The Purpose-Driven Life-Takers
-
David Wulff wrote:
I guess while being educated in Europe you must have missed the class that covered taking the piss.
Indeed I did! How could you possibly imagine the Swiss teaching such "unclean" concepts??!!? Why, that "privilege" is reserved for Englishmen! ;P
We learnt it from the French. Aren't they your neighbours?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy Falcon -
The term "Hate Crime" really pisses me off. How can you make hate a crime if there is freedom of speech? And if the said "Hate Crime" involves violence, why bring the term "hate" into it, it as an assault or murder, not a "hate crime". MOΛΩN ΛABE
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
The term "Hate Crime" really pisses me off. How can you make hate a crime if there is freedom of speech
Becase "hate" is the adjective that describes what type of "crime" it was. It's descriptive of a certain action and not related to the idea of freedom of speech.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
And if the said "Hate Crime" involves violence, why bring the term "hate" into it, it as an assault or murder, not a "hate crime".
Because of the motivation of the action. While in some cases it could certainly be referred to as "assault" or the various degrees of murder, or what-have-you; additional court-sanctioned punishments come into effect if the prosecution can demonstrate that race was an issue in the course of crime that was comitted. It's perfectly applicable in a legal sense. If someone has the right to free speech and to be able to say what they want about others, than others should certainly have the ability to exist freely regardless of what colour or culture they belong to. Call it freedom of existence if you want.
-
In addition, to answer the question you added to your original reply:
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
When is the last time you can remember that christians killed a group of people with a roadside bomb
Off the top of my head that would have to be in 1998, when a car bomb was detonated in Omagh, County Tyrone, on a busy Saturday afternoon. The bomb was placed by a bunch of Catholic extremists involved with the 'Real IRA'. I can still vividly remember the scenes. 29 people died, 100s were injured. They may not have succeeded in flying planes into buildings, but they did quite well at firing mortars into civilian airports. In the early nineties the Provisional IRA even managed to take sucide bombs to the next level, by kidnapping people and forcing them to drive bombs into military targets - or have their families slaughtered in front of them. Even the majority of their brothers-in-arms where disgusted with that tactic.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy FalconSo it's been 8 years since an isolated incident by Christians that is condemned by Christians everywhere? Hmmmmm...If only Muslims could go 8 days. Perhaps it would help if their religion didn't officially endorse bombings, too. But seriously...Making a video game is totally equivalent to killing thousands. I totally agree with that.
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
The term "Hate Crime" really pisses me off. How can you make hate a crime if there is freedom of speech
Becase "hate" is the adjective that describes what type of "crime" it was. It's descriptive of a certain action and not related to the idea of freedom of speech.
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
And if the said "Hate Crime" involves violence, why bring the term "hate" into it, it as an assault or murder, not a "hate crime".
Because of the motivation of the action. While in some cases it could certainly be referred to as "assault" or the various degrees of murder, or what-have-you; additional court-sanctioned punishments come into effect if the prosecution can demonstrate that race was an issue in the course of crime that was comitted. It's perfectly applicable in a legal sense. If someone has the right to free speech and to be able to say what they want about others, than others should certainly have the ability to exist freely regardless of what colour or culture they belong to. Call it freedom of existence if you want.
thealj wrote:
Becase "hate" is the adjective that describes what type of "crime" it was. It's descriptive of a certain action and not related to the idea of freedom of speech.
Actually that's wrong. Hate crimes are determined based on the motivation (i.e. the thought process behind it...i.e. free speech), not the nature of the crime.
thealj wrote:
It's perfectly applicable in a legal sense. If someone has the right to free speech and to be able to say what they want about others, than others should certainly have the ability to exist freely regardless of what colour or culture they belong to. Call it freedom of existence if you want.
Why isn't that freedom applied equally? Why do some have a greater degree of "freedom of existence"?
-
We learnt it from the French. Aren't they your neighbours?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy FalconDavid Wulff wrote:
We learnt it from the French. Aren't they your neighbours?
Hmmm, it would seem so! I can't seem to escape them! They were in Canada, and now they're here too! No wonder you've chosen to isolate yourself on that wonderful (French-free) island of Britain! Keeps the French at a distance I can see now... Too bad they got all the good vinyard lands...
-
So it's been 8 years since an isolated incident by Christians that is condemned by Christians everywhere? Hmmmmm...If only Muslims could go 8 days. Perhaps it would help if their religion didn't officially endorse bombings, too. But seriously...Making a video game is totally equivalent to killing thousands. I totally agree with that.
espeir wrote:
But seriously...Making a video game is totally equivalent to killing thousands. I totally agree with that.
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
espeir wrote:
So it's been 8 years since an isolated incident by Christians that is condemned by Christians everywhere
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage. To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy Falcon -
thealj wrote:
Becase "hate" is the adjective that describes what type of "crime" it was. It's descriptive of a certain action and not related to the idea of freedom of speech.
Actually that's wrong. Hate crimes are determined based on the motivation (i.e. the thought process behind it...i.e. free speech), not the nature of the crime.
thealj wrote:
It's perfectly applicable in a legal sense. If someone has the right to free speech and to be able to say what they want about others, than others should certainly have the ability to exist freely regardless of what colour or culture they belong to. Call it freedom of existence if you want.
Why isn't that freedom applied equally? Why do some have a greater degree of "freedom of existence"?
espeir wrote:
Hate crimes are determined based on the motivation
I know. I said that in my previous post.
espeir wrote:
Why isn't that freedom applied equally? Why do some have a greater degree of "freedom of existence"?
Where is it not applied equally here? Who is it that are you implying has greater freedom of existence?
-
espeir wrote:
Hate crimes are determined based on the motivation
I know. I said that in my previous post.
espeir wrote:
Why isn't that freedom applied equally? Why do some have a greater degree of "freedom of existence"?
Where is it not applied equally here? Who is it that are you implying has greater freedom of existence?
thealj wrote:
Where is it not applied equally here? Who is it that are you implying has greater freedom of existence?
When it is whites against blacks, muslims, mexicans, etc... The whites are always "racist" or "neo nazis". Homies in da hood can get by with by with sneering and calling white people "crackers" and "whities" and no one says anything. To show any pride in being white is just asking for trouble, but there is "Black History Month", or "Hispanic Heritage Month" X|. MOΛΩN ΛABE -- modified at 12:20 Friday 2nd June, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
Hate crimes are determined based on the motivation
I know. I said that in my previous post.
espeir wrote:
Why isn't that freedom applied equally? Why do some have a greater degree of "freedom of existence"?
Where is it not applied equally here? Who is it that are you implying has greater freedom of existence?
thealj wrote:
I know. I said that in my previous post.
Posthumously. However, you initially attributed it to a particular act rather than motivation.
-
espeir wrote:
But seriously...Making a video game is totally equivalent to killing thousands. I totally agree with that.
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
espeir wrote:
So it's been 8 years since an isolated incident by Christians that is condemned by Christians everywhere
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage. To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy FalconDavid Wulff wrote:
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
David Wulff wrote:
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage. To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
But Dave, facts don't matter to people with an agenda! They will selectively ignore them to push their point. Combine this with hijacking threads, changing the issue, leading the discussion down irrelevant roads and general "confusionism" and you have an effective recipe to cause you to become exhausted, abandon the thread. Consequently they will declare "victory" and tout their "accomplishment" to the entire message board. Do you see the pattern here? Avoid the facts and you can prove anthing. Quite the strategy.
-
thealj wrote:
Where is it not applied equally here? Who is it that are you implying has greater freedom of existence?
When it is whites against blacks, muslims, mexicans, etc... The whites are always "racist" or "neo nazis". Homies in da hood can get by with by with sneering and calling white people "crackers" and "whities" and no one says anything. To show any pride in being white is just asking for trouble, but there is "Black History Month", or "Hispanic Heritage Month" X|. MOΛΩN ΛABE -- modified at 12:20 Friday 2nd June, 2006
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
When it is whites against blacks, muslims, mexicans, etc... The whites are always "racist" or "neo nazis". Homies in da hood can get by with by with sneering and calling white people "crackers" and "whities" and no one says anything.
That right, eh? Ever take a look at prison population statistics by race?
-
thealj wrote:
I know. I said that in my previous post.
Posthumously. However, you initially attributed it to a particular act rather than motivation.
espeir wrote:
Posthumously.
Woops, I'm back from the dead then... Last time I checked acts are carried out with motivation. But, if you insist on the technicality, then my response is: whatever.
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
When it is whites against blacks, muslims, mexicans, etc... The whites are always "racist" or "neo nazis". Homies in da hood can get by with by with sneering and calling white people "crackers" and "whities" and no one says anything.
That right, eh? Ever take a look at prison population statistics by race?
thealj wrote:
That right, eh? Ever take a look at prison population statistics by race?
Yes, blacks constitute 12% of the population, and 56% of the prison population. That shows that they are more likely to commit crimes. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
thealj wrote:
That right, eh? Ever take a look at prison population statistics by race?
Yes, blacks constitute 12% of the population, and 56% of the prison population. That shows that they are more likely to commit crimes. MOΛΩN ΛABE
Does it? Why doesn't it show that they are more likely to be convicted? Or: Why doesn't it show that they are more likely to receive jail time as opposed to probation?
-
David Wulff wrote:
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
David Wulff wrote:
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage. To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
But Dave, facts don't matter to people with an agenda! They will selectively ignore them to push their point. Combine this with hijacking threads, changing the issue, leading the discussion down irrelevant roads and general "confusionism" and you have an effective recipe to cause you to become exhausted, abandon the thread. Consequently they will declare "victory" and tout their "accomplishment" to the entire message board. Do you see the pattern here? Avoid the facts and you can prove anthing. Quite the strategy.
thealj wrote:
But Dave, facts don't matter to people with an agenda!
You are right. Kinda like when liberals say that gun control lowers crime, when the cities with guns banned (like washington DC) have the highest gun crime rates in the nation. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
espeir wrote:
But seriously...Making a video game is totally equivalent to killing thousands. I totally agree with that.
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
espeir wrote:
So it's been 8 years since an isolated incident by Christians that is condemned by Christians everywhere
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage. To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy FalconDavid Wulff wrote:
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
It seems like it is to me. You made a sarcastic remark about Christianity being a religion of peace based on a violent video game. Score 1 then correctly called you out by pointing out the fact that a video game is not the same as terrorism.
David Wulff wrote:
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage.
It's isolated because it is rare and also not endorsed by the Catholic Church. You're suggesting that Christianity is a violent religion, but if some individuals commit an act that is actuallly contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent...the individuals are (which was universally the case in Ireland). So you can correctly say that the Irish are violent, but you cannot correctly say that Christianity is.
David Wulff wrote:
To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
Well if he listed all the violent acts by Muslims which were encouraged by the Muslim religion over the past 3 years, he would have crashed the CP server.
-
Does it? Why doesn't it show that they are more likely to be convicted? Or: Why doesn't it show that they are more likely to receive jail time as opposed to probation?
:rolleyes: Im always amazed at how arrogant europeans can be, and how much they think they know about America, to think that the reason so many blaks are in jail is the whites fault. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
David Wulff wrote:
We learnt it from the French. Aren't they your neighbours?
Hmmm, it would seem so! I can't seem to escape them! They were in Canada, and now they're here too! No wonder you've chosen to isolate yourself on that wonderful (French-free) island of Britain! Keeps the French at a distance I can see now... Too bad they got all the good vinyard lands...
-
David Wulff wrote:
That is not the thread being followed here, this is all under and directly in reponse to Pumpkin's remark.
It seems like it is to me. You made a sarcastic remark about Christianity being a religion of peace based on a violent video game. Score 1 then correctly called you out by pointing out the fact that a video game is not the same as terrorism.
David Wulff wrote:
How is it isolated? The IRA detonated many, many bombs at civilian targets -- let alone the militart ones. I can recall four just from the last decade, and those are just the ones that got the TV coverage.
It's isolated because it is rare and also not endorsed by the Catholic Church. You're suggesting that Christianity is a violent religion, but if some individuals commit an act that is actuallly contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent...the individuals are (which was universally the case in Ireland). So you can correctly say that the Irish are violent, but you cannot correctly say that Christianity is.
David Wulff wrote:
To bring '8 years' in line with Pumpkin's comments, it is really only three years between that and planes being crashed into American cities.
Well if he listed all the violent acts by Muslims which were encouraged by the Muslim religion over the past 3 years, he would have crashed the CP server.
espeir should have wrote:
It seems like it is to me. You made a sarcastic remark about Christianity being a religion of peace based on a violent video game. Score 1 then became defensive by claiming people who follow Christ don't murder people with car bombs like those that follow Allah.
You see, the second paragraph of his post says a lot about the first.
espeir wrote:
if some individuals commit an act that is actuallly contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent...the individuals are
My god - someone give this man a medal. Wasn't it you who called someone a hypocrite just yesterday for saying the same thing you have just said?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy Falcon -
espeir should have wrote:
It seems like it is to me. You made a sarcastic remark about Christianity being a religion of peace based on a violent video game. Score 1 then became defensive by claiming people who follow Christ don't murder people with car bombs like those that follow Allah.
You see, the second paragraph of his post says a lot about the first.
espeir wrote:
if some individuals commit an act that is actuallly contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent...the individuals are
My god - someone give this man a medal. Wasn't it you who called someone a hypocrite just yesterday for saying the same thing you have just said?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler | Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"Prejudices, biases, and no real thought in action. Nothing useful ever comes of it." - Jeremy FalconDavid Wulff wrote:
You see, the second paragraph of his post says a lot about the first.
How so? It points out the obvious.
David Wulff wrote:
Wasn't it you who called someone a hypocrite just yesterday for saying the same thing you have just said?
I doubt that. It's pretty obvious to me and everyone with an ounce of sense that Islam is a violent religion because it preaches violence, whereas Christianity is not because it preaches peace. A Muslim committing a violent act does not denote that the Muslim religion is violent in itself. Rather Islam's active promotion of violence DOES make it a violent religion. I'm guessing you tried to claim that Islam is not violent because acts are committed by individuals, but you ignored the fact that the religion itself promotes violence. I think you might be starting to understand... Kepp working at it.