Halifax: Mob of 'middle eastern men' brutally beat lesbian couple out celebrating a birthday

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And this is the kind of dishonesty i'm talking about.  

1. You said I called you racist.

2. I didn't.

3. You now say I'm dishonest for denying it.

Semantic bending can sometimes give you the bends...

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If cultural religious sentiments against homosexuality are a motivating factor the attackers would appear to be reflecting a value that is slso shared by some other Canadians.

Almost exclusively conservative ones I might add.

People who attack other people are not social conservatives or Christians.   Just like murderers are not Christians.  That is against the Bible.  Evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.

There is crazy and violent people of every type, left, right and in between.  We all know that.   So you trying to equate violent people with 'cultural religious" sentiments is nonsense as usual.

When are you going to get your act together?  This is a phony debate that never ends and nobody agrees about anything.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Probably because most males think lesbians are hot.

Agreed 👍

[Black Dog]

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

🙄

Ooooo, you caught me.

Yes, I believe mobs of white boys should be allowed to beat and rape lesbians at will, no consequences.

I know you do.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Why?

It's just how overt right wingers roll.

God hates fags and conservatives love God. The overtness of homophobia may exist on a spectrum but it most certainly leans far more towards the religious right than the secular left.

It comes more naturally to you people and not without a certain cultural permissiveness in a world where pushback against acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

in a world where pushback against acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise.

I don't think most people really care too much about what others do or believe.

They just don't want it in their faces or shoved down their children's throats or forced acceptance of things they don't agree with.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

People who attack other people are not social conservatives or Christians. 

People who attack homosexuals usually are because they believe it goes against God and the bible. This is so deeply ingrained in religious conservatism it's almost automatic.

You can't help but be with the attackers on some level.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

They just don't want it in their faces or shoved down their children's throats or forced acceptance of things they don't agree with.

So speaking up to a slur is forced acceptance? You'd rather these women just submit instead?

Edited July 3 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's pretty transparent when you only care about hate crimes that are committed by brown people....

You can fill in your own conclusion as will I.

the hate crimes legislation is entirely underpinned by the British North American paradigm of the King's Peace

thus, in terms of whom the police decide to arrest

really depends on which faction is liable to incite the most trouble at any given moment

hence it fluctuates, depending on the interests of the Crown to suppress widespread civil disorder

whichever faction has the smallest mob in the streets gets suppressed therein, for entirely practical reasons

since the overarching mandate is to protect His Majesty The King from being unhorsed and unheaded

on paper at least, which is what the police actually follow at the operational level

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

They just don't want it in their faces or shoved down their children's throats or forced acceptance of things they don't agree with.

That vague statement is made so often as to be meaningless though.

A flag, a decoration or a lesson on civics isn't automatically offensive.

 

We have Halloween, Christmas and remembrance day in the schools 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

They just don't want it in their faces or shoved down their children's throats or forced acceptance of things they don't agree with.

 

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So speaking up to a slur is forced acceptance? You'd rather these women just submit instead?

 

Putting yourself in their shoes might help clear up your confusion.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

That vague statement is made so often as to be meaningless though.

Except it clearly implies these men were triggered and that these women provoked the attack.

[Legato]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's just how overt right wingers roll.

God hates fags and conservatives love God. The overtness of homophobia may exist on a spectrum but it most certainly leans far more towards the religious right than the secular left.

It comes more naturally to you people and not without a certain cultural permissiveness in a world where pushback against acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise.

Well I'm not religious, so that knocks your assumption into a cocked hat.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A flag, a decoration or a lesson on civics isn't automatically offensive.

Of course not.

For instance, Pride parades used to be (yes) - an over-the-top, almost mocking of stereotypes, display of exotically dressed people showing support for a group of others who traditionally experienced oppression.

Now it's men walking around naked with their dingalings bobbing in people's faces and naked bicycle parades and instead of one day, now it's a whole MONTH.

I'm all for pushing boundaries, within reason, but....Do you not see that you lefties are just going too far with the woke and people are getting sick to death of it?

I mean, defending these men BECAUSE they are "brown"?  

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

Well I'm not religious, so that knocks your assumption into a cocked hat.

You're still right wing though and like blackbird, there comes a point when you don't completely object to attacks against homosexuality.

And $10 says you still think lesbians are hot.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I mean, defending these men BECAUSE they are "brown"

Who's doing that? The discussion is about what's motivating right wingers to highlight their crime.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're still right wing though and like blackbird, there comes a point when you don't completely object to attacks against homosexuality.

And $10 says you still think lesbians are hot.

