VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
Desertphile
they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
otherwise? Why are they silent?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
derdag
> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
I apologize for not doing more with my life toward converting people
away from lawless liberalism and Democrat Feminism. Since Columbine,
there is no logical throry which would propose creating "gun free
zones," which allow one liberal posterboy to kill 32 victims at will.
Bubba must be really proud that he was down in Masturbation Hall, just
off of the Oval Office, when deciding to create those gun free School
zones........
hbarwood
> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
The newspapers in my area have been filled with "opinion" writers
lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
(he was an English major).
Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
manage to find a way.
HB
Bobby Bryant
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> writes:
> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> otherwise? Why are they silent?
Do you seriously expect propagandists to apologize for their
misrepresentations?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> > --http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> I apologize for not doing more with my life toward converting people
<snip drivel>
What ate your brain?
Chris
Lee Jay
Husband and wife mosquito's. They got almost half a meal out of it
too!
Lee Jay
CreateThis
wrote:
>I apologize for not doing more with my life toward converting people
>away from lawless liberalism and Democrat Feminism.
Or, to put it another way, "I'm so brain damaged I don't know it."
CT
Klaus
Male mosquitos do not eat blood.
Klaus
Klaus
> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
>
Actually, not only did he not mention Darwin or evolution, he ranted
about Jesus.
Klaus
Kermit
I used to think that you were merely stupid, mean, and dishonest. Now
I'm pretty sure you're mentally ill. Atho you didn't discuss anuses,
so maybe you're getting better.
Kermit
derdag
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol
I must really get under the skins of all you slimey libs. That's nice
to see. I gotta tell ya.
And, after all of the spit you people hockered at me, not one of you
can give a logical reason to keep some professors, teachers, personel
from being promoted to conceal and carry, two per floor or three per
building... Libs aren't thinking people.
snex
dont you dare defend yourself or other atheists, or reverend flank
will come by to tell you you are hurting the cause.
>
> HB
Martin Kaletsch
> I apologize for not doing more with my life toward converting people
> away from lawless liberalism and Democrat Feminism. Since Columbine,
> there is no logical throry which would propose creating "gun free
> zones," which allow one liberal posterboy to kill 32 victims at will.
What do you ... oh, it's you again. Never mind.
--
Martin Kaletsch
The Last Conformist
Lee Jay
Geeze you're pathetic.
We've got the dumbest administration in history and probably the most
conservative and you think there's no correlation?
Professors tend to be liberal (because liberals get educations while
conservatives get indoctrinations) and also tend to be bookworm-
types. This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in
that category. They do well in academia but poorly handling real
equipment like driving cars or fixing houses. And you want to give
these types of people guns? Frankly, I don't think many people who
didn't grow up with guns would ever be qualified to safely handle one
in a true emergency situation. Being able to hit a paper target at a
range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
Lee Jay
chris.li...@gmail.com
Which in itself says something significant about derdag's cranial
capacity.
Chris
er...@swva.net
Boy, are you delusional. At no point in that other thread were you
were ever defending atheists. You were going out of your way to
attack the beliefs of friendly, pro-science theists. The point is,
what the heck is the point to that? The world would be a sorry place
if only committed atheists were pro-science.
Eric Root
Daoud
shooting, is the belief that students/teachers should be *armed* "just
in case". I can't see how anyone would feel *safer* walking onto a
campus, or out on a street, knowing that everyone is carrying
concealed firearms. I would say that that kind of logic would
promote more gun deaths. i.e. If everyone is carrying a gun, and
anyone might suddenly go on a shooting rampage, the only logical, safe
course of action is to shoot everyone *else* first, just in case!
They can't shoot you if they're all dead!
And maybe this guy would have been stopped before 32 murders if the
campus was armed, but I'd bet good money the annual number of
accidental shooting deaths and individual homicides would be higher
than 32 with everyone carrying firearms! Yeah, nothing as secure as
thinking of 100's of drunk 19 year olds running around campus carrying
semiautomatics every Saturday!
er...@swva.net
>
> > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> > --http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> I apologize for not doing more with my life toward converting people
> away from lawless liberalism and Democrat Feminism.
It might help if you weren't so personally obnoxious. Few people are
going to say, "I want to be just like my hero, derdag!" Plus, for
every lawless liberal there are two lawless conservatives and twenty
lawful liberals.
> Since Columbine,
> there is no logical throry which would propose creating "gun free
> zones," which allow one liberal posterboy to kill 32 victims at will.
In what way was Cho a "liberal posterboy?" Liberalism is based on the
ideas of fairness and generosity. How is killing people fair or
generous?
(snip gratuitous anti-Clintonism)
Eric Root
Lee Jay
> Hmm, that doesn't seem right. Why would a college professor not be a good
> driver or be skilled at manual work?
Just my experience - it's not what they've focused on in their lives.
Of course, like I said, it's more of a 90% rule.
My Grandfather is clothing salesman. He doesn't know which end of a
screw driver is the business end. My machinist does, obviously.
Which do you think is more likely to be safe with a gun?
Lee Jay
Seamus
>
> - Show quoted text -
The male had fruuit juice.
AC
You actually want your kids to pack heat in school? You want them to be
surrounded by other students with weapons?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
I would think making sure that mentally ill people can't buy weapons
might also be useful, no?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Desertphile
> On Apr 22, 6:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
> >
> > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > otherwise? Why are they silent?
> The newspapers in my area have been filled with "opinion" writers
> lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
> symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
> evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
> the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
> be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
> (he was an English major).
Cho wrote about his dissapointment with Christianity and his
fellow Christians. His religion does not appear to have been the
motivation for his despicable crime, however, any more than
science.
This is yet one more example of someone who was known to be
mentally ill who did not get medical treatment--- and was allowed
to buy guns. "Teen Screen" is designed to try to help such people,
but many cults in the USA actively oppose "Teen Screen:" they
would rather have young people kill themselves and others.
> Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
> manage to find a way.
Yes, that is very ugly and despicable behavior. There is a
newspaper article, via Google News, that laments the political
spins that right-wingers, left-wingers, and moderates have put on
the crime--- thousands of people and groups using the crime to
further their politics.
--
Desertphile
Well, no.
snex
there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
"pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Eric Root
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> We've got the dumbest administration in history and probably the most
> conservative and you think there's no correlation?
A better question is: Why in the hell would you suggest any such
correlation? Who was in the White House when Columbine (and numerous
other mass murders on U.S. soil) went down? Did you find some
correlation then?
> Professors tend to be liberal (because liberals get educations while
> conservatives get indoctrinations) and also tend to be bookworm-
> types. This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in
> that category. They do well in academia but poorly handling real
> equipment like driving cars or fixing houses. And you want to give
> these types of people guns? Frankly, I don't think many people who
> didn't grow up with guns would ever be qualified to safely handle one
> in a true emergency situation.
That's one of the dumbest (and baseless) things I've ever read here.
> Being able to hit a paper target at a range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
That's the first true thing you've said. Are you suggesting that
liberals are inherently less capable of the sort of mental discipline
that would be involved in carrying out the latter in a life-or-death
situation?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> This is one of the reasons why I think guns in the hands of citizens does
> not really help to prevent them becoming victims. Nice human beings, when
> confronted with violence, are almost always:
>
> - Taken by surprise. They would have to think of their gun, find it, load
> it, find cover, aim at the attacker, et cetera. There may be no time to
> do all that.
> - More conscientious than the attacker. This can be a disadvantage in
> life-or-death situations. They would not really want to kill someone.
> - Afraid.
You might *think* that, but the facts don't support you. The record
is replete with mountains of incidents in which otherwise law-abiding
individuals used a personal firearm to defend themselves and/or other
innocents.
> Of course I'm not talking about the proud gun owners who sleep with their
> weapon under their pillow, who imagine being attacked every day, who can
> take apart their gun and reassemble it, blindfolded, in 20 seconds, who
> shoot lead into the environment on a weekly basis, exercise drawing their
> concealed pistol before the mirror every day. People like that would
> probably *jump* at the chance to exercise their right of self-defence...
