Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

[BigBallinStalin]

He's a fascist crusader. There, problem solved, label applied. I suppose the human mind can't help but apply labels. Gotta fit everyone into whatever such category so that we know how to deal with anyone else we might label in the same category. The fact that we often label based on our own bias is of no consequence. Just so that we label everyone so that our minds can rest easy for a time before we have to try and label someone or something else.

You know, I got a nice, simple label that everyone can agree with. He's a murderer. There is no disputing that, is there?
All the other labels applied to him are applied by people according to their own bias. Don't bother trying to convince them otherwise, though. It goes against their programming.....

Which is a shame.

[Symmetry]

He's a fascist crusader. There, problem solved, label applied. I suppose the human mind can't help but apply labels. Gotta fit everyone into whatever such category so that we know how to deal with anyone else we might label in the same category. The fact that we often label based on our own bias is of no consequence. Just so that we label everyone so that our minds can rest easy for a time before we have to try and label someone or something else.

You know, I got a nice, simple label that everyone can agree with. He's a murderer. There is no disputing that, is there?
All the other labels applied to him are applied by people according to their own bias. Don't bother trying to convince them otherwise, though. It goes against their programming.....

And excluding people from labels when it's uncomfortable, but fair enough. I'll leave off. The argument is going nowhere.

[comic boy]

I doubt that his victims would much care if he was Christian or not , bottom line is that he was murderous scum with a warped vision of how to improve humanity. Notice the usual religious hypocrisy though of those rushing to insist he was not a ' proper ' Christian , wonder if they use the same criteria when labeling terrorists as Muslims.

[BigBallinStalin]

Given all the evidence I provided, and your lack of defense, and a probable change in your position, then there's no need for me to defend my stance. I'm not uncomfortable with the "radical Christian terrorist" label because I have no skin in the game of how Christianity is viewed. I enjoy studying national security and terrorism, so when I see someone applying words like "terrorist" to categories which don't fit, then I'll call it out and patiently show that it's incorrect.

If you don't wish to advance your argument by dealing with the problems and ambiguities which I've leveled at your argument, then of course your argument won't go anywhere.

[BigBallinStalin]

I doubt that his victims would much care if he was Christian or not , bottom line is that he was murderous scum with a warped vision of how to improve humanity. Notice the usual religious hypocrisy though of those rushing to insist he was not a ' proper ' Christian , wonder if they use the same criteria when labeling terrorists as Muslims.

A new challenger?

You can deal with the following to make your case have substance:

See page 9 and page 10, BBS v. Symmetry.

Good luck!

Notice the usual religious hypocrisy though of those rushing to insist he was not a ' proper ' Christian , wonder if they use the same criteria when labeling terrorists as Muslims.

How is hypocritical to point out that terrorism is not compatible with Christianity?

The same question can be asked of Islam, but that's beside the point.


Suppose we meet an alien race called Gonlak which has the criteria of X, Y, and Z. Now, some guy says he's a Gonlak, and he commits a terrorist act. Then, people label him a "Gonlakian terrorist." But it's shown that he's not from Gonlaktica (the planet of the Gonlaks), nor does he even fit the criteria of a Gonlak.

So is he really a Gonlakian terrorist? No, of course not, and I've been through the same argument with Symmetry. Symmetry thinks that if someone calls himself a Christian, and uses metaphors like "Crusade!," yet that someone doesn't practice Christianity, nor does he accept the whole identify with Jesus part, nor does he seek to impose a Christian-based State of Christian Law and Order, then he must somehow be a "radical Christian terrorist."

I've shown that to be baseless, and he can't successfully defend his stance (except by repeating himself), and that's the end of the story. Hopefully, you can do better!

[Symmetry]

I doubt that his victims would much care if he was Christian or not , bottom line is that he was murderous scum with a warped vision of how to improve humanity. Notice the usual religious hypocrisy though of those rushing to insist he was not a ' proper ' Christian , wonder if they use the same criteria when labeling terrorists as Muslims.

A new challenger?

You can deal with the following to make your case have substance:

See page 9 and page 10, BBS v. Symmetry.

Good luck!

Notice the usual religious hypocrisy though of those rushing to insist he was not a ' proper ' Christian , wonder if they use the same criteria when labeling terrorists as Muslims.

