Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge

EyeInTheSky said:
Ok understood.

I think I have stepped into the twilight zone here. I can't believe there are people out there that think it's fine to ridicule disabled people "for fun". It's like someone has conducted an experiment by merging Nazis with left wing hipsters.
Click to expand...

I'm brought up as a Catholic and, if I'm to honour its teachings as they were originally written and undersood, then your religion is fundamentally at odds with my core belief and understanding of the world. Its very existence is an offence to the very notion of there being this one god, and for however many centuries it was an offence that directly led to unimaginably gruesome deaths.

The only reason it doesn't lead to that now is because the teachings and the way the religion was understood was fundamentally changed due to outside influences, and that was done through aggressive attacks on its teachings, its leaders and its followers. Surely you can see that's to the benefit of society as a whole?

If that hadn't happened, or rather if I was to follow your current way of thinking, I would be perfectly entitled to think that your religion shouldn't exist because it's an affront to my core beliefs, I consider it offensive to the point of bullying that it is actively and openly practiced, and that it's going beyond the acceptable boundaries of freedom of speech.

sammsky1 said:
Do you understand the principle of debating the post not the poster?
Click to expand...

Do you? Or is it OK to insult people that have a different opinion to you?
sammsky1 said:
Depressing, tiring, quite sad. Every time, we have to trot out the same stuff, re-educating idiots...

But yeah, getting some redcafe members to understand that is much harder given the level of there [sic] IQ!
Click to expand...
 
sammsky1 said:
Because its something you've done before - the accusation stands.

And as far as Im aware: this thread is not about 9/11 and more than 50% of US citizens also believe it was an inside job. I may be wrong, but that does not make me 'crazy' as you suggest. So in fact, its you trying to derail, not me. So stop trolling.
Click to expand...

Your throwing your lot in with the bunch that just voted in Trump as President as proof of your sanity? Might not be the best way to make your case.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Changing the status quo for something much worse isn't really proposing a solution it is escalating a problem.

Having worked so long and hard on this you will have an idea of the draft law you want to introduce to stop people offending Muslims and save us all.

Let the cafe have a look at it will you so we can tell if it is workable. Also what punishment will you apply to the many freedom of speech activists who get themselves arrested defying the sammsky law.
Click to expand...
Thats not up to me and I don't have that answer. But of course it has repercussions (as does free speech as currently enforced)

The team I led was asked by the UK Government to provide solutions to this problem irrespective of existing paradigms; we were asked to think outside of the box. We gave several solutions, of which this was one. 6 of the 9 recommendations have been implemented so far but not this one on 'more specificity for the boundaries of free speech' because of the principle many have articulated. We responded that this would have to accept collateral damage as we could not think of another way to stop it.

I'm desperate for the cafe to tell any other solutions.
 
Last edited:
JustAFan said:
Your throwing your lot in with the bunch that just voted in Trump as President as proof of your sanity? Might not be the best way to make your case.
Click to expand...
So lets just try character deformation to anyone who dares have a different opinion? How ironic that's true in a debate about free speech? :lol:

Wont comment on Trump, 9/11 or Republican voters as that derails this thread, which is what your post attempts to do.
 
sammsky1 said:
So lets just try character deformation to anyone who dares have a different opinion? How ironic that's true in a debate about free speech? :lol:
Click to expand...

I was just saying, as proof of sanity, it might lack something.

Not to mention seen a few of your posts that kind of makes it seem a bit of the pot calling the kettle black to be complaining about character defamation.
 
sammsky1 said:
Never attacked any individual, it was an aimless comment. Nice try though ;)
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that's different? You've insulted multiple individuals without naming them. Surely the principle is about a general approach to respectful discussion in spite of opposing views, rather than having anything to do with quoting each individual you're dismissing as idiots?
 
Brwned said:
Why do you feel that's different? You've insulted multiple individuals without naming them. Surely the principle is about a general approach to respectful discussion in spite of opposing views, rather than having anything to do with quoting each individual you're dismissing as idiots?
Click to expand...

Sort of like walking into a pub, shouting about how full of idiots it is, but then trying to calm everyone down by saying "Well I didn't mean anyone in particular, no offense."
 
Akshay said:
I honestly don't know what's up with him. First post I make in the thread is a question and he's decided he already knows my opinion and has seemingly put me on ignore for it. Bizarre.
Click to expand...
I mistook you for Akash, My sincere apology.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Dunno about largest but it's clearly part of the issue. It frustrates me the way the response to incidents like this is always so polarised and predictable. The left gets outraged about Islamophobia, ask why every muslim who commits an atrocity is a terrorist but every white man is a lone wolf and point the finger at US foreign policy. The right rant and rave about border control, religious extremism and the problems of immigrants that don't integrate fully into their new community. I actually think both sides of the debate raise important issues but so long as people keep refusing to listen to those with opposing political views we'll never come up with a holistic solution.
Click to expand...

It's a perfect illustration of why every issue cannot be decided between political parties. I often wander into idealistic head-spaces where very big issues are discussed publicly by leaders together. Not debated, but discussed.

The model we exist in that enables point scoring off the back of tragedy is archaic. I can still vote democrat but be closer to the republican stance on abortion*. I can vote republican and believe the left has it correct in terms of drugs*.

The absolute battle lines of left and right that are so absolutely drawn and adhered to - especially in the US - obfuscates what people want, what countries need and what is just plain intelligent and good.

* Examples, not my views
 
This is getting confusing!
 
2mufc0 said:
It's a useless link anyway, sensationalism at its best. The majority of the attacks are listed in war zones e.g Iraq, Syria so misinterpretation of statistics really.
Click to expand...

Still pale in comparison to the US drone strike numbers too. Doesn't make it better, or right. Obviously.
 
JustAFan said:
Sort of like walking into a pub, shouting about how full of idiots it is, but then trying to calm everyone down by saying "Well I didn't mean anyone in particular, no offense."
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's an odd one. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes me politically apathetic - that wonderful mix of hypocrisy and dismissiveness of "the other side". I know we're quite bad on the whole at being tolerant and accepting others' views but it really does amp up to unbearable levels in political discussions. I generally agree with sammsky that it's unreasonable and unhelpful to jump straight to blaming Islam and vilifying muslims when a muslim terrorist attack happens, but the way the message is conveyed almost makes me hate the fact I'm on "that side". The worst part of all of that is slipping into the idea of sides. It's a complex issue with many nuances that have varying interpretations and there really aren't any sides because the issue isn't even fully understood yet. Yet our default mode is to immediately try and ascribe ourselves to a side.
 
Ubik said:
Click to expand...

image_123110.jpg
 
Arghh what have I done now, mate?
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No, Terrorism isn't a fixed point thing, but the end goal is to instill a fear greater than the act itself. Remember going to a movie after the theatre shootings? It felt.... uneasy.

The DC sniper was a nutbar. Planned to kill enough people that his wifes murder would be lost in the noise, he would then 'inherit' custody of his kids. The innocents were just collateral.

My point about the Sniper being controversial was that he had a media-advantageous last name. Muhammed. TERRORIST! Oh... ex US Army. Oh... Damaged person. He was nothing like a terrorist by the media definition, despite the fact that he terrorised people.

The term has been bastardised and is almost meaningless now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't think that you should exclude domestic terrorist/lone wolves just because they don't have a organization behind them, nor dismiss "nut jobs" because they don't seem to have a clear political agenda behind them.

Imo, once you start killing civilians with no motive you should be called and terrorist and judged by that standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.