Wrong on the first point, just more erroneous assumptions.

[s] Only if they're white caucasian.[/s]

[Goddess]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Except it clearly implies these men were triggered and that these women provoked the attack.

You seems to feel this attack should be hushed up because they are Muslim and that the women of Canada should just accept this kind of behaviour because.....why?.....they don't know any better?

I do not agree.

Sorry, but both of you , I think, don't really know what's going on because you only watch MSM.

But TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, they're full of women taking videos of the harassments they are experiencing from ME men.  They follow women around, sometimes chasing them down, first demanding they become their "girlfreind", saying how beautiful they are, which quickly devolves into screaming that they will kill them or rape them and calling them "racist", when the women reject them.

There are consequences to importing large numbers of men from countries with this view of women.

And it's mostly women that are feeling those consequences right now, so I get it - the men don't care.

Women are very much feeling the "woke" has gone way too far - men invading women's sports, locker rooms, showers, bathrooms, jails....naked men walking around, while women get lambasted for breastfeeding babies.  being referred to as "people with vaginas" and "menstruators" and anyone can be a woman now, all they have to do is pretend it.

It's coming, gentlemen.

I'm seeing it more and more.  Women are the canary in the coal mine here.  We always have been.

[CrazyCanuck89]

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

People who attack other people are not social conservatives or Christians.   Just like murderers are not Christians.  That is against the Bible.  Evil doers will have their place in the lake of fire.

There is crazy and violent people of every type, left, right and in between.  We all know that.   So you trying to equate violent people with 'cultural religious" sentiments is nonsense as usual.

When are you going to get your act together?  This is a phony debate that never ends and nobody agrees about anything.

You're right, not every socially conservative person is Christian, but every socially conservative person is religious.  Never heard of an atheist, who is also socially conservative.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Who's doing that? The discussion is about what's motivating right wingers to highlight their crime.

Why do you think this should be hushed up and not discussed?

Edited July 3 by Goddess

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1. Now it's men walking around naked with their dingalings bobbing in people's faces and naked bicycle parades and instead of one day, now it's a whole MONTH.

2. I'm all for pushing boundaries, within reason, but....Do you not see that you lefties are just going too far with the woke and people are getting sick to death of it?

3. I mean, defending these men BECAUSE they are "brown"?  

1. Your problem seems to be with nudity. I get it, and I agree that such things should be limited and advertised as people are still offended. That's the thing about political correctness, it's actually conservative because it submits to a public morality. But these are not lgbtq+ events exclusively. 

2. I am conservative.  I respect rights and public morality. But these things have to be balanced. Just because people are sick of something doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. There are lots of things I don't like, as part of public culture, and I can't do anything about it. If a majority of people agreed with me about these things, we still would not be allowed to restrict them extremely. That's called freedom. That's why I'm conservative 

3. Nobody should do that. But nobody should over-report crimes based on race. Or under report as is done with white collar crime.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

Wrong on the first point, just more erroneous assumptions.

[s] Only if they're white caucasian.[/s]

Okay so you're a bit of an outlier. The fact remains it's a safe assumption that far more religious right wingers have sentiments that are inimical towards homosexuality.

Maybe you're still in the closet.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your problem seems to be with nudity.

I don't, but I understand others do.

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But nobody should over-report crimes based on race.

You haven't provided any proof that CDNFOX has done that.  You just showed up implying he's a racist for talking about this crime in particular.

Again - I ask you guys - why do you feel this particular crime should not be discussed?  So far, it seems you just don't want it discussed because the perpetrators are Muslim.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Why do you think this should be hushed up and not discussed?

I don't and everything you're saying to imply otherwise is a strawman you've invented.

 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I don't and everything you're saying to imply otherwise is a strawman you've invented.

 

So you will allow it to be discussed, as long as the ethnicity or cultural beliefs of the perpetrators is hushed up.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1. I don't, but I understand others do.

2. Why do you feel this particular crime should not be discussed?  So far, it seems you just don't want it discussed because the perpetrators are Muslim.

1. Okay but you did confuse nudity for lgbtq+ events. Whether or not you have a problem or not. 

2. I didn't say it shouldn't be discussed. I'm saying it is only being discussed because of the religion of the perpetrator. That's where the question should go. 

If there are two Jews and 10,000 Germans cheating people in 1935, should the newspaper talk about the crimes of the former two only? Should they highlight them? Should they report them and let people draw their own conclusions? 

If I point out that the coverage is not even am I asking people to shush it? 

I'm only using this analogy not to imply anything of the poster, but to point out the problematic tactics of this kind of logical construct.