Skip to content

Shooting in Orlando Nightclub

Political Discussion
288 19 5.0k
  • it's really thoughtless. Just really pitiful emotional knee jerkie.

  • @jrb12711 said:

    Let's try again. How would banning Muslims have stopped a bunch of elementary kids from being slaughtered? How would banning Muslims have stopped people being massacred while practicing their faith? Please learn to read.

    Stop treating this as if it's solely a gun control/mental health issue. You're too intelligent for that.

    @vaportrail said:

    Stop treating this as if it's solely a gun control/mental health issue. You're too intelligent for that.

    This goes back my original question though VT, what is the answer? Terrorism exists but so does the stuff I'm talking about. Banning Muslims isn't solving the problem.

    One Post From the Truth said:

    I'm talking about the war on terrorism silly. There are mass shootings besides Muslim attacks that's not what I'm talking about. Now before you act like I'm dodging a question stay on the topic asshole.

    I wasn't and you still dodging my question I've plainly stated twice. You must call a lot of people buzz killers when you can't follow along.

  • @mld-woody said:

    Yep, read that early. Pretty fucking stupid

    About 1 in 5 gay men have HIV and are unaware they have it, sampled in 21 cities.

    @bbedward said:

    About 1 in 5 gay men have HIV and are unaware they have it, sampled in 21 cities.

    I'll hold you to the same standards I would anyone else... do you have a source?

    Not flat out disagreeing, just looking for your source.

  • One Post From the Truth said:

    It's called..."that's just the way it is." You don't like it go with them.

    Let's try again. How would banning Muslims have stopped a bunch of elementary kids from being slaughtered? How would banning Muslims have stopped people being massacred while practicing their faith? Please learn to read.

    @jrb12711 said:

    Let's try again. How would banning Muslims have stopped a bunch of elementary kids from being slaughtered? How would banning Muslims have stopped people being massacred while practicing their faith? Please learn to read.

    Let me counter with this question: Would that have occured if the internet weren't providing instant notoriety and fame to the perpetrator? Was his fragile psyche egged on by the information he received that treated people like Harris and Klebold as sort of punisher-like antiheroes?

  • Are guns the whole issue or is part of the issue the attention seeking? After all Mass shootings and killings happened before the internet but they were incredibly rare as opposed to now.

  • God's wrath on the homo's has begun.

    @diehardbrownsfan said:

    God's wrath on the homo's has begun.

    Apparently, ISIL agrees with you.

  • Islam has always been a brutal religion filled with murders and killings for all sorts of infractions. But since they embraced the internet during the iraq war the whole thing has amped up to an incredible degree. Why? Because they know they have a captive audience. The whole world is watching their videos and so they are compelled to amp up the savagery

  • @bbedward said:

    About 1 in 5 gay men have HIV and are unaware they have it, sampled in 21 cities.

    I'll hold you to the same standards I would anyone else... do you have a source?

    Not flat out disagreeing, just looking for your source.

    @mld-woody said:

    I'll hold you to the same standards I would anyone else... do you have a source?

    Not flat out disagreeing, just looking for your source.

    From a CDC report in 2010

    http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know

    To be fair, from the 21 cities where HIV is supposedly at its worst

    But they don't deny blood just because they're gay, it's because of the HIV (and hepatitis) risk. Iirc it was a federal regulation until fairly recently

  • That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).

    Three notes:

    - It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know

    - True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)

    - I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010

    You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood

    Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.

  • Islam has always been a brutal religion filled with murders and killings for all sorts of infractions. But since they embraced the internet during the iraq war the whole thing has amped up to an incredible degree. Why? Because they know they have a captive audience. The whole world is watching their videos and so they are compelled to amp up the savagery

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Islam has always been a brutal religion filled with murders and killings for all sorts of infractions. But since they embraced the internet during the iraq war the whole thing has amped up to an incredible degree. Why? Because they know they have a captive audience. The whole world is watching their videos and so they are compelled to amp up the savagery

    It also gives them a means to incite crazy lone wolves across the world. Some that might snap on there own, but ISIS may be able to push them over the edge and claim credit. Win / win for them really.

  • That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).

    Three notes:

    - It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know

    - True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)

    - I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010

    You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood

    Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.

    @mld-woody said:

    That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).

    Three notes:

    - It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know

    - True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)

    - I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010

    You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood

    Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.

    That's what I meant, many don't even know.

