kunst nugget wrote: » I'm not understanding the hypocrisy angle that you're getting at...
markodaly wrote: » Along with not blowing up kids at an Arianna Grande concert, as would I.
markodaly wrote: » Hey, I am with them on the principle when push comes to shove. But I just like chuckling at the feebleness of it, never mind the brass hypocrisy.
Boggles wrote: » It would be nice I suppose. Personally I'd just aim for one where children don't get executed because some racist cowardly scumbag acted out his hate filled delusional "feelings".
kunst nugget wrote: » But it's the truth. The government aren't banning his books, one company, in an act of virtue signalling (let's be honest, that's what it is), is removing it from its shelves. In this day and age, it's easy to choose not to shop in a particular store if you don't like its policies.
markodaly wrote: » Some people want to live in a pure, virtuous world where everyone is free of all sin, so to speak.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » These articles are click bait
suicide_circus wrote: » https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/christchurch-shootings-white-australian-guilt-new-zealand.html this promotion of collective guilt for white people is ill thought out. If "white Australians" should all be implicated for the Christchurch shootings, how many Irish people are implicated in IRA bombings? Are all Muslims to be implicated for the many many jihadist attacks accross Europe since 2005? No, i didnt think so.
markodaly wrote: » I love it when self-confessed left winger go with the 'Its a private company, they can do what they want' line when it suits them.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You really believe a privately owned chain of book stores deciding to no longer stock a particular author is the same thing as what is happening in your Godwin photo? Do you not think it is up to a private company to decide for themselves what stock they wish to sell? May surprise to learn the Irish government has banned books.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Brain fart by me I'm afraid.
Fifty grades of shay. wrote: » All Christians aren't Catholic, far from it. Interesting to see catholics singled out as the only Christian Church of mention.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I disagree. It is possible to be opposed to a religious ideal and not hate the people who follow that ideal. I dislike Islam but I don't hate all muslims. I dislike the Catholic Church but I don't hate all Christians. Being critical of Islam is not an attack on muslims.
Hector Savage wrote: » Islamaphobia - a phobia is an irrational fear, sorry but I think it's perfectly reasonable to fear Islam!
Zorya wrote: » The word 'Islamophobia' ws created by Islamists to silence Muslims who want to cleanse Islam of polygamy, Arab supremacy, FGM, Ayatullahs, Kings, Sharia law, & Mullahs who pray in mosque sermons for defeat of Kafirs (Hindus Jews Christians) at the hands of Muslims. - Tarek Fatah
Deleted User wrote: » I disagree. It is possible to be opposed to a religious ideal and not hate the people who follow that ideal. I dislike Islam but I don't hate all muslims. I dislike the Catholic Church but I don't hate all Christians. Being critical of Islam is not an attack on muslims.
Boggles wrote: » Basically it means not liking Muslims. Semantics and word play is just nonsense rattling by people for various reasons to try and pretend that concept doesn't actually exist.
hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture
Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force
Manic Moran wrote: » So as I am reading the new proposals for what is to be prohibited
The 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in the eastern United States resulted in the deaths of 20 children. Levine and McKnight used the random timing of this event and the subsequent increase in gun purchases (as recorded by an increased number of background checks) to show that the increased exposure to guns resulted in ∼60 accidental deaths.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I have no idea who this JP guy is -and care less - but rather than place his arm around the shoulder of Mr Proud Islamophobe was he precluded in some way from saying "Nope, can't be doing with that t-shirt and it's message mate. Off you toddle and take a selfie far far away from me." ???
BBFAN wrote: » "people who know more about the subject" in whose opinion???
BBFAN wrote: » Why would I want to learn about guns, their calibre, appearance etc.???? You're confused that not everyone needs to know this crap???
BBFAN wrote: » This thread is about a mass murderer, how does that translate into a debate into the types of guns, appearance of guns, calibre, blah blah blah.
BBFAN wrote: » No it's not because you don't know what knowledge the people who came up with the legislation have. How could you possibly know that?
kowloon wrote: » Jumping into legislation without putting in the work and taking time often works out badly. Politicians are under pressure to make it look like something is being done even if it has little effect. An example from Irish law that gets on my wick: The government managed to make the vast majority of breech-loading rifles manufactured before the 1880s restricted. They're in a higher licence category than the majority of modern hunting and target rifles and even some military rifles because antiques were never defined in the legislation. This leaves us in a situation where anyone can go to an antiques shop in Northern Ireland and buy something which is in our highest licence category. The result is many people (and some businesses) just ignore the law entirely because it's stupid. People will ignore stupid laws and it will normalise breaking them. Properly thought out laws that aren't deemed moronic require people who are well informed and given time to do their job. Banning a stock style or a particular rifle because it 'looks dangerous' will achieve nothing other than making it look like something was done so everyone can feel safe and forget about it until the next mass shooting.