I feel like calling these kind of people 'Christian' isn't at all fair to actual christians. I'm a dirty atheist myself, but even I can tell he's not exhibiting any christ-like behavior.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I feel like calling these kind of people 'Christian' isn't at all fair to actual christians. I'm a dirty atheist myself, but even I can tell he's not exhibiting any christ-like behavior.
Dave
Staff member
And the muslim extremist does not represent all muslims, but you'll see a lot of christians making that claim.
If that's the case, what was the point of posting that video?
It's funny in a very tragic way that two religions that are historically opposed to each other are giving the high five to one another over this. Hatred, it seems, has no boundaries nor sole proprietorship.
Nope. I couldn't. I nearly turned it off when he referred to the victims as sodomites.
Then he said "There are 50 less pedophiles." Nope. Nope nope nope.
I'm guessing you're referencing the video, because what I've seen is Christians and conservatives elsewhere online laying the blame for this on Islam, despite the shooter's father saying his son was non-practicing and blatantly homophobic.
A whole lot of what he said would be illegal in Belgium, as hate speech and calling for violence. "These people deserved to die, they should've all been executed instead of hit by a vigilante".
What and how he says it is pretty much identical to what hate-Imams are spouting off in illegal underground mosques. I'm honestly at a loss at how someone can be a pastor and claim to be a good person and spew this sort of filth.
What and how he says it is pretty much identical to what hate-Imams are spouting off in illegal underground mosques. I'm honestly at a loss at how someone can be a pastor and claim to be a good person and spew this sort of filth.
Now we get to go through weeks of finger pointing. It was the guns! It was the muslims! It was the institutional homophobia! It was the gun free zone! It was the christians! It was the NRA! It was the big money lobbyists! It was the gays! It was the slow emergency response! It was the hate speech! It was...! It was...! It was...!
And the finger pointing always comes with the pronouncements of what we need to do next to stop these from happening. Get rid of guns! Get rid of muslims! Get rid of homophobes! Get rid of gun free zones! Get rid of christianity and/or christians! Get rid of the NRA! Get rid of lobbyists! Get rid of gays! Increase the police and swat forces! Get rid of the first amendment! Get rid of...! Get rid of...! Get rid of...!
Then you have the people responding to the pronouncements. Don't blame guns! Don't blame muslims! Don't blame beliefs! Don't blame gun free zones! Don't blame religion! Don't blame human rights organizations! Don't blame LGBT people! Don't blame emergency response services! Don't blame the right to free speech! Don't blame...! Don't blame...! Don't blame...!
Some things change, usually by taking away rights, but they don't change the fact that we're living with people, and some of those people are going to do some incomprehensible and tragic things.
We can't control the environment. We can't keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to others, nor put them into the hands of everyone and force people to protect themselves with deadly force. We can't marginalize or vilify religion or religious belief, that only plays into the hands of those that would use their religion as a weapon. We can't eliminate mental illness or predispositions to violence.
In short, nothing gets done because there's so little we can do that would prevent these from happening. We can eliminate guns and we simply get the Bath school disaster, oklahoma city bombing, and Japan sarin gas attack. We can attempt to eliminate religion and you'll get religious violence such as happened in Xinjiang not too long ago as China's anti-religion laws continue to take away freedom of conscience.
People right now are using the blame game for selfish purposes - they want to advance their own cause or belief system, and they're going to use this terrible tragedy to convince others they are correct.
And the finger pointing always comes with the pronouncements of what we need to do next to stop these from happening. Get rid of guns! Get rid of muslims! Get rid of homophobes! Get rid of gun free zones! Get rid of christianity and/or christians! Get rid of the NRA! Get rid of lobbyists! Get rid of gays! Increase the police and swat forces! Get rid of the first amendment! Get rid of...! Get rid of...! Get rid of...!
Then you have the people responding to the pronouncements. Don't blame guns! Don't blame muslims! Don't blame beliefs! Don't blame gun free zones! Don't blame religion! Don't blame human rights organizations! Don't blame LGBT people! Don't blame emergency response services! Don't blame the right to free speech! Don't blame...! Don't blame...! Don't blame...!
Some things change, usually by taking away rights, but they don't change the fact that we're living with people, and some of those people are going to do some incomprehensible and tragic things.
We can't control the environment. We can't keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to others, nor put them into the hands of everyone and force people to protect themselves with deadly force. We can't marginalize or vilify religion or religious belief, that only plays into the hands of those that would use their religion as a weapon. We can't eliminate mental illness or predispositions to violence.
In short, nothing gets done because there's so little we can do that would prevent these from happening. We can eliminate guns and we simply get the Bath school disaster, oklahoma city bombing, and Japan sarin gas attack. We can attempt to eliminate religion and you'll get religious violence such as happened in Xinjiang not too long ago as China's anti-religion laws continue to take away freedom of conscience.
People right now are using the blame game for selfish purposes - they want to advance their own cause or belief system, and they're going to use this terrible tragedy to convince others they are correct.
Write in M. Adam Davis this November!
My slogan will be, "I may not be ideal, but I've got 9 kids so I won't have nearly as much time to screw things up as the others!"
And then there's this:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/gun-company-stocks-rise-orlando-pulse-attack
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/gun-company-stocks-rise-orlando-pulse-attack
I have no words.
GasBandit
Staff member
And look what happened in the UK.
(The homicide rate jumped 60% before finally settling back down to about where it was before the ban, 15 years later).
For the record the UK has an extremely fucked up way of recording homicides. Unlike in the US where the FBI records every death in suspicious circumstances as a homicide, the Home Office in the UK only records a death as a homicide if there is a conviction. Unsolved murders? Not in these figures. And these figures record the date of conviction, not when the murders actually happen.And look what happened in the UK.
(The homicide rate jumped 60% before finally settling back down to about where it was before the ban, 15 years later).
That spike in 2003? That's Harold Shipman, Britain's most prolific serial killer, convicted of 15 killings, believed to be responsible of over 250. And not one of them was with a gun.
I was going to attempt to respond, but I can't. We're 176 mass shootings (defined as an incident where 4 or more people are wounded or killed) into the year in the US. More than 100 people were victims of gun violence at this one person's hand. And nothing is going to happen. We're going to keep having this same conversation, just like we've done for the last 10 or 20 massacres, and it doesn't matter. You've won. No one's going to make guns harder to get, because that would cut into the manufacturer's profits, and no one gives enough of a shit to push through that. President Obama has had to address the nation in the wake of a massacre SIX TIMES in the last YEAR and it doesn't make a fucking difference.
I'm done.
I'm done.
Westboro Baptist church has been praising the shooter a job well done. And the commentary of the various new outlets has had alot of homophobes gallivanting in awe about this. One massive shit storm all around.
Yep. Many Baptist churches denounced them. My ex is part of a Baptist church that's slowly becoming more progressive (like openly discussing whether to have a recently outed gay young man as a youth leader). She and many members of her church are disgusted by Westboro and ashamed to be even remotely tied with them.
Never stated that they were, just asserted that hatred isn't exclusive to a single religion.
lol why does no one say that ISIS isn't a muslim terror group so fast and fervently?
You live in a different world than I do, Charlie. It's all I hear, every day, every time there's an attack. The Dutch version of #NotAllMuslims trended for weeks after 22/3 (the Brussels attacks).
It's not because right wing nutheads don't want to listen to it, that it isn't being said. Intelligent people know not all Christians are WBC levels of hatefulness and idiocy, and not all Muslims are Salafist dicks.
You're both misunderstanding what he's saying. He's saying that ISIS itself is not a Muslim organization. Not that only Muslims can deny ISIS, not that some Muslims are ISIS and some aren't, but that ISIS is not a Muslim organization.
This. So if you guys really plan on voting from the rooftops, quit jerking off and making t-shirts and just fucking get it over with already. You've heckled grieving Newtown parents at Congressional hearings. With every massacre you get louder. So shit or get off the pot. If you really mean what you say, just fucking open fire. Fuck your "but... but... but... tyranny!"
Yeah, it's a fucking appeal to emotion. Fuck you and your fucking fallicies. If you don't have the balls to do anything but find nitpicky flaws in the other guy's argument, then you're just fapping to how clever you think you are.
Dave
Staff member
So this is much less a muslim thing as a self-hating thing. Turns out the guy professed to be affiliated with Daesh, Al Queda, & Hezbollah. Which all hate each other. So I rather doubt he was affiliated with any of them, other than their stringent anti-gay stances. And like most vociferously anti-gay people, the shooter was himself gay. He was a regular at the Pulse and had several LGBT dating apps. So he was trying to (I assume) reconcile his sexual feelings with his religion (which he was getting more and more into) and instead of being introspective, lashed out at those around him who exhibited that trait which he hated in himself.
Of course this is mostly conjecture, but I think based on the news coming out this is a logical inference.
I will never understand the levels of self loathing that these people must hit to do things like this. The politician who is an anti-gay crusader, the anti-gay preacher. The list goes on and on. I put the blame squarely on religion and their teaching that homosexuality is wrong and will make you burn in fire for eternity.
Of course this is mostly conjecture, but I think based on the news coming out this is a logical inference.
I will never understand the levels of self loathing that these people must hit to do things like this. The politician who is an anti-gay crusader, the anti-gay preacher. The list goes on and on. I put the blame squarely on religion and their teaching that homosexuality is wrong and will make you burn in fire for eternity.
From the funny political pictures thread:
A. Wow, this is bad, let's look at this and figure out what, if anything, we should do to avoid it in the future.
B. Wow, people are really emotional about this, let's use this as a vehicle to push our political/social platform and ideas.
You, and most here, I expect, prefer dialogue centered around A. There are all too many people, however, who will use this tragedy not as a way to pull together, but to further their own beliefs and, if anything, cause further division.
There are a few levels of B, though:
1. My platform/belief has relevance to this tragedy
2. My platform/belief would prevent similar tragedies.
3. My platform/belief would have prevented this specific tragedy.
4. My opposition prevented changes that would prevent similar tragedies.
5. My opposition prevented changes that would have prevented this tragedy, so they are somewhat responsible for this tragedy.
6. My opposition caused this tragedy and it's wholly their fault.
Items 3 and up are divisive politics. They are not intended to help society come together, but to pit people against people and play the blame game.
I'm fine with A. Let's discuss the root causes. The discussion will necessarily be uncomfortable, and we will all have to face certain issues that we may disagree with, but it's a step towards figuring out how to come together as a society and providing reasonable protection to its members.
I'm disheartened by B. Those people have a drum, and they join every parade and beat their drum. It doesn't matter how relevant their beat is to the song, they'll adjust slightly without losing the belief they are trying to push, and then drum away, adding to the cacophony. It doesn't help - its effect, in fact, hinders reasonable people from having reasonable discussions that might actually have reasonable outcomes.
There are two kinds of people that come out of the woodwork when tragedy occurs:
A. Wow, this is bad, let's look at this and figure out what, if anything, we should do to avoid it in the future.
B. Wow, people are really emotional about this, let's use this as a vehicle to push our political/social platform and ideas.
You, and most here, I expect, prefer dialogue centered around A. There are all too many people, however, who will use this tragedy not as a way to pull together, but to further their own beliefs and, if anything, cause further division.
There are a few levels of B, though:
1. My platform/belief has relevance to this tragedy
2. My platform/belief would prevent similar tragedies.
3. My platform/belief would have prevented this specific tragedy.
4. My opposition prevented changes that would prevent similar tragedies.
5. My opposition prevented changes that would have prevented this tragedy, so they are somewhat responsible for this tragedy.
6. My opposition caused this tragedy and it's wholly their fault.
Items 3 and up are divisive politics. They are not intended to help society come together, but to pit people against people and play the blame game.
I'm fine with A. Let's discuss the root causes. The discussion will necessarily be uncomfortable, and we will all have to face certain issues that we may disagree with, but it's a step towards figuring out how to come together as a society and providing reasonable protection to its members.
I'm disheartened by B. Those people have a drum, and they join every parade and beat their drum. It doesn't matter how relevant their beat is to the song, they'll adjust slightly without losing the belief they are trying to push, and then drum away, adding to the cacophony. It doesn't help - its effect, in fact, hinders reasonable people from having reasonable discussions that might actually have reasonable outcomes.
