• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee [W:211]

johnny_rebson said:
Maybe Pat Robertson is right.

Liberals live in Miami, Miami has hurricanes.

Liberals live in San Franscisco, San Francisco has earthquakes.

Conservative Christians live in Oklahoma, Oklahoma doesn't have disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.
Click to expand...

I guess the 168 killed in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City was done on God's day off.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Maybe Pat Robertson is right.

Liberals live in Miami, Miami has hurricanes.

Liberals live in San Franscisco, San Francisco has earthquakes.

Conservative Christians live in Oklahoma, Oklahoma doesn't have disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.
Click to expand...
Yup, after all, those natural phenom's didn't happen until libs moved there.

PS....Pat is blaming this shooting on Atheists.
 
Hatuey said:
Then you are being dishonest. If your deity itself is violent, so is the religion that flows from its supposed teachings.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are overgeneralizing and cherry picking.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Maybe Pat Robertson is right.

Liberals live in Miami, Miami has hurricanes.

Liberals live in San Franscisco, San Francisco has earthquakes.

Conservative Christians live in Oklahoma, Oklahoma doesn't have disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.
Click to expand...

No. They have tornadoes, dust storms, droughts, and large scale fires. See? God hates conservatives, too.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
OK, let's review. Your argument previously was that conservatives should condemn him AND his ideas. Then you said that ideas are not the problem, separating the individual from the ideas.

Now you argument is that his EXTREMISM is the problem. The problem for you is that you are back to combining the individual with the ideology since extremism is defined as:


Extremism is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.

So again, you first condemned the individual AND his ideology, next you separated the individual from the ideology and said the ideology is not the problem, the problem is the individual....and then finally you say EXTREMISM is the problem.....which is the individual acting out using EXTREME ideology as a rationale.
Click to expand...

His EXTREME version of the ideology. That is based on his interpretation. The ideology is not the issue. His interpretation of it, is... which is extreme. He then acts on his interpretation.


If the individual is using (interpreting) literal translations, such as verse calling for the killing of non-believers (which is in the Abrahamic texts), then it is still the individual AND the ideology, they are not separate, they are combined. We do not excuse murder because of the ideology being used, the literal interpretation is condemned, that text is condemned by many because of ideology of justifying the murder of non-believers. There are whole schools of apologists defending the text, setup just to defend some the most insane, irrational aspects of the text.
Click to expand...

Nope. They are completely separate. How one interprets those texts and then acts on those interpretations is the issue, not the text itself. There are plenty of folks who just want to condemn religion and ideologies, who only think in black/white terms and make these errors that I have pointed out.

Oh yes, you first condemned the individual AND the ideology, then you condemned just the individual, and now you have gone back to condemning both with your new "extremism" argument.
Click to expand...

Keep reading and re-reading. I'm sure, eventually, you'll understand my explanation.

Aside from the fact that your argument keeps flip-flopping, I was never required to show that an ideology was the problem only when it is 100% effective, causing ALL to act out in its most extreme, literal form.
Click to expand...

If you cannot show that groups of people who follow an ideology in some consistent fashion, your argument fails. Since you have not done this... your argument fails.

My argument still is that the ideology is a problem when it calls for the murder of those outside of the group.
You can keep arguing that is not a problem, and keep going through your verbal gymnastic demonstrations of combining, separating and recombining the ideology and the individual, but you are still defending bad ideologies, excusing them by arguing they are not a problem, that it is totally the individual.
Click to expand...

And your argument is a failure. Who creates these ideologies? Your answer will help you to understand why your argument fails.

There are no bad ideas, just bad people....that is poppycock, BS.
Click to expand...

Since ideas don't do anything... behaviors DO, you have still failed to demonstrate the validity of your position. The poppycock is yours.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Conservative Christians live in Oklahoma, Oklahoma doesn't have disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.
Click to expand...

Dust bowl.