They also are an exceedingly rare breed (despite your T.V. & movie-
based perceptions of reality.)
chris.li...@gmail.com
> Op Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:08:43 +0000, schreef AC:
>
> > I would think making sure that mentally ill people can't buy weapons
> > might also be useful, no?
>
> weapons".
That's a fact.
The trouble is that some people think that since we cannot prevent a
mentally ill person, bent on committing murder and suicide, from
purchasing a hammer, that means we shouldn't try to keep them from
getting hold of handguns.
Chris
Mike Dworetsky
news:slrnf2pmf1.2b4....@rotten.egg.sandwich...
Firearms and teenage hormones really do not mix well in social situations.
Speaking of hormones, didn't it say somewhere that Cho stopped to put on
some acne cream before going off on his rampage? He wanted to look his best
for mass murder?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
ayer...@hotmail.com
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
FACT TAKE GOD OUT< AND YOU GET GODLESS KILLERS.After all you lie to
people, and tell them they where monkeys, and there is no after life
after flesh, then your lifes are needless useless. CHECK OUT ALL THE
PAST SCHOOL SHOOTINGS,ALL DONE BY darwinist, and evolutionist. WONDER
WHY. GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.
Ernest Major
ayer...@hotmail.com writes
--
alias Ernest Major
snex
if you discovered irrefutable evidence that jesus never existed, would
you commit mass murder?
alextangent
YOUR CAPS LOCK BUTON IS STUCK!!! GOD WANTS YOU TO PRESS IT NOW! ITS A
BIG RED BUTON AND ITS SYAS OFF.
Lee Jay
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:02 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We've got the dumbest administration in history and probably the most
> > conservative and you think there's no correlation?
>
> A better question is: Why in the hell would you suggest any such
> correlation? Who was in the White House when Columbine (and numerous
> other mass murders on U.S. soil) went down? Did you find some
> correlation then?
One has nothing to do with the other. The administration is dumb as a
stump, and they are conservative. This has nothing to do with what
that idiot student did.
> > Professors tend to be liberal (because liberals get educations while
> > conservatives get indoctrinations) and also tend to be bookworm-
> > types. This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in
> > that category. They do well in academia but poorly handling real
> > equipment like driving cars or fixing houses. And you want to give
> > these types of people guns? Frankly, I don't think many people who
> > didn't grow up with guns would ever be qualified to safely handle one
> > in a true emergency situation.
>
> That's one of the dumbest (and baseless) things I've ever read here.
Personal experience with a lot of professors after 8 years in
college. Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
good and hands-on types of stuff.
> > Being able to hit a paper target at a range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
>
> That's the first true thing you've said. Are you suggesting that
> liberals are inherently less capable of the sort of mental discipline
> that would be involved in carrying out the latter in a life-or-death
> situation?
You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
Lee Jay
AC
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Aren't there just as much incidents in your record in which posessing a
> gun did exactly *nothing* for the victims?
Not to my knowledge.
> Because they were shot dead before they could even grab it, for example?
Even if true...you're claiming that it's better to have no chance at
all to defend yourself than at least some chance?
> Criminals in a gun-ridden society do not take chances...
If that were true then shootings of innocent victims by criminals
would increase when a state passes shall-issue CCW laws. That is not
the case. In fact, the opposite seems to be true in many cases. For
instance, as I've pointed out before, Washington D.C. prohibits
handgun ownership by private citizens...which, of course, is a
restriction that is only followed by law-abiding individuals. Yet
D.C. has the highest (although I understand it loses out to IL on
occasion) homicide rate in the country.
> Funny, no? If less citizens are armed, less criminals will be armed too.
> Because they would not *need* to be armed to do their crimes. Overall
> effect: less people dead in shootings. I think you can see the logic...
I might, if there were even a shred of logic present in that claim.
Criminals are always going to want to be able to subdue their
victims. A firearm is the best way to assure that
capability...especially if criminals know that their victims are
unable to return fire (or, better yet, fire first.)
> Oh well, I plead guilty to the charge of exaggeration. But at least you
> knew exactly what kind of people I was talking about.
Yes. Mostly mythical ones.
> If their numbers are diminishing, that's all the better.
No one said their numbers were diminishing. They were never abundant
to begin with.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> One has nothing to do with the other. The administration is dumb as a
> stump, and they are conservative.
And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
too well in Statistics 101, did you? And, in any event, if you think
the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
> > That's one of the dumbest (and baseless) things I've ever read here.
>
> Personal experience with a lot of professors after 8 years in
> college.
Oh, so it's a personal anecdote. Why didn't you say so. That makes
all the difference in the world.
> Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> good and hands-on types of stuff.
Yes, but I see no evidence that political constitutes the dividing
line between the two.
> > > Being able to hit a paper target at a range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
>
> > That's the first true thing you've said. Are you suggesting that
> > liberals are inherently less capable of the sort of mental discipline
> > that would be involved in carrying out the latter in a life-or-death
> > situation?
>
> You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
> a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
> professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
> not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
You should learn to make up your fucking mind...
"Frankly, I don't think many people who didn't grow up with guns would
ever be qualified to safely handle one in a true emergency situation."
Now, are you also asserting that liberals are the only group who,
substantially, didn't grow up with guns? Or just academics? It
really doesn't matter though, as all three things (your assertion
above and the two other possible side-assertions) are wrong.
Lee Jay
> On Apr 23, 2:34 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > One has nothing to do with the other. The administration is dumb as a
> > stump, and they are conservative.
>
> And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
> too well in Statistics 101, did you?
Got an A, actually.
> And, in any event, if you think
> the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
Yes I do, and I think they are.
> > > That's one of the dumbest (and baseless) things I've ever read here.
>
> > Personal experience with a lot of professors after 8 years in
> > college.
>
> Oh, so it's a personal anecdote. Why didn't you say so. That makes
> all the difference in the world.
I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.
>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine
were in that category."
> > Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> > that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> > good and hands-on types of stuff.
>
> Yes, but I see no evidence that political constitutes the dividing
> line between the two.
And I didn't say so. Pay attention. Most professors are liberals
because liberals tend to value education over indoctrination. Also,
most professors tend to be hands-off types from my own experience.
Therefore most *professors* (not liberals) would tend to be the wrong
people I'd like to see armed in an emergency situation.
> > > > Being able to hit a paper target at a range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
>
> > > That's the first true thing you've said. Are you suggesting that
> > > liberals are inherently less capable of the sort of mental discipline
> > > that would be involved in carrying out the latter in a life-or-death
> > > situation?
>
> > You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
> > a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
> > professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
> > not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
>
> You should learn to make up your fucking mind...
>
> "Frankly, I don't think many people who didn't grow up with guns would
> ever be qualified to safely handle one in a true emergency situation."
>
> Now, are you also asserting that liberals are the only group who,
> substantially, didn't grow up with guns? Or just academics?
Just academics, as I've said. The "liberals" thing was in answer to
derdag's garbled ramblings.
> It
> really doesn't matter though, as all three things (your assertion
> above and the two other possible side-assertions) are wrong.
I disagree. Several of my professors were over 75 (one was 89) and
had been in academia *their whole lives*. I can't see them as being
optimal targets for a concealed carry permit, and if they had one,
they'd be just as likely to do harm as good in an emergency. Now, the
other 10% of professors, that tend to build things, fix their own cars
and houses, and otherwise be hands-on types, maybe.
Lee Jay
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, that is not a fact, it is a lie propagated by fundie loons, see
yourself for an example. Who is lying to people and about what?
Evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys, creationist loons do
that, we evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. This guy was raised
in a strongly religious home and his diatribe contains frequent
references to religion, and strangely, no references to evolution,
care to try and explain that? Most previous similar events of
killings also contain strong religious undertones. Time for a logic
check, if there is no afterlife, doesn't that make this life MORE
precious?
