Store owner allegedly killed over hanging Pride flag in Lake Arrowhead (California) - Shooter killed by police

[Ceallaigh]

Wow.
A woman is dead.
Her killer is dead.
But what did we expect to happen with all of the liberalism oozing about?

Really?

Sorry, I don't always forsee what's going set off outrage. Should I grovel and plead for forgiveness?

 

[Pommer]

Sorry, I don't always forsee what's going set off outrage. Should I grovel and plead for forgiveness?

You do you.
Don’t mind me, I’m only a godless heathen, after all.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You do you.
Don’t mind me, I’m only a godless heathen, after all.

Not to mention maudlin.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Did anyone hear about the store clerk who was shot and killed today? No? Do you really care? Not really. Unless it can be turned into something political. Then it will stir up all kinds of concern.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did anyone hear about the store clerk who was shot and killed today? No? Do you really care? Not really.

They acted on their own volition. Their motivation was their own self interest. Why should anyone care? It's not as though they clearly expressed their antipathy toward a group of people motivated by their beliefs shared by others in their affinity group.

 

[Ceallaigh]

They acted on their own volition. Their motivation was their own self interest. Why should anyone care? It's not as though they clearly expressed their antipathy toward a group of people motivated by their beliefs shared by others in their affinity group.

Right so blame all Christians who are anti-LGBT and at the very least imply that they're a domestic terrorist group.

 

[Pommer]

Right so blame all Christians who are anti-LGBT and at the very least imply that they're a domestic terrorist group.

Why so defensive?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Why so defensive?

I'm just pointing out what appears to be obvious.

 

[Pommer]

I'm just pointing out what appears to be obvious.

No, I understand.
Even though you’re Christian, and believe that LGBTQIA+ people need to repent of being LGBTQIA+ (however that is “done”) you don’t necessarily want to see any of them killed (nor anyone who might be a champion for LGBTQIA+ rights).

If only they had stayed in the closet and not made such a fuss about existing, none of this would have needed to have happened.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, I understand.
Even though you’re Christian, and believe that LGBTQIA+ people need to repent of being LGBTQIA+ (however that is “done”) you don’t necessarily want to see any of them killed (nor anyone who might be a champion for LGBTQIA+ rights).

If only they had stayed in the closet and not made such a fuss about existing, none of this would have needed to have happened.

Actually I'm just bothered by the meddling with children agenda. And how people have been persuaded to go absolutely gaga over them and give them whatever they want. Especially in regards to children.

 

[Pommer]

Actually I'm just bothered by the meddling with children agenda. And how people have been persuaded to go absolutely gaga over them and give them whatever they want. Especially in regards to children.

The only children affected by the activism are those who will be the recipients of the ire for being LGBTQIA+ (since we already know that a certain percentage will be so “inclined”).
Those who decry any activism by sexual minorities are always going to champion for “the innocent“ as if ignorance is the same.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The only children affected by the activism are those who will be the recipients of the ire for being LGBTQIA+ (since we already know that a certain percentage will be so “inclined”).

The children who are being targeted are all of the ones in public schools, public libraries, Disneyland etc. The idea that most children have to be immersed in as much LGBTQQIP2SAA+ as possible because 1% of kids is transparent nonsense.

 

[dzheremi]

The children who are being targeted are the ones in public schools, public libraries, Disneyland etc. The idea that most children have to be immersed in as much LGBTQQIP2SAA+ as possible because 1% of kids is transparent nonsense.

The issue with making negative arguments from numbers is that there will always be something that you want societies to be open to that is just as unpopular around the world as the thing that you are arguing is too numerically insignificant to warrant mention in your own society. For instance, there are approximately 40 countries in the world today (you can see the list and order it by % of adherents at Wiki) where adherents of Protestant Christianity make up less than 1% of the total population. Would it therefore be appropriate, in those cases, for someone to say "The idea that people in a given society should be exposed to Christianity when so few in it practice my preferred form is transparently nonsensical?", or does that suddenly seem like not such a great argument to make? [NB: Including those that are at 1% even would add 8 or 9 more countries to the list: Bulgaria, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Qatar, Spain, Vietnam, and potentially Yemen ("approximately 1%")].

