Regret unable to return compliment, you classless little slut.
“Relief” is not the same as “happy” and the difference is not trivial,
look them up.
And even “relief” would be inappropriate for the grounds you gave
in post #12 (see my reply to Kimtsu Page 4 post #180).
My reaction to your nauseating post was genuine.
I am not even a Muslim. I was raised a Catholic and converted to Orthodox Atheism more than a decade ago.
And to colonial: Meh!
Translation: Kids.
By one particular party. The balance is the issue I have.
Yes, if there are kids involved. If the kids went to a truly bi-partisan camp where both the left and the right presented I’d have few, if no, concerns at all.
Really? I just asked a question. It is others who assume that I’m agreeing with nutters like Beck, or want to make that comparison. And yet others who think I’m somehow foaming at the mouth rather than reacting with a raised eyebrow and saying to myself, “Hmmm, I did not know that”, when told of such events of this scale occurring (and no one giving a shit about it).
Wow. Try rereading it again. You’ve still completely missed the point, deeply mis-characterized what the prior posters and stated, and engaged in outlandish name-calling.
ETA: Whoops, many posts have arrived in between. That’s in response to Post #180.
It is not an unreasonable comparison.
[shrug] Beck doesn’t foam either, he just pretends, but it does not lessen the damage he does.
To Uzi: the problem with calling everything “indoctrination” is, well, then everything is indoctrination. If you aren’t willing to teach your children what is good, or proper, or whatever, then you can’t justify teaching them that they need to think for themselves, either. In short, the position is incoherent.
“Indoctrination” is a big deal, sure; but the term doesn’t make sense unless the method of teaching is highly coercive and the belief is actively repugnant and socially disastrous (not just incorrect.) A party youth camp is neither coercive nor socially disastrous, unless the party in question is the Nazis or so-on.
More ad hominems and too much concern for my motivation for any point I’ve made. Right or wrong, it’s still a fallacious argument. Especially since I’ve provided reasoning. You? Nope. I guess we each do what we can. Carry on, punk. Let’s here some more of your non-rebuttal rebuttal.
Nadal was simply one more incident in a long line of incidents. There were incidents before, and after his murdering spree. Islamic extremists are engage in a war of terror. We know so because of 1) their actions and 2) they have told us so directly. Nadal tok it upon himself to be part of that.
I don’t happen to agree with you about that either, as a matter of fact.
[QUOTE=colonial]
In the West no consequence to public opinion because of terrorism has ever
been remotely as bad as the terrorism itself.
Anti-Western Terrorist attacks have been taking place for decades and there
is no evidence “reflexive xenophobic hatred” has increased because of it,
despite rising numbers of attacks and victims.
Most importantly, there has been almost no retaliation against innocent people
because of the attacks.
[/quote]
I guess that depends on how you define “almost no retaliation”. There were numerous acts of “retaliatory” violence against innocent people after the September 11 attacks, for instance. Some examples:
I am unashamedly thankful that the recent horrific attack in Norway, as disgusting and deplorable as it was, turned out to offer no opportunity for this kind of tragically misguided “retaliatory” violence.
[QUOTE=colonial]
In the West no consequence to public opinion because of terrorism has ever
been remotely as bad as the terrorism itself.
[/quote]
That doesn’t mean that negative consequences to public opinion can’t still be bad things, even though they’re not remotely as bad as terrorism. There’s nothing wrong with being thankful for the avoidance of a bad thing, even if it happens to be a comparatively trivial bad thing.
[QUOTE=colonial]
As a matter of fact neurotic and groundless self-hated will probably increase
as a result of this awful crime.
[/quote]
Really? Who’s going to be hating themselves as a result of this awful crime? I’d love it if Breivik himself (and any putative collaborators he may have or have had) developed considerable self-hatred on account of it, of course, but I don’t think that self-hatred could exactly be called “neurotic and groundless” in his case.
[QUOTE=colonial]
So you yourself admit that this imainary consequence would be *trivial *
if it were true. Trivial?- do you know what the word means?
[/quote]
Yup. Xenophobic bigotry against foreigners would indeed be “trivial” in comparison to the horrific tragedy of the terror attack itself, as I said, but its absence is still something to be thankful for.
[QUOTE=colonial]
To feel thanks for a trivial consequnce of 80 innocent people being murdered
is exacly as I characterized it in my post #164.
[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
You’re still misunderstanding the thankfulness. Nobody’s feeling thankful for any consequence of this horrible mass murder. What reasonable and humane people feel thankful for is the aspects of the situation that make the consequences of this mass murder even slightly less horrible than they might otherwise have been.
Bully for you.
I have seen those reports before, and I stand by what I said: 24 violent events
resulting in two deaths qualifies as “almost none” even if one does not consider
that there are about 2 million American Muslims, and 100,000s others Asians
who might be mistaken for Muslims by the most ignorant elements of society.
You suck.
Something trivial is not important enough to worry about, and being thankful
for avoidance of something trivial in the context of the mass murder of 60-80 people is despicable.
I was not referring to Breivik, and you know it, asshole, I was referring
to neurotic and groundless feeling among the poplation in general.
Consider this:
Timothy McVeigh’s lawyer in his closing arguments tried to convince the jury
that we “are all partly at fault”, or words to that effect. i do not know what
kind of argument he gave, but whatever it was, not too many Americans,
and none of the jury were persuaded. However, it is fair to say that Norway
is much more generally liberal than the US and I think Norweigians may be
may be inflicned to accept such arguments.
Also, there is no doubt that Breivik was strongly motivated by religion. I expect
that part of what I call self-hatred will include animus toward traditional religion
belief which would not have existed absent Breivik’s crimes.
