CliveStaples Wrote:Oh, I bet you care about people "in general". I suspect that once you know certain facts about a person--say, if they're a Christian, and conservative--you care less about bad things that happen to them.

Again, quit being an asshole. No one here has said a person of different beliefs is less of a victim when attacked violently. This is the second time you have said this, so....put up some fucking evidence or shut your goddamn mouth about it.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:20 am)CliveStaples Wrote: Oh, I bet you care about people "in general". I suspect that once you know certain facts about a person--say, if they're a Christian, and conservative--you care less about bad things that happen to them.

Sounds like some projection there. Can we stop with the personal attacks & try to get back on subject?

(August 16, 2012 at 6:12 am)Jaysyn Wrote: I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. I mean the guy did kinda come out & say it before he shot the guard. You did read the story, right?

Oh, this was just a lame attempt to be divisive. Right.

People can be resistant to find ideologies whose viewpoints they agree with at fault for bad things. It's a common cognitive bias; liberal atheists aren't necessarily exempt from it. Pointing out cognitive bias--or inquiring about the incidence of a particular cognitive bias--isn't an "attempt to be divisive".

For my part, it's an attempt to recognize and minimize the impact of cognitive bias. So, I guess you could call that "divisive" if you like.

---

(August 16, 2012 at 8:27 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Sounds like some projection there. Can we stop with the personal attacks & try to get back on subject?

Look at Ryantology's post. Apparently, the lesson we're to learn from this shooting is...how bad theism is.

When a religious nut shoots at people: "Boy, this is so typical of religious nuts!"

When a leftist LBGT activist shoots at people: "Boy, this is so typical of religious nuts!"

---

(August 16, 2012 at 8:25 am)Faith No More Wrote: Again, quit being an asshole. No one here has said a person of different beliefs is less of a victim when attacked violently. This is the second time you have said this, so....put up some fucking evidence or shut your goddamn mouth about it.

I still haven't said that anyone thinks a person of different beliefs is less of a victim. They may very well consider them just as much of a victim; I just think they don't care as much. That's why Ryantology is lecturing about how bad theism is, instead of how bad the shooter's ideology is.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:27 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 8:27 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Sounds like some projection there. Can we stop with the personal attacks & try to get back on subject?

Look at Ryantology's post. Apparently, the lesson we're to learn from this shooting is...how bad theism is.

Why would I do that, you were responding to Shell B. My comment to you had nothing to do with anyone else's posts.

I've interacted with Shell on these forums for a bit longer than you have & can tell you religious status hasn't a thing to do with her capability for compassion. I can also tell you she doesn't suffer fools gladly.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:18 am)Faith No More Wrote: What inflammatory rhetoric are you referring to? As far as I was aware, they simply said the Chick-fil-a couldn't build a store in their city. Also, what makes you think that the gunmen was influenced by this rhetoric.

Well, isn't it like Christian groups calling an organization "anti-Christian" or "Satanist" and so forth? Labeling them as "other" and "evil"...surely you've seen the rhetoric about Chick Fil A being "hateful", "intolerant", etc. From the shooter's worldview, that puts Chick Fil A into the "evil" crowd that's safe to act against.

Surely, if the guy didn't think that Chick Fil A was being "hateful" and "intolerant", but rather "respectful" and "has different political beliefs", he wouldn't have targeted them, right?

NOTE: I shouldn't have to say this, but to forestall any fucking retards, I'm not saying that calling Chick Fil A "hateful" or "intolerant" is somehow a code for 'it's okay to shoot people who agree with Chick Fil A's 'hateful' or 'intolerant' beliefs'.

---

(August 16, 2012 at 8:35 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Why would I do that, you were responding to Shell B. My comment to you had nothing to do with anyone else's posts.

I've interacted with Shell on these forums for a bit longer than you have & can tell you religious status hasn't a thing to do with her capability for compassion. I can also tell you she doesn't suffer fools gladly.

I haven't seen any reason to think Shell gives two shits about anyone who disagrees with her, let alone people she hates (e.g., conservative Christians).

(August 16, 2012 at 8:27 am)CliveStaples Wrote: People can be resistant to find ideologies whose viewpoints they agree with at fault for bad things.

Scratch that, I parsed that sentence badly.

CliveStaples Wrote:I still haven't said that anyone thinks a person of different beliefs is less of a victim. They may very well consider them just as much of a victim; I just think they don't care as much. That's why Ryantology is lecturing about how bad theism is, instead of how bad the shooter's ideology is.

As far as I could tell, the shooter's ideogology was euqal rights for gays and lesbians, and he decided to go beyond the normal means of spreading a message by committing acts of violence. I don't see how his ideology is to blame. His ideology doesn't advocate violence, but this one man went ahead and tried to kill people. What we should be talking about is how bad of a person the shooter is.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:40 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I haven't seen any reason to think Shell gives two shits about anyone who disagrees with her, let alone people she hates (e.g., conservative Christians).

Well you are entitled to that opinion however incorrect it may be.

Now why do you think that our latest politically motivated shooter has stooped to the level of injuring another human being?

"Well, isn't it like Christian groups calling an organization "anti-Christian" or "Satanist" and so forth? Labeling them as "other" and "evil"...surely you've seen the rhetoric about Chick Fil A being "hateful", "intolerant", etc. From the shooter's worldview, that puts Chick Fil A into the "evil" crowd that's safe to act against."

Ah, so to your mind, the actions of the loonies define the issue. Gotcha.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:45 am)Jaysyn Wrote: You're now claiming that this guy shot up the FRC directly because he's is a liberal? That there is some progressive firebrand out there telling people to take up arms against their religious oppressors?

I didn't make any claims about why this guy shot up the FRC. My own personal suspicion is that this guy's liberalism was mostly irrelevant. I don't equate gay rights with liberalism (there are non-liberals who argue for gay rights). An extremist who was a gay rights proponent but a libertarian might take similar action, for example.

The only way I can see the shooter's liberalism being involved is in which sources he listened to; if he's a liberal, he'd generally pay attention to liberal sources and generally oppose things liberals oppose. I doubt he'd have shot up the FRC if he didn't hate them.


Your second bit is completely your own invention. I have no idea where you're getting this--some liberal firebrand whipping up an armed rebellion? Huh?

---

(August 16, 2012 at 8:53 am)Epimethean Wrote: Ah, so to your mind, the actions of the loonies define the issue. Gotcha.

...uh, isn't the issue precisely "the actions of the loonies"? Isn't that the issue we're talking about here??