@antiquark101 Sorry i can't hear you over the sound of the FREEDOM!!!
@MicaiahWa its okay, me and my friend in pyongyang have enough of that.
Let me tease y'all...
2016 Orlando nightclub shooting – what do we need: get tougher on guns or get tougher on Muslims?
2016 Orlando nightclub shooting – what do we need: get tougher on guns or get tougher on Muslims?
<Comment deleted by user>
Tougher on Muslims? I thought that there was freedom of religion in the US, the shooter was a US citizen, on the other hand, what kind of a country permits the sale to ANYONE of weapons that are for use in a war?
Hopefully, when Trump get elected you'll either be a Christian or deported. :-D
The Orlando shooting was tragic. The response to the shooting was weak, in my opinion. I'm sick of both the attacks and the response to them.
First of all, because the shooter was a Muslim and a Democrat, this story will most likely vanish into thin air by the end of the week. For the MSM it is, of course, much more important to focus on the Trump University case, Trump's tax returns and Christian bakers not baking cakes for newly wed gay couples. Imagine, for a second, that Dylan Roof, the maniac who shot nine black people in a church, wore the red Make America Great Again cap while engaging those black Christians with whatever firearm he was using at the time. What would the MSM's response be?
If the shooter was in any way connected to the Republican Party or Trump, the shooter would immediately be symbolic for the entire belief system of Republicans or Trump supporters. Every person, whether it be Trump or John Doe, who shared this belief system would then be inseparable from the shooting. When a Trump supporter hits someone, Trump's campaign promotes a culture of violence and everyone who stands behind Trump promotes this very culture. When there is a shooting, 80 million gun owners are suddenly implicated in this action... it is not one exception to the rule, it is everyone. If a white guy says something racist, it is all white guys who are racist (hence the concept of 'institutional white racism'). There are a couple of sexist men around, thus all men are sexist. There are a few men who are rapists, therefore we have an endemic rape culture. When it is whites, Republicans or men, it is not just one 'lone' idiot.. he is symbolic for the whole belief system.
Now, belonging to the world's largest homophobic organization on Earth, whose members openly speak about the killing of gays as the morally right thing to do, and never being called homophobic.. that is what one could call priviledge. A Muslim goes out and kills a few homosexuals.. and what we hear is that this has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. To quote Hillary, who is steadfast in her denial of reality: "Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." It must have something to do with white farmers in the Mid-West having too many guns and there not being enough gun-free zones, because that is working out very well for gun-free zones in America.
In the majority of Muslim countries, gays must legally be put to death. But when a few white Christians are opposed to homosexuals the entire world hates on them. These Christians are pure evil! Morally equivalating "not baking a cake for gay couples" with the putting to death of gays because the law says so.. I do not know where to even begin with that. Again, imagine for a second a prominent Christian preacher calling for the murdering of all homosexuals.
If anyone else would have called for the murder of homosexuals, which is an immoral and disgusting thing to do, this person would at the very least be punished and condemned by public opinion, and rightfully so. Where is the media now? Where are the liberals condemning these actions? Are they afraid of being called nasty words such as 'racist' or 'islamophobic'? Is it because Muslims primarily vote Democrat and the media loves Democrats?
What holds a society together is the rules with which we, for the most part, tend to agree, be it tacitly or explicitly. Respect for women, respect for homosexuals, equality before the rule of law.. basically having the same standards for everyone. The universalization of these rules is crucial in order to maintain a healthy society. We are all subject to the same rules. Everyone is the same before the law. If we, as a society, start creating the balkanization of opposing moral standards, you cannot survive as a society. For thousands of years, men and women have fought and died for the implementation and preservation of these values and the social enforcement of these cultural norms. It is this social enforcement of cultural norms that prevents people from going around saying the most repellant and dangerous stuff by means of socially attacking and ridiculing these people.
Though what we see now is there being made exceptions to these universal social rules. Last week in San Jose, for example, a female Trump supporter got attacked by a largely Hispanic mob. The explanation for this mob attack was that the supporters brought this on themselves for supporting Trump. You know, because this mob really did not want to attack the Trump supporters, but Trump supporters are so racist and xenophobic they could not help themselves but to attack them! The female Trump supporter was taunting them for supporting Trump. She brought that violence on herself!
But what did the homosexuals do to bring this violence on themselves? Nothing, right? This has to be completely different rule. A Trump supporter is judged by the rule that what one of them does is symbolic for all of them, but a Muslim shooting up a gay bar? Nothing to do with Islam. Purely incidental. Not related to a belief system at all, though in that very state Ahmed Bedier recently gave a speech on how it is morally acceptable to murder gays. If we cannot have universal moral standards in our society, we have nothing. How much Jihad is enough? How many more attacks will it take for the West to fear Jihad being inflicted upon us more than the fear of being called "intolerant" for questioning an ideology that seeks to destroy in the name of its God?
