![]() |
Quote:
Acting like a Terrorist would Using a van but then gets HIS gun and shoots himself. |
It might not be racist intent and it might well be backed up by past statistics but it is nonetheless (the literal definition of) prejudice. As in, pre-judgement, or jumping to conclusions before the facts are known.
Surely by now we should realise that a little patience and observation before jumping to supposition would be sensible? I mean... It would sure save a lot of eggy faces... :hehe: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
However, it is prejudice and you can't bloody argue with the flat definition of words. Surely!
Prejudice From the latin; Praejudicium "prae" = in advance "judicium" = judgement. So "prejudice" literally only means "judgement in advance", or assessing a situation and making a claim about the nature of that situation speculatively, in advance of the factual evidence. In this case, speculating that an attack was committed by a radical islamist when it would literally only have taken a matter of hours to wait for the relevant information to see if that was the case. Which on this occasion, it was not. Really all it comes down to is simple impatience, and maybe seeking an opportunity to say "aha! Told you so!" if it turns out to be an accurate guess. Which is fine... It's a punt, but it's fine... BUT at least be humble and accept the omelette face if it doesn't pay out :laugh2:. |
Quote:
|
I personally think that it's worth pointing out that in the most RECENT attacks, in fact going back 6, 12 months +, most of these style of attacks have been committed by random troubled people with no links at all to religious / radical groups. So... The "safe bet" would actually be "random nutter" at like maybe 10/11 with "radical Islam" 2nd fav at 2/1.
I'd have given under the table odds on that if someone had asked. Not through the tills though I don't think it would go down well :joker:. |
Quote:
|
Copy cat attacks are pretty common with these widely televised violent acts, so I think it's a safe bet either direction... there's only a handful of conditions where people would go through with these acts.
Otherwise, I don't really understand giving up your life to kill others in a random act of violence promote a cause. I think it's a waste of life all around. But the religious fanatic truly believes there will be some payback, in the spiritual sense... for mental health folk, I guess if they're feeling quite virulent and angry with society (or maybe just schizoid/delusional), this would be the "trip out" of it so to speak... any other attachment would likely seem meaningless. I don't typically associate shooting oneself in the head with religious fanaticism. A mentally ill person though would be more prone to do it, especially to create the shock and trauma in the other people who are witnessing it... as someone who is very angry at others would do to send the message of being "the affected" I thought the goal of a Islamic fanaticism was to take out as many people as possible... lest the enemy stop you, i.e. forcing them to shoot you or blowing themselves up, etc? I thought suicide wasn't allowed in Islam in this way, except to go out "in flames"... so when I read "shot themselves", I didn't connect this with Islamic terrorism. I connected this more readily with mental illness because of the message it sends... i.e. "Look what you made me do"... whereas I think Islamic terrorists, they are genuinely concerned with a higher death toll (i.e. their resolution towards their calling)... granted either is possible I think. Just some thoughts. |
Quote:
|
Has it actually been determined what the motivations are? I assume it's probably a case of right wing extremism if it's not an Islamic attack.
|
Quote:
To be honest, I class them all as nutters. |
It's awful that people are now using vehicles to deliberately hurt and maim. It's shocking because it's not something you heard of much in the past. It's also bewildering because it's not the anonymous, hidden sort of crime that terrorism seemed to be before, with the perpetrators seeming quite willing to die as well.
Since most of these crimes in the last few years have been due to Islamic terrorism, it's not a big stretch that is what people think it is when it first happens. But I see the finger pointing is gleeful as usual. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unless you're claiming that either; 1) it was not an assumption or supposition Or, 2) the facts were known ... Then you can't possibly claim that it's "hardly" prejudiced. It is definitively prejudice. |
Now you could claim that given past events it is an understandable prejudice, but that's a totally separate debate.
|
Quote:
|
Assuming it was an islamic terrorist can both a fair bet and "prejudiced", I guess.
|
Quote:
We are human beings and our brains are programmed to seek contrasts, i.e. things not like us, and this is how we weigh threats and potential "obstacles". Our brain is highly focused on these contrasts... so it's a survival instinct to some degree that can't be completely unwired I think. It may not necessarily have any malicious intent... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
With Chinese or known cultures, I think we've integrated enough of the culture into our own understanding of what it is and how it functions, that we have some understanding there it's not a true contrast in that sense, since we've found a common ground between each society... (Edit) Anyway my point is, we need some prejudice in order to function and to establish risk... |
...this is the only information I can find about the two who lost their lives...
The victims were a 51-year-old woman from near Lueneburg, in the north of the country, and a 65-year-old man from Borken, near Muenster. Some 20 others were injured. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.