Here's an overview of the FBI results. Apparently this is not the first time his name has come up in connection with FBI investiagtions (once he was investigated directly, another time investigated due to his proximity to another terrorist).:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/update-on-orlando-terrorism-investigation
Neither investigation showed intent to commit terrorism.
Apparently the attack was three hours long.
He's been married at least twice to two different women, and has at least one child.
The evidence that suggests he's gay has completely changed the tone of discussion for many people.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/update-on-orlando-terrorism-investigation
Neither investigation showed intent to commit terrorism.
Apparently the attack was three hours long.
He's been married at least twice to two different women, and has at least one child.
The evidence that suggests he's gay has completely changed the tone of discussion for many people.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Fuck you and your fucking fallacies." Not a fan of logic and reason, are we? I know your dander (and blood pressure, no doubt) is up, so I don't take it personally.
But as you say, it is blatantly fallacious, and not just by way of appeal to emotion. It's the same invalid rhetoric that says "if you're in favor of going to war, when are you signing up?" "When all else fails, vote from the rooftops" is supposed to be a last resort, not a first, second, third, or even 20th resort - it's a metaphor for an armed populace being the final guarantor when all else has collapsed and become corrupted beyond salvaging. If you tell me your plan to escape a coming hurricane is to get in your car and drive away from it, it is exceedingly silly for me to say "well, what are you waiting for? Do it!" when there isn't a hurricane yet. But that doesn't mean you should sell your car because there's no hurricane right now.
Also, bear in mind that your post would be grounds for arrest if the gun grabber types get what they want - inciting others to violence and whatnot.
I do. Shit, next time something like this happens (and there will be a next time), I'm hopping on the phone with my broker.[DOUBLEPOST=1465918948,1465918868][/DOUBLEPOST]
I... I agree with you!?!?!?![DOUBLEPOST=1465919415][/DOUBLEPOST]
I used to be fervently anti-gun, but to be honest, the events in Venezuela really opened my eyes as to how vulnerable an unarmed populace is when their government fails them. Do I support wait periods and closing gun show loopholes, and actually enforcing gun laws - yes. Do I support the outright cries for bans on AR-15's? Not anymore.
Not only that, it's meant to, in part, 1) prevent the government from acting in the first place, and 2) acts as somewhat of a canary in the coalmine if they do start acting.
1) You can't easily pacify via force an armed populace. Therefore, the government will try to work through constitutional channels to exert control over behavior and actions of its citizens. What most people don't understand when they say "well why can't we own a howitzer?" when suggesting these guns are military hardware is that the US military are not allowed to act on american soil. Through various arrangements, treaties, and laws they can train, hold exercises, and so forth on american soil, but they are not allowed to perform military operations against US citizens on US soil. Therefore we don't need to arm ourselves with military weapons until these laws start to fall or fail. Even the National Guard, under orders from state governors has legal limitations on the types of operations they can participate in.
2) When the government starts to remove guns from a population, you should assume that they intend to remove more of your rights.
Please expand on this. I would like to know exactly to what you refer, and what changed your mind, etc. I can make broad guesses, but that is all. I'd rather hear it from you.
Yes, but I'd also point out the idea that if people want to limit "Military hardware" (whatever the hell that means) from being in the populace's hands, would that also mean that the Police don't have them? That's what I think should occur: de-militarizing Police. The police should have no more means of force than the citizenry. It would stop a lot of other BS as well. If you ever need to guess in a photograph of "which is military, and which is police" your police have a SERIOUS problem. Referencing again the Police State thread, etc.
If we are to have a critical and honest conversation about gun control, can we also have one on Islam as well?
I don't see why not, but most here hold that human rights includes freedom of conscience, as well as freedom of speech (radical freedom of speech, if the direction many governments are taking against hate speech is considered "normal"). So while we could discuss the religion, how it motivates and changes its adherents, and the validity of its belief system in today's society, it would be hard to have a discussion about whether it should be restricted in any way without also impinging on rights that most of us want to have, even if it means we also have to live with the KKK and westboro groups in our society.