**Terror in Oslo** UPDATE: Anders Breivik gets 8 weeks of custody

[Kair]

Q: When is a religious fundamentalist mass murderer just a madman?
A: When he's a white christian fundamentalist.

The sheep started crying terrorism right away, trying to unify the herd through religion and nationalism.

Then after some time, it was known that the perpetrator was a white christian nationalist nutbag, just like the sheep.

As if it was only white Christian nationalists crying Islamic terrorism.

I was not crying terrorism. But neither am I a part of the herd.

Nationalism, religion, xenophobia and prejudice are all symptoms of the same mental illness. There are many more symptoms.

I didn't say you were. That still does not mean that you're not implicitly blaming only some of those that are guilty.

And lol, no they are not a mental illness even if you dislike them or even if there is good reason to dislike them.

I diagnose them with a mental illness because of the consequences brought on by their mindset, not because of my personal taste or (dis)affection. Just like Schizophrenia is an illness because of its negative consequences, the unenlightened mind is also an illness because of the negative consequences. Though it is an extremely common mental illness as opposed to Schizophrenia.

Many people will not call it an illness, just like in a hypothetical world where the vast majority of people had Multiple Personality Disorder, MPD would not be called an illness.

In other words you don't like the consequences and therefore you say they're mentally ill. No good reason, just your dislike. You should stop raping psychology.

And you should stop being severely incapable of communication.
There is no reason to try to talk to you if you only hear what you want to hear.

I'm quite capable. Your reason to consider it mental illness was 'negative consequences'. You failed to provide a good reason based in psychology to consider them negative consequences. Instead there's only your word. Also, it's not just 'negative consequences' that make things considered mental disorders.

Yes, a mental disorder needs to be a mental state that is different in a negative way compared to a mental state that is positive.Most mental disorders are based in physical damage to the brain, some are (as far as we know) internal. As far as I know the unenlightened mind is not physical damage.
I compare the unenlightened mind to the enlightened mind. The unenlightened mind is a simple print of its surroundings. It is incapable of (close to) true sentience. The enlightened mind is a much more advanced print of its surroundings, much more independent as a result of it. It is quite ironical that the surroundings shape a mind that is independent of its surroundings, but it is the best we can hope for today.

If you do not think the unenlightened mind is a disorder, you must not have seen the world as it truly is, or are just too entangled in it to view it objectively. One has to be a naive fool to deny that the world is full of animals. I know that I used to be an animal, before my mind was healthy. This is enough to call the unenlightened mind a mental disorder, just like a recovering mental patient can identify a mental illness.

For someone so enlightened you sure seem to be missing rather simple points. Duh, it needs to be negative. Did I say it didn't? No, I said a negative consequence is not enough to make it a mental disorder. Being slightly afraid of children is negative and has no good reason behind it. That does not make it a mental disorder. So to recap, it's necessary, but not sufficient.

You're using vague terminology. Enlightened and unenlightened are not clear descriptions. What one person considers enlightened is not what another person considers enlightened. Further, 'true' sentience? Utter nonsense. You sound like some new age demagogue.

You're just spewing bullshit. You make accusations, you never back them up. You make claims about the world, you use vague terminology and still fail to back it all up.

Vague terminology is the only thing keeping apathetic cynics from cutting down anything that is good.

Which essentially translates to you being scared that being more precise will allow me to more easily point out how your beliefs are riddled with flaws. You'd get along fine with certain evangelists.

Now you cut down on the vague terminology instead of focusing on the real message.

Your 'real message' has no substance behind it because of the vague terminology. I have no reason to agree with it when 'enlightened' is undefined in this context.

You are doing just the same thing as you would if I was precise.

Well if you really want to admit your argument is still just as bad when precise, not my problem.

There is no way for me to tell you the truth.

Because you don't know the truth, you only have BS.

I call it an illness because it is curable. Being afraid of children is an illness, and you should cure it. Illness simply means a state that is negative. If that is far too vague for you, you are a metadiscusser.

Wrong, that is not what illness is when it comes to how it is defined by the medical community.

If that's too much for you to understand then you're unenlightened. Hey look I can toss around meaningless accusations too.

So many things you say are just so terribly moronic, still I do not comment on it because I am not a metadiscusser.

Cop out because you have no real argument.

Discussion is not a game for me, as it is to you.

