Worst shooting in US history in Orlando today, at least 50 killed

[Zed]

I don't think nobody is blaming you specifically. I think most of you take the questioning of your religious beliefs & sacred texts and its influence like a personal attack, which is not. I think the point is that this kind of homophobia would not be as common without the influence of the people that keep claiming again and again that homosexuality is a sin.

EDIT: Just to clarify, not blaming anybody in particular, but religion has a role here, along with other things of course.

[Tracer]

Then I'd like to blame grocery stores for the obesity epidemic. Yeah, they aren't forcing me to eat as much as I do, but they definitely have a role in it.

[Use]

TraceOfSpades said:

Then I'd like to blame grocery stores for the obesity epidemic. Yeah, they aren't forcing me to eat as much as I do, but they definitely have a role in it.

Yes keep using false equivalency to drive your meager point forward. You say blame the person not the ideology, the people in question cite their archaic religious beliefs as the foundation of their intolerance. You personally don't adhere to the very principles of your own proclaimed religion, so that somehow excuses it from being ultimately responsible for such gross behavior of others that do. Is that about right? You talk about choice, well these bigots made the choice to be part of a religion that denies the rights of others.

[Quast]

MetroidJunkie said:

"Opposition to homosexuality is both a Christian and a Muslim problem" Show me how many Christians are actively killing homosexuals and then you get to make that comparison. Until then, quit blaming Christians on Muslim extremists.

Christian opposition to all things lgbt is a very real thing. Murdering people is not the criteria here and even if it was, christians have murdered homosexuals through history including recent memory. Regardless, christianity is the dominate anti-gay cultural force in the west today, not islam. While it is certainly wrong to blame christianity in general for this act, I cannot see how they can be completely 100% guiltless in creating an atmosphere of animosity in addition to positioning themselves as the 'real' victims in a culture war.

TraceOfSpades said:

Blame the trigger puller. Not the people who aren't embracing homosexuality.

Yes, he and he alone is the perpetrator of his crimes. But he was also one of them, and his thoughts and opinions and inevitable actions can certainly be construed as a consequence of living and breathing a culture that does not tolerate such things.

Additionally it has been speculated that he himself was a regular at this club and may possibly have been gay. If that is the case then this is may very well be a real tragedy of a man that could not live with himself because he couldn't square the circle of being a gay muslim out of perhaps a fear of reprisal from the wider community and much too much self loathing he would project at others.

[VGamingJunkie]

Quast said:

Christian opposition to all things lgbt is a very real thing. It is the dominate anti-gay cultural force in the west, not islam. While it is certainly wrong to blame christianity in general for this act, I cannot see how they can be completely 100% guiltless in creating an atmosphere of animosity in addition to positioning themselves as the 'real' victims in a culture war.

Bob: I don't really like chocolate.
-The next day, Joe storms the place with guns and kills everyone who's ever eaten chocolate or expressed love for it-
Mike: Way to go, Bob.
Frank: Yeah, I can't believe you'd foster that kind of hateful atmosphere.


So never take a stand on anything or else it's your fault if someone uses your viewpoint as a justification for murder. We're at fault for psychopaths, the clear answer is to not have opinions or points of view. Of course, all you people blaming Christianity are responsible in creating a hostile environment against Christians, thus enabling Radical Islam's slaughter of Christians. Way to go, murder enablers.

[Quast]

MetroidJunkie said:

Bob: I don't really like chocolate.
-The next day, Joe storms the place with guns and kills everyone who's ever eaten chocolate or expressed love for it-
Mike: Way to go, Bob.
Frank: Yeah, I can't believe you'd foster that kind of hateful atmosphere.

If bob spent decades preaching from pulpits how awful chocolate was and how it was going to destroy the foundations of society and used his time to sway the political opinions of individuals and law makers alike in very obvious attempts to criminalize chocolate eating and enjoyment, then yes, chocophobe bob is fostering a hateful atmosphere.

[Tracer]

Bob made the Chocolate Slayer feel comfortable enough to kill people.

Bob had a right to hate chocolate though...he was diabetic after all.

