http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html)
So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.
There were several people with guns in Arizona when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, and not a single one of them did anything to stop that lone gunman.
As for the place of God in all this, perhaps he should talk to George Zimmerman, who claims his killing of Trayvon Martin was God's will. Was it also God's will that placed this shooter in a crowded movie theater with tear gas and weapons?
Oooh, I just posted the link to that on the Batman shooting thread. That guy is a seriously vile peice of assnose in a big embroided Look At Me hat. I don't even know what that means, I'm just mad.
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
Oooh, I just posted the link to that on the Batman shooting thread. That guy is a seriously vile peice of assnose in a big embroided Look At Me hat. I don't even know what that means, I'm just mad.
Put that in the creative insults thread! :D
That man needs to GTFO of the spotlight and stick his cross somewhere unpleasant.
^^Done! :D
Quote from: Budhorse4 on July 20, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
Oooh, I just posted the link to that on the Batman shooting thread. That guy is a seriously vile peice of assnose in a big embroided Look At Me hat. I don't even know what that means, I'm just mad.
Put that in the creative insults thread! :D
That man needs to GTFO of the spotlight and stick his cross somewhere unpleasant.
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
Directing vituperation at the perpetrator ior right- wing bandeagon jumpers is the kind of scapegoating people seem to need to find an outlet for their anger and perhaps to make some sort of sense of what appears senseless. In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters and the wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on July 20, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
Oooh, I just posted the link to that on the Batman shooting thread. That guy is a seriously vile peice of assnose in a big embroided Look At Me hat. I don't even know what that means, I'm just mad.
Put that in the creative insults thread! :D
That man needs to GTFO of the spotlight and stick his cross somewhere unpleasant.
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
Directing vituperation at the perpetrator is the kind of scapegoating people seem to need to find an outlet for their anger and perhaps to make some sort of sense of what appears senseless. In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters and the wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
For the record, I was calling Congressman Louis Gohmert names, not the shooter. I don't know what to say about the shooter except that he must have been mentally ill. Congressman Louis Gohmert may also be mentally ill, but he's still an ass. Taking a tragedy like this, and somehow twisting it until Christian are the victims takes a special level of cynical self obsession.
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on July 20, 2012, 05:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
Oooh, I just posted the link to that on the Batman shooting thread. That guy is a seriously vile peice of assnose in a big embroided Look At Me hat. I don't even know what that means, I'm just mad.
Put that in the creative insults thread! :D
That man needs to GTFO of the spotlight and stick his cross somewhere unpleasant.
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
Directing vituperation at the perpetrator is the kind of scapegoating people seem to need to find an outlet for their anger and perhaps to make some sort of sense of what appears senseless. In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters and the wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
For the record, I was calling Congressman Louis Gohmert names, not the shooter. I don't know what to say about the shooter except that he must have been mentally ill. Congressman Louis Gohmert may also be mentally ill. but he's still an ass.
I lost a change to my post- now included -acknowledging that.
So are you sticking to your guns about me being furious at the good Congressman being my way of coping with my anger at the senselessness of the slaughter of my fellow Coloradoans while turning a blind eye to the children starving in Africa? >:( Because that anger could just as easily be pointed at a certain Irish gentleman I happen to know. :D
Of course it's all about the poor little persecuted christians! How could it NOT be? ::)
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 06:39:27 PM
So are you sticking to your guns about me being furious at the good Congressman being my way of coping with my anger at the senselessness of the slaughter of my fellow Coloradoans while turning a blind eye to the children starving in Africa? >:( Because that anger could just as easily be pointed at a certain Irish gentleman I happen to know. :D
I meant to differentiate between those who reviled the perpetrator as a way of channelling their anger and revulsion at the killings and your charming self who reviled the congressman as a way of channelling your chagrin at his obtusity.
