MP Jo Cox injured amid shooting reports

[Duke Wellington]

4 hours ago, questionmark said:

So what are you saying, that they have done it so we get to do it too? That is the best terrorism apology I have heard yet.

 

What I was saying is that if a politician makes themselves a target they should have the sense to employ some minders.

[questionmark]

Just now, RabidMongoose said:

What I was saying is that if a politician makes themselves a target they should have the sense to employ some minders.

And I am saying that if people justify acts of terrorism (which attacking a politician with a gun undoubtedly is) they are terror sympathizers (sorry, but it seems only to sink in if you say so directly). No matter what a politician says or stands for.

[LV-426]

6 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Some posters here have been referring to Mair as 'mentally unstable'/a 'nutjob', but when people are squeezed and crushed so hard by the ruling classes who have all the power, it seems to me that far from being a mental aberration, it is, in fact, a very natural and not unexpected response.

There's nothing natural about the actions of Mair. The extreme level of violence he used against this poor woman; kicking, stabbing and shooting her in the face, is very personal in nature to the perpetrator, and typical of psychopaths, not an oppressed citizen making a political point.

I'm no expert, but I did study Psychology at Uni for a while, and I've done a lot of reading around abnormal psychology. My guess is that alongside the right-wing views, you'll end up seeing a sexual element to his crime (it isn't always about the physical act) and the fact that he was a loner raised by his grandmother will be a major contributor to the case.

[Duke Wellington]

45 minutes ago, questionmark said:

And I am saying that if people justify acts of terrorism (which attacking a politician with a gun undoubtedly is) they are terror sympathizers (sorry, but it seems only to sink in if you say so directly). No matter what a politician says or stands for.

What you seem unable to consider is that if you make yourself a target by campaigning on a strongly polarising topic then you need to take precautions.

Justifying or condoning an attack is irrelevant if you are dead because you failed to take threats to your safety seriously.

[questionmark]

Just now, RabidMongoose said:

What you seem unable to consider is that if you make yourself a target by campaigning on a strongly polarising topic then you need to take precautions.

Justifying or condoning an attack is irrelevant if you are dead because you failed to take threats to your safety seriously.

What you are not getting is that there us NO JUSTIFICATION for violence. Period. And certainly no justification for violence to achieve political aims.

 

[Duke Wellington]

3 minutes ago, questionmark said:

What you are not getting is that there us NO JUSTIFICATION for violence. Period. And certainly no justification for violence to achieve political aims.

 

You are arguing a principle - that violence to achieve political aims is wrong.

What I am trying to point out to you is that not all people abide by the same set of principles. Ignoring this fact is what gets people killed.

[Professor Buzzkill]

15 minutes ago, questionmark said:

What you are not getting is that there us NO JUSTIFICATION for violence. Period. And certainly no justification for violence to achieve political aims.

 

OK.  So the American Revolution had no justification?

[questionmark]

Just now, RabidMongoose said:

You are arguing a principle - that violence to achieve political aims is wrong.

What I am trying to point out to you is that not all people abide by the same set of principles. Ignoring this fact is what gets people killed.

And by that you are also justifying ISIS.

 

[questionmark]

1 minute ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

OK.  So the American Revolution had no justification?

Yes, But that was to replace a dictatorship with a democracy. Here we are talking about killing those who have a different opinion, which is abolishing a democracy. Besides that, the violence started with those who wanted to keep the dictatorship.

I am sorry for you if you don't understand the difference.

 

 

[Space Commander Travis]

15 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

You are arguing a principle - that violence to achieve political aims is wrong.

What I am trying to point out to you is that not all people abide by the same set of principles. Ignoring this fact is what gets people killed.

You do appreciate that what you're saying is effectively that victims of terrorism should have been more careful?

[Professor Buzzkill]

12 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Yes, But that was to replace a dictatorship with a democracy. Here we are talking about killing those who have a different opinion, which is abolishing a democracy. Besides that, the violence started with those who wanted to keep the dictatorship.

I am sorry for you if you don't understand the difference.

 

 

So when you  said there was no justification of violence for political ends were you lying or too lazy to list the many exceptions?

[Space Commander Travis]

Just now, Professor Buzzkill said:

So when you  said there was no justification of violence for political ends were you lying or too lazy to list the many exceptions?

Can we just confirm that you do accept that you're arguing in justification of terrorism? Or is it that it's only terrorism when others, whose views we may not like, do it to us? 

[Space Commander Travis]

This subject has really brought people's true selves out. And it's really not a very pretty sight. 

[questionmark]

Just now, Professor Buzzkill said:

So when you  said there was no justification of violence for political ends were you lying or too lazy to list the many exceptions?

There is only one exception, and that would be defending yourself against violence. Everything else is terrorism. And if you say American revolution, the British, instead of starting with their repression machinery could also have just left. So violence was justified.

That you don't agree with the stance if another person there is no justification for violence. Period.

 

[Duke Wellington]

12 minutes ago, questionmark said:

And by that you are also justifying ISIS.

 

There have been plenty of people over the centuries who ended up dying because of their principles. Julius Caesar was one. He made enemies by making himself dictator for life then refused minders due to his principles. I bet he regretted it. I also bet he cried out - 'you cannot do this, I am your dictator!!!!'

His principles didn't save him.

 

 

 

 

[Duke Wellington]

8 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

You do appreciate that what you're saying is effectively that victims of terrorism should have been more careful?

No, I am saying if you are making it likely that someone will try an act of terrorism on you then put your principles aside and get a minder.

If you ignore an obvious threat then you're a fool.

Edited June 19, 2016 by RabidMongoose

[questionmark]

Just now, RabidMongoose said:

There have been plenty of people over the centuries who ended up dying because of their principles. Julius Caesar was one. He made enemies by making himself dictator for life then refused minders due to his principles. I bet he regretted it. I also bet he cried out - 'you cannot do this, I am your dictator!!!!'

His principles didn't save him.

 

 

 

 

So you claim that Brutus was right to assassinate his uncle, or how do we have to understand that?

You are going through great lengths here to justify something that is not justifiable. And that is taking somebody's life because he/she does not agree with you. Hope you don't run into somebody with your same frame of mind and differing opinion. If you do, please notify us so we can collect for a reef.

[Space Commander Travis]

If it had been a Conservative , anti-immigration MP, would people be taking quite the same attitude that "well, you'll have to accept the risk, if you're going to have unpopular views"? Would people be jumping up and down and shouting that something ought to be done about terrorism? I expect so. 

[Duke Wellington]

8 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

If it had been a Conservative , anti-immigration MP, would people be taking quite the same attitude that "well, you'll have to accept the risk, if you're going to have unpopular views"? Would people be jumping up and down and shouting that something ought to be done about terrorism? I expect so. 

I question the use of the word unpopular but putting that aside we find anti-immigration politicians have minders for a reason.

Should they all sack their minders because of the principle where they should be able to campaign on what they want without fear of being attacked? I think they are a bit more realistic about the threats towards their safety than that. They want to live not die so they employ the minders.

Edited June 19, 2016 by RabidMongoose

[hetrodoxly]

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

There's nothing natural about the actions of Mair. The extreme level of violence he used against this poor woman; kicking, stabbing and shooting her in the face, is very personal in nature to the perpetrator, and typical of psychopaths, not an oppressed citizen making a political point.

I'm no expert, but I did study Psychology at Uni for a while, and I've done a lot of reading around abnormal psychology. My guess is that alongside the right-wing views, you'll end up seeing a sexual element to his crime (it isn't always about the physical act) and the fact that he was a loner raised by his grandmother will be a major contributor to the case.

Sounds plausible, he didn't set a bomb, blow himself up or spray bullets with the intention of killing as many people as possible.

[Duke Wellington]

16 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

Sounds plausible, he didn't set a bomb, blow himself up or spray bullets with the intention of killing as many people as possible.

That poster admitted they were no expect in psychology.

The act of shooting someone in the face (if this is what occurred) is usually about destroying the persons identity not sexual gratification. It suggests he knew who she was (possibly from the local media), has associated her facial image with the political views he is against, then set out too destroy that image. It is not a crime motivated by jealously or attention seeking so the guy is unlikely to be psychopathic. I suspect the guy is also unlikely to be a loner although that won't stop the media putting that into news articles for sensationalism.

Edited June 19, 2016 by RabidMongoose

[Crabby Kitten]

History repeating again.

Way back in 2003 before the EU refurendum in Sweden, Anna Lindh (pro-EU) was killed.

[+ouija ouija]

2 hours ago, LV-426 said:

There's nothing natural about the actions of Mair. The extreme level of violence he used against this poor woman; kicking, stabbing and shooting her in the face, is very personal in nature to the perpetrator, and typical of psychopaths, not an oppressed citizen making a political point.

I'm no expert, but I did study Psychology at Uni for a while, and I've done a lot of reading around abnormal psychology. My guess is that alongside the right-wing views, you'll end up seeing a sexual element to his crime (it isn't always about the physical act) and the fact that he was a loner raised by his grandmother will be a major contributor to the case.

