Quantcast
Active shooter situation reported in Christchurch, New Zealand

Forums - Politics Discussion - Active shooter situation reported in Christchurch, New Zealand

MrWayne said:
Why did this thread need to derail in a discussion about Islam?
You guys should discuss your BS elsewhere but not in a thread about a terrorist attack in which over 50 muslims were killed.

did you have something relevant to add to the topic yourself? we were talking about possible inspirations for the shooter, which lead to discussion on candace owens and her comments on muslims

what have you added to the topic?



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
HylianSwordsman said:

"A religion is not its holy book."

it has to be otherwise what is there to separate you from the muslims for example since you both believe in god?

It's beliefs? Like, independent of the holy book? For example, Christians believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Every copy of the Bible and Quran could disappear and that would still be true.

"That's not how implying works lol,"

ok show me where i implied that i didn't remember her doing that

Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time.

"And you can change their minds."

and then they cease holding those values and you redirect your attention to the others who do

this is why candace did not talk about middle eastern people, she specified muslims - people who hold certain values

Agreed. However, I don't think Candace's tweet accomplishes that. She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values, just the people in general.

"Oh it definitely happens in other cultures, but it gets justified by different values each time."

justified?

Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way.

"And each time, to solve the problem, examination of those values needs to happen."

what problem?

women are freely choosing the mates they want to have, why would that ever be a problem?

Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values. But as to why it might be a problem, it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example.

" it just would need to have a constitution that gave the same rights as ours and with similar checks and balances."

so a constitutional republic... which is what exists now

Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy.

" A simple majority of the population shouldn't be able to decide certain things, like rights. "

but this is what democracy is

Nope.

"Having constitutionally guaranteed rights that require high hurdles to overcome in order to make constitutional changes "

this is not democracy

Yeah it is.

"in doing so endanger themselves in the future by setting dangerous precedents."

like what? give me an example

why would the majority of people in a country vote for policies that ultimately harm them in the long run?

Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences.

"you are just concerned about the potential consequences to free speech if people were to be penalized for what they said if even a loose connection to another person's violence could be made. Right?"

free speech means people should be able to freely discuss ideas outside of calls for violence

it is how people think - by exchanging and weighing ideas, the minute you start messing with that then you are setting up a situation where you'll breed stupidity

Sounds like I understood you correctly then.



HylianSwordsman said:
o_O.Q said:

"A religion is not its holy book."

it has to be otherwise what is there to separate you from the muslims for example since you both believe in god?

It's beliefs? Like, independent of the holy book? For example, Christians believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Every copy of the Bible and Quran could disappear and that would still be true.

"That's not how implying works lol,"

ok show me where i implied that i didn't remember her doing that

Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time.

"And you can change their minds."

and then they cease holding those values and you redirect your attention to the others who do

this is why candace did not talk about middle eastern people, she specified muslims - people who hold certain values

Agreed. However, I don't think Candace's tweet accomplishes that. She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values, just the people in general.

"Oh it definitely happens in other cultures, but it gets justified by different values each time."

justified?

Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way.

"And each time, to solve the problem, examination of those values needs to happen."

what problem?

women are freely choosing the mates they want to have, why would that ever be a problem?

Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values. But as to why it might be a problem, it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example.

" it just would need to have a constitution that gave the same rights as ours and with similar checks and balances."

so a constitutional republic... which is what exists now

Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy.

" A simple majority of the population shouldn't be able to decide certain things, like rights. "

but this is what democracy is

Nope.

"Having constitutionally guaranteed rights that require high hurdles to overcome in order to make constitutional changes "

this is not democracy

Yeah it is.

"in doing so endanger themselves in the future by setting dangerous precedents."

like what? give me an example

why would the majority of people in a country vote for policies that ultimately harm them in the long run?

Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences.

"you are just concerned about the potential consequences to free speech if people were to be penalized for what they said if even a loose connection to another person's violence could be made. Right?"

free speech means people should be able to freely discuss ideas outside of calls for violence

it is how people think - by exchanging and weighing ideas, the minute you start messing with that then you are setting up a situation where you'll breed stupidity

Sounds like I understood you correctly then.

" For example, Christians believe in the Trinity"...

