Slashdot Mirror
World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Fifty people were killed inside Pulse, a gay nightclub, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other officials said Sunday morning, just hours after a shooter opened fire in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. At least 53 more people were injured, Mina said. Police have shot and killed the gunman, he told reporters.
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
Will the jackass who keeps posting spam and saying Slashdot hates gays please leave permanently? The story has been posted, now STFU. Slashdot doesn't hate gays.
Islamic extremist and mentally ill. Though I don't think it's possible to be an Islamic extremist without also being mentally ill.
While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
This statement is about a perp who called 911 and proclaimed himself an agent of ISIS
No matter what you think about the civil rights aspect of our surveillance state, it is increasingly clear that it does not not work.
However, instead of calls to disband it, I'm sure there will be calls to make it even more intrusive. And there is no limit to that. If another event happens, we must not be surveilling the population enough...
Dylann Roof?? Buddhist?
I don't respond to AC's.
And the circle jerk mentality they so love.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Doesn't matter. The guns did it. Only Guns kill people. At least that is the normal media narrative. God help us if anyone asks why someone on a watch list can pass a Federal Background check for a gun purchase... And nobody point out that "watch" does not mean he was on a "do anything" list. I mean, since we passed all these crappy surveillance laws to fight movie piracy, you think we could use them to stop mass murder occasionally?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Can't vouch for this, but various sites are reporting...
TFA mentions that Mateen was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014, but not deemed dangerous. This reinforces my doubts that background checks will ever be very effective in general, whether for terrorism or any other type of bad behavior.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't know about Florida, but state laws in the US typically prohibit possession of guns wherever alcohol is served, so the perp probably thought he was attacking a soft target.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
The reason not to act too hasty with a definitive declaration is that more evidence could come to light. What if it wasn't the perp, but someone else spreading disinformation? What if the perp himself was spreading disinformation to try and maximize the impact of his crime? That kind of thing. No, it isn't likely but it is too early to say definitively. Hence the "We think it is this, but can't say for sure." I think that is proper over all. Say what you think, but make sure to keep what you think and what you know clearly delineated.
The PC is the idiots who are either prohibiting discussion of this or worse, blaming American culture and it's supposedly ever-prevelant homophobia.
Rather than responding to the darkness of terror with the cleansing sunlight of truth and free discussion, major discussion sites like Reddit are shutting down discourse on this major event? This is a grave disservice to everyone who believes in a free and open society. Comments that offer nothing but vitriol, hate, and anger should certainly be moderated, but locking and deleting entire threads because the task facing the moderators is too hard is not the answer.
I cannot imagine what the families and friends of those killed and injured are going through. Instead of politicizing this hours after it occurred, how about everyone take a long moment to focus on supporting those whose loved ones were killed or whose loved ones are still in limbo in the hospital. There will be plenty of time for fingerpointing, anger, and hate later. Showing the best humanity has to offer is the best response to the worst humanity has to offer.
Buddhist?
American(NY in fact) born citizen with from what I hear Afghani immigrant parents, working as an armed security guard for a courthouse in Florida. Oh, and was also investigated and cleared TWICEby the FBI for possible ties to Islamic extremism.
It is important to also remember that there are a lot of Christians in this country with not too dissimilar views towards homosexuality than what radical Islam does. In fact when I first saw "Shooting at gay nightclub" this morning my first assumption was that some anti-gay marriage person had gone off their rocker.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
According to the timeline posted by the media, the gunman initially exchanged fire with three cops at 2am. They did not pursue him. 100 cops arrive. They do not attempt to enter. At 5am, the SWAT team finally breaches and kills the terrorist.
That left the attacker with 3 whole hours to kill his hostages. Shades of Columbine, where the police were similarly afraid to respond until they had ridiculously overwhelming force.
He wasn't on a watch list, he was interviewed several times, but it was decided he wasn't a threat each time. In one instance, his go-workers reported him to the FBI for pledging his support of Isis, but somehow his employer (which helped him get a concealed carry permit) claims to have been completely surprised that he was possible if such an attack.
Buddhist?
American(NY in fact) born citizen with from what I hear Afghani immigrant parents, working as an armed security guard for a courthouse in Florida. Oh, and was also investigated and cleared TWICEby the FBI for possible ties to Islamic extremism.
It is important to also remember that there are a lot of Christians in this country with not too dissimilar views towards homosexuality than what radical Islam does. In fact when I first saw "Shooting at gay nightclub" this morning my first assumption was that some anti-gay marriage person had gone off their rocker.
When a Christian does it, it's considered anomalous, mentally sick behavior, but when it's a Muslim, literally no one is surprised. I'm not criticizing the attitude, I just think it's interesting how it really doesn't matter if an Islamist is ill when he commits an atrocity like this. I figured that probably says something about the state of Islam when people really just want to ignore the sorts of differences that define Islamic mass-killings.
Oh yeah, false flag. You're an idiot.
Christians: "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Muslims: "Kill all the gays!"
Liberals: "As you can see, all religions are equally bad!"
I have a very good idea of what Christianity is. I was raised Baptist and even attended a 4 year baptist university. You see, I also know that extremit's are extremists no matter what colors they fly. If you don't think there are Christians out there who would have cheered on an act such as this, and that there are a lot more Muslims condemning attacks like this, then you are naive.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
According to an ex co-worker of his he had gone completely nuts.
>>It is important to also remember that there are a lot of Christians in this country with not too dissimilar views towards homosexuality than what radical Islam does.
Sorry, you don't get a pass on this, I'm calling bullshit. There are not "a lot" of Christians with views on homosexuality similar to radical Islam.
Radical Islam *stones* gays, executes them. There may be large sects of Christians who are not in favor of gay marriage, and vastly smaller numbers who believe gays will "burn in hell," but to equate the number of individuals in either of those non-representative Christian groups as "a lot" and equivalent to the number of Sharia-embracing Muslims who would happily and dutifully murder someone because of his sexual orientation is either woefully ignorant or dangerously disingenuous.
Wake up.
Though I don't think it's possible to be an Islamic extremist without also being mentally ill.
Applies to all religions, actually.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The background check that I had to undergo for my gun license was pathetic. It’s just not enough to search for criminal history, we need an invasive search for mental health issues. In these days of Google and ChoicePoint vacuuming up everything about us, it’s never been easier to gather information.
Why is it I need hundreds of dollars of insurance each year just to drive my car, but I don’t need ANY insurance for my handgun? They both can kill, and one of them is PRIMARILY for killing, so shouldn’t insurance be a requirement?
That would prevent a lot of poor gun owners from owning guns, but maybe this has gotten so out of hand that we need to restrict gun ownership.
I know this is somewhat perverse, but this attack might actually speed up acceptance and tolerance towards homosexuals in the US, particularly considering the way Orlando is already reacting and coming together. The messiness of the whole fay marriage fight and the rise in popularity of intolerance in national discourse was a big factor in my initial response and this could go a long way to heal that rift. The best way to fight terrorism and extremism is to use their attacks as an opportunity to grow closer and stronger rather than grow more fearful and further apart.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You can't convict someone for being suspicious - we have courts. They should have started watching closer after the gun purchase, maybe, but don't tell me you support fighting thought crimes.
Remember, they're "moderate Muslims" until they grab an assault weapon and start shooting up the place.
And whacko loony Fundamentalist Christians are just "Christians" until they make fertilizer bombs, execute doctors and shoot up clinics and patients, target blacks, target Muslims...
The key point is that large numbers of Muslims are homophobic. 10 (or 11, I can't remember) Muslim countries kill homosexuals as a criminal punishment. ISIS/ISIL throw them from high buildings. Moreover, attacks by Islamists worldwide aren't exactly rare. Take them at their word when they say they're doing it for religious reasons. After all, there's no "ground truth" in religion. It doesn't have a 5-sigma standard of proof so doing it is justified as much as not.
However in this case I would definitely throw in mental illness. Treatment for mental illness is lamentable pretty much everywhere. Spotting it is very difficult. Doing something about it without infringing someone's fundamental rights is impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This beats all the abortion doctors murdered in the past 50 years in the US
So did the San Bernardino attack.
Point to the Christian mass shootings against gays in this country in the last 5-10 years.
You mean like the Christian terrorist who was thwarted in LA today from carrying out his attack on gays?
Of course there are the Christian terrorists shooting up abortion clinics.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
No, it can't. It is lack of belief in deities, and, by extension, the supernatural. Usually the people claiming it is a religion are religious themselves and do it because they can't handle the possibility of people having morality that lacks dependency on the supernatural.
The two laws you mention ban weapons based largely on APPEARANCE, not functionality, and they don't mention at all the type of guns most often used in murders. You're advocating "scary looking" guns. Exactly what difference do you think a barrel shroud or folding stock would make?
Here's a look at the effectiveness of the "assault weapons" ban from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
This so-called "terror watch list" is a secret arbitrary list created by bureaucrats, denying people put on it any "due process" granted by the 14th Amendment. So it's fortunate it does not prevent people from exercising their 2nd Amendment Right.
Hmm.
https://www.frontiersmedia.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Christians used to burn the sinners alive out of their love for them. Torture and religious terrorism were pretty much invented by Christians. They are currently just more assiduous by implementing their hatred through laws and courts, which is probably way more dangerous in the long term lasting effect it has on society.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I think the point is that being on the terror watch list prevents you from doing other things, benign things like traveling by plane, but it doesn't prevent you from doing the most obvious thing: buying weapons.
Yes the list is extra-judicial and shouldn't exist at all, fine, but that's some pretty twisted legislation which allows arbitrary prevention of travel but not the purchase of firearms.
Fun fact: if you're on the terror watch list you can still buy weapons. Thank God the 2nd amendment is more prescious than lives huh?
This is because a person on the terror watch list often do not know they are being watched and the terror watch list is completely arbitrary in that anyone can be placed on it for any reason. To deny someone a constitutional right because they are placed on a list would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to not be deprived of; life, liberty or property without due process of law. In essence to deny someone rights because they are arbitrary placed on a list without being informed and no way to appeal being placed on such a list that deprives one of their life, liberty or property would be presuming them guilty of a crime without an indictment and trial which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments also prohibit.
Talk to a shrink, lose your right to own a gun...No unintended consequences in that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wife beater.
I think of the mass shootings the way I think of domestic abuse... not that much political thought going into it, it's mostly just anger and power displays. Islam has a particular problem with beaten women - sisters, mothers, daughters, wives. But that's actually more of an Arab issue, there really isn't the same wife-beating in muslim Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia. It's worse in those countries than in the USA or EU, it's not that different from India, Nepal, China, etc.
I suspect most violence is committed by men that most women don't like. Timothy McVeigh couldn't get a date. Many muslims are losers with women, but it is being a loser with women, not the religion, which predicts the behavior. If you want a society which condemns mass violence, find one that successfully integrates women. If you want a serious boiling over incident, put a male authority mindset into a powerless position in a female-positive society. People are looking for commonalities "assault weapons" and "Islam". I think weakened males and empowered females creates a recipe for hopeless angry meaningless violence.
Timothy McVeigh was a dickless loser who fawned over Waco's Koresh. Dylann Roof was clearly dickless. The Boston marathon bombers had no dicks. And Syria is absent women, men only get women by committing war crimes and being awarded kidnapped Kurds. Society is getting better because women are more empowered, and the losers are the guys who thought "at least I'm not a woman" who suddenly find they are not only the bottom of the male gene pool, they are totally bottom. Even guys wouldn't kiss that asshole.
Gently reply
I know, I know. You're just trolling with ignorance. But here's how it works.
Atheism is just a lack of beliefs in gods. It's not a religion. Now you have have an atheist who is dogmatic about other things, usually ending in -ism. Capitalism, communism... But if you question what their theology is (theism being key) you don't get capitalism as an answer.
It's exactly the same as someone being Christian and being a right wing capitalist. Even if the two may statistically go hand in hand, when you ask that person what their theology is, you get Christian as an answer.
Words and concepts matter. You don't get to throw them out for 10 seconds so you can say something, but then expect YOUR OWN words to carry weight.
Once you give the government control over who gets a firearm, eventually only government agents get them. There's a reason it's second on the list. The kind of manipulation you suggest has become the mainstay of washington's politics whenever individual liberty gets in the way of some agenda. If anything should be banned, it's that kind of weasel wording.
I've read that homosexual relationships between Afghani men and boys are surprisingly common in Afghanistan, although forbidden and not entirely consensual.
Maybe this guy was in the category of less than consensual youth participant at some point and is having trouble with the cognitive dissonance of that experience.
Combine that with kind of a loser lifestyle and maybe the purifying mission of ISIS became appealing, offering an opportunity to get in on a little jihad, punish "those men" who made him perform homosexual sex acts, and purify his own tainted soul by demonstrating he's not one of them.
He chose gays to kill on purpose and it was a pretty deep and personal hostility. You can argue the strategic merits of a nightclub (limited egress, lots of people in a small space, etc) but dozens of places meet that criteria -- movies, malls, sporting events, and all of them filled with degenerate, gluttonous and heretical Westerners, all of them much higher value targets than Hispanic homosexuals.
He picked gays to kill because of his own psychological issues, ISIS propaganda was just a catalyst that set off the reaction.
What I really worry about now, though, is that every fringe nutjob with a personal axe to grind now using ISIS as an excuse to start killing people. I worry it will become a meme for lunatics that will take on a self-perpetuating dynamic.
He was a professional security guard for Christ's sake! He used guns in his job. There's basically no way he wouldn't be able to buy a gun under any system short of a complete ban on ownership of firearms for non-military types.
And then the massacres would all be done by soldiers....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How can atheism be a religion? Be specific, and provide your definition of "religion"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Belief != religion.
Next.
Satanism is Christian. Satan is Christian. Satan is a Biblical angel. He fell, then decided to "break" man by educating him. Satanism is belif in God, but reversal of the "good" and "bad" sides. Satan wants to educate and improve humanity. God wants to be worshipped. God is the selfish entity in Satanism, and Satan is the benevolent and loving one. Same Bible. Same God. Different interpretation.
One must believe in Satan to worship him, thus Satanism is a form of Christianity.
Learn to love Alaska
Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people. Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.
At the time it was authored, well regulated did not mean what you think it means today, and the militia consisted of all free males of military age.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
You're wrong. No editors modded your comment up or down.
For any sizable group X, and any heinous, act Y, can find people who claim to be faithful members of group X and yet advocate Y. This should not be news to any adult.
The more interesting question is, do you think Jesus is okay with this kind of act, based on what you know?
And alternatively, do you think such an act is compatible with anything Muhammed taught?
Your citation of isolated anti-gay incidents over the course of the past century (from... where? Wikipedia, Mother Jones, and The Nation? Good job, there, Mr. Murrow...) just proves my point.
Meanwhile, the number of (Muslim) districts and (Muslim) nations which are *EXPANDING* their adoption of the strictest code of Sharia is GROWING. Yeah, you know, the strict kind: where gays and women with children out of wedlock are executed... Kind of what Christian nations did... IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Pray that Islam has a Reformation in the 21st century at least half as comprehensive as Christianity did in the 16th century.
>>pinning all violence carried out by people who might be Muslim on Islam
I'm not pinning it on Islam, you fool, the shooter called 911 before his crime and did that himself!
Should being on a watch list bar you from having due process, the protection from self incrimination, or free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Should it allow your speech to be silenced by the government? Should it bar you from being able to vote?
If you can bar any constitutional right by simply being on a watch list, you can be denied any rights for being on a watch list.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves. As much as it'd probably be more scientifically correct to be an agnostic I have problems respecting people who believe in adult fairy tales just like superstition and astrology or that there's goblins and gremlins. I can't prove it, but yeah... I'm going to act like this is all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo with no basis in reality.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How can atheism be a religion?
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Penn Jillette
Alot closer then 600 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and something like 70 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just saying it like it are.
Yes, really. So you can buy a rifles with a Bible verse on it. That is completely equivalent to Muslims tossing gays off buildings or Iran executing gays. Yes, completely equivalent! Why, put a Bible verse on your gun and you're as bad as burning 19 women to death because they wouldn't let you rape them.
Go up to a Christian in Rome and state you're gay. The worst that will happen is they'll tell you you're a sinner and you need to repent or go to hell. Now do the same in Mecca, and the Government will try you and sentence you to execution. Yes, I can see your point. A verse on a firearm is 100% equivalent with how you'll be treated by the rest of Islam for coming out as gay!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Atheists aren't lining up to wipe people out over their lack of belief in deities.
Atheists get hostile when people are killed because they don't share the same belief. So would any sane person.
If lopping peoples' heads off in the name of allah, or shooting up clubs full of people who don't follow the koran's guide to sexual mores isn't dehumanization by tribalist thugs, then what is?
Criticism of irrational views and cultures which promote them is not 'hate.'
Perhaps you have never lived in a Communist country, which were by law atheistic. The Gulags were filled with religious and priests.
You're welcome to spend as much time as you want as an AC, writing out long-winded diatribes and bolding words if it makes you happy. We are not Reddit so we will allow you to do this as much as you want. Just know that you are wrong, and your posts are pretty stupid which is why people mod you down.
Sigh. This troll again. Let's make this a simple metaphor. To state that atheism is a religion would be like stating that "off" is a TV channel or that silence is a particular sound. Absence of a thing is not a form of the thing. It is simply the absence of it, no more, no less.
It’s just not enough to search for criminal history, we need an invasive search for mental health issues.
Everyone I know with depression refuses to get help because a single confirmed diagnosis of depression is worse for getting a job and all that than a felony conviction.
All you'd do with that "search" is to increase the number of undiagnosed people with mental issues.
Actually helping people is a better solution.
Learn to love Alaska
In most states it is illegal to hunt deer with an AR-15 in it's standard .22 caliber because it is not considered powerful enough and therefor is inhumane.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Penn Jillette
I dunno... I can't say I've heard people pontificate about their non-stamp-collecting, nor drone on about the evils of stamp collecting or how not collecting stamps is the only intelligent option.
I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
#DeleteChrome
Editors didn't mod any of those links up or down. What happened is, of the 300,000 unique visitors per day that view Slashdot, more than a handful decided that you're comments sucked and modded appropriately.
Statistically, there are no examples of gun owners who do not own guns killing anyone. Or existing.
I have, however, run into atheists who are every bit as zealous and annoying as the people they love to publicly hate.
In all fairness, that's about the only type of atheists you're GOING to run into - or at least realize it. The ones that silently ignore people when they start talking about religion aren't really gonna make much of a lasting impression.
Generally religious people aren't hurting anyone - and religion actually keeps some people inline who wouldn't be mentally strong enough to behave without fear of consequences in the afterlife. As such most of them I'm happy to let believe whatever they want.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Replying to my own post, it turns out that there are 10 states that don't allow hunting big game with a .223: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Allow me (different AC) to offer a different conspiracy theory. Taco Cowboy (and his obvious AC posts) is really APK. This posting is really quite similar to the way APK conducts himself and both are batshit crazy.
It is a belief. It is an affirmative belief. It might qualify as a religion or creed depending on how you define those words.
There are traditionally philosophical distinctions made between "strong" (or "positive") atheism vs. "weak" (or "negative") atheism. "Strong atheists" have a positive belief that no gods exist. Most atheists are merely "weak atheists," who don't actively believe in gods -- and may think they sound unlikely -- but don't have an (unprovable) belief in their non-existence. Lack of belief in something doesn't necessarily entail a positive (and equally unprovable) belief in an opposite.
It is a belief because you can't prove something doesn't exist. It's a consequence of logic. All reason is necessarily based on a foundation of beliefs.
This is a bit of a different issue, which is more related to the traditional definition of agnosticism. A traditional agnostic is someone who has a positive belief that the answers to some questions are unknowable. ("Gnostic" refers to knowledge, an agnostic believes that one can't have that knowledge.)
These days the word "agnostic" is often used for weak atheism, but it's actually a separate issue. An agnostic traditionally is someone who believes we CANNOT know whether God exists -- it's just not a question that can be verified one way or another on the basis of normal empirical evidence. (Philosophers sometimes draw a distinction between "strong" and "weak" agnosticism too.)
An agnostic is someone that neither believes in the supernatural nor does not believe in it. They are undecided or uncommitted.
Again, that's not the word traditionally meant. What you're describing is what philosophers and theologians would generally call weak atheism (i.e., lack of a "theist" belief, hence a-theism). Agnosticism is about what we ALL could possibly know on the basis of evidence, and whether we have sufficient grounds to justify belief, not about whether an individual believes or not.
People colloquially use the label atheist when they mean a person that atheist or agnostic since to them both are guilty.
Agreed, though as I noted -- there are even more distinctions that you make. Using these terms the way philosophers would, it's quite possible to be a gnostic atheist (i.e., a person who has a positive belief that God by definition doesn't exist and believes that he has certain knowledge of this fact), or an agnostic theist (i.e., a person who believes that God exists, but believes it is outside the possibility of science to prove it), or even other stranger combinations.
Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
This is again a separate issue. If I were dying of starvation, I'd definitively prey on animals to survive... sure.
Atheist behave just like any other religious extremists.
As a non-Theist I have to point out that Atheists are disgruntled Theists, and should be expected to continue the same behavior patterns and group structures that they grew up with.
People who were never Theists don't become Atheists, they just stay agnostic. A bad question that has no answer isn't improved by insisting that the answer is "no." The only solution is to not ask the question because is based on faulty premises.
No, an AR-15 is a .22 caliber. The military cartridge is called a 5.56 NATO. The sporting version is a .223 Remington. The bore dimension is .219", the groove dimension is .224". In a .22 Long Rifle the bore dimension varies by manufacturer but is generally .217" and the groove is .222". They all are considered .22 caliber, they are just called by different names to distinguish the chamber.
Perhaps you have never lived in a Communist country, which were by law atheistic. The Gulags were filled with religious and priests.
Any country can have an official religion, or no religion. Neither have a monopoly on morality, or immorality.
Myself, I tend to think that morality is based on some pretty simple concepts, like the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
What I find disturbing is that many religious people believe that all morality comes from religion, ant we would be rapists, murders, and child molesters except for belief in their particular Gawd.
I do tend to bring that conversation to an embarrasing halt when I say " You just said that the only thing keeping you from being a rapist, murderer and child molester is fear of your gawd punishing you!"
Me? I don't do that kind of stuff because I know it is inherently wrong, not because if I do it, I'll get a toasty reception when I shift this coil.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Seems like the "well regulated militia" part of that right would go a long way to preventing lone mentally ill people obtaining guns and murdering large numbers of people.
Time to lobby for full implementation of the 2nd Amendment.
You are (deliberately, it must be - because there's so much information out there, including abundant correspondence and other writings by the people who wrote the 2nd amendment explaining all of this) getting the amendment exactly backwards.
... that the people running that military didn't have the power to say that they and only they would have a monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms. Otherwise, the local militia leader (or mayor, or governor, or president, etc) might decide to disarm everybody not in the militia/army "for their own good" or whatever other reason they might trot out.
The people who formed the new country, and who wrote the charter (constitution and its amendments) governing its structure had very recently lived under a Crown that did things like station troops in their houses, deny them the ownership of weapons, etc. They didn't like that. Most of those who wrote the constitution didn't even like the idea of having a standing military of ANY kind, even the local militias that were drawn upon to fight the revolution. But after much discussion, they realized that a standing military of some sort was inevitable and likely necessary. At the very least, in the form of locally organized militias. But they wanted to be very clear, just in case someone like you came along and pretended not to understand things like an individual's right to defend themselves, that just because there was likely to be a standing, well-organized military at some scale
So the amendment - though many thought this was so obvious that it didn't even need saying - is there to protect your right to keep and bear arms even though there will be a standing military to fight battles as needed. Because the founders completely understood the importance of individuals being able to exercise that right if they so choose. The 2nd Amendment says, to put its language in slightly more modern form: "The government cannot use the need for a well-organized military as an excuse to infringe on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms."
Of course you know all of that, and you're just trying to pretend you can't understand the amendment's plain language, because by pretending to deliberately get it backwards, you can push for the agenda you prefer (government control over more liberties). The problem is that the amendment's language is plain, and the ample supporting writings surrounding it all completely reinforce that understanding.
So if you want "full implementation" of the 2nd amendment, you're actually asking to strike down the many laws that run counter to its plainly stated protections. Regardless, you're also totally pretending to misunderstand how the constitution works. Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd doesn't say what you're allowed to do, it says that the government may not interfere with it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
None of which matters, though, as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. That amendment says that despite the need for a standing military at some scale, that doesn't mean the government can infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms. That's the whole point of the amendment - to prevent those who would run a military (from the local militia types up to a federal army) from becoming the same sort of overbearing, tyrannical force that they saw in the Crown's military presence prior to the revolution. The founders considered the individual's right to keep and bear arms to be every bit as important as the individual's right to free speech and assembly - and the first two amendments prohibit the government from interfering with either of those rights.
So regardless of the history of the militia, the amendment isn't about establishing some requirement about being in one in order to keep and bear arms. It's about protecting the right to keep and bear arms even if there is a local (or bigger) militia that might want to reserve that power for itself. The founders had had enough of that behavior from the British.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Erh... objection, I don't like being told I don't exist.
You don't have to drink the cool-aid to know you don't like the taste. If the smell is bad enough and you see what it does to people, you can make a sensible decision that it's probably unhealthy without first taking a swig.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I dunno... I can't say I've heard people pontificate about their non-stamp-collecting, nor drone on about the evils of stamp collecting or how not collecting stamps is the only intelligent option.
Obviously you've never spoken to someone who is not a soccer fan during soccer world cup or some such event. Ok, this is for Europe, but let me assume you are smart enough to translate this to Superbowl or something if you're in the US.
When the fans turn the whole fucking world into a circus for their bullshit hobby for a month, sane people try to avoid it, when they are repeatedly forced to face it, sometimes they just can't stand it anymore and will tell you just what they think about this parade of tribal primitivism. And if you live near a stadium, you have plenty of stories to tell about the stupidity and sometimes evil of this bread & games circus.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Some of us actually listened to the famous 2002 Dawkins speech about militant atheism. And the reason we are fighting religion is the same that black people fight racism - because it does hurt society even when it isn't hanging people up on trees. The special rights of churches everywhere, they don't come for free. The special significance that is put on religious morals (over, say, humanist morals) inhibits the evolution of ethics. The pressure on public figures to be religious spreads the disease and makes it more difficult for people who want out to do so. The fact that small children get indoctrinated, I could get on but I would only get angry.
I'm very happy to ignore all the thousand religions on this planet that don't affect me. But to claim that the major religions in the place where you live don't affect you would be delusional. If something bothers me (in the active sense, to bother someone), then I have every right to tell it to fuck off.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There is a very simple counter-point to the whole religion = morality thing, at least to the not-entirely-rabid proponents.
Animals do not, generally, behave as amoral rapists, murderers and child molesters. Ergo animals either have religion or they can figure out how to behave in a way that keeps their groups functional. If base animals can figure that out surely humans with our vastly superior intellects can too.
Still waiting, though. .
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Everyone who is not a native american in the USA is an immigrant, or the child, grandchild, etc. of an immigrant.
Defending a society does not mean closing borders. A society is not a physical entity. Defending a society means enforcing the values that are central to it, and offering those who want to join it the choice of accepting those values, or not getting in.
To make a progressive society, you need to allow some space around the status quo, because new and different impulses can make the society better. New ideas need to come from somewhere. However, you need to remember two things. First, that you still need an idea of what your values are, even if you are ready to let them evolve. You can't replace it with anything goes. You need to clearly and openly and repeatedly state that this value is not up for discussion. In western societies, that is the basic human rights, for example. And secondly, you need to understand when someone is not bringing a slightly different point of view to the discussion, but wants to sabotage the discussion.
Just like a democracy needs to be wary against people who run in elections and play all the games, but their actual intention is to undo all of that once they are in power, a society needs to be wary of those whose intention is not to add to the culture, but to remove anything that is not theirs.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Animals do not, generally, behave as amoral rapists, murderers and child molesters
Sorry - I am about as unreligious as one can get while still being able to get along with coworkers/friends/etc. who are religious - but this is a deeply silly argument. Amoral is, by definition, lacking in the scruples or strictures defined by the human concept of "morals." Animals are all "amoral."
"Morals" are a meta-conversation about behavior which large-brained social creatures such as humans use to form behavioral norms which go beyond direct self-interest (or pack interest in some social animal contexts). "Animals" as we think of most non-human creatures on this planet are simply not capable of that kind of thought.
Every dog that has ever tried to hump your leg is a "rapist." Pretty much any male animal will f--k any other female (or male in some species) member of their species at any time, regardless of consent, unless they are genetically programmed to wait for signs of estrus/fertility and "presenting" before doing so. There are no voluntarily vegan brown bears who do so because they feel bad for salmon. Lions, wolves and other predatory animals feel no compunctions around murdering alpha pack animals in order to take their place. I don't have the knowledge to speak to animal "child molestation" but I'm fairly certain that horny animals will f--k whatever they think they can.
Animals don't have religion, but they don't have morals either. To suppose that one is a requirement for the other is a base fallacy at best.
"95% of all Slashdot
I know, and I hope that you know, that if you walk into Wal-Mart, and ask for a box of .22 bullets, the sales clerk will reach for a box of bullets with a lable that says .22 He or she may ask if you want .22 Long Rifle, but probably not, because almost all .22 ammo sold these days is Long Rifle.
Now, if you purchase that box of .22 ammo, carry it home, and load your AR with it, you'll probably not be able to fire the damned thing at all. The .22 cartridges are going to rattle around in the magazine, and never make it into the chamber. Even if you stuff a .22LR into the chamber, close the breech, and pull the trigger, it probably isn't going to fire - it's a rimfire, vs the center fire firing pin.
Let us dismiss the common .22LR for now.
I know, and I certainly hope that you know, that chambering the wrong center fire round into your center fire rifle is quite likely to result in your serious injury or death. You can play cute with terminology here, but not all ".22 caliber rifles" are the same. As you point out, the chamber isn't .22 caliber at all - the damned chamber MIGHT BE as much as an inch in diameter. The chamber tells you what size the cartridge needs to be to fit the chamber.
So far, you've not made any points that aren't obvious to anyone who knows his weapons.
Perhaps in your state, the law says that you must use bullets that are .30 or greater - I don't know what your law actually says. But I find that hard to believe. I've taken big game with .243 and .270. My dad has taken big game with a .22 Hornet - that was the only rifle he could afford to buy all those years ago before WW2. That Hornet is a sweet little gun - but it wouldn't be legal to use for big game today in either my home state, or my adopted state. It is, indeed, a .22 The .222 and the .223 are legal. The weight of the bullet, the powder charge, and even the diameter of the bullet sets them all apart from the .22.
Just give it up - you mis-spoke, and now you're trying to justify what you said. You simply cannot push all those rounds you've mentioned through the barrel of a .22 rifle. Each of them will damage the barrel, if not the chamber. Eventually, the damned rifle might even blow apart in your hands.
There's a reason why shooters are taught to always check their weapon and their ammunition to see that they match.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Twaddle.
Atheist - believes god(s) don't exist.
Agnostic - not sure either way, or believes it's not possible to know.
Apostate - an ex believer.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To be fair, atheists have science on their side : it's trivially easy to prove that many bible/torah/kuran "facts" are utter bullshit, while no god is needed to explain anything happening in our universe. Occam's razor, baby!
"That Muslim loon actually has a church preaching the death and destruction."
I guess you never got to see a Catholic IRA affiliated preacher in action.
Or Ashin Wirathu, the Buddhist leader in Burma that has been, and still is leading the massacre of thousands of muslims in the name of Buddhism (yes, really).
Or the many Buddhist preachers in Sri Lanka that supported and continue to support the massacre of Hindu Tamils.
Or the Orthodox leaders in Bosnia in the 90s, that preached in support of the Serbian genocide of over 10,000 muslims.
Or Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army preaching that they're doing the Lord's work in killing civilians in parts of Africa still to this day.
Turns out, bad people can coopt religion and use it as an excuse to do their bidding whatever that religion may be.
You hear about muslims the most because that is the group that most concerns the Western media. Militant Buddhists in Asia, and Christian warlords in Africa just aren't a threat to us, so the media just doesn't care about those.
Frankly, I defend none of them, extremists are extremists and are all vile human beings, but when people try and pretend that muslims are the only real problem it gives away a disappointing lack of global knowledge in an individual. It comes across as incredibly insular, that you're unaware of anything going on outside your own bubble.
So sure, chat away about this being the biggest threat to the West, you wouldn't be wrong, but you can't rationally pretend that there's something inherently more problematic about their religion than any other. There are over a billion of them living perfectly peacefully wishing no harm on anyone just as most Christians living in America and Europe are doing exactly the same. Most people in the world are decent human beings, you can't let extremists win by falling into the hate trap they're pushing, by seeking to divide those of us who are decent people against each other. I'm an atheist and I find religion nonsensical but blaming a whole group for the actions of a minority? pretending it's inherent to the majority of the group as a whole? It's not a nice path to go down and it simply isn't true. It's also exactly what extremists that you profess to hate want you to do, so if you really hate islamic extremists then why are you giving into them and doing exactly what they want? They want division between otherwise peaceful people who identify with different religions because they see that as the path to holy war (jihad), and that's exactly what you're giving them.
Animals do not, generally, behave as amoral rapists, murderers and child molesters
Rape is very common in the animal kingdom. The notion of consent is quite difficult in a species that doesn't have language, but even if you limit the definition of rape to the male holding down the female and forcing himself on her then it's still common. Go and see how ducks mate sometime - three or four of the males hold the female down and take it in turns. Or look at dolphins.
In terms of murder and child molestation, it's fairly common for a male (especially in the large cats) to kill the cubs fathered by another male that they displace.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Go up to a Christian in Rome and state you're gay. The worst that will happen is they'll tell you you're a sinner and you need to repent or go to hell. Now do the same in Mecca, and the Government will try you and sentence you to execution."
Go up to a Christian (Russian Orthodox) skinhead in Russia, or a Christian fundamentalist in Uganda and do the same and tell me it works out just as well. You can't compare a stable modern Western European country with a backwards violent state like Saudi Arabia. Christian nations like Russia have defacto state sanctioned with the backing of their churches the violent, sometimes murderous persecution of gays also.
Gay people are persecuted just as much in Christian countries as in muslim countries, just not in our Christian countries in the West because we're that much more progressive. Ex-soviet regions like Serbia, Georgia, Lithuania, and Russia itself, as well as many African nations and some Central and South American nations that are Christian treat gay people just as poorly.
Even in the UK if you get on the wrong side of a Catholic IRA member over the issue you're going to be in for a bad time. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is Catholic and has similarly called for the beheading of gay people. Nigeria is 40% Christian, but >95% of the populace support harsh punishment for homosexuality. Honduras is a Christian nation and over 100 people have been killed there for being homosexual in the last 10 years.
You're probably right that the death penalty for homosexuality is more common in statute in islamic nations, but then, the death penalty is also more common in statute in islamic nations in general so that shouldn't be too surprising. You can't pretend that overall though that homosexual people have any less a hard time under religions other than Islam as they do under Islam, it's simply not true. Christians are far and away just as guilty of engaging in violence against and murder of homosexuals (and in fact, so are Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs).
You could argue that ISIS are exceptional, as it would often seem they are, but even they sometimes come across as amateurs in their trade compared to the violence inflicted by groups like the drug cartels in Mexico, or numerous rebel groups in Africa that align with Christianity and have targetted homosexuals before. You can search for more information on this if you desire, but it's particularly disturbing, don't say I didn't warn you if you do, it'll certainly change your perspective on ISIS having a monopoly on excelling at violence.
Homophobia is a problem that goes beyond any one single religion, if you think otherwise then you have an incredibly naive and short sighted world view. Homosexuals are simply a convenient hate target for groups seeking a hate target to rally their supporters around, much as the Jews have been for thousands of years. It's a common target because homosexuals are a minority present in every community around the world. It doesn't matter what background the people professing the hate are from, it's entirely tangential to the issue - they just need a target to hate, and this particular target is present on each and every one of them's doorstep.
>To some, the word God means essentially "nature", or "natural laws", which makes the atheist's position untenable.
Nope, that kind of Spinozan view is, in fact, a form of atheism (and one I find quite appealing myself). It's not a worship - merely a wonderment at something bigger than yourself, many notable atheists regularly express Spinozan views. De Grasse Tyson for example frequently speaks of the sense of wonder he feels when studying the cosmos - that's Spinozan thought.
It differs from religion in being devoid of worship - it does not personify those forces. Recognizing a real universe greater than ourselves and our small part in that universe with a sense of wonder and astonishment is beautiful and a driving motivation for science - but it is fundamentally NOT religion and does not require any believe in things that aren't there. You could call it spirituality without the need for spirits.
And a key aspect is this: because there is no personification of these forces, they cannot be given authority - and thus nobody can claim to act in the name of that authority. People who do the latter always and without exception abuse the power that they thus acquire.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
Interestingly there are groups that want out to change immigration, for example, Pritti Patel a Conservative MP for the Brexit campaign wants out so that rather than having large numbers of European migrants, we can instead increase the number of Bangladeshi migrants acting as curry workers (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/minister-priti-patel-quit-eu-to-save-our-curry-houses-a3251071.html). They had an interview with a Malaysian student (who can vote, because she's a commonwealth citizen resident in the UK) who said she will vote out because she wants less Polish immigrants and wants it to be easier for her and other Commonwealth people from countries like Nigeria to immigrate instead.
Personally I'm not the anti-immigration type, it's not affected me negatively and just like every politician that comes into power I realise it creates a net economic good for the countries (something that contrary to the rhetoric has been shown in a number of studies such as that from Oxford's migration observatory, and from the ICL) but I never cease to be amazed at the complete selfish shit fight going on amongst those who are immigrants, and as such I propose that if we're going to close our doors and remove people that the first people we kick out are the intolerant ones, because my country was always built on tolerance and if they don't like that they can fuck off home.
The people that are going to be most surprised though are British natives who are voting out for xenophobic anti-immigrant reasons and are going to get a sore surprise when they realise that it isn't going to decrease immigration for the reasons above. Instead of Poles who are reasonably educated, and have a similar culture and so integrate fairly well they're going to be faced with Pritti Patel's Bangladeshi migrants which will be fun, given that poor integration of nationals from poorer Islamic nations in the UK is the one thing that's created most our nation's anti-immigration sentiment in the first place.
I think it's sad that so many people come to countries like ours to take advantage of the wealth and then would deny it to others. I wonder how much Taco Cowboy will be parroting the closed borders policy when the next step is to also start deporting folks like him back home?
The whole immigration debate is flooded with nonsense and bile from top to bottom including from those who have most benefited from the status quo. The real problem is that sociopaths like him aren't the isolated cases. If we could figure out how to spot them a mile off and deny them entry in the first place then I suspect the whole immigration issue would be a whole lot less problematic, but maybe there's something to that? Maybe people who leave their country behind in the first place are more inclined to be selfish and be the type that just looks out for themselves, whilst those that stay behind and try and fix their country are inherently more selfless in general, hence why we end up with so much hypocritical dross like we're seeing here?
So, are you arguing that Obama, Hillary and Trump are all mentally ill? They all mentioned that they're praying.
Duh. For those three, there's so many other clues they're mentally ill, no need to single out prayer.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
That's why I love Penn Jillette as an advocate for atheists. He really has a way of explaining things well:
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
In that case, I'm a dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"one who believes that there is no deity
[...]
How agnostic Differs from atheist
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. ".
P.S. It's a bit arrogant lecturing someone else about *their* native language. Especially when you're completely wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're still confusing yourself between atheism and agnosticism.
If you have no view either way then you're agnostic because you've determined the answer to be unknowable with current available evidence, if you have a belief there is no god, or a specific disbelief in god, then you're an atheist.
"Actually having a belief that there is no higher power, in a way validates the belief in a higher power, which is completely contrary to what atheism/non-belief is."
No, it really does no such thing. If what you mean is that theist zealots can say "But your system is just a belief too!" then you're right, the difference is that atheists have the pragmatism of being able to argue that if you're going to believe in one unproveable thing like a god, that you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hence, it makes more sense to simply not believe in such nonsense, or alternatively, to go the agnostic route and at least argue that it's all unknowable so not worth having an opinion on.
There are ultimately just three answers to the question, is there a god? Yes, no, and maybe/I don't know. Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are the words we use to describe these things, and once again, the dictionary makes this clear. If you don't like that, then don't argue with me, I don't define language, I just consume it as defined. Argue with the authors of every dictionary every written if you have a problem with it, that is unfortunately how the English language is defined, and if you want to create your own definitions you must start your own language.
So "a tiny minority of native Americans" were spontaneously generated in the Americas?
Pretty cool.
No brain, no pain.
A lot of immigrants aren't just of the "I've got mine, screw everyone else" but they are also the sorts that have fully embraced their adopted culture. They have fully bought into the system. Quite often they did things in terms of the "straight and narrow". So they are likely going to be more "law and order" types because of that.
Native borns also really don't have any perspective to speak of. They're lazy and apathetic. They may think that there is no point in working too hard or they might simply not realize how good they have it.
This is why countries that can handle immigrants find them useful. They're fresh blood. However, that only helps if the fresh blood is willing to assimilate and be productive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.