• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Miss Alabama Suspended Calling Dallas Sniper a ‘Martyr’

But he didn't die FOR a cause, he died because of his criminal actions.
...which were initiated because of his cause. And/or beliefs.

His criminal actions weren't, "Oh, I'm bored. I think I'll go plink some people at random, today." No, it was more like, "I'm going to go kill white police because they are the ones I deem who have made my life unjustly miserable."
 
Where did you look it up? If the Dallas shooter was killed while, and because, he was acting on his beliefs, that would be the same thing. He wasn't killed randomly for no reason at all, and he was shooting/killing due to his beliefs. He wasn't killing people randomly and for no reason, either. In fact, he was very narrowly focused on who he was trying to kill... only those he believed were against him.

I don't know that might be stretching the definition. The dictionary defines it as:

"a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs."

It is possible it has become like the word "terrorism" in that it is overused. But it seems there is enough disagreement on the word that it is understandable the reporter used it as she did in passing.
 
...which were initiated because of his cause. And/or beliefs.

His criminal actions weren't, "Oh, I'm bored. I think I'll go plink some people at random, today." No, it was more like, "I'm going to go kill white police because they are the ones I deem who have made my life unjustly miserable."

What they are getting at is that if he held those beliefs (hating white people and cops) but did not murder because of them, would he still have been killed?

The answer is no.

Thus he was not killed simply for having these beliefs, but because he committed a crime.
 
I don't know that might be stretching the definition. The dictionary defines it as:

"a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs."

It is possible it has become like the word "terrorism" in that it is overused. But it seems there is enough disagreement on the word that it is understandable the reporter used it as she did in passing.
"Other beliefs" is pretty broad. He had strongly held beliefs that whites, and white police specifically, were the reason behind his perceived low status in life. I don't see how that can not qualify.
 
"Other beliefs" is pretty broad. He had strongly held beliefs that whites, and white police specifically, were the reason behind his perceived low status in life. I don't see how that can not qualify.

This one is going to make my head hurt. I'm tapping out. :)
 
What they are getting at is that if he held those beliefs (hating white people and cops) but did not murder because of them, would he still have been killed?

The answer is no.

Thus he was not killed simply for having these beliefs, but because he committed a crime.
Agree he would not have been killed if he wasn't trying to kill them, but... *why* was he trying to kill them. His beliefs.

Joan of Arc was killed for her actions. Would she have been killed simply for her beliefs if she had never acted on them? Most likely not. She was killed because her beliefs drove her to action that caused her to be killed... and she is remembered by most as a martyr because of it.

We don't get to cherry pick only what we think are the good ones as far as the generic definition of the word. We can reject a person as *our* martyr, but they are still a martyr in the generic sense if they fit the criteria otherwise.
 
Murder is murder. Can't polish that turd.
People have tried polishing that turd for a while. From the justification of the War In Iraq to unjustified police killing unarmed citizens to death penalty supporters. There's always someone out there willing to polish a turd.
 
People have tried polishing that turd for a while. From the justification of the War In Iraq to unjustified police killing unarmed citizens to death penalty supporters. There's always someone out there willing to polish a turd.

Yeah, no kidding.

Quote Originally Posted by reinoe
If Trump is attracting racist of all kinds then that's even more proof that he's a uniter and will bring people together.
 
Where did you look it up? If the Dallas shooter was killed while, and because, he was acting on his beliefs, that would be the same thing. He wasn't killed randomly for no reason at all, and he was shooting/killing due to his beliefs. He wasn't killing people randomly and for no reason, either. In fact, he was very narrowly focused on who he was trying to kill... only those he believed were against him.

That's not a martyr. A martyr is someone who is killed for their beliefs. He wasn't killed for his beliefs, he was killed for his actions. You're stretching the meaning of it. Using your definition, almost anyone killed is a martyr.

"I'm a Muslim/Christian/Communist/Capitalist. This is what I believe. You guys are wrong for x, y, z reasons." *person gets killed for holding their beliefs* = Martyr

"I'm a Muslim/Christian/Communist/Capitalist. This is what I believe. Now I'm going to start killing all of you as an extension of my beliefs." *person gets killed for their actions* =/= Martyr.
 
Completely disagree with the part in red. That statement presumes that private decisions/consequences are always just. Simply because someone can do something to you does not mean that their actions are just.

No, it doesn't. That's why I put the very next sentence in the post - "Private citizens that harm us unjustly can be either charged with a crime or sued civilly, yet they do not have the power to seize or oppress our freedom or liberty."
 
No, it doesn't. That's why I put the very next sentence in the post - "Private citizens that harm us unjustly can be either charged with a crime or sued civilly, yet they do not have the power to seize or oppress our freedom or liberty."
The consequences don't have to be the same. Just is just, and unjust is unjust. Only significant difference being, in our society, one has the legal ability to assign consequences and one doesn't. Just is still just and unjust is still unjust.
 
Why did you answer like that when the question was about her and only her?

To some Liberals the reaction to the shooting in Dallas wasn't about the man's motives, it has turned into just another attempt for gun control. The shooters motives was in reaction to the two shooting by the police killings in New Orleans and Minnesota. I think his comments just before the police killed him verifies that.
 
Recognizing a failing, yet doing nothing about it other than recognizing it, does not make that failing acceptable. She still feels and thinks the same way, that the murderer is a martyr, which is not acceptable, regardless of how she supposedly dislikes the fact that she feels and thinks that way.