How is hypocritical to point out that terrorism is not compatible with Christianity?

The same question can be asked of Islam, but that's beside the point.


Suppose we meet an alien race called Gonlak which has the criteria of X, Y, and Z. Now, some guy says he's a Gonlak, and he commits a terrorist act. Then, people label him a "Gonlakian terrorist." But it's shown that he's not from Gonlaktica (the planet of the Gonlaks), nor does he even fit the criteria of a Gonlak.

So is he really a Gonlakian terrorist? No, of course not, and I've been through the same argument with Symmetry. Symmetry thinks that if someone calls himself a Christian, and uses metaphors like "Crusade!," yet that someone doesn't practice Christianity, nor does he accept the whole identify with Jesus part, nor does he seek to impose a Christian-based State of Christian Law and Order, then he must somehow be a "radical Christian terrorist."

I've shown that to be baseless, and he can't successfully defend his stance (except by repeating himself), and that's the end of the story. Hopefully, you can do better!

If your criteria is that Christianity is incompatible with terrorism, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

[Symmetry]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

It's kind of the key point, though- you don't think that anyone can be a Christian terrorist. That the two words are incompatible.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

It's kind of the key point, though- you don't think that anyone can be a Christian terrorist. That the two words are incompatible.

It isn't the key point if you bother reading what I post.

[Symmetry]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

It's kind of the key point, though- you don't think that anyone can be a Christian terrorist. That the two words are incompatible.

It isn't the key point if you bother reading what I post.

So can there be such a thing as a Christian terrorist?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

It's kind of the key point, though- you don't think that anyone can be a Christian terrorist. That the two words are incompatible.

It isn't the key point if you bother reading what I post.

So can there be such a thing as a Christian terrorist?

lol, sym, I'll gladly answer your question after you can prove that you have read and understood all that I've been typing for the past two pages.

Catch ya later!

[Symmetry]

Haha, that's one point of many, but since you're unwilling to continue a rational debate, then I don't know... keep spinning your wheels?

It's kind of the key point, though- you don't think that anyone can be a Christian terrorist. That the two words are incompatible.

It isn't the key point if you bother reading what I post.

So can there be such a thing as a Christian terrorist?

lol, sym, I'll gladly answer your question after you can prove that you have read and understood all that I've been typing for the past two pages.

Catch ya later!

Give it a try anyway, as a favour- can there be such a thing as a Christian terrorist? Seems kind of key to your argument. If you think it's impossible, arguing with you is futile.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, so the point of a mutually beneficial exchange is that both parties benefit. You see, in order for me to benefit, you actually have to participate in the rest of the debate, which means that you still have some reading to do.

I know you're not interested in a rational debate (e.g. 5 pages of you refusing to provide any evidence for your position), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at times, and then lo and behold, you eventually tend to come up short.

[Symmetry]

Haha, so the point of a mutually beneficial exchange is that both parties benefit. You see, in order for me to benefit, you actually have to participate in the rest of the debate, which means that you still have some reading to do.

I know you're not interested in a rational debate (e.g. 5 pages of you refusing to provide any evidence for your position), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at times, and then lo and behold, you eventually tend to come up short.

What harm could come to you?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, so the point of a mutually beneficial exchange is that both parties benefit. You see, in order for me to benefit, you actually have to participate in the rest of the debate, which means that you still have some reading to do.

I know you're not interested in a rational debate (e.g. 5 pages of you refusing to provide any evidence for your position), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at times, and then lo and behold, you eventually tend to come up short.

What harm could come to you?

Is this where I begin building the case that you're closed-minded and biased against Christians?

[Symmetry]

Haha, so the point of a mutually beneficial exchange is that both parties benefit. You see, in order for me to benefit, you actually have to participate in the rest of the debate, which means that you still have some reading to do.

I know you're not interested in a rational debate (e.g. 5 pages of you refusing to provide any evidence for your position), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at times, and then lo and behold, you eventually tend to come up short.

What harm could come to you?

Is this where I begin building the case that you're closed-minded and biased against Christians?

So why not tell me if you believe that someone can be a Christian terrorist? Not a tough question.