Sure they will. The millions of children who went to school each day knowing they were the target of domestic terrorists and were not just sold out by Republicans and the gun lobby but spat on by the pro-gun crowd.
They’ll abolish the second amendment, condemning it to the history books with all the other shitty things America did like the genocide of the native population and the enslavement of black people.
The highest percentage turnout of 18-29 year olds in the 2022 election cycle was in Michigan and only 36% of them voted with abortion rights on the ballot.
They’re going to have to turn out in higher numbers across the states to do anything like what you’re suggesting.
Whoa whoa whoa. We haven’t even gotten to thoughts and prayers. Then comes mental health. Last is the “it’s too soon to talk about this”. Then the cycle starts anew.
To be fair, the guy did actually self checkin to a mental facility this summer for two weeks and was released. Additionally, Maine is a yellow flag state where firearms can be taken away via a mental health review. (To be clear, this is NOT enough in my opinion).
When I searched to see if Maine had red flag laws, all the top results were people opposed to them.
There’s a good chance the shooter was one of them, since it looks like he is a “responsible gun owner” that’s even more “responsible” than most.
Of course, the pro-gun crowd will seethe if you call him that, but the reality is that he had their full support when he bought a semi-automatic weapon. He still had it when he started hearing voices. He still had it when he started prowling the streets in open carry. Fuck, they probably would have given him the benefit of the doubt when he raised it to fire on an innocent person, as long as he was staunch Republican.
But the moment he pulled the trigger, it becomes “Oh that guy? Yeah he was never one of us. Doesn’t count”.
Then they’ll claim its a mental health problem because he had mental health issues and the gun he used to maximise the number of people he killed and wounded had nothing to do with it.
Then they’ll insist that they’ll totally entertain the idea of gun control after a mental healthcare system is built that can cure every single man, woman and child in America of serious mental health problems, even the ones that don’t want care, so completely they can be trusted with guns for the rest of their lives because they’ll never falter and also fuck you we’re not paying for it.
Tell me again how gun control laws would have stopped this?
How about I detail all the ways he could have gotten a gun under your laws that you enable that are in effect right now?
He bought the guns before he had mental health issues and red flag laws weren’t used because police are far-right and pro-gun and put cultish, bullshit ideology before people’s lives.
He just lied or had someone else lie and the gun laws you’re rushing to the defense of completely failed to catch it because they’re hopelessly inadequate and designed to put lobby profits before people’s lives.
At this point, we’ve covered 80% of mass shooters so we’re looking good statistically.
He took the legally purchased, poorly secured firearm of a “responsible gun owner” of a family member or friend because the pro-gun community staunchly insists that the “responsible” part of “responsible gun owner” is 100% optional and punishable only by the tutting of strangers on the internet.
Now we’ve covered over 90% of mass shooters, but most of these ones are children.
He bought the gun in a private sale that didn’t require a background check because for some surreal reason, the pro-gun crowd is completely okay with that and fights the closing of the loophole.
He bought a previously legally purchased, poorly secured, promptly stolen gun from a stranger, because illegal firearms don’t grow on trees, they’re endlessly (and profitably!) by millions of people like yourself.
Which covers 99% of mass shooters. Of course deep down, you already knew all of that didn’t you?
You’re just not allowed to admit it out loud, because the moment you admit that in fact yes, gun control could have stopped many of these clearly telegraphed attacks, you’d have to also admit that you pushed for the laws that killed those people.
So how about instead of me explaining “how gun control laws would have stopped this” over and over again, you go fuck yourself?
You’ve overthrown zero tyrants. You’ve done nothing to lower the crime rate. You’ve let “suicide with dad’s protect-my-family gun” become the number one cause of death for teenagers. You’ve insisted for 25 years that you have the answers and you’ve failed every single time.
Lol so no you don’t have any ideas on how more gun control would have stopped this…also hilarious that you bring up the police being far right…all the while wanting to disarm people lol yes please tell me how giving far right racist bullies Monopoly on force is a good thing.
A pretty simple how for that case would be to have a protected database where mental health professionals and institutions would report individuals with issues deemed worryng enough to bar from purchasing a gun. Then during the background check they would reference that db. If the person being checked is verified to be in that db fail the check. Maybe have some revaluation options or whatever but it’s not hard to imagine how reasonable laws that are actually enforced could actually help. The half baked laws that are half assed enforced and then held up as an example of any laws at all being fundamentally impossible just isn’t convincing.