Funny since you're the one incapable of making a clear point, only dealing in vague unproven assertions.

I comment on the things you say that have some meaning, and do not resort to nitpicking.

Sure thing, metadiscusser!

I waste my time with this two-sided argument, one party squabbling the other trying to discuss.

Well thanks for admitting to petty squabbling. Because considering that I'm the one that wants a cessation to vagueness I'm pretty sure I'm the one looking for the real discussion.

If you really wanted to hear what I have to say, you would not have been as offensive.

Cop out yet again. If you'd wanted to actually convey a message you would have started out with a well supported, clear argument.

I also know you do not want to hear what I have to say because very few people like what I have to say.

That's a pretty bad argument. You're not much of a mind reader, regardless of what you think of yourself. Which seems to be a lot.

Your comments are only attacks, but I expect no less. The truth hurts, and many people respond by retaliating.

False. Pointing out that saying 'enlightened' or 'unenlightened' is vague is not just an attack. It's a fact and it points to how you could actually provide discussion. But because you have no real point and are just here to act superior you fail to fix the problem.

That was not the attack. The attack was picking apart my texts, not only once, but thrice, and then arguing against them in a manner that made no sense apart from the actual text and not the meaning of the text.

Imagine a scenario where a person says "Heroin is a pestilence on the outcasts of society.", and a person like you responding "No, a pestilence is a disease while heroin abuse is a choice." where the true message of the first person is ignored and the true message of the second person is clear: "I either wish to create problems in conversation or do so without knowing, and consider discussion as a conflict.".

 

[razerdoh]

the Guardian front page for monday 25th july: http://a.yfrog.com/img616/5962/3486.jpg

 

[Kair]

Q: When is a religious fundamentalist mass murderer just a madman?
A: When he's a white christian fundamentalist.

The sheep started crying terrorism right away, trying to unify the herd through religion and nationalism.

Then after some time, it was known that the perpetrator was a white christian nationalist nutbag, just like the sheep.

As if it was only white Christian nationalists crying Islamic terrorism.

I was not crying terrorism. But neither am I a part of the herd.

Nationalism, religion, xenophobia and prejudice are all symptoms of the same mental illness. There are many more symptoms.

I didn't say you were. That still does not mean that you're not implicitly blaming only some of those that are guilty.

And lol, no they are not a mental illness even if you dislike them or even if there is good reason to dislike them.

I diagnose them with a mental illness because of the consequences brought on by their mindset, not because of my personal taste or (dis)affection. Just like Schizophrenia is an illness because of its negative consequences, the unenlightened mind is also an illness because of the negative consequences. Though it is an extremely common mental illness as opposed to Schizophrenia.

Many people will not call it an illness, just like in a hypothetical world where the vast majority of people had Multiple Personality Disorder, MPD would not be called an illness.

In other words you don't like the consequences and therefore you say they're mentally ill. No good reason, just your dislike. You should stop raping psychology.

And you should stop being severely incapable of communication.
There is no reason to try to talk to you if you only hear what you want to hear.

I'm quite capable. Your reason to consider it mental illness was 'negative consequences'. You failed to provide a good reason based in psychology to consider them negative consequences. Instead there's only your word. Also, it's not just 'negative consequences' that make things considered mental disorders.

Yes, a mental disorder needs to be a mental state that is different in a negative way compared to a mental state that is positive.Most mental disorders are based in physical damage to the brain, some are (as far as we know) internal. As far as I know the unenlightened mind is not physical damage.
I compare the unenlightened mind to the enlightened mind. The unenlightened mind is a simple print of its surroundings. It is incapable of (close to) true sentience. The enlightened mind is a much more advanced print of its surroundings, much more independent as a result of it. It is quite ironical that the surroundings shape a mind that is independent of its surroundings, but it is the best we can hope for today.

If you do not think the unenlightened mind is a disorder, you must not have seen the world as it truly is, or are just too entangled in it to view it objectively. One has to be a naive fool to deny that the world is full of animals. I know that I used to be an animal, before my mind was healthy. This is enough to call the unenlightened mind a mental disorder, just like a recovering mental patient can identify a mental illness.

For someone so enlightened you sure seem to be missing rather simple points. Duh, it needs to be negative. Did I say it didn't? No, I said a negative consequence is not enough to make it a mental disorder. Being slightly afraid of children is negative and has no good reason behind it. That does not make it a mental disorder. So to recap, it's necessary, but not sufficient.

