Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Christchurch shooting


psyche101

Recommended Posts

slightly off topic, i just wanna say how outta such an awful attack on humanity the leader of a small and insignificant country such as New Zealand has shined on the world stage. the human compassion and dignity PM Arden has shown is to be commended. in an age of the anti-statesman, a nobody has shown the movers and shakers of the world stage what it is to value the human element and see through the many divisions that rack our planet. 

Bravo! 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kismit said:

Absolutely in topic. So much more so than the debate on American politics. If we lived in a world where people spent more time showing empathy and caring for each other instead of a world where we place blame and forget about the real victims,life would be a far more peaceful thing.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even that wacko figured this out :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kismit said:

But we are not really insignificant 

:lol:

i don't mean to be rude but if a spaceship zapped New Zealand off the map, apart from Australia and the world of Rugby who would really care? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

i don't mean to be rude but if a spaceship zapped New Zealand off the map, apart from Australia and the world of Rugby who would really care? 

Wow. Actually she was responding to something I said Risky. I would miss New Zealand. I love kiwis and I hope to see the hobbit city someday.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, susieice said:

Wow. Actually she was responding to something I said Risky. I would miss New Zealand. I love kiwis and I hope to see the hobbit city someday.

i know and I'm not being rude. just trying to be funny. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i don't mean to be rude but if a spaceship zapped New Zealand off the map, apart from Australia and the world of Rugby who would really care? 

I would :(

to be fair we don’t make it on to many maps, we probably don’t really exist. Like that imaginary island to the West of here.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kismit said:

I would :(

to be fair we don’t make it on to many maps, we probably don’t really exist. Like that imaginary island to the West of here.

...thats not a bad thing, you know. i read somewhere that New Zealand hosts a lot hideaway's for American and European billionaires looking for peace and quiet. i like quiet.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today as a nation we held a public Call to Prayer in Christchurch. An act which allowed many of the younger Muslims affected a chance to feel safe to worship. 

I am an Atheist and proudly so, but all faiths should feel safe to worship as they see fit.

The service has been heart breaking and empowering. For all of us.

 I would hope that ,what we have been through might touch others and teach them a new way to behave.

Live Call to prayer in Hadley park

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it has only just hit me that this took place in Christchurch, literally named the Church of Christ.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is necessary to prohibit selling weapons in the store, as now people have become too emotional, which is why they are short for reprisals. And if he had only a knife or a baton, he would not have killed 50 people. Now the weapon is no longer for defense but for attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

So what's the solution? North Korea and Russia these days have shown us they can restrict information flowing in through their servers.  Do we want western Govts to do the same or decide which ones, i.e. certain sites showing disgusting images and videos of extreme violence?  Would/could people controlling the information being released to the public be subject to bribes and favoritism?  Would controlling what we see subjugate our free will or would it be acceptable so we can safe guard the innocent?

This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping for!  and I have NO IDEA what the answer is. How we protect minds, freedom and society all at the same time in the information age must become the most delicate balancing act in human history or we are simply screwed.

We, as in civilized society, seem to have been able to do so with ISIS and their propaganda without limiting overall religious expression. However as evidenced by this shooter's manifesto the tactics being used by this young, white hateful extremism are much more intricate and difficult to drown out because they intentionally build in just enough plausible deniability that any measures to limit their activities are met with howls of political discrimination.

11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

I'm not specifically targeting you with the questions or putting you on the spot, I'm just throwing out there the 'ifs' and 'buts' because there is a problem and the solution has many dead ends for certain things and a rocky road for others. Obviously something has to be done because there are far too many gullible idiots out there.  For further proof visit Youtube and read some of the comments.

No worries man I appreciate the questions and think these big picture questions are the ones we should be addressing. Its very easy to post up on a dogmatic position and not think the process through but that doesnt do anything but give us warm and fuzzy feelings.

I genuinely dont know what the answer is. I personally love information, and want to take in as much as possible but it seems that that inundation of information is actually working against us.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kismit said:

I will state one more time. We have never had an issue with our immigrants, not one. No Muslim insurgency or violence of any kind. 

Just gentle kind people. 

So I call nonsense on this story

I'd say let them investigate and see. People can be completely pacifistic and still send lots of money to support people who are not. Support need not mean housing them, and sending your kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

What I was trying to say even if our countries banned  assault style rifles, the bad guys are still going to have them. If one of those Muslims  that were killed had a gun, one could have saved many of them , why I saying every good person should have had a gun.  

Even if we ban "assault" rifles. A experienced person with a regular rifle could easily kill 50 people, just it would take him twice as long to do it. And the same with a pistol, but you have to get much closer.

I'd agree with this in the US, as it is so big, but in New Zealand, I think having an embargo on guns could be easier to succeed. 

Oh course, those people who want guns will always be able to get them, if they have the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, aztek said:

population replacement should be much more scary than any  shooter.  gvmnt should not be allowing one culture to replace another, cuz the reaction will be nasty, just like this one. 

But governments live on taxes, and declining populations, and older populations that are more retired... don't bring in the money. Immigrants are necessary for "western" nations to grow economically. Look at Japan. No immigrants and the aging population is driving the nation into bankruptcy.

It used to be that the immigrants were happy to be here and confirmed to the local norms, but with the increase of PC Culture, and Identity Politics, that no longer applies, so you have areas overrun with completely different cultures inside the host nation. These immigrants usually have more children on average, and so their prevent of the total population increases till they effectively can gain some control. The left's answer has been people always have integrated and this isn't any different, but they are lying to themselves, on purpose, because they want those unicorn rainbows to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

But governments live on taxes, and declining populations, and older populations that are more retired... don't bring in the money. Immigrants are necessary for "western" nations to grow economically. Look at Japan. No immigrants and the aging population is driving the nation into bankruptcy.

 

yes, true,  but it should not mean replacing culture,  not all immigrants try to change the host culture, nor subscribe to belief that their culture should dominate the world,  gvmnts just have to pick and vet better.

it's hard to believe that gvmnt does not realize, once enough culture is replaced, they will replace gvmnt too 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd say let them investigate and see. People can be completely pacifistic and still send lots of money to support people who are not. Support need not mean housing them, and sending your kids.

Who was the gunman supporting?

Why do you feel it is necessary to make the victims in this, responsible in some way for the massacre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Free speech is free speech whether fake or not.

This explains a lot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kismit said:

Why do you feel it is necessary to make the victims in this, responsible in some way for the massacre?

These individuals are certainly NOT responsible for anything that would justify their horrendous murder.  Those who adhere to a fundamentalist form of their faith are responsible for stirring up such hatred, at least to a significant degree.  Prior to the decades of Fundamentalist Islamic attacks on Western culture, random attacks such as this against innocent worshippers was almost unheard of - with westerners being the culprits, anyway.  There is a context here, not a justification.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

This explains a lot.

It's on both sides.  Infowars are masters at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping for!  and I have NO IDEA what the answer is. How we protect minds, freedom and society all at the same time in the information age must become the most delicate balancing act in human history or we are simply screwed.

We, as in civilized society, seem to have been able to do so with ISIS and their propaganda without limiting overall religious expression. However as evidenced by this shooter's manifesto the tactics being used by this young, white hateful extremism are much more intricate and difficult to drown out because they intentionally build in just enough plausible deniability that any measures to limit their activities are met with howls of political discrimination.

No worries man I appreciate the questions and think these big picture questions are the ones we should be addressing. Its very easy to post up on a dogmatic position and not think the process through but that doesnt do anything but give us warm and fuzzy feelings.

I genuinely dont know what the answer is. I personally love information, and want to take in as much as possible but it seems that that inundation of information is actually working against us.

 

Yeah good points and same here (bold).  A interesting research by Pew with Technology experts showed there are no easy answers but something will have to give in the next 10 years. link

The rise of “fake news” and the proliferation of doctored narratives that are spread by humans and bots online are challenging publishers and platforms. Those trying to stop the spread of false information are working to design technical and human systems that can weed it out and minimize the ways in which bots and other schemes spread lies and misinformation.

The question: In the next 10 years, will trusted methods emerge to block false narratives and allow the most accurate information to prevail in the overall information ecosystem? Or will the quality and veracity of information online deteriorate due to the spread of unreliable, sometimes even dangerous, socially destabilizing ideas?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.