Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Ah the cry of the deafeted leftist, its fake news, please, believe us its fake news Desperate, naiive, optimistic, detached from reality Have a great day superman Do you know the events leading up to this? He stabbed his brother in the morning, gouged an old man's eye to nick a car and took a woman hostage. He was being pusued by police who called it off and were tracking him by helicopter. Q1: Would Vic police had taken this action if this guy, who was known to them and released on bail a week earlier, if he was a terrorist suspect. He then made his way from the Bolte Bridge, west of the city centre, drove east along Flinders St and did doughnuts for around 5 minutes. Q2: If he was a terrorist suspect, would the police have allowed this action given that the terrorist action they foiled on Christmas Day was to target the buildings on these vorners (St Paul's Cathedral and Flinders Street station)? Now when you've used logic for once, make sure you look up the real Facebook profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Do you know the events leading up to this? He stabbed his brother in the morning, gouged an old man's eye to nick a car and took a woman hostage. He was being pusued by police who called it off and were tracking him by helicopter. Q1: Would Vic police had taken this action if this guy, who was known to them and released on bail a week earlier, if he was a terrorist suspect. He then made his way from the Bolte Bridge, west of the city centre, drove east along Flinders St and did doughnuts for around 5 minutes. Q2: If he was a terrorist suspect, would the police have allowed this action given that the terrorist action they foiled on Christmas Day was to target the buildings on these vorners (St Paul's Cathedral and Flinders Street station)? Now when you've used logic for once, make sure you look up the real Facebook profile. So someone set up a fake facebook profile 11 days before this horrific event about someone who then went on to do this Nostradamus eat your heart out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 So if someone describes himself as an Islamist, then its not true, because some folk don't want it to be true, because that's really awkward. is Islamist a tag that can only be applied by others? Am I not allowed to call myself an Atheist? Or because the page was fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I love it. A bloke sticks a frock on and calls himself a girl and all the SJWs will protest for his right to say it and shout at anyone who still calls him a boy. A guy calls himself a Muslim who is not from a 'Mulsim country', kills a few people and they get all wound up saying he is not a Muslim as he is only saying he is. I am confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I love it. A bloke sticks a frock on and calls himself a girl and all the SJWs will protest for his right to say it and shout at anyone who still calls him a boy. A guy calls himself a Muslim who is not from a 'Mulsim country', kills a few people and they get all wound up saying he is not a Muslim as he is only saying he is. I am confused. Don't see anyone getting wound up. He might be a muslim, he might not. It might be a terrorist attack, the evidence so far suggests not. These threads everytime people are murdered are disgraceful though. Point scoring on blood being spilled, what a guy Zoltan is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Don't see anyone getting wound up. He might be a muslim, he might not. It might be a terrorist attack, the evidence so far suggests not. These threads everytime people are murdered are disgraceful though. Point scoring on blood being spilled, what a guy Zoltan is. I would think it is natural now to instantly think to yourself after yet another one of these attacks it is Islamic extremism. If people are honest with themselves they will admit this. This may or may not be, I never played my cards, I just said it will be some form of Sky fairy. I get no pleasure from being proved right in this case as folk yet again have lost their lives. I do it purely as I want people to wake up to the extreme dangers we all face and accept that it IS RELIGION RELATED. On a side note it is clear that the new modus operandi is now ground destruction that air destruction. There must be a reason for this. Increased security is the obvious one but also the money could be drying up which is pleasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 John Silvester is the most respected crime reporter in Melbourne, having covered the drug gang wars in Underbelly extensively. Here's a bit more background on this nutjob. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/killer-driver-highlighted-how-susceptible-city-is-to-attack-20170120-gtvr5a.html Jihadi obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 I would think it is natural now to instantly think to yourself after yet another one of these attacks it is Islamic extremism. If people are honest with themselves they will admit this. This may or may not be, I never played my cards, I just said it will be some form of Sky fairy. I get no pleasure from being proved right in this case as folk yet again have lost their lives. I do it purely as I want people to wake up to the extreme dangers we all face and accept that it IS RELIGION RELATED. On a side note it is clear that the new modus operandi is now ground destruction that air destruction. There must be a reason for this. Increased security is the obvious one but also the money could be drying up which is pleasing. No, it is not "natural" to do that, and even if it were, it wouldn't be any less wrong. As someone who shares with you the opinion that "religion poisons everything" (? the Hitch) it is prejudicial--bordering on intentionally hateful--to hold the worst end results of a religion against the religion's adherents as a whole. As a fellow atheist I would hope you could realise that. That is assuming of course that you arrived at your position in any kind of logical way. In fact, if you had, it should mean that any time you're confronted with data that contradicts your pre-assumed perception you give it extra latitude for consideration. Meanwhile, any evidence that supports your case should suffer extra scrutiny. Why? Because methodological naturalism and the human tendency to confirmation bias require it. How can we defend our position if we blindly presume the worst of anything that doesn't support our ideas while giving a free pass to everything that does? We can't. We must be diligent, thorough, and conscientious. There is a reason our position isn't self-evident to the rest of the world: because it's not infallible. Only gods are, and we're pretty confident those don't exist. Let's not deify our own views in their place. I jumped the gun a bit myself by calling out Zoltan before all the evidence was in, and I should take responsibility for that. Regardless of what the full story turns out to be, I didn't know it, and should've remained limited to expressing my belief that regardless of how it turns out, we should all decry the tendency to throw an entire group under the bus for the actions of a few. We should not back down against such broad brushes, utilised as they are to paint us all into our separate corners, pitted against each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo2123 Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 No, it is not "natural" to do that, and even if it were, it wouldn't be any less wrong. As someone who shares with you the opinion that "religion poisons everything" (? the Hitch) it is prejudicial--bordering on intentionally hateful--to hold the worst end results of a religion against the religion's adherents as a whole. As a fellow atheist I would hope you could realise that. That is assuming of course that you arrived at your position in any kind of logical way. In fact, if you had, it should mean that any time you're confronted with data that contradicts your pre-assumed perception you give it extra latitude for consideration. Meanwhile, any evidence that supports your case should suffer extra scrutiny. Why? Because methodological naturalism and the human tendency to confirmation bias require it. How can we defend our position if we blindly presume the worst of anything that doesn't support our ideas while giving a free pass to everything that does? We can't. We must be diligent, thorough, and conscientious. There is a reason our position isn't self-evident to the rest of the world: because it's not infallible. Only gods are, and we're pretty confident those don't exist. Let's not deify our own views in their place. I jumped the gun a bit myself by calling out Zoltan before all the evidence was in, and I should take responsibility for that. Regardless of what the full story turns out to be, I didn't know it, and should've remained limited to expressing my belief that regardless of how it turns out, we should all decry the tendency to throw an entire group under the bus for the actions of a few. We should not back down against such broad brushes, utilised as they are to paint us all into our separate corners, pitted against each other. This is a great post. No doubt you will be branded some sort of "loony" though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 This is a great post. No doubt you will be branded some sort of "loony" though.Why would anyone call him a loony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo2123 Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Why would anyone call him a loony? Seems to be the done thing these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Potter Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 So bookies odds right now Sky Fairy A 10/1 Sky Fairy B 15/1 Sky Fairy C 100/1 Whats a sky fairy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Whats a sky fairy A God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 No, it is not "natural" to do that, and even if it were, it wouldn't be any less wrong. As someone who shares with you the opinion that "religion poisons everything" (? the Hitch) it is prejudicial--bordering on intentionally hateful--to hold the worst end results of a religion against the religion's adherents as a whole. As a fellow atheist I would hope you could realise that. That is assuming of course that you arrived at your position in any kind of logical way. In fact, if you had, it should mean that any time you're confronted with data that contradicts your pre-assumed perception you give it extra latitude for consideration. Meanwhile, any evidence that supports your case should suffer extra scrutiny. Why? Because methodological naturalism and the human tendency to confirmation bias require it. How can we defend our position if we blindly presume the worst of anything that doesn't support our ideas while giving a free pass to everything that does? We can't. We must be diligent, thorough, and conscientious. There is a reason our position isn't self-evident to the rest of the world: because it's not infallible. Only gods are, and we're pretty confident those don't exist. Let's not deify our own views in their place. I jumped the gun a bit myself by calling out Zoltan before all the evidence was in, and I should take responsibility for that. Regardless of what the full story turns out to be, I didn't know it, and should've remained limited to expressing my belief that regardless of how it turns out, we should all decry the tendency to throw an entire group under the bus for the actions of a few. We should not back down against such broad brushes, utilised as they are to paint us all into our separate corners, pitted against each other. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupid Sexy Flanders Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 No, it is not "natural" to do that, and even if it were, it wouldn't be any less wrong. As someone who shares with you the opinion that "religion poisons everything" (? the Hitch) it is prejudicial--bordering on intentionally hateful--to hold the worst end results of a religion against the religion's adherents as a whole. As a fellow atheist I would hope you could realise that. That is assuming of course that you arrived at your position in any kind of logical way. In fact, if you had, it should mean that any time you're confronted with data that contradicts your pre-assumed perception you give it extra latitude for consideration. Meanwhile, any evidence that supports your case should suffer extra scrutiny. Why? Because methodological naturalism and the human tendency to confirmation bias require it. How can we defend our position if we blindly presume the worst of anything that doesn't support our ideas while giving a free pass to everything that does? We can't. We must be diligent, thorough, and conscientious. There is a reason our position isn't self-evident to the rest of the world: because it's not infallible. Only gods are, and we're pretty confident those don't exist. Let's not deify our own views in their place. I jumped the gun a bit myself by calling out Zoltan before all the evidence was in, and I should take responsibility for that. Regardless of what the full story turns out to be, I didn't know it, and should've remained limited to expressing my belief that regardless of how it turns out, we should all decry the tendency to throw an entire group under the bus for the actions of a few. We should not back down against such broad brushes, utilised as they are to paint us all into our separate corners, pitted against each other. Good post, shame the guy you're replying to won't understand a word of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 Whats a sky fairy The boat that goes between the mainland and the Isle of skye:-0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.