Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

They are examples of language that people use to justify violence.

But if "political slogan" justifies the violent language used, then your are justifing Nazis poltical slogans.

 

I am not going to “both sides” between freemen and kingmen as if support of each is somehow equal. Defending liberty is good and sometimes requires violence. Overthrowing liberty so you can oppress and persecute is bad and always uses violence and sometimes violence is needed to stop it.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"It is questionable whether Jews murdered babies for blood rituals."

Doesn't really come across well, does it?

Why are you acting as if I made the Chuch’s rhetoric equals blood libel comparison? You did that. You suggested they were analogous. Explicitly. I said the analogy was stupid.

Therefore you get to defend the implications of your analogy. Good luck.

Edited November 23, 2022 by The Nehor

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Right.  But that's not Nehor's definition.

Just like the dictionary definition of "Nazi" is not Nehor's.

Wrong.

I think I am correct on this.

In this post, I included a link to a video of protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum." 

 

You responded:

You have presented zero evidence that the old lady with a walker fits the dictionary definition of "Nazi."  So you are using some other definition of "Nazi" when you approve of it being applied to that lady.

I strongly suspect you likewise go outside the dictionary definition of "Fascist."

These are just labels you arbitrarily thrown out against people you dislike.  And you use these labels to preemptively justify physical violence against such people.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why are you acting as if I made the Chuch’s rhetoric equals blood libel comparison? You did that. You suggested they were analogous. Explicitly. I said the analogy was stupid.

Therefore you get to defend the implications of your analogy. Good luck.

He is king of the strawmen.

[provoman]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, I was talking specifically about red-flag laws.  Second, you are not considering all the data (how are these laws being implemented, for example). and third, you are making the same mistake in interpreting numbers that I already responded to.  This looks like the same play book from Covid.   These numbers don't show what might have been. 

Having the law is one thing, implementing it is another all together.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-flag-laws-states-implementation/

Clear evidence of failure of implementation:

The same failure of implementation can be attributed to the Colorado shooting. 

Take a look at the following real-life scenario and try to tell me with a straight face that the action taken was a mistake:

 

I responded to your 'what if, might have'.

Spin it however you want, the numbers do not lie. Chicago, Philly and Baltimore have the highest number of mass shootings, despite stringent laws against firearms, so why think more laws would work? 

But if it is about "implimentation" are you suggesting the current laws would work, if implemented properly? If failure to implement is the issue, news laws should target those who fail to implement, rather than making scapegoats of millions of reaponsible firearm owners.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Right.  But that's not Nehor's definition.

Just like the dictionary definition of "Nazi" is not Nehor's.

Wrong.

I think I am correct on this.

In this post, I included a link to a video of protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum." 

 

You responded:

You have presented zero evidence that the old lady with a walker fits the dictionary definition of "Nazi."  So you are using some other definition of "Nazi" when you approve of it being applied to that lady.

I strongly suspect you likewise go outside the dictionary definition of "Fascist."

These are just labels you arbitrarily thrown out against people you dislike.  And you use these labels to preemptively justify physical violence against such people.

-Smac

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not going to “both sides” between freemen and kingmen as if support of each is somehow equal. Defending liberty is good and sometimes requires violence. Overthrowing liberty so you can oppress and persecute is bad and always uses violence and sometimes violence is needed to stop it.

You dont listen to yourself do you? You rail against violent language; yet you justify your own use of violence for your favored agenda....Popper was an idiot in terms of his paradox. It is utilized by hate driven fascist to justify racism, hate, violence; all things you disapprove of, but only when it isn't your favored hate based facist violent ideology.

 

And your willinginess to violently target those you disagree with, call into question the sincerity of any claims about liberty you make. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by provoman

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nazi and fascist are not just arbitrary labels.

As used by you they are.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Words have meanings. Look them up in the dictionary if you find them this confusing. The constant whimpering about their meaning being fuzzy is asinine.

You publicly endorsed physical violence against an old woman with a walker crossing the street.

You have presented zero evidence that this woman meets the dictionary definition of "Nazi."

You nevertheless ratified and cheered on both the application of that label to her, and also the physical violence against her.

You do not rely on the dictionary definition for these terms.  See here:

Quote

Using 'Nazi' as a slur against anyone who promotes a system of rules not only trivialises the term, it also betrays a vital misunderstanding of why Nazism was bad in the first place.

Please think the next time you reach for it.

Yep.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you are that worried about the poor fascists you may be comforted to know that I only rarely seek them out deliberately and I can go for hours…..sometimes even days without punching a Nazi. It is not an occupation. It is more of a hobby I take up when the opportunity presents itself.

Your use of "fascist" here goes outside the dictionary definition.  Just as your use of "Nazi."

Point taken.

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why are you acting as if I made the Chuch’s rhetoric equals blood libel comparison? You did that. You suggested they were analogous. Explicitly. I said the analogy was stupid.

Of course you dispute the analogy.  

I think it is pretty apt.

It is an ugly thing to publicly and speciously accuse a religious minority (Jews) of murdering children for blood rituals.

It is also an ugly thing to publicly and speciously accuse a religious minority (Latter-day Saints) of hating gays and inciting violence against them.  And yet that is happening in this thread.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I am correct on this.

In this post, I included a link to a video of protesters screaming at an elderly woman with a walker, calling her "Nazi scum." 

 

You responded:

You have presented zero evidence that the old lady with a walker fits the dictionary definition of "Nazi."  So you are using some other definition of "Nazi" when you approve of it being applied to that lady.

I strongly suspect you likewise go outside the dictionary definition of "Fascist."

These are just labels you arbitrarily thrown out against people you dislike.  And you use these labels to preemptively justify physical violence against such people.

-Smac

The evidence is the Bernier event. This was shortly after Bernier formed his new far right party. His co-founders were an anti-Muslim extremist and a literal Neo-Nazi.

Logically, people interested in a party founded by a Neo-Nazi is a Nazi. Is this why you were saying I arbitrarily throw the label around? For thinking people going to a Nazi event is probably a Nazi. Did you even know what the event was? LOL

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

which shows, criminals will not obey the law and that Chicago/Illinois strict guns laws do not work. And that there isn't realy a reason to think more laws - which would oerwhelmingly & disproportionately punish responsible owners - work.

No just potentially shows this combination of laws doesn't work 

2 hours ago, provoman said:

And why punish other States because Chicago, Philly, Baltimore can't get control of their citizens?

Maybe the Feds should bring charges to the states which allowed the guns to leave their state lines. But also, maybe America should be mature and approach the problem together because the violence is something none of us wants, whichever state

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The evidence is the Bernier event. This was shortly after Bernier formed his new far right party. His co-founders were an anti-Muslim extremist and a literal Neo-Nazi.

Logically, people interested in a party founded by a Neo-Nazi is a Nazi. Is this why you were saying I arbitrarily throw the label around? For thinking people going to a Nazi event is probably a Nazi. Did you even know what the event was? LOL

You mean you can be an elderly woman and a Nazi at the same time?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

You dont listen to yourself do you? You rail against violent language; yet you justify your own use of violence for your favored agenda....Popper was an idiot in terms of his paradox. It is utilized by hate driven fascist to justify racism, hate, violence; all things you disapprove of, but only when it isn't your favored hate based facist violent ideology.

 

And your willinginess to violently target those you disagree with, call into question the sincerity of any claims about liberty you make. 

Yes, it is just an honest disagreement. This person wants me oppressed, persecuted, and to strip me and people I care about of my rights and I think this is a bad idea. Just a disagreement.

 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Of course you dispute the analogy.  

I think it is pretty apt.

It is an ugly thing to publicly and speciously accuse a religious minority (Jews) of murdering children for blood rituals.

It is also an ugly thing to publicly and speciously accuse a religious minority (Latter-day Saints) of hating gays and inciting violence against them.  And yet that is happening in this thread.

-Smac

You think it is so apt you try to force me to defend your analogy as a rhetorical trick as if it was impossible? Now you are defending it again.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it is just an honest disagreement. This person wants me oppressed, persecuted, and to strip me and people I care about of my rights and I think this is a bad idea. Just a disagreement.

 

I just saw a video of the shooter’s father, who was upset not that his son murdered 5 people but that he might be gay.

“They started telling me about the incident, a shooting... And then I go on to find out it’s a gay bar. I got scared, ‘****, is he gay?’ And he’s not gay, so I said, phew… I am a conservative Republican.”

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, provoman said:

I responded to your 'what if, might have'.

Spin it however you want, the numbers do not lie. Chicago, Philly and Baltimore have the highest number of mass shootings, despite stringent laws against firearms, so why think more laws would work? 

But if it is about "implimentation" are you suggesting the current laws would work, if implemented properly? If failure to implement is the issue, news laws should target those who fail to implement, rather than making scapegoats of millions of reaponsible firearm owners.

Have a quick fact check on that Chicago canard: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-chicago-gun-laws-306468736022

So yeah, numbers may not lie but people lie about the numbers.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I just saw a video of the shooter’s father, who was upset not that his son murdered 5 people but that he might be gay.

“They started telling me about the incident, a shooting... And then I go on to find out it’s a gay bar. I got scared, ‘****, is he gay?’ And he’s not gay, so I said, phew… I am a conservative Republican.”

Reminds me a of a child abuse case I was very peripherally involved in. A mother was literally prostituting her toddler son to random men on the internet to make money. She was caught and her primary worry while they were arresting her and taking away her child was to tell the police and the CPS rep present to make sure her child did not go to a gay couple for fostering because she was a “good Christian woman” and wanted her son raised right.

Vile people often pick one bad thing as the ultimate bad thing so that their own vileness appears less repugnant by comparison. It doesn’t even have to make sense.

So sure, pornstar conservative Republican dad just found out his son who he thought killed himself is still alive is just relieved he is a murderer and not gay. In fairness in the video dad is clearly high on something. Doesn’t look like anyone told dad his son was non-binary. Probably for the best. Would have just confused him.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Reminds me a of a child abuse case I was very peripherally involved in. A mother was literally prostituting her toddler son to random men on the internet to make money. She was caught and her primary worry while they were arresting her and taking away her child was to tell the police and the CPS rep present to make sure her child did not go to a gay couple for fostering because she was a “good Christian woman” and wanted her son raised right.

Vile people often pick one bad thing as the ultimate bad thing so that their own vileness appears less repugnant by comparison. It doesn’t even have to make sense.

So sure, pornstar conservative Republican dad just found out his son who he thought killed himself is still alive is just relieved he is a murderer and not gay. In fairness in the video dad is clearly high on something. Doesn’t look like anyone told dad his son was non-binary. Probably for the best. Would have just confused him.

Yeah, he does seem high, but high people generally say what they’re thinking unfiltered. 

It’s somewhat better now, but the idea that you’d rather see your kid dead than gay has a long history.

[bsjkki]

Grateful to the heroes that took down this monster. They acted and saved countless lives. 

It’s very sad reading about the lives lost. 

[BlueDreams]

On religion and mass murder events. I know this was a couple pages back, but I got curious and tried to do some digging on numbers. @Calm @bluebell...I think one of you were particularly interested. 

I ignored one site (and other's that cited it) because it's numbers were bad to say the least. It assumed no religion reported by the news to mean the murderer had no religious affiliation to report. 

Most articles or reports name some of the basics that are similar among groups. 

This one broke it down both by age group and context of the murder. It also included a mention that there is a rise in hate based murders in recent years...generally targeting based on race, religion, and gender (specifically women). It tied this more with far right hate groups finding solidarity with their fellow haters online. It put mental health as a factor but not a direct cause. And seeking fame also a growing motive. 

