Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. San Bernardino

[WasatchMan]

Is anyone else following this San Bernardino terrorist attack feel like they are living on another planet or took 10 hits of acid and are stuck in a Grateful Dead jam while watching the wizard of Oz?

 

We just had the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 and it feels like the media is afraid to even identify it.

 

When the story broke the immediate response was obviously to blame white people and guns - another "maladjusted angry white man (or "bouy") mass shooting".

 

When the name of the killers came out as being obvious Muslim names, all of a sudden the story was changed to "work place violence" - how do you even make this shit up?

 

More and more evidence is trickling through showing that they supported ISIS and were in contact with people in Syria who are likely also ISIS.

 

Have we become that apathetic where an attack where 14 are murdered and 22 more are injured from being shot and it hardly raises any ire of anyone?  OR is the media keeping a lid on this story in fear for what the black lash might be when people do find out they were just attacked again by radical Islam? OR What?

 

Not sure if anyone else is experiencing this all, but let me know what you think.

[TheSchoolofAthens]

This is the "celebrate diversity" culture which really means "don't point out obvious facts because that's somehow offensive" as well as the "fuck white people" culture. 

It can't be terrorism because that's racist! Because the people were Muslim and probably linked to ISIS, it was simply workplace violence, nothing more! We can't offend anyone! We must accept all people, all cultures, all religions! Diversity diversity diversity! What it really means is destroy the very foundation of civilizations. To hell with facts, to hell with campus safe rooms, we need an entire nation that is a safe room! 

It's disgusting. 

[dsayers]

The good news is that it's so disgusting that more and more people will be unable to continue to ignore it.

[VolT]

Hello,

 

I came across a few relevant articles. The narrative might be changing to what it actually should be.

 

"FBI investigating California massacre as 'act of terrorism'" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TN1SR20151205

 

"California shooters didn’t fit FBI profiles, raising questions about US strategy" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TO01H20151205

 

I wonder how they will twist the fact that they appeared to be normalm

[J. D. Stembal]

James Holmes injured more people with his act of terrorism. What nobody seems to understand is that the chickens are coming home to roost in America. Violence begets violence. Prepare accordingly.

[WasatchMan]

James Holmes injured more people with his act of terrorism. What nobody seems to understand is that the chickens are coming home to roost in America. Violence begets violence. Prepare accordingly.

 

So James Holmes is a crazy person, and an anomaly in a society of +300 million - an anomaly that is pretty much contained to the minds of the severely mentally deranged.

 

Radical Islam is a self replicating meme that has been a problem to this earth for centuries (way before America's chickens left the nest). It currently infects millions of people throughout the world, convincing them that the greatest thing they could do on this earth is live their life according to the ethics of a 6th century barbarian war lord, who is now the embodiment of their Universe.

 

You really want to try to measure up the James Holmes issue against the radical Islam issue?

[Guest Gee]

If it is identified as ISIS terrorism, which it is, Trump wins. So the media is avoiding it.

[WasatchMan]

James Holmes injured more people with his act of terrorism. What nobody seems to understand is that the chickens are coming home to roost in America. Violence begets violence. Prepare accordingly.

 

J.D. Stembal - I am wondering if you are willing to defend this statement, or if you were just dropping it off and letting it ride?

[Absit]

They don't want to show the muslims in a bad light because the muslims are, in their eyes, irrationally hated by people. It's inconceivable to them that you can hate people who want you harm. 

[WasatchMan]

Obama calls the attacks terrorism:

 

 

He also claims that one of the steps we MUST do is to not allow people on some federal terrorist watch to buy guns.  This is probably one of the most anti 2nd amendment regulations that could be constructed that does not ban guns outright.  This is because one of the central reasons for the 2nd amendment was to allow the population to defend it self from a tyrannical government - well guess what tyrannical governments call people that try to defend themselves against it?  Terrorists.

[MrCapitalism]

In 2013, the last year of data available on wikipedia, 32,719 people died in/by motor vehicles. Statistically, that's over 89 people a day.

On the day of this terrorist attack, which left 14 people dead.. 89 people died in their cars. The very next day, when everybody's flags were waiving at half mast, and the media was calling for stricter gun control....

 

...another 89 people (statistically) died in their cars.

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I use this number to put tragedies in perspective, to see if the fear mongering peddled by the media compares to a daily killer, which probably every person in this thread can relate to, but which is completely invisible to CNN etc....

[Alan C.]

Mainstream media in the US overwhelmingly identifies with left-liberal, progressive Democrats.

 

A large portion of the Democratic constituency consists of ignorant, uneducated, and improverished people (both domestic and immigrant) with a minimal skillset (eg. rote, manual labor). Blacks tend to vote Democratic about 90% of the time.

[labmath2]

In 2013, the last year of data available on wikipedia, 32,719 people died in/by motor vehicles. Statistically, that's over 89 people a day.

 

On the day of this terrorist attack, which left 14 people dead.. 89 people died in their cars. The very next day, when everybody's flags were waiving at half mast, and the media was calling for stricter gun control....

 

...another 89 people (statistically) died in their cars.

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I use this number to put tragedies in perspective, to see if the fear mongering peddled by the media compares to a daily killer, which probably every person in this thread can relate to, but which is completely invisible to CNN etc....

The difficulty with drawing a parralel with gun is that millions of people across the country use cars to get from one place to another. Also there is already immense regulations surrounding cars and people continue to look for new ways to make them safer.

[dsayers]

The difficulty with drawing a parralel with gun is that millions of people across the country use cars to get from one place to another. Also there is already immense regulations surrounding cars and people continue to look for new ways to make them safer.

That's the point. Because everybody uses cars, you cannot politicize cars in a way that will divide the slaves to distract their attention from the threats and theft that is inflicted upon all of them from the masters.

 

I don't get the safety line. Don't put your finger on the trigger and the gun can't fire. The only way to make guns safer is to raise children more peacefully. However, this would diminish if not eradicate State power, which is why they focus on guns rather than State inflicted SSRI's, institutionalized theft, and a culture where assaulting children is accepted and praised.

[labmath2]

That's the point. Because everybody uses cars, you cannot politicize cars in a way that will divide the slaves to distract their attention from the threats and theft that is inflicted upon all of them from the masters.

 

I don't get the safety line. Don't put your finger on the trigger and the gun can't fire. The only way to make guns safer is to raise children more peacefully. However, this would diminish if not eradicate State power, which is why they focus on guns rather than State inflicted SSRI's, institutionalized theft, and a culture where assaulting children is accepted and praised.

While i do not think some of the laws surrounding cars may necessarily create safety, here are a few. Registering your car, required insurance, drivers license, seat belt (i dont drive, so those are the only ones i can think of). Again, i think peaceful parenting goes a long way, but i dont think anyone knows what that world would look like so its not a particularly convincing argument.

[dsayers]

i dont think anyone knows what that world would look like so its not a particularly convincing argument.

Strawman. You said:

 

The difficulty with drawing a parralel with gun is that millions of people across the country use cars to get from one place to another. Also there is already immense regulations surrounding cars and people continue to look for new ways to make them safer.

And I pointed out the flaws in this.

 

Besides, if "particularly convincing argument" is a standard you would hold yourself to, then you would understand that "Registering your car, required insurance, drivers license" (the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force) doesn't adhere to that standard. Because the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. The seat belt is a good example.

[shirgall]

A driver's license is required to drive your car on public streets. The equivalent for guns is called a carry permit, in states that require it.

[labmath2]

Strawman. You said:

 

And I pointed out the flaws in this.

 

Besides, if "particularly convincing argument" is a standard you would hold yourself to, then you would understand that "Registering your car, required insurance, drivers license" (the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force) doesn't adhere to that standard. Because the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. The seat belt is a good example.

On the peaceful parenting argument, i thonk you understand that what the world would look like is purely hypothetical, so i am not sure why its a strawman to point that out. It is more accurate to forward that no one should initiate force against children without adding that it would reduce violence. The argiment is sound on its own.

 

The comment on cars is to show that even when it comes to cars (as a parralel) for guns, there are regulations, so the notion that no one is trying to ban cars may not be an apt analogy. Since by that standard they could also create as many regulatios as they think is necessary on guns (including registration, insurance, license). I am not claiming its not initiation of force.

[Alan C.]

Pew also found that Muslim immigrants prefer more government services and that 70 percent lean Democratic.

[fractional slacker]

Terrorism or workplace violence?
Debating intentions and labels is for sophists AKA politicians. It's easier to pretend you are doing something by debating what to call an act than to bring about moral condemnation.
The media keeps saying "They were radicalized!" Like they were just walking down the street and out of nowhere a streak of radicalization struck them from a blue sky. They are merely victims of the radicalization god who is angry about climate change.

[dsayers]

On the peaceful parenting argument, i thonk you understand that what the world would look like is purely hypothetical, so i am not sure why its a strawman to point that out.

The strawman was you said I said something I didn't say to avoid addressing what I did say. Here's another example:

 

It is more accurate to forward that no one should initiate force against children without adding that it would reduce violence. The argiment is sound on its own.

I've never said that parents shouldn't abuse their children because it would reduce violence in the world. That would be a utilitarian (subjective) argument and I focus on the moral (objective) argument. This doesn't preclude me from observing that if you don't expose somebody to the German language, they will not start speaking German. By misrepresenting what I've actually said (strawman), you let yourself off the hook for addressing what's actually being said. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt because you've shown yourself in the past to be exceedingly meticulous regarding the use of language (which is a good thing).

 

The comment on cars is to show that even when it comes to cars (as a parralel) for guns, there are regulations, so the notion that no one is trying to ban cars may not be an apt analogy. Since by that standard they could also create as many regulatios as they think is necessary on guns (including registration, insurance, license). I am not claiming its not initiation of force.

You initially rejected the car analogy because 1) many people use them and 2) cars are coercively regulated. To which I pointed out that guns are coercively regulated and the fact that many people use cars and they're not considered for banning is what makes the analogy an effective one. Because it demonstrates that what gun grabbers use as their excuse for wanting to ban guns (can hurt people) is not a criteria for banning they're willing to apply when it comes to objects that are more dangerous, but they themselves make use of.

 

The bottom line is that the banning of guns is an unprincipled conclusion and therefore would never be taken seriously in rational conversations. Not to put words in Mr. Chapman's mouth.

[WasatchMan]

"They were radicalized!"

 

I wonder how the conversation would change if instead of saying "radicalized" they were called "true believers".

 

It would definitely put the Christians on guard, which is why they don't say that (besides the PC stuff), and I think it is very interesting.  I think a lot of cultural insight could be mined from exploring why people generally hide, or run from, from logical consistency and how this stems from an emotional attachment to religion.

 

"A" is "A" is becoming a radical idea by this implication. 

[fractional slacker]

Wasatch Man -

 

The question is, radicalized compared to what? Like Stef recently pointed out, the "moderates" are the apostates.  Either way, the term radicalized appears to be typical smoke screen to avoid any serious discussion as it might offend someone. We rest assured in our condemnation of radicalization.
I wonder what Socrates would say about radicalization?