    And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.

    In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.

  • @vaportrail said:

    Stop treating this as if it's solely a gun control/mental health issue. You're too intelligent for that.

    This goes back my original question though VT, what is the answer? Terrorism exists but so does the stuff I'm talking about. Banning Muslims isn't solving the problem.

    One Post From the Truth said:

    I'm talking about the war on terrorism silly. There are mass shootings besides Muslim attacks that's not what I'm talking about. Now before you act like I'm dodging a question stay on the topic asshole.

    I wasn't and you still dodging my question I've plainly stated twice. You must call a lot of people buzz killers when you can't follow along.

    @jrb12711 said:

    This goes back my original question though VT, what is the answer? Terrorism exists but so does the stuff I'm talking about. Banning Muslims isn't solving the problem.

    this situation is kind of like condom use. The condom will irritate and inconvenience a bunch of people. The condom won't protect you against herpes or genital warts, but the condom will protect you from syphilis and gonorrhea (which can kill you). Banning Muslims won't solve terrorism, but that will pose a significant barrier for terrorists abroad who would like to come here and kill Americans. I'd much rather force them to try and turn American citizens than to worry about weeding out the good ones from the bad. Why fight a war on two fronts when you have the means to fight it on a single front?

  • blDppx.jpg
  • @mld-woody said:

    That's the link I assumed you were looking at when you first posted (first thing I found while googling).

    Three notes:

    - It says "1/5 gay men have HIV and nearly half (44%) don't know". Your post implied 1/5 gay men had HIV and didnt know. Really it would be 1/10 have it and don't know

    - True, it is where this is at its worst. I wonder how it would change over the entire population (obviously it would go down some)

    - I wonder if this has improved at all since 2010

    You could also make the case to ban young blacks from donating blood

    Is this blood not tested though? I didn't realize they just take my word for it when I go to donate blood. I mean, how hard would it be to lie? I'd have to think there is some additional testing going on.

    That's what I meant, many don't even know.

    And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.

    In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.

    @bbedward said:

    That's what I meant, many don't even know.

    And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.

    In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.

    So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?

  • @bbedward said:

    That's what I meant, many don't even know.

    And they do test all donated blood, but more time and effort to double test false positives and take the time to receive donations from HIV positive people - I guess that's portion of it.

    In this case they need blood in a hurry, take it from the lowest risk people possible.

    So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?

    @mld-woody said:

    So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?

    No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.

    Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.

  • 13417607_1139331092771792_67754210809017

  • @mld-woody said:

    So if I'm considered low risk, they don't test it at all? That seems pretty sketchy. I just don't see the point in banning gays from donating. That means they don't test the blood at all, which is an awful idea. If someone wants to donate blood and help out, why turn them away if the blood needs to be tested anyway?

    No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.

    Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.

    @bbedward said:

    No they test, but perhaps they don't test every little sample but they test larger samples.

    Maybe taking in a higher risk person (like a gay man) gives you a higher risk of contaminating a larger sample.

    At the very least then you think they'd allow a gay man with an up to date negative HIV test donate.

    But at the same time, that means any crazy person can lie when they donate and give blood that they know is contaminated.

  • @tiamat63 said:

    I enjoy watching the responses to a sickening event. It's incredible how fast most people fly to their pulpit.

    At this point, I've given up. I have have no answers, no solutions because they would involve rationality and that isn't something the people of the US are prepared for.

    This will be spun into another Right v Left, US vs Them shit fight.

    Stuart

    Its not about right vs. left. It's about right vs. wrong.

    It becomes left vs. right is because condemning Islamic extremism would put you libfucks on the same side as those that identify as Christians and you certainly wouldn't want to do that.

    You know its true.

    @stinkhole said:

    libfucks

    You know its true.

    So very original.

    Edit: so I see the phrase 'ban Muslims'.

    How would you apply that? You have many that are born here, red blooded Americans not overly devout on their faith and good people. I have several as friends.

    So you're just going to ban American citizens? To where? How? For how long? Are we prepared to send flesh and blood fellow citizens to a different country that will (allow) them asylum??

  • @bbedward said:

    blDppx.jpg

    Those are some racist facts.

  • @bbedward said:

    blDppx.jpg

    Those are some racist facts.

    @vaportrail said:

    Those are some racist facts.

    Of course neither Muslim nor homosexuality counts as a race...

    😉

    WSS