Nor should they. Everyone should be loud and proud about their beliefs. Subterfuge and hidden motives tend to be malicious in nature, and we'd have a heck of an easier time educating the populace if all the quiet backstabby lying types instead just said their intentions in as clear English as the redditheist.
My personal view is we had a half-dozen or so people who actually knew some inkling of SOME intentions of God, and those fractions of intent were then told, re-told, re-told, re-told, translated, re-told, translated, re-told again, and localized five times in the process, and we all know how good a job localizers do.
The double standard on this is actually really annoying, and a big part of what makes atheists who bother speaking up so militant.
In almost any context, the religious can bring up their beliefs and espouse them ad nauseum. They can tell you how their morals and eorldviews are shaped by it, and how you should contort your own to fit. They'll tell you, with great confidence, about the history of the universe and how reality itself functions, as described in their holy book(s).
And this is all generally seen as perfectly normal and correct. The only push-back you might expect to get is from people who either have a different religion, or come from a different sect or denomination of your own, and that pushback is most often of the sort that goes "no, sky king said not to eat the green round pickles on Thursdays. The green square pickles are perfectly fine!".
And then the atheist pipes up with some banal and milquetoast "I think that sounds like a load of rubbish", and suddenly the metaphorical (or literal, if you're arguing with mudslimes) knives come out.
Honestly, the militancy of the people who bother arguing against religiosity online shouldn't be remotely suprising. You filter out the conflict averse by the sheer amount of bullying they get, and all you end up left with are the people both willing and able to tell you to get fucked, as well as an axe to grind on the issue.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
That's a weird question to ask about a crime that took place in a constitutional monarchy with some democratic features.
It can be your opinion that the government is lying and Rudakubana actually had a political motive. But you'd just be making shit up in your own head to feel like a big bad rebel.
months of interviews with UK police who have for 50 years searched for any reason to ignore and downplay muslim crimes?
THAT’s literally the source you trust.
The same source that called him a Welsh Choirboy, that refused to publish that he had an Al Queada manual and Ricin?
edit: and the same police that was busy attending a gay pride march when the stabbings happened
So far since he's been on this board I've only seen him whine about Christianity and spew apologetics for mohammadans and pedophiles.
I just saw his defense of the jeet kidnapper
Right? So blatant I found myself wondering if it's Imp on another alt now that he finally got banned from anywhere with an audience.
If so, it must be taking all his meager willpower to hold back from ranting about natalism.
Why would I whine about Christianity? Religion is suited only for drooling retards, but that's not a whine - it's a simple observation.
Case in point. No atheist, ever, has been able to keep his atheautism to himself.
As an atheist i can say we aren’t all like… oh wait im proving your point :-(
Nor should they. Everyone should be loud and proud about their beliefs. Subterfuge and hidden motives tend to be malicious in nature, and we'd have a heck of an easier time educating the populace if all the quiet backstabby lying types instead just said their intentions in as clear English as the redditheist.
My personal view is we had a half-dozen or so people who actually knew some inkling of SOME intentions of God, and those fractions of intent were then told, re-told, re-told, re-told, translated, re-told, translated, re-told again, and localized five times in the process, and we all know how good a job localizers do.
Somewhat of a fallacy since anyone that does proves the point, and those who don't remain an unknown value to be ignored when discussing things.
The double standard on this is actually really annoying, and a big part of what makes atheists who bother speaking up so militant.
In almost any context, the religious can bring up their beliefs and espouse them ad nauseum. They can tell you how their morals and eorldviews are shaped by it, and how you should contort your own to fit. They'll tell you, with great confidence, about the history of the universe and how reality itself functions, as described in their holy book(s).
And this is all generally seen as perfectly normal and correct. The only push-back you might expect to get is from people who either have a different religion, or come from a different sect or denomination of your own, and that pushback is most often of the sort that goes "no, sky king said not to eat the green round pickles on Thursdays. The green square pickles are perfectly fine!".
And then the atheist pipes up with some banal and milquetoast "I think that sounds like a load of rubbish", and suddenly the metaphorical (or literal, if you're arguing with mudslimes) knives come out.
Honestly, the militancy of the people who bother arguing against religiosity online shouldn't be remotely suprising. You filter out the conflict averse by the sheer amount of bullying they get, and all you end up left with are the people both willing and able to tell you to get fucked, as well as an axe to grind on the issue.
Eh?
You sound like you're 12.
I'm an atheist and you're just fucking embarrassing. You are a midwit that doesn't know what he doesn't know.
And you sound like a lonely faggot who wants to suck up to insane people because he can't find real friends.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
Then shut up. Don't post. The government can advocate just fine for itself, it doesn't need unthinking parrots on message boards.
Do you not understand how democracy works?
That's a weird question to ask about a crime that took place in a constitutional monarchy with some democratic features.
It can be your opinion that the government is lying and Rudakubana actually had a political motive. But you'd just be making shit up in your own head to feel like a big bad rebel.