Fact, fundie religous brainwashing produces loons like you.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
> > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>
> Got an A, actually.
You must have been blowing the professor.
> > And, in any event, if you think
> > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> Yes I do, and I think they are.
Then you don't, because they aren't.
> > Oh, so it's a personal anecdote. Why didn't you say so. That makes
> > all the difference in the world.
>
> I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in that category."
Apparently your sarchasm detector doesn't function any better than
your liber/conservative-o-meter.
> > > Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> > > that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> > > good and hands-on types of stuff.
>
> > Yes, but I see no evidence that political constitutes the dividing
> > line between the two.
>
> And I didn't say so. Pay attention. Most professors are liberals
> because liberals tend to value education over indoctrination. Also,
> most professors tend to be hands-off types from my own experience.
Your own anecdotal experience meaning precisely dick in the grand
scheme of things.
> Therefore most *professors* (not liberals) would tend to be the wrong
> people I'd like to see armed in an emergency situation.
I'd like to see any and all "good-guys" (who weren't complete morons)
armed in a situation like the VA Tech one....even if they weren't a
bunch of "Dirty Harry"s.
> > You should learn to make up your fucking mind...
>
> > "Frankly, I don't think many people who didn't grow up with guns would
> > ever be qualified to safely handle one in a true emergency situation."
>
> > Now, are you also asserting that liberals are the only group who,
> > substantially, didn't grow up with guns? Or just academics?
>
> Just academics, as I've said. The "liberals" thing was in answer to
> derdag's garbled ramblings.
So your assertion is simply that one must "grow up around guns" in
order to learn to handle them properly and effectively in an emergency
situtation? The academics you've known must all have been complete
idiots. Of course, that would also explain your "A" in Statistics.
> I disagree. Several of my professors were over 75 (one was 89) and
> had been in academia *their whole lives*. I can't see them as being
> optimal targets for a concealed carry permit, and if they had one,
> they'd be just as likely to do harm as good in an emergency. Now, the
> other 10% of professors, that tend to build things, fix their own cars
> and houses, and otherwise be hands-on types, maybe.
Your understanding of what is required for firearm proficiency (Hint:
It has nothing to do with the propensity for being a do-it-yourself
Home Depot denizen) is even weaker than your understanding of what a
political conservative is.
Desertphile
> On Apr 23, 1:10 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > On 22 Apr 2007 18:02:04 -0700, hbarwood <hbarw...@troy.edu> wrote:
> > Cho wrote about his dissapointment with Christianity and his
> > fellow Christians. His religion does not appear to have been the
> > motivation for his despicable crime, however, any more than
> > science.
> >
> > This is yet one more example of someone who was known to be
> > mentally ill who did not get medical treatment--- and was allowed
> > to buy guns. "Teen Screen" is designed to try to help such people,
> > but many cults in the USA actively oppose "Teen Screen:" they
> > would rather have young people kill themselves and others.
> > > Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
> > > manage to find a way.
> > Yes, that is very ugly and despicable behavior. There is a
> > newspaper article, via Google News, that laments the political
> > spins that right-wingers, left-wingers, and moderates have put on
> > the crime--- thousands of people and groups using the crime to
> > further their politics.
> FACT TAKE GOD OUT< AND YOU GET GODLESS KILLERS.After all you lie to
> people, and tell them they where monkeys, and there is no after life
> after flesh, then your lifes are needless useless. CHECK OUT ALL THE
> PAST SCHOOL SHOOTINGS,ALL DONE BY darwinist, and evolutionist. WONDER
> WHY. GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
> CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.
You can actually joke about the brutal slaughter of 34 people?
--
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> >> Aren't there just as much incidents in your record in which posessing a
> >> gun did exactly *nothing* for the victims?
>
> > Not to my knowledge.
>
Tch, tch, tch. Could you be any more intellectually dishonest?
> > Even if true...you're claiming that it's better to have no chance at all
> > to defend yourself than at least some chance?
>
> No. I'm saying that society as a whole is safer (less people killed) when
> that society does not entertain a gun culture.
Define "gun culture".
> It's not helpful for public safety to have an arms race among citizens.
I agree. But there is no "arms race" taking place. That phrase
implies a spiraling escalation of more/better weaponry. Perhaps you
ought to concentrate more on intelligent, fact-based argument rather
than hyperbolic rhetoric.
> > If that were true then shootings of innocent victims by criminals would
> > increase when a state passes shall-issue CCW laws. That is not the
> > case. In fact, the opposite seems to be true in many cases. For
> > instance, as I've pointed out before, Washington D.C. prohibits handgun
> > ownership by private citizens...which, of course, is a restriction that
> > is only followed by law-abiding individuals. Yet D.C. has the highest
> > (although I understand it loses out to IL on occasion) homicide rate in
> > the country.
>
> You should come live here in Europe for a while. Even when private
> ownership of firearms is not completely out of the question in some
> countries, under certain conditions, we certainly do not see them being
> used the same way as in the USA.
That in no way addresses what I said, and that you're pretending to
respond to. In fact, Switzerland is another example that supports my
point.
> Even our criminals do not normally feel a need to arm themselves to the
> teeth.
Neither do ours. Usually a single small, simple weapon suffices. But
here we are dealing with your preference for misleading rhetoric
again.
> > I might, if there were even a shred of logic present in that claim.
> > Criminals are always going to want to be able to subdue their victims.
>
> Yes. And if they think they can use a club or a knife to threaten their
> victims in a robbery, they are going to use that.
Are baseless claims really all you have to offer?
> If they expect their victims to be armed with deadly weapons they are likely to anticapte, no?
No. Crimes are quite commonly committed using firearms when there was
no reasonable expectation that the victim(s) would be armed. One has
to look no further thant he subject of this thread, in fact.
> > A firearm is the best way to assure that capability...especially if
> > criminals know that their victims are unable to return fire (or, better
> > yet, fire first.)
>
> Preemptive shooting of potential criminals? "Yes, I know I should not be
> using excessive force, your honour, but he looked at me funny..."
I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with
the clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his
weapon and firing first never occured to you.
> > Yes. Mostly mythical ones.
>
> You know they do exist. Freaky people who just *love* guns.
Not nearly to the extent that you suggested. One can describe just
about any extreme and rare personality and still claim "they exist".
Not very useful for discussion purposes though.
> Who collect them....
Please make up your mind to whom you're referring. "Collecter" is not
a synonym for "obsessive nut who'd just love to shoot someone."
> who buy high powered rifles...
Define "high powered rifle".
> and such. Yes I know that those are
> restricted in many states and territories, but in others they are not.
And....?
> >> If their numbers are diminishing, that's all the better.
>
> > No one said their numbers were diminishing.
>
> You did, but now you left that quote out: "They also are an exceedingly
> rare breed". Or how should I understand "exceedingly" then?
Perhaps you should work on your English before presuming to lecture
someone else on the meaning of their words in an English-based
conversation. "Exceedingly" is simply a superlative. It has nothing
to do with a change in quantity over time, which is what "diminishing"
means.
> > They were never abundant to begin with.
>
> Like I said: all the better.
No, that's not what you said. You said it was good that their numbers
were diminishing.
> But you can't deny that they are visible
> bearers of the gun culture.
I can certainly deny it, at least as it pertains to the percpetions of
people who are intelligent to not rely on mass media entertainment for
their knowledge.
> The all-American stereotype. Some of your
> fellow Americans are quite proud of it, too.
Clearly you are not intelligent enough to not rely on mass media
entertainment for your knowledge.
> If a lot of Americans would not attach so much mythos and macho pride to
> their beloved gun culture, private gun ownership in itself might not even
> be such a big problem.
Perhaps if you weren't so blissfully ignorant about that which you
speak you would not be making so many stupid remarks.
> But I guess it would just not be sexy enough to own only a simple
> shotgun. People want big bullets, and mean-looking weapons. They do not
> only want to be able to defend themselves, they want to look good while
> they do it. Just like in the movies, indeed.
Thank you for proving my point.
Lee Jay
> On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
> > > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>
> > Got an A, actually.
>
> You must have been blowing the professor.
Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't). Actually, I got As
in almost everything from preschool to graduate school.
> > > And, in any event, if you think
> > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>
> Then you don't, because they aren't.
They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.
> > > Oh, so it's a personal anecdote. Why didn't you say so. That makes
> > > all the difference in the world.
>
> > I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in that category."
>
> Apparently your sarchasm detector doesn't function any better than
> your liber/conservative-o-meter.
Back-peddling is so wimpy.
> > > > Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> > > > that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> > > > good and hands-on types of stuff.
>
> > > Yes, but I see no evidence that political constitutes the dividing
> > > line between the two.
>
> > And I didn't say so. Pay attention. Most professors are liberals
> > because liberals tend to value education over indoctrination. Also,
> > most professors tend to be hands-off types from my own experience.
>
> Your own anecdotal experience meaning precisely dick in the grand
> scheme of things.
And yours the same.
> > Therefore most *professors* (not liberals) would tend to be the wrong
> > people I'd like to see armed in an emergency situation.
>
> I'd like to see any and all "good-guys" (who weren't complete morons)
> armed in a situation like the VA Tech one....even if they weren't a
> bunch of "Dirty Harry"s.
I had a class with 550 people in it. You think it would be a good
thing if one guy started shooting and 550 people opened fire in that
room? You're talking about over a thousand rounds per second in a
concrete room.
> > > You should learn to make up your fucking mind...
>
> > > "Frankly, I don't think many people who didn't grow up with guns would
> > > ever be qualified to safely handle one in a true emergency situation."
>
> > > Now, are you also asserting that liberals are the only group who,
> > > substantially, didn't grow up with guns? Or just academics?
>
> > Just academics, as I've said. The "liberals" thing was in answer to
> > derdag's garbled ramblings.
>
> So your assertion is simply that one must "grow up around guns" in
> order to learn to handle them properly and effectively in an emergency
> situtation?
No, but I wouldn't trust an academic that has been in academia all
their life to go down and get a concealed carry permit and
automatically be well prepared to handle the situation. They need
training, practice, and refreshers all the time. That's what the
police get.
> The academics you've known must all have been complete
> idiots. Of course, that would also explain your "A" in Statistics.
I guess all my teachers and profs were idiots then, right? So you'd
trust an 89 year old economist with no gun training to open fire on a
hostile in a closed room with little or no training? If I were you,
I'd look around and see if my brain fell out of my ear. In your case,
it probably fits.
> > I disagree. Several of my professors were over 75 (one was 89) and
> > had been in academia *their whole lives*. I can't see them as being
> > optimal targets for a concealed carry permit, and if they had one,
> > they'd be just as likely to do harm as good in an emergency. Now, the
> > other 10% of professors, that tend to build things, fix their own cars
> > and houses, and otherwise be hands-on types, maybe.
>
> Your understanding of what is required for firearm proficiency (Hint:
> It has nothing to do with the propensity for being a do-it-yourself
> Home Depot denizen) is even weaker than your understanding of what a
> political conservative is.
All you have to have to be proficient in firearms is desire, training
and practice. A concealed carry permit requires none of the above.
Without those three, I'd rather people be unarmed.
All you have to be a political conservative is a long flexible neck so
that you can stick your head up your butt or in the sand, which ever
is more convenient.
Lee Jay
Free Lunch
Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote in
<1177373215.0...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Apr 23, 4:14 pm, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 4:51 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > > And from this you've deduced a positive correlation? You didn't do
>> > > too well in Statistics 101, did you?
>>
>> > Got an A, actually.
>>
>> You must have been blowing the professor.
>
>Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't). Actually, I got As
>in almost everything from preschool to graduate school.
>
>> > > And, in any event, if you think
>> > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
>> > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>>
>> > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>>
>> Then you don't, because they aren't.
>
>They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.
That they appear to be, but in traditional American context, the
neo-fascism of this Administration would have been condemned by all of
the conservative voices before 1980. It was Reagan with his fake
conservatism that opened the door to the wars that this administration
has started on freedom.
...
Lee Jay
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:06:55 -0700, in talk.origins
> <1177373215.069422.150...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Yes...conservativism/liberalism is relative to the society at large.
Stupidity, however, transcends time.
Lee Jay
Gerry Murphy
"derdag" <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote in message
news:1177289908.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> I apologize for not doing more with my life...
<snip>
That suffices. No need to qualify it.
derdag
What about people who don't care to be sniveling, cowering victims,
just waiting to take a bullet from your liberal posterchildren? What
about our children who have been trained to defend themselves? What
about people like me and my children, who wish to be self reliant, not
slopping up morsels at the public trough as so many pathetic Gorons
and homosexual pimping Democrats? Why shouldn't we be free to defend
ourselves and the helpless liberals who may be near us awaiting their
bullet?
Not everyone thinks like a helpless, sniveling liberal, bed wetter.
My kids need to stay alive in order to work and sweat supporting a
bunch of helpless liberals. You should consider allowing them to
defend themselves and all of the filthy, stupid, lawless, liberals who
they may be able to save and yet later, provide for.
Gun free zones have been proven to be gun free until some sick,
misfit, coddled liberal walks in there with a gun and kills at will.
VT is a perfect example of how that logic works out.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion.
Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.
> why do you think they refuse to do this?
Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
there, and ask? Seriously.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
snex
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:
> > [...]
> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> > religion.
>
> Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
> pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.
actually it would be a category error, if your criticism were correct.
alas, it is not. theists make claims about the nature of reality.
science is the method that "pro-science" people use to examine claims
about the nature of reality. theists refuse to do so.
>
> > why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
> there, and ask? Seriously.
why dont you save me the time and tell me yourself? why shouldnt
science be applied to the claim that jesus rose from the dead?
er...@swva.net
> On Apr 23, 8:59 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:15 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 8:02 pm, hbarwood <hbarw...@troy.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > > > > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > > > > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > > > > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > > > > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > > > > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > > > > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > > > > otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> > > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > > > > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> > > > lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
> > > > symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
> > > > evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
> > > > the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
> > > > be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
> > > > (he was an English major).
>
> > > > manage to find a way.
>
> > > will come by to tell you you are hurting the cause.
>
> > > > HB
>
> > Boy, are you delusional. At no point in that other thread were you
> > were ever defending atheists. You were going out of your way to
> > attack the beliefs of friendly, pro-science theists. The point is,
> > what the heck is the point to that? The world would be a sorry place
> > if only committed atheists were pro-science.
>
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
>
>
>
> > Eric Root
What actual benefit would we get for doing that? You'd just find some
other thing to grouse about. <8^)
Eric Root
snex
youre right. religions arent the only wacko ideas out there. theres
new-age (rhymes with sewage), astrology, psychic mediums, water
dowsers, homeopathic medicine, transcendental meditation.. the list
goes on and on.
>
> Eric Root
er...@swva.net
You can't offer one shred of evidence that any of those killers were
pro-science. Nope, you're either lying or crazy.
> WONDER
> WHY.
Okay, if you permit supernatural explanations, then: because you are
either lying, crazy, or a stomach-grovelling lickspittle of Satan.
> GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
> CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.
Yeah, the day when all y'all creationists refuse to go to heaven so
you won't have to share it with all those yucky smart people.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
Because they are twisted creeps?
Cory Albrecht
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
Because religion isn't about science?
Of course, you're the athiest who has already decided that a Christian
who doesn't take the Bible literally is a hypocrite. For what ever
reason, you just can't seem to understand that it is possible to view
the Bible in a manner that is is both non-literal and intellectually honest.
You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
those Christian Fundamentalists.
snex
wrote:
> snex wrote, On 2007/04/23 13:33:
>
> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> > religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Because religion isn't about science?
then why do theists make assertions about objective reality?
>
> Of course, you're the athiest who has already decided that a Christian
> who doesn't take the Bible literally is a hypocrite. For what ever
> reason, you just can't seem to understand that it is possible to view
> the Bible in a manner that is is both non-literal and intellectually honest.
>
> You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
> and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
> those Christian Fundamentalists.
feel free to present *evidence* for any of your beliefs that are about
the real world, whether its how myth tellers expected their listeners
to take the story, or whether or not 2000 year old jewish preachers
rose from the dead.
or do you think that religious claims about objective reality shouldnt
need to adhere to standards of evidence?
Cory Albrecht
> On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> No. I'm saying that society as a whole is safer (less people killed) when
>> that society does not entertain a gun culture.
> Define "gun culture".
Have you ever compared Canada and the USA? Crime rates (per capita) not
involving guns are pretty much the same between Canada and the USA. Once
you add guns, however, and things change drastically.
Murders
with Total
Murders firearms Difference Crimes
Canada 1.49 0.5 1.09 7549.21
USA 4.28 2.79 1.49 8006.45
[1] [2] [3]
(per 100 000 people)
[1]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
[2]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
[3]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Just barely over one third (33.6%) of all murders in Canada are done
with guns, where as in the USA it's not quite two thirds (65.2%). Take
away the gun-murder rate from the total rates and you have results that
are a lot closer.
Another interesting page is
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html and the
tables about half way down which compare homicides and gun ownership
rates, from 1998 data, between Canada and the USA.
So the question is "Given the obvious similarities between Canada and
the USA including basic crime rates, why is the murder rate in the USA
so much higher, especially the rate with firearms?"
I think it comes down to gun culture. Look at how the Wild West is
venerated in American culture - a time when "justice" came from the
barrel of a gun. Americans complain that "the media" and especially
"Hollywood" are "liberal" (a rather base insult in the USA), but as a
Canadian awash in American media and the efflux of Hollywood I'd almost
say that the gun is the Golden Calf Idol of American society. And that
is based upon watching the supposedly liberal American media.
The Enigmatic One
der...@chilledwatertech.com says...
>
>
>On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
>> they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
>> theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
>> was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
>> that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
>> evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>>
>> So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
>> otherwise? Why are they silent?
>>
>> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
>> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
>away from lawless liberalism and Democrat Feminism. Since Columbine,
>there is no logical throry which would propose creating "gun free
>zones," which allow one liberal posterboy to kill 32 victims at will.
>
>Bubba must be really proud that he was down in Masturbation Hall, just
>off of the Oval Office, when deciding to create those gun free School
>zones........
Wow.
You're a worthless fucking moron.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com says...
>> But I guess it would just not be sexy enough to own only a simple
>> shotgun. People want big bullets, and mean-looking weapons. They do not
>> only want to be able to defend themselves, they want to look good while
>> they do it. Just like in the movies, indeed.
>
>Thank you for proving my point.
>
Wow.
You're quite the little fucktard.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
xe...@comcast.net says...
>there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
>"pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
>creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
>in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
>they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
>religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
Wow.
Much like derdag and WYOT, you're a real waste of oxygen.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
coryalbr...@hotmail.com says...
>You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
>and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
>those Christian Fundamentalists.
>
Come on, be honest.
It makes him look like a fucking idiot.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
ayer...@hotmail.com says...
>
>FACT TAKE GOD OUT< AND YOU GET GODLESS KILLERS.After all you lie to
>people, and tell them they where monkeys, and there is no after life
>after flesh, then your lifes are needless useless. CHECK OUT ALL THE
>WHY. GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
>CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.
Wow.
You're a fucking sack of shit.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
mightym...@gmail.com says...
>> FACT TAKE GOD OUT< AND YOU GET GODLESS KILLERS.After all you lie to
>> people, and tell them they where monkeys, and there is no after life
>> after flesh, then your lifes are needless useless. CHECK OUT ALL THE
>> PAST SCHOOL SHOOTINGS,ALL DONE BY darwinist, and evolutionist. WONDER
>> WHY. GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
>> CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.
>
>Oh, go fuck yourself.
There you go.
A response that the shitsucker actually deserved.
-Tim
snex
> In article <1177349629.069472.184...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> x...@comcast.net says...
>
> >there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> >"pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> >creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> >in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> >they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> >religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Wow.
>
> Much like derdag and WYOT, you're a real waste of oxygen.
>
> -Tim
i couldnt help but notice you failed to answer the question.
snex
> In article <3ja0g4xcu7....@bytor.fenris.cjb.net>,
> coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
> >and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
> >those Christian Fundamentalists.
>
> Come on, be honest.
>
> It makes him look like a fucking idiot.
>
> -Tim
and yet, not a single coherent answer to any of the questions ive
posed. what are you afraid of?
chris.li...@gmail.com
I'd rather have lunch at the Manson Family Retreat, with guest
appearances by Ed Gein and Ted Bundy, than trust you or your spawn
with a gun.
But before you start thinking your something special, I'd probably
feel the same way about any other idiot troll.
Chris
Bobby Bryant
WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoun...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with
> the clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his
> weapon and firing first never occured to you.
I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
someone that's holding a gun.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
WuzYoungOnceToo
> In article <1177369494.778353.189...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> But I guess it would just not be sexy enough to own only a simple
> >> shotgun. People want big bullets, and mean-looking weapons. They do not
> >> only want to be able to defend themselves, they want to look good while
> >> they do it. Just like in the movies, indeed.
>
> >Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Wow.
>
> You're quite the little fucktard.
What a compellingly eloquent argument. Very impressive.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> > > Got an A, actually.
>
> > You must have been blowing the professor.
>
> Now we know just how your mind works (or doesn't).
Just trying to find some justification for the claim of an "A" in
statistics from someone who managed to infer meaningful correlation
from a single data point. Actualy knowledge and/or intellect
certainly doesn't explain it.
> > > > And, in any event, if you think
> > > > the current administration is truly "conservative" then you don't know
> > > > what that term means in the context of U.S. politics.
>
> > > Yes I do, and I think they are.
>
> > Then you don't, because they aren't.
>
> They are the dumbest administration I'm aware of.
Nice demonstration of the utter inability to follow along.
> > > I did say so. You just don't know how to read for comprehension.>From my post: "This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in that category."
>
> > Apparently your sarchasm detector doesn't function any better than
> > your liber/conservative-o-meter.
>
> Back-peddling is so wimpy.
So is your stupidity.
> > Your own anecdotal experience meaning precisely dick in the grand
> > scheme of things.
>
> And yours the same.
That might mean something...if my arguments were based on personal
anecdotes. Since they're not your response here is just a playground
exercise in "I'm rubber and you're glue."
> > I'd like to see any and all "good-guys" (who weren't complete morons)
> > armed in a situation like the VA Tech one....even if they weren't a
> > bunch of "Dirty Harry"s.
>
> I had a class with 550 people in it. You think it would be a good
> thing if one guy started shooting and 550 people opened fire in that
> room? You're talking about over a thousand rounds per second in a
> concrete room.
Are you capable of anything but strawmen that you pull out of your own
ass? If you seriously believe that all 550 would be able to access
their weapons and begin firing at the same time, and before the
situation was ended by the one or two who managed to do it first, then
you're even more simple-minded than I thought.
> > So your assertion is simply that one must "grow up around guns" in
> > order to learn to handle them properly and effectively in an emergency
> > situtation?
>
> No, but I wouldn't trust an academic that has been in academia all
> their life to go down and get a concealed carry permit and
> automatically be well prepared to handle the situation. They need
> training, practice, and refreshers all the time. That's what the
> police get.
A response to this later, where you make the same ill-informed
assertion.
> > The academics you've known must all have been complete
> > idiots. Of course, that would also explain your "A" in Statistics.
>
> I guess all my teachers and profs were idiots then, right? So you'd
> trust an 89 year old economist with no gun training to open fire on a
> hostile in a closed room with little or no training?
No (regarding the lack of training), nor have I said that I would.
> If I were you, I'd look around and see if my brain fell out of my ear. In your case,
> it probably fits.
If you were me you'd actually be speaking from a position of at least
some knowledge on the subject, as opposed to the complete ignorance
you're basing your arguments on.
> > Your understanding of what is required for firearm proficiency (Hint:
> > It has nothing to do with the propensity for being a do-it-yourself
> > Home Depot denizen) is even weaker than your understanding of what a
> > political conservative is.
>
> All you have to have to be proficient in firearms is desire, training
> and practice. A concealed carry permit requires none of the above.
Perhaps you can demonstrate your knowledge to the class by telling us
what you think the requirements are for CCW permits in the various
states, or at least what the preponderance of them require. I'm
betting that your answers will be wrong.
> All you have to be a political conservative is a long flexible neck so
> that you can stick your head up your butt or in the sand, which ever
> is more convenient.
The level of intellect conveyed via your arguments is truly impressive.
WuzYoungOnceToo
> Op Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:04:54 -0700, schreef WuzYoungOnceToo:
>
> > I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with the
> > clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his weapon and
> > firing first never occured to you.
>
I see you've finally realized that you have nothing intelligent to
offer.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
> WuzYoungOnceToo wrote, On 2007/04/23 19:04:
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> No. I'm saying that society as a whole is safer (less people killed) when
> >> that society does not entertain a gun culture.
> > Define "gun culture".
>
> Have you ever compared Canada and the USA?
I have interacted with Canadians on a fairly regular basis, and I've
learned that it is *impossible* to do so and not be conttinually
bombarded with such comparisons. It seems to be something of a
national obsession in Canada.
> Crime rates (per capita) not
> involving guns are pretty much the same between Canada and the USA. Once
> you add guns, however, and things change drastically.
> Murders
> with Total
> Murders firearms Difference Crimes
> Canada 1.49 0.5 1.09 7549.21
> USA 4.28 2.79 1.49 8006.45
> [1] [2] [3]
>
> (per 100 000 people)
>
> [1]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca...
> [2]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murder...
> [3]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crim...
>
> Just barely over one third (33.6%) of all murders in Canada are done
> with guns, where as in the USA it's not quite two thirds (65.2%). Take
> away the gun-murder rate from the total rates and you have results that
> are a lot closer.
Take away the gun-murder rate and you would have an increase in
murders using other weapons. I'm not claiming a 1:1 exchange, but if
you're suggesting that these extra murders would simply cease to exist
in the absence of firearms then you're being quite naive regarding the
nature of murder.
> Another interesting page ishttp://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.htmland the
> tables about half way down which compare homicides and gun ownership
> rates, from 1998 data, between Canada and the USA.
>
> So the question is "Given the obvious similarities between Canada and
> the USA including basic crime rates, why is the murder rate in the USA
> so much higher, especially the rate with firearms?"
The difference in the basic murder rate is attributable to a number of
factors. One of them is the ill-conceived "war on drugs". Another is
the profound differences between our two countries' immigration
policies, and geographical locations. There are numerous other
contributing causes as well.
> I think it comes down to gun culture.
I keep asking people who insist on using this term what it means, but
I never get a meaningful response. Why is that? Could it be that
it's just another one of those vacuous bumper-sticker concepts that
people just casually toss about because they sound good?
> Look at how the Wild West is venerated in American culture...
The wild west is not nearly as "venerated" in American culture as you
seem to think. Yes, we like our cowboy movies...as
*entertainment*....but we don't take steps to recreate the lawless
West. We also like Mafia movies/shows, because they're fun. But in
the real world we've expended a great deal of time, money and law
enforcement effort in combatting the mob. You need to learn the
difference between entertainment and real attitudes.
> - a time when "justice" came from the
> barrel of a gun. Americans complain that "the media" and especially
> "Hollywood" are "liberal" (a rather base insult in the USA), but as a
> Canadian awash in American media and the efflux of Hollywood I'd almost
> say that the gun is the Golden Calf Idol of American society. And that
> is based upon watching the supposedly liberal American media.
Well, that's what happens when you rely on pop culture entertainment
as the basis for your world view. If you want to deal in reality you
might want to try considering why the majority of adult Americans
don't even own a gun, and why such a large proportion of those who do
only own them for hunting or other shooting sports. There are five
firearms in my own home, but each and every one of them is a hunting
weapon. I have a bolt-action .30-06 and a 12 gauge shotgun. My son
has a bolt-action .243, a 20 gauge shotgun and a semi-auto .22 rifle.
We use them exclusively for hunting, as do a great many other U.S. gun
owners with their firearms. Do you think that make us worshippers of
the Golden Calf Idol?
Mark Isaak
> On Apr 23, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
>> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
>> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
>> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
>> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
>> > religion.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
>> pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.
>
> actually it would be a category error, if your criticism were correct.
>
> alas, it is not. theists make claims about the nature of reality.
No, not all theists do that. My impression is that quite a signficant
number do not.
>> > why do you think they refuse to do this?
>>
>> Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
>> there, and ask? Seriously.
>
> why dont you save me the time and tell me yourself?
Because my own religious beliefs are not relevant, and I have not
explored the subject with theists in sufficient depth to be confident of
doing justice to their views.
> why shouldnt
> science be applied to the claim that jesus rose from the dead?
That should be obvious. Until someone invents a time machine, nobody
knows of any tests to apply. Besides, the bodily resurrection of Jesus
is hardly a defining feature of theism.
puros
> What, to me, is probably the most bizarre position to come from this
> shooting, is the belief that students/teachers should be *armed* "just
> in case". I can't see how anyone would feel *safer* walking onto a
> campus, or out on a street, knowing that everyone is carrying
> concealed firearms.
I feel quite safe here in Indiana. People don't do the kind of random
violent crime you'll get in other states, because everyone here has a
gun. You don't even get the punk kids trying to intimidate store
owners here like in Illinois (home for me). I don't own one, but I
feel a great deal safer knowing that most of the people here do. The
vast majority of the gun owners are responsible.
There's a point where you have to trust other people to act maturely.
Most of them do. A few random, senseless killings will happen, but
it's worth it to live in a free society.
Besides, if Cho didn't have a gun, he'd have used a bomb or
something.
puros
> You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
> a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
> professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
> not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
>
> Lee Jay
You might want to hang around a biology or environmental science
department more often. Those guys get out an awful lot, and most of
them know their way around a gun.
Martin Andersen
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:35:52 +0000, schreef Bobby Bryant:
>
>> In article <1177369494.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoun...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with the
>>> clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his weapon
>>> and firing first never occured to you.
>> I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
>> building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
>> jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
>> someone that's holding a gun.
>
> famous "law-abiding citizens" lying dead, having shot each other, while
> the original killer looks on astounded, saying to himself, "fuck, these
> people are actually crazier than I am".
>
>
>
or: "I just got a great idea for an alibi".
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177349629.0...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
Right. That's it. <ker-plonk>.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Cory Albrecht
> On Apr 23, 10:36 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> snex wrote, On 2007/04/23 13:33:
>>
>>> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
>>> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
>>> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
>>> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
>>> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
>>> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>> Because religion isn't about science?
> then why do theists make assertions about objective reality?
That isn't the point here. The point is you trying to decide what
Christians should or should not believe and you making an uniformed and
ignorant decision as to what is the One True Way(tm) to read the Bible.
>> Of course, you're the athiest who has already decided that a Christian
>> who doesn't take the Bible literally is a hypocrite. For what ever
>> reason, you just can't seem to understand that it is possible to view
>> the Bible in a manner that is is both non-literal and intellectually honest.
>> You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
>> and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
>> those Christian Fundamentalists.