I could tell you I didn't want to shoot you in the head, and that I know it's wrong for me to do it, and that it pains me, and hurts me, and makes me cry... but if I still shoot you in the head, nothing else matters at that point. And, nothing she says to equivocate or mitigate her thoughts, feelings, and words, matters at this point. She thinks the murderer is a martyr for black people by murdering and maiming white police officers, and that overshadows and outweighs everything else she may say in an attempt to mitigate her saying he is a martyr.

She is a racist by such declarations, and should be fired, not just suspended.

If someone would say the exact same things she said, but said them about James Earl Ray, what would be the result?

I dare a white newscaster to call James Earl Ray as a "martyr" and then gauge the reaction.
 
Let me get this straight?

You think someone who is a sick mass murderer, whose only motivation to kill is hatred of a particular group of people - whom he did not know; killed because he had a principle and is a martyr?

Yes or no, please?

That wasn't his only motive....he was a supporter of BLM and BLM has advocated killing of cops many times. Yes, BLM is a hate group and hate was his motivation. With that said, there is no evidence, that I have seen he was a mental case.

And I will ask you again...was Jeffery Dahmer a martyr for cannibalism? Was Timothy McVeigh a martyr for blowing up federal buildings? And are rapists who then murder their victims martyrs for rape?

Would you call any of them martyrs?

Probably not but McVeigh did what he did for a cause....the Waco incident, to supporters of their cause I guess he could be considered a martyr.
 
920x920.jpg




Ex-Miss Alabama Calls Dallas Sniper a 'Martyr' (Video)

Do you agree with her and if you do....why?

Do I agree with her? No. It's offensive to martyr the murderer of innocent people.

I'm glad her job put her on leave. At least they have some sense.
 
But how do you change how you feel or don't feel? All you can do is examine your feelings and perhaps talk about it. She is specifically asking help from others in how they have dealt with such things. I'm not sure what else she can do, other than bottle it up or lie about it, which certainly isn't going to help her be the person she is trying to be.

Talk to others privately who can help her understand herself, her feelings, rather than putting them all out on social media.

If a white guy says "I often have racist or at the least have negative stereotypes going through my head when I interact with or see black people or people of any other race", would you feel they should put that out on social networking sites rather than trying to get some help to discuss how they could change those feelings, thoughts with a professional or at least someone privately? Should they not face punishment for putting that out to the public, potentially causing strife and negativity, problems in their workplace?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If she is to ignorant to realize that people who murder innocent victims are not "martyrs" but murderers, then she got exactly what she deserves.. Now if that murdering scum had went and doused himself in gasoline and burned himself alive to make his point, I would give her a pass.
 
My, nor your, approval is required for another to be a martyr. It doesn't have to be a good cause to be a cause, and no cause will ever be worthy in everyone's eyes. You're the one who posted the definition. He had a cause, whether you or I like said cause or not is wholly irrelevant. By protesting now you are only invalidating your own point.

And no, I do not approve of his actions, but the definition is what it is.

Now try and keep up and try and open your mind - if that is possible for you.

You agreed that a definition of a 'cause' was what I posted which was:

'a : a principle or movement militantly defended or supported'


Now...

move·ment
'2.
a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.'


https://www.google.ca/search?newwin...1c.1.64.serp..0.4.632...0i67j0i20.OvUDMCqvNWM

He was only one man...so that definition does NOT apply.


'prin·ci·ple
ˈprinsəpəl/Submit
noun
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.'


https://www.google.ca/search?q=prin...=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


His insane hatred was neither a foundation of a system of belief AND there is NO WAY it was a chain of reasoning (as it was from insanity).

And incase that is not clear enough for you (and I am SURE it is not)...

'belief system
noun
faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society'


Belief system | Define Belief system at Dictionary.com

SInce his hate filled insanity was far from 'coherent'...this does not apply either.


And if you want to take it even further...

'co·her·ent
ˌkōˈhirənt/
adjective
1.
(of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.'


https://www.google.ca/search?q=coherent&oq=coherent&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

His emotionally disturbed hatred was neither logical nor consistent (as this was the first time he had - apparently - murdered 'white' police).



There...his was not a 'cause'...BY DEFINITION.

His was NOTHING but an insane hatred based on emotionally unstable thoughts.


If you want to say that he had a cause - go ahead.

I won't be reading it because you are a petty-minded, waste of time...at least on this issue. WHo does not even have the emotional/intellectual wherewithal to answer the simplest of questions.

I only did this to satisfy my own curiosity.

Why you brought it up in the first place is beyond me...extreme boredom I guess OR a penchant for filling a void in one's life with going online and correcting tiny minutia of people while hiding behind a computer screen (how brave and noble - not).
Boredom is mostly why I typed this.


NOW...we are done here.

Adios.
 
Last edited:
And as for martyr? I never really viewed the word as having a moral conotation. A martyr is just someone who gives their life for a cause. The cause can be just or unjust.

I agree.

But clearly to me...murderer is the most accurate term
 
Social Media + Dumb People.
Maketheinternetharder2016

Retweet!
I Agree 100%! Social media and the interwebz gives an emotional idiot such as this the ability to instantaneously put their emotional, knee-jerk, and irrational opinions out their to all who will "tune in" without any analysis, research, or rational thought put into it first. I'm all for free speech....however; I am in strong opposition to the spreading of ignorance. I'm joining the movement.... #Maketheinternetharder2016 :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom