The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2017, 12:29:11 PM
-
Literally.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/14/532894023/gunman-opens-fire-as-members-of-congress-practice-baseball
-
This poor man probably just wanted to mess up the Republican baseball team so that the Democrats could finally win something.
-
More violence from the right I see. :-\
But hey they were GOP so they deserved it. Their hate speech and refusal to outright ban AR-15's brought this upon themselves.
So ironic that the left, as the Champions for Women's rights, always finds a way to blame the victim.
-
More violence from the right I see. :-\
But hey they were GOP so they deserved it. Their hate speech and refusal to outright ban AR-15's brought this upon themselves.
So ironic that the left, as the Champions for Women's rights, always finds a way to blame the victim.
who is blaming the gop for getting shot at?
-
CNN: "Was this a deliberate attack?"
"Well it sure as hell wasn't an accident"
-Mo Brooks (R) Alabama, who was there when it happened, currently on the phone with CNN.
ayy lmao
-
We don't know much of anything yet.
It was a 66 year old white guy. He apparently was heavy into anti republican groups online. And that's about it.
It's probably too much to ask but I hope they don't exploit this for political reasons.
ie
"Well maybe they'll take gun control seriously now"
or
"See! Republicans are being persecuted! Liberals are evil!"
-
More violence from the right I see. :-\
But hey they were GOP so they deserved it. Their hate speech and refusal to outright ban AR-15's brought this upon themselves.
So ironic that the left, as the Champions for Women's rights, always finds a way to blame the victim.
who is blaming the gop for getting shot at?
All the people who invariably are going to call for stricter gun laws as a result of this.
The media has been insinuating that conservatism is racist, sexist, and a threat to society. They paint our President as Hitler and a Russian spy. They say that pulling out of the Paris agreement will make seas rise and pestilence spread. They are basically (not so) subtly inciting violence, that the right maniac will think is righteous and believe to be justified.
Yet again, it becomes increasingly clear that most of the violence, hatred, and intolerance is coming from the supposed peaceful tolerant left.
-
More violence from the right I see. :-\
But hey they were GOP so they deserved it. Their hate speech and refusal to outright ban AR-15's brought this upon themselves.
So ironic that the left, as the Champions for Women's rights, always finds a way to blame the victim.
who is blaming the gop for getting shot at?
All the people who invariably are going to call for stricter gun laws as a result of this.
The media has been insinuating that conservatism is racist, sexist, and a threat to society. They paint our President as Hitler and a Russian spy. They say that pulling out of the Paris agreement will make seas rise and pestilence spread. They are basically (not so) subtly inciting violence, that the right maniac will think is righteous and believe to be justified.
Yet again, it becomes increasingly clear that most of the violence, hatred, and intolerance is coming from the supposed peaceful tolerant left.
From the gun hating left?
Also, wasn't it trump who said we should punch people?
-
yeah this is definitely the nyt's fault.
btw the belief that gun control is good because it would prevent gun violence is actually perfectly consistent with the belief that shooting people is bad.
-
yeah this is definitely the nyt's fault.
btw the belief that gun control is good because it would prevent gun violence is actually perfectly consistent with the belief that shooting people is bad.
The issue isn't about whether shooting people is bad, it's about whether law abiding citizens should have a right to defend themselves (they do).
If you don't see how, through decades of demonizing and dehumanizing conservatives, the liberal media could be possibly encouraging this kind of thing then I don't know what else good you think would come from trying to convince roughly 50% of this country that other 50% are racist nazis hell bent on world destruction.
-
i believe gun control is good. i believe murdering republicans is bad. those two things aren't in conflict. they're actually mutually supporting. reasonable people can disagree about what forms of self defense should be legal, and agree that murdering republicans is always morally evil.
-
i believe gun control is good. i believe murdering republicans is bad. those two things aren't in conflict. they're actually mutually supporting. reasonable people can disagree about what forms of self defense should be legal, and agree that murdering republicans is always morally evil.
No one is debating whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive, but you.
The questions is: Is it morally right to, through the media, basically incite violence against opposing idealogies.
-
No one is debating whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive, but you.
The questions is: Is it morally right to, through the media, basically incite violence against opposing idealogies.
i don't think it's ever morally right to incite violence.
advocating gun control and/or criticizing gop public policy is not inciting violence.
-
Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of using hyperbole to denigrate their opponents or exaggerate the consequences of their policies, and have been for many years. To try and pin it all on one side is insane.
-
Both sides of the political aisle are guilty of using hyperbole to denigrate their opponents or exaggerate the consequences of their policies, and have been for many years. To try and pin it all on one side is insane.
Sanders to faithful: Take down Trump, take over Democratic Party (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/10/politics/bernie-sanders-peoples-summit/index.html)
I'm not pinning it on one side. I'm just stating the obvious that the mainstream media has had a role in inciting this violence more today than in any time in the past. You have the media and the losers from the democrat party openly, literally, calling for Resistance. The traditional connotation for Resistance doesn't exclude violence and terrorism as an acceptable method.
