care of what needed to be done.... - Cynthia Wrench
• The left-wing nutjobs don't understand that Tiller the baby killer was not human. No human kills babies, only monsters. Good riddance - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
• I guess Obama the Messiah can't resurrect Tiller the baby killer. -  Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
• The person who shot Tiller the baby killer simply excercised a man's right to choose. - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
• the killing of tiller the baby killer was JUSTICE, not murder. - eqbt
• Glad someone offed Tiller. Baby Killer. - Kat, Kansas

The most common perspective seems to be one of feeling that this was justified, because Tiller was a "baby killer".  Interestingly, the term "baby killer" may be more accurate than when pro-lifers generally use it to describe abortionists, because Tiller had a clinic in which he performed late-term abortions (after the 21st week, near or into the third trimester).  The counter-point to that issue is the fact that he usually only performed these procedures when it was medically necessary.

That's right.  Tiller the baby killer killed babies that were most likely going to die on their own or who would result in serious medical/psychiatric complications for the mother.  It is only by prioritizing these fetuses' lives over both their mothers' and Tiller's life that you can even begin to suggest that something approximating justice was served.  In this case, we could even grant the pro-lifers their baseless assumption that killing a fetus with not even a semblance of cognition is equivalent to murder of a full functioning human being who is biologically independent and it would not even be relevant to this case.  Odd for something pertinent to abortion to have the major point of disagreement between the political sides (that a fetus counts as fully human) be completely irrelevant, but there ya go.

And this is what brings me, once again, to a dissection.  Hat tip to Pharyngula, leading me to an article by Gingi Edmonds: (Warning:  this going to be long, and you may not want to look directly at the quoted passages, lest your eyes be burnt out of your skull from exposure to the criminal levels of inherent evil contained within).

Tiller was one of only three nationwide abortionists that make a living injecting digoxin into the beating hearts of small infants from the 21st week of pregnancy to birth.  This man put Kansas on the map as the "abortion state" with his entrepreneurial spirit in capitalizing on abortion services

Well, so far so good....she isn't lying!  Even though she is stating it in clearly biased language...who can really blame her?

In addition to being a hit man for hire, Tiller also offered funerary services to mothers that paid him to off their kids.  While most clinics in the nation are content to just rape and scrape, Tiller took his practice leaps and bounds beyond the norm and peddled abortion packages that included photographing, footprinting, handprinting, baptism, cremation, and arrangement for autopsy.

"Hit man for hire"?  Is there really any other kind? 

How is "rape" at all anyway analogous to anything that is occuring in this voluntary procedure?

Why does she continue the great pro-lifer tradition of talking about abortion as if it was some frivolous/hateful decision on the part of the mothers that needs to be mocked?  So many questions...

George Tiller personally killed more babies than America lost soldiers in Vietnam.  Although he specialized in killing handicapped children, most of his tiny victims were late term, fully-formed, healthy, and viable outside the womb.  He performed an average of roughly seven post-viable abortions per week and has admitted on tape to aborting babies a day before the mother's due date. 

As mentioned in an article I previously linked to (here it is again), the idea that these "children" were viable is quite a distortion, because all his cases either involved non-viable fetuses or significant threats to the mother's well-being.  So, under that condition, it probably doesn't matter if he aborted an infant a day before it was due to be born, because it was either not viable, "handicapped" (i.e. with sufficiently severe birth effects) enough to not make it very long after being born, or could very well have brought harm to the mother had the due date been reached. 

Despite his radical dealings in abortion extremism for over 35 years, Tiller has been met with physical violence only three times in his career of mass baby slaughter.  His clinic was bombed in 1985.  On August 19, 1993 he was shot in both arms outside of his Wichita clinic.  And on May 31, 2009 Tiller was shot to death as he served as an usher during church services.

You see?  He was only attacked by anti-abortion fanatics three times.  He should've considered himself lucky!  This makes me feel much better.

