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

HylianSwordsman said:
SpokenTruth said:

I have you on my ignore list, remember?  I only un-ignored you so I could what crap you were asking from me and it doesn't make any sense at all.  I never said Candace Owens was advocating violence against Muslims.

I said, "His manifesto suggests it was borne from growing hatred for Muslims and the rhetoric from Donald Trump, Candace Owens and others."

Now back on the ignore list you go.  Just look what you've turned this thread into.

There's an ignore list? How does it work?

It's one of the Supporter perks.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
HylianSwordsman said:

There's an ignore list? How does it work?

It's one of the Supporter perks.

Wow. That's actually a really good perk. I've never been more tempted to be a supporter than right now...



HylianSwordsman said:
SpokenTruth said:

It's one of the Supporter perks.

Wow. That's actually a really good perk. I've never been more tempted to be a supporter than right now...

That alone is nearly paying for itself.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Pemalite said:
LittleSnake said:

Why does smashing an egg on someone's head make him a hero?

Because Fraser Anning isn't an Australian if he prescribes to racist, xenophobic, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, child abusing rhetoric.
Thus someone throwing some egg in his face is exactly what he deserves... And clearly with 1.3~ million votes to boot him out of parliament... Seems it's a common opinion.

Politicians being egged isn't a new thing here either... We have a history of it actually.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/100-years-of-political-eggings/10912526

When Julia Gillard was egged, she didn't smack a minor, she contained her composure.


 


But how is he a hero? All he did was smash an egg on someone's head. He didn't save the world, he didn't save anyone, in fact, he just wasted an egg ;) 

Throwing an egg at someone a majority of Australia hates doesn't make him a hero. 



Devour me like your unborn fetus 
Cobretti2 said:
LittleSnake said:

They were all in the wrong. Yes, Fraser's comments were disgusting, but that doesn't give the right for someone to smash an egg on his head. The boy of course didn't deserve to be beaten, that was excessive. Why does smashing an egg on someone's head make him a hero? And good for you? 

I know hitting a minor is illegal, he should be punished for that, but assaulting someone is also illegal.

I do feel sorry for the boy, and yes, the politician is a shitty person, I do believe that is something we can agree on. 

Wowie, must be one of the most hated guys in Australia 

Fraser is a tosser but smashing (not throwing) and egg on someone whilst filming clearly was aiming to get a reaction. Anyone doing such an act should be aware that their actions have consequences. 

17 year old is hardly a minor. It's called a little cunt who knows what they are doing and should be wacked back to learn some respect. Younger men than him went to WWI and WWII to defend this country, they would be disgusted by him. He is no hero. I mean he attacked a senior citizen who is 70 years old. The blokes who died at war are heros.

I say this to everyone who says the egging was justified. Go get an egg and do it to a random person or even a cop. See what happens.

As for being charged, well I think the only person who can file that charge is Fraser. If it hasn't happened then I guess it won't.

I get that every action has a consequence, but getting slapped a few times then pinned down and kicked in the head is too far. 

He's not "a little c**t", it's not like he's going around smashing an egg on peoples head. I'm not saying it's okay for him to do that, but one action doesn't mean he has no respect for everyone, or he's a little shit. 

The boy got off charge I believe. And I don't think Fraser would get charged either. Sidenote; https://www.gofundme.com/f/money-for-eggboi The boy plans to send a majority of the money to the Christchurch victims, is he still a little shit? 



Devour me like your unborn fetus 
Around the Network

I'm a couple days late on this, although I had heard the news a couple of days earlier but this is Absolutely tragic
Saddens me to hear that this sort of stuff happens.



konnichiwa said:
Proxy-Pie said:

Statement from an Australian senator...

Yeah I hope it is not real, but considering how racist Australians can be I would be not surprised if it is true.  BTW if it is confirmed Fake please delete your message.

 Just like it's wrong to paint all muslims with the terrorist brush, so is painting Australians with the racist brush, we are no different from any other Nation , the fact is extremism has no fixed Nationality,ideology or religion and the truth is Australia is just like the rest of the world when it  comes too racism it exists but just like in those other places the vast majority are anti racist.

The Senator Anning is just an arsehole who got lucky  he received 19 votes but got in because of Senate electoral rules that state upon a Senate seat becoming vacant for whatever reason before the next election then the next candidate on the list from the same party is selected  and that's how he got in with just 19 votes and once there just like other First Nation backed  candidates he declare himself independent, but he will be gone in a few months when we have new elections.



Bloody aussie. I told you all they are dangerous. I dont feel save living here in melbourne



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

can you give me some examples of where candace owens advocates for violence against muslims?

i asked spokentruth and apparently he can't find any

I have you on my ignore list, remember?  I only un-ignored you so I could what crap you were asking from me and it doesn't make any sense at all.  I never said Candace Owens was advocating violence against Muslims.

I said, "His manifesto suggests it was borne from growing hatred for Muslims and the rhetoric from Donald Trump, Candace Owens and others."

Now back on the ignore list you go.  Just look what you've turned this thread into.

 

think-man said:

I was at the station in Utrecht at the time it happened. 

Glad to hear you are OK.

Madness seems to be everywhere these days.

"I have you on my ignore list, remember?"

you never told me and why would you ever do that? we have great conversations, we may disagree, but we still have great conversations

 

''I never said Candace Owens was advocating violence against Muslims.

I said, "His manifesto suggests it was borne from growing hatred for Muslims and the rhetoric from Donald Trump, Candace Owens and others."

you are attributing the actions of this man to rhetoric from candace owens, if you are now admitting that there really is no link between candace owen's rhetoric and violence against muslims, there seems to be a contradiction in there somewhere

 

" Just look what you've turned this thread into."

all i did was to counter this insane idea that if a crazy person takes relatively innocuous behavior from someone else as motivation to caused harm then the crazy person is not responsible for their actions, its instead the behavior

as i've said that's tantamount to claiming that if a man see's a woman dressing provocatively and he assaults her then its her fault for provoking him... its not a good standard to set



HylianSwordsman said:
o_O.Q said:

"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?

Probably because Christians, atheists, and Jews all come from a wide enough variety of areas that there's no one skin color, cultural garb, or visible practice that would even be remotely useful to identify them by.

"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?

Cultural garb would definitely be more useful than skin color, yeah.

"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

I could say the similar things about conservative Christians and their regressive views on women, but I don't. For a long time, the country was majority conservative Christian, only recently have they lost enough ground to progressive Christianity and atheism to lose majority status and move to plurality status. Yet in all that time, even though I disagree with them as a fellow Christian about what values are really Christian values, I never at any point said they should leave the country or that we should kill them, instead I just speak out against their views. I'll speak out against Muslim views when I dislike their views as well. After all, it's not just the Muslims or the conservative Christians that have those regressive views on women, it's all sorts of people. It's the regressive views that need to be combated in whatever form they take, not the people that hold them. Remember when Clinton called a whole bunch of people "deplorable"? That was pretty mean, no? Just because you disagree doesn't mean you call people deplorable like in Clinton's case or treat them like their very presence might be a problem like in Candace's case.

"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

It's not that she expresses concern, it's how she expresses it and what her solutions are for dealing with it. Like what is she even supposed to be saying with that thing about France building an army? You said it yourself, it doesn't make sense. Armies don't fix birth rates.

"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?

He got his conclusion from Candace's statement, or at least it would seem he did based on what he said. That's the only connection.

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

Well that's because it's not the demographics that are the issue. It's the values system. Like in Japan, they're grappling with the effects their own values system has had on their society. They teach women to expect a man to be rich and able to completely provide for them, and to date based on that, instead of love. It's like culturally encouraged gold-digging, and it hurts men, women, and the society as a whole alike. There are other reasons why they're struggling, and obviously not all Japanese women do that, but it is a noted cultural phenomenon discussed at length by academics in both Eastern and Western civilization when they examine Japanese society. You could find a good bit of value in most cultures, but no culture is perfect, and sometimes on a society wide scale they need to examine certain cultural values that maybe worked in the past but are just hurting themselves now.

To take this back to America (I know, Candace mentioned France and the shooter was New Zealand, but she's American and her experience informing her worldview is largely drawn from there), we have a multicultural society, unlike Japan's largely homogeneous society. To have a multicultural society, there have to be overarching values that we cherish across all the cultures. Those overarching values often inform the future direction of the multiple cultures living within the society. So for America, we value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. We value equal rights, liberty and justice for all. You've heard it all before. Well if we valued equal rights and liberty so much, how did we ever own slaves? Was it all a lie? Of course not. However, since those overarching rights trumped the slavery tolerating culture of the South, the South had to change. It just takes some time for the overarching values to shape the path of every culture in the nation towards the same goal. It's the power of our democracy. You saw the same thing again with women and the vote. If we're all equal, why can't they vote? Were our values all a lie from the beginning just because women haven't been voting? Of course not. The values are real, we just all came to a new understanding of what they meant for our daily lives. Sometimes it affects the whole culture, sometimes just one region of the country. Sometimes it just affects one nationality, like when we treated Italians like dirt until we realized that was wrong. Until recently Mormons were treated pretty crappily, though not on the same level obviously, but they were very disrespected and essentially treated like a bunch of nutjobs. Now we have like 5 or 6 of them in Congress. This process repeats itself throughout our history and will continue to. Eventually we return to our deepest rooted values, the ones in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They win every time and I pray that they always will. 

In the case of Candace's concerns about the impact of Islamic cultural values on our own, I think rather than criticize the location and migratory habits of Muslims, I think we should criticize Islamic thought itself on an academic level. Doing so worked wonders for Christianity. Even the most conservative Christians you could ever find in America today (save for maybe the crazy offshoots like Westboro Baptist) are not as regressive in their attitudes towards women as they were 20 or 40 years ago. They maintained their cultural identity, but evolved towards the greater American culture of liberty and justice for all, with all of us equal. We can do the same with regressive Islamic views. Some of Islam's views are pretty irrelevant to everyone else, like when and how to pray if you're a Muslim. If you're not a Muslim, you just don't pray when they do, oh well. Others are more consequential, but can be respected, like abstaining from alcohol. You could drink it, your Muslim friend could be the designated driver. Still others are problematic and need to be confronted, like the views on women. I respect their right to wear a burka or hijab, but I disagree on a fundamental level with it, and at appropriate times, I'll tell them so. I support like-minded women in Iran right now who are taking off their head coverings in protest. Such a beautiful protest, I love it. Similarly, if I had a young female Muslim friend, I'd respect her right to wear a hijab or whatever, but I'd encourage her not to wear one, and support her if her family tried to punish her for it. Then there are even more serious things that not all American Muslims believe, but need to be confronted at all costs wherever it appears, like intolerance for other religions. I don't tolerate it when Christians hate on atheists, so I don't like it when Muslims suggest that theirs is the only acceptable religion, and wouldn't stand for that either if I ever saw it. Luckily I haven't, probably because such Muslims would rather live in a Muslim society than move to America, so there's not a lot of people like that over here.

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

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

I didn't, I ascribed an illogical one to an insane person.

"What's the point?"

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

I'm not saying she did. I do think that the shooter thought she did.

"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

I told you before, I don't blame Candace for the shooting. You may be confusing me for someone else in the thread. My initial quoting of that tweet was because you asked for an example of Candace Owens talking about Muslims, which seemed to come up because the shooter mentioned her. I'd never heard of Candace Owens before this thread, so I was curious too. It really was just a quick Google search that found that tweet I quoted earlier.

"I could say the similar things about conservative Christians and their regressive views on women, but I don't. For a long time, the country was majority conservative Christian, only recently have they lost enough ground to progressive Christianity and atheism"

good so why are you in favour of islam's growing influence?

progressive christianity? that should be interesting, explain that one

 

"I never at any point said they should leave the country or that we should kill them"

and you think this is candace owen's intent? in the tweet you quoted did she imply that muslims should be killed or forced to leave the country?

 

"It's the regressive views that need to be combated in whatever form they take, not the people that hold them."

regressive views on women are integral to many religions and islam is definitely one of them in my opinion

no one is saying that these people are a problem, the stated problem is their ideology

 

" Remember when Clinton called a whole bunch of people "deplorable"?"

i'm not a republican or a conservative so i don't see why you would look for a specific example you think i agree with and no if its her opinion that certain people are deplorable then its good that she said it if she can justify her argument

we would both agree that rapists are deplorable right? why?

 

"or treat them like their very presence might be a problem like in Candace's case."

as i've said previously,, if those people have regressive views on women, I can understand why candace as a woman would be concerned about their influence growing... i suppose what is interesting is that you don't think her concern is justified

 

" it's how she expresses it and what her solutions are for dealing with it."

as i've said before if you aren't able to realise that she wasn't being literally when she said an army should be built then you need to step away from the internet for a bit

ok lets follow this thread of though, are you seriously telling me that candace thinks that the military of france is going to take strategic advice from a 30 year old political commentator? sounds absolutely ridiculous right? so why are you pretending that this is the case?

 

" You said it yourself, it doesn't make sense. Armies don't fix birth rates."

exactly she said it tongue in cheek, when you have conversations with people are you always this oblivious to communication that's not overt? i'd hope not

 

"He got his conclusion from Candace's statement"

the man that assaulted the woman was inspired to do so by seeing the woman... you see how that works?

you aren't looking at the fact that the person is crazy and the sole blame for their actions lies on them, instead you have to look for someone else to drag into it even though you cannot logically link candace's statements to the crime

 

"Well that's because it's not the demographics that are the issue. It's the values system. "

value systems increase or decrease proportionally with the populations that they live in

 

" They teach women to expect a man to be rich and able to completely provide for them, and to date based on that, instead of love. "

the preference of women for men who hold more resources is almost universal and is seen across just about every value system and its almost universal in the animal kingdom as well... so you're barking up the wrong tree there

 

"there have to be overarching values that we cherish across all the cultures. Those overarching values often inform the future direction of the multiple cultures living within the society. So for America, we value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness."

islam as a religion is not compatible with liberty and the pursuit of happiness for women, so again where are you going with this? ( i could be wrong on the views of islam on women but from eveerything i've experienced i don't think so )

 

"They maintained their cultural identity, but evolved towards the greater American culture of liberty and justice for all, with all of us equal"

you are contradicting yourself, how can a cultural identify partially based on suppressing women result in everyone being equal?

 

"It's the power of our democracy. "

american is not a democracy and you better pray it never becomes that

 

"My initial quoting of that tweet was because you asked for an example of Candace Owens talking about Muslims"

you were supposed to provide an example of rhetoric that could logically be used as motivation for this shooting

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 19 March 2019