quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
If the attacker is White = "Thoughts and prayers" + "He must have been crazy; nothing could have stopped this."[/i][/size] [/B]

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I have to draw attention to this so-called double standard, because while some people undoubtedly would hold it at the point of prejudice, there is a principled manner to explain the difference in response to these situations, based on the proposed policy solutions.


Firstly, I'll agree with you that if its a home grown terrorist, using the emotional appeal of a tragedy to propose immigration policy that wouldn't have actually done anything to prevent the tragedy is pretty disgusting, and I take the same issue with this as when people use a mass shooting to bloviate about gun control policies that wouldn't have actually prevented the tragedy and characterize political adversaries as unfeeling towards the victims. I think both debates can be had without substanceless naked emotional appeals used as character attacks.

Onto the point about proposed immigration policy however, I'm a Lockean Liberal, and as detailed in the social contract, the primary function of the state, of government, is to protect the life liberty and property of its constituents. This is the primary obligation the government has, and it is towards its own citizens, whereas those seeking to immigrate into a country are being extended a privilege. It is the purpose of the state to protect the rights of its constituents, whereas the sovereign state is more at liberty to decide who and who doesn't get to enter its borders.

Lastly to the point of condemning Islam, if a Muslim commits a terrorist attack shouting "Allahu Akbar," if anyone commits a terrorist attack, a mass killing clearly motivated by ideological and political motivations, it is completely relevant to discuss and address the ideological motivations behind the act of terror.


Again, time for another concession. Though I'm no longer a leftist or centrist and consider myself an economically right-wing classical liberal, I'll make no secret of the fact that I think the republican attitude towards criminal justice is retarded, as I'm more in line with thinking that prison should be based more around justice than rehabilitation, and I find the standards of prisons quite frankly inhumane.

That being said, the policy solutions being proposed here are a greater enforcement and vigilance of existing laws in areas with a high rate of violent crime, so in other words acting out laws that already exist. Even if I disagree with increasing sentencing, it's also policy localized to those convicted as guilty of crime, and yes if a black person or white person commits acts of violence and murder than they're thugs.

Then of course if this murder was a form of gang violence, again there's a cultural element directly tied into the motivation of the crime worth critiquing and addressing.


If a white person goes lone wolf and shoots a bunch of people up, not as a member of a gang, not with an expressed ideological motivation, then how are their motivations supposed to be spoken of or addressed in the same way one would address the culture in certain communities or ideological grounds for a terror attack?

Also, people are more hesitant to pursue policy solutions, because the proposed policy solutions invariably involve encroaching on the liberties and property rights of the citizens of the state, to whom the government's primary role is to protect these rights.


The problem I have with your comparisons here is that these are false equivalencies. I don't think you're being intentionally disingenuous, let me clarify that much, since I'm aware of how this comparison looks on the surface when taken at face value, and won't deny that some people might hold this array of views through a prejudicial lens. Let me also say that I agree that using a terrorist tragedy to push immigration reform that wouldn't have prevented it is something I find disagreeable and contemptible. Also though I agree with Trump on immigration regarding that it should be more based on merit than diversity, I think his ideas for a wall and travel ban are retarded. And once again I'm not a proponent of republican stances on prisons and prison sentencing.

Once again though, these are false equivalencies and you can hold these views from a point of ideological consistency.

Firstly on the point of addressing the motives, if a Muslim commits an act of Islamic terror or a black person commits an act of gang violence, then the relevant ideological or cultural motivations are much more apparent and on the table for discussion. If some white guy, or person of any color, just up and decides to commit mass murder with no indication of an ideological motivation, then there's not really a place to have a legitimate discussion on the ideological or cultural motivation beyond speculation.

Secondly, on the point of taking action through policy, again there's a clear distinction to be made. The policy proposal towards Mexican or Muslim violence is immigration reform, the rescinding or tightening of a privilege extended to people outside of the sovereign state with the motivation of protecting the state's constituents who the government functionally has a greater obligation to. The policy proposal towards the black violence you've mentioned is more enforcement of already existing laws in areas with higher crime rates. The "white person" example is the only example you've provided where the proposed policy solution surrounding the tragedy, rather than being immigration reform or enforcement of existing laws, constitutes invariably encroaching on the liberties and property rights of the states constituent citizens to whom its primary obligation is to protect their rights.

The policies themselves can be honestly debated for each of these issues, but to suggest a lack of addressing the motivation for a murderer whose ideological motivations aren't apparent, or to suggest a refusal or hesitancy to pursue policy that includes encroaching on ones own liberties and those of the nation's citizens, to suggest that these things in conjunction with the other views you've mentioned inherently constitute some racial double standard and point of hypocrisy is something I simply can't agree with you on.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Wonder Man
Would a person care if they're baby was black or white? A father doesn't care if the child his wife bearing is black or white and should never give the decision even the least consideration.
That is why this is about race.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Playmaker
I know you didn't imply this or anything, but I've been seeing it once again about the idea that mental illness is evil or just leads to mass shooting. So this isn't aimed towards you but you did indirectly bring up the point that gets lugged around

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean if I marry a white woman, and she gets pregnant, and the child comes out black... I'd be pretty pissed lol

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I assume you're coming from the angle that she cheated on you and you were cuckolded.

But what if the child is Black and still biologically yours? Just recessive Black genes in both you and your wife that came to the fore. While very rare, it has happened before.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That could happen-ish if I married another Italian woman whose family is also originally from southern Italy.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean if I marry a white woman, and she gets pregnant, and the child comes out black... I'd be pretty pissed lol

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
We could do it together, how do you feel about stretch marks around your tummy, thighs and butthole

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That reminds me of this joke:

The first time I saw this...lost it. So much top kek.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by BackFire
LOL, love that clip.

Norquist's reaction is priceless.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
I know what could have stopped the last few shootings....lazy cops actually doing their jobs