Quote:Descriptors, yes. Racism, not really. Radical blacks... say those lovely Black Panthers from the 60-70? They were radical and black... that was their defining characteristics. Like the radical Muslims, have the main descriptor as radical and Islamic. Like the KKK is radical and white.
Yet another example of radical blacks being angry and attacking non-combatants.
Can you spot the racism in that sentence?
If we use your 'suggestions', Epsilon, we dilute the point of the sentence. Sanitize it. Call a spade a spade.... The nutball in the origin article was quoted with:
Quote:That was his cause... Islam... not any specific group. If we use your suggest of '"radical fanatic", I can easily interpret that this man with in fact a Pokemon fanboy or a stamp collector. That and "radical fanatic" is a bit repetitive. Your other suggestion would mean that practically anyone... also the reason behind the attack was that of "Muslim, kill Jews! Muslim mad at Israel!" So this is a rather specific case of a 'hate crime' by a Muslim on random Jews. If we take the descriptors out it does become random loon shoots 6 kills 1, which means that this thread would be a series of post to articles about homicidal loons. That I would have preferred really.
But the federation's vice-president, Amy Wasser-Simpson, told the Seattle Times in a story on its web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.
Quote:For an instance of sanitizing speech, this s a good example of a non argument. Why? In order for this to work you would have to find an example of someone killing in the name of: GTA. The article in the first post is a clear example of someone who provided 'I'm Muslim' As his primary motivation.
This man was a psychopath. Blaming what he did on Islam is like blaming Grand Theft Auto for gang crime.
Also format wise, your argument is that gang violence was caused by GTA... When GTA is a parody of gang violence. Meaning the violence was pre-existing. By format this argues that killing in the name of Islam is a major cause of Islam. Which I don't think was your intent.
Quote:Actually its a 'Psycho Muslim' thing... which was the point of the first post and article, in the first place.
"It's not a Muslim thing, it's a psycho thing".
Quote:No, no you didn't. What you did was slip into 'Mock the mindless idiots that disagree with me' mode again. Which the talking to a small child tone of your post, is focused on. Now that you have mockingly answered 'Yes', to my question we can continue.
I'm glad to have helped you get caught up on posts two above yours and the fifth thread from the top of this forum!
What you did was attempt to switch the topic from the current one to the 'Hezbollah vs. Isreal' war going on... which is what you tried to lead into... ignoring the topic of this thread. Changing the subject with you is for one reason... lack of a useful counter-argument on your side. The whole, 'Now that I'm short of legs to my argument... topic switch as I won that one. This I proclaim.' thing.
I'm fully aware that the 'Hezbollah vs. Israel' was brought up... which was specifically a question of the mind set involved in their 'rack up the civilian body count' mentality. Which was a reference to the same mind set of the 'I'm mad at a country, I'm going to go kill people of the same religion' thing from the first article. They were both brought up in the context of killing random people in the name of: Islam! context. Your attempt at a shift was to the 'Vs Isreal' part not the 'mind set of the Radical Muslim' part.
Oh and Epsilon usually ends up on your side with random arguements that are often easy to point out the flaws in.