This summer Oklahoma has had the worst drought in history + the worst wild fires in OK history.

The invisible man in the sky has spoken, false prophets and fake Christians in the bible belt, your day has come.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
His EXTREME version of the ideology. That is based on his interpretation. The ideology is not the issue. His interpretation of it, is... which is extreme. He then acts on his interpretation.
Click to expand...
The ideology is already EXTREMISM, it is white supremacy/neo-NAZI-ism, he did not have to go outside of, beyond, the basic mainstream understanding of it. For you to argue that members of his own group, other neo-NAZI skinheads, should condemn his actions just shows how naive your understanding of this extremist group is. This is a group based on hate.




Nope. They are completely separate. How one interprets those texts and then acts on those interpretations is the issue, not the text itself. There are plenty of folks who just want to condemn religion and ideologies, who only think in black/white terms and make these errors that I have pointed out.
Click to expand...
BS, this is an apology for any ideology, no matter how extreme the ideology is, no matter how wrong, destructive or corrosive. This is an attempt to make the irrational rational. This is an argument in favor of the worst ideologies, including the one at hand that is based on racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.



Keep reading and re-reading. I'm sure, eventually, you'll understand my explanation.
Click to expand...
You already have, you have done nothing but to repeat the same excuse, that the idea is not a problem. Again, the idea that other neo-Nazi skinheads should be the ones the to be critical of "the guy and his beliefs" is a recognition that there is something wrong with the beliefs, and you really think his beliefs are different from the group as a whole. That is pure naivety.



If you cannot show that groups of people who follow an ideology in some consistent fashion, your argument fails. Since you have not done this... your argument fails.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous, your standard for measuring whether an ideology is a "problem" is if it has 100% of adherents acting out. If they are only being anti-Semetic 99% of the time when they encounter a Jew ....thats OK. If they are committing racism 99% of the time they encounter non-whites...that's OK. In your world, it is only when these acts happen 100% of the time by 100% of the adherents that the ideology is a "problem". And you complain about B&W mindsets.



And your argument is a failure. Who creates these ideologies? Your answer will help you to understand why your argument fails.
Click to expand...
You are back again to separating the human from the idea, that there are no bad ideas.



Since ideas don't do anything... behaviors DO, you have still failed to demonstrate the validity of your position. The poppycock is yours.
Click to expand...
Anti-Semitism is not a inborn behavior, it is an idea learned. It is not a socially accepted norm.
 
Last edited:
Oklahoma isn't being spared from any of Gawd's wrath, far from it.

We are more than 'blessed' with killer tornadoes, and multiple droughts. This year is a hard drought, but we have had several bad years strung together, each the worst since '56. I went from near 100 head of cattle to 24. I have had to pay truckers more in freight than the poor quality hay was worth to get hay from farms several states away. Ponds are dry and many ranchers have to haul water to their cattle. If this is Gawd's Blessing I wouldn't mind someone else receiving this sort of blessing from time to time... :roll:

It is pretty ignorant to think Gawd is visiting hardship on one part or parts of the Republic because of political stands. Some folks need to change the TV channel or stop visiting certain websites. Gawd and I had a talk years ago and She assured me many self righteous folks are in for a huge surprise come judgement day.

I believed Her... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oklahoma isn't being spared from any of Gawd's wrath, far from it.

We are more than 'blessed' with killer tornadoes, and multiple droughts. This year is a hard drought, but we have had several bad years strung together, each the worst since '56. I went from near 100 head of cattle to 24. I have had to pay truckers more in freight than the poor quality hay was worth to get hay from farms several states away. Ponds are dry and many ranchers have to haul water to their cattle. If this is Gawd's Blessing I wouldn't mind someone else receiving this sort of blessing from time to time... :roll:

It is pretty ignorant to think Gawd is visiting hardship on one part or parts of the Republic because of political stands. Some folks need to change the TV channel or stop visiting certain websites. Gawd and I had a talk years ago and She assured me many self righteous folks are in for a huge surprise come judgement day.

I believed Her... :peace
Click to expand...

It's amazing how small our little worlds are while at the same time thinking they also encompass everyone else's world.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're another one who is so black/white that you don't know the difference between an extremist and mainstream ideology.
Click to expand...

Extremism, such as the one seen in WI, and mainstream GOP rhetoric are the same thing. . .

bachmannculture.jpg


Bachmann On Muslims In 2005: 'Not All Cultures Are Equal' | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
His EXTREME version of the ideology. That is based on his interpretation. The ideology is not the issue. His interpretation of it, is... which is extreme. He then acts on his interpretation.
Click to expand...

An interpretation that GOP pols both fuel and exploit to win elections.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since ideas don't do anything... behaviors DO, you have still failed to demonstrate the validity of your position. The poppycock is yours.
Click to expand...

That's like saying you can't eat the seeds, just the carrots and lettuce.
 
solletica said:
Extremism, such as the one seen in WI, and mainstream GOP rhetoric are the same thing. . .
Click to expand...

Like I said, more evidence that you don't know the difference between extremism and mainstream ideology. The more you post, the more evident you make your confusion on this issue.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The ideology is already EXTREMISM, it is white supremacy/neo-NAZI-ism, he did not have to go outside of, beyond, the basic mainstream understanding of it. For you to argue that members of his own group, other neo-NAZI skinheads, should condemn his actions just shows how naive your understanding of this extremist group is. This is a group based on hate.
Click to expand...

In bold. Since I never said that, you might want to try discussing what I actually said.


BS, this is an apology for any ideology, no matter how extreme the ideology is, no matter how wrong, destructive or corrosive. This is an attempt to make the irrational rational. This is an argument in favor of the worst ideologies, including the one at hand that is based on racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.[/quote]

Not at all. What this does is place responsibility completely on the individual acting and does not stereotype. Everything that you said is your own BS, your own perception. Nothing more.

You already have, you have done nothing but to repeat the same excuse, that the idea is not a problem. Again, the idea that other neo-Nazi skinheads should be the ones the to be critical of "the guy and his beliefs" is a recognition that there is something wrong with the beliefs, and you really think his beliefs are different from the group as a whole. That is pure naivety.
Click to expand...

And again, since I never said that, you can argue it all you like. Not my position so I have nothing to say about it.

Ridiculous, your standard for measuring whether an ideology is a "problem" is if it has 100% of adherents acting out. If they are only being anti-Semetic 99% of the time when they encounter a Jew ....thats OK. If they are committing racism 99% of the time they encounter non-whites...that's OK. In your world, it is only when these acts happen 100% of the time by 100% of the adherents that the ideology is a "problem". And you complain about B&W mindsets.
Click to expand...

Again, when you want to discuss what I actually said, we can talk. If you want to discuss what you WANTED to me have said because it is far easier for your to debate, I'll just point out how you are misrepresenting thing, sit back, and watch you scream nonsense.

You are back again to separating the human from the idea, that there are no bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Ideas are ideas. Actions are actions. Does someone get arrested for killing another, or thinking about killing another?

Anti-Semitism is not a inborn behavior, it is an idea learned. It is not a socially accepted norm.
Click to expand...

Anti-semitism is an idea. Assaulting a Jew because of anti-semitism is a behavior. Since not all anti-semites assault Jews, the problem is with the individual. I have no love for anti-semitism. If you want to be an anti-semite, not associate with Jews, but not act on your anti-semitism, I do not care what you believe.

Do you understand the point, yet?
 
Furiounova said:
The Sikh shooting was not domestic terrorism nor the batman massacre nor the Adkisson church attack. Those are all social terrorism. The term "domestic terrorism" is a BS media term designed to keep pretending the epidemic of shootings is not an epidemic.
Click to expand...

Sikh was classic Domestic Terrorism.

"Social Terrorism" -- sounds made up.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In bold. Since I never said that, you might want to try discussing what I actually said.Not at all. What this does is place responsibility completely on the individual acting and does not stereotype. Everything that you said is your own BS, your own perception. Nothing more.And again, since I never said that, you can argue it all you like. Not my position so I have nothing to say about it.Again, when you want to discuss what I actually said, we can talk. If you want to discuss what you WANTED to me have said because it is far easier for your to debate, I'll just point out how you are misrepresenting thing, sit back, and watch you scream nonsense.
Click to expand...
Nonsense is arguing that an ideology, the ideas and values one has, what one has been exposed to and what one accepts as a norm, is never a problem.



Ideas are ideas. Actions are actions. Does someone get arrested for killing another, or thinking about killing another?
Click to expand...
Uh, yes, we call it "conspiracy", we call them "threats". You do not have to carry out the act. Tell us again about that black and white world.



Anti-semitism is an idea. Assaulting a Jew because of anti-semitism is a behavior.
Click to expand...
An act carried out as a result of of an idea, both of which are a problem.

Since not all anti-semites assault Jews, the problem is with the individual.
Click to expand...
Again, your 100% baseline, ridiculous.


I have no love for anti-semitism .
Click to expand...
Why not? It is an idea, you seem to have a great deal of respect for any idea. You previously showed can't make a value judgement on anti-Semitism, but now you say you "have no love".....apparently you are making a value judgement now.

If you want to be an anti-semite , not associate with Jews, but not act on your anti-semitism , I do not care what you believe.
Click to expand...
So then once a person DOES commit an act of anti-Semitism, say, kill a family member....then you might care what that person believed, what motivated them, what was the idea that they believed in? Will it be only then that you start to be concerned with an ideology that IS an existential threat to you?
Do you understand the point, yet?
Click to expand...
I understand what you think is a "point", you only are concerned with threats after they are carried out.



You lost the argument back when you said that ANYONE should "condemn this guy and his beliefs", his beliefs are his ideology, an ideology shared by that extremist group. If you feel his beliefs should be condemned, then you are arguing against his beliefs, not just his actions.

QED
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Like I said, more evidence that you don't know the difference between extremism and mainstream ideology.
Click to expand...

Hmm, the only evidence I see is that you had to delete my evidence (i. e. the citation I posted to "make" your point. Why is that?
 
solletica said:
Hmm, the only evidence I see is that you had to delete my evidence (i. e. the citation I posted to "make" your point. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't evidence. You claimed it was, but since it was nothing but your opinion, it was irrelevant, so I dismissed it as I dismiss all irrelevant information.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Nonsense is arguing that an ideology, the ideas and values one has, what one has been exposed to and what one accepts as a norm, is never a problem.
Click to expand...

Nonsense is asserting that it is THE problem and that people have no responsibility.

See? I can argue something that YOU never said, just like you do.

Uh, yes, we call it "conspiracy", we call them "threats". You do not have to carry out the act. Tell us again about that black and white world.
Click to expand...

Do try to debate honestly. I said "thinking" very clearly. I didn't say threaten or anything else. I said "thinking". So, since you decided to just straw man my argument, as you seem to do consistently, I can easily say that you don't know what you are talking about... which is accurate.

An act carried out as a result of of an idea, both of which are a problem.
Click to expand...

Nope. The act is. Not unless thoughtcrime is now in place.

Again, your 100% baseline, ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, completely accurate. Your denial is ridiculous.


Why not? It is an idea, you seem to have a great deal of respect for any idea. You previously showed can't make a value judgement on anti-Semitism, but now you say you "have no love".....apparently you are making a value judgement now.
Click to expand...

More dishonestly from you. Please point out where I said that one cannot make a value judgment. I can say I do not like an ideology all I want. There is a difference between me saying that and saying that an ideology is objectively "bad", which I did not say. You might want to try really reading what is being said so you can respond appropriately.

