Active shooter situation reported in Christchurch, New Zealand

[o_O.Q]

HylianSwordsman said:

o_O.Q said:

"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.

"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."

why do you think that's the case?

 

"But between Muslims and the rest of the populace, there are more things people use, like cultural garb, or skin color."

you mean like the burka? so you don't think the burka is a reliable way of determining whether someone is a muslim or not?

 

"Well she acted like it was a bad thing for there to be a lot of them. I think that's mean."

its about concern for people who have a different culture to you impacting your culture

muslims appear to have regressive views on women, such as, putting pressure on them to cover themselves

i can see why candace as a woman would be concerned about that for example if it appears that their influence is growing in her community

 

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

so why do you take issue with candace expressing her concerns about it? she simply seems to be saying that she does not want their influence on particular cultures to grow and i can understand that

 

"No, I think he thought she was saying that to compensate for a lack of white birth rates, genocide was called for."

and that's his conclusion... what does that have to do with candace?

to go back to the previous example i used if a japanese man took "we need to combat falling birth rates in japan" as justification for raping japanese women does it mean that no one should therefore talk about these issues? that's preposterous

to meet this standard that you all appear to be pushing no one would be able to talk about shifting demographics ever

 

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

i agree, so how can you ascribe logical arguments to an insane person?

 

"What's the point?"

that there is no evidence to demonstrate that candace owens has ever called for genocide

 

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

don't you see how dangerous it is to try to assign blame to someone based on how a crazy person interpreted their actions?

its like telling a woman who got raped that it was her fault for tempting a rapist because instead of focusing on the criminal you're instead looking to how that criminal interpreted the actions of someone else