New Zealand police respond to 'active shooter' situation in Christchurch

[Scott]

19 hours ago, sblfilms said:

If the goal of the book is to incite violence, sure.

Where do you draw that line? And who draws it?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, Scott said:

Where do you draw that line? And who draws it?

For real. I'm not one for slippery slope arguments, but I don't want to start this trend. Who gets to decide what "incitement" is? We've already demonstrated we can't agree on that.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

For real. I'm not one for slippery slope arguments, but I don't want to start this trend. Who gets to decide what "incitement" is? We've already demonstrated we can't agree on that.

 

Slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, Jason said:

 

Slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. 

I know, I just hate using them much.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

What are you talking about? You're really condescending when you act like this. I'm making an honest argument, but you don't like it. That's fine and all, but don't act like I'm being dishonest here. We can disagree. I don't really wanna argue about this all night, anyway. 

 

 

 

First, you are reading something into what I said which isn’t there. It is certainly clear from

your responses that you don’t understand what I am saying, but I generally presume this to be a limit of my ability to communicate. But when somebody makes an attempt to correct a misunderstanding, and the hearer of this continues to respond with something to the effect of ‘no, you think this’ I am left with the feeling that you aren’t actually interested in understanding me.

 

But I’ll explain it a slightly different way since I trust that you are being genuine here.

 

I said if the goal of a book is to incite violence, I don’t have an issue with restricting it.

 

The goal of the Bible is not to incite violence, it does not command or intend to command the reader to commit acts of violence. It includes stories in which characters incite violence, but in the same way that a textbook that includes the history of WW2 is not inciting violence by telling the story of Hitler and Goebbels, telling the history of Jewish people and particular descendants is not incitement of violence.

 

The Bible was created in more or less it’s present form hundreds of years after the individual texts were written, and the purpose of collecting these texts into a single volume was not to incite violence even if characters within them incite violence in the stories.

 

The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto has the stated goal of encouraging people to take up arms against the invaders now, before it is too late. This is incitement.

 

Similarly, if somebody today were to open up the Bible and say we need to go kill a particular group of people because they clearly deserve it, the speaker is the person inciting violence, not the text.

 

If that isn’t clear, I’m not sure how else I can communicate it, but your claim of what my position is has been incorrect and this is the best I can do.

 

25 minutes ago, Scott said:

Where do you draw that line? And who draws it?

 

22 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

For real. I'm not one for slippery slope arguments, but I don't want to start this trend. Who gets to decide what "incitement" is? We've already demonstrated we can't agree on that.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

 

SCOTUS has a pretty good way of determining it. It isn’t particularly broad.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I can read what you're saying. I just don't really agree with it. Or I don't view it the same way. 

 

I also think the Bible is largely a piece of trash.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I can read what you're saying. I just don't really agree with it. Or I don't view it the same way. 

Do you have examples of those who created the Bible advocating for violence in the publishing of it? Do the council of Nicea or Constantinople include calls to violence as they put the Bible together?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Do you have examples of those who created the Bible advocating for violence in the publishing of it? Do the council of Nicea or Constantinople include calls to violence as they put the Bible together?

We hardly even know with much certainty the individuals who created the Bible. And It doesn't much matter when it's been used for centuries to justify horrific acts. Even today, countries are trying to create laws executing people for being gay because that's what the bible says is the punishment. 

 

To its most ardent followers, it's not simply a collection of stories or a catalog of history. They see it as the direct word of god, one to be followed closely. And that's what people have done over the course of history. All this applies to the Koran, too.

 

Like I said, I don't agree with you and I'm kinda busy on and off tonight and don't care to pursue this argument all night long. I stand by my statement and that's pretty much that. You don't have to agree.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

"here's my manifesto. This explains why I chose this group to target and indiscriminately murder, and here's some other groups I'll name that are also good targets. Here's the symbolism and coded language I associated with, and that's how to find others like me and bring like minded sympathisers to our cause by using this specific media I explicitly and exclusively consume. All here in this nice neat little package you can use to prey on vulnerable people (vulnerable as described in my manifesto) to bring to our cause, so we can put the white people (get it?!) in power so we can use the force of the state to do this shit 'legally' and at scale"

 

"IDK slippery slope, let's keep this stuff in the open"

 

But you people don't fucking get it. They want you dead too. Small "l" liberalism and fascism are 100% not compatible. This is not run of the mill conservative bullshit. These are fascists. This is taking what they say seriously and literally. Wise up.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

What I read of it just seemed like a bunch of rambling an internet memes. He just wanted the attention. I have no desire to look into it or read further, but I don't think people should be punished for reading it, either.

[Boyle5150]

The Bible and Koran have incited violence more than any other doctrines/literature/written word, than anything else that has ever been put on paper.  

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

We hardly even know with much certainty the individuals who created the Bible.

Well, this explains a lot. We are actually very familiar with who was there at Nicea and Constantinople in the 300s, which is when the Bible was created more or less in the form

it takes even today.

 

As to the rest, this is where I think your misunderstanding of what I’m saying lies. The notion of incitement in the legal sense is about encouraging specific and timely action. So a preacher who reads a passage in the Bible and tells his church to go commit an act of violence against Jewish people because “the Jews killed Jesus” incited violence, not the passage of scripture.

 

The explicit goal of the manifesto is to encourage the direct violent action against Muslim invaders in the present moment. The authors states this in no uncertain terms.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

We know where the Bible as it is today came from, who put it together in form we know now, sure. But there's plenty of uncertainty as to who actually wrote the words before it was all nice and neatly(not really) put together. But I don't see much relevance in that. 

 

As to the rest, I feel that you misunderstand. But like I said, I stand where I stand and that's not changing and I'm about finished cooking dinner, so I don't have enough time or interest to debate this all night. Once again, we disagree. Moving on.  

[Boyle5150]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Well, this explains a lot. We are actually very familiar with who was there at Nicea and Constantinople in the 300s, which is when the Bible was created more or less in the form

it takes even today.

 

As to the rest, this is where I think your misunderstanding of what I’m saying lies. The notion of incitement in the legal sense is about encouraging specific and timely action. So a preacher who reads a passage in the Bible and tells his church to go commit an act of violence against Jewish people because “the Jews killed Jesus” incited violence, not the passage of scripture.

 

The explicit goal of the manifesto is to encourage the direct violent action against Muslim invaders in the present moment. The authors states this in no uncertain terms.

I’m curious where you stand on infidels? 

[Bacon]

I'm fine with banning the bible and other religious texts and making owning them and reading them a crime with a prison sentence.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

We know where the Bible as it is today came from, who put it together in form we know now, sure. But I don't see much relevance in that. 

Because the people who made the book determine the purpose. The New Zealand shooter determined the purpose of the manifesto and said it is a call to violence against Muslim invaders, amongst other ills.

 

It is relevant to what I am discussing, which is why I still contend you don’t understand what I am trying to communicate despite your insistence to the contrary. I wish I was doing better to explain. But if you don’t wish to continue, so be it.

 

4 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

I’m curious where you stand on infidels? 

Can you be more specific?

 

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I'm fine with banning the bible and other religious texts and making owning them and reading them a crime with a prison sentence.

 

This guy shops at Hot Topic, for sure.

[Boyle5150]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I'm fine with banning the bible and other religious texts and making owning them and reading them a crime with a prison sentence.

Being consistent is admirable.  

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Trust me, I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's particularly relevant in the big picture. Whatever was "intended" it's not what it's been used for over the centuries. 

 

Also, wtf does Hot Topic have to do with this?  

[Bacon]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This guy shops at Hot Topic, for sure.

I did in HS for gaming T-shirts. Literally no better place, at the time and in my location, to buy pop culture shirts. People can rag on it all they want, but it was amazing as a teenager. Now everywhere sells pop culture clothing. But now I just wear solid color shirts.

[Joe]

11 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I did in HS for gaming T-shirts. Literally no better place, at the time and in my location, to buy pop soda culture shirts. People can rag on it all they want, but it was amazing as a teenager. Now everywhere sells pop soda culture clothing. But now I just wear solid color shirts.

 

FTFY

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I definitely loved their tshirts in high school, but now you can get gaming and music tshirts everywhere so I haven't been to a Hot Topic in years. 

[Boyle5150]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

 

Can you be more specific?

 

 

What type of violence is encouraged in various texts?   Should we ban those texts?   

Like I said before, our so called “holy texts” have been the cause of more violence than any other written literature on the planet, and it’s not even close.  

I honestly don’t understand how people turn a blind eye to this fact.  

[MarSolo]

12 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I'm fine with banning the bible and other religious texts and making owning them and reading them a crime with a prison sentence.

 

You know what? If it gets rid of clowns like Franklin Graham, Kirk Cameron, and those 700 Club yahoos, I'm all for it. 

[Bacon]

Just now, Boyle5150 said:

What type of violence is encouraged in various texts?   Should we ban those texts?   

 Like I said before, our so called “holy texts” have been the cause of more violence than any other written literature on the planet, and it’s not even close.  

 I honestly don’t understand how people turn a blind eye to this fact.  

BuT iT wAsN't MaDe tO iNcIte vIoLeNcE

[Boyle5150]

Just now, Bacon said:

BuT iT wAsN't MaDe tO iNcIte vIoLeNcE

Quite the contrary 

[Boyle5150]

In fact, name a single piece of literature that is responsible (yes, I mean responsible) for more deaths than the Bible or the Koran... I’ll be right here waiting for you.  

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

Quite the contrary 

What's this about birds now?

[Boyle5150]

Buckle up bitches, this shit is going to 30 pages.  

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

For what it's worth, it's not below these people to co-opt Christian iconography and some goals like gay eradication. It's not mutually exclusive by any means!

[Keyser_Soze]

Boyle wrote the anti bible.

[MarSolo]

13 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

In fact, name a single piece of literature that is responsible (yes, I mean responsible) for more deaths than the Bible or the Koran... I’ll be right here waiting for you.  

 

Mein Kampf is a close second (or third).

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

Mein Kampf is a close second (or third).

I doubt it's that close. 

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

Mein Kampf is a close second (or third).

 

It's just about a man's struggles though.

[Boyle5150]

7 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

Mein Kampf is a close second (or third).

Not even close.  

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

Not even close.  

Yeah, WWII and the Holocaust would have happened without Mein Kampf. Hitler didn't need it to get his views out there.  The book was a flop when it released.