Deleted User wrote: » "Radical"? *snigger*. Read all their stuff. The most radical thing they did or said was bothering to write the books at all. Would be interested to know which of his rhetoric in situ is actually linked to "causes the atrocities". I have seen the level of selective quoting that goes on with their work - Harris in particular - usually quoted in such a way as to literally reverse what they actually said. But aside from that I am baffled as to what they did or said that can even remotely be blamed for someone going out with weapons to kill people. Harris constantly talks about a "war of ideas" and how all humanities problems require the strong application of conversation. Everything else he does or says stems from that core position. Which is - you might notice - the exact opposite of gunning people down.
Boggles wrote: » That's not really true is it? I mean you don't make it into the top 20 of gun ownership in the world without having some bit of a gun culture. Japan don't have a gun culture because they don't really have any guns. New Zealand have a lot of guns, including ones that can kill 50 people in a relative short amount of time. Sensible gun laws are needed. Everywhere, you just shouldn't wait until a lot of people are massacred.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » They're just going bat****. If they sat down and thought for literally 1 minute they'd see they're pissing all over their own ideals
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » because they don't trust their population (including journalists/academics/psychologists etc).
Those who have the publication for legitimate purposes, such as reporters, researchers and academics to analyse and educate can apply for an exception
[Deleted User] wrote: » "Radical"? *snigger*. Read all their stuff. The most radical thing they did or said was bothering to write the books at all. Would be interested to know which of his rhetoric in situ is actually linked to "causes the atrocities". I have seen the level of selective quoting that goes on with their work - Harris in particular - usually quoted in such a way as to literally reverse what they actually said. But aside from that I am baffled as to what they did or said that can even remotely be blamed for someone going out with weapons to kill people. Harris constantly talks about a "war of ideas" and how all humanities problems require the strong application of conversation. Everything else he does or says stems from that core position. Which is - you might notice - the exact opposite of gunning people down.
Cienciano wrote: » He's pretty clear on communism to be fair. From the manifesto: DS86DS comes to the conclusion that he was communist
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Ideas, or ideologies can lead to violence at some stage. Islam is also just ideas.
Yeah_Right wrote: » No NZ doesn't have a gun culture. I read this week that there was about quarter of a million people in NZ with firearm licenses. Out of a population of 5 million. So about 5 percent.
Boggles wrote: » Ideals? Which ones exactly?
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » I dunno about you but I wouldn't be happy about being criminalised for having read it and it being on my computer.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Just to be clear, would you be someone who supports criminalising possession of mein kampf? (like in germany I believe).
Boggles wrote: » It is for Sale in Germany AFAIK, the copyright ran on it.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Ah didn't know that! Do you think posession of it should be criminalised though?
Boggles wrote: » So some person who is pretty insignificant had his feelings hurt by some other person of similar insignificance and he decides to have a moan about it on Youtube. He seems to have been called out because he "thinks" Islamophiba doesn't exist. I turned if off after he started claiming early on that "pornographers" are trying to getting him murdered. But anyway, How is that even remotely relevant to a cowardly scumbag racist islamophobe who executed 50 innocent people in Christchurch New Zealand and more pertinent why did you feel the need to post it in this thread?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Best I can work out the point is that, apparently, people are complaining that criticism of Islam (the religion) gets you called an Islamophobe which 'proves' there isn't any Islamophobia it's all just false flag name calling. Which, of course, underplays that there have been actual documented instances of attacks on people because they are Muslim which is the very definition of Islamobhobia. It's very similar (albeit with a twist) to the criticism of the State of Israel is Antisemitic trope used to deflect from that county's policies around Gaza. Apparently the fact that it is possible to dislike a religion without hating those individuals who believe in it or disagreeing with the policies of a country without hating the people of that country due to their religion is too subtle a distinction.
batgoat wrote: » It's a historically significant text so most definitely not. Mixed feelings on NZ banning distribution of the shooters text but it's not remotely comparable to the banning of a historical text. I would be inclined to say it should only be applied short term.
Zorya wrote: » Islamophobia was central to the discussion on the last few pages
[Deleted User] wrote: » Well that is pretty - dilute. If all we are saying is that any idea can potentially lead to violence then we are not saying very much at all. It is about as informative as saying "Food can lead to chocking at some stage". Which while true glosses over the fact that some foods do it a lot and some foods hardly ever have, if at all ever. The question was how specifically one particular persons ideas led to violence - or why they are specifically singled out and named for this - and no one can seem to answer that other than those very carefully and very selectively quote minding their texts. When asked what is "radical" about their ideas - silence comes back. Further I would be careful at any implication that all ideas are somehow equal in that potential. Islam is not "just ideas". It is a set of ideas that has a much larger potential for leading to violence than the ideas of - say - the Jains. Pedantically _everything_ is just ideas in this space. That does not build an equivalence between then.
Boggles wrote: » Exactly so why would you just out of the blue casually toss in some random stranger moaning on Youtube who doesn't think Islamophobia actually exists?
Zorya wrote: » Are you acting the annoying eegit on purpose? Sam Harris is not some random stranger, as I linked. And he has been accused by Omer Aziz in the New York Times of being somehow linked to the Christchurch massacre because of his supposed''Islamophobia''. I don't know about Harris etc., who says this kind of public claim makes his life difficult because of the endangerment to his personal security, but I will continue to criticise regressive aspects of any shagging religion, politics or ideology, including Islam. But you didn't bother to listen to the video. So, bog off.
Boggles wrote: » Seems legit. :rolleyes:
Boggles wrote: » Islamophobia actually exists?
Boggles wrote: » I think you trying to add equivalency to a book written nearly 100 years ago by one of the greatest mass murders in history, an actual leader of a country who's actions redefined a planet, a very "unique" individual and "story" with some cowardly simpleton copycat who spunked out 16 pages of nonsense in MS Word is bizarre. Also for the record, I haven't read Hitlers book either.
Zorya wrote: » I'm afraid that you are going to work on your reading comprehension. In this case ''I don't know about Sam Harris'' means not that I have never heard of him, but rather that I don't know what his intended response will be... But as you were, Mr obviously Boggled.
Zorya wrote: » I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Just asking about your logic, where you would draw lines. So we want the government to decide when something is historically significant enough for you to read. The factors being how long ago it was written and how many people did they kill. When both are high enough, then it should be legal. For the record, I haven't read Hitler's book either
Boggles wrote: » Yeah, I know you said that all ready. The point remains though, why post up some "vague" stranger moaning on youtube about his "feelings" been hurt by some other person of insignificance, a vague stranger who believes Islamophobia doesn't exist. Why just causally toss that into a thread. It's a simply enough question. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, especially if you are just going to resort to childish name calling again.
Zorya wrote: » I wondering how many months in jail would be appropriate for those of us who have pasted a quote here and there from the manifesto on this thread? A week per word, a month per line? Where does it end?
Boggles wrote: » I've explained my logic several times. There is no equivalency and I'd be worried about anyone trying to claim there is.
Zorya wrote: » Because it's relevant. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. Your trolling however is not. So, for the first time ever, I am going to put a 'vague', moany and insignificant stranger on ignore.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
