Castanet

Verum wrote:

Queen K wrote:I took the quote right from the LinkIn link you provided, which lead me to believe MJ was right.

The guy is going down in history as the the one who conducted the worst mass murder in Texas history, until the next gunman comes along.

Bad men don't go away. They get encouraged by the copycat syndrome however.

This is why we need to treat this without the sensational reporting, jumping to conclusions, and finger pointing. We need actions to prevent these things from happening again, not prayers, not sensationalism, but properly researched, non-partisan, non-lobbied actions to create a safer society. Maybe more guns are needed in the hands of well meaning citizens, maybe all guns need to be removed from society, maybe we need to focus on providing proper mental health, identifying people with major issues beforehand, etc. but the last thing we need is to pretend that thoughts and prayers are working or that the way it has been covered will lead to a rational and productive debate.

I hope this wasn't directed at me because I've made many a post about the asinine talking point of "thoughts and prayers." I too find it canned, bland and meaningless in the era and political will to go out and declare, "it's too soon to be talking about gun control."

I was just investigating CNN's coverage and found this gem, we can agree on where the politicans can shove their "thoughts and prayers."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/ma ... index.html

Verum wrote:

Glacier wrote:Annnnnd, we spoke too soon...

Yes, there is a lot of that going on at the moment. If only people would wait for the facts to reveal themselves instead of jumping to conclusions and betraying their biases.

No one is jumping to conclusions except you perhaps as you jump to the conclusion that people are jumping to conclusions. We are discussing this shooting. We are putting forward information based upon the information out there. That's how things work in the world, bud. Someone puts forward an idea, an argument, a theory, and then we refine it with criticism and new evidence.

We still don't know what the Quebec Mosque shooter's motive was, but I have a theory. I think he hated Muslims because he thinks Islam is evil, and he thinks it's okay to commit murder based on hatred. Obviously you think this is wrong of me to think this since there isn't enough evidence to convince you 100%.

Similarly, I think that's part of the reason for this latest shooting, but it's probably also related to his ex-wife's family and/or he was hell bent on providing retribution on her family and/or the church for his failed marriage, yadda, yadda. I'm not reaching a conclusion, I'm only discussing the evidence as it comes out. Sorry that you can't accept people using their heads to discuss things.

Queen K wrote:

Verum wrote:This is why we need to treat this without the sensational reporting, jumping to conclusions, and finger pointing. We need actions to prevent these things from happening again, not prayers, not sensationalism, but properly researched, non-partisan, non-lobbied actions to create a safer society. Maybe more guns are needed in the hands of well meaning citizens, maybe all guns need to be removed from society, maybe we need to focus on providing proper mental health, identifying people with major issues beforehand, etc. but the last thing we need is to pretend that thoughts and prayers are working or that the way it has been covered will lead to a rational and productive debate.

I hope this wasn't directed at me because I've made many a post about the asinine talking point of "thoughts and prayers." I too find it canned, bland and meaningless in the era and political will to go out and declare, "it's too soon to be talking about gun control."

I was just investigating CNN's coverage and found this gem, we can agree on where the politicans can shove their "thoughts and prayers."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/ma ... index.html

No. I was essentially agreeing re. the copycat syndrome

Glacier wrote:No one is jumping to conclusions except you perhaps as you jump to the conclusion that people are jumping to conclusions. We are discussing this shooting. We are putting forward information based upon the information out there. That's how things work in the world, bud. Someone puts forward an idea, an argument, a theory, and then we refine it with criticism and new evidence.

...

Some examples of conclusions being posted:

An intelligent guess would be: was it Antifa or Islam? I'm going with antifa since ISIS isn't mentioned in the news article.

I suppose it could be white nationalists, but they say it's a small town so probably a white or mixed race church.

He was a member of the UAF party (antifa) just doing what leftists normally do.

Another white christain terrorist

Judging by his LinkedIn account, he was a leftist SJW Christian

This kind of discussion is unhelpful for a number of reasons. Firstly, some will continue to believe the narrative if it supports their bias, even if said narrative is later debunked. Secondly, the sensational coverage by press and people in general is known to embolden "copycats" and as good citizens, it is our responsibility to keep coverage and discussion factual and almost boring.

Glacier wrote:WALSH: If You're Responding To A Massacre At A Church By Mocking Prayer, Please Shut Up

One could just as easily say that "If you're responding to a massacre at a church by promoting prayer, please shut up". To some it is as offensive to promote prayer publicly as a response as it is to be told by others that it is stupid to pray. The fact is that pretty much nobody is saying that you shouldn't pray or that to do so is stupid, just that you should keep it to yourself and rather politicians should post meaningful responses because prayer is not part of the solution in a country with separation of church and state.

the truth wrote:
please provide link that says he was a christian, no one seems to have seen one except you

It would seem that everyone, except you, looked at the link provided on the previous page where his profile clearly states that he not only went to bible camp, but also taught the word of god to children at bible camps.
I'd say that qualifies one as a Christian...no ?

missed it, thanks

Verum wrote:This kind of discussion is unhelpful for a number of reasons. Firstly, some will continue to believe the narrative if it supports their bias, even if said narrative is later debunked. Secondly, the sensational coverage by press and people in general is known to embolden "copycats" and as good citizens, it is our responsibility to keep coverage and discussion factual and almost boring.

And also this:

Farmmaa wrote:It would seem that everyone, except you, looked at the link provided on the previous page where his profile clearly states that he not only went to bible camp, but also taught the word of god to children at bible camps.
I'd say that qualifies one as a Christian...no ?