Yeah that’s an issue that I would anticipate as well but at least now we are exploring options and identifying what may or may not work and what the trade offs are rather than pretending that it’s an impossibility like Mario was doing.
If they wanted that, they’d do things like oppose red flag laws, insist background checks remained functionally optional, oppose effective waiting periods and oppose mandatory safe storage laws.
People with mental health issues wouldn’t ever seek care if owning a firearm was linked to healthcare.
Is “some people care more about their guns than the safety and mental health of themselves and their family” supposed to be an argument for the existing gun laws?
Now we’re stigmatizing mental health treatment.
Who exactly is “we” here?
The pro-gun community rushes to blame anyone but themselves, all the while seething with indignation that they get lumped in with people who murder their partners or kill as many children as they can, just because they bought the same guns, from the same stores, under the same systems, with the same requirements as the murderer.
But boy they’re not shy doing unto others.
Half the world population will experience mental health problems in their lifetime. If the 80% of mass murderers using legally purchased guns is a low enough figure to sweep under the rug, the fraction of a fraction of mentally ill people carrying out mass murders isn’t even a speck of dust.
This man received urgent mental healthcare, to the standard that modern healthcare can provide anywhere in the world. Then he killed 20 people and injured over a dozen more with his legal firearm.
If you’re so certain that mental healthcare is the answer, you can give up your guns until you finish building your perfect healthcare utopia. Maybe you could start with the military, since apparently you have to be mentally ill to kill someone with a gun.
Until then, the current gun laws are horrifically and demonstrably inadequate at keeping guns out of the hands of violent people, despite 25 years of pro-gun cultists insisting that they and they alone have the solutions.
Are you sure you’re not confusing him with the previous mass shooter in Maine from 6 months ago?
I know they’re hard to keep track of when they happen every month but as far as I’ve been able to tell, 2 days ago this man was a “responsible gun owner” who wasn’t disarmed using the red flags laws (that the pro-gun crowd opposes) despite seeking urgent treatment for mental health problems (which the pro-gun crowd insists is the solution).
Do we know if he bought the gun before or after the mental health problems were diagnosed?
We don’t have many laws that will take the guns away after diagnosis, and worse, we seem to have a police force that’s not willing to enforce those laws when they do exist.
Even if he bought them before, involuntary commitment means Leos should be taking them…but as you just stated most LEOs don’t talk to each other or do what they need to be doing.
I think this is true: He had some from before and also bought a .308 sniper rifle after having mental issues. There’s a lot of info about this guy btw. He made threats to shoot up two different military national guard posts. He committed himself and asked for further treatment when he was being released. Oh, and I thought this was the typical veteran PTSD kind of issue. Actually no, he was trained but didn’t see combat. He was having some seriously mind-altering mental breakdowns. His guns were probably talking to him.
If you’re talking about ATF form 4473, it asks “have you ever been adjudicated as a mental detective, OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution”, not whether you have any mental health issues.
That form is also not a background check, that’s the NICS check, which is separate.
And that’s only at time of purchase, so I assume he bought the gun prior to being committed.
That form is part of what’s feed into the NICS, and even if he did buy them before. The second he was involuntarily committed he was supposed to have his firearms removed. The ATF and local LE should have been the ones to do so.
If only there were 194 other countries out there that don’t have this problem. Then we could have somewhere to look and see if maybe having a gun store on every corner is contributing to this problem.
How does everyone forget to use the “people will just do it anyway” argument for every other law. When do we legalize all drugs because people just do them anyway
No they didn’t, because they weren’t really a thing at the time…also columbine and VT happened with handguns during the AWB…it was sunset because it didn’t do anything.
Are you refuting these stats and do you want to provide a source for that?
Also, saying that some gun violence happened so that means gun control doesn’t work is nonsense. It’s like “well some died in a car crash so seat belts and airbags don’t work.”
The facts on this one just aren’t on your side. Looking at this either way - the US is a third world country when it comes to gun violence, and secondarily, countries with relatively little to no gun control have extreme rates of gun violence.
