"It doesn't have to apply specifically to race."

which i didn't say...

I know, I was just telling you. Thought it was relevant here.

" so it's easy to profile them and be prejudiced against them, and people do."

 if i asked you to distinguish between a christian and an atheist could you do it? could you identify 3 criteria which could be used to distinguish between the two?

Nope. At least not in an honest way. But the people that profile Muslims are doing it based on what region they look like they're from, so they are doing so mostly based on skin color, which is probably why people frequently bring up race.

"and when you're dealing with a group that's 2 billion strong, and most of them aren't extremists, it's not really fair to just treat them all like they're some kind of menace."

you didn't answer my question when i asked you if you would like to see the influence of the christian religion grow

what is your answer?

I did. I said I like Christian values, but that they're already in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which are secular documents, so I'd rather have separation of church and state. In other words, no.

"and while she may not have meant it to be taken that exact way, she definitely meant something toxic by it"

what toxic intent did she have?

To be mean to Muslims, as you yourself implied, though you'll probably deny it.

" No, they're not talking about mass rape of Japanese women, no one thinks that, he doesn't either, I'll bet my bottom dollar he doesn't, that would be silly."

as silly as stating that you want an army to be formed to combat birth rates? or less silly

I don't want that. That would be silly, but it looks like that's what the shooter thought.

and why would you make the assumption that its not about advocating rape of japanese women? with candace owens you are choosing to ignore her stated intent and just forming your own conclusions so why not do that here?

She didn't clearly state her intent though, it was very poorly written.

"He seems to agree with me that if the shooter saw that tweet I mentioned earlier, he could draw the conclusion that she meant genocide"

based on what? as i stated earlier the focus of her tweet was declining birth rates, for the second time can you explain how that equates to genocide?

I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. I don't think that, the shooter does. He flat out said he was inspired by her. Unless you have a more likely tweet from her that might have inspired this? Again, I'm not saying he made a rational conclusion, just that he made one.

First: Yes

Second: No 

You don't think Twitter is toxic? Not even cancel culture? Not Nazi Twitter? Not outrage culture? Not the openly white supremacist people? None of it is toxic? To me, it seems like that shit is everywhere. I understand that as a concept, Twitter doesn't have to be toxic, but the fact of the matter is that it is. I'm sure you could find friendly places to hang out on Twitter, but when something happens on Twitter that makes national news, 99% of the time it's Twitter being toxic. Only like 1% of the time is it something like #trashtag or some wholesome shit like that.

First bolded: It is a platform of supposedly "free speech" so ofcourse part of it is toxic but in itself it is not toxic.

Second bolded: And im sure you can agree that most of the time's national news does not focus on the positive because it does not give the same amount of viewings as the negative, so to take national news as a valid source to rate toxicness can be highly unproportionate.

Atheists are in the mindset that the world would be better of if religions are phased out rather than "destroyed". It's clear, however, that the recent church shootings weren't done by atheists but by white supremacists. 

I did say that I understand that as a concept it doesn't have to be toxic. I suppose you're right that the news doesn't focus on the positive, but it's not just the news, it's what gets shared on other social media. I don't use Twitter because I hate the character limit, but whenever anything spreads from Twitter to another online hangout, like Reddit or even this site, it's almost always something negative. My point isn't that Twitter's toxicity within itself can be measured by counting news headlines, it's more that it certainly feels to me that whenever something happens on Twitter that ends up mattering in the real world, it's negative. Like #trashtag for instance, that's good, that's people being inspired to clean up lots of trash, cool. But if you tried to count all the good stuff like that that Twitter has inspired, and all the good and progress and healing that's come from it, and count all of the nasty stuff that's been inspired by it, like people being recruited to ISIS, being inspired to do a mass shooting, or the less serious but still toxic to society stuff like cancel culture and outrage culture, and you tried to compare the pile of the good stuff that's actually affected the real world to the pile of bad stuff that's actually affected the real world, I think the pile of good stuff isn't worth the big pile of nasty that came with it. So overall it feels really toxic to me. Again, social media as a whole doesn't inherently HAVE to be toxic, but Twitter, the way it's run now, certainly seems to be when you see the effect it has had on the rest of society.

"Nope. At least not in an honest way."

wow you really couldn't find 3 criteria which could be used to distinguish between christians and atheists?

ok how are you able to distinguish between the two?

you are able i would assume to understand that i'm speaking of two separate groups of people... how are you doing that?

