They weren't oppressive because of their atheism. They were oppressive because of their political ideology being at odds with reality and human social structure.
Probably. They fought with each other long before whitey came along, too. Welcome to being human 101: Defend yourself and your society or it'll be trampled by another.
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.'
Well, that's two separate issues. Should it or should it not have control? If the former, then how much? Progressives interpret the existing controls as constitutional but insufficient and conservatives interpret that existing control as unconstitutional.
In my opinion, if regulation is the right way to go, then progressives should call a constitutional convention and amend the document, not bullshit around it. At least then the issue will rise to the surface and be dealt with by the citizens. Like I said above, his suggestion is dirty as hell.
Fear mongering like this is precisely why the right to bear arms (along with others) is in the bill of rights. Place the blame where it belongs: the perpetrator(s). We don't blame toyota when one of their cars kills. We blame the people involved.
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.
The real answer is sane immigration policy that deters people with conflicting value systems from emigrating and subverting ours. Creeping 'sanitation' of our environment won't make these conflicts go away. It'll just make us less capable of dealing with outside threats. We've seen what 'multiculturalism' has done to Europe. I'd rather it not happen here.
I wonder if it's possible to have honest, life-applied, and consistent religious beliefs without also being mentally ill to some degree. Basing critical life choices and morality on improvable nonsense is what breeds a lot of the irrationality in our society, from the imposition of relatively benign but irritating limitations on liberty to these sorts of rash acts. It's not just religion either. Ideology applies as well.
I wonder when the west will quit defending this 2000 year old squabble of the desert dogmas.
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.
'my people'? Nice generalization there, especially for someone who's supposedly against the expression of such things. Most people in the US are the same peasant stock as those in Europe. The US and the UK banned slavery right around the same time, and the emancipation of ex-slaves on both continents was largely simultaneous. At least, according to this: http://www.reuters.com/article...
America was built by racists and slave labour.
So was Europe. Of course, the countries of your continent have are much better at the whole self-loathing thing, taking in mass numbers of ill-educated barbarians who assault women and demand crazy cultural concessions. Enjoy your islamic future. I'm sure it'll be quite 'progressive.'
Today in the west (at least for now), everyone has equal opportunity, both in the US and western Europe. The current squabble in the states is over affirmative action/equal outcome which is an entirely different animal. It's largely being triggered by well funded agitprop. Personally, I do not like being told I owe something to someone else because of skin color. My ancestors never owned slaves or were aristocracy, not that civilized societies should stoop to blaming sons for the sins of the fathers.. That's so old world.
More like "too bad we let our feels get in the way rather than let darwin weed out the incompetent." Preferably, this would happen long before driving age.
A few bigots/'elitists'/xenophobes running around spouting half truths is far less harmful to society than having the state decide what speech is allowed. Of course, your description is just a tad off. Labeling criticism as bigotry and then demanding censure to silence it is not much of an argument to trample free speech.
That's like saying you deleted a file without overwriting it. You didn't delete shit. It's still there. With social media the only winning move is not to play.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. A negative 'belief' is not a belief.
"I believe there's no god" != "I don't believe in god"
They weren't oppressive because of their atheism. They were oppressive because of their political ideology being at odds with reality and human social structure.
Sounds like druidish nonsense to me. You're welcome to it, though, as long as you're not about to impose it on others.
Probably. They fought with each other long before whitey came along, too. Welcome to being human 101: Defend yourself and your society or it'll be trampled by another.
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.'
Well, that's two separate issues. Should it or should it not have control? If the former, then how much? Progressives interpret the existing controls as constitutional but insufficient and conservatives interpret that existing control as unconstitutional.
In my opinion, if regulation is the right way to go, then progressives should call a constitutional convention and amend the document, not bullshit around it. At least then the issue will rise to the surface and be dealt with by the citizens. Like I said above, his suggestion is dirty as hell.
Fear mongering like this is precisely why the right to bear arms (along with others) is in the bill of rights. Place the blame where it belongs: the perpetrator(s). We don't blame toyota when one of their cars kills. We blame the people involved.
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.
The real answer is sane immigration policy that deters people with conflicting value systems from emigrating and subverting ours. Creeping 'sanitation' of our environment won't make these conflicts go away. It'll just make us less capable of dealing with outside threats. We've seen what 'multiculturalism' has done to Europe. I'd rather it not happen here.
I wonder if it's possible to have honest, life-applied, and consistent religious beliefs without also being mentally ill to some degree. Basing critical life choices and morality on improvable nonsense is what breeds a lot of the irrationality in our society, from the imposition of relatively benign but irritating limitations on liberty to these sorts of rash acts. It's not just religion either. Ideology applies as well.
I wonder when the west will quit defending this 2000 year old squabble of the desert dogmas.
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.
'my people'? Nice generalization there, especially for someone who's supposedly against the expression of such things. Most people in the US are the same peasant stock as those in Europe. The US and the UK banned slavery right around the same time, and the emancipation of ex-slaves on both continents was largely simultaneous.
At least, according to this: http://www.reuters.com/article...
America was built by racists and slave labour.
So was Europe. Of course, the countries of your continent have are much better at the whole self-loathing thing, taking in mass numbers of ill-educated barbarians who assault women and demand crazy cultural concessions. Enjoy your islamic future. I'm sure it'll be quite 'progressive.'
Today in the west (at least for now), everyone has equal opportunity, both in the US and western Europe. The current squabble in the states is over affirmative action/equal outcome which is an entirely different animal. It's largely being triggered by well funded agitprop. Personally, I do not like being told I owe something to someone else because of skin color. My ancestors never owned slaves or were aristocracy, not that civilized societies should stoop to blaming sons for the sins of the fathers.. That's so old world.
If future generations are making fun of 'safe spaces,' then gamergate has served its purpose..or at least one of them.
Giving accurate results should always be the priority. Biasing data just robs people/society of an accurate self analysis.
No. It should focus on presenting accurate search results from web sites. Google is NOT an oracle of truth.
This should be patently obvious to anyone posting here.
Or maybe they're just sick the kind of fear mongering used to stay. Your post is a perfect example.
That's the fault of those oppressive governments not people from other countries. Why do you want (relatively) free people to compromise with tyranny?
What gives him the right? Free speech. Just because something's free doesn't mean it's except from criticism.
More like "too bad we let our feels get in the way rather than let darwin weed out the incompetent." Preferably, this would happen long before driving age.
No, actually, I'm not.
We didn't.
That's dead. Haven't you heard? The new way is "listen and believe."
A few bigots/'elitists'/xenophobes running around spouting half truths is far less harmful to society than having the state decide what speech is allowed. Of course, your description is just a tad off. Labeling criticism as bigotry and then demanding censure to silence it is not much of an argument to trample free speech.
That's like saying you deleted a file without overwriting it. You didn't delete shit. It's still there. With social media the only winning move is not to play.