DAMN YOU, DIABETIC PEOPLE! THE BLOOD OF THE CHOCOLATE MASSACRE IS ON YOUR HANDS!

Edit: Serious time. I'm starting to get the feeling that the point you're trying to make is "Christians bad! Bahhhh!". If you're trying to imply that the world would be better without a certain group of people, then how can you feel so righteous when you're doing essentially the same thing that you're accusing them of? You're starting to sound as if you're fostering hatred and violence toward christians with that kind of talk, man.

[Quast]

MetroidJunkie said:

So never take a stand on anything or else it's your fault if someone uses your viewpoint as a justification for murder.

Very interesting point. I would say that if you hold a strong opinion on something that another person agrees with, and also agrees with so much so that they are willing to fight and kill and die for...then either it is the greatest and most pure and true idea to be upheld and you are a fool for not doing the same or maybe, just maybe it's not something worth fighting for and being erroneously lumped in with assholes that cross terrible thresholds.

[Tracer]

Quast said:

Very interesting point. I would say that if you hold a strong opinion on something that another person agrees with, and also agrees with so much so that they are willing to fight and kill and die for...then either it is the greatest and most pure and true idea to be upheld and you are a fool for not doing the same or maybe, just maybe it's not something worth fighting for and being erroneously lumped in with assholes that cross terrible thresholds.

So...because some psycho killed people in the name of (insert belief here), everyone who has the same belief minus the homicidal bits should stop believing in that?

Fuck that. My favorite band is black sabbath. If some guy goes out and kills people in the name of Black Sabbath, I'm not going to stop listening to their music. That's stupid.

Hell, one of the Columbine shooters loved Doom. Yet here we all are, yourself included, still playing Doom. Have you ever thought that Doom isn't

worth fighting for and being erroneously lumped in with assholes that cross terrible thresholds.

One of the shooters even made a comment saying "This'll be just like fucking Doom."

Or is it a little different now that it deals with something you like?

[Clonehunter]

I like guns and I guess that makes me evil. Case closed?

[VGamingJunkie]

TraceofSpades makes a VERY good point. By your logic, we're enabling the Columbine Massacre by enjoying Doom. You're no different than the media bitching about violent video games, you're still making this extremist slippery slope logic. Holding a viewpoint doesn't make you responsible if someone holding the same viewpoint thinks murder is justified over it. I can only conclude that Quast is Anti-Free Speech and thinks dangerous opinions should be criminal.

[Azazel Bloodfucker]

TraceOfSpades said:

So...because some psycho killed people in the name of (insert belief here), everyone who has the same belief minus the homicidal bits should stop believing in that?

Fuck that. My favorite band is black sabbath. If some guy goes out and kills people in the name of Black Sabbath, I'm not going to stop listening to their music. That's stupid.

Hell, one of the Columbine shooters loved Doom. Yet here we all are, yourself included, still playing Doom. Have you ever thought that Doom isn't One of the shooters even made a comment saying "This'll be just like fucking Doom."

Or is it a little different now that it deals with something you like?

No, it's more like if he was part of a group that liked Black Sabbath and the group liked to murder people. It doesn't make you a criminal to like black Sabbath, but the government would still find you suspicious.

Especially because there is a violent group dedicated Black Sabbath. Would you say they are wrong to be suspicious? Also if there was a violent group dedicated to Doom the government would monitor this site much more often.

If ISIS and terrorist weren't a militant threat we could be friends with Muslims much easier. Just as if your people were being slaughtered by Black Sabbath cultist it would be harder to be friends with a country of Black Sabbath worshipers.

[dew]

MetroidJunkie said:

I can only conclude that Quast is Anti-Free Speech and thinks dangerous opinions should be criminal.

And here I thought you were the one trying to criminalize dangerous opinions such as, you know, Radical Islam.

[VGamingJunkie]

Because Radical Islam is just like Westboro and all people have a problem with is their words. It's not like they've been slaughtering people or anything.

Azazel Bloodfucker said:

No, it's more like if he was part of a group that liked Black Sabbath and the group liked to murder people. It doesn't make you a criminal to like black Sabbath, but the government would still find you suspicious.

Especially because there is a violent group dedicated Black Sabbath. Would you say they are wrong to be suspicious? Also if there was a violent group dedicated to Doom the government would monitor this site much more often.

If ISIS and terrorist weren't a militant threat we could be friends with Muslims much easier. Just as if your people were being slaughtered by Black Sabbath cultist it would be harder to be friends with a country of Black Sabbath worshipers.

I think a more apt comparison would be if a group who was into Black Sabbath killed a lot of people so anyone into any kind of music was demonized. That's pretty much the same as blaming Christians (And religion as a whole) for Radical Islam.

[Azazel Bloodfucker]

MetroidJunkie said:

I think a more apt comparison would be if a group who was into Black Sabbath killed a lot of people so anyone into any kind of music was demonized. That's pretty much the same as blaming Christians (And religion as a whole) for Radical Islam.

I disagree it's like blaming a genre of music more then all of music, Islam is a genre of religion in this comparison.

[Quast]

TraceOfSpades said:

So...because some psycho killed people in the name of (insert belief here), everyone who has the same belief minus the homicidal bits should stop believing in that?

If whatever caused such an event gives you pause enough to examine your personal opinions, then yes?

[VGamingJunkie]

Azazel Bloodfucker said:

I disagree it's like blaming a genre of music more then all of music, Islam is a genre of religion in this comparison.

Well, blaming all music is like blaming all religion, which Quast did. Blaming Christianity is like blaming Pop Music, a different genre entirely, because of the violent Black Sabbath group.

Quast said:

If whatever caused such an event gives you pause enough to examine your personal opinions, then yes?

You believe Christians should be restricted in expressing their faith. Radical Islam has the same belief and kills them over it. You should now feel pause enough to examine your personal opinions about Christianity. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

[Gez]

TraceOfSpades said:

Edit: Serious time. I'm starting to get the feeling that the point you're trying to make is "Christians bad! Bahhhh!".

You don't need to be a homophobe when you're a Christian. "But the Bible says I have to be intolerant towards gays! You can't force me to sacrifice my faith, you horrible Christianophobe! Who's the bigot now?" No, you dumbass. The Bible says a lot of shit that Christians no longer care for. Have you recently harassed anyone who was wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics? No? Well then, looks like there are some parts of the Bible you're perfectly willing to ignore. Why not extend that courtesy to homos?

[Tracer]

I actually just got done beating the shit out of a dude who was wearing mixed fabrics. He had it coming. I'm on my way to the barber to go kick the heathen out of the asses in those chairs, too.

I do extend the courtesy to "homos" as you put it.

Also, Leviticus is old testament. Per the christian faith: When Jesus died for the sins of man, the old testament essentially stopped mattering in terms of right and wrong. What many people, especially the christians who spew hatred, fail to realize is that Jesus died for all sins of all man. Whether it be something as harmless as homosexuality or something as harmful as murder. Jesus died for it.

[VGamingJunkie]

Gez said:

You don't need to be a homophobe when you're a Christian. "But the Bible says I have to be intolerant towards gays! You can't force me to sacrifice my faith, you horrible Christianophobe! Who's the bigot now?" No, you dumbass. The Bible says a lot of shit that Christians no longer care for. Have you recently harassed anyone who was wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics? No? Well then, looks like there are some parts of the Bible you're perfectly willing to ignore. Why not extend that courtesy to homos?

Actually, the bible says you have to be loving towards everyone. Being intolerant towards behaviors doesn't mean you're intolerant towards the person doing them. If you don't like what your children are doing, if you're a good parent, you don't love them any less for it right? Same with God. Despite our sins, he loves us as much as if we didn't sin and that's how we should treat each other. We don't tell people not to sin to beat them over the head, we tell them not to sin because sinning hurts you. Tolerance says I'll put up with you, love says I want to help you. Christians are called to love, not tolerate.

Also, the reason not to mix those fabrics is because if you wear both of those fabrics, in the desert, it makes you sick. It had nothing to do with morality, God just didn't want them to make themselves ill. Notice how homosexuality is brought up in Romans, the New Testament, but fabrics aren't. False equivalence.

[Azazel Bloodfucker]

I guess we will never get our views across to one another, but, I want to say both sides made good statements and examples, however I no longer feel like debating so I decline discussing any further as this is getting tedious. Have a good day everyone, and be glad you are still alive to talk of such things.

[Tracer]

^I agree with that. Seems like we're just trying to mix water and oil at this point. Good day to you, sir.

[Gez]

MetroidJunkie said:

Being intolerant towards behaviors doesn't mean you're intolerant towards the person doing them.

Yes it is. There's no meaningful difference.

MetroidJunkie said:

If you don't like what your children are doing, if you're a good parent, you don't love them any less for it right?

Don't be patronizing. LGBT people aren't your kids, and you're not in any position to discipline them for their naughtiness.

MetroidJunkie said:

We don't tell people not to sin to beat them over the head, we tell them not to sin because sinning hurts you. Tolerance says I'll put up with you, love says I want to help you. Christians are called to love, not tolerate.

Does the sin of living accordingly to who they are hurts them more or less than being repressed into self-hating, snapping, and going on a mass-murder suicide rampage?

MetroidJunkie said:

Also, the reason not to mix those fabrics is because if you wear both of those fabrics, in the desert, it makes you sick. It had nothing to do with morality, God just didn't want them to make themselves ill. Notice how homosexuality is brought up in Romans, the New Testament, but fabrics aren't. False equivalence.

Bullshit. Mixed fabrics is banned because mixed anything is banned, it goes along with a prohibition on planting mixed seeds or mating different kinds of animals. (Didn't stop all of Christendom from using mules.)

If you didn't notice, the Bible is obsessed with the idea of sorting and separating stuff, it's a whole running theme. God created the world by sorting the primordial chaos into separate stuff. The idea is that if you mix stuff, then you're undoing God's work. That's also why pork and shellfish are prohibited: they're impure because they're exhibiting characteristics of different types of animals, meaning that they're chaotic, they haven't yet been sorted out by God.

And in Romans, Paul is talking about pagan ritual orgies, not homosexuality in general. It's a diatribe against idolatry if you read it in context.

[Tracer]

Gez said:

[CARRiON]

Clonehunter said:

I like guns and I guess that makes me evil. Case closed?

I like cock and I guess that makes me evil. Case closed.

[Tracer]

^Neither of those things are inherently evil.

[CARRiON]

TraceOfSpades said:

^Neither of those things are inherently evil.

Not like I'd actually care if it was :p

[Tracer]

Attaboy.

[VGamingJunkie]

Gez said:

Yes it is. There's no meaningful difference.

Bob: I think it's wrong to smoke cigarettes.
Frank: I smoke, why do you hate me!?
Jerry: Hey, guys, Bob hates Frank! WTF!?

Gez said:

If you didn't notice, the Bible is obsessed with the idea of sorting and separating stuff, it's a whole running theme. God created the world by sorting the primordial chaos into separate stuff. The idea is that if you mix stuff, then you're undoing God's work. That's also why pork and shellfish are prohibited: they're impure because they're exhibiting characteristics of different types of animals, meaning that they're chaotic, they haven't yet been sorted out by God.

Again, that was biblical context because shellfish couldn't be properly cleaned at the time and I'm sure pork had a similar reason. It was actually contradicted in the New Testament, by Jesus when he said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean and Paul pretty much said we can eat whatever we want. You seem to mistake laws only for Israel with moral law.

[Gez]

Yet another dishonest comparison.

You know what would make it true? If craving tobacco was something some people were just born with, instead of being an acquired addiction, and if there were frequent hate crimes committed against smokers.


And the whole thing about finding hygienic explanations for prohibitions is all a posteriori justifications. It's not the logic of the document. Still, if you're going to be grafting alien logic to the Bible to explain why some stuff that was prohibited before is now totally okay, then why don't you keep doing that?