No, this comment is not unhelpful or disgusting or any other pejorative word you can dream up. Farmmaa is drawing logical conclusions. Sorry you don't like it, but he is allowed to do this, and no it is not unhelpful. It's actually helpful because it's based on a fact.

If it turns out that he was an anti-Christian bigot, and Farmmaa and I wrong about him being a Christian (I'm already learning toward the atheist theory), and we do not change our tune, we are then being unhelpful. If we post false information we are being unhelpful, BUT if we post facts like "his LinkedIn page stated he worked at a bible camp" that is helpful because it's a fact.

By contrast, if we were stating that CNN is claiming he was Islamic terrorist, that is unhelpful and a lie and #FakeNews.

I'm actually quite careful about what I post, but it's stupid to never draw any conclusions about anything until All the facts are out since all the facts never come out. To wait that long is to put reasonable conclusions on the same level as crazy conspiracy theories.

Glacier wrote:

Verum wrote:This kind of discussion is unhelpful for a number of reasons. Firstly, some will continue to believe the narrative if it supports their bias, even if said narrative is later debunked. Secondly, the sensational coverage by press and people in general is known to embolden "copycats" and as good citizens, it is our responsibility to keep coverage and discussion factual and almost boring.

And also this:

Farmmaa wrote:It would seem that everyone, except you, looked at the link provided on the previous page where his profile clearly states that he not only went to bible camp, but also taught the word of god to children at bible camps.
I'd say that qualifies one as a Christian...no ?

No, this comment is not unhelpful or disgusting or any other pejorative word you can dream up. Farmmaa is drawing logical conclusions. Sorry you don't like it, but he is allowed to do this, and no it is not unhelpful. It's actually helpful because it's based on a fact.

If it turns out that he was an anti-Christian bigot, and Farmmaa and I wrong about him being a Christian (I'm already learning toward the atheist theory), and we do not change our tune, we are then being unhelpful. If we post false information we are being unhelpful, BUT if we post facts like "his LinkedIn page stated he worked at a bible camp" that is helpful because it's a fact.

By contrast, if we were stating that CNN is claiming he was Islamic terrorist, that is unhelpful and a lie and #FakeNews.

I'm actually quite careful about what I post, but it's stupid to never draw any conclusions about anything until All the facts are out since all the facts never come out. To wait that long is to put reasonable conclusions on the same level as crazy conspiracy theories.

I never said these comments were disgusting, so please do not put words in my mouth. Additionally, I didn't directly comment on Farmmaa's comments at all. I was in particular targeting those who made completely baseless comments around the likes of Antifa, or SJW Christian, or even White Christian terrorist. These were at best huge leaps of faith, and at worst just simple outpourings of ignorant bias. Posting facts, good. Posting well supported theories, where such are clearly claimed as such, fine. But posting sensational, unfounded and personal biases do nothing to further the discussion constructively and are in all likelihood more damaging than anything else.

Boda wrote:

Glacier wrote: He was clearly a bad man who was banned from owning guns given his military discharge.

It is my understanding the comment quoted above is incorrect.
Mr. Kelley was not "dishonorably discharged" from the military leaving him with legal status to buy guns in the US.
It's the American way.
If more of those parishioners were "packin" his wouldn't have happened.

Edit to add:
I can't dispute "He was clearly a bad man" part of the quote tho.

Two things have been reported one being that he was discharged under a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD). If this is true then he would be legally allowed to purchase guns. And if he was Dishonorable Discharged (DD) US federal law prohibits possession of firearms by those who have been dishonorably discharged[17] per the Gun Control Act of 1968. Until this is clear it is to soon to say if he purchased the weapons illegally or not, or if his paperwork was not up to date.

A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), can only be given by a court-martial (either special or general) as punishment to an enlisted service-member. Bad conduct discharges are often preceded by a period of confinement in a military prison. The discharge itself is not executed until completion of both confinement and the appellate review process.
Virtually all veterans' benefits are forfeited by a Bad Conduct Discharge; BCD recipients are not eligible for VA disability compensation in accordance with 38 CFR 3.12.

Verum wrote:I never said these comments were disgusting, so please do not put words in my mouth. Additionally, I didn't directly comment on Farmmaa's comments at all. I was in particular targeting those who made completely baseless comments around the likes of Antifa, or SJW Christian, or even White Christian terrorist. These were at best huge leaps of faith, and at worst just simple outpourings of ignorant bias. Posting facts, good. Posting well supported theories, where such are clearly claimed as such, fine. But posting sensational, unfounded and personal biases do nothing to further the discussion constructively and are in all likelihood more damaging than anything else.

If you look at the LinkedIn account you will see SJW interests plus work at a Christian camp. To notice from that page that he could be leftist or christian is NOT baseless. It's not sensationalist at all. There are conflicting pieces of information right now. The media is pointing toward an atheist anti-Christian bigot and LinkedIn is pointing toward being a Christian. Discussing which is more weight, etc. is NOT unhelpful. It's a starting point to try and figure out what the hell is going on here.

Reported screen capture of his FB page show under likes show various atheist groups, this being the main source of information about whether he was an atheist or not. And on the teaching at a bible camp, it was commented on by one of the people that went to school with him, that he attended "one" day as a counselor.

It's looking as though religion had nothing to do with this, reports now are saying it's very likely he was hunting for his mother in law whom he thought would be at the church.

Edit: add link
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com ... a-41892838