Originally posted by Robtard
Concerning the Orlando shootings, there are some who question the motives, was it "radical religious beliefs" or "self-hating homophobia" or "mental illness" or a combo of one of more of those or something else.As it seems the whole "he was an ISIS combatant" some knee-jerk yahoos were clinging onto at first seems faulty. This guy seemingly had no direct ties with ISIS.
I think poverty and the Confederate flag caused it bro
Since we're saying all Muslims are potential radical terrorists based on the acts of a few, why stop generalizing there? All whites are potential racist mass shooters based on the acts of Dylan Roof. Yeah generalizing!!
White supremacy is more dangerous than Islam. Islamic terrorists commit attacks that kill thousands. A white supremacist started the biggest and deadliest war in history. Hell, a white supremacist just ASSASSINATED a British government member. Never heard of a Muslim assassinating a US government member.
Originally posted by Robtard
Concerning the Orlando shootings, there are some who question the motives, was it "radical religious beliefs" or "self-hating homophobia" or "mental illness" or a combo of one of more of those or something else.As it seems the whole "he was an ISIS combatant" some knee-jerk yahoos were clinging onto at first seems faulty. This guy seemingly had no direct ties with ISIS.
Wasn't he a closeted homosexual?
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems so, he visited the gay club as a patron, used gay hook-up sites/apps and apparently had texted dick-pics to potential male sexual partners.
Well that makes more sense. At least from an outside pov. It explains his failed marriage. I've known alot of homophobia comes from closeted gays.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you have no factual rebuttal?ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)
Originally posted by Lestov16
Since we're saying all Muslims are potential radical terrorists based on the acts of a few,
Despite the obvious relevance of the topic, it's sad to see this particular thread be the framer of the discussion. The scope of an inquiry can shape a discussion, and the adversarial dichotomy in the OP leaves much to be desired as a jumping off point.
I'm headed to a Pride Festival tomorrow to support some friends. Got myself one of Takei's new shirts and everything. Hope you guys have a good weekend.
Originally posted by Digi
Despite the obvious relevance of the topic, it's sad to see this particular thread be the framer of the discussion. The scope of an inquiry can shape a discussion, and the adversarial dichotomy in the OP leaves much to be desired as a jumping off point.
Worthless post cause you can't even man up and join in, stay on the sidelines and out of my threads👆
Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you have no factual rebuttal?ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Worthless post cause you can't even man up and join in, stay on the sidelines and out of my threads👆
I disagree. Given the importance of this discussion, I consider it to be of paramount importance that the OP doesn't send people running instantly to their corners, rhetoric shields at the ready. Because what am I supposed to do? Choose a side along the lines you've drawn? I would feel morally repugnant in doing anything but disagreeing with the premise (and the wording; even the "vs." would be considered leading the witness in a courtroom).
Violence due to homophobia is an evil, as is religiously motivated terrorism. There are concerning strains of violence toward LGBT not just in Islam - though at this point in history, those grab the most headlines - but from numerous religious sects. I just watched footage of a religious Christian rally from several months back; Ted Cruz was in attendance, and spoke on the same stage as a preacher who openly wondered if eliminating homosexuals could be accomplished. So the violent strains of Islam are a problem; but the issue runs deeper than merely a single religion vs. a cultural movement. And while I've never shied away from pointing out the evils of religion, it a baby/bathwater situation to label an entire religion the issue. And to paint it as such is to create societal unrest where it doesn't currently exist. We need scalpels, not mortars. But the anti-anything camps are all about the friendly fire.
Hopefully that participates a bit more fully in your thread while still sufficiently rejecting your dangerously oversimplified OP.
More bluntly, and back to your post, a demand to stay out of a thread is pointless. This a privately run forum, thus giving you (and anyone else bar Raz) no true ownership over threads.
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.
Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.
And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.
Originally posted by Digi
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.
And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.
Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.
Originally posted by Digi
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.
And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.
Adam and me had a bet, he lost, he is not supposed to be posting here.