I suspect you realize you are in a corner, and are trying to weasel your way out
by pretending not to understand the weakness and unimportance conveyed by the
word “trivial”, regardless of what it is compared to what.
A “consequence” may be something that does not happen, and there is
no doubt about what MG and you both mean by it: You mean that anti-Muslim
bias was not aroused.
But let me try to dispel any ambiguity of my own by addition **in bold red **
to what I wrote before:
Something “trivial” does not have the potential to be “horrible”.
I think you should reread and reword this stat. Because you could be going from misogynistic cretin to tremendous asshole in no time if we take your words as written.
Bolding mine.
Right. Just like Berkowitz. Whom, I thought, we had agreed was not a terrorist. So why are the DC snipers terrorists, and Berkowitz not a terrorist? Both killed many people, over an extended period, creating an atmosphere of terror and panic. What’s the distinguishing characteristic that makes one a terrorist, and the other not?
And Breivik, it seems, is part of the Christian extremist movement which, while overshadowed in recent years by Islamic extremists, still has a long and bloody history of terrorism.
Stat? As in statistic? What are you talking about, tootsie pie?
Your bolding is fine with me, honey bucket.
The only thing I would change is in red bold:
I added the word “more” and corrected the misspelling of “inclined”.
Thank you. You’ve made it very plain that earning your hatred and contempt is something for a reasonable and humane person to feel proud of.
I’m proud to repeat that, even in the midst of all the anguish and horror of the appalling terror attack in Norway, at least we can be thankful even for the comparatively trivial fact that because of the identity of the killer, the attack won’t fuel anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility.
You, on the other hand, seem to be positively disappointed that we can’t expect this appalling attack to fuel anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility.
I never suggested you were. (Sir.) I brought up Breivik because he’s the only person in this situation who seems even vaguely likely to have any cause, or any realistic chance, to suffer self-hatred as a result of this tragedy.
If by “neurotic and groundless feeling among the population in general” you mean “unwillingness among the population in general to take out their vengeful anger in anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility”—and I rather suspect you do—then I can only hope that your prophecy will be justified.
Well, if it does, then that would be a regrettable consequence, and one not to be thankful for.
But surely such “animus” is something that you would consider trivial in the context of the mass murder of 60-80 people? And aren’t you vehemently arguing that “something trivial is not important enough to worry about”?
So why are you wasting any time worrying about this trivial (and still completely hypothetical and speculative, anyway) “animus” that you fear may develop toward traditional religion as a result of Breivik’s crimes? Isn’t fretting over such a minor issue rather despicable by your standards, considering the enormity of the crimes themselves?
I’m confused as to why terrorism must have some multitude behind it. You can have an idealogy of one (by necessity, since technically all idealogies are), a campaign of one.
I don’t really see why “an act designed to in part or in whole to cause terror among a populace” isn’t a better definition than “that, but the people behind it must be followers of some overall creed that others also belong to”.
If nothing else, I don’t see a reason why terrorism and this-thing-which-is-like-terrorism-but-not are different in *moral *terms. I’d guess we’d all agree on that at least.
I do not hate you. I do hold you in contempt
Do not pat yourself on the back for that part of your character in common
with normal people who do not want to see any innocent person harmed.
Previously addressed.
I am not disappointed that Muslims will face no prejudice and hostility
because of this crime. I have written nothing to suggest otherwise,
and if you truly thought I had done so you would have said so earlier.
All right. I will give you your first point of our exchange, and a very minor one
it is at that. (Asshole.)
Vaguely likely to have any cause?! Do you realize what you are saying?
We already know at this early date that he is a psychopath; such people rarely
develop a conscience.
I gave two examples of what I mean, one quoted by you below, neither alluding
to Muslims in any way.
Try to identify anything I have written, line by line and word by word, which
could provide reason for your suspicion. Go ahead. Try. (Asshole).
OK.
Nice try, but you brought this up to begin with, and I felt that like all of your
other points it was so poorly taken that it warranted contradiction.
Here you are from your post #168;
My immediate reply was:
Which as I said does not allude to Muslims at all.
Just guessing, a manifesto? Er, which did not include a talking dog?
I really do not remember the DC snipers’ manifesto, but even so I’m pretty sure it did not include a dog.
Well I dunno, magellan. There’s something really weird about your argument.
The the Fort Hood shooter, who acted alone, was a terrorist because he was prompted by Islamist thought and observation of Islamist terror; whereas Breivik, who acted alone, wasn’t a terrorist despite being prompted by far-right thought and observation of far-right terror.
I’m sure we all recall another far-right ‘activist’ who exploded a vehicle packed with fertilizer outside a government building. Or are you asserting that Breivik would never have heard of him? (You haven’t addressed the Michael Stone question yet either.)
By your logic, nobody can be the first terrorist of a terror movement.
I guess we’ll have to agree that the the rest of us remain in a world where someone who commits ideology-inspired acts of terror, with precedent, is a terrorist, while you remain in a perception of reality where (I’m guessing from the bizarre and deeply flawed nature of your argument) someone who commits ideology-inspired acts of terror, with precedent, but isn’t an Islamist, isn’t one.
Emphasis added: you may as well say not a Muslim.
One need only recall that Muslimness to him is a reason to be “wary” of someone. He continually dodged what that meant, but rather clearly is a weasel-word code for Muslims are to him inherently violent and suspect… not likely worthy of full civil rights, etc. But of course someone like our Norwegian terrorist, with views and ideology relative to Muslims and immigrants - in short rather inspired by an extreme form of his own way of thinking, well that’s obviously an activist gone wrong, not a terrorist. Because it’s not a Muslim…
Do we? Where’s the evidence he is a psychopath?