Paris

[DTA]

The evidence would point that way (unless you are questioning the sincerity of the father) and to be honest my opinion would matter very little. As the media would be having a spunk fest over it.

 

[braineclipse]

The evidence would point that way (unless you are questioning the sincerity of the father) and to be honest my opinion would matter very little. As the media would be having a spunk fest over it.

I don't think I have to question the sincerity of the father at all to claim that such a conclusion is not supported. Neither would you if the roles were reversed, and I get the distinct idea that despite your unwillingness to share your opinion you would have one not all too dissimilar to mine. Let's just say I'm guessing it wouldn't be in support of those being described as "having a spunk fest over it".

 

[DTA]

I don't think I have to question the sincerity of the father at all to claim that such a conclusion is not supported. Neither would you if the roles were reversed, and I get the distinct idea that despite your unwillingness to share your opinion you would have one not all too dissimilar to mine. Let's just say I'm guessing it wouldn't be in support of those being described as "having a spunk fest over it".

The opinion is not conclusive definately. But to say that it's not supported (well I would need an explanation for that). As for my opinion if it was reversed, if the 'Muslim' in question posted religious hatred online, and then father of the victims claimed that his daughter had told him previously that the man hated me because of my belief. Then I would accept that the most probable conclusion would be that this Muslim man would be a terrorist... And if proven (beyong all doubt) I would have not much problem with him being hung by his Pollacks untill dead, screened live on pay per view.

What I would object to is how the media (Fox daily mail.... Etc) makes it out to about all Muslims rather than the act of a vile human being, which then influences people spreads hatred and separation and eventually New terrorism, that's the spunk fest I object to.

 

[braineclipse]

The opinion is not conclusive definately. But to say that it's not supported (well I would need an explanation for that). As for my opinion if it was reversed, if the 'Muslim' in question posted religious hatred online, and then father of the victims claimed that his daughter had told him previously that the man hated me because of my belief. Then I would accept that the most probable conclusion would be that this Muslim man would be a terrorist... And if proven (beyong all doubt) I would have not much problem with him being hung by his Pollacks untill dead, screened live on pay per view.

What I would object to is how the media (Fox daily mail.... Etc) makes it out to about all Muslims rather than the act of a vile human being, which then influences people spreads hatred and separation and eventually New terrorism, that's the spunk fest I object to.

Well I'm not going to defend Fox News or the Daily Mail. What at least some of the comments in the linked article seemed to want was a reaction like that in this case.

Not sure how much explanation is needed for saying that I don't think it's currently supported to make claims about this being motivated by religious hatred when you yourself say that your opinion is not conclusive. What I said was that I didn't have to question the sincerity of the family member. You're aware that one can sincerely hold a belief that is false?

 

[scaramanga]

One of the victims father said that his daughter told him, that the man hated her for what she was, what she believed in. SoNot completely jumping to conclusions.

What if she was left handed and believed in unicorns as well as being logically impaired? The father might have used precisely the same words.

 

[DTA]

What if she was left handed and believed in unicorns as well as being logically impaired? The father might have used precisely the same words.

If she was killed for believing in unicorns, it would be equally wrong.

 

[DTA]

Well I'm not going to defend Fox News or the Daily Mail. What at least some of the comments in the linked article seemed to want was a reaction like that in this case.

Not sure how much explanation is needed for saying that I don't think it's currently supported to make claims about this being motivated by religious hatred when you yourself say that your opinion is not conclusive. What I said was that I didn't have to question the sincerity of the family member. You're aware that one can sincerely hold a belief that is false?

Would you at least say that the evidence points that way? Would you honestly need more evidence (to raise suspicions) If the situation was reversed?

 

[scaramanga]

Would you at least say that the evidence points that way? Would you honestly need more evidence (to raise suspicions) If the situation was reversed?

Absolutely, yes.

Especially as the father is probably religious (most religious people get it from their parents) - that makes his ability to apply logic questionable at the very least.

 

[DTA]

Absolutely, yes.

Especially as the father is probably religious (most religious people get it from their parents) - that makes his ability to apply logic questionable at the very least.

Well if that's your honest opinion and you apply it consistently, I can't argue against it.

 

[braineclipse]

Would you at least say that the evidence points that way? Would you honestly need more evidence (to raise suspicions) If the situation was reversed?

Raise suspicion, probably not. I've already agreed that there is suspicion, have I not?

Make conclusive statements or join or advocate for a social media campaign, most definitely more evidence required.

Well if that's your honest opinion and you apply it consistently, I can't argue against it.

I can only assume you will hold yourself to similar standards of consistency the next time a social media campaign about the religion of a suspected criminal comes up?

 

[DTA]

Raise suspicion, probably not. I've already agreed that there is suspicion, have I not?

Make conclusive statements or join or advocate for a social media campaign, most definitely more evidence required.



I can only assume you will hold yourself to similar standards of consistency the next time a social media campaign about the religion of a suspected criminal comes up?

I'm not sure I understand, I have already said that if the situation was that it was a Muslim shooter (with accompanying similar evidence) I would be suspicious that the motivation was religious hatred and or terorism. If there was nothing about it in the media, I would ask why? and be even more suspect.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm not sure I understand, I have already said that if the situation was that it was a Muslim shooter (with accompanying similar evidence) I would be suspicious that the motivation was religious hatred and or terorism. If there was nothing about it in the media, I would ask why? and be even more suspect.

And just so we're clear on the evidence at hand...

Is your understanding too that the only indication that this might have been motivated by religious hatred that one relative of the victims said that the (alleged?) criminal hated/disliked the victims because of their religion. The police consistently say it's been a parking dispute, the offender had a history of threatening violence against other neighbors too about disputes like this and the local towing company had a policy of not accepting his requests to get cars towed because of his history in other situations.