Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Zorya

Thanks Feisar, I'm just in a grumpy mood maybe ...
here's another bit of silliness. Jordan Peterson - who I am no fangirl of, lest some jump down my throat, I have little patience with his adoration of Nietzsche and Jung for that matter - has had his book 12 Rules for Life removed from Whitcoulls stores in New Zealand. Whitcoulls is a big chain like maybe our Easons, 56 stores nationwide and established in about 1888.

Yesterday on Twitter I saw Joe Rogan refered to as a person on the extreme right. I think the world has gone doolally. I'm not even going to look up how to spell that out of temper!

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote:

That doesn’t apply to all semi autos, only those which look like military weapons. Emphasis on the word “style”.

Colour me surprised. Not. I'd have been impressed if they had banned all firearms save for bolt action rifles, shotguns and limited calibers to .22 or something(kinda like Irish law), but nah, this is your usual and typical political response that will appeal to the unaware and uninformed, thinking they'll be "safer" and "we've won against the gun nuts with their machine guns", but keep most of the votes from the sport shooter types, while effectively changing eff all.

Zorya wrote: »

People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Not if they're politicians. It's in their very marrow to go with the display. With plenty of cameras around of course. The oul hijab is a charm for the publicity shot, hugging crying women for bonus points. Cynical? Me? Nah...

Kivaro

Likewise, I'm put off by the Muslim call to prayer that will be broadcasted nationally on TV and radio to the whole country of New Zealand on Friday.
My view as an atheist is that I do not want to hear any call to prayer; irrespective of the faith. And I'm sure that there are many Kiwi's with similar sentiments.

Wibbs

Years back when yet another mass murder had kicked off in the US I remember watching a TV debate on it and they had a couple of people hollering about "machine guns" while not having a single clue what the hell they were talking about. It went full dribbling moron when they called for a ban on "military ammunition". Again not having a single clue about the subject. Namely that "military ammunition" is under international law agreed to be full metal jacketed bullets. This means the lead is encased with brass or similar, so is far less likely to deform or fragment on impact. However "hunting ammunition" which they were fine with usually has the inner softer lead exposed at the point, sometimes even hollow pointed so that they deform on impact and are designed to cause massive shock and wounds. In the vernacular they're "dum dum" bullets. I know which I'd rather see banned. Could these idiots be swayed? Nope.

Take this rifle:

Semiautomatic hunting/sport rifle, chambered for a range of rounds, more accurate than an "assault rifle", yet won't be circumscribed by the new legislation.

Or take this shotgun.



That'll be fine, but this



Won't be because it's "military style". It's the same bloody firearm, chambering the same shells, that will cause the exact same death and injury at the loud end. But they'll keep machine guns off the streets. :rolleyes:

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa?

Because it is largely BS. It was an article from Breitbart in the wake of the NZ massacre crying why Christians in Africa are being slaughtered but get no press coverage, but NZ gets wall to wall. Like they give a flying fook about Africans.

It's a herder farmer conflict that has been raging for years in Nigeria, 1000s have died, it's very little to do with religion.

Obviously Breitbart left out the part of 130 Muslims were slaughtered in February as part of the feud, one of the largest mass murders connected to it.

:rolleyes:

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Because it is largely BS. It was an article from Breitbart in the wake of the NZ massacre crying why Christians in Africa are being slaughtered but get no press coverage, but NZ gets wall to wall. Like the give a flying fook about Africans.

It's a herder farmer conflict that has been raging for years in Nigeria, 1000s have died, it's very little to do with religion.

Obviously Breitbart left out the part of 130 Muslims were slaughtered in February as part of the feud, one of the largest mass murders connected to it.

:rolleyes:

There are no Christians being murdered in Africa, because it's on Brietbart, (which I certainly did not hear it from)?

Anyway, optics is the thing. This police woman would not be allowed to have this job in some countries.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2JXD91UYAMSK6b.jpg

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

There are no Christians being murdered in Africa, because it's on Brietbart,

Yeah, I didn't say that you obviously didn't read my post.

