Originally Posted by WeooWeoo
Now, I am one for making guns, preferably semi automatics, or just weapons like the AR-15. There is no reason to have guns like those to be held by citizens. Unless they've served in the military and it's theirs, but still, no need really.
When I speak of Gun Control, I don't mean the restriction of weapons all over, just the ability to gain them legally and what kinds of guns are allowed needs to be changed.
If someone had a gun in that night club they could have saved 50 lives.
No, I don't expect people to carry """"assault weapons"""" with them in their every day lives, but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
(And actually just so you know, in the US handguns kill 20x more people than rifles do - and that's even ignoring that an """"assault weapon"""" is just one type of rifle. What's more there is 0 evidence that a gun ban would actually reduce gun crime at all in the first place, in Australia it did absolutely nothing, in the UK gun crime actually doubled after the ban whilst in the same period gun crime in the US decreased!)
Originally Posted by Risk
You know, I will concede that "hateful" is the wrong term, because they do honestly believe that what they're doing is right. The ones who honestly believe they're doing the right thing aren't even "evil" or "bad" people, even if the actions themselves are abhorrent. That still doesn't make any of it acceptable in a modern society, though.
Hitler was an okay guy then. We all stand corrected.
This whole Islam vs the world stuff is just evil people doing evil things following an evil ideology. You can't behead/burn/crush/drown/shoot/explode people and be an okay guy at the end of the day.
Last edited by Ele; Jun 15, 2016 at 09:55 AM.
Reason: -snip-
Originally Posted by Risk
Nobody is concluding that Islam is evil based on the actions of one man. People are concluding that Islam is evil based on the fact that it has thousands of followers who literally want the death of all non-believers, and millions more who actively discriminate against and persecute women and gays. Sure, there are peaceful practitioners of the religion, especially in the Western world, and I'm not trying to discredit and of them, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide are prejudiced and hateful, and it shows.
As for the religion being relevant, if he's saying he's doing these things because of his religion, it absolutely is relevant. Timothy McVeigh, at least to my knowledge, wasn't motivated by his religion. This guy, and all of ISIS, are.
I'm going to do another word replacement, and it's still going to be just as factually sound, yet people will oppose what I say.
Nobody is concluding that Christianity is evil based on the actions of one man. People are concluding that Christianity is evil based on the fact that it has thousands of followers who literally want the death of all non-believers, and millions more who actively discriminate against and persecute women and gays. Sure, there are peaceful practitioners of the religion, especially in the Western world, and I'm not trying to discredit and of them, but the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide are prejudiced and hateful, and it shows.
Women aren't allowed to serve in higher positions within the Church, gays are condemned to hell under the religion, are excluded from services, killed because of Christian religious beliefs, and the overwhelming opinion of Christians around the world is that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God, and that homosexuals are sinful individuals damned to hell. Sure there are peaceful practitioners in the world, but these very same peaceful practitioners are also some of the same people who actively discriminate against women and homosexuals. And yet nobody will make the same conclusion that Christianity is evil, despite it literally following the playbook for what supposedly makes Islam evil.
If you want to defeat religious extremism, you cannot equate the extremists with the rest of the religion. You can't expect an entire populace to make a large leap forward in progressive thinking overnight, but you can't just proclaim them all evil because of a few who are particularly entrenched in medieval thinking, and you certainly won't see any progressive movement on their part towards Western ideals if all Western opinions of them are bigoted and negative.
To drive it home, here's a quote from Timothy McVeigh's 26 page memo to disavow his childhood friendship: "Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.
It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being. I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle... I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."
You know what that sounds like? Fanaticism to the United States Constitution. And there are people like him who will die to support it, and millions more who will follow what is written within it. And this man was a terrorist, and his actions were evil, so we must conclude that everyone who believes in the U.S. Constitution is evil. That type of claim would elicit some pretty large, probably violent, backlash from patriotic Americans, who would otherwise be peaceful people. And if that claim was made by an authority figure, or a population in power? They would probably feel ready to revolt.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Focusing on his religion, demonizing his religion, and not realizing that it's alienating otherwise reasonable people because we want to blame something is not productive in any way. If you want to blame something, blame ISIS's ideology, blame poor government surveillance, blame the lack of intervention when warning flags started popping up, blame the ready access to guns, blame the lack of access to guns, but don't blame a large population who had nothing to do with his actions. You start antagonizing an otherwise peaceful population by making them feel hated and unwanted when they had done nothing wrong other than believe in a God that is not your own, and you breed discontent and anger. You may think you're being productive by proclaiming Islam as evil, but you're just poking the hornets nest.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
things he said
The problem with word replacement is that if after replacing the words its not true, it doesn't work. I'm pretty sure most of us here can agree that every Abrahamic religion is pretty "evil" if followed fundamentally. I'd dare to say the old testament is the worst of them all. So the jews should be the worst? Just so happens, that in the real world there are interpretations and cultural developments. It's not only the book, but also the context of the book itself that matters. The same way we denounce communism because what it causes (not necessarily only because the idealism in communism) we can denounce islam for what it stands for, and what it causes. Not only does it inspire individual acts of terror, it influences sexism, bigotry and homophobia world wide.
The only difference is that muslims are more fundamental with their religion for the reasons previously mentioned. In theory christianity is just as bad as islam, but in practice it just simply isn't. Sometimes you have to look at real world causes and patterns of behaviour.
Personally if it was up to me, we wouldn't have either. Secular humanism is all the moral guidance I believe we need.
To me christianity is still stupid, ignorant and even evil sometimes. But I wouldn't ever say its the same as islam.
But that world replacement argument you put forth, fell very flat.
Last edited by cowmeat; Jun 15, 2016 at 06:52 AM.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
If someone had a gun in that night club they could have saved 50 lives.
No, I don't expect people to carry """"assault weapons"""" with them in their every day lives, but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
(And actually just so you know, in the US handguns kill 20x more people than rifles do - and that's even ignoring that an """"assault weapon"""" is just one type of rifle. What's more there is 0 evidence that a gun ban would actually reduce gun crime at all in the first place, in Australia it did absolutely nothing, in the UK gun crime actually doubled after the ban whilst in the same period gun crime in the US decreased!)
Hand Guns are one of the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings, mainly school shootings. I know of this, but that is not my point. Which gun is going to cause more damage faster? An Automatic or a Hand Gun? It takes much more longer to reload, giving anyone around the area more time to get out of there. Yes, concealed carry is a great thing for these incidents. But we need to make sure these people that carry them are actually qualified and are, well, sane and safe. Background checks are a hell of a thing.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
but you can imagine a situation where it is necessary to have something more powerful than a handgun.
Bullets are Bullets. No.
"Dear reader, I hope this email finds you before I do."