That wasn’t a prohibition though, I was referring to any number of actual prohibitions. Like alcohol in the 20s and such.
There’s no denying taking something built to kill away can reduce said killings and I’m very much for sane, logical gun control. However, the point is that all out prohibition is neither historically or even mathematically feasible considering there are more of them than actual Americans (another problem we have). Do you understand the nuance?
How are the gun violence stats looking after 25 years of the pro-gun community insisting they have the solutions?
Should we plot them on a chart next to the profitability of the gun manufacturers?
Maybe your next solution could focus on tracking down that magic gun fairy that keeps giving guns to criminals, since they’re definitely not being supplied and enabled by responsible gun owners like yourself.
You completely misunderstood my point and can see my other response for clarity. While I’m on your side in general and think we need far more control, you are doing the movement a disservice by trying the “how are the numbers?” argument when it’s such a poor choice.
When you go look up your stats to prove me wrong, remember how the classifications work and that data can be spun. That way when you see gun violence overall is actually down and how single person handgun suicides and gang violence data is used to juice the numbers (both directions), you might understand there’s far better arguments for gun control. Be an ally, not a hindrance.
That way when you see gun violence overall is actually down and how single person handgun suicides and gang violence data is used to juice the numbers (both directions), you might understand there’s far better arguments for gun control.
Nope, don’t push this trash. Every single gun death was a preventable death and not a single one should be swept under the rug.
Means reduction and survivability play a massive role in the suicide prevention.
Widespread legal firearms allow distressed people to end their lives in a split second impulse, robbing them of an opportunity to be helped.
Only 1 in 10 people who attempt suicide will go on to die by suicide, but the survival rate for attempts with guns is practically zero.
Teenagers are blowing their brains out with their guns of their “responsible gun owner” fathers who no doubt bragged about how he was going to “keep his family safe”, then failed to secure it from a deeply distressed child.
You can also fuck off with the “gang violence” stuff, which is frequently code for “don’t worry, they’re only black people”.
There is no magic gun fairy arming them. They either bought the gun at a store because the system is deeply flawed or they stole it from a “responsible gun owner” that failed to secure it.
But even writing it all off as “just criminals doing crime”, it’s still bullshit. Innocent people are killed, maimed and traumatised by both armed criminals and the trigger happy police who use them as an excuse.
And just how much gun violence are they responsible for? Roughly the same as domestic abusers who kill their partners. Want to hand wave them away too?
Those figures are include in the gun violence stats because they’re a symptom of the gun problem.
If you want to be an “ally”, the first step is to stop pushing the talking points of racists and lobby groups.
Not a single source or actual number posted after all that bluster. You tell me not to push trash and you keep pulling irrelevant numbers out of your ass. And that racism line? Holy shit, what a coward you are cherry picking and trying to paint me as a dog whistle user. I wish you could see how off the mark you are but that’ll never happen.
Congratulations on being the first absolute dumbfuck of my Lemmy experience. It’s a shame, because you mean well but why would I bother to engage further? Fuck off.
Not a single source or actual number posted after all that bluster
Your comments aren’t exactly riddled with carefully sourced statistics – you even tried to pre-empt people finding you factually wrong with claims of figures being manipulated.
But fortunately you don’t seem to hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.
And that racism line? Holy shit, what a coward you are cherry picking and trying to paint me as a dog whistle user.
If you don’t want your hot take sounding racist, don’t repeat the talking points of racists verbatim. It’s literally lifted from Bill O’Reilly.
I wish you could see how off the mark you are but that’ll never happen.
No thanks, I have no interest in whatever context the rest of your life may offer. You wrote a comment that reads exactly like a sock puppet, fully aware that the people on this site know nothing about you beyond your username.
but why would I bother to engage further?
Probably so you could regurgitate more apologism about which people killed with guns are allowed in the “people killed with guns” statistics.
Just as important, cracking down on capitalists. Recovering the wealth they’ve stolen, and using it to help provide not just for health care. But housing and food security. So people don’t have to live under the dread and constant stress to their mental state. That capitalists have engineered to facilitate their theft.
Do we really need to change our laws because some lone wolf who clearly had no political positions at all totally did not get weaponized by the media and churned through a system that literally hands guns to the mentally ill?