Murder is murder, and it is something that we pro-lifers inherently deplore.  But I can't help but note - and my history is rusty so pardon me here - I'm trying to remember, did anyone mourn Lee Harvey Oswald when Jack Ruby gunned him down?  Or better yet, did anyone mourn the deaths of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, or any other mass murderer for that matter?  Even according to the harebrained pro-choice life-at-viability reckoning, Tiller was indisputably a mass murderer who was executed in a fashion far more humane than the tens of thousands of children that he mutilated and left to die in cuddle session bassinets.

"Murder is murder, but just give me a second while I try to justify this murder".  Lee Harvey Oswald did have the right to a fair trial, did have family, and Jack Ruby was punished for killing him.  Jeffrey Dahmer is still loved by his father, whom he lived with during the murders, and both parents publically stated that they still loved him, despite the murders.  I know less about Bundy, but, then again, he was executed, not killed by a random person who felt they were justified in doing so because their victim was themselves a killer.  And I sincerely doubt that shooting someone to death is more humane than whatever procedure Tiller used.  In other words, [citation needed].

I mean, think about it.  Someone just shot a Nazi guard manning the gas chamber at Aushwitz.  I should feel bad about this?  George Tiller the Baby Killer's acts are every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the "legal" murder of the Jews that fell into their hands.

Ah yes, the abortion=The Holocaust bit.  Just a natural conclusion to draw from the abortion=murder presupposition, with a little emotional blackmail on top by pulling a Godwin.  In other words, this is just a reiteration of the last paragraph. Murderers "deserve" to be murdered, therefore "murderers" deserve to be murdered (note the scare quotes please).  

The lone wacko who gunned Tiller down was not associated with any single pro-life organization or group.  He was working solo and his acts rest on his head alone.  So why, exactly, are pro-lifers doing back flips to appease the abortion mongering moonbats that seek to elevate Tiller to martyrdom and sainthood?

Here's the brief version for why "pro-lifers" need to at least try to pretend to have human decency and care about this: because the extreme rhetoric on your side of the aisle is the kind of crap that justifies this.  Just read your post up to this point.  The entire time is spent trying to both 1. characterize Tiller as a "mass-murderer" and 2. suggest that killing people due to being a mass-murderer is fully justified.  In other words, you are arguing that the person who did this, by the logic of the pro-life movement, is completely justified!  And that's why you need to start doing "back flips" right now: because you will completely lose all credibility if anyone with the slightest bit of sense realizes that those slightly to right of moderate in the "pro-life" movement fully support the actions of the killer!

Instead of scrambling to feverishly denounce the pro-life community ("Anyone who thinks Tiller's death is in any way a positive thing is not a true pro-lifer"... huh?) we should be looking at a very serious fact:  If every single pro-lifer who is currently falling all over themselves to publicly mourn the "loss" of this abortionist displayed just a fraction of that outrage over just ONE of the children Tiller murdered on a regular nine to five, Baby Killer Tiller would have been put out of business long ago and he would not be dead today. 

And if the "pro-lifers" didn't spent so much time freaking the fuck out over the well-being of non-viable third trimester fetuses and the brainless first trimester fetuses that we so merrily massacre and rather started caring about the post-birth children in our country, and throughout the world, who are suffering and dying, then they would resemble people with a semblance of sanity.  But, alas, this is not the case.  And, yes, those who think that Tiller's death was justified are "pro-life" rather than pro-life.  But, frankly, the scare quote version is the only kind we are used to encountering anyway.

Over the years there have been multiple opportunities to peacefully and legally hold George Tiller accountable to his actions, thus shielding him from acts of extremism.  An example would be his trial that took place in March of 2009.  Being charged with 19 misdemeanors he got off scott-free through corrupt political ties and professional dishonesty.  Again, had justice been served in that courtroom, Tiller would be alive today and serving a sentence behind bars.

So, in other words, the court rules in favor of Tiller, proving that he is working within the confines of the law, but, because the result wasn't in favor of your delusions, you think that it was just another tally against him?  Rather than vindicating him, it was obviously a "corrupt" ruling and, once again, killing him is justified?  You know, I originally intended to blog crazy, inane things.  I am glad I gave up on that early, because I clearly can't compete with this!

Is the pro-life position one of violence?  Of course not.  It is because we are so peaceful that lone acts of extremism immediately garner national attention.  In the course of a 36 year genocide, only five abortionists have been killed.  According to government statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, for every abortionists killed, over thirty clergy members have been murdered.  Where are the candlelight vigils and 24/7 news coverage for these victims of political violence?

If the pro-life position isn't one of violence, then you must have really missed the boat in spending every paragraph before this point coming up with rationalizations in favor of a violent crime.  And, please look at the side of pro-choice supporters, and compare the acts of terrorism and murder (you know, the actual kind prohibited by law) between the sides.  Peaceful my ass.  I have no idea about the clergy members, but I sincerely doubt that they would killed for "political" reasons, let alone all of them for the same political reasons.  And I also doubt that they have a comparable populations (i.e. abortionists are most likely more rare than "clergy" in a general sense of the word).  So, yeah.

According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, every day more than 80 Americans die from gun violence - many of these being senseless death with the victims innocent of any wrong-doing.  And here we have a man who made a living peddling death, who reaped what he had been sowing for over 36 years at $5,000+ a pop. Does this honestly surprise anyone?

Yay!  America has an abysmally large number of murders via gun usage, and Tiller deserved it.  Ergo, stop talking about it everybody!   Since this particular "gun violence" was politically motivated, rather than a standard random act of violence, and was directed at a guy who has been incredibly demonized by the "pro-life" crowd, I am going to have to say, yes, this is relevant news.  But, sadly, I am not surprised by it.

Pro-lifers need to stop hyperventilating over the pro-aborts who are having aneurisms synthesizing mock outrage at Tiller's demise.  We need, now more than ever, to keep things in proper perspective. 

I assure you, pro-birther, that the outrage is genuine.  And when did you ever, in your life, come across a proper perspective, in which to be in a position to "keep things in" one?

 I know this is a huge loss for Tiller's family and they need our prayer and support.  I'm sure they are grieving bitterly, and it is heartbreaking to think of the pain that they must be feeling.  It is ultimately tragic that Tiller did not have an opportunity to properly prepare his soul to face his Maker.  Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with innocent blood.

Hopefully there is more support than prayer.  Unless you just want to feel self-important, in which case, pray away!  Also, the last two sentences sound almost identical to Randall Terry's up top.  Maybe they shared notes?

While it is imperative that we extend love and grace to the family of Tiller, we still cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that George Tiller was a mass murderer of the worst kind who made a living off of killing babies and harming women.  Unless you are radically against capital punishment, those who view abortion as murder agree that the penalty for the crime of mass child slaughter is death.  And although the method and means of his execution is deplorable, the ultimate outcome is not. 

PRO-LIFE!!1!!!

(Also, "radically" against capital punishment?  What?)

The man chose his fate the moment he dismembered his first infant.  I'm not embarrassed to say what the punishment for the crime is anymore than I'membarrassed to admit that child killing is a crime.

You should be dreadfully embarrassed to say both.  You should be embarrassed to say that the punishment for mass murder is death because it depends on your jurisdiction.  There are laws, and due process involved in this, ya know, and not everywhere allows the death penalty.  You should be embarrassed to say that child killing is a crime because 1. regular abortion is not "child" killing and 2. it completely ignores the fact that, in this case, the "child killing" was done to the already dead/those who would harm the mother/those that would likely die out of the womb anyway.  And you should be incredibly embarrassed, having said both of those, because Tiller was already in court and deemed innocent of crime and unworthy of punishment!  And you've already acknowledged that you are aware of that!  So, quite frankly: fuck you.

Did I want him to be gunned down in church - even a hypocritical, Molech-worshiping fraud of a church like the one he was attending while shot?  No.  I would have much preferred him being tried and convicted in a court of law that is consistent with medical science and personhood as defined in our Constitution.  We can prevent the atrocious acts of violence against abortionists by holding them accountable to their actions.  

Here's where the fun is at:  suggesting that a church is a "fraud" because it is presumably a liberal one (it is a Lutheran church...that's all I know about it on this end).  Classic conservative move, attempting to imply that they have an exclusive claim to "TRUE!" Christianity.  And, although I am sure she would have preferred that he was "tried and convicted", he was tried already and found innocent!  Goddammit, how much does she think the "medical science" that doesn't support her position and the Constitution that doesn't define personhood has changed since then?

