the-pi-guy said:
>So people are concerned about the politically motivated right wing violence specifically, while at the same time they're not? No. I used a wonderful word called "or". Some people are specifically concerned about right wing violence. Some other people are concerned about violence in general. >I think what you mean to say is conservatives tend to think private things should remain private, like property. No, that comment was in the context of sexism. There are a small number of conservatives that strongly believe that women belong to the man they married. That is what I mean. I'm not saying that most conservatives feel that way, but there are a small number who do. |
Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.
This is more clear now as well. A liberal friend of mine would surely fall under this 'my wife is basically my property' belief. Any guy that looks at her in just the wrong way or if he even catches her flirting in the slightest, he loses his shit. So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way? Any at all, even a small minority.
the-pi-guy said:
>is the belief that women should be the public property of all men (e.g. prostitution, pornography, surrogacy, beauty pageants, etc Supporting the legalization of prostitution, or supporting those other things doesn't promote the belief that women should be public property. I've never heard of the idea that women should be public property. >we can gather that the Dayton shooter embraced the left wing version Doesn't mean the shooting was politically motivated. |
Well by this logic someone could say the El Paso shooting wasn't necessarily politically motivated either. Sure they may have written a manifesto, but how does that prove anything? The individual clearly has issues, so much so they mowed down a bunch of innocent people with a gun at a store, and when they write down some stuff it's supposed to be taken seriously? Some people today have this idea that if you don't have a degree or professional title, your knowledge or opinion on certain matters is less worthy or useless altogether, so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something? How does anyone know what that lunatic was really thinking and feeling? Why would you take their word for it?
I'm not saying if a manifesto is written that it should be completely disregarded, but what exactly does it take to pin down motive to a mass shooter, who clearly isn't right in the head?
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 08 August 2019