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 20, 2012, 06:39:27 PM
So are you sticking to your guns about me being furious at the good Congressman being my way of coping with my anger at the senselessness of the slaughter of my fellow Coloradoans while turning a blind eye to the children starving in Africa? >:( Because that anger could just as easily be pointed at a certain Irish gentleman I happen to know. :D
I meant to differentiate between those who reviled the perpetrator as a way of channelling their anger and revulsion at the killings and your charming self who reviled the congressman as a way of channelling your chagrin at his obtusity.
;)
I'll have something to say about all this in a minute... hold on... almost done... okay I can put the dictionary down. I think I know what you're all saying. The best comment I can make is that, while I respect your feelings about the Congressman, Ali, I wouldn't want to wear him as a hat on my ass.
And to you, En_Route... the Congressman's obtusity I don't think has anything to do with this, because I still think he would be an unwearable gluteal garment even if he lost weight.
I caught on twitter earlier that the gunman told police that he was the Joker (which was my first assumption when I heard that he couldn't provide police with a motive...had just told my boss I bet he thought he was the joker minutes before reading about the claim). So unless the religious want to claim the Joker as being one of their mascots they probably should quit complaining.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/20/nyc-police-commissioner-said-alleged-shooter-called-himself-joker-could-have/
btw, I heard about the shooting on my way to a lunch presentation which included a showing of the movie...apparently Dallas isn't too concerned about a copy-cat as I didn't notice increased security and there were a lot of mothers with their kids.
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent
intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents
neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of
any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters and the wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Quote from: Whitney on July 20, 2012, 11:33:29 PM
I caught on twitter earlier that the gunman told police that he was the Joker (which was my first assumption when I heard that he couldn't provide police with a motive...had just told my boss I bet he thought he was the joker minutes before reading about the claim).
I made the exact same assumption the moment I heard the news.
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters athe wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a dick move that whenever someone indicates that they are sad about a death, sure as taxes someone will come along and try to make them feel like an asshole for it by pointing out an even worse tragedy that they are apparently ignoring in favor of the shiny new tragedy. Here's some Truth. I do feel bad about children starving to death in Africa. I feel bad about innocent people that have died in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and in Norway, and in Israel, and every fucking where where people are dying all day every day since time immemorial. But I can't feel equally bad for all of those people everywhere all at the same time because the world is big and the deaths are inifinite, and if I try, my heart will probably burst in my chest, and then my family and community will feel extra bad about me for a moment, forgetting for a moment to feel extra bad about someone else, and then some jerkface will come along and point it out and make them feel crappy for it. Enough. Stop making people feel bad about the way they feel bad. You know I love you E_R, but I stand firm in my position that chastizing people for feeling too badly about tragedy A and not badly enough about tragedy B is a pointless and mean spirited activity.
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters athe wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a dick move that whenever someone indicates that they are sad about a death, sure as taxes someone will come along and try to make them feel like an asshole for it by pointing out an even worse tragedy that they are apparently ignoring in favor of the shiny new tragedy. Here's some Truth. I do feel bad about children starving to death in Africa. I feel bad about innocent people that have died in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and in Norway, and in Israel, and every fucking where where people are dying all day every day since time immemorial. But I can't feel equally bad for all of those people everywhere all at the same time because the world is big and the deaths are inifinite, and if I try, my heart will probably burst in my chest, and then my family and community will feel extra bad about me for a moment, forgetting for a moment to feel extra bad about someone else, and then some jerkface will come along and point it out and make them feel crappy for it. Enough. Stop making people feel bad about the way they feel bad. You know I love you E_R, but I stand firm in my position that chastizing people for feeling too badly about tragedy A and not badly enough about tragedy B is a pointless and mean spirited activity.
I wasn't seeking to castigate anybody for feeling how they do. It was an observation of fact, of how humans deal with tragedy and what are the triggers for feelings of empathy. We are more creatures of emotion and instinct than we would often care to acknowledge. I am not in the business of trying to establish hierarchies of suffering and even if I was, nobody would take a blind bit of notice of me. You ascribe to me rather more influence and persuasivenes than I have at my command if you really think anybody felt a stab of self- laceration having read my post.