I meant physically, lol. Can you tell a Christian from an atheist just by looking? It's not like Christians and atheists come from a specific region. That's all I was saying is that with Muslims, a lot of judgement happens based on appearance, which isn't the case for most other religions.

" But the people that profile Muslims are doing it based on what region they look like they're from"

this is based on what? can you show me evidence that people are identifying people as "muslim" based only on skin colour?

Not sure why you're contesting this? What is your point that you're trying to prove? I mean if you really want me to break it down, I can, but it feels like you're arguing when it doesn't really seem like you're really arguing for or against a specific point, just trying to get me to excessively break down everything I'm saying for no reason. I suppose one thing that Christians and Muslims have in common that differentiate them from atheists is that they have a regular meeting place. You can go to a church to shoot up Christians (like that one shooter in Texas a while back did), or go to a mosque to shoot up Muslims (like this thread's shooter did). It's harder to do that for atheists. But between Muslims and the rest of the populace, there are more things people use, like cultural garb, or skin color. That's more for if a bigot is trying to harass someone in public. Sometimes they go after someone completely incorrectly, like that one shooter a while back that killed two Indians thinking they were Muslim. That's an example of identifying people as Muslims by skin color alone if I ever saw one. It's not a reliable way to do it, but that guy sure thought it was. It's more reliable than trying to do so by physical appearance with Christians though, so people do it. Doesn't mean they should, or that it makes sense to, but you see them do it. Shows up in the news all the time. But yeah, much harder to do with Christians. I mean what would you do to identify a Christian from an atheist based just on appearance?

"what toxic intent did she have?

To be mean to Muslims, as you yourself implied, though you'll probably deny it."

what mean things has candace said about muslims?

when atheists criticise christianity as a backwards ideology do you jump to the defense of christians?

Well she acted like it was a bad thing for there to be a lot of them. I think that's mean. If you don't, that's fine, I probably won't change your mind. And yes, I do tend to jump to the defense of Christians. I mean, I am one, so maybe that's a bit biased, but I also tend to jump to the defense of Jews, and even atheists and pagans, because I believe in freedom of religion.

"I did. I said I like Christian values"

you think abortion should be prohibited?

I don't. Not in all scenarios anyway. I don't think that's a Christian value.

"so I'd rather have separation of church and state. In other words, no."

but you don't see a problem with the influence of islam increasing?

Oh I do. Trust me. I just don't take the same approach to dealing with it as some people.

"I don't want that. That would be silly, but it looks like that's what the shooter thought."

the shooter wanted to increase the birth rates of people in france(which is what candace was talking about), so he shot people in new zealand?

No, I think he thought she was saying that to compensate for a lack of white birth rates, genocide was called for. Not necessarily the most logical thing to come to, but that's my guess as to what the shooter did.

"I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. I don't think that, the shooter does. He flat out said he was inspired by her."

yes and i'm asking you to make a logical argument for how that makes sense and so far you are failing

Oh I know I am. He's insane, you see.

"Unless you have a more likely tweet from her that might have inspired this?"

well that's the point

What's the point?

"gain, I'm not saying he made a rational conclusion"

your entire argument hinges on him drawing a logical conclusion from candace owen's tweet which to me doesn't make any sense

No, I'm saying he drew an illogical conclusion.

aaargh i had typed a long response to this but it is lost because the vgchartz connection was lost or something. Very irritating but will respond later.

Except the statistics in Australia don't lie. The overwhelming evidence is that Gun Control reduces gun related deaths, meaning your family is safer.

With gun control, criminals are less likely to own a gun.. Because it's a much more difficult process to obtain one.
However... By that same line of thinking, you are still fully entitled to own a gun, you just have to go through a process that ensures you are a mentally fit person to hold a weapon and have the appropriate precautions put in place to have said weapons secured.

Gun control doesn't mean guns are illegal to own... Which I think is ultimately the crux of the American line of thinking.

Anyway... Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you are immune from being shot first before being able to pull it out... And then having the criminal proceed to shoot the rest of your family anyway.

If it wasn't for the fact I work in multiple emergency services agencies and thus often work with the Police, I would probably never even see a gun... Overwhelmingly, Gun control has worked in Australia, continues to work... And if you were to poll the citizens of this country on what they think, they would be supportive of gun control by a vast majority... You just don't see the weapons in the public limelight... Even robberies tend to use more primitive weapons more often than not due to how difficult it is to obtain guns.