You're using vague terminology. Enlightened and unenlightened are not clear descriptions. What one person considers enlightened is not what another person considers enlightened. Further, 'true' sentience? Utter nonsense. You sound like some new age demagogue.

You're just spewing bullshit. You make accusations, you never back them up. You make claims about the world, you use vague terminology and still fail to back it all up.

Vague terminology is the only thing keeping apathetic cynics from cutting down anything that is good.

Which essentially translates to you being scared that being more precise will allow me to more easily point out how your beliefs are riddled with flaws. You'd get along fine with certain evangelists.

Now you cut down on the vague terminology instead of focusing on the real message.

Your 'real message' has no substance behind it because of the vague terminology. I have no reason to agree with it when 'enlightened' is undefined in this context.

You are doing just the same thing as you would if I was precise.

Well if you really want to admit your argument is still just as bad when precise, not my problem.

There is no way for me to tell you the truth.

Because you don't know the truth, you only have BS.

I call it an illness because it is curable. Being afraid of children is an illness, and you should cure it. Illness simply means a state that is negative. If that is far too vague for you, you are a metadiscusser.

Wrong, that is not what illness is when it comes to how it is defined by the medical community.

If that's too much for you to understand then you're unenlightened. Hey look I can toss around meaningless accusations too.

So many things you say are just so terribly moronic, still I do not comment on it because I am not a metadiscusser.

Cop out because you have no real argument.

Discussion is not a game for me, as it is to you.

Funny since you're the one incapable of making a clear point, only dealing in vague unproven assertions.

I comment on the things you say that have some meaning, and do not resort to nitpicking.

Sure thing, metadiscusser!

I waste my time with this two-sided argument, one party squabbling the other trying to discuss.

Well thanks for admitting to petty squabbling. Because considering that I'm the one that wants a cessation to vagueness I'm pretty sure I'm the one looking for the real discussion.

If you really wanted to hear what I have to say, you would not have been as offensive.

Cop out yet again. If you'd wanted to actually convey a message you would have started out with a well supported, clear argument.

I also know you do not want to hear what I have to say because very few people like what I have to say.

That's a pretty bad argument. You're not much of a mind reader, regardless of what you think of yourself. Which seems to be a lot.

Your comments are only attacks, but I expect no less. The truth hurts, and many people respond by retaliating.

False. Pointing out that saying 'enlightened' or 'unenlightened' is vague is not just an attack. It's a fact and it points to how you could actually provide discussion. But because you have no real point and are just here to act superior you fail to fix the problem.

That was not the attack. The attack was picking apart my texts, not only once, but thrice, and then arguing against them in a manner that made no sense apart from the actual text and not the meaning of the text.

Imagine a scenario where a person says "Heroin is a pestilence on the outcasts of society.", and a person like you responding "No, a pestilence is a disease while heroin abuse is a choice." where the true message of the first person is ignored and the true message of the second person is clear: "I either wish to create problems in conversation or do so without knowing, and consider discussion as a conflict.".

You've failed to demonstrate any substance behind that accusation. Sure doing something analogous to that would be a poor argument. But you've failed to actually demonstrate that I have.

You also appear incapable of reading your own words. You claimed my comments were only attacks. So, no, there is no 'the' attack. They all are according to you.

You are metadiscussing again, my words are again more important to you than what I mean by them.
You fail to see the point I make, and you fail to see the point I make where I point out why you fail to see the point. You are like a perpetual entity of miscommunication.

 

[Low Key]

You are metadiscussing again, my words are again more important to you than what I mean by them.
You fail to see the point I make, and you fail to see the point I make where I point out why you fail to see the point. You are like a perpetual entity of miscommunication.

You've failed to demonstrate any substance behind that accusation. Sure doing something analogous to that would be a poor argument. But you've failed to actually demonstrate that I have.

You also appear incapable of reading your own words. You claimed my comments were only attacks. So, no, there is no 'the' attack. They all are according to you.

Are you both arguing that neither of you understands what each other is trying to say? Excuse me for interjecting, but that seems a bit silly.

 

[Xealeon]

snip

snip

93 people have been murdered, the police are still looking for bodies and you two are sitting here arguing about some completely irrelevant point trying to see who can win the fucking discussion? Honestly, guys, show some respect and do this with PMs or make a new thread or something.

