|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 7, 2019 12:21:03 GMT -5
Whem, you're not having a discussion. You're pulling fallacy after fallacy out of your ads while ignoring facts that everyone else has agreed on. Stop pretending you are, let alone you're engaging in good faith. Case in point, you're inability to respond to anything I point out because you know you can't. You know you can't justify the xenophobic rhetoric, so you sidestep confronting the common cause of most of these mass shootings. I refuse to engage with you. Period. You're not interested in good faith debates. So... God bless. Ironic considering the entire thread dedicated to pointing out your bad faith, and the other thread where you immediately resorted to bad faith arguments too... Just keep projecting guess. That's what the P in GOP stands for after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 12:30:28 GMT -5
There are other factors, fact remains that Trump engages in their rhetoric and to certain individuals that suffer from said other factors, like supposed mental illness in the Trump bomber case, this sort of thing can just pile it on top.
Think of that stupid Qanon BS, it does influence people. Trump has the largest megaphone on the planet when he calls Mexicans rapists or calls it an invasion. Some people hear him say that and might decide to 'help'.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 7, 2019 12:52:23 GMT -5
Disciple... is political rhetoric the blame for these mass shootings? ...or, is it more possible there are many other, different factors contributing an environment where these shooters devalue life to the point to perpetuate these heinous crimes? I believe it's myopic to simply blame political rhetorics. For the El Paso shooter: I've agreed with you, numerous times that he's a white nationalist. I agree those ideologies is unacceptable. Per his manifesto, if you want to take it face value, he's more like a 'Ted Kaczynski' right-wing fringe lunatic being that he's also an eco-fascist and anti-corportist/capitalism. I, for one, never took anyone's manifesto at their word. If anything, these manifesto are generally cop-out excuses to cover their actions in order to mask other underlining issues that contributed to his behaviors. We don't have all the information we need to ascertain how/if this could be prevented. But, he gave himself up afterwards so we may be able to get more information. As for the Dayton shooter: While he was a through-and-through lefty who called himself part of the Antifa movement... according to news report, he seems more interested in massed casualties type events. Six of the nine people the Dayton shooter shot and killed were black. But he was at an anti Ku Klux Klan rally in May. He avidly supported Warren/Sanders and yet wanted Joe Biden to die (a natural death). He contacted the Socialist Rifle Association for a technical question about bump stocks back in December. In reality, it seems he was fascinated by mass murders, and according to an ex girl friend, felt an urge to commmit them. Seems like he finally gave in to his compulsion. IN this case, there were red flags all over the place that could've been used to at the very least, prevent him from legally purchasing/owning firearms. He may have been a candidate for involuntarily put in psych ward... if the laws allowed for this to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 12:56:43 GMT -5
Political rhetoric is just as responsible for all mass shootings as mental illness is...
You still haven't given a leftist motive. Him being a supporter of Antifa means nothing because Antifa doesn't advocate murdering black people in a bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 7, 2019 13:07:21 GMT -5
There are other factors, fact remains that Trump engages in their rhetoric and to certain individuals that suffer from said other factors, like supposed mental illness in the Trump bomber case, this sort of thing can just pile it on top. Think of that stupid Qanon BS, it does influence people. Trump has the largest megaphone on the planet when he calls Mexicans rapists or calls it an invasion. Some people hear him say that and might decide to 'help'. I'm not convinced... but lets say I grant you this argument. Do you say the rhetoric by democrats/lefties is "a contributing factor" that influence the actions of: James T. Hodgins? (he posted that he was upset that GOP was overturning Obamacare) Or... What about the failed ICE detention center bombing ?? (he was upset about the "concentration camps" rhetoric sprouted by democrats) I mean, I guess you can say the rhetoric "painted" a target to specific groups... but, a lot has to happen to get someone to the point to fulfill those evil deeds. And if the rhetoric was tamped down and everyone gets back to being adults in the political sphere... we would still have these shootings. So, no, I don't agree with that framework as you present. If we truly want to have conversations "as to why these shootings happen"... we need to address it with more than just gun control and/or blanket criticism of political rhetoric. There are family unit issues... There are economic issues... There are social issues... And yes, there are mental health issues. I like discussing these sorts of issues with you and you're one of the few who rationally tries to debate in good faith. So, I hope you see the point I'm driving at here. I'm a) pointing out that we should be looking at other factors and b) pointing out how the political sides are "weaponizing" these tragedies in pushing their agendas do more to inflame the situation than actually coming together to address the issue. But if all you are interpreting my stance as "absolutism" or "both side-ism"... then, yeah... we're done discussing this. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 13:14:06 GMT -5
They are concentration camps. Its the Republicans that say concentration camp=Holocaust. They fulfil the full brief of what a regular concentration camp is.
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 7, 2019 13:37:44 GMT -5
They are concentration camps. Its the Republicans that say concentration camp=Holocaust. They fulfil the full brief of what a regular concentration camp is. The guy wanted to bomb it. Is it the rhetoric, meaning heated political conversations... or something else? |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 13:44:06 GMT -5
That guy was likely also influences by all the attention yes. He might have become part of that 3% depending on his mental state if they could ever ascertain it
|
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 7, 2019 14:06:05 GMT -5
That guy was likely also influences by all the attention yes. He might have become part of that 3% depending on his mental state if they could ever ascertain it True... he was shot when he aimed his rifle. So, it'll be difficult to get answers. However, in his manifesto, he called for his “comrades” to take up arms in confronting the ascendant fascism of the state. In one of the Dayton shooter’s tweets before he he went on his rampage, he responded to a person asking if the ICE bomber had been a “villain or martyr?” He flatly replied: “ martyr.” There's your evidence of a leftist political rhetoric "influencing" the Dayton shooter. Do you agree? Or, could it be like I mentioned earlier... that the Dayton shooter was more of a "copy cat" with his enthusiasm over mass shootings? In other words: A sick individual that society failed to address that could've avoided this? |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 14:15:12 GMT -5
But attacking an ICE center can be proof of a leftist ideology. Shooting up a bar isn't. That is the distinction, one can serve as a political target, the other doesn't. When a school shooter expresses right wing views but seems to target indiscriminately in a school then its not a political target, unless he specifically targets one group. A man driving what here would be halfway across Europe to El Paso because there is where he thinks the immigrants are is a political act. Its the statement of the act and the target, not just random violence.
Yes it does influence others, but again they have different types of reach. For example the ICE bomber is relatively unknown. Contrast that with Columbine for example for school shootings. Trump has the largest platform of them all, so he can willingly or unwillingly wield a lot of influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 7, 2019 15:18:19 GMT -5
I don't understand how this is so hard.
"I shot people because X!" - People blame X.
Dude shoots people without making a statement as to why - people don't blame his political views because he wasn't doing it as an explicit political message.
Why is context apparently so difficult?
|
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Aug 7, 2019 17:31:34 GMT -5
Whem, you're not having a discussion. You're pulling fallacy after fallacy out of your ads while ignoring facts that everyone else has agreed on. Stop pretending you are, let alone you're engaging in good faith. Case in point, you're inability to respond to anything I point out because you know you can't. You know you can't justify the xenophobic rhetoric, so you sidestep confronting the common cause of most of these mass shootings. And yet people will continue to try and debate him for page after page after page after page of this thread instead of just blocking him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 17:33:26 GMT -5
To be fair Baron, that does nothing to dispute Walrus's argument that Europe has mobile phones too. I have not looked into Europe yet, but I'll point out that Europe, being made of many differing countries and cultures might not manifest any uniform symptom, the way that the US and Japan have. England has had some crimes trending in a similar manner, but data is lacking. The same with France and Germany. And it would also follow the increasing rate of usage. How many people in Norway, as an example, have the phone pressed to their heads more than 45 min a day? It's not just 'having cell phones' it's 'how much are they using them'?
And, again, the trend does not follow increases and decreases in the availability of guns. It's not a constant, it fluctuates with factors like price, manufacturing bans, and regulation, of which the US has over 22,000 of. Just because the US has always had a right does not translate that guns have been as universally available all the time. So saying guns are the cause is simply not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Aug 8, 2019 0:29:14 GMT -5
Who presses cell phones to their head? Everyone I know just texts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 8, 2019 0:33:04 GMT -5
Guns are not the cause, they are they symptom that makes the cause so absolutely fucking deadly. And yes, phone use in Europe is not behind the US, young people spend on average about 2+ hours per day on their mobile phone in Western Europe. Overall Europeans seem to average at 60 min a day for all ages (but that average goes up if you start looking at Western Europe).
Germany used to have mass shootings as well, but that seems to be a thing of the past after they tightened their gun control. Yet mass stabbings, bombings or driving into crowds has not really developed as the tactic outside of terrorist groups (mostly jihadist in recent years). Any 'research' I have seen that tries to claim that Europe isn't less violent always has to drag in every terrorist attack for false equivalency, that's like me putting 9/11 in the mass shooting list. If you just go by population share and say for example there are 50 random mass shootings in the US per year, that means my country would have to average 4 mass casualty events a year, but there aren't, because cell phones don't cause mass casualty events by themselves.
|
|