The sooner pro-lifers stop giving pro-aborts wiggle room in their perpetual playing of the victim card, the better.  We need to reveal to the nation what this man did for a living and shed even more light on the grisly details of abortion.  Our pointless pacifism and back-peddling in the face of this tragedy is helping turn George Tiller into a hero for the pro-abort crowd.

Yeah, pro-choicers are the ones who play the victim card.  Sure.  And, lol at the idea of exposing "the grisly details of abortion".  It's how they operate: showing disgusting photos of the most developed aborted fetuses they can find.  They are the real life version of a shock site.  They are the goatse of political movements.  That's probably the nicest thing I've been able to say about them thus far, as well!

(Note:  if you don't know what goatse is...please take caution when looking it up.  No need to expose you to horrors beyond the Lovecraftian nightmares and terrifying illogic I deem fit for the blog).

Already, the pro-deathers are making absurd comments such as, "Tiller was truly pro-life, he helped women and was willing to sacrifice his own life for them!"  Well, if pro-aborts can dub Tiller "truly pro-life", then in all fairness I guess it's safe to say that his killer was truly "pro-choice".  He believed in the idea that if a person's existence troubles you, you have the right to kill them.  He also obviously strongly felt that every abortionist should be a wanted abortionist.  Is it not a personal decision?  His ammunition, his choice?  Everybody has an opinion... can't we all just get along?  Find common ground, like Obama asked us to?

I mean, I personally would not shoot an abortionist, but who am I to impose my morality on someone else?  If you are against shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one, right?  Hmm, suddenly pro-choice  rhetoric doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy and virtuous, does it?

Let me repeat the key strawman:  "if a person's existence troubles you, you have the right to kill them".  Did she unintentionally leave out the part where the person is biologically dependent on you, causes strain on your body due to this, will inevitably need to cause you tremendous pain in order to claim independence and could cause permanent damage in the process, the person popped out of nowhere with no known acquitances, and the person has no discernible cognitive function until half-way through the entire process?  I am sure it was just a mistaken omission on her part.

I am glad to hear her scoff at the sound of compromise. It's a sign of a true zealot.

Also:  "If you are against shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one, right?"  How many ways can you restate "abortion=murder" in one article!?

Tiller was killed by a pro-choice act.  Pro-lifers need make no apologies.  Both men are guilty of bloodshed and this tragedy is a sad but all-too-real testament to the biblical truth that those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Does that mean that we get to kill Tiller's murderer?  Or do we have to break that "Biblical truth" by just giving him life in prison?  

What else do we have here...

Oh look, Bill O'Reilly makes sense for a whole one minute before frantically trying to defend himself.  

Funny to see him so riled up, making many of the same harebrained points that Gingi does. Oh, if you want to see one of the reasons why Bill seems so defensive...here ya go.

2:32 or so, he starts to muse about roughing up Tiller, but restrains himself with the particularly weak (and almost sarcastic sounding) "Can't be vigilantes".  Well, apparently, some among us think otherwise.  

And, last but not least, read this article for a dash of redemption for the pro-lifers (just, don't read the comments....fair warning...).

All I've got to say is that, at the end of the day, it is a good thing we have the rule of law to protect us from the anti-abortion crowd. 

Edit:  This article at Slacktivist describes the issue incredibly well.  Also:  

While attending worship at Reformation Lutheran Church this morning, child-slaughterer George Tiller seems to have been assassinated. Without a doubt the most bloodthirsty and cruel of our nation's baby-murderers, Tiller's name has been infamous among men committed to stopping the bloodshed. He's one of the few willing to take money to murder babies so late in the pregnancy that they would be viable outside the womb.

Operation Rescue publicity hound, Randall Terry, expresses regret at Tiller's assassination. We express regret for the years he was allowed to slaughter babies with the civil authority doing absolutely nothing to stop him. One wonders what Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer would say at the news that he was attending church this morning when he was killed?

May Almighty God keep another man from picking up his traffic in murder.

God, please protect me from your followers....