This one states that not only is religious affiliation not much of a cause for mass murders, but may actually be a mitigating factor in mass shootings. Largely because religious communities have means to create direct community ties. And that when communal the ties are missing, it leaves a void that can be filled by movements or ideologies that prey on hate and movements that focus on power

This one just covers the basic traits and demos of shooters. Again, none are overtly about religious affiliation. 

I would seriously doubt from what I could see that LDS community members are more likely to be the cause of mass murders. If there's one thing the church is really good at, it's creating tighter knit communities, which is a mitigator for said crimes. I would hypothesize they're likely less represented. But it also wouldn't take many to scew what's a small pool of criminals. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by BlueDreams

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And in conclusion Hitler never personally killed anyone so cannot be blamed for the Holocaust. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

15 yard penalty Godwin violation. 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And in conclusion Hitler never personally killed anyone so cannot be blamed for the Holocaust. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

How did that work out in the Nuremberg trials? Thanks for playing.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I responded to your 'what if, might have'.

You'll have to show me where.  For your convenience, here is what you said:

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Of the top 10 - 12 States with highest number of gun violence, many of those States have stringent firearms laws.

Of US Cities with mass shootings, Chicago, Philedelphia, and Baltimore are the tops 3 with the most - triple digit amount. Chicago and the State it is in, have stringent gun laws.

Can one argue that more laws do not work?

If we consider the number of firearms in the US to the number of mass shootings, can we argue current laws do work?

 

gunviolencearchive.org, complie the mass shooting yearly reports, and filter.

Again, these numbers don't (and can't) take into account what might have been.  Just because numbers are higher in these cities, does not necessarily mean that the laws aren't reducing gun violence.  

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Spin it however you want, the numbers do not lie. Chicago, Philly and Baltimore have the highest number of mass shootings, despite stringent laws against firearms, so why think more laws would work? 

The numbers don't lie, but properly understanding what they mean is a whole other story. 

Again, I am not asking for more laws.  I am simply stating that red-flag laws work to reduce gun violence.  I posted evidence that while these cities have these laws, they ARE NOT being implemented.  That might help explain the numbers somewhat don't ya think?  If the red-flag laws are not being implemented, how could one possibly conclude that they don't reduce gun violence when implemented?  That is not a fair conclusion.  

1 hour ago, provoman said:

But if it is about "implimentation" are you suggesting the current laws would work, if implemented properly? If failure to implement is the issue, news laws should target those who fail to implement, rather than making scapegoats of millions of reaponsible firearm owners.

I have no clue what you mean.  

Are you suggesting that new laws should target cops for not implementing red-flag laws?  That is even more extreme than my position, but ok.  Personally, I think better education would be a less extreme measure.  Many cops are not even aware of the law as there was not proper education when they were rolled out in many cases.  I am guessing you didn't read the article. 

 

[pogi]

@provoman

You also ignored this and didn't respond, so I will repost it here hoping for a response:

Quote

 

According to a police report filed in Osceola County in May 2018, a teacher alerted police about a janitor who was allegedly complaining about colleagues and mentioned a plan to bring a new gun to the school. The police report said the custodian told the teacher, "I'm angry and I'm set on something. I'll do it, you don't know me."

The police report, which was released to CBS News under a public records request, also noted that the custodian had been accused of throwing a chair and showing photos of a murder scene while on the job at the school.  The Osceola County Sheriff's Department would arrest him in May 2018 and seek an order that the firearm he'd recently purchased be seized under an emergency risk protection order (ERPO), also known as a "red flag" law. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-flag-laws-states-implementation/

Once again, the question was, can you honestly answer that the preventive measures taken were inappropriate?  

 

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

15 yard penalty Godwin violation. 

The inventor of the Godwin Law affirmed that you can use the comparison when actual fascism is being discussed.