Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:He was white that makes him a social conservative? I guess that's about as racist of a suggestion I've seen on here congrats

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...epublicans

 

Your move, slick.

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/21/dylann-roof-manifesto-charlston-shootings-republicans'>http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/21/dylann-roof-manifesto-charlston-shootings-republicans</a>


Your move, slick.

he referenced a white power group which is far from social conservatives but that makes him representative of social conservatives, give me a break. You found a 3rd degree connection to republicans not even social conservatives.


I can give you a long list of mass killers that where democrats does that make them representative of the left?

Quote:I asked bourdemew what basis he could equate social conservatives with the Taliban, Tj responded Dylan roof suggesting he is evidence social conservatives are the American Taliban as bourdemew put it.


Feel free to point out where I'm off

 

It's obvious. He said Roof is a social conservative, you immediately assigned his motive to Roof's race.

Quote:he referenced a white power group which is far from social conservatives but that makes him representative of social conservatives, give me a break. You found a 3rd degree connection to republicans not even social conservatives.


I can give you a long list of mass killers that where democrats does that make them representative of the left?

You said that social conservatives don't go around killing people. I simply reminded you that a person identifying as a conservative (or who, at least, strongly supported a group that leaned far to the right) shot up a church in the very recent past. Dylann Roof could be white, black, brown or Martian; he is linked to conservative groups, and he killed a bunch of people. Would you like some ice for that burn, or are you not ready to get out of the toaster yet?

Quote:You said that social conservatives don't go around killing people. I simply reminded you that a person identifying as a conservative (or who, at least, strongly supported a group that leaned far to the right) shot up a church in the very recent past. Dylann Roof could be white, black, brown or Martian; he is linked to conservative groups, and he killed a bunch of people. Would you like some ice for that burn, or are you not ready to get out of the toaster yet?

Laws of the third degree you can connect almost anyone. Your lumping him in with social conservatives is absurd he was a reject from the neo-nazis who are socialist they're not conservative.


You can try and walk it back but your suggestion was clear, crazy racist white guy shoots up church he is a representation of the crazy white racist conservatives.


There is literally nothing linking him to conservatives and I take offense in you trying to lump him in. Do you see me lumping democratic supporting killers in as representation of the left? Cause we can play that game ......

Quote:It's obvious. He said Roof is a social conservative, you immediately assigned his motive to Roof's race.

Because there is nothing else to link it to. All we know is the individual was an extreme racist and white. So his suggestion he was a conservative can only be based on those two known factors he was white or he was racist. Calling him conservative baed on either of those two points is what I'm calling him out on.

Quote:Because there is nothing else to link it to. All we know is the individual was an extreme racist and white. So his suggestion he was a conservative can only be based on those two known factors he was white or he was racist. Calling him conservative baed on either of those two points is what I'm calling him out on.

Except that I'm not calling him out for either of those two reasons. I'm calling him out because he is a member of (or is at least strongly influenced by) a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens, which supports and makes donations exclusively to the campaigns of conservative politicians. Going back to your original post:

 

Quote:<div>
Because social conservatives are blowing things up and committing acts of terror? Come on your better then that.

</div>
Yes, a person identifying himself with a conservative group just committed an act of terror by killing nine people in a church. I'm identifying him as a conservative because he self-identifies as one, not because he's a white racist piece of four-letter word. 

Quote:Except that I'm not calling him out for either of those two reasons. I'm calling him out because he is a member of (or is at least strongly influenced by) a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens, which supports and makes donations exclusively to the campaigns of conservative politicians. Going back to your original post:


Yes, a person identifying himself with a conservative group just committed an act of terror by killing nine people in a church. I'm identifying him as a conservative because he self-identifies as one, not because he's a white racist piece of four-letter word.

You linked an article from guardian citing he made a quote from the CoCC not sure how you can possibly conclude he's a social conservative based on that information. The entire article was about hurt the founder or leader of that CoCC.


If that's your criteria for linking someone to a political group or ideology the left is linked to the DC snipers and the Boston bombings.


Asserting roof is evidence of the right being equal to the Taliban is what you where doing. so are the mobs in Baltimore riots a representation of the left?

Quote:Asserting roof is evidence of the right being equal to the Taliban is what you where doing. so are the mobs in Baltimore riots a representation of the left?

No, they're not, and Roof's actions are not representative of the right. You said that social conservatives are not "committing acts of terror". I provided an example of someone who, by all accounts, considered himself conservative (and there are plenty of other articles out there detailing the link between Roof and the CoCC) and committed an act of terror. I never said that all conservatives are out committing acts of terror, just that your statement that they weren't was patently incorrect based upon very recent events.

It's fascinating to watch how conservatives categorize one another.


So just because he's a neo nazi and Nazi's are national socialist, and socialism isn't a conservative ideal, it means that he's not a conservative... that's a lot of mental gymnastics to go through...


Let's just say this, would this terrorist be considered a liberal? No.


He's clearly not a liberal. Is he the best example of a conservative? No.


See, that's the problem when you use blanket statements. Let that be a lesson to all those who use such silly statements.


Nobody can say this person is the poster child for conservatives. But it's clear that he was indoctrinated by conservative groups that preach hate and fear.

Shouldn't discussions about Dylan Roof and the SC church shooting go into the SC shooting, or confederate flag threads that are already up?

 

 

Just saying.

Quote:It's fascinating to watch how conservatives categorize one another.


So just because he's a neo nazi and Nazi's are national socialist, and socialism isn't a conservative ideal, it means that he's not a conservative... that's a lot of mental gymnastics to go through...


Let's just say this, would this terrorist be considered a liberal? No.


He's clearly not a liberal. Is he the best example of a conservative? No.


See, that's the problem when you use blanket statements. Let that be a lesson to all those who use such silly statements.


Nobody can say this person is the poster child for conservatives. But it's clear that he was indoctrinated by conservative groups that preach hate and fear.

 

I do believe that liberals do the same thing.  As of matter of fact, I would argue that liberals tend to "separate" or "categorize" certain groups of people more so than conservatives.

 

Was he indoctrinated by "conservative groups that preach hate and fear" or was he indoctrinated by "extremest groups that preach hate and fear"?  There is a difference.

Quote:So does that mean that gun laws need to be addressed, specifically the 2nd Amendment?

No but it sure ought be included in your constant statements about culture problems in the country.

Quote:American Taliban supporters? How do you justify and see that?

I got burned by mobile. Somehow replied in the wrong the thread.


I have no problem with the 2nd amendment or peoples desire to own guns. I do think there is a widespread culture problem we have in their glorification but that's not really what is being discussed here

Quote:You linked an article from guardian citing he made a quote from the CoCC not sure how you can possibly conclude he's a social conservative based on that information. The entire article was about hurt the founder or leader of that CoCC.


If that's your criteria for linking someone to a political group or ideology the left is linked to the DC snipers and the Boston bombings.


Asserting roof is evidence of the right being equal to the Taliban is what you where doing. so are the mobs in Baltimore riots a representation of the left?

My messed up post cause a bit of a rukus. Sorry everyone.

Quote:I do believe that liberals do the same thing. As of matter of fact, I would argue that liberals tend to "separate" or "categorize" certain groups of people more so than conservatives.


Was he indoctrinated by "conservative groups that preach hate and fear" or was he indoctrinated by "extremest groups that preach hate and fear"? There is a difference.

I knew when I wrote the first sentence of my remark that you bolded, I was setting myself up for your critique. I should have removed it!


But I guess it goes to my main point, it's very problematic to put any one group into a category where you then pigeon hole individuals into a bias based on a collective.


Your point is well taken. I don't think categorizing and using a bias is a liberal or conservative thing. It's something that we as humans are naturally inclined to do.


The goal is to try and remove oneself from that bias. Though as I try to point out, and sometimes fail at myself, it is very hard to do, but also very necessary in order to find where we all are similar. It also helps remove a lot of hate and angst against this we may disagree with.

Quote:I knew when I wrote the first sentence of my remark that you bolded, I was setting myself up for your critique. I should have removed it!


But I guess it goes to my main point, it's very problematic to put any one group into a category where you then pigeon hole individuals into a bias based on a collective.


Your point is well taken. I don't think categorizing and using a bias is a liberal or conservative thing. It's something that we as humans are naturally inclined to do.


The goal is to try and remove oneself from that bias. Though as I try to point out, and sometimes fail at myself, it is very hard to do, but also very necessary in order to find where we all are similar. It also helps remove a lot of hate and angst against this we may disagree with.

 

LOL, there is no need to censor yourself when discussing politics with me.

 

I too sometimes fail to remove my bias when looking at a certain topic.  I agree that it is human nature.

 

As I eluded to in other threads, I read books and get my news from a variety of sources.  When topics come up, I try to research as much as I can on them and form my own opinion.  I try to avoid "blogs" and OP-ED pieces since they usually have already come to a "conclusion".  I especially like books that contain footnotes that give me resources to do further research regarding certain topics.  I am certainly not someone that "gets his information from FOX News" as some on here claim.  Any time someone brings up the "FOX News" argument, it's a red flag for me that this person either gets their information from blogs, reddit or The Daily Show.  In another thread on this forum, there are even a couple of people that claim that The Daily Show is a "great resource for news".  While it's sad, unfortunately this is where we have come.

Quote:LOL, there is no need to censor yourself when discussing politics with me.

 

I too sometimes fail to remove my bias when looking at a certain topic.  I agree that it is human nature.

 

As I eluded to in other threads, I read books and get my news from a variety of sources.  When topics come up, I try to research as much as I can on them and form my own opinion.  I try to avoid "blogs" and OP-ED pieces since they usually have already come to a "conclusion".  I especially like books that contain footnotes that give me resources to do further research regarding certain topics.  I am certainly not someone that "gets his information from FOX News" as some on here claim.  Any time someone brings up the "FOX News" argument, it's a red flag for me that this person either gets their information from blogs, reddit or The Daily Show.  In another thread on this forum, there are even a couple of people that claim that The Daily Show is a "great resource for news".  While it's sad, unfortunately this is where we have come.

I usually watch Fox News when I want to hear the conservative side of things, MSNBC/ABC/Yahoo when I want to hear the liberal side of things, I'll watch BBC, CBC, or Al-Jazzera when I want to have a more global perspective on certain issues, but VICE News and RT America are probably the best and most reliable news sources anywhere. They go out and report the news as it is, and have a "no nonsense" journalistic style. They often cover stories that are under reported by most of the mainstream press, or not talked about at all (like the annual Bilderberg conference). But this is solely my personal perspective.

Quote:I usually watch Fox News when I want to hear the conservative side of things, MSNBC/ABC/Yahoo when I want to hear the liberal side of things, I'll watch BBC, CBC, or Al-Jazzera when I want to have a more global perspective on certain issues, but VICE News and RT America are probably the best and most reliable news sources anywhere. They go out and report the news as it is, and have a "no nonsense" journalistic style. They often cover stories that are under reported by most of the mainstream press, or not talked about at all (like the annual Bilderberg conference). But this is solely my personal perspective.

 

When you say that you watch certain channels for a politically biased point of view, what programs specifically do you watch?  Are you talking "hard news" programming or the "editorial" programs?

Maybe just leave the flag up there as they raise the killer up with it.