Muslim american shoots 6 kills 1 woman in Seattle

[Epsilon]

Hmelton's original title for this thread: Muslim american shoots 6 kills 1 woman in Seattle
The headline of the article posted: Seattle shooting one dead, five injured
So, since there was no "descriptor" in the title, does that make the title racist?

---

That was his cause... Islam... not any specific group. If we use your suggest of '"radical fanatic", I can easily interpret that this man with in fact a Pokemon fanboy or a stamp collector. That and "radical fanatic" is a bit repetitive. Your other suggestion would mean that practically anyone... also the reason behind the attack was that of "Muslim, kill Jews! Muslim mad at Israel!" So this is a rather specific case of a 'hate crime' by a Muslim on random Jews. If we take the descriptors out it does become random loon shoots 6 kills 1, which means that this thread would be a series of post to articles about homicidal loons. That I would have preferred really.

---

This is easily avoided by giving a statement context. Certainly you can't use pithy one liners like hmelton did in his first post if you have to give context and meaning to your statements, but by doing so you avoid looking like a dick. Saying "yet another example of radical muslims" is... bad taste, at the very least.
If you don't think that its offensive, I suggest you go to a predominantly arab/muslim neighbourhood and start yelling it aloud. See what kind fo reaction you get.
If you want to have a reasoned debate, or dialogue of any kind, about the effects of fanatical fundamentalist religions and the effects wars, racial persecution and epidemic poverty can have on people and how such beliefs can cause the mentally unstable to commit horrible acts, then do so.
But don't start it off with a pithy one liner. I'm just genuinely confused here. What exactly was hmelton's purpose for posting that? He didn't ask any questions. He didn't make any points (according to you and he, since he isn't insinuating that Islam is a violent religion, just that nutters exist in it, like they do in every religon). He didn't open up any discussion. He basically just posted a link, made a pithy quote that sounded vaguely racist and did... nothing else? What was he trying to get people to say? Wink and chuckle a the "radical muslims" with him?

---

Also format wise, your argument is that gang violence was caused by GTA... When GTA is a parody of gang violence. Meaning the violence was pre-existing. By format this argues that killing in the name of Islam is a major cause of Islam. Which I don't think was your intent.

---

GTA might very well be a parody of gang violence. But that wasn't my point. My POINT was that there are people in the world (such as, say, the US Senate) that blame gang and youth violence on things such as Grand Theft Auto.
Following me so far?
Now, since we both agree that GTA is NOT a cause of gang violence, we can agree that the very idea is spurious. Okay?
Now. The proposal that this man shot up a bunch of people because of Islam is like the proposal that GTA causes gang and youth violence, in my mind. You may agree, or not agree.
Hence my original point which was:

---

This man was a psychopath. Blaming what he did on Islam is like blaming Grand Theft Auto for gang crime.

---

I'll break it down: 1) The man is a psychopath.
2) The idea that this was the fault of Islam is silly.
3) As silly as the idea that GTA is the cause of gang violence.
Now, do you understand that?
-------------------
Epsilon