I disagree with your assessment of Mair as being 'typical of psychopaths, not an oppressed citizen making a political point'. I think you've got that wrong.

2 hours ago, questionmark said:

What you are not getting is that there us NO JUSTIFICATION for violence. Period. And certainly no justification for violence to achieve political aims.

 

Where has RabidMongoose said that violence can be justified? Something is getting twisted between you reading what he/she has said and then your brain interpreting it. You don't seem to be allowing yourself to understand what he/she is saying.

2 hours ago, questionmark said:

And by that you are also justifying ISIS.

 

That doesn't even make sense!

1 hour ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

You do appreciate that what you're saying is effectively that victims of terrorism should have been more careful?

No, that is not what Rabid Mongoose is saying. Again, there are two sides to every coin, two situations existing at the same time: in the real world, if you know you may attract the wrong kind of attention it is only sensible to take some precautions. If you choose not to do that, for whatever reason, of course you are not to blame if you are attacked. All that could be said was that the odds of you being attacked were different. 

1 hour ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

This subject has really brought people's true selves out. And it's really not a very pretty sight. 

The truth is often not pretty, and we are certainly living in very ugly times.

1 hour ago, questionmark said:

So you claim that Brutus was right to assassinate his uncle, or how do we have to understand that?

You are going through great lengths here to justify something that is not justifiable. And that is taking somebody's life because he/she does not agree with you. Hope you don't run into somebody with your same frame of mind and differing opinion. If you do, please notify us so we can collect for a reef.

"...... because he/she does not agree with you". We're not talking about which curry recipe is the best or which football team is the best! We're talking about people who were born here and have lived all their lives here and had parents, grandparents and uncles fight in two world wars for a half decent life for all British people, especially when they fell on hard times. People who've saved all their lives to enjoy a comfortable retirement and get a good quality of medical care and be properly looked after when they can no longer look after themselves. People who thought their grandchildren would get a good level of education, good dental care etc. etc.. What they find instead is the appalling situation we're in today. The lower working classes have been pushed around, exploited, ridiculed and belittled for generations and now the situation is getting worse at a frightening speed. This is the 'disagreement' we have with politicians who are so out of touch it beggars belief. What makes it worse is that so many of them have no interest in British citizens and make no attempt to hide that fact.  

[LV-426]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

I disagree with your assessment of Mair as being 'typical of psychopaths, not an oppressed citizen making a political point'. I think you've got that wrong.

Just to be precise, I didn't specifically identify Mair as being a psychopath. There isn't enough evidence to state that yet - in fact in psychiatric and psychological terms, it would be defined as a series of personality disorders rather than that specific label.

I described the level of violence used, and in particular the act of shooting someone in the face as indicative of psychopathy. It's not just about killing someone, it's about destroying their identity. To be able to commit such a heinous act to any human being, yet alone a pretty young mother takes a lack of empathy and remorse that is typically associated with psychopathic behaviour.

Like I say, I'm not an expert, but if you think I'm wrong, you'll need to provide some credible examples of this level of violence being used without aberrant psychology.

Edited June 19, 2016 by LV-426
Typo

[Duke Wellington]

10 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Just to be precise, I didn't specifically identify Mair as being a psychopath. There isn't enough evidence to state that yet - in fact in psychiatric and psychological terms, it would be defined as a series of personality disorders rather than that specific label.

I described the level of violence used, and in particular the act of shooting someone in the face as indicative of psychopathy. It's not just about killing someone, it's about destroying their identity. To be able to commit such a heinous act to any human being, yet alone a pretty young mother takes a lack of empathy and remorse that is typically associated with psychopathic behaviour.

Like I say, I'm not an expert, but if you think I'm wrong, you'll need to provide some credible examples of this level of violence being used without aberrant psychology.

If politicians close down Democracy in their country on topics such as mass-immigration then I think its inappropriate to label people having a pop at them as being mentally ill.

If I campaigned for anti-immigration policies I would find politicians quickly trying to silence me. They would tell the public I am a racist or extremist then try to deny me a platform for spreading such hateful views. This is what our Democracy has come too where everybody who doesn't conform to a narrow set of views has to run the gauntlet of verbal annihilation. Its not group think either, they know what they are doing, its their strategy for getting rid of everyone so only their views are used to formulate policy.

Its why we have people like Farage pointing out that if the politicians across the EU refuse to represent then sooner of later there is a revolution coming as it will be the only way people can stand up for themselves.