When you convince people of lies like repealing Obamacare will cause millions of deaths (it fucking wont) than are you really surprised when someone impressionable acts upon those irrational fears.
This is almost identical to how ISIS, and other major Islamic terror groups work now. It's not about direct plot or a connection, its about providing a narrative, and a playbook. With the internet and 24/7 media, anyone can be radicalized, anywhere.
-
bernie is a us senator encouraging liberals to vote and be politically active.
you seem to want to paint any criticism of the gop, or political activism by the dnc, as some kind of hate-mongering. that's asinine.
-
i believe gun control is good. i believe murdering republicans is bad. those two things aren't in conflict. they're actually mutually supporting. reasonable people can disagree about what forms of self defense should be legal, and agree that murdering republicans is always morally evil.
No one is debating whether or not those two things are mutually exclusive, but you.
The questions is: Is it morally right to, through the media, basically incite violence against opposing idealogies.
Literall Trump on the campaign tail.
Also, if Americans should have the right to defend themselves, why are different ideologies not a threat?
I mean, if a bunch of people were trying to push islamic law into government, shouldn't Americans fight back?
If the liberals are pushing control and violence, shouldn't the right fight back?
It seems to me that if the liberals are trying to push their ideology, then its the right of Americans to fight back. With violence if necessary. Don't you agree?
-
More violence from the right I see. :-\
But hey they were GOP so they deserved it. Their hate speech and refusal to outright ban AR-15's brought this upon themselves.
So ironic that the left, as the Champions for Women's rights, always finds a way to blame the victim.
no one deserves to get shot unless they are a lethal threat first of all. Secondly, the guy used an SKS which the configuration he used can only shoot ten rounds. Thirdly, what makes you think banning ARs would solve anything?
-
It seems to me that if the liberals are trying to push their ideology, then its the right of Americans to fight back. With violence if necessary. Don't you agree?
Not if they're not pushing their ideology with violence.
if a bunch of people were trying to push islamic law into government, shouldn't Americans fight back?
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
-
It seems to me that if the liberals are trying to push their ideology, then its the right of Americans to fight back. With violence if necessary. Don't you agree?
Not if they're not pushing their ideology with violence.
if a bunch of people were trying to push islamic law into government, shouldn't Americans fight back?
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
No, America is about violence. We were founded by violence, we stayed together through violence, our economy recovered because of violence, so why should we stop now?
-
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
That worked well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it?
-
If they started 'The American Shariah Party' and pushed their ideology by taking out ads and making public speeches about the benefits of shariah then your fightback should be in the form of counter-arguments and your own ads. If, by engaging with the system, they found that they had majority support to push shariah laws through the legislature, then the fightback would be to get anti-shariah politicians elected to vote those kind of bills down.
That worked well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it?
The Nazis weren't a non-violent party. They frequently called for violence against other parties, regularly attacked perceived enemies, and attempted a coup to take power unlawfully. (See the Beer Hall Putsch)
As I said, violence shouldn't be used against politicians who are 'not pushing their ideology with violence.'
-
Right. In a hypothetical scenario where non-violent Islamist extremists tried to take over, I'd agree with you.
-
Right. In a hypothetical scenario where non-violent Islamist extremists tried to take over, I'd agree with you.
Likewise, if a party was threatening to take over through threats, intimidation, and violence, then I'd argue that the people have the right to resist violently.
-
Likewise, if a party was threatening to take over through threats, intimidation, and violence, then I'd argue that the people have the right to resist violently.
This article kind of scares me,
I recognise the article may be a little biased in its approach as the Indonesia Muslims are a reasonably peaceful bunch, but maybe they are an exception and they do burn down the odd church now and then.
http://blog.godreports.com/2015/09/how-islam-takes-over-countries/
-
Wow, there are so many problems with that article I don't know where to begin.
Firstly, it is taking really modern trends and extrapolating. The author hasn't shown one nation there that started as a 'Open, free, democratic society' which followed the curve they extrapolate. It's also ignoring nations which don't fit the curve, like Iran which was pretty secular and open whilst still being largely, if not totally, Muslim.
Bosnia is another major outlier. The population has been about 50% Bosniak Muslim, 30% Serb Christian and 20% Croat Catholic even while a part of Yugoslavia, in the nineties it was largely (but not exclusively) Serbs bombing and massacring Bosniak Muslims. Nowadays, it is amazing how modern and multicultural Bosnia is. In Sarajevo it's not uncommon to see women in full hijab walking alongside office women in short skirts.
There are a number of glaring problems with some of the countries in the 10% bracket, like India, where Muslims have been massacred by Hindu nationalists, and Chechnya in Russia which... do we need to go into why Chechnya is radically atypical?
The 60% bracket also includes figures which are radical reversals of the truth. they note that it includes: 'sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide)' and includes Albania where, again, the ethnic cleansing and genocide was often targeted at Turkish Muslims under Serbian Christians.
The whole piece takes isolated examples, massive overstatements, blatant historical distortions, and flat-out lies and weaves them into a story which fails to describe even one country which has travelled the path they lay out from 0% Muslim multi-cultural society to total 100% Muslim control.