> feel free to present *evidence* for any of your beliefs that are about
> the real world, whether its how myth tellers expected their listeners
> to take the story, or whether or not 2000 year old jewish preachers
> rose from the dead.
I doesn't matter whether it's a myth or not, since religion is about
faith. Something which you seem to lack all willingness to try to
understand. You're almost as bad on this as Ray Martinez is when he says
that faith is about facts.
It comes down to you being just as much as a hypocrite as you try to
claim Christians who agree with the theory of evolution are.
> or do you think that religious claims about objective reality shouldnt
> need to adhere to standards of evidence?
Faith isn't about science or testing of objective reality. Saying that
something that is not science should adhere to the standards of science
is like saying the child on a tricycle in the park needs to adhere to
traffic laws. Utterly ridiculous.
Cory Albrecht
> On Apr 24, 12:25 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> WuzYoungOnceToo wrote, On 2007/04/23 19:04:
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> No. I'm saying that society as a whole is safer (less people killed) when
>>>> that society does not entertain a gun culture.
>>> Define "gun culture".
>> Have you ever compared Canada and the USA?
>
> I have interacted with Canadians on a fairly regular basis, and I've
> learned that it is *impossible* to do so and not be conttinually
> bombarded with such comparisons. It seems to be something of a
> national obsession in Canada.
Mouse beside the elephant syndrome. :-) Besides, it's difficult to not
bing up those comparisons when the elephant next door keeps conflating
"similar" and "identical"- it's simply public education. :-)
However, in this case I feel that bringing it up is appropriate since
you did ask to define "gun culture" and it is a good way to point it out
by comparing the USA to a country that is quite similar.
>> Crime rates (per capita) not
>> involving guns are pretty much the same between Canada and the USA. Once
>> you add guns, however, and things change drastically.
>> Murders
>> with Total
>> Murders firearms Difference Crimes
>> Canada 1.49 0.5 1.09 7549.21
>> USA 4.28 2.79 1.49 8006.45
>> [1] [2] [3]
>>
>> (per 100 000 people)
>>
>> [1]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca...
>> [2]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murder...
>> [3]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crim...
>>
>> Just barely over one third (33.6%) of all murders in Canada are done
>> with guns, where as in the USA it's not quite two thirds (65.2%). Take
>> away the gun-murder rate from the total rates and you have results that
>> are a lot closer.
>
> Take away the gun-murder rate and you would have an increase in
> murders using other weapons. I'm not claiming a 1:1 exchange, but if
> you're suggesting that these extra murders would simply cease to exist
> in the absence of firearms then you're being quite naive regarding the
> nature of murder.
No, I wasn't suggesting that. However it is an important indicator that
so many more of the murders in the USA are with guns, and *that* was the
point I was trying to make in that section. Why _is_ the percentage of
gun murders so much higher in the USA than Canada?
>> Another interesting page ishttp://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.htmland the
>> tables about half way down which compare homicides and gun ownership
>> rates, from 1998 data, between Canada and the USA.
>>
>> So the question is "Given the obvious similarities between Canada and
>> the USA including basic crime rates, why is the murder rate in the USA
>> so much higher, especially the rate with firearms?"
> The difference in the basic murder rate is attributable to a number of
> factors. One of them is the ill-conceived "war on drugs". Another is
Every drug that is illegal on the USA is illegal up here (I'm not sure
if the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana ever actually
went through) and we have our fair share of people singing the War on
Drugs anthem. If anything it's as ill-conceived up here as it is down
there, though with much less funding.
> the profound differences between our two countries' immigration
> policies, and geographical locations. There are numerous other
> contributing causes as well.
I do believe that Canada's immigration policies are looser than the
USA's, which is something your government grumbles about from time to
time about how we let all those nasty people in to Canada, some of which
then quietly slip into the USA. Shouldn't we have the higher murder rate
then, because of that?
Also, how the heck does geography play a part in our respective murder
rates? Or are you implying that Mexicans are the cause of the higher US
murder rates?
>> I think it comes down to gun culture.
> I keep asking people who insist on using this term what it means, but
> I never get a meaningful response. Why is that? Could it be that
> it's just another one of those vacuous bumper-sticker concepts that
> people just casually toss about because they sound good?
"Gun culture" is the apparent veneration of the gun that one sees in
American culture. From the video game Grand Theft Auto to one of the
most popular toys for boys being guns to the cowboy gunslinger and mob
hit-man in the movies to rep music glorifying the gangsta life.
I keep asking Americans about all those parts of their culture but I
never get a meaningful response. Why is that? Could it be that Americans
just label it a vacuous bumper sticker concept so they can throw it in
the garbage and not have to talk about it so they can still feel good
about themselves?
>> Look at how the Wild West is venerated in American culture...
> The wild west is not nearly as "venerated" in American culture as you
> seem to think. Yes, we like our cowboy movies...as
> *entertainment*....but we don't take steps to recreate the lawless
> West. We also like Mafia movies/shows, because they're fun. But in
> the real world we've expended a great deal of time, money and law
> enforcement effort in combatting the mob. You need to learn the
> difference between entertainment and real attitudes.
Perhaps, but then again the the types of entertainment which are popular
in a culture says something about that culture, yes? If Americans
dislike gunslinging cowboys so much, then why is that such a big part of
American pop-culture? Why are movies about mobsters knocking people off
so popular?
Another indicator of gun culture in the USA would be how toy guns are
such popular toys for boys. Or the video game "Grand Theft Auto". Or all
the violence in movies.
>> - a time when "justice" came from the
>> barrel of a gun. Americans complain that "the media" and especially
>> "Hollywood" are "liberal" (a rather base insult in the USA), but as a
>> Canadian awash in American media and the efflux of Hollywood I'd almost
>> say that the gun is the Golden Calf Idol of American society. And that
>> is based upon watching the supposedly liberal American media.
> Well, that's what happens when you rely on pop culture entertainment
> as the basis for your world view. If you want to deal in reality you
I'm not basing my world view on American pop-culture. I would have
thought it obvious that I was basing my opinions of the USA on what I
see that USA producing. To call that a "world view" is rather a bit of
over-inflation and missing my point.
> might want to try considering why the majority of adult Americans
> don't even own a gun, and why such a large proportion of those who do
> only own them for hunting or other shooting sports. There are five
> firearms in my own home, but each and every one of them is a hunting
> weapon. I have a bolt-action .30-06 and a 12 gauge shotgun. My son
> has a bolt-action .243, a 20 gauge shotgun and a semi-auto .22 rifle.
> We use them exclusively for hunting, as do a great many other U.S. gun
> owners with their firearms. Do you think that make us worshippers of
> the Golden Calf Idol?
Why do you need more than two guns for you and your sun to go hunting
with? However, the number of guns you just your household still does not
answer why there are so many handguns in the USA. 76 million in 1998 -
which was 63 times the amount in Canada when American population was
just under 9 times.
My point is that this gun culture attitude is right there in the
products of American culture - movies, toys, video games, etc... One
would have to be naive to claim that it is not a reflection of the
producing people.
er...@swva.net
That's because the questions are the pushy questions of an obnoxious
jerk, who doesn't desrve an answer. The only thing we are are afraid
of is rewarding the substandard, nonfunctional persoanlity traits on
your part.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
er...@swva.net
I couldn't help but notice that, someoneN,-like, you keep changing the
subject to your obsessive questions while desperately avoiding the
real point, which is that you have an unpleasant, dysfunctional
personality. What are you afraid of?
Eric Root
Dick C
> On 22 Apr 2007 23:03:37 -0700,
> derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote:
>> I must really get under the skins of all you slimey libs. That's nice
>> to see. I gotta tell ya.
>> And, after all of the spit you people hockered at me, not one of you
>> can give a logical reason to keep some professors, teachers, personel
>> from being promoted to conceal and carry, two per floor or three per
>> building... Libs aren't thinking people.
>
> I would think making sure that mentally ill people can't buy weapons
> might also be useful, no?