...because of the bible or in other words the holy book

as is the case with all of the beliefs

 

"Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time."

making assertions is easy... but backing them up? well that's something else entirely

 

"She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values"

you expected an essay on twitter where communication is restricted to 140 characters?

 

"Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way."

i've never seen women talk about their preferences for men with money and say "well my culture told me to get a rich guy so i did"

if anything its the opposite where in some cases women pretend to be with a guy for something more than his money because they fear shame from people labeling them as gold diggers or shallow

 

"Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values."

i've said it before and i'll say it again if you're only ready to accept that this is caused by socialisation(which seems to be the case) you're in for a lot of disappointment

 

", it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example."

if japan collapses as a country to ensure women's rights then i think its a worthy sacrifice

imo women's rights are more important than japan

 

"Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy."

and how does this work exactly? 300 million people vote on every single bit of legislation? 

you then go on to demonstrate imo that you don't understand what democracy is and i'm not bothering to go there with you, the information is there for you to access if you want 

but disregarding that what then do you call a political system where the majority choose what policies are put into place? you are claiming its not democracy so what it is then?

 

"Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences."

if you took away the element of fear from voting, i expect voting patterns would change entirely, i don't think you are acknowledging how big of an effect it has already




o_O.Q said:
HylianSwordsman said:

" For example, Christians believe in the Trinity"...

...because of the bible or in other words the holy book

as is the case with all of the beliefs

Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. Christians were just a body of people for the longest time. They had letters from Paul, but they weren't a Bible until fairly recently.

"Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time."

making assertions is easy... but backing them up? well that's something else entirely

Right.

"She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values"

you expected an essay on twitter where communication is restricted to 140 characters?

Yeah, that's one reason I hate Twitter. So much public discourse happens there, but you just can't have an in depth discussion with 140 characters at a time.

"Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way."

i've never seen women talk about their preferences for men with money and say "well my culture told me to get a rich guy so i did"

if anything its the opposite where in some cases women pretend to be with a guy for something more than his money because they fear shame from people labeling them as gold diggers or shallow

Lol that's not how culture works dude.

"Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values."

i've said it before and i'll say it again if you're only ready to accept that this is caused by socialisation(which seems to be the case) you're in for a lot of disappointment

Not sure what you mean. But okay.

", it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example."

if japan collapses as a country to ensure women's rights then i think its a worthy sacrifice

imo women's rights are more important than japan

Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights. 

"Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy."

and how does this work exactly? 300 million people vote on every single bit of legislation? 

you then go on to demonstrate imo that you don't understand what democracy is and i'm not bothering to go there with you, the information is there for you to access if you want 

but disregarding that what then do you call a political system where the majority choose what policies are put into place? you are claiming its not democracy so what it is then?

Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude. It can set up its own rules. Like on a smaller scale, you and your friends could agree that you will only go to a restaurant to eat if 3/4s of you agree on the restaurant. That's still democracy, it just has additional rules. And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. Direct democracy would require incredible amounts of technology, some of which we don't have yet. I still want it though. I'll just have to wait until the technology catches up.

"Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences."

if you took away the element of fear from voting, i expect voting patterns would change entirely, i don't think you are acknowledging how big of an effect it has already

Duh. That's what I'm saying. I swear, it's like you go out of your way to find a way to portray yourself as disagreeing with me, and you sometimes can't do it.



HylianSwordsman said:
o_O.Q said:

" For example, Christians believe in the Trinity"...

...because of the bible or in other words the holy book

as is the case with all of the beliefs

Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. Christians were just a body of people for the longest time. They had letters from Paul, but they weren't a Bible until fairly recently.

"Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time."

making assertions is easy... but backing them up? well that's something else entirely

Right.

"She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values"

you expected an essay on twitter where communication is restricted to 140 characters?

Yeah, that's one reason I hate Twitter. So much public discourse happens there, but you just can't have an in depth discussion with 140 characters at a time.

"Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way."

i've never seen women talk about their preferences for men with money and say "well my culture told me to get a rich guy so i did"

if anything its the opposite where in some cases women pretend to be with a guy for something more than his money because they fear shame from people labeling them as gold diggers or shallow

Lol that's not how culture works dude.

"Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values."

i've said it before and i'll say it again if you're only ready to accept that this is caused by socialisation(which seems to be the case) you're in for a lot of disappointment

Not sure what you mean. But okay.

", it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example."

if japan collapses as a country to ensure women's rights then i think its a worthy sacrifice

imo women's rights are more important than japan

Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights. 

"Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy."

and how does this work exactly? 300 million people vote on every single bit of legislation? 

you then go on to demonstrate imo that you don't understand what democracy is and i'm not bothering to go there with you, the information is there for you to access if you want 

but disregarding that what then do you call a political system where the majority choose what policies are put into place? you are claiming its not democracy so what it is then?

Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude. It can set up its own rules. Like on a smaller scale, you and your friends could agree that you will only go to a restaurant to eat if 3/4s of you agree on the restaurant. That's still democracy, it just has additional rules. And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. Direct democracy would require incredible amounts of technology, some of which we don't have yet. I still want it though. I'll just have to wait until the technology catches up.

"Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences."

if you took away the element of fear from voting, i expect voting patterns would change entirely, i don't think you are acknowledging how big of an effect it has already

Duh. That's what I'm saying. I swear, it's like you go out of your way to find a way to portray yourself as disagreeing with me, and you sometimes can't do it.

"Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. "

i'm talking about whatever writings or stories or whatever are followed

obviously each religion has its own set of stories 

the bible may not have been canon but obviously it was derived from a unique set of stories or it was a unique interpretation of a certain set of stories or whatever and it is this that differentiates religions

or do you not think you are different to a muslim? you realise your argumentation is leading in that direction right?

 

"Lol that's not how culture works dude."

you're being very vague here so i must admit that its hard to understand your point... you seemed to be stating that culture influences women to prefer men with more resources

the point is that's just wrong, as i've said before its behavior observed across just about all cultures and the vast majority of animals in the animal kingdom and obviously animals do not have culture

 

"Not sure what you mean. But okay."

i honestly can't simplify this down any further

 

"Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights. "

you were talking about how women selecting for men with more resources is causing problems in japan

my inference from this is that you think a solution is to place pressure on women to change their selection criteria which would be imo an attack on women's rights

 

"Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude."

that's what democracy is defined as

 

" And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. "

so how would your system differ from what exists already?



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
HylianSwordsman said:

"Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. "

i'm talking about whatever writings or stories or whatever are followed

obviously each religion has its own set of stories 

the bible may not have been canon but obviously it was derived from a unique set of stories or it was a unique interpretation of a certain set of stories or whatever and it is this that differentiates religions

or do you not think you are different to a muslim? you realise your argumentation is leading in that direction right?

Except that those stories weren't constant, the specific values, precise wordings, and exact understandings behind them not locked down. Religions can evolve. Holy books kind of can, but only when the religion as a whole decides to change it, which they did several times throughout history.

"Lol that's not how culture works dude."

you're being very vague here so i must admit that its hard to understand your point... you seemed to be stating that culture influences women to prefer men with more resources

the point is that's just wrong, as i've said before its behavior observed across just about all cultures and the vast majority of animals in the animal kingdom and obviously animals do not have culture

More than one culture can come to a similar conclusion for different reasons.

"Not sure what you mean. But okay."

i honestly can't simplify this down any further

Okay. We'll have to move on then.

"Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights. "

you were talking about how women selecting for men with more resources is causing problems in japan

my inference from this is that you think a solution is to place pressure on women to change their selection criteria which would be imo an attack on women's rights

That's how culture works dude. It places pressure on people to follow trends.

"Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude."

that's what democracy is defined as

Nope. In that you are wrong. Democracy can define whatever rules it wants. You could have plurality, simple majority, supermajority, or unanimity, or a system that eliminates sufficiently small minorities and asks for ranked preferences to create consensus. It can be as simple or complex as the people agree to.

" And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. "

so how would your system differ from what exists already?

Lol I don't have it all spelled out yet. Doesn't mean that on a fundamental level, that's not my ultimate aim. I just don't have the details hammered out, nor do I have to. Not like I have that much say in it anyway. If I did have all the say, I'd move us towards direct democracy gradually, building a more directly democratic  system by adding direct elements to our current system and gradually reforming it, designing and building up whole new directly democratic institutions. It would involve a perfected and fully transparent block-chain system, that's the technology that's needed the most that isn't quite there yet. Probably the tech won't all be in place for a few decades, but will within the lifespan of a young adult today. So I have time to work out the details. That said, if I did have all the say, it wouldn't be a democracy would it? It'll have to be something we come to as a whole society. Might not happen, but it won't stop me from cheering for it.



The Christchurch shooter was inspired by Norway's Anders Breivik, a far right, extremist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011. Breivik blamed Muslims and the Leftists for all the problems in the world and he regarded himself as a crusader fighting a war against Islam. The Christchurch shooters manifesto is based on Breivik and he regarded himself as a crusader fighting a war against Islam.

https://www.thelocal.no/20190316/how-norways-inspired-the-christchurch-mosque-attacker

Last edited by Dark_Lord_2008 - on 29 March 2019

Well lots of people died last sunday in Sri Lanka and obama and clinton don't even called the victims christians, only "easter worshippers". And don't even mention the fact the terror attack perpetrators were muslims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/theyre-called-christians-conservatives-mock-obama-clinton-tweets-about-sri-lankan

When the news don't fit the left narrative, they go to the sidelines. (I am not catholic (just a protestant)).



CuCabeludo said:

Well lots of people died last sunday in Sri Lanka and obama and clinton don't even called the victims christians, only "easter worshippers". 

How horrible of Obama and Clinton to use a broader term that could include people that aren't Christians.

As a Christian, this is the biggest nothing being used to attack Obama Ive seen.

CuCabeludo said:

And don't even mention the fact the terror attack perpetrators were muslims.

That's not that strange, seeing as how when they tweeted, no one knew who the perpetrators were. 

Besides mentioning that the terror attack was perpetrated by Muslims doesn't mean much.  Liberals avoid that terminology because people have the tendency to attack people that don't have anything to do with the attacks, just because they are Muslim.  There's no nefarious plot, there's no liberal agenda.  Just an avoidance of the BS.

CuCabeludo said:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/theyre-called-christians-conservatives-mock-obama-clinton-tweets-about-sri-lankan

When the news don't fit the left narrative, they go to the sidelines. (I am not catholic (just a protestant)).

The fact that conservative news outlets are writing reports about how Obama and Clinton using a more inclusive term than Christian says more about the news outlet's agenda than it says of any left narrative or Obama's agenda.  



the-pi-guy said:
CuCabeludo said:

Well lots of people died last sunday in Sri Lanka and obama and clinton don't even called the victims christians, only "easter worshippers". 

How horrible of Obama and Clinton to use a broader term that could include people that aren't Christians.

As a Christian, this is the biggest nothing being used to attack Obama Ive seen.

CuCabeludo said:

And don't even mention the fact the terror attack perpetrators were muslims.

That's not that strange, seeing as how when they tweeted, no one knew who the perpetrators were. 

Besides mentioning that the terror attack was perpetrated by Muslims doesn't mean much.  Liberals avoid that terminology because people have the tendency to attack people that don't have anything to do with the attacks, just because they are Muslim.  There's no nefarious plot, there's no liberal agenda.  Just an avoidance of the BS.

CuCabeludo said:


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-22/theyre-called-christians-conservatives-mock-obama-clinton-tweets-about-sri-lankan

When the news don't fit the left narrative, they go to the sidelines. (I am not catholic (just a protestant)).

The fact that conservative news outlets are writing reports about how Obama and Clinton using a more inclusive term than Christian says more about the news outlet's agenda than it says of any left narrative or Obama's agenda.  

Hm I think it's valid to ask why they used to term "easter worshippers" instead of Christians. As far as I know nobody called the victims of the New Zealand mosque shooter "Friday Prayer worshippers" or something like that.

"easter worshippers" isn't even a more inclusive term than Christians because we have no clue if the non Christians, who were killed in the churches, even "worshipped easter".

Edit: Also "easter worshippers" in a church celebrate to birth of god's son, Jesus Christ and how do we call such people? Christians

Last edited by MrWayne - on 22 April 2019