It’s too late. None of the state parties have any of the setup done for a primary. Once an incumbent president (of either party) declares they’re running again their party automatically backs them. I just feel lucky we have incumbent primaries for Congress.
I mean, I’m voting for West. Democrats only hold power if we say they do. Just don’t vote for Democrats ever again. The only control we have is over ourselves let’s exercise it
Voting for Democrats will only exacerbate our problems. Democrats have never made societies problems meaningfully better, at least in the modern era. Its not spiting them, it’s not signing off on the thing we all know will definitely happen. Voting for Biden will make things worse. Voting for West might possibly make things better. The choice is obvious.
I don’t see why they’d need to occupy anything. Occupation would imply that you wanted to control that area and those people. I think Israel knows occupation would never work and wouldn’t try it. They’ve preferred to wall-off people in enclaves, slowly squeeze all life out of those regions, and when the people they have cornered inevitably violently lash out against their own slow-motion genocide, it’s time to flatten the area with bombs again. Israel calls it “mowing the grass” and I don’t think a massive occupation fits with that strategy. I think they want to break the region, scatter the people, and leave it to rot, not occupy and be forced to manage it into the future indefinitely.
I have 500 on anyone who evacuated the Northern area is denied re-entry and the maps change to gaslight the world into thinking Gaza was always that small.
The news itself is great, but holy hell is this headline hyperbole. The medicine is a really great treatment and even preventive cure for kidney disease, which is a very common cause of death in old age for cats.
No, this isn’t some miraculous treatment that will give all cats a longer lifespan. It’s a great cure to a very common cause of death in cats. Not sure where the 30 years figure comes from.
You’re 100% right. It isn’t a great article but I couldn’t find a better one. I just thought people would be interested in reading it. Hopefully better information becomes public soon.
Maybe, I've got an older cat I adopted from a shelter, don't know his exact age. But he's in stage 3 of kidney failure and we've got him on the renal diet. I'm excited to read this news and really hope my boy can stay alive long enough to receive this treatment.
Asked why he didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
He wasn’t giving me material for my viewers, so I kept annoying him until he shot me! Why is this my fault?!
Why are we not running as fake conservatives in every race? Conservative voters are profoundly unintelligent and are bound to occassionally vote for us.
We could make running as a republicant a trendy hobby. We could “take the challenge” to see who can can fuck the GOP the hardest.
There’s a standard playbook. Just say the same things as Don or Ron. Talk about woke pineapple slices or something and you’re in. Just commit. Like Chris Rock said, Republicans don’t let “sense” fuck up their argument.
I’ve thought about doing it. For a while, I was in an area so ‘red’ that getting even 10% D votes was horrifying to the population. Trust me, you cannot keep up with the outrage porn and virtue-signaling required. Any critical thought will have you being looked at like an alien that just popped out of the moon.
Plus, remember that the parties are private organizations. The people at ‘the top’ of those organizations, in the local and the state and the federal sense, are the people who decide who will be the next candidate. Unless you have Trump’s money, ‘charisma,’ and luck (read, being able to get free press from media because they’re all, gasp, horrified by what you said), you can’t break into politics as a R candidate without already knowing / rubbing elbows with those people.
It’s almost like the culture war is completely manufactured and the people perpetuating it don’t actually give a shit because they’re just playing the grift for their own benefit.
Remember kids, the only solidarity is class solidarity and rich people understand that better than you.
You guys are failing to see that this was a simple misunderstanding.
Musk was told he needed to pay severance to all the ex employees, but he was confused why he was paying severance to "X employees" if they were still employed, so he simply didn't.
I don’t know which I love more: that there are still people maintaining support for the Nintendo motherfucking Wii News Channel, or that there are still people checking it.
You know what I hate though? That Nintendo had one of the best ideas for a console ever and then said, “fuck it, we’re never doing that again.” I don’t even get it. It was super popular.
You didn't. You just repeated what the other guy said in different words, haha. I think he's looking for a little more detail. It's an 11yo console and we're not all Nintendo historians.
Well, apparently it’s not simple because you completely missed why I said what I said. Y’all seem to have this idea that Nintendo was a victim of the Wii-U’s failure, and that it wasn’t somehow the result of their decisions. It’s like you think they didn’t develop and sell it themselves, that they suddenly appeared after it already existed. But if you want to just engage in some performative snark be my guest. I’ll be off lol
Honestly, what I find weird is that they seem to think Nintendo wasn’t somehow responsible for the disaster that was the Wii-U. Like only had to respond to it and had no role in its failure. It’s very odd and I’m assuming it’s not the intention so I’m seeking clarity here.
If I were a mod being a dickhead for no reason would be an immediate bannable offense. Just, why people gotta be like that? Even if you're thinking it, keep it in your brain and don't reply.
The Wii U wasn’t even remotely as financially successful as its predecessor, the Wii, so Nintendo didn’t put in as much effort. The Wii was a big hit with the casual market as well as Nintendo’s usual customers. Unfortunately, the Wii U failed to live up to expectation for a variety of reasons. One example is that much of the casual market didn’t see the need to upgrade (I suspect a lot of them, being new to gaming, didn’t really understand that the Wii U was a new console).
I worked in a GameStop when the Wii and then WiiU dropped. The Wii had one fucking massive ad campaign. Info packets, demo units, etc. We had it all.
The WiiU initially showed up as a SKU under the Wii as an accessory, and then for the longest time, we couldn’t get a straight answer as to whether it was its own thing or if it was like a SegaCD or 32x, or if it was just a new controller or what. When we got answers, it was already well into the preorder timeline and numbers were terrible, at least at my store.
This kind of feels like a chicken/egg problem. Maybe if they put the work in it would have done better?
I mean I understand the history of the Wii-U better than you probably think, but I just find the phrasing of your statement very interesting. Because it basically says “if it wasn’t such a failure, Nintendo would have done more for it.” It kind of implies a Nintendo isn’t responsible for how it flopped and is instead a victim of it even though they’re ones who made and sold it. Like their hands were tied.
It’s very odd to me and I’m just trying to parse your real meaning, because the above sounds very silly to me.
It was super popular because it was $250 cheaper than the cheapest PS3 and $150 cheaper than the Xbox 360 w/ storage at launch. It was essentially always the cheapest console you could buy.
Had some great games, the Wand/Nunchuck was cool and original, but like VR, many people played it for 6 months and then it sat collecting dust.
I would be very curious to compare games sold per console (preferably year by year). I imagine the Wii had a big drop off and maybe even sold fewer games per console than 360/PS3. If for no other reason than it had a library half the size of them. Both consoles had over 2000 games IIRC and Wii had just over 1000.
So much garbage released on Wii. Really harkened back Nintendo’s roots lol. I love the Wii and it has a lot of great releases but it really felt like 30% of the catalog was shovelware.
well they did release a second wii, wii u was very good (a huge upgrade with some amazing games). their marketing failed though, and it got much less casual wii-style games (also caused by said marketing fail)
It wasn’t just marketing fail. They failed to get developers on board and failed to player test adequately, a mistake that Nintendo consistently makes in cycles. N64 and Gamecube should’ve taught them but finally it seems with Switch they’ve gotten the message.
The Wii-U is fine but severely underpowered and the tablet was very limited in range and capability. I have one and enjoy it but it simply wasn’t impressive from a hardware standpoint and it wasn’t clear what you were supposed to do with it as an end user. Sony & Microsoft also ironed out their online gaming experience while Nintendo continue to flounder. That was a really important market in the 2010s and they completely failed to capture any of it.
The PS4/Xbox one just blew it out of the water performance wise. The tech gap was too wide (the CPU was a serious bottleneck) and it was a pain to develop for them when you could just develop for PC and/or PS4 and/or Xbox.
What idea, exactly? Because the pointer feature was fun, but not what I’d prefer to use often. The Switch has the same motion control, plus it’s portable.
To me the most surprising thing is the dev of RiiConnect24 was 13 when he started coding the service and wasn’t even a teenager when the original service was shutdown.
Unfortunately that shows that it’s probably a bad sample, the paper calls it out at the end. The curious issue here is they found it in Jan 2020 but them March of 2019…but nothing in between. So the odds of the march sample being a false positive are pretty high.
The medical community is pretty well positive it originally came from the Wuhan lab, that was found to be selling their used animals on the wet market, I don’t think I’ve seen anything for a while now say different. Unless it’s a Chinese source which doesn’t want to take responsibility at all.
Yeah but that’s Dec of 2019, it was pretty well known at that time that it had already left Wuhan. It’s why a lot of people who were following the spread figured the walling off of Wuhan like china tried was fruitless. 80mil+ people, someone has traveled at that point in time.
NO!!! it was the Bastard Biden all along! He also single-handedly made the gas prices go UP!!! It had NOTHING to do with OPEC, petroleum companies, and an unstable economy! I SAW THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN MY DREAMS! (/¯ ಠ_ಠ)/¯
Man fuck these comments. He explicitly said he wanted to ruin the rest of her life. He intentionally posted them with her full name and address, endangering her. And to ruin her chance at getting/keeping a job. Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life, at least there's a cap on UNLIKE WHAT HE TRIED TO DO TO HER!
Most of the disgusting comments are at least being criticized directly. Can’t silence the fuckheads, but you can appreciate other people dunking on them, at least
Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life
I agree.
However, if he made 100k a year and had to pay all of that, his life would have to last 12 million years. Just seems like some of the maths here is a bit off. But maybe I just don’t understand the American justice system.
I mean we do multiple life sentences or life + so many years so I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply when the penalty is monetary. It's a super high number to ensure he's paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It's intended as a warning.
I mean how much money can you put on the price of someone's life, safety, or missed future potential earnings? I think it was just a huge number to "ruin the rest of his life" as he attempted to do.
For example, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The coffee was so hot it melted that lady's skin together. And this was an ongoing issue that McDonald's had been warned of several times and didn't listen. So while the lady was just trying to get her medical costs covered, the jury awarded an additional $2.7m in punitive damages because McDonald's didn't listen. Punitive damages are literally money as punishment.
It’s a super high number to ensure he’s paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It’s intended as a warning.
Yes, I get that. Still I find it a very strange, even macabre. I made the point in a couple of other comments, but got no useful replies so far.
It seems to me this guy was basically convicted to living at “minimum wage” or at least some minimum that can’t be taken from him, so he can cover his basic needs.
So he is convicted to being poor. Nothing else. But, like there is actual poor people with a very similar standard of living, that did nothing wrong. It just doesn’t seem fair. How shitty must it be, as a poor person, that your neighbour is there only because he was convited to have your shitty live?
Also, what if he was already super poor before that and he won’t come into any fortune. What money are you even gonna take from him? Does that mean if you’re already poor you can just publish revengeporn, because what are they gonna take from you?
Like, if you’re poor … what is the “warning”? That they make sure you gonna be poor forever? Chances are that would be the case anyway.
Also, what incentive does this guy now have to actually contribute to society by doing anything more than the minimum he needs to afford?
I don't disagree. Income inequality is an overarching issue in the US. As is charging monetary damages that will never be paid out. My mom was injured in a car accident by someone driving under the influence, and she had to cover all her medical bills out of pocket despite winning in court because the dude wasn't even working and had no money to garnish.
I was more talking about how it fits in with the current system, as flawed as it may be. I don't have a good solution aside from overhauling the massive income inequality in this country. People working minimum wage jobs (which are usually jobs we need for society to function!) should not be living the same lifestyle as this dude.
So why no Prison for this dude? Like, I don’t want to sound like the typical anti-US European, but you send so many people to prison! The most in the world, by capita.
He deserves a couple of years and she deserves a reasonable amount of money that this guy can actually cough up. And then maybe things can move on.
Then again, from popular media I’m made to believe that US prisons are actually quite horrid, so maybe you don’t deserve that easily.
I just have the cynical feeling this guy actually got off lightly and the big number is just there to make for big media coverage with no real meaning.
Would the situation be any materially different if he had been convicted for $100.000, short of winning the lottery or inheriting a large sum? The fact that he made it his mission to ruin an ex’s life then didn’t show up to court tells me he’s not exactly the kind to have a legal high-paying job. Regardless of the exact monetary amount the consequences would have been the exact same, the difference is purely symbolic.
The American Justice System is broken, yes, but this particular case is hardly the best example of it. As an outsider looking in, I find it more troubling that you still have the death penalty, the whole “plead guilty or don’t get fair representation from your public defender” thing, over-incarceration, for-profit prisons, etc.
How shitty must it be, as a poor person, that your neighbour is there only because he was convited to have your shitty live?
Speaking as a poor person who learned why he is poor like me: fuck this guy. He deserved it. Literally tried to ruin her life and you expect us to feel bad he got punished for it? Like please.
You have a point, however, there seems to be a difference in severity. It’s like how openly and aggressively racist some of these folks have gotten. Sure, they always probably harbored those feelings, but now they are more brazen about it, and the behavior is getting worse as a result.
Jepp. Ever heard the argument from for instance atheists that you don’t need the bible to know right from wrong? They are unfortunately incorrect. These guys definitely need some higher power telling them.
I was just talking to my son about this last weekend. We were discussing the merits of organized religion. He said “I don’t need the threat of eternal punishment to act morally”. I said “you’re right, and neither do I, but there seems to be a great many people who do. So although the church is largely an instrument of control, it’s a necessity for a great many people”. It is going to have a profoundly negative impact on our society when these people are completely unleashed.
“The only thing keeping kids from being naughty is Santa Claus.”
Christians will sit in pews, worship their God, listen to a parabol about feeding the hungry then in unison vote republican. God and the church have no influence here other then maybe incouraging their shit behavior.
I would rather have people act morally because of empathy and even social pressure, versus “master told me to.”
Granted, if the church and its teachings disappeared today, things may get a bit more rough in the near future. Religion works on some people because they were raised in it and need it to stay normal. But if they weren’t indoctrinated since birth, it would not have such a hold on their morality.
Also granted, I’m sure there are plenty of people who would still act better with it than without it. Just speaking in general terms here.
I would also prefer if people just acted out of empathy but I believe some people just can’t. Ironically while many claim that autistic can’t they are often more empathetic than others.
What I really dislike with this kind of Christians is that they have so much text regarding compassion but they still just care about the parts that can be used to judge others. even though they claim to read the Bible literally. Which of course they don’t.
Yeah, I would say that it’s another example of those Christians cherry picking the parts of the Bible that are convenient for what they already believe, but they aren’t even doing that. The majority are just repeating lines they were fed.
Jepp, it’s quite impossible to discuss with them even though I keep on trying. Many of them can’t even admit that their reading of the text is also an interpretation or that interpretations also has been made during the translation of the texts.
I much prefer the traditional Jewish tradition to argue with the text (and god) for the benefit of human kind. But that takes a deep knowledge and understanding of the texts that most people lack.
Problem is that the morality taught by Christianity, and most other large organized religions, is extremely outdated and has spent many hundreds of years being corrupted by those in power to oppress others. I mean these people literally believe that God will punish our entire society if we don’t eradicate LGBTQ groups. I actually think these people would be much more tolerant of others if they had never encountered organized religion and just learned to coexist with others organically.
While I partly agree with you, my point was not so much the content of the laws but that some people need an invisible all seeing power to make sure that they’re following them.
They have trouble empathising with others unless it also directly affects them. There are for instance a number of republican politics who only supported the LGBTQ after their own child came out as gay or what ever. And that’s the best case scenario.
Religion in the US is weird though. You got the extremist kicked out from Europe and you southern state branches where pastors either moved north or stopped talking about equality for all men. What remains is non of the kindness and only cruelty and punishment that some people seem to get off on.
My own take on the morality of the laws in the Bible is that we would be better off if we more looked to the reason for the why of the laws than just reading what the law said. What spoken of in tanakh (or old testament) regarding men having sex for instance isn’t about to consenting adults but a question of rape of the penetrated man. Or in an interpretation from a Danish theology, incest of a male relative. Except for the question of rape and incest, it doesn’t have any bearing today regarding same sex relationships.
Arguable. The stories have him talk about the right price and your rights with slaves, and as commonly understood “not one jot or tittle” would directly conflict with “let he who…”, unless the second is an edict (“hey, you, sinless one, go chuck a rock at them and bludgeon then go death”).
Where the bible isn’t monstrous, it’s at best inconsistent.
The intentional shooting itself is all I need to know that the little kid has really significant issues that need to be treated. The fact that he bragged about it isn’t news; he’s six, I’m not expecting him to act maturely about anything.
My mom works in a school as a therapist for very mentally ill children. There are a few that have been sent to the bad kids school because of violence. I wouldn’t be surprised if she told me one of the kids shot someone.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.