>
And mentally ill people getting treatment would be a big help also.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Dick C
> In article <1177369494.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoun...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with
>> the clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his
>> weapon and firing first never occured to you.
>
> I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
> building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
> jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
> someone that's holding a gun.
>
based on actual incidents, there will be hundreds of rounds fired, none
of the people shooting injured, while all the people without guns will be
shot, and the original shooter will walk away.
WuzYoungOnceToo
> In article <1177369494.778353.189...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > I guess the idea of the assailant aiming his weapon at someone with
> > the clear intent to shoot, with another individual retreiving his
> > weapon and firing first never occured to you.
>
> I wonder what's going to happen when you hear gunfire elsewhere in the
> building, and you plus a dozen other people from around the building
> jump up and march toward the sound of gunfire, intent on shooting
> someone that's holding a gun.
I don't know...but then again, that scenario has nothing to do with
what I said nor what I was responding to. (Climb back through the
posts until you find the word "preemptive".)
Lorentz
> murders using other weapons. I'm not claiming a 1:1 exchange, but if
> you're suggesting that these extra murders would simply cease to exist
> in the absence of firearms then you're being quite naive regarding the
> nature of murder.
etc.) as well as the Bible. I have seen movies about ancient times,
including the recent movie the Three Hundred (based on Herodotus).
None of the ancients had guns. And I would have to say that as far as
violence against ones fellow man goes, even in the absense of
firearms, the ancients did All Right!
snex
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:59:47 -0700, snex wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> >> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> >> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> >> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> >> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> >> > religion.
>
> >> Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
> >> pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.
>
> > actually it would be a category error, if your criticism were correct.
>
> > alas, it is not. theists make claims about the nature of reality.
>
> No, not all theists do that. My impression is that quite a signficant
> number do not.
all theists make at least one claim about the nature of reality - that
a god exists.
>
> >> > why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> >> Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
> >> there, and ask? Seriously.
>
> > why dont you save me the time and tell me yourself?
>
> Because my own religious beliefs are not relevant, and I have not
> explored the subject with theists in sufficient depth to be confident of
> doing justice to their views.
cant take a guess?
>
> > why shouldnt
> > science be applied to the claim that jesus rose from the dead?
>
> That should be obvious. Until someone invents a time machine, nobody
> knows of any tests to apply. Besides, the bodily resurrection of Jesus
> is hardly a defining feature of theism.
oh brother.. your argument equally applies to common descent. nobody
has a time machine, so nobody saw it happen. yadda yadda. this is
almost pagano-esque. we dont need a time machine to infer events about
the past, and you know this.
and i was giving an example, not stating something all theists hold.
snex
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:33:49 -0400, snex wrote
>
> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> > religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Right. That's it. <ker-plonk>.
i cant help but notice you failed to answer the question.
can *anybody* answer it?
snex
wrote:
> snex wrote, On 2007/04/24 00:14:
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:36 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> snex wrote, On 2007/04/23 13:33:
>
> >>> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> >>> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> >>> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> >>> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> >>> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> >>> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
> >> Because religion isn't about science?
> > then why do theists make assertions about objective reality?
>
> That isn't the point here. The point is you trying to decide what
> Christians should or should not believe and you making an uniformed and
> ignorant decision as to what is the One True Way(tm) to read the Bible.
no that is *exactly* the point here. you objected to my claim that
there are no pro-science theists "because religion isnt about
science." but we both know that claims about objective reality are in
the domain of *science,* not religion. if religion isnt about science,
like you say, why do theists insist on making claims about objective
reality?
>
> >> Of course, you're the athiest who has already decided that a Christian
> >> who doesn't take the Bible literally is a hypocrite. For what ever
> >> reason, you just can't seem to understand that it is possible to view
> >> the Bible in a manner that is is both non-literal and intellectually honest.
> >> You really need to stop conflating "disagrees with snex on the Bible"
> >> and "hypocrisy". It only makes you look as intolerant and black&white as
> >> those Christian Fundamentalists.
> > feel free to present *evidence* for any of your beliefs that are about
> > the real world, whether its how myth tellers expected their listeners
> > to take the story, or whether or not 2000 year old jewish preachers
> > rose from the dead.
>
> I doesn't matter whether it's a myth or not, since religion is about
> faith. Something which you seem to lack all willingness to try to
> understand. You're almost as bad on this as Ray Martinez is when he says
> that faith is about facts.
ive asked at least 20 times in this forum how faith is supposed to
work, and how potential errors are eliminated. nobody has ever
bothered to answer. if i dont understand faith, its because those that
claim to use it *refuse* to explain what the hell they are talking
about.
of course, the above is giving you the benefit of the doubt. i
understand faith perfectly well. "faith" is a word people use as an
excuse to believe things that they know arent true.
>
> It comes down to you being just as much as a hypocrite as you try to
> claim Christians who agree with the theory of evolution are.
not just ones that agree with evolution, ones that agree that *any*
part of science is valid. theists cannot assert that science is the
correct way to determine facts about objective reality, but then also
assert facts about objective reality that science either directly
refutes or offers no support for.
>
> > or do you think that religious claims about objective reality shouldnt
> > need to adhere to standards of evidence?
>
> Faith isn't about science or testing of objective reality. Saying that
> something that is not science should adhere to the standards of science
> is like saying the child on a tricycle in the park needs to adhere to
> traffic laws. Utterly ridiculous.
i dont say that something that isnt science should adhere to the
standards of science. i say that assertions about objective reality
should adhere to the standards of science.
snex
perhaps you should reread the thread, and see who the "obnoxious
jerks" are. my questions are no harder than what one would experience
at a thesis defense. i dont suppose you would grant a PhD to a student
who responded to your questions by calling you a "fucking idiot"
>
> Eric Root
snex
the topic was never my personality. and you *still* havent addressed
my point about theists. why?
>
> Eric Root
Mark Isaak
> On Apr 24, 11:37 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:59:47 -0700, snex wrote:
>> > On Apr 23, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
>> >> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
>> >> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
>> >> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
>> >> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
>> >> > religion.
>>
>> >> Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
>> >> pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.
>>
>> > actually it would be a category error, if your criticism were correct.
>>
>> > alas, it is not. theists make claims about the nature of reality.
>>
>> No, not all theists do that. My impression is that quite a signficant
>> number do not.
>
> all theists make at least one claim about the nature of reality - that
> a god exists.
There is a big--nay, a huge--difference between "have an opinion about"
and "make a claim about." And the difference is particularly relevant
to your claim that theists cannot be pro-science. NOT all theists make
a claim that a god exists.
>> >> > why do you think they refuse to do this?
>>
>> >> Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science
>> >> department there, and ask? Seriously.
>>
>> > why dont you save me the time and tell me yourself?
>>
>> Because my own religious beliefs are not relevant, and I have not
>> explored the subject with theists in sufficient depth to be confident
>> of doing justice to their views.
>
> cant take a guess?
It's not my field. Can't do research yourself?
>> > why shouldnt
>> > science be applied to the claim that jesus rose from the dead?
>>
>> That should be obvious. Until someone invents a time machine, nobody
>> knows of any tests to apply.
>
> oh brother.. your argument equally applies to common descent. nobody
> has a time machine, so nobody saw it happen. yadda yadda. this is almost
> pagano-esque. we dont need a time machine to infer events about the
> past, and you know this.
Common descent has been operating continuously all over the earth for
about 500 million years, and throughout the oceans for a couple billion
years before that; the processes involved and the resulting products
are all around us today. The resurrection of Christ, purportedly,
happened exactly once, in one very small area, and involved neither
processes nor testable products that are around today. Can you see a
difference?
Science rarely applies to isolated events. For example, science cannot
say where my coffee mug was at noon on March 26, 2007. If you take issue
with "nobody knows of any tests to apply," apply some tests to tell me
where my coffee mug was. That should be easy compared to an event that
was 2000 years earlier.