So then once a person DOES commit an act of anti-Semitism, say, kill a family member....then you might care what that person believed, what motivated them, what was the idea that they believed in? Will it be only then that you start to be concerned with an ideology that IS an existential threat to you?
I understand what you think is a "point", you only are concerned with threats after they are carried out.
Click to expand...

I would be concerned with how they interpreted the beliefs that they adhered to. I would be concerned with anyone who interpreted beliefs as giving them permission to murder, or in other words, break laws.



You lost the argument back when you said that ANYONE should "condemn this guy and his beliefs", his beliefs are his ideology, an ideology shared by that extremist group. If you feel his beliefs should be condemned, then you are arguing against his beliefs, not just his actions.
Click to expand...

Actually, I never said that. And YOU lost the argument and continue to lose the argument each and every time you misrepresent my position, which you do in every post. Obviously, you can defeat a straw man argument, but since it's not MY argument, you just end up looking foolish... as you have.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nonsense is asserting that it is THE problem and that people have no responsibility.

See? I can argue something that YOU never said, just like you do.
Click to expand...
The trouble is with your argument, that an idea is not a problem. You are still saying that.



Do try to debate honestly. I said "thinking" very clearly. I didn't say threaten or anything else. I said "thinking". So, since you decided to just straw man my argument, as you seem to do consistently, I can easily say that you don't know what you are talking about... which is accurate.
Click to expand...
LOL...consistency? My god, one of the MANY problems has been your INCONSISTENCY, from saying that others should condemn his ideas, to saying the ideas are not the problem, and now shifting from "behavior" to "thinking". This is the new line, that I am making this a "thought crime". LOLOL! Don't talk to me about consistency, you have nothing to hang your hat on as far as that is concerned.



Nope. The act is. Not unless thoughtcrime is now in place.
Click to expand...
Diversion and straw, you are turing the argument from "anti-Semitism, both the idea and the act, is a problem" to "you are making this a "thought crime"".
It won't fly, you are creating a straw man to divert from your ridiculous position.



No, completely accurate. Your denial is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Your argument that an idea is only a problem, when 100% of adherents act on it, is beyond specious. NAZI ideology in Germany did not have 100% of the population as complete adherents, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone, other than neo-NAZI's, claiming that NAZI ideology "wasn't a problem".




More dishonestly from you. Please point out where I said that one cannot make a value judgment. I can say I do not like an ideology all I want. There is a difference between me saying that and saying that an ideology is objectively "bad", which I did not say. You might want to try really reading what is being said so you can respond appropriately.
Click to expand...
Again you are contradicting yourself, on one hand you say others should "condemn him and his ideas", next you claim that is not saying the ideology is "objectively bad". How does that work? If neo-NAZI ideology should be condemned, is that not making a value judgement AND expressing it to those who hold to that ideology?



I would be concerned with how they interpreted the beliefs that they adhered to. I would be concerned with anyone who interpreted beliefs as giving them permission to murder, or in other words, break laws.
Click to expand...
LOL, I see, when an ideology becomes an existential threat to you or your family....well, now it has been elevated form "not a problem" to "a concern".





Actually, I never said that. And YOU lost the argument and continue to lose the argument each and every time you misrepresent my position, which you do in every post. Obviously, you can defeat a straw man argument, but since it's not MY argument, you just end up looking foolish... as you have.
Click to expand...
Actually, you did. And the fact that you can't face it, discuss it or explain it away shows how much in denial you are about it. If you call for others to "condemn this guy and his ideas", you are totally undercutting your contradictory argument that the ideology is not a problem. They are in logical opposition. It is the main point that you keep avoiding by denial and diversion.
 
Matt Foley said:
Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee: racist whites on a murdering rampage again.
Click to expand...

racist or a moron who thought Sikhs were Islamists

religious bigotry combined with brain dead ignorance is the real issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom