Not all people can love together. Social engineering doesn't take this into account. There are natural allies, and natural enemies. Muslims and non-Muslims are natural enemies.

I've been asking, on other threads, how the murderer could have been stopped and none of our self-proclaimed experts on various topics can come up with an answer.

Remember when hi-jacking Israeli Airliners was almost common?

The Israelis put a stop to it, does anyone remember how they did it?

AGREE!
Alan B,

On another site, I read a comment that the Australian born shooter had low IQ. I know a few tertiary educated people, mostly fundamental Christians, who also hate muslims and vote for politicians who are also same mind and they admire Trump for banning travel from 5 Islamic countries, excluding Saudi Arabia, which promotes one of the most fundamentalist Islamic sects.

Yes, there is a problem relating to extremist rants on social media.

However a much bigger problem is the commands contained in the immutable Qur'an and Hadiths which have resulted, over the last 1,400 years, in uncountable thousands of deaths.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

search "bible violence" in google

returns 34 million results LOL

xianity is a religion defined by violence and murder just the same as islam is.

Religion is the problem. ALL of it!

elizabeth4,
Now let's wait & see what nonsense Paul1405 et al have to say about this !

search human heart violence

last count was about 7 billion.

If people going to use Google (as a somewhat pathetic approach) to advance arguments, please at least, learn how to use Google.

human heart violence About 174,000,000 results
"human heart violence" About 613 results
"quran violence" About 9,890 results
"bible violence" About 8,080 results
"new testament violence" About 5,340 results

mikk,

"xianity is a religion defined by violence and murder just the same as islam is."

Not so, Christ preached love, what some of His followers did doesn't change that fundamental.

"xianity", nice to see someone use the 'Chi' ('x' is actually indicating the Greek letter 'Chi', which is short for the Greek, 'Xpiotoc', meaning 'Christ'.).

Did you use it deliberately or out of sheer ignorance?

I remember a French mayor after a Muslim terror attack say that this is the world we live in now. Or something to that extent. In other words there is nothing to fight against on Islamic terrorism. (I've heard that line of reasoning again elsewhere but can't place it where).

But now, here on a white nationalist extreemist. Not only is this a horrific event, no one in there right mind would say "this is the new normal. Accept the world with growing terrorism in it." NO! That is uncalled for and there shouldn't be an explaination to say why it is a horrible sentiment.

Again after several Islamic terrorist attacks, many politicians and people have said, "Not all Muslims are terrorists," "Not all Muslims are extreemists." However after a mass killing is shot up by a white extreemists against the Muslims, do you know the views expressed right away? "We need to curb this hate," "we need to up security, fix our people, fix gun laws."

The second reaction should have been the correct reaction all along when there was Islamic Terrorists, and it is the proper reaction for the terror attack on in the Muslim places of worship. "What can we do to fix this, how can we fix our security."

Better still. If you really want to extend to remove the hatred. Then do something for the families that lost someone. A card to show you care, some home made food or flowers to give and show your support in their time of loss.

(Continued)

(Continued)

For crying out loud this should be a time for them to grieve. Not a time to pick up a picket sign and draw a line on who's side of the issue everyone is on. How many articles are devoted to this issue, and how many are ignoring what's already been said in previous articles by those who don't agree. If it has to be about politics on this one I'll tell it as it is. There's a double standard with Islam when it comes to terror attacks being allowed and tolerated, but on everyone else we should come down hard on them and finally make changes so this doesn't happen again.

Want this to not happen again. Get rid of this hypocrisy. That would be a start at least. But in the mean time, let the ones who's lost someone grieve. And come down hard on any terrorist who wants to have a counter attack. Come down on them, on their families and on their places of worship. That should be the first reaction anyways, regardless of anything else.

Stop trying to hide the issue behind diversity and tolerance. (Or any other two bit excuse). Stand up against terrorism. Islamic terror, and it's counter terror reactionists. But know where this is coming from. The hatred against Islam terrorists is a reaction to it's hatred and terrorism that it produces.

Not_Now.Soon says: "I remember a French mayor after a Muslim terror attack say that this is the world we live in now. (I've heard that line of reasoning again elsewhere but can't place it where)."

How about these similar pathetic statements from Islamic apologists.

Muslim, London Mayor, Sadiq Khan says: "terror attacks are 'part and parcel' of living in a major city'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html

Muslim, Waleed Aly says: "terrorism is a perpetual irritant".
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bomb-response-refreshingly-honest-20130418-2i2tn.html

Islamic terrorism is a continuing atrocity / atrocities.
Islamic terrorism can not be denied.
Islamic terrorism is MUCH more serious than the appalling actions of responding morons.

The clear commands within the Quran, need to be challenged.

"We are trying to seek out the *best* ideas - white supremacist ideology is not among them."

No it's not, but multiculturalism certainly isn't the best ideology either.

White Supremacists?
- Anyone would think that Aussies were all high-ranking members of the KKK in the True Blue Australia days -

Stop Spreading Lies!

If you believe in democracy;
- Then I have a democratic right to say I believe we should have less immigration, and no more Muslims.

- And no vilifying me and saying "That's hate speech".
Why?
- Because democracy means 'I' get the right to choose what I want, and you have no right whatsoever to try to manipulate me in my choice.

Democracy means the people get to decide what they want, END OF STORY.
It DOESN'T MEAN choosing between a short list of PC options that have been previously vetted by the PC police.

After reading the linked article 'What Are the Limits of Viewpoint Diversity?', I've decided I want to have a second crack at this;
- A more well thought out response, if you will -

I never went to University, I don't have a 'learned' knowledge and intellect.
I somehow developed my own ways of seeing things and figuring things out.
When I was young, I had an attitude of general close-mindedness and ignorance whilst also somehow being a bit of a know it all (like many kids I guess);
- But I learned the hard way to look at 'The bigger picture', and I realised I didn't know all that much at all.

Eventually I came to approach issues simply on the basis of Pro's and Con's.
On this basis I learned there are 'Pro's and Con's for every single issue and topic you can think of.
I even learned that there are even Pro's for things that most people would agree are morally reprehensible.
- Say murder and pedophilia
- (I'll leave the explanation for another time, but I'll make the point I'm not advocating these things)

When I started taking an interest in social and political issues I deliberately wanted to know all the 'potential viewpoints' on an issue in order to see 'The bigger picture'.
I understood that I needed to see all the potential viewpoints in order to see the bigger picture;
- In order to make a well informed and rational position on a particular topic.

This also changed the way I approached my own 'ideas'.
If I came up with a particular idea, I'd try to 'foolproof' it;
I'd try to find every single potential 'flaw' in an 'idea and the potential outcome';
- By considering every single potential viewpoint.

I refined my way of thinking even more.
I started to understand the following ideology, or heuristics, as you call it:
(which I think goes againt that described in your linked article -Quote "Especially vexing is that we don’t even have reliable heuristics to determine resolution.")

[Cont.]

Here it is:
'The way to the truth on ANY ISSUE is to separate arguments that DO hold merit from those that DON'T.'
This path takes into account the 'flat earth viewpoint in regards to astronomy' example, but excludes it because 'It DOES NOT hold merit'.
- And it makes the previous argument in the linked article valid.
QUOTE "Once we start moving down the certainty ladder, the division between fully resolved technical matters and wicked problems starts to break down."
That's correct, and therefore, there IS valid 'heuristics'.
- There is a path to getting to the bottom of all issues and finding the best way forward.

'Truth, Ethics and Arguments that HOLD Merit'.

If the path to the truth REQUIRES separating arguments that DO hold merit from those that DON'T;
- Then we need to look at EVERY SINGLE VIEWPOINT, and the arguments that DON'T hold merit need to be explored anyway;
- As part of a process to 'foolproof' every argument and find every 'flaw'.

Lets look at 'The Bigger Picture'.

(Maybe I still am in some ways)

Left-leaning progressive students are having conniptions at anything they find emotionally challenging.
They can't comprehend that other people have a different perspective on things.

I don't disagree with what your student wrote, however your students started with this:
"How do we talk about viewpoint diversity without being accused of being a fascist?"
- That tells me they are already close-minded and indoctrinated to a certain way of thinking already.
Now, I shouldn't be so hard on the progressive left Uni students, I was an ignorant know it all once too and maybe still am in some ways;
- But if they had any sense at all about them, they'd understand that they NEED to explore ALL the Pro's and Con's of a particular issue as part of a process in order to get to the truth.

[Cont.]

You touch on this at the end of your article:

"My fear is that too few people realize that this is, in fact, our only way out."

Yep, obviously, I know this and my education never got past Year 10.
(And this is why people like me wonder what on earth Uni's are teaching the millenial snowflakes of today if you cant even teach them how to use their own brains properly.)
Uni students today run around with fingers in their ears screaming 'LAlalalalalalala - I'm not listening, you're triggering me"

But there is no limit on viewpoints - you MUST invite ALL viewpoints to expand your own understanding.
You have to assess the validity of ideas, not be emotionally frightened of 'going there'.
- The only thing that matters is whether or not a viewpoint does or does not hold merit.

In a social or political context teaching kids that there's a limit to viewpoint diversity is in effect teaching them that its ok to be hypocritical.
"My left-learning 'learned' perspective is correct, and your right-wing perspective is invalid and should not even be given a platform or consideration."

Your ideas ARE 'flawed', do you realise this?
You're actually neutering their brains, with University essentially pumping out retards.

- I can see that you're honestly trying to help fix things though. -

"The terrorist cannot be allowed to succeed in his purpose by sowing still more resentment, distrust, and contempt against one another."

Another valid argument is that:
Islam and Muslims growing population in Australia itself sows resentment, distrust, and contempt against one another.

- Would you alternatively like to argue that statement is invalid?

Or; It may be just as valid to say they (not personally but mass immigration generally) might be the cause, with the terrorist act being the effect.

- Would you like to argue that this statement is also invalid?

All that really matters if whether or not an issue HOLDS MERIT.

White supremacy is just the latest catch-cry of the insipid racists of the Left !

Hate speech should be illegal - written or verbal, promoting, inciting or proposing violence of any kind, against any individual or group.
Pure and simple. No excuses acceptable.

Various authorities patrol the internet (and other communications) to identify potential threats of violence or terror, and with some degree of success in averting such, and in bringing some plotters to justice. Unfortunately such investigative measures are not always successful, and require continual development and expansion.

Measures to shut down online hate speech, and relevant sites, should therefore focus on identifying and bringing-down the perpetrators, and then re-educating such promoters and would-be attackers. Rather than requiring sites (Facebook, Twitter or whatever) to patrol and remove suspect 'content', these sites should be seen as a valuable means to identify trouble-makers (like Tarrant) and then to hopefully forestall their plans.

My identity is known to the convenor of this Forum, as a prerequisite to my being able to contribute content/opinions.
Such should be the case for all online posting sites - prior effective proof of identity. 'Black' sites included - to ensure as far as possible that all convenors/site-hosts are identified and legitimate, and that all sites ensure proof of identity for all 'contributors'.

Now, I support capital punishment in murder cases where there is no doubt of guilt. (And I could name a few - including Brevik and Tarrant.) So, if that makes me guilty of hate speech (by my own above definition), then the Forum convenor can put the authorities on to me. However, in general, I may hold strong disagreement with very many people on very many issues, but I hold no ill-will toward any of them, and would wish them no harm - from myself or from anyone else.

I understand that according to Islam, any sin toward any man (or woman) is a sin against all men (and women). Now, that sounds a lot like 'do unto others', doesn't it? The Golden Rule - attributed to Confucius - and Jesus said the same.

Peace, Brother.
And, death and destruction to all perpetrators of hate.

Hey Saltpetre

Where you mention "Measures to shut down online hate speech, and relevant sites" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20215&page=0#357786

Surely you're not serious?

That may mean deleting around half the comments on OLO, ie. from the usual haters!