Finsbury Park mosque attack

[jma]

SJWs are going to try and claim this is the same thing as radicalised muslim doing it... it may be the same act that some have done but the reasons and the circumstances are not hence it's not the same at all(then again it's a bit of an ask to expect SJW's to be impartial and apply some common sense). They can call it what they want in the press(lone wolf, lone terrorist... key word being lone though because this was his decision), I doubt we will know his reasons for it but as a guess probably lost his marbles sick of all these terrorist attacks fuelled by a hatred of western culture.

I'm not sure any sort of debate that includes the phrase 'SJWs' is worthy of any consideration, regardless of viewpoint.

The rest of a post could be the most enlightening and intelligent prose/commentary ever written but it is undeniable that anyone using the phrase 'SJWs' has undoubtedly been far too influenced by the internet and corners of internet culture where their ability to recognise what constitutes reasoned debate will be seriously impaired. The simple lack of self awareness that would lead someone to think that such a phrase is anything other than an embarrassment outside of their usual internet dwellings would have to lead someone to ignore the rest of the post.

Which is probably a shame, as there will be plenty of intelligent people who are being totally and utterly lost to intelligent debate and could contribute to it, but they are losing sight of the real world and how to debate with real people in their internet slums.

 

[Adidas Sharston]

So he tries to murder muslims, yet it's muslims that save his life.. what a cnut.

 

[buckshot]

Listen to Sam Harris's podcast 'What do Jihadists really want.' Mental health issues are not to blame.

But you would agree that all Muslims are not Jihadists, right? Anybody who wants to kill people has mental health issues so Jihadists by definition would fit the bill.

 

[Metalartin]

I'm not sure any sort of debate that includes the phrase 'SJWs' is worthy of any consideration, regardless of viewpoint.

The rest of a post could be the most enlightening and intelligent prose/commentary ever written but it is undeniable that anyone using the phrase 'SJWs' has undoubtedly been far too influenced by the internet and corners of internet culture where their ability to recognise what constitutes reasoned debate will be seriously impaired. The simple lack of self awareness that would lead someone to think that such a phrase is anything other than an embarrassment outside of their usual internet dwellings would have to lead someone to ignore the rest of the post.

Which is probably a shame, as there will be plenty of intelligent people who are being totally and utterly lost to intelligent debate and could contribute to it, but they are losing sight of the real world and how to debate with real people in their internet slums.

The only "shame" is someone hypocritical enough to disregard a whole post solely on the use of popular term(yes it is) he personally doesn't like... could it really be they themselves that are losing sight of the real world, stuck in the past perhaps?

I love using it personally because it usually only winds up those who come under that umbrella, maybe some like to fool themselves that their "totally reasoned and intelligent views" are being dismissed because they happen to be SJWs(damn "the internet" for rightly calling people on their shit?). You went kind of wishy washy at the end there a little bit passive aggressive too bizarrely. Just for that I'm going to continue to use this term because I find them an embarrassment to society and they deserve a little ridicule to keep them in check.

"Problem Bro?""

 

[talkativesprout]

But you would agree that all Muslims are not Jihadists, right? Anybody who wants to kill people has mental health issues so Jihadists by definition would fit the bill.

but by the same token, any religion that smiled favourably on the killing of fallen muslims then it's leaders must be mentally ill?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Social Justice Warriors, think constantly outraged for the sake of attention or to further their own social status in some way. Or what I'm With Stupid said because actually they can be far left (Buzzfeed and Salon readers) or right but it's usually far left because they seem to think they are some kind of moral authority by default.
South Park were spot on with this characterisation of the jock flavour of SJW's(call me cynical but even before seeing this I always suspected these types are probably only in it to get "laid" too):

You're right, when you get passed all the boring stuff like a roof over ones head, food on the table and the chance to read and write. A fair dibs at getting at girl from Roedean to sit on my face was always a prime motivator in my pc youth.

 

[Blue Llama]

On the issue of are mental issues to blame? In the case of Osborne he must have mental health issues. Why else would a person with a family including young children decide to donate a minimum of 10 years, possibly 20+ if they succeed, of their life. Probably lose their partner and children and no doubt any friend they ever had. Their job, career and any financial future for what? Because they are offended by people who dress differently than them. Worship differently and that assumes that they have religious beliefs which today in the UK is unlikely. Talk differently and generally just look different. That's a hell of a price for stupidity so the only rational is that they have mental issues.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But you would agree that all Muslims are not Jihadists, right? Anybody who wants to kill people has mental health issues so Jihadists by definition would fit the bill.

So every soldier in WW2 had mental health issues? You can't just say that anyone who kills has mental health issues without a diagnosis. And there's very little evidence to my knowledge linking terrorists to recognised mental health issues.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

On the issue of are mental issues to blame? In the case of Osborne he must have mental health issues. Why else would a person with a family including young children decide to donate a minimum of 10 years, possibly 20+ if they succeed, of their life. Probably lose their partner and children and no doubt any friend they ever had. Their job, career and any financial future for what? Because they are offended by people who dress differently than them. Worship differently and that assumes that they have religious beliefs which today in the UK is unlikely. Talk differently and generally just look different. That's a hell of a price for stupidity so the only rational is that they have mental issues.

A murder that is religiously motivated has a starting point of 30 years, after a trial. One that tries to advance a political cause can be subject to a whole life term.

 

[TonyM]

Should get the death sentence after 5 years of hard labour and solitude. Same for similar scum.