Besides, arguing that there are too few people in category X to warrant other people knowing about them seems like a stance you shouldn't want to take when your own group is rapidly falling in number. I'm sure most of the people who are still Christians in places like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and elsewhere descend from people who likely could not have foreseen their communities being at such low levels as they are today relative to the majority religion of those areas. Sometimes the collapse is fairly swift and complete due to various catastrophes (e.g., Christianity in Yemen was snuffed out not by the Muslims, but largely by pre-Islamic Himyarites, who had converted from Semitic polytheism to Judaism by the last decade of the 4th century), while at other times it takes centuries longer than we usually imagine it did (e.g., according to the 12th century list of Syriac dioceses maintained by HH Michael Rabo/Michael the Syrian, there were native Christians in what is now Afghanistan until his day, with the Syriac Orthodox dioceses of Herat and Aprah/Farah lasting until the 9th century, when the people embraced Nestorianism, which was always numerically much stronger in the Persian Empire than Orthodoxy was; the very last Christians of any kind to live natively in Afghanistan were apparently a small community of Armenian merchants present there in approximately the 17th century; just as a reminder, Afghanistan's Islamicization took place in fits and starts from the original Arab Muslim conquests of Sassanid Persia in the 640s until the 12th century, under the Ghaznavids). Either way, it does happen, since Christianity was not exactly designed to make the world love it.

It was not so long ago on the historical timeline of a 2,000 year old religion that 0% of what is now the United States was Christian. It's not like it's somehow not possible that things could return to that state of affairs, and when/if that happens, will pointing out that people 'were gay' around children somehow do anything to change that?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The issue with making negative arguments from numbers is that there will always be something that you want societies to be open to that is just as unpopular around the world as the thing that you are arguing is too numerically insignificant to warrant mention in your own society. For instance, there are approximately 40 countries in the world today (you can see the list and order it by % of adherents at Wiki) where adherents of Protestant Christianity make up less than 1% of the total population. Would it therefore be appropriate, in those cases, for someone to say "The idea that people in a given society should be exposed to Christianity when so few in it practice my preferred form is transparently nonsensical?", or does that suddenly seem like not such a great argument to make? [NB: Including those that are at 1% even would add 8 or 9 more countries to the list: Bulgaria, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Qatar, Spain, Vietnam, and potentially Yemen ("approximately 1%")].

Besides, arguing that there are too few people in category X to warrant other people knowing about them seems like a stance you shouldn't want to take when your own group is rapidly falling in number. I'm sure most of the people who are still Christians in places like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and elsewhere descend from people who likely could not have foreseen their communities being at such low levels as they are today relative to the majority religion of those areas. Sometimes the collapse is fairly swift and complete due to various catastrophes (e.g., Christianity in Yemen was snuffed out not by the Muslims, but largely by pre-Islamic Himyarites, who had converted from Semitic polytheism to Judaism by the last decade of the 4th century), while at other times it takes centuries longer than we usually imagine it did (e.g., according to the 12th century list of Syriac dioceses maintained by HH Michael Rabo/Michael the Syrian, there were native Christians in what is now Afghanistan until his day, with the Syriac Orthodox dioceses of Herat and Aprah/Farah lasting until the 9th century, when the people embraced Nestorianism, which was always numerically much stronger in the Persian Empire than Orthodoxy was; the very last Christians of any kind to live natively in Afghanistan were apparently a small community of Armenian merchants present there in approximately the 17th century; just as a reminder, Afghanistan's Islamicization took place in fits and starts from the original Arab Muslim conquests of Sassanid Persia in the 640s until the 12th century, under the Ghaznavids). Either way, it does happen, since Christianity was not exactly designed to make the world love it.

It was not so long ago on the historical timeline of a 2,000 year old religion that 0% of what is now the United States was Christian. It's not like it's somehow not possible that things could return to that state of affairs, and when/if that happens, will pointing out that people 'were gay' around children somehow do anything to change that?

Little kids aren't being immersed in religion in public schools. They are however being immersed in gender fluid, sexual orientation fluid and transexual fluid idiology.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Wow.
A woman is dead.
Her killer is dead.
But what did we expect to happen with all of the liberalism oozing about?

Really?

A woman (a co-worker) and a man are dead. Their killer is dead.
Are you going to blame liberalism for white supremacy?

