Nonsense. Science is not defined by a book of revealed truth, nor does it define its ethics and practices from Medieval scare-stories and superstition. Individual scientists may well be douchebags, just like the Islamists. The key difference is ideology, as you well know.
[PAX] Mass shooting in an Orlando, Florida nightclub
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
Nonsense. Science is not defined by a book of revealed truth, nor does it define its ethics and practices from Medieval scare-stories and superstition. Individual scientists may well be douchebags, just like the Islamists. The key difference is ideology, as you well know.
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION], I didn't mean to group you in with murderers. Of course I don't think you're like that, and of course it's not right to assume something of someone I've never met. I'm sorry if it came across that way.
I think pinning the blame on gun laws for gun violence is the same as pinning the blame on Islam for radical Islam. It's equally silly to blame radicalism on religion. I do not understand this culture of categorically attacking some general notion to eradicate a highly specific problem. I honestly don't. You're never going to get any closer to the bottom of an issue by casting that wide of a net. Complexities like this are by their nature nuanced and require a tighter and more rational focus. On the other hand, if you want to create chaos, if you want to create confusion and potentially create even more problems, going broad and general is EXACTLY how you do it. This is how politicians win elections. It's the most basic of the basic. Even internet trolls use this strategy. Think about it. The tighter and more detailed a platform, the smaller the arena and the less space to move around and defend your point. The more broad and vague and watered down, on the other hand, you can cherry pick the point you'd like to highlight and there's plenty of room to maneuver... and potentially flip the focus on something else or create new points to argue when you get put in the hot seat.
You will not solve a problem by going broad and making the problem bigger than it is. It's NOT religion. It's NOT gun laws. It's NOT Islam. It's NOT Republicans. It's NOT Democrats. It's NOT feminism, it's NOT patriarchy. That kind of 'big bad general boogeyman' thinking is what fuels the media machine and helps politicians win and stay in power. It never benefits us.
If we stop pointing the finger of blame at each other, if we stop trying to 'win' some ground by exalting your preferred group and attacking the groups you dislike, I guarantee we will be able to sit back and see the picture much clearer. The problem is, we're so polarized---something is either A or B--- that we can't sit down and have a rational conversation because someone eventually is going to get offended and the whole damn conversation is going to boil down to a needlessly broken up history of oppression or perhaps the nuances of some systematic problem until we lose sight of the original point of discussion anyway. It's the same side of coin of going too broad and simplistic.
The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in the middle.
Apart from the fact that this guy was a radical Islamic, I think we need to look past the 'Islam' part and ask ourselves what got him to 'radical.' What gets most of the radical people to 'radical.' What is the process?
It's interesting that 15 years later, we still haven't been able to answer that question. This is the problem, after all. And yet, why are we focusing on anything but what the problem actually is?
You will not solve a problem by going broad and making the problem bigger than it is. It's NOT religion. It's NOT gun laws. It's NOT Islam. It's NOT Republicans. It's NOT Democrats. It's NOT feminism, it's NOT patriarchy. That kind of 'big bad general boogeyman' thinking is what fuels the media machine and helps politicians win and stay in power. It never benefits us.
If we stop pointing the finger of blame at each other, if we stop trying to 'win' some ground by exalting your preferred group and attacking the groups you dislike, I guarantee we will be able to sit back and see the picture much clearer. The problem is, we're so polarized---something is either A or B--- that we can't sit down and have a rational conversation because someone eventually is going to get offended and the whole damn conversation is going to boil down to a needlessly broken up history of oppression or perhaps the nuances of some systematic problem until we lose sight of the original point of discussion anyway. It's the same side of coin of going too broad and simplistic.
The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in the middle.
Apart from the fact that this guy was a radical Islamic, I think we need to look past the 'Islam' part and ask ourselves what got him to 'radical.' What gets most of the radical people to 'radical.' What is the process?
It's interesting that 15 years later, we still haven't been able to answer that question. This is the problem, after all. And yet, why are we focusing on anything but what the problem actually is?
Last edited:
This is nowhere near the same thing. Those blame Islam for radical Islam equate them, in other words to them Daesh and Islam are the same thing, when they clearly are not.
Why is that guns, like motor vehicles, cannot have restrictions on their use, ownership and operation? How is reducing access to semi-automatic weapons not part of the solution to the problem of mass killings? The argument goes that if you want you will find a way to do a mass killing either by making a bomb or doing a mass stabbing, but answer me this, why do make it so easy to procure such weapons, and doesn't easy access facilitate their use for incidents like this?
Hmm, I was hoping my point would carry by the virtue of context and the aim for balance in thinking but true, I should have specified that I was referring to the position that calls for the 'categorical ban on guns' rather than gun laws as an umbrella term. The topic of gun laws in the states itself is pretty broad and it really depends on who you ask. Some people talk about gun laws in the sense of gun regulations, some people talk about gun laws in the sense of making guns completely illegal and some people talk about gun laws staying as they are. But this proves my point nicely. The broader we go and the bigger the target we choose, the more we can nitpick, dissect and side-step the topic and assume things about one another and things can get quickly drawn out into a needless argument around something that wasn't even the point.
In this case, I'm glad we could clarify what needed clarifying.
Last edited:
Science can be used for manipulation though. The point is, its not the poison, its who wants it and why.
Agree. Everyone of these incidents involves someone who is either psychopathic or psychotic. In both cases, the mental health industry is letting everyone down. There are always signs in advance. Nobody goes from being a Boy Scout to a terrorist over night. Things are only going to get worse I am afraid. We are on a slippery slope to WWIII which will resemble the crusades. Christians (and Jews) vs. Muslims. The US, Israel, and Europe vs. the Middle East, China, and Russia. Everyone could get dragged in. We are in dark times.
Two things. First, a similar event was supposedly averted in LA Saturday night. The supposed target was the LA Gay Pride Parade. Second, I watched a clip from Fox where someone in the Orlando club witnessed someone holding the door closed from the inside. As soon as the witness makes this claim, his interview is cut off. Was this really a lone wolf incident or was there actually more than one person involved (thus turning this into a conspiracy scenario)? Investigative journalism is dead. We may never find out for sure. All I know is the official story may be a distortion of the truth. Use critical thinking and don't believe the hype. The mainstream media can be very misleading. Discretion is advised.