First of all, because the shooter was a Muslim and a Democrat, this story will most likely vanish into thin air by the end of the week. For the MSM it is, of course, much more important to focus on the Trump University case, Trump's tax returns and Christian bakers not baking cakes for newly wed gay couples. Imagine, for a second, that Dylan Roof, the maniac who shot nine black people in a church, wore the red Make America Great Again cap while engaging those black Christians with whatever firearm he was using at the time. What would the MSM's response be?
If the shooter was in any way connected to the Republican Party or Trump, the shooter would immediately be symbolic for the entire belief system of Republicans or Trump supporters. Every person, whether it be Trump or John Doe, who shared this belief system would then be inseparable from the shooting. When a Trump supporter hits someone, Trump's campaign promotes a culture of violence and everyone who stands behind Trump promotes this very culture. When there is a shooting, 80 million gun owners are suddenly implicated in this action... it is not one exception to the rule, it is everyone. If a white guy says something racist, it is all white guys who are racist (hence the concept of 'institutional white racism'). There are a couple of sexist men around, thus all men are sexist. There are a few men who are rapists, therefore we have an endemic rape culture. When it is whites, Republicans or men, it is not just one 'lone' idiot.. he is symbolic for the whole belief system.
Now, belonging to the world's largest homophobic organization on Earth, whose members openly speak about the killing of gays as the morally right thing to do, and never being called homophobic.. that is what one could call priviledge. A Muslim goes out and kills a few homosexuals.. and what we hear is that this has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. To quote Hillary, who is steadfast in her denial of reality: "Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." It must have something to do with white farmers in the Mid-West having too many guns and there not being enough gun-free zones, because that is working out very well for gun-free zones in America.
In the majority of Muslim countries, gays must legally be put to death. But when a few white Christians are opposed to homosexuals the entire world hates on them. These Christians are pure evil! Morally equivalating "not baking a cake for gay couples" with the putting to death of gays because the law says so.. I do not know where to even begin with that. Again, imagine for a second a prominent Christian preacher calling for the murdering of all homosexuals.
If anyone else would have called for the murder of homosexuals, which is an immoral and disgusting thing to do, this person would at the very least be punished and condemned by public opinion, and rightfully so. Where is the media now? Where are the liberals condemning these actions? Are they afraid of being called nasty words such as 'racist' or 'islamophobic'? Is it because Muslims primarily vote Democrat and the media loves Democrats?
What holds a society together is the rules with which we, for the most part, tend to agree, be it tacitly or explicitly. Respect for women, respect for homosexuals, equality before the rule of law.. basically having the same standards for everyone. The universalization of these rules is crucial in order to maintain a healthy society. We are all subject to the same rules. Everyone is the same before the law. If we, as a society, start creating the balkanization of opposing moral standards, you cannot survive as a society. For thousands of years, men and women have fought and died for the implementation and preservation of these values and the social enforcement of these cultural norms. It is this social enforcement of cultural norms that prevents people from going around saying the most repellant and dangerous stuff by means of socially attacking and ridiculing these people.
Though what we see now is there being made exceptions to these universal social rules. Last week in San Jose, for example, a female Trump supporter got attacked by a largely Hispanic mob. The explanation for this mob attack was that the supporters brought this on themselves for supporting Trump. You know, because this mob really did not want to attack the Trump supporters, but Trump supporters are so racist and xenophobic they could not help themselves but to attack them! The female Trump supporter was taunting them for supporting Trump. She brought that violence on herself!
But what did the homosexuals do to bring this violence on themselves? Nothing, right? This has to be completely different rule. A Trump supporter is judged by the rule that what one of them does is symbolic for all of them, but a Muslim shooting up a gay bar? Nothing to do with Islam. Purely incidental. Not related to a belief system at all, though in that very state Ahmed Bedier recently gave a speech on how it is morally acceptable to murder gays. If we cannot have universal moral standards in our society, we have nothing. How much Jihad is enough? How many more attacks will it take for the West to fear Jihad being inflicted upon us more than the fear of being called "intolerant" for questioning an ideology that seeks to destroy in the name of its God?
<Comment deleted by user>
Yeah, almost all American Muslims vote Democrat; look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Muslim_Americans
BTW, you forgot about the Jews. The more Muslims a society has, more dangerous it is for Jews. Ahmadinejad said he wants ALL Jews drowned, remember?
BTW, you forgot about the Jews. The more Muslims a society has, more dangerous it is for Jews. Ahmadinejad said he wants ALL Jews drowned, remember?
'A 51% majority of Americans told a CBS News poll they disapproved of how Trump has responded to the Orlando mass shooting. Only 25% approved.'
www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jun/15/donald-trump-unfavorability-polls-phony
I can't stand Trump, but he is just right that Islamic radicalisation is a major problem.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jun/15/donald-trump-unfavorability-polls-phony
I can't stand Trump, but he is just right that Islamic radicalisation is a major problem.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.