But up to you if you want to smother yourself in ignorance. Not my job to educate you.

As you were.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Because it is largely BS.

No it's not. Just because Breitbart reported on it doesn't make it "bs".

There are Christians in Africa who are being killed and persecuted for their religion. That's irrefutable

Zorya

BTW, sorry I cannot engage regarding the gun issue. Guns, football, cars - with all these my brain helplessly freezes and I go completely bovine.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

There are Christians in Africa who are being killed and persecuted for their religion. That's irrefutable

There are people all over the world being killed and persecuted for their religion.

The feud cited by Breitbart has to do with land and natural resources.

Knock yourself out.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/

Danzy

Kivaro wrote: »

Likewise, I'm put off by the Muslim call to prayer that will be broadcasted nationally on TV and radio to the whole country of New Zealand on Friday.
My view as an atheist is that I do not want to hear any call to prayer; irrespective of the faith. And I'm sure that there are many Kiwi's with similar sentiments.

That and wearing the head scarf are over doing it.

Making it a circus of self indulgence and virtue.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

There are people all over the world being killed and persecuted for their religion.

The feud cited by Breitbart has to do with land and natural resources.

Knock yourself out.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/

It's a very multi faceted feud but you seem to dismiss the fact that religion is certainly quite a large factor.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Semiautomatic hunting/sport rifle, chambered for a range of rounds, more accurate than an "assault rifle", yet won't be circumscribed by the new legislation.

It will.

It will be limited to .22 calibre with a max 10 round magazine.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a very multi faceted feud

Exactly, that's why no one should really take the likes of Breitbart seriously, they are absolute pond scum.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, that's why no one should really take the likes of Breitbart seriously, they are absolute pond scum.

I find that it would be foolish to take any news source as gospel these days. Breitbart have an agenda, in much the same way as any other news agency. The BBC, CNN, Fox et al are all different cheeks of the same ****ty arse.

Just because Breitbard lean a different way than you lean, doesn't make them pond scum. CNN, MSNBC and other outlets that would be more along your way of thinking are equally egregious when it comes to unbiased reporting

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

BTW, sorry I cannot engage regarding the gun issue. Guns, football, cars - with all these my brain helplessly freezes and I go completely bovine.

Basically with this new gun law in NZ in many cases if a firearm has a lovely wooden stock, nice carving on the grips a bonus, it'll be OK, if it's jet black with a plastic stock and looks "military" it won't be, even if it's the exact same firearm. Semiautomatic "sports/hunting" rifles OK, semiautomatic "military style" not OK. That's before we get to collectible vintage firearms, including those that were used by militaries in the past. Chances are high they'll be OK too. From my reading of the proposed new laws anyway.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because Breitbard lean a different way than you lean

Fact checking and multiple sources?

Surely that's a good thing, do you not do the same?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Basically with this new gun law in NZ in many cases if a firearm has a lovely wooden stock, nice carving on the grips a bonus, it'll be OK, if it's jet black with a plastic stock and looks "military" it won't be, even if it's the exact same firearm. Semiautomatic "sports/hunting" rifles OK, semiautomatic "military style" not OK. That's before we get to collectible vintage firearms, including those that were used by militaries in the past. Chances are high they'll be OK too. From my reading of the proposed new laws anyway.

None of that is actually true.

They are limiting calibre and magazines sizes, among other things.

It doesn't matter what they look like.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Fact checking and multiple sources?

Surely that's a good thing, do you not do the same?

Not sure what you mean by just taking that part of my post. I said that I wouldn't class Breitbart as pond scum just because they report news in a way that doesn't suit your views.

The BBC present news with a very liberal and "progressive" slant, the tone of which I would disagree with, but I don't discount their reporting.

Obviously multiple sources and fact checking are important. It's just important to not to fall into a echo chamber and discount opposing views as irrelevant or pond scum

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by just taking that part of my post. I said that I wouldn't class Breitbart as pond scum just because they report news in a way that doesn't suit your views.

You mean not accurately and with a fairly bat shít agenda?

I just gave you a glaring example with a full explanation.

It's up to you where ever you fill your brain.

Gone off topic, so we will leave it there.

Hector Savage

Kivaro wrote: »

Likewise, I'm put off by the Muslim call to prayer that will be broadcasted nationally on TV and radio to the whole country of New Zealand on Friday.
My view as an atheist is that I do not want to hear any call to prayer; irrespective of the faith. And I'm sure that there are many Kiwi's with similar sentiments.

Get used to that call, it will be heard a lot more in the west as the years go by.

BabyCheeses

Hector Savage wrote: »

Get used to that call, it will be heard a lot more in the west as the years go by.

I hear there’s an Australian guy that came up with a solution that might be of interest to you.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

You mean not accurately and with a fairly bat shít agenda?

I just gave you a glaring example with a full explanation.

It's up to you where ever you fill your brain.

Gone off topic, so we will leave it there.

I think we all feel similarly short-changed by what goes by ''news'' these days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10YeFhYGVJU

1641

Hector Savage wrote: »

Get used to that call, it will be heard a lot more in the west as the years go by.

Was that from the manifesto?

PopePalpatine

Hector Savage wrote: »

Get used to that call, it will be heard a lot more in the west as the years go by.

If only those stuck-up females would give up their fantasies of having a career and breed with alpha studs like yourself.

BabyCheeses

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I hear there’s an Australian guy that came up with a solution that might be of interest to you.

pretty poor taste. I don't think it's unreasonable to feel uncomfortable by the call to prayer. When I was in Morocco, I disliked hearing it immensely. But that is the way in Morocco so I expected it and respected it. It is certainly not something I would like to hear ringing out in my neighbourhood.

Kivaro

Danzy wrote: »

That and wearing the head scarf are over doing it.

Making it a circus of self indulgence and virtue.

There's a fine line there somewhere and the NZ prime minister crossed it with an over-reaction or as they say knee-jerk reactions.

The main point should be though ............. absolutely, there should be reverence and complete respect for the Muslim community in New Zealand, as they try to overcome their grief after this atrocity. There should be full support by the government and the citizenry of the country to help them deal with this appalling attack.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

I think we all feel similarly short-changed by what goes by ''news'' these days

I don't, it's never been easier to fact check claims.

People just don't bother their arsés because it doesn't suit their agendas or they are just lazy and gullible and they'll believe anything that is written on the side of a bus.

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I hear there’s an Australian guy that came up with a solution that might be of interest to you.

Shame on you

BabyCheeses

[Deleted User] wrote: »

pretty poor taste. I don't think it's unreasonable to feel uncomfortable by the call to prayer. When I was in Morocco, I disliked hearing it immensely. But that is the way in Morocco so I expected it and respected it. It is certainly not something I would like to hear ringing out in my neighbourhood.

Oh I’m in poor taste, sorry. Let’s go back to defending the website aimed at people who defend this shooting.

Danzy

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I hear there’s an Australian guy that came up with a solution that might be of interest to you.

Jesus but that is some ignorant, self righteous bull**** from your Lordship.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

I don't, it's never been easier to fact check claims.

People just don't bother their arsés because it doesn't suit their agendas or they are just lazy and gullible and they'll believe anything that is written on the side of a bus.

Everyone except you, right?
Reminds me of someone

Hector Savage

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If only those stuck-up females would give up their fantasies of having a career and breed with alpha studs like yourself.

I am married
We have 2 kids.
My wife just got her PhD and is very independent - has never asked me for a penny and makes more $$ than I do.

But keep shooting and missing spectacularly...

BabyCheeses

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Oh I’m in poor taste, sorry. Let’s go back to defending the website aimed at people who defend this shooting.

Please point out where I did that. Was it where I said that Breitbart definitely have an agenda?

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

None of that is actually true.

They are limiting calibre and magazines sizes, among other things.

It doesn't matter what they look like./t will be limited to .22 calibre with a max 10 round magazine.

Maybe you should actually try reading the proposed law. They are limiting magazine capacities(five round magazines), the only calibre mentioned are .22 rimfire rounds which can be semiautomatic and have a ten round capacity. So it seems you can have a semiautomatic hunting/sport rifle in different calibers or a semiautomatic shotgun with five rounds in the magazine. Pump action shotguns aren't mentioned. Neither are lever action rifles. And yes it does matter what they look like. They say it clearly in black and white "military-style". I also note no mention of pistols. The five round detachable mags ban would cover pretty much all semi auto pistols, but there's no specificity to the government statement. However that would leave five and six shot revolvers out completely. No mention of vintage collectable firearms either. Seems more than a bit rushed for the public optics.

BabyCheeses

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

Danzy

Hector Savage wrote: »

I am married
We have 2 kids.
My wife just got her PhD and is very independent - has never asked me for a penny and makes more $$ than I do.

But keep shooting and missing spectacularly...

They don't care if it accurate or not, passing judgement is where the thrill lies.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Everyone except you, right?

No.

Wibbs

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

Keep digging...

Sardonicat

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

He shot men women and children at point blank range. Do you think he did anything wrong?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe you should actually try reading....So it seems you can have a semiautomatic hunting/sport rifle in different calibers

Where does it say that?

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

Did he do anything wrong ?
Are you serious? , has anyone even remotely hinted that they think what he did wasn't a vile vile cowardly act!

F*ck him, and f*ck his manifesto - and f*ck people still watching the video and fb hosting it - it's what the c*nt wants!

I am surprised I need to be clear on my stance here.

That doesn't mean I agree with some media outlets blaming all white Australians or broadcasting the call to prayer in an otherwise secular country.

BabyCheeses

Sardonicat wrote: »

He shot men women and children at point blank range. Do you think he did anything wrong?

I do. I’m not the one trying to talk about any other killing. I’m not the one defending websites that promote the shooters ideology.

BabyCheeses

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I do. I’m not the one trying to talk about any other killing. I’m not the one defending websites that promote the shooters ideology.

:rolleyes:

1641

Its a riled up world :

https://news.sky.com/story/birmingham-mosques-attacked-with-sledgehammers-11671537

BabyCheeses

Hector Savage wrote: »

Did he do anything wrong ?
Are you serious? , has anyone even remotely hinted that they think what he did wasn't a vile vile cowardly act!

F*ck him, and f*ck his manifesto - and f*ck people still watching the video and fb hosting it - it's what the c*nt wants!

I am surprised I need to be clear on my stance here.

That doesn't mean I agree with some media outlets blaming all white Australians or broadcasting the call to prayer in an otherwise secular country.

To be fair. If the same thing happened here, and it turned out to be you. I wouldn’t be surprised. You repeat the same stuff. Complaining about Muslims is your entire personality.

I’m not saying you would do it, but you definitely interact with someone who would and should probably have an eye kept on.

Sardonicat

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

He shot men women and children at point blank range. Do you think he did anything wrong?

I do. I’m not the one trying to talk about any other killing. I’m not the one defending websites that promote the shooters ideology.

Perhaps you should be clear as to who you are addressing your posts to.

WinnyThePoo

Wibbs wrote: »

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

Keep digging...

Ah W. I believe he's referencing the large cohort of numpties that gurgle out tropes on this very forum that can found in that manifesto.

Danzy

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sorry folks. I went a bit too far. I need to be more vague like you are. Nobody here supports the shooter, but did he do anything wrong?

God but your really jerking yourself off now.

BabyCheeses

Sardonicat wrote: »

Perhaps you should be clear as to who you are addressing your posts to.

They know themselves. They get overly defensive when you skip past their bull****.