I think what it comes down to, is that a whole world full of dying and suffering people is too big and overwhelming. But 12 people just trying to see a movie in a theater that I know and have been to; that I can get my arms around. It's not a big sociological mystery.
Maybe you should give yourself a big high five that you're more important than you think since you made me feel bad enough to comment on it. :D
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:37:18 AM
I think what it comes down to, is that a whole world full of dying and suffering people is too big and overwhelming. But 12 people just trying to see a movie in a theater that I know and have been to; that I can get my arms around. It's not a big sociological mystery.
Maybe you should give yourself a big high five that you're more important than you think since you made me feel bad enough to comment on it. :D
I'm sure the evolutionary psychologists can explain it , because they can explain everything.
I thought you were moved to commenti, not because you felt bad but because you were aghast at the high dick content of my post.
Quote from: En_Route on July 21, 2012, 12:41:39 AM
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:37:18 AM
I think what it comes down to, is that a whole world full of dying and suffering people is too big and overwhelming. But 12 people just trying to see a movie in a theater that I know and have been to; that I can get my arms around. It's not a big sociological mystery.
Maybe you should give yourself a big high five that you're more important than you think since you made me feel bad enough to comment on it. :D
I'm sure the evolutionary psychologists can explain it , because they can explain everything.
I thought you were moved to commenti, not because you felt bad but because you were aghast at the high dick content of my post.
I do have an eye for high dick content, it's true. :D
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters athe wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a dick move that whenever someone indicates that they are sad about a death, sure as taxes someone will come along and try to make them feel like an asshole for it by pointing out an even worse tragedy that they are apparently ignoring in favor of the shiny new tragedy. Here's some Truth. I do feel bad about children starving to death in Africa. I feel bad about innocent people that have died in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and in Norway, and in Israel, and every fucking where where people are dying all day every day since time immemorial. But I can't feel equally bad for all of those people everywhere all at the same time because the world is big and the deaths are inifinite, and if I try, my heart will probably burst in my chest, and then my family and community will feel extra bad about me for a moment, forgetting for a moment to feel extra bad about someone else, and then some jerkface will come along and point it out and make them feel crappy for it. Enough. Stop making people feel bad about the way they feel bad. You know I love you E_R, but I stand firm in my position that chastizing people for feeling too badly about tragedy A and not badly enough about tragedy B is a pointless and mean spirited activity.
Ali, my apologies if any of my subsequent comments in this vein contributed to the general dickishness. Not my intention.
Awww, it's okay. I've had my little storm of temper and am feeling revived and refreshed. Sorry I implied that you and ER were pulling a "dick move." *Snick*
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 21, 2012, 12:47:37 AM
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters athe wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a dick move that whenever someone indicates that they are sad about a death, sure as taxes someone will come along and try to make them feel like an asshole for it by pointing out an even worse tragedy that they are apparently ignoring in favor of the shiny new tragedy. Here's some Truth. I do feel bad about children starving to death in Africa. I feel bad about innocent people that have died in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and in Norway, and in Israel, and every fucking where where people are dying all day every day since time immemorial. But I can't feel equally bad for all of those people everywhere all at the same time because the world is big and the deaths are inifinite, and if I try, my heart will probably burst in my chest, and then my family and community will feel extra bad about me for a moment, forgetting for a moment to feel extra bad about someone else, and then some jerkface will come along and point it out and make them feel crappy for it. Enough. Stop making people feel bad about the way they feel bad. You know I love you E_R, but I stand firm in my position that chastizing people for feeling too badly about tragedy A and not badly enough about tragedy B is a pointless and mean spirited activity.
Ali, my apologies if any of my subsequent comments in this vein contributed to the general dickishness. Not my intention.
Don't fret. Compared to my big swinging dickishness, yours was tiny.
Quote from: En_Route on July 21, 2012, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 21, 2012, 12:47:37 AM
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
I think these reactions say a lot about both the fickle and selective nature of human empathy and human beiings'mechanisms for coping with the arbitrariness and brutality of human existence. More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid. Is it because we can more closely relate to people who share our kinds of lives, or is it the impact of the more immediate and intense media exposure, or the shattering incongruity of purposeless slaughteri in such an innocuous setting?
You are, of course, entirely correct. There is much to condemn about the "fickleness" of our empathic responses to this situation. And I suspect each of your suggestions as to the reason for our vituperation would bear up under analysis. To say that the difference between the two circumstances is that in the one case, a human agent intended to engage in willful slaughter, and carried out his intention, and in the case of starvation in Africa, multiple human agents neglected to act to save innocent children, is perhaps to indulge in an ultimately meaningless distinction - meaningless, at least, to those who suffered death by either means. Should we, therefore, entirely dismiss the role of human intention when considering callousness of any kind, either of omission or commission?
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
In fact, whoever did this is no more than the product of nature and nurture; the world produces psychopaths or what we might emotively term monsters athe wrong set of circumstances will trigger off these kind of atrocities on their part. The idea that people can be truly responsible for what they become entails either swallowing notions of free will which vindicate the notions of heaven and hell , or subscribing to a secular notion of the ghost in the machine, the person who magically invents themselves out of nothing.
Harris makes substantially this argument in his latest book on free will. It does seem that the notion of contra-causal free will is hopelessly confused, and the compatibilist arguments that attempt to reconcile biological determinism with the notion seem more confused still.
Honestly, I think it's kind of a dick move that whenever someone indicates that they are sad about a death, sure as taxes someone will come along and try to make them feel like an asshole for it by pointing out an even worse tragedy that they are apparently ignoring in favor of the shiny new tragedy. Here's some Truth. I do feel bad about children starving to death in Africa. I feel bad about innocent people that have died in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and in Norway, and in Israel, and every fucking where where people are dying all day every day since time immemorial. But I can't feel equally bad for all of those people everywhere all at the same time because the world is big and the deaths are inifinite, and if I try, my heart will probably burst in my chest, and then my family and community will feel extra bad about me for a moment, forgetting for a moment to feel extra bad about someone else, and then some jerkface will come along and point it out and make them feel crappy for it. Enough. Stop making people feel bad about the way they feel bad. You know I love you E_R, but I stand firm in my position that chastizing people for feeling too badly about tragedy A and not badly enough about tragedy B is a pointless and mean spirited activity.
Ali, my apologies if any of my subsequent comments in this vein contributed to the general dickishness. Not my intention.
Don't fret. Compared to my big swinging dickishness, yours was tiny.
Bwah!!! :D
Quote from: fester30 on July 20, 2012, 04:55:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html)
So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.
There were several people with guns in Arizona when Congresswoman Giffords was shot, and not a single one of them did anything to stop that lone gunman.
As for the place of God in all this, perhaps he should talk to George Zimmerman, who claims his killing of Trayvon Martin was God's will. Was it also God's will that placed this shooter in a crowded movie theater with tear gas and weapons?
I have already posted about Rep. Gohmart's comments about the Aurora shootings in the Batman shooting thread and will not repeat them here. am going to comment on the second part of his statement that an armed civilian could have stopped this situation from getting as horrible as it did. I would be among the first to admit that an armed civilian, in the right place at the right time, has the potential to stop an all ready bad situation from getting even worse, however what unfolded in Aurora was not one of those situations. Engaging in a firefight in a dark, crowded theater with people fleeing for there lives, an opponent wearing body armor and with smoke and tear gas being used is one of the few scenarios that I can thing of to make a terrible tragedy even more horrendous.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 21, 2012, 03:35:01 AM
I have already posted about Rep. Gohmart's comments about the Aurora shootings in the Batman shooting thread and will not repeat them here. am going to comment on the second part of his statement that an armed civilian could have stopped this situation from getting as horrible as it did. I would be among the first to admit that an armed civilian, in the right place at the right time, has the potential to stop an all ready bad situation from getting even worse, however what unfolded in Aurora was not one of those situations. Engaging in a firefight in a dark, crowded theater with people fleeing for there lives, an opponent wearing body armor and with smoke and tear gas being used is one of the few scenarios that I can thing of to make a terrible tragedy even more horrendous.
Armed civilian in the right place and time... and with the right training. There's no guarantee any armed civilian has enough training with a firearm to know anything about clearing fields of fire so that they don't accidentally shoot the wrong person. In Arkansas, they have to take just enough training to know how to load, charge, and unsafe their weapon, and squeeze the trigger at a target. Also, without the proper training in emergency situations, people tend wind up as part of the bystander effect, which happened in Arizona. They stand and watch, and even may think they should do something, but just freeze. Like a street full of people walking by a person getting beat up by someone else. "I'm sure someone has called the cops already, let's get out of here."
Quote from: Ali on July 21, 2012, 12:49:56 AM
Awww, it's okay. I've had my little storm of temper and am feeling revived and refreshed. Sorry I implied that you and ER were pulling a "dick move." *Snick*
(((Ali)))
Quote from: RunFromMyLife on July 21, 2012, 02:44:52 PM
This is a slight derail but similar enough to post here I think. Agendas are fun! >:(
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/hate-group-leaders-use-colorado-massacre-to-attack-gay-people/news/2012/07/20/44108
It makes me want to vomit.
Are there depths that these "people" will not sink to in order to push their agendas. I want the vomitorium when you are finished.
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid.
I think it's a bit much to assume that. People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, and starvation all over the world is an old and ongoing problem -- whatever we might be doing to try to help end it, there isn't much new that can be said about it. The shooting in Aurora tho is brand new and naturally going to get a flurry of comments.
Quote from: fester30 on July 21, 2012, 07:42:42 AM
Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 21, 2012, 03:35:01 AM
I have already posted about Rep. Gohmart's comments about the Aurora shootings in the Batman shooting thread and will not repeat them here. am going to comment on the second part of his statement that an armed civilian could have stopped this situation from getting as horrible as it did. I would be among the first to admit that an armed civilian, in the right place at the right time, has the potential to stop an all ready bad situation from getting even worse, however what unfolded in Aurora was not one of those situations. Engaging in a firefight in a dark, crowded theater with people fleeing for there lives, an opponent wearing body armor and with smoke and tear gas being used is one of the few scenarios that I can thing of to make a terrible tragedy even more horrendous.
Armed civilian in the right place and time... and with the right training. There's no guarantee any armed civilian has enough training with a firearm to know anything about clearing fields of fire so that they don't accidentally shoot the wrong person. In Arkansas, they have to take just enough training to know how to load, charge, and unsafe their weapon, and squeeze the trigger at a target. Also, without the proper training in emergency situations, people tend wind up as part of the bystander effect, which happened in Arizona. They stand and watch, and even may think they should do something, but just freeze. Like a street full of people walking by a person getting beat up by someone else. "I'm sure someone has called the cops already, let's get out of here."
Agreed training should be required. In thus case I doubt that any amount of training would have improved the situation.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 21, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 20, 2012, 06:27:51 PM
More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid.
I think it's a bit much to assume that. People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, and starvation all over the world is an old and ongoing problem -- whatever we might be doing to try to help end it, there isn't much new that can be said about it. The shooting in Aurora tho is brand new and naturally going to get a flurry of comments.
I can well understand the respective news values at play here.
The point I am making is that people have been moved and affected, often viscerally so, by the Aurora shootings.
But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.
Quote from: En_Route on July 21, 2012, 09:12:42 PM
But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.
I really don't see what's intriguing about the difference in reaction. People dying of starvation all over is old news -- it's bad, we all feel bad about it, and most people try to do something to help out at least occasionally, but we're used to this bad news. Why is it intriguing that reaction to something everyone is used to should be more restrained that to the novelty?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 22, 2012, 12:51:56 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 21, 2012, 09:12:42 PM
But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.
I really don't see what's intriguing about the difference in reaction. People dying of starvation all over is old news -- it's bad, we all feel bad about it, and most people try to do something to help out at least occasionally, but we're used to this bad news. Why is it intriguing that reaction to something everyone is used to should be more restrained that to the novelty?
Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.
Oh, I disagree entirely with your assessment. I think you're way off base in fact and judging things very shallowly. It isn't
empathy that depends on novelty, it's our reaction.
ER, I think people tend to be more concerned with what directly affects them as a person. My perspective of what i find important enough to empathize over is vastly different than yours.
There isn't anything wrong with being sad over the theater massacre, especially in Ali's case, where she knew the victims involved. So let's stop playing the 'my story is sadder than yours' game. :-\
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 22, 2012, 08:12:24 AM
ER, I think people tend to be more concerned with what directly affects them as a person. My perspective of what i find important enough to empathize over is vastly different than yours.
There isn't anything wrong with being sad over the theater massacre, especially in Ali's case, where she knew the victims involved. So let's stop playing the 'my story is sadder than yours' game. :-\
You're rebutting a point I never made.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 22, 2012, 01:49:20 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.
Oh, I disagree entirely with your assessment. I think you're way off base in fact and judging things very shallowly. It isn't empathy that depends on novelty, it's our reaction.
Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer, our empathetic reactions.
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 12:35:06 PM
Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer, our empathetic reactions.
Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs. I've never lived amongst the starving in the deserts of Darfur, but I've heard about it for so long that it becomes sort of "the way it is." I have been in a theater in America watching a movie with my family, so I can more readily summon the fuel for an emotional reaction to what occurred in Aurora, CO. But that tank will also eventually run dry as over-exposure occurs, and as the next crisis comes along. I will barely remember this in a year, as I will have had to empty my empathy tank 50 times in the interim.
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 12:35:06 PM
Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer, our empathetic reactions.
I'm far from certain that what anyone feels about situation A vs. situation B can be properly determined by their reaction to either singlely. There are other factors involved in a reaction to any situation, and I don't think anyone's degree of empathy can be assessed so glibly.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 22, 2012, 02:07:00 PM
Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs.
Factors like that. I've been hearing about the starving all over the world since I was 10 years old and being taught current events in school. I remember being very shocked and worked up about it at the time, but that was nearly 50 years ago, the situation of the poor and starving has not substantially changed (altho my ability to donate time and/or money has) and my emotional reaction to it is naturally muted.
I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a normal or reasonable thing for us to go about reacting in constant raw shock and outrage over every single thing that's terrible, regardless of whether it's just happened or has been ongoing since the days of primordial ooze.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 22, 2012, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 12:35:06 PM
Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer, our empathetic reactions.
I'm far from certain that what anyone feels about situation A vs. situation B can be properly determined by their reaction to either singlely. There are other factors involved in a reaction to any situation, and I don't think anyone's degree of empathy can be assessed so glibly.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 22, 2012, 02:07:00 PM
Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs.
Factors like that. I've been hearing about the starving all over the world since I was 10 years old and being taught current events in school. I remember being very shocked and worked up about it at the time, but that was nearly 50 years ago, the situation of the poor and starving has not substantially changed (altho my ability to donate time and/or money has) and my emotional reaction to it is naturally muted.
I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a normal or reasonable thing for us to go about reacting in constant raw shock and outrage over every single that's terrible, regardless of whether it's just happened or has been ongoing since the days of primordial ooze.
I don't think anything of the kind. Empathy is a severely rationed commodity.
Quote from: fester30 on July 20, 2012, 04:55:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html)
So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.
I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying! I can understand.
Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly. And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable. But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun? I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?
Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection? I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world. Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does! And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas.
The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man. While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak. Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both. Or...they are fearful for no damned reason. In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.
Or...so are my thoughts.
Peace.
Quote from: En_Route on July 22, 2012, 07:36:57 PM
I don't think anything of the kind. Empathy is a severely rationed commodity.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on July 23, 2012, 12:34:22 AM
Quote from: fester30 on July 20, 2012, 04:55:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html)
So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.
I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying! I can understand.
Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly. And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable. But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun? I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?
Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection? I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world. Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does! And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas.
The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man. While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak. Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both. Or...they are fearful for no damned reason. In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.
Or...so are my thoughts.
Peace.
Apparently that theater was a gun-free zone anyway.
Quote from: Happy_Is_Good on July 23, 2012, 12:34:22 AM
Quote from: fester30 on July 20, 2012, 04:55:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html)
So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting. Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.
I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying! I can understand.
Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly. And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable. But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun? I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?
Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection? I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world. Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does! And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas.
The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man. While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak. Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both. Or...they are fearful for no damned reason. In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.
Or...so are my thoughts.
Peace.
This is well said, but in addition I sincerely doubt that the theater would allow it's patrons to care concealed weapons anyway. The liability issues would be prohibitive.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 23, 2012, 09:51:58 PMThis is well said, but in addition I sincerely doubt that the theater would allow it's patrons to care concealed weapons anyway. The liability issues would be prohibitive.
I wouldn't want to imagine how a shoot out in a confined space with hundreds of people would turn out.
So what's the answer?
Restrict gun ownership? (I certainly think so)
Society trying to detect these lonely types and be more amicable with them (I think so).
I'm out of ideas about what else could be done.
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 07:19:56 AM
I wouldn't want to imagine how a shoot out in a confined space with hundreds of people would turn out.
Not to mention that the hero gunman would have to reach for the gun, wield it, sight the evil gunman from presumably an elevated position, in the dark, through smoke and the onslaught of others trying to leave the theater in panic.
It has to be small percentage of people who can make that shot. Some specialized training perhaps.
I've heard stories of fist fights breaking out in theaters over kicking the back of seats or talking during a show. The last thing we need is to introduce guns in to those situations.
Quote from: hismikeness on July 24, 2012, 07:25:37 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 07:19:56 AM
I wouldn't want to imagine how a shoot out in a confined space with hundreds of people would turn out.
Not to mention that the hero gunman would have to reach for the gun, wield it, sight the evil gunman from presumably an elevated position, in the dark, through smoke and the onslaught of others trying to leave the theater in panic.
It has to be small percentage of people who can make that shot. Some specialized training perhaps.
I've heard stories of fist fights breaking out in theaters over kicking the back of seats or talking during a show. The last thing we need is to introduce guns in to those situations.
Yeah, I get that. I'm not strict anti-gun but the idea of all these little Rambos walking around with concealed .38s just waiting for the chance to off a bad guy in a public place does scare the shite out of me. The last thing I want is some redneck hyped up on God Guns and Guts to start popping off rounds in the general direction of where he thinks the bad guy is. Then you have two gunmen that need to be dropped, and honestly if I were a cop I'm not sure who I shoot first.
I'd rather take my chances with only one whacko shooting at people.
Great fun living in a state where all it takes is a pulse and the ability to sign your name more or less correctly to get a concealed weapons permit.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 12:36:45 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on July 24, 2012, 07:25:37 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 07:19:56 AM
I wouldn't want to imagine how a shoot out in a confined space with hundreds of people would turn out.
Not to mention that the hero gunman would have to reach for the gun, wield it, sight the evil gunman from presumably an elevated position, in the dark, through smoke and the onslaught of others trying to leave the theater in panic.
It has to be small percentage of people who can make that shot. Some specialized training perhaps.
I've heard stories of fist fights breaking out in theaters over kicking the back of seats or talking during a show. The last thing we need is to introduce guns in to those situations.
Yeah, I get that. I'm not strict anti-gun but the idea of all these little Rambos walking around with concealed .38s just waiting for the chance to off a bad guy in a public place does scare the shite out of me. The last thing I want is some redneck hyped up on God Guns and Guts to start popping off rounds in the general direction of where he thinks the bad guy is. Then you have two gunmen that need to be dropped, and honestly if I were a cop I'm not sure who I shoot first.
I'd rather take my chances with only one whacko shooting at people.
Great fun living in a state where all it takes is a pulse and the ability to sign your name more or less correctly to get a concealed weapons permit.
At the very least, how is an assault weapons ban an infringement on your rights? Who needs an assault rifle? It's not like you're going to be hunting anything with one, and you don't need 100 rounds at a time to defend yourself against someone should you decide to arm yourself.
Also drove me nuts when the Republicans tried to pass a bill whereby every state would have to respect the gun laws in an out-of-state residents state. In other words, if you come to Massachusetts where they ban assault rifles from Texas, Massachusetts wouldn't be able to apply their gun laws to the Texas resident. And the GOP claims they're all about "state rights". What a bunch of hypocrites.
Sorry, but this whole thing is so upsetting, and there will undoubtedly be more cases like this because of such easy access to guns. It saddens me.
These are obviously the high profile situations that inflame the gun control debate. The crazy lone gunman with legal weapons is the extreme minority of gun crimes. A story here and there about the hundreds of people killed in major cities by people with illegal weapons surfaces, but does not garner the attention of the events like the theater shooting. I think banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines makes sense. We have managed to get away with banning bazookas, automatic rifles, etc, without the 2nd amendment standing in the way. The other side of the coin is enforcement. The greatest number of gun crimes is perpetrated by people not legally able to own firearms, or people that obtained their weapons illegally. I think enforcing the laws in place is a first step. Adding more laws that aren't enforced won't help until we take care of the laws we already have. The Kansas City Gun Experiment demonstrates this.
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/150855.htm
A bit on CNN today about tweets concerning where God was during the shooting, and some of the predictable responses received. I don't like Twitter, but it's interesting to watch what people put:
Where was God in Aurora massacre? (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/where-was-god-in-aurora-massacre/)
Quote from: Firebird on July 25, 2012, 06:49:27 PM
A bit on CNN today about tweets concerning where God was during the shooting, and some of the predictable responses received. I don't like Twitter, but it's interesting to watch what people put:
Where was God in Aurora massacre? (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/where-was-god-in-aurora-massacre/)
I don't know why I followed that link, I knew that it was just going to piss me off. But like a lemming I can't stop myself...
Pastor "It's a miracle!" Strait has been getting quite a bit of mileage out of this tragedy. He's been out there around the clock pimping his god to anyone who will listen to, or read his inane garbage.
" There's just one way to describe what happened: 'a miracle.' The doctor explains that Petra's brain has had from birth a small 'defect' in it. It is a tiny channel of fluid running through her skull, like a tiny vein through marble, or a small hole in an oak board, winding from front to rear." Pastor Strait explains it this way: "In Christianity we call it
prevenient grace: God working ahead of time for a particular event in the future. It's just like the God I follow to plan the route of a bullet through a brain long before Batman ever rises. Twenty-two years before."
Oh, now that you've made up an intelligent sounding name for it I buy the bullshit completely. ::)
I'm wondering why god didn't just keep her car from starting? Or wave his magical hand and deflect the pellet completely? Or better yet, instead of monkeying with Petra's brain couldn't he have just fixed the crazed gunman's brain? I mean since he's not above interfering by working with a person's brain, why not work on the brain that needs it the most and save everyone?
Hard to believe that an adult with anything even approaching an average IQ would buy into this load of crap.
Quote from: Firebird on July 25, 2012, 06:49:27 PM
A bit on CNN today about tweets concerning where God was during the shooting, and some of the predictable responses received. I don't like Twitter, but it's interesting to watch what people put:
Where was God in Aurora massacre? (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/where-was-god-in-aurora-massacre/)
God was busy not answering you prayers. Per usual.. >_>
As always with an event like this there are prayers going out all over America for the victims, their families, and even the shooters. Sometimes I wish I was religious so I could just be lazy when bad things happen and just send prayers and still feel like I'm doing something to help instead of donating blood, money, time, etc.
Quote from: fester30 on July 26, 2012, 04:13:33 PM
As always with an event like this there are prayers going out all over America for the victims, their families, and even the shooters. Sometimes I wish I was religious so I could just be lazy when bad things happen and just send prayers and still feel like I'm doing something to help instead of donating blood, money, time, etc.
Lazy is the perfect word for it.
"Oh, i dont know how to handle this situation, but my prayers are with you."
If only i could pray away all my debt and sorrows. ::)