I'm not surprised at how people are giving death threats to the gunshop owner in this latest shooting by another human with lack of self-control. What's most interesting to me is that these people claim to feel strongly about the preservation of life, yet issue death threats. This, to me, is no different than people bombing abortion clinics. I stated I'm not surprised because this behavior happens frequently and there is a lot of evidence to sort through. But it's the contradictory behavior that is very mysterious. Maybe it's the lack of empathy that shields me from this type of erratic behavior and thinking. Maybe empathy is not that great a thing, since it doesn't seem to discriminate the bad from the good. Can those with excessive empathy produce rational thoughts?

My point is that I think empathy has something to do with placing blame. Has anyone written a good book about this strange human bahavior, the way some people attack the wrong people?

It really doesn't surprise me there are people like this. Anyway, at times like this I always think of a certain exchange from T2:

John: "We're not going to make it, are we? Humans I mean."
T-1000: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
John: "Yeah, major drag huh"

As soon as I'd heard that the VA Tech shooter had killed himself, I thought "the finger-pointing will probably start immediately, since the only person to truly blame is dead."

The resulting media circus continues to blow my mind.

I would like to see a tie between perceived empathy and reliance on religion as well.  Some of the most hypocritical people I've ever met have an unusually strong relationship with this dude who has the initials of "J.C."

That could be a whole different ball of wax, though. :)

Sounds like you're falling into the same trap as the people you're criticizing, which only furthers the irony.  Clearly someone as one mentioned doesn't have an unusually strong relationship with this dude who has the initials of "J.C.".  People wear religion, spirituality, and God like fashion, but unless they display the basic fundamentals of the thing they're trying to "pimp", they're worse than anything they pretend to detest. 

But to the original topic, I always thought these people viewed the ones they are targeting as less than humans due to their actions.  Doesn't change the fact they're hypocrites and I completely disagree myself, but I'd imagine it gives them some justification.

I think you're absolutely right! Just look at what's happening in the Muslim world. Muslims are taught that Allah is mercy, in fact I quote :

"Allah The all-Merciful, The Mercy-Giving, The King, The Holy, The Source of Peace, The Guardian of Faith, The Protector..."

and yet, it's OK to go blow up a bunch of people you don't like??? In fact, you do this, and you'll find yourself in heaven, with 72 virgins!!

Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

for an interesting article on the subject, see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor … 57,00.html

Myself, I simply don't understand religious fanatics... Of course religious frenzy is not limited to Muslims, and certainly many many muslims are NOT fanatic, but I really don't know of other religions producing suicide bombers. Not that you don't have fanatics of all faiths... anyway, I really don't want to get into a big religious debate, SO

back to what Jodo was talking about, I think Amber is absolutely correct. The guy who did all the killing was an evil bastard, he deserved to die, and now that he's dead there's no one to punish, so people are looking for a scapegoat. As far as I know, the gunshop owner did nothing wrong, and does not deserve any blame.

'tis sad....

-avatar!

Sorry, you TOTALLY lost me with the above paragraph! For the record, I don't see Amber falling into any trap, nor do I see any irony nor hypocrisy with what she said, which is that religion breeds fanatics who are blind to anything but their own views. True.

That's not to say that everyone is like that, nor even that most people are like that. However, there certainly are far TOO many people who in this "enlightened" age we live, still refuse to accept anything except blind faith. For the record, I have nothing against religion (any religion) so long as it doesn't harm others.

cheers,

-avatar!

Actually, hasn't the idea of what they are supposedly greated by in heaven a matter of translation and interpetation? I'm sure they'd want the 72 virgins instead of 72 crystal clear raisins. Sorry, that was bad, I've watched a little too much "Robin Williams on Brodway" in my time.

But still, I think it takes a weak minded fool to believe for a minute that religion justifies violence of anykind - what kind of god would? However, like George Carlin said:

"when you really think about it, religion has never really had a problem with murder, more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as optional"

Look back to the crusades and the templars...

Religion itself is a good thing, until man twists what is there to fit their POV. (somthing along those lines is said by Chris Rock, the 13th Apostile in Dogma)

Ok, I need to stop quoting movies and comedians before someone puts the smackdown on me.

if theres one good thing that has come out of this tragic incident... there hasnt been a news report regarding anna nicole smith in a week...

You're last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about.  Any true religion isn't about harming anyone, or anything negative period, if it's contorted to be used in this way, not only is it contradictory to what you claim to be promoting, but this person is worse than those they are trying to persecute.  It's sad that people can take something pure and righteous and transform it into something destructive and ugly, but it's the bane of human nature.

My criticism of Amber came from the fact she fell into a logical fallacy and tried to paint a group of people with a broad stroke.  She stereotyped a scapegoat the same way the people she's criticizing did.  I'm sure she meant to say some of the most hypocritical people I've ever met pretend to have an unusually strong relationship with this dude who has the initials of "J.C.".

And just for the record, the true Islamic faith isn't about destroying infidels, this type of extremist violence used by people like Bin Laden is exactly what I'm talking about in the first paragraph.

Anybody who kills in the name of their god probably worships Satan.

Nah, they're probably just from the South.

Lol, that was quite lovely...

It's extremely difficult to NOT stereotype people.  I'd even venture so far as to say that it's an innate ability that most creatures possess.  "Hey, you over there!  You're acting a certain way!  Go join that group of people over there! *points*"

In fact... let's try to continue this thread without a single stereotype.  *looks around*

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.  On the contrary to my previous statement, some of the most level-headed and successful people I know also have extremely strong relations with that J.C. fellow, but are less evangelical than I could possibly imagine.  It's not necessary to "pimp" a set of beliefs in order to achieve inner peace.  I've long believed that spirituality should be a highly guarded personal affair.

People need drive.  They must believe in ideals and concepts to achieve things, to better their life, to set their minds at ease, to feel useful, whatever.  Maybe it's as a daily offering to the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of old Pentium CPUs tossed into a volcano.  Perhaps it's a way to convince themselves that they're going to be content in the unfathomable "afterlife" by bombing embassies.  Then again, it might merely be a way to obtain riches so that they may make life more comfortable for themselves and/or loved ones while they're alive.  People do things for the reasons they feel are important.

Now... the troubled fellow who we've been hearing a lot about on the news lately, he had an agenda, and he took the effort to fulfill it.  It's just unfortunate that he had to take the lives of countless innocent people in order to do so.  We're still unsure of his exact motivation, and perhaps we'll never know, but regardless, he alone is to blame.

I think you misunderstood my intent, because we essentially agree on almost every count.  My main issue was you're statement about someone having a strong relationship with Jesus while also being hypocritical, and I was stating that's oxymoronic.  So I was criticizing those who "pimp" a set of beliefs for their agendas, the same way I was criticizing your statement I quoted for promoting an agenda against faith.  I doubt now that was your intent, and as I touched on in a previous post, it was just carelessy stated.

Actually, re-reading some of your previous posts, it seems that my post touched a nerve.  I understand your point, and no, I do not wish to reword my original reply at this time.

People are completely free to interpret the teachings of their religion.  If someone truly believes that killing hundreds of people will appease an invisible entity, who are you, who am I to say that they are acting in a patently false manner? 

If Joe Blow believes that spreading the word and gospel of Jesus Christ to a thousand people a day will ensure his place in heaven, despite his being oblivious to the notion that staging a protest at the funeral of Iraq's fallen soldiers in order to reach these people is actually hateful and short-sighted, how can we be certain he's not actually correct?  (sorry for that one; this video I saw the other day of the Phelps daughter still sticks in my mind.)

As far as I know, a "strong relationship with Jesus" is characterized by one's devotion - one's assertion that the majority of the things they do in life are "for the Lord."  Sometimes, people seem to forget basic concepts such as respect and tolerance, while trying so hard to fulfill these requirements that the church suggests.

Pardon the above if it's difficult to read (sentence structure) ... there are lot of thoughts milling about my head, and it's tough to pound them all out into something that isn't completely incomprehensible.

a strong relationship with jesus helps you to get half price enchiladas at the burrito barn where he works as a cook...

Since the U.S. origin of that was in New England and it's seen its share in most regions, if you're gonna make snide remarks like that at least make them towards everyone applicable.

Better yet leave them out altogether.

Wow, way to look like an ass. Thanks.

Dude, spot on. I know several people that I used to be friends with that were strong "Christians", but all they cared about were two things: 1) sucking people into their specific physical church (that had flat screen TVs on the walls and a f---ing waterfall in the lobby), and 2) judging every single other person that did not fall into the same fashionable "Christian" category as them. These are the types of people that will give people the evil eye (heh heh) for having even a single alcoholic drink but as you talk to them you find out that they were chronic alcoholics before they "found God", yet they still judge everyone else for the same things they "used to do", even though the Bible specifically says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

So, I rambled, but the bottom line is that I find that people that belong to highly religious organizations are less human than people that are not members of any specific church.

True. In light of that, this is slapstick humor (even funnier after playing God Hand, which is ironic in all senses):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=makbOHyZTLU

There has to be a way to solve the problem. This is what we know:

  1. Public schools do not educate.
  2. Private schools do not educate.
  3. Colleges do not educate.
  4. Parents do not educate.

  It's only through extreme introspection that one can make decisions without nonrational sources of information, such as revelation and inspiration. The bulk of humanity greatly values decisions based on pure emotion, without any aid from reason. This leads me to believe that empathy is a beast worth tackling. People that attack the wrong people are clearly empathic and are acting to defend those they feel have been violated. So, this further leads me to believe there is a defect in empathy since it has trouble discerning between good and bad.

Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Trust me, I've seen far more ignorant statements thrown around the internet, and I would normally ignore something like it, but since this is a sensible board with sensible regs, I figured it might be possible to actually have an intelligent conversation. 

Anyways, you just hit the key point with your second paragraph, if anybody is going to "interpret" the teachings of his religion in his own way, they're more than likely no longer following that religion, therefore have no right to say they are a representative of it.

I know the exact kind of people your talking about... I have to work this some of these people (the company I work for as a cross in it's logo if that tells you anything) and I get sick of being on my quote unquote "best behavour" to fit into their preconcieved notions of what makes a good person. Also, I'm careful not to say anything the least bit religious as to not trigger a religious rant of some kind - the last place I want to go.

I remember one time in coversation I said "I was pissed off" when I really meant to say "I was ticked off" and boy of boy did I get the daggers thrown at me when it really wasn't that big of a deal.

Still, the place I work is like the town gossip distribution center... I swear every little nugget of anything that could be considered as such goes though there despite how dirty it is and everybody ends up knowing it... isn't speading gossip like VD one of the seven deadly sins?

"Anyways, you just hit the key point with your second paragraph, if anybody is going to "interpret" the teachings of his religion in his own way, they're more than likely no longer following that religion, therefore have no right to say they are a representative of it."

Then most religious people would suddenly be left without a religion... I mean to say most people pick and choose what aspects of a religion they see as positive.

Anyway about the comments about death threats... well, I don't see them as analougous to abortion clinic bonbings.  Intimiations are one thing but an act of violence is really another!  And not that I *want* to condone it but if the end result is one less gunshop, that seems to ultimately be a positive result.

Classic

Those that bomb abortion clinics and those that issue death threats to gunshop owners are of the same breed; they are attacking the wrong people. Whether it's verbal or physical it's still an attack.

   One less gunshop is not positive, but one less human is. One less religion is even better.

While I agree that people who bomb abortion clinics and those that issue death threats are of the same breed, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with what you said: "One less gunshop is not positive, but one less human is..."  Life the most precious thing in the Universe...

edit: I'm very distrubed about what you said, but perhaps you meant it as a response to the overall burgeoning human population? While I agree that something should be done with respect to the large human population (a difficult thing mind you), that doesn't mean we can take death as a good thing, especially when innocent people are murdered.

-avatar!

Man, you and my husband need to sit down and have a chat sometime.  I get the feeling that you two share a lot of the same ideals.

why couldnt this whole shooting have happened at a taping of american idol...

When's the last time an abortion clinic was bombed versus a [typical] extremist Muslim attack?

All humans are precious? So people who saw off the heads of Jews just for being a Jew, blindfold and execute their enemies, bomb train stations, threaten to kill religious leader just for criticism, car bombs, fly aircrafts into buildings, strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents, start riots over a silly comic. Hardly precious humans who want to do harm to those who are really precious ones.

Get your head on straight. There are good "humans" and bad, very bad ones too.

I don't know if you're talking to me or not, but I said all life is precious, and I still stick to that point. I do however make a distinction between life and humans. Yes, people are part of life, and the life they have is precious, but they can "throw it away" by turning into something evil (such as suicide bombers). I don't disagree with you, some people are simply evil and the world is better without them.

cheers,

-avatar!

Yes, we will crush our enemies and drink their blood. Because we're the good guys.

The gunshops merely exist, passively. They're even less dangerous than rocks because, well, rocks can roll down hills and hurt you. One less human (and I did not specify which human but you should've realized I was referring to a human that kills other humans for no apparent reason and not some human that is respectful of others) could potentially mean the survival of the human race, since, these days, it only takes one of us to wipe out the whole thing.

  Can you prove that life is the most precious thing in the universe? I must agree with Philip K. Dick:

  "It has never been proven that existence is a boon."

I would see the instinct to survive as proof of that. Every single life form on this planet seems to share one common purpose - to procreate. In a sense, to ensure that a part of them exists at some point in the future. If existence is desired by every species on this planet, I think that would make it the most precious thing on this planet. Can't speak for the rest of the Universe though.

I also can't help feeling there is a reason for that. A time when our genes or what makes up who we are will count for something and, if you're not there (be you plant, animal, bacteria or anything else), you'll miss out.

True, but wouldn't survival be above procreate in any hierarchy? You can't procreate if you can't survive. Of course, I guess the two could be one in the same as you mention up above: "to ensure that a part of them exists at some point in the future."

That's exactly it. It seems survival is to facilitate procreation, which is to facilitate survival of that which you are (different to survival of the species as many species will quite happily kill their own to ensure their personal procreation). It's all one survival process.