 

[Kair]

snip

snip

93 people have been murdered, the police are still looking for bodies and you two are sitting here arguing about some completely irrelevant point trying to see who can win the fucking discussion? Honestly, guys, show some respect and do this with PMs or make a new thread or something.

I am not the one trying to win a discussion. I use dialectical materialism, it is impossible for me to win a debate because I do not debate and will never seek to win a discussion. It brings me into conflict with people who debate, and I find debate to be terribly ignorant.

 

[default]

'One person with a belief is more powerful than 100,000 people with an interest.'

This was reportedly Anders Behring Breivik's last post on Twitter before he began his operation. Sick and insane ************. Apparently he went from tent to tent on Utoya and executed people hiding inside.

The death sentence is too good for him. He has reportedly said that he would rather die hated than be forgotten. Norway has no death penalty, but even if it did are we going to make a martyr of this man? Are we just going to end it for him quick and painlessly (all religious beliefs aside) and finish off his quest for glory and renown in such a heroically tragic way?

Let this insane bastard rot in a cell for the rest of his miserable life and stew in his own madness. He WILL be held indefinitely, no question about that. Dont worry about him being let out after two decades. Even if he were, he would be shanked in the back alleys before you could blink...

R.I.P all his victims.

 

[silasbufu]

I really want to torture this guy slowly.

 

[Pinkamena]

Horrible mindless action by Mr.Breivik and the freedom fighter organisation he represents. He was a breakaway from the mainstream organisation and wanted to act alone. The massacre was obviously a test-run to see how much damage 1 person in the underground organisation could do out of the current 9327 members decking the halls with poison ivy. Now its easier to organize and prepare for the next surgical strike. Best advice is to stay away from government buildings, military compounds, police stations, social service offices, court houses, train stations and airports.
Stay safe now. Untill next time take care of yourself and eachother.

Wait what? I'm not sure if I should take this too seriously, or if it is legit.

 

[Caliostro]

Dear Escapist. Before you recklessly ban the above person, I IMPLORE YOU to track his/her IP address, the Norwegian Security Police has been tipped about this, DO NOT DESTROY THE EVIDENCE!

Forwarded to the proper authorities. No information is "lost" in the banning. Not to worry.

Cheers.

 

[Gigano]

The Death toll has been reduced to 76 total, although with several severely wounded persons it might still go beyond that.

 

[razerdoh]

I now want Glenn Beck dead: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8660986/Norway-shooting-Glenn-Beck-compares-dead-teenagers-to-Hitler-youth.html

 

[GeneWard]

Just pray when they find these people that they have some fucking fun with them first and put it on TV. People like this don't need killing, they need to be publicly mocked, then the families of victims need to be let loose upon him with fucking razors.

You are horribly disgusting. What on earth would this accomplish? Nothing. It's just sick barbaric revenge that puts you on the same level as the killer. Thankfully, Norway is above this sort of crap and he won't even get capital punishment. And that's how it should be. This man should not be killed. He should be locked up and kept out of society. He should be forgotten, so that we can move on and accept this tragedy. To torture him or execute him would merely keep his memory fresh in the mind of the public, and the rage over what he did would take far longer to subside.

Sorry I don't empathise with these monsters.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Just pray when they find these people that they have some fucking fun with them first and put it on TV. People like this don't need killing, they need to be publicly mocked, then the families of victims need to be let loose upon him with fucking razors.

You are horribly disgusting. What on earth would this accomplish? Nothing. It's just sick barbaric revenge that puts you on the same level as the killer. Thankfully, Norway is above this sort of crap and he won't even get capital punishment. And that's how it should be. This man should not be killed. He should be locked up and kept out of society. He should be forgotten, so that we can move on and accept this tragedy. To torture him or execute him would merely keep his memory fresh in the mind of the public, and the rage over what he did would take far longer to subside.

Sorry I don't empathise with these monsters.

Empathy has nothing to do with it. You're being horribly barbaric.

 

[P.Tsunami]

Just a quick thread resurrection to inform anyone that might wonder about the fate of my friend, missing from the Utøya tragedy. I was informed by the family today that he has been identified among the casualties. Rest in peace, friend.

Vibes or prayers for his family would be appreciated.

 

[King Toasty]

A very snazzily-dressed terrorist.

Sorry. Seriously, this is tragic. My heart goes out to the country, and I hope they find the rest of the cell.