Gunman Attacks Conservative Christian Group

[CliveStaples]

Clive, do you want to talk about the gunman, his sanity, or his actions, and, based on which of those should we discuss ideology?

People are generally motivated by beliefs--unless this guy really just randomly decided to shoot up this place and then randomly decided to say it was because of what the organization stood for.

Figuring out what beliefs motivated this guy could be important--helpful in predicting if/when it could happen again, identifying potential targets in order to better protect them, looking for "red flags" that could help identify similar offenders in the future, etc.

[Jackalope]

I don't have to act like atheists are elitist cocks. You guys do a bang-up job of that all on your own.

Tarring with a rather wide brush, aren't you?

[Shell B]

...you don't read much on this forum, do you?

...you don't read what you write on this forum, do you?

I don't have to act like atheists are elitist cocks. You guys do a bang-up job of that all on your own.

Quote me saying that I hate conservative Christians and feel less for them if they are injured or shove it up your ass, you pseudointellectual, intellectually dishonest butt berry.

---

Tiberius, it being legal in some places does not make it common.

Lion IRC didn't say it was common though. He said:

"Killing abortion doctors is wrong for the exact same reason killing these people is wrong..."

followed by the image of a fetus at 17 weeks. The fact that some 17 week old fetuses do get aborted means his opinion is perfectly valid, as was his post.

I forgot you were anti-abortion and are probably keeping track of the like ten late term abortions that are committed in the U.S. annually.

Note: Statistics are entirely made up and intended to flame ze boyfriend.

[A Theist]

I agree that this guy was sane and that he knew what he was doing. But he intended to kill people had the security guard not wrestled him and disarmed him. It was only after the guard took the guy's gun that the shooter said, "Don't shoot me. It's not about you. It's about what this place stands for." He intended to kill people.

Exactly what part of "some small part of him" did you not understand?

A crazy person wouldn't have stopped to tell a security guard "I don't like your politics" before pulling a gun (all the way in a freaking backpack, instead of a concealed holster or waistband) on them. They would have shot them (in the head) & then went inside.

I never said that the guy was crazy. I agreed with you that he was sane and that he knew what he was doing. The news report said that there was some kind of interaction between the shooter and the guard per surveillance video. It wasn't clear what that interaction was. My guess is that the shooter was trying to gain access past the guard without incident so he could more easily get to the offices within that building to kill people. It was only after the guard wrestled the guy to the ground and took his gun that the shooter said, ...'it's not about you. it's about what this place stands for'.

Edit Correction: Damn you Jaysyn. Okay so you were right and I was wrong on one point. Apparently you were correct when the guy walked up to the guard and said, "I don't like your politics". But, in no way does that imply that some small part of the shooter didn't want to kill anyone. The shooter walked in with a 9mm pistol with two extra clips of ammo. He was there to do damage. He was sane and he knew what he was doing.

[Brian37]

What is with all the shootings into groups of people lately? It's not a competition, people!

I'm just glad no one was killed this time.

I am all for protecting even vitriol, because we should never as free society play thought police and play the dangerous game of "who gets to decide" what is or is not "offensive".

I don't give one rats ass that this guy attacked a conservative group, this unacceptable in a civil society and I hope they throw the book at this asshole.

A few years ago a church down here were I live was defaced with the words "God does not exist" in spray paint. No one has been caught to my knowledge, but they should be just as prosecuted as if they had destroyed a neighbor's property.

This is worse because this fucking moron is basically saying violence is ok.

No one on the left or right, believer or atheist, should ever use violence and anyone who does deserves the full prosecution of the law.

[Cinjin]

lol .... Shell said "butt berry."

[Angrboda]

I think I'm going to speak on CliveStaples' behalf in that I think he may have a partial truth. This was stimulated by, but not directly in response to any specific post, so I'll just dump it in and hope it connects.

When we deal with people whose viewpoints, beliefs or arguments are radically different from our own, particularly, I think, on the left, the tendency is to attribute the views to be the results of defect in the person. Either they're deluded, or ignorant, or dumb, or brainwashed — a recognition of radical difference usually results in an appraisal of that person as an individual. And while I don't have any psychological research to back it up, I think I understand why now. When we meet other people in discourse, there's a tacit openness to the other person and their views on the implied understanding that they are likely as intelligent, educated, and moral as we are. However, if my theory is correct, this causes a problem when we find that their views and beliefs are radically different from our own. We our faced with the possibility that our own viewpoint or beliefs are wrong. If the other person is just as able as we are, it's reasonable to assume that either of us might be wrong. But we don't like to be wrong. We don't even like to think we might be wrong. But if we maintain their intellectual and moral equality, the niggling possibility remains, causing anxiety. This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Our beliefs about reality — I'm intelligent, they're intelligent, intelligent people will converge on the same solution — do not cohere, there is a threatened inconsistency, and that inconsistency results in insecurity and anxiety. In cognitive dissonance, there are generally two solutions: change my beliefs, or, change the facts. In this instance, we change the facts by changing to the opinion that the person isn't equally intelligent, educated and moral. We start to attribute to them defects of reason or morals in order to account for the difference between our views and beliefs.

Naturally, once you've begun this process, or it has become an entrenched habit in which you view all people possessed of certain views or beliefs as being defective, it's very easy to give their concerns less care than those of people who share our views. Once we demonize others for their viewpoint, and attribute inferiority based on politics, religion or other belief, it's very natural and easy, I suspect, to treat them as inferior, and their concerns of lesser importance.

(Anyway, that's all I've got. If anybody does have references to the scientific literature, that would be appreciated.)

(ETA: I'm sure there's also a measure of hatred involved, too: we like to see people we don't like get hurt, that's an aspect of Schadenfreude in all of us [or perhaps that's just me]. And we legitimately recognize that their loss is our gain. And as tribal animals, we naturally care more about our own than somebody else's. There are several strong processes inclining us to care differently about them than us. So I'm not suggesting it's only cognitive dissonance, but I suggest it plays a role.)

[Ryantology]

I wonder if the same people who blamed the Sikh murders on the murderer's (religious) ideology will blame these shootings on the shooter's (political) ideology.

It would be incorrect to equate them on these terms.

The simple fact is that the Bible is rife with passages extolling the murder of pretty much anyone you want to kill. Since the Bible is alleged to be infallible and inspired by God himself, and even more importantly, because it does advocate all kinds of horrible violence on arbitrary pretexts, the ideology of the Bible is most certainly culpable in any crime it implies to be morally acceptable.

On the other side of the coin, there isn't any equivalent to the Bible for LGBT ideology. If there was, there'd be no way it would be treated as infallible, and it goes without saying that it would advocate any of homicidal mania Yahweh seemed to really be into.

Whatever motivated this guy to violence, I'm pretty sure it was not him interpreting LGBT scripture and carrying it out. Do you think the same could be said for the guy who wanted to kill ragheads so much he didn't care which ones he went after?

[Brian37]

And as tribal animals, we naturally care more about our own than somebody else's.

Right, evolution produces group cooperation to ensure survival. But as far as "delusion" it does exist in evolution. Evolution's goal isn't to be right about facts, the only goal it has is to get to the point of reproduction. If that group think provides safety in numbers, the belief can be false, but still provide the real advantage of that safety leading to reproduction. The Ancient Egyptians falsely, for 3000 years, believed that the sun was a god. That false belief served that society well for a long time.

But there is nothing wrong with calling a delusion a delusion. Humans are not wired to be rational 100percent of every second of their lives. That doesn't make them defective, but it does make them delusional and wrong when they are delusional and wrong.

Our fight and flight mechanism often leads our species to seek patterns and insert ridiculous gap answers into those "patterns". Richard Dawkins describes this flaw in evolution as being "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moon light".

Our species had more of an excuse to make crap up and believe it back then, because we didn't know any better. But we do now, our problem is that evolution is not, like I said, about fact finding, but merely about reproduction and safety in numbers.

I think the more numbers in our species that understand evolution, we can see that we are flawed and can see ourselves as not above nature, but merely part of all the flaws and benefits of nature.

[Shell B]

Apo, Clive was trying to say that we care less about people who don't think like us when they are injured. None of the rest is relevant. If I see an injured person, I will help them, regardless of whether they are holding a sign that says "God Hates Fags" or not. He doesn't have a point. His post in regard to my character is purely conjecture. Sure, I tell people off often. There are a lot of people here whose opinions I could not care less about. Would I laugh if they were injured? Fuck no. I would feel sorry for them.