• 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!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

Furiounova said:
I'm saying social terrorism exists and I'm trying to explain why.
Click to expand...

Other than the definition from urban dictionary(which has nothing to do with violence or terrorism) there is no such thing as social terrorism. Again if it does not involve “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” then it is not terrorism period. Simply just murdering people because you are pissed off at them or the employer is not terrorism.

Using the OP story, what would you call it? Going postal is a gloss job so come up with something substantive.
Click to expand...

Going postal is a slang term for work place homicides.Therefore calling 'going postal' is substantive. Legally it would probably be just a double murder and suicide, maybe a triple homicide. I don't think murderer two people would qualify as a mass murder.We should probably ask forum members who are or used to be police officers what a double murder and suicide would be legally called.

Going postal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Going postal, in American English slang, means becoming extremely and uncontrollably angry, often to the point of violence, and usually in a post office or other workplace environment.


CDC would call it workplace homicide
CDC - Occupational Violence - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic
 
jamesrage said:
Other than the definition from urban dictionary(which has nothing to do with violence or terrorism) there is no such thing as social terrorism. Again if it does not involve “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” then it is not terrorism period. Simply just murdering people because you are pissed off at them or the employer is not terrorism.



Going postal is a slang term for work place homicides.Therefore calling 'going postal' is substantive. Legally it would probably be just a double murder and suicide, maybe a triple homicide. I don't think murderer two people would qualify as a mass murder.We should probably ask forum members who are or used to be police officers what a double murder and suicide would be legally called.

Going postal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Going postal, in American English slang, means becoming extremely and uncontrollably angry, often to the point of violence, and usually in a post office or other workplace environment.


CDC would call it workplace homicide
CDC - Occupational Violence - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic
Click to expand...

There is really nothing here that addresses my post. You don't even attempt to give a better definition and instead rely on stale slang that is endemic to the work environment.
 
Harshaw said:
:rofl

Only by strict FBI numerical designation, and only because it stopped before it got to four -- mostly because the gunman was apparently incompetent.

From your own OP:



He apparently tried to kill more but didn't succeed.

If you're claiming it was of a piece with the other shootings, then it was a mass shooting in the same vein.

If you refuse to accept that, then you absolutely are making things up to fit whatever narrative it is you've got concocted in your head.



What I am doing is looking for the most accurate description. Terrorism doesn't fit and they are not mass murders so maybe I'm crazy for looking for accuracy.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

No he did not try to kill more and fail. He committed suicide.

Mass murder also glosses over it too much because it says nothing about the nature of the attack.

You don't like my term? Fine. Challenge me on it for accuracy and consistency. Give some examples of shootings and ask which ones fit ST and which ones don't and why
You have my criteria list.
 
Furiounova said:
There is really nothing here that addresses my post. You don't even attempt to give a better definition and instead rely on stale slang that is endemic to the work environment.
Click to expand...
Yes it does address your post.Going postal is slang but it is a used term. If you ask any body what 'going postal' is they will know it is a workplace homicide and where the term originated from. There is no such thing as a social terrorism, it doesn't exist. I posted a link of the CDC calling it workplace homicide. What describes the events in the OP is a double murder and suicide.
 
jamesrage said:
Yes it does address your post.Going postal is slang but it is a used term. If you ask any body what 'going postal' is they will know it is a workplace homicide and where the term originated from. There is no such thing as a social terrorism, it doesn't exist. I posted a link of the CDC calling it workplace homicide. What describes the events in the OP is a double murder and suicide.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what your opinion is on this because you practice dialogue like Michael Moore is concerned about his weight.
 
Furiounova said:
I really don't care what your opinion is on this because you practice dialogue like Michael Moore is concerned about his weight.
Click to expand...


It is not opinion. It is a fact that the CDC describes murders that happen in the work place as 'work place homicides'. It is a fact “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” is terrorism. It is a fact that there is no such thing as social terrorism. It is a fact that what occurred in the OP is two murders and suicide and possible additional attempted murders since according to the article he had a AK-47,a handgun and fired 16 rounds.
 
jamesrage said:
It is not opinion. It is a fact that the CDC describes murders that happen in the work place as 'work place homicides'. It is a fact “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” is terrorism. It is a fact that there is no such thing as social terrorism. It is a fact that what occurred in the OP is two murders and suicide and possible additional attempted murders since according to the article he had a AK-47,a handgun and fired 16 rounds.
Click to expand...

Do you understand I am working with a new term that most accurately describes events and that the CDC does not have every freaking term in the world in cookie cutter legal definitions so that anal retentive blocks don't throw fits every time they see a term that isn't in the CDC library?

If you don't like the term social terrorism then don't use it. I don't care.
 
No he did not try to kill more and fail. He committed suicide.
Click to expand...

So, he fired the other 14 shots into the air, for fun? :roll:


Mass murder also glosses over it too much because it says nothing about the nature of the attack.
Click to expand...

No, it "glosses over" exactly what you want to characterize it as to suit your agenda. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate; it only means you don't get to use it the way you want.

You don't like my term? Fine. Challenge me on it for accuracy and consistency. Give some examples of shootings and ask which ones fit ST and which ones don't and why
You have my criteria list.
Click to expand...

None of the shootings have much of anything in common, other than mere happenstance. You cannot create a pathological phenomenon out of them; it simply doesn't exist.
 
Harshaw said:
So, he fired the other 14 shots into the air, for fun? :roll:




No, it "glosses over" exactly what you want to characterize it as to suit your agenda. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate; it only means you don't get to use it the way you want.



None of the shootings have much of anything in common, other than mere happenstance. You cannot create a pathological phenomenon out of them; it simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You don't like my term? Fine. Challenge me on it for accuracy and consistency. Give some examples of shootings and ask which ones fit ST and which ones don't and why
You have my criteria list.
 
Furiounova said:
You don't like my term? Fine. Challenge me on it for accuracy and consistency. Give some examples of shootings and ask which ones fit ST and which ones don't and why
You have my criteria list.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less if they fit your made-up term or not. Why should anyone?
 
Harshaw said:
I couldn't care less if they fit your made-up term or not. Why should anyone?
Click to expand...

You've only been posting about it for a few pages. I'm not really surprised you ran from the simple challenge.
 
Furiounova said:
Do you understand I am working with a new term that most accurately describes events and that the CDC does not have every freaking term in the world in cookie cutter legal definitions so that anal retentive blocks don't throw fits every time they see a term that isn't in the CDC library?

If you don't like the term social terrorism then don't use it. I don't care.
Click to expand...

The term social terrorism does not accurately describe the events in the OP. The guy in the OP article was not trying to coerce some sort of social or political change with his double murder and suicide. This is nothing more than a angry worker pissed off at his employer or place of employment. What you are doing amounts to calling a chocolate cake a ham and cheese croissant sandwich, a rape a arson,or a car jacking a bank robbery.
 
Last edited:
Furiounova said:
You've only been posting about it for a few pages. I'm not really surprised you ran from the simple challenge.
Click to expand...

If you think I've been posting about your made-up term, other than to point out that it's made-up, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
jamesrage said:
The term social terrorism does not accurately describe the events in the OP. The guy in the OP article was not trying to coerce some sort of social or political change with his double murder and suicide. This is nothing more than a angry worker pissed off at his employer or place of employment. What you are doing amounts to calling a chocolate cake a ham and cheese croissant sandwich, a rape a arson,or a car jacking a bank robbery.
Click to expand...

You really truly seriously have not paid attention to my position.

At

All
 
Furiounova said:
You really truly seriously have not paid attention to my position.

At

All
Click to expand...

Yes I have paid attention to your position. You are trying to inaccurately describe a double murder and suicide that was motivate by revenge as a act of terrorism. You hope that by slapping the word social in front of the word terrorism that the meaning of the word terrorism can be ignored. Again what you are doing amounts to call a Arson a rape, a McDonald's quarter pound Cheeseburger a Chocolate shake, or a armed bank robbery a home burglary.



Bengal tiger is a type of tiger.The definition of tiger is not changed when you add Bengal in front of it. A tiger is still a tiger regardless if it is a Bengal, Indochinese, Malayan, Sumatran, Siberian or South China tiger. The reason those words are in front of the word tiger is because its trying to specify a type of tiger. You are not trying specify a type of terrorism. You are trying to create a term that has nothing to do with what the word actually means.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Yes I have paid attention to your position. You are trying to inaccurately describe a double murder and suicide that was motivate by revenge as a act of terrorism. You hope that by slapping the word social in front of the word terrorism that the meaning of the word terrorism can be ignored. Again what you are doing amounts to call a Arson a rape, a McDonald's quarter pound Cheeseburger a Chocolate shake, or a armed bank robbery a home burglary.



Bengal tiger is a type of tiger.The definition of tiger is not changed when you add Bengal in front of it. A tiger is still a tiger regardless if it is a Bengal, Indochinese, Malayan, Sumatran, Siberian or South China tiger. The reason those words are in front of the word tiger is because its trying to specify a type of tiger. You are not trying specify a type of terrorism. You are trying to create a term that has nothing to do with what the word actually means.
Click to expand...

You haven't paid attention because the whole point of social terrorism is they have no political or idealogical agenda.

How do you know this was a revenge shooting?
 
Furiounova said:
You haven't paid attention because the whole point of social terrorism is they have no political or idealogical agenda.
Click to expand...

If for some strange reason someone wanted to a bunch of people to wear orange on Fridays and that person decided to start bombing and killing people in order to scare people into wearing orange on Fridays, it would be terrorism. It wouldn't be political and it wouldn't ideological. But it is still terrorism because he or she is trying to use that violence to basically scare people into doing what he or she wants.


How do you know this was a revenge shooting?
Click to expand...

If its not revenge then why do you think he murdered two innocent people two people before committing suicide at his place of employment? Was he trying to use that violence scare everybody who shops at the state into doing something?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If for some strange reason someone decided to start bombing stores and killing people because he or she wants everybody or even just a segment of the population to wear the color orange on Friday it would be terrorism. It wouldn't be political and it wouldn't ideological but it is still terrorism because he or she is trying to use that violence to basically scare people into wearing the color orange on Fridays.




If its not revenge then why do you think he murdered two innocent people two people before committing suicide? Was he trying to use that violence scare everybody who shops at the state into doing something?
Click to expand...

Doing it to coerce people into wearing orange shirts is doing it for an ideology.

So you have no actual proof it was revenge and just wanted to say that.

I'm going to have to start a new thread that thoroughly characterizes my position.
 
Furiounova said:
Doing it to coerce people into wearing orange shirts is doing it for an ideology.
Click to expand...

Coercing people into wearing something is not ideological. He or she could simply just love the color orange



So you have no actual proof it was revenge and just wanted to say that.
Click to expand...

Then please humor me and tell me what the motivation is for the work place homicides in the OP.

I'm going to have to start a new thread that thoroughly characterizes my position.
Click to expand...

Posters will tell you that your position is wrong and will show the same or similar definitions of terrorism that you have been shown multiple times through out this thread.
 
Personally, I am just sad that an 18 and 26 year old died. They had barely just started their lives.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I am just sad that an 18 and 26 year old died. They had barely just started their lives.
Click to expand...
Yeah, definitely not cool. I don't think people should make politics of this, those two had people that will forever miss them and for no good reason.
 
Surtr said:
Because the term you're looking for is domestic terrorism, but even then, it's an incorrect usage.
Click to expand...

The very reason I am not using domestic terrorism is because it does not apply by definition.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah, definitely not cool. I don't think people should make politics of this, those two had people that will forever miss them and for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Nobody is making politics of it and it is disgusting that mourning the loss of their lives is feigned just so a cheap shot can be thrown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom