When mass shooters are Muslim...

[B/W Photodude]

Lets play honestly!!

Your statement implies dishonesty or lying. This has already been addressed today in another thread.

One of these days I might actually see you write something here worthwhile answering in an intellectually challenging sort of way. But I am not holding my breath!

[CoAspen]

Honestly means 'the whole story', when something is left out that  can be seen as trying to lead a person to the incorrect conclusion or in a direction that will only support the position of the presenter. It's called an 'omission'.

Perhaps your obsession with 'radfem' is causing some problems. The topic was about 'mass shooters' and the Muslim community.

This is not an intellectual discussion, more along the lines common sense perhaps. It the least, factual evidence and reality.

Can't blame everything on liberalism/democrats/feminism or radfems. Rather simplistic don't you think?

[Mark Aurelius]

What I'm doing is pointing out invalid critiques. It is a failure of logic to leap from 'this critique is invalid' to 'there is no such thing as a valid critique'. It's like saying 'this dog is not a cat' means 'there is no such thing as a cat'.

It is not that I am saying it's a feminist plot, more that the culture in our schools tends to favour girls, and problems suffered by boys are not taken as seriously by society as a whole. The feminists are influential in school policy, and so exacerbate this tendency. 

I'm sure that paper you linked to could have been interesting, but it needs a log in. But even so, academic papers and policy are different things.

Also, when you point out invalid critiques, it could be that you are just batting away skilfully a line of thinking that you don't want pursued. 

It's great that you love women and education. So do I. But I have boys struggling through the education system. I'm not blaming ritalin or feminism for that, but my eldest son has been aware of the way for example that in males are the ones made to look foolish in plays put on for schools. That is not much, but it does seem that boys are harder to educate than girls, and that extra effort is required to make education appealing to boys. Since most of the education they receive in primary school is from women, even with the best will in the world, their style is likely to appeal more to the female mind. I have seen in Pathfinders a big shift in the level of engagement in my sons when a female leader left and a male took over. I thought the woman was doing a good job, but still there was something lacking for my boys at least.

I am not against women. Dave, just against our society's tendency to favour women and pay less attention to the effects of decisions on males. The feminists tend to exaggerate that tendency with their teaching that women are oppressed in some way by a "patriarchal" society. You used to poke fun at feminist slogans. You seem to have been absorbed into the fem-borg.

[Bravus]

Nope. I'm in balance, you're out of balance. Obviously that's a matter of perspective and position, but I can recognise both the good and the bad of feminism, and you seem to be able to see only the bad.

There are issues about the ways we educate boys - and educational researchers are taking those issues seriously and seeking solutions. There is a related issue where educational decisions are made by  politicians uninformed by the educational research that means there is some truth in the allegation that not enough is being done, but that is not down to some feminist conspiracy. Indeed, it's much more likely to be conservative political forces that enshrine current practices unhelpful to boys in the face of efforts to do better.

 

[hch]

McVeigh was labeled right wing christian(wacko) in the news frequently  

But isn't it  how the news works?

A terrorist is labeled "Muslim" "Christian wacko" or the the member of a specific (hate) group and the label takes on a life of its own.

[lazarus]

Lazarus: It was incidental. All that talk of OT stories and so on is adduced after the decision to justify it in terms acceptable to the culture. That wanton abuse of native peoples is not taught in the NT. The OT was a theocracy set up by a stream of miracles and the establishment of the temple worship centred around the 1o Commandments handed down at Sinai. The american colonists had no claim to that.

I have never suggested that the NT teaches that Christians should massacre natives. That is not my point. Clearly Christians used the OT exploits of Israel  and the call to spread the gospel as justification for their genocide. Some colonists laid claim to the experience of OT Israel even though they had no claim on it.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm

But Manifest Destiny was not simply a cloak for American imperialism and a justification for America’s territorial ambitions. It also was firmly anchored in a long standing and deep sense of a special and unique American Destiny, the belief that in the words of historian Conrad Cherry, “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God.” The notion that there was some providential purpose to the European discovery and eventual conquest of the land masses “discovered” by Christopher Columbus was present from the beginning. Both the Spanish and the French monarchs authorized and financed exploration of the “New World” because, among other things, they considered it their divinely appointed mission to spread Christianity to the New World by converting the natives to Christianity. Coming later to the venture, the British and especially the New England Puritans carried with them a demanding sense of Providential purpose.

John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ."

"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."

Finally.....Where does the idea of a City on a Hill come from?

[lazarus]

.Maybe we are trained not to see certain things by our world-view, ideology: like a connection between Islam and violence,

Or the connection between Christianity and violence.

Going back to the OP.........the current majority population often searches for mitigating circumstances to explain why someone in their culture would engage in such behavior. The opposite is true when it is member of another minority population.  Lets look at the treatment of crack v Heroin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/07/15/from-a-first-arrest-to-a-life-sentence/

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/27/the-heroin-epidemic-family-shares-tragic-story-of-their-loss/21214662/

[JoeMo]

The attempt to make Christian and Muslim extremists equivalent is not necessarily on the right track. There is no justification for violence to enforce Christianity. It is not in the teachings of Jesus anywhere. But I have heard a number of people say that the Quran in its later parts advocates violence to spread Islam. I don't have any deeper knowledge, but I have heard that the Quran sounds conciliatory in the ealrier chapters, written when Mohammed had no effective force behind him, and is more aggressive in later chapters when he had enough support to use force.

The Koran also says that later statements made by the prophet abrogate earlier statements.  The problem is that the Koran is not written in chronological sequence; so there is no sure way of determining which statements came early or late.  The Hadith, which carries almost as much weight as the Koran, also calls for the death or subjegation of all non-Muslims.  Unfortunately for them, Sunnis are considered infidels by Shi'ites and vice versa.

Concerning Bravus' initial contention, Only a majority of Americans think conclude that many mass shootings are inspired by radical Islam.  Our beloved President has refused to call any domestic shootings  "Islamic terrorism".  He only lowered the flag for the Chatanooga victims after massive social outcry.  If a radical Muslim who has spent considerable time overseas training with a terrorist group comes home and kills people, it's not unreasonable to suspect Islamic terrorism as a motivation. 

[bonnie]

 

 

 

 

Obama Says Americans Having Guns is Worse Than Islamic Terrorism

28Jul, 2015by Warner Todd Huston

 

In an interview with Britain’s BBC, President Obama said that Americans having guns and observing their Second Amendment rights is far worse than Muslim terrorism.

In the interview Obama lamented that he has not been able to put an end to the Second Amendment and noted that Americans are worse than terrorists.

Obama’s exact words: “If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands.”

In the lead up to this statement, Obama mentioned “mass killings” with guns but did not mention mass killings or attempted mass killings in which those holding the guns were jihadists.

He said, “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws.” However, it is not that America does not have gun control. Rather, it is that Americans increasingly see that gun control does not stop criminals from acting out their criminality, therefore support for more gun laws has waned.

Note hat he doesn’t point out that it is black gangs in the inner city doing most all of this killing with guns. They are the terrorists. It isn’t merely “gun owners” doing all this killing as Obama frames the point.

Obama thinks you are worse than terrorists, America.

Edited July 28, 2015 by bonnie

[B/W Photodude]

It is not that I am saying it's a feminist plot, more that the culture in our schools tends to favour girls, and problems suffered by boys are not taken as seriously by society as a whole. The feminists are influential in school policy, and so exacerbate this tendency. 

 

A male Durham University student was so moved by the suicide of a close male friend that he felt compelled to start a society for other men who may need support – only to find it blocked by the Student Union this week for being too “controversial”. ...

“It’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society. 

“But it was rejected by [Durham's] Societies Committee; they said it was 'controversial' – and that my aims were 'too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]'. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

But, to my mind, Durham’s refusal to allow Adam to start a men’s group follows a similarly depressing call made by Staffordshire University in February, when the Men’s Rights Society was blocked by the university's Woman’s Network, who called it “dangerous”. 

Similarly, men’s groups from as far afield as Australia, USA and Canada have been faced with similar Left-leaning, feminist-driven flak, making it feel like modern universities support diversity in all forms – so long as it isn’t male.

Edited July 28, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[Mark Aurelius]

Nope. I'm in balance, you're out of balance. Obviously that's a matter of perspective and position, but I can recognise both the good and the bad of feminism, and you seem to be able to see only the bad.

I am emphasising the bas because it is the dominant mentality in the media. I can acknowledge good it has done. Undesirable systems usually have some good that they can point to. Even the system I can't refer to without fear of having Godwin's law invoked against me did a number of good things. Are you in balance in your view of that system? Or is it more appropriate to point out the harm that a system does, and let the good speak for itself?

Same with Islam: it probably gives a lot of people a sense of stability and identity. Same with any system: the British Empire was a mixture of good and bad; the police, anything you care to name.

But when the media and the POTUS and much of academia and so on are reluctant to criticise Islam or feminism, dissenting voices are needed, Just today on SBS was a long article on the pay gap, with no acknowledgment of the arguments against the feminist position, or even the possibility that maybe men actually earned it. It said such contradictory things as that many women don't retire with enough super to live on, and that we should have female quotas on the top boards. I think the self-serving, narrow interest nature of modern feminism needs to be pointed out. It has largely become a movement to press the interests of upper middle class women.

 

[B/W Photodude]

[CoAspen]

Bravus, your question/thought seems to be one too difficult for some to handle.....they still want to bring their Holy Grail into the issue.

(apples and oranges are the same...they're both round)

[JoeMo]

What on earth do the previous few posts have to do with Muslim shooters???

Edited July 29, 2015 by JoeMo

[joeb]

I love the Margret Thatcher quote. She was right on the money. To say that women need special quotas for them to succeed is denigrating to women. It says they can't make it without them.  I've worked for women bosses and some of them were excellent.  And some of them were bad.  Just like the men I've worked under.  I see it sort of like, All Lives Matter....

[CoAspen]

Still off topic with personal Grail issues!

 

[B/W Photodude]

...or can be claimed to be on flimsy evidence, their crime is attributed to the whole religion.

When they are racist or misogynist or Christian, their crime is attributed to them as individuals.

It's a double standard and is the epitome of prejudice and stereotyping.

The real explanation, in both cases, is no doubt a combination of individual psychopathology and ideology.

OK! For you folks having connniptions because you think the thread is drifting, consider that while the title of the thread contains Muslim, the body of the first post does not. But it does discuss Christians and very quickly discusses "right wing Christians." So, if right wing Christians are falsely accused of being shooters, then setting the record straight should be entertained rather than continuing a falsity. And reasonable efforts to find out why young men resort to violence becomes a reasonable topic to be considered.

And if you want some serious thread drift, consider this. A study of 518 mass murders in the US from 1966 to 1983 (before radfeminism seriously began to take it's tole), 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality. (P. Camerion, Midwestern Psych Assoc, 1983.)

[CoAspen]

I bet mass killers also go to the bathroom, drink fluids, eat foods, drive a vehicle of some type, live in structures, wear clothes, scratch when and where they itch, talk and chew gum, etc, etc,etc............

 

....their crime is attributed to the whole religion.

When they are racist or misogynist or Christian, their crime is attributed to them as individuals.

It's a double standard and is the epitome of prejudice and stereotyping.

 

People are still missing, avoiding or not understanding the question being asked or the opinion being stated........or maybe.........we don't want to point the finger back at ourselves?

[Mark Aurelius]

What on earth do the previous few posts have to do with Muslim shooters???

The topic as I saw it was about prejudice in general. Bravus is suggesting that we tend to be more understanding toward criminals of our favoured groups, and quicker to explain the crimes of groups we don't like as typical of that group. I have been pointing out that feminism is like that, something that many on the left, like Bravus, tend to overlook.

[CoAspen]

I have been pointing out that feminism is like that, something that many on the left, like Bravus, tend to overlook.

Maybe in some peoples minds, but just an opinion. But that is still about what we think others are doing, not us, ourselves. To not look at ourselves first and examine our own motives  for prejudice and stereotyping, we have avoided the subject. Those two words are important to our whole lives and we how view any person/s that is different from us in thought, speech, looks, lifestyle, etc, etc.