REALLY?

Air Force Vet Killed in Winthrop Shooting Rampage Laid to Rest

Ramona Cooper, a 60-year-old Air Force veteran, was laid to rest Tuesday after she was killed in a violent rampage just over a week ago in Winthrop, Massachusetts. The community has continued to gather and remember the victims of the shooting, Cooper and David Green, a 58-year-old retired...

www.nbcboston.com

 

[Bradskii]

Won't someone think of the children?

The new argument.

 

[dzheremi]

Little kids aren't being immersed in religion in public schools. They are however being immersed in gender fluid, sexual orientation fluid and transexual fluid idiology.

This is not a response to my reply at all. I thought it was pretty clear, but in case it wasn't clear for you, my point was that the argument that "all these kids shouldn't be exposed to this stuff for the sake of the 1% who are trans" is not a very good one, as the prevalence of something in a given society should not determine whether or not people learn about it. Or, to put it another way, if you are going to say "We shouldn't be allowing this, since trans-identifying people only make up 1% of society", then you should not be surprised should your own argument be used against the teaching of things that you support but which are nonetheless numerically insignificant in many nations, like Christianity.

It's a parallel meant to get you to rethink your argument, not a claim about what kids are being exposed to in schools.

 

[Ceallaigh]

This is not a response to my reply at all. I thought it was pretty clear.

Do you really expect the average person to be able clearly follow that kind of a post?

but in case it wasn't clear for you, my point was that the argument that "all these kids shouldn't be exposed to this stuff for the sake of the 1% who are trans" is not a very good one, as the prevalence of something in a given society should not determine whether or not people learn about it. Or, to put it another way, if you are going to say "We shouldn't be allowing this, since trans-identifying people only make up 1% of society", then you should not be surprised should your own argument be used against the teaching of things that you support but which are nonetheless numerically insignificant in many nations, like Christianity.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that I don't buy that as reason for it. It's totally inappropriate to subject elementary school kids to complex bizarre sexuality concepts. The excuse I come across often for it, is that one or two elementary students who might be gay need to be taught all of that (along with the rest of the class), is pure nonsense.

 

[dzheremi]

Do you really expect the average person to be able clearly follow that kind of a post?

Yes, I do. I don't think it's overly complicated. You don't even have to follow the link to the chart, if you don't want to.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that I don't buy that as reason for it. It's totally inappropriate to subject elementary school kids to complex bizarre sexuality concepts. The excuse I come across often for it, is that one or two elementary students who might be gay need to be taught all of that (along with the rest of the class), is pure nonsense.

How is this not still the same argument from numbers? You're saying "it's one or two elementary school students who might be gay", and I'm saying that the same bad argument can be used to shut out anything a minority might do or be that makes them a minority (i.e., it's only one or two black kids, it's only one or two Christians, it's only one or two XYZ"), which doesn't seem like a very good stance to have if you care about the fact that you are a minority in other contexts, and very well may be one in your own society in the future.

Also, it seems to imply that there is a tipping point, percentage or raw numbers-wise, past which the teaching of the subject will become necessary. That seems weird, given that this is presumably what you'd like to avoid (elementary school or higher school classes with 20, 30+ kids identifying as LGBT).

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes, I do. I don't think it's overly complicated. You don't even have to follow the link to the chart, if you don't want to.

I don't get how you can't see it as a really long complexed post in what's supposed to be an ordinary conversation.

How is this not still the same argument from numbers? You're saying "it's one or two elementary school students who might be gay",

No I'm saying that's what I've seen others say.

and I'm saying that the same bad argument can be used to shut out anything a minority might do or be that makes them a minority (i.e., it's only one or two black kids, it's only one or two Christians, it's only one or two XYZ"), which doesn't seem like a very good stance to have if you care about the fact that you are a minority in other contexts, and very well may be one in your own society in the future.

Also, it seems to imply that there is a tipping point, percentage or raw numbers-wise, past which the teaching of the subject will become necessary. That seems weird, given that this is presumably what you'd like to avoid (elementary school or higher school classes with 20, 30+ kids identifying as LGBT).

Do you think elementary school kids should be taught complex controversial ideology regarding sexuality ? Yes or no?