Stop the ******* school shootings!

[PlagueBearer]

No, you're simply wrong. Religion isn't necessary for one to be moral and disciplined.

Have you read anything I've written?

I do not blame anthing on the waning of "my" religion, as I have none. Nor is it an issue of "ethics" even. Many people are simply born addicted to God, and without it they become unbalanced. Many feel nothing. Many feel like something is missing from their lives but never know what. Some "find God" and are "born again" A few can't take it, and snap. Finally, I don't indend to blame all problems on a drop in faith; it is one factor amung many for this specific problem. I mentioned many other contributors in a previous post.

Like anything, the effects of this are not uniform, and those who actually become violent because of this are uncommon. Furthermore, "morality" and "discipline" are not what I refer to; this has nothing to do with the moral or disciplinary lessons which may or may not be taught withing any given religious institution. It is the lack of certain chemicals which are produced by intense religious experiance. Without these chemicals we (you) become unbalanced, simmilar to an addict not getting his fix.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

It is the lack of certain chemicals which are produced by intense religious experiance. Without these chemicals we (you) become unbalanced, simmilar to an addict not getting his fix.

and for all these years, I thought it was the wine

 

[PlagueBearer]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It is a good thing i know you are making it up, otherwise i'd call you crazy.:laugh:

Edit: that would be a built in selfdestruct mode, built in by God. You will believe in me or die! Lol

Remove planning on God's part from the equation; this mechanism is a social adaptation, put in place to make us (you) easyer to control by those born to be leaders.

 

[HAMC8112]

Remove planning on God's part from the equation; this mechanism is a social adaptation, put in place to make us (you) easyer to control by those born to be leaders.

Put in by whom? Because the way you say it it sounds planned.

 

[Quietus]

PlagueBearer, I have to say, although I recognize your name from around the forums, I simply don't remember you having been quite this offensive, before. Maybe I haven't been paying attention.

So far, you have asserted that we (I) Should go back to being a completely religious society ("We (and by "we" I mean "you") need to go back to your Gods and stop divorcing and trying to change marriage into something it's not."), because :


Need religion ("Our (and again, by "our" I mean "your") minds are wired for faith: it fills a need within us, it gives us a "high". It's likely this evolved as a control mechanism.")
Are more are less unable to help our actions, or at the very least should not be held responsible for them ("It is not the "bully's" fault, nor his parents. We're all operating under a set of instincts that learned behavio can only do so much to alter.")
Would all be bullies if we were capable of it ("It's as natural as an alpha lion wounding a young rival, or a matriarch whale forcing another female to abort her pregnancy. Establishing dominance is entirely natural behavior in any social species.")
Will go insane without religion ("Without these chemicals we (you) become unbalanced, simmilar to an addict not getting his fix.", "With it gone, our (your) minds become imbalanced and violent. You go into a "rogue" state of mind, simmilar to how lions go insane separated from a pride")
Are born into our place in life ("put in place to make us (you) easyer to control by those born to be leaders.")


So you're saying that I, having experienced the Christian faith from several different angles, and having turned from it to a life completely free of religion, will soon go insane as a result? That it's natural for me to want to bully people and beat up on them if I percieve them as a threat, and since it's a natural instinct, that I should be excused for doing so?

Please keep in mind that you're making waves in the OTF with your offensive remarks - if it weren't for the fact that this particular "tribe" is online, then I suppose I would be perfectly excused for killing you, to stop you from being a threat to said "tribe"? I find that idea fascinating... and completely and totally wrong.

I have lived without religion for over two years now, since the last vestiges of my faith were left behind along with my marriage. I tried faith, and it failed me. It served no purpose in my life, it added nothing to me, I experienced no highs from it... it was two hours of every week wasted to a purposeless, mindless droning. It changed nothing about me, and I am perfectly capable of controlling myself. I feel no urge to run around killing people, regardless of their status in any way, shape, or form (Well, okay, I think murderers should be killed, instead of wasting tax money to keep them alive and comfortable in jail...), and I am actually quite a nice, friendly, compassionate man, who readily offers help to those who need it. I'm sure there are many, many others here that can say the same. So when does this insanity kick in? I'd like to know, because there's a huge portion of this forum, along with many of my friends, that'll be losing it pretty soon - and I'd like to know when to take cover.

 

[Module88]

You've picked up JM's posting style.

Article 1: the victims were ASLEEP.

Only you would mistake the significance of that.

See, most people, at the sound of a .22 round going off, would wake up. No? (I'm using one of the smallest rounds as an example to illustrate a point).

Think about it for a second. Guy goes in, knifes eight people, and escapes. Nobody knows what the hell happened. Think the same thing would have happened if a gun went off? Have you even heard a gun go off dondrei? (TV doesn't count)

Article 2: the guy entered one classroom, stabbed a bunch of children and then ran to the next where he was overpowered (by teachers, I assume). So basically, he faced at most one adult in the first classroom which he successfully overpowered (I assume, it doesn't say except that only one teacher remained in a serious condition), but by the time he got to the next people were alerted and just like I say, he was overcome. Why? Because HE ONLY HAD A KNIFE, THAT'S WHY!

So the amount of people killed doesn't matter? Funny you mention that last part. I recall a certain principal who overcame an attacker armed with a gun and saved many lives, at the cost of his own. I thought knife-sprees couldn't happen?

Article 3: all of the statistics presented here are irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make.
Article 4: no content.

Did I ever say I support a ban on knives? I don't. Why? Because KNIVES AREN'T NEARLY AS LETHAL AS GUNS.

Article four was supplementary to article three. Once again, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's irrelevant. One in three murders are committed with a knife. Thus, we should restrict the types of knives that can be sold (gotta start somewhere, right?). Oh yeah, sorry, that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You'll kindly notice I didn't mention religion in any of the stuff that was responding to you either.

Really? So... what was:

You're right, the world is such a terrible place because people aren't religious. Let's go back to the Dark Ages when everyone was brimming over with faith and things were just peachy.

?

 

[Dondrei]

I can't follow him at all anymore.

*EDIT*

Plaguebearer, I mean.

 

[Module88]

I can't follow him at all anymore.

*EDIT*

Plaguebearer, I mean.

Damn. Got to it before I could nail you to the wall, kick you in the jewels, and then pull your nails out. :embarassed:

 

[AeroJonesy]

Religion? My thread went downhill quickly. Maybe I didn't make it clear that school shooters are a bunch of sissies too afraid of life that they think they are better off dead and think they shoudl take some people with them? They are a bunch of goddamn cowards. Their parents should have taken them out back and shot them a long time ago...if they had been paying attention.

 

[Dondrei]

Only you would mistake the significance of that.

See, most people, at the sound of a .22 round going off, would wake up. No? (I'm using one of the smallest rounds as an example to illustrate a point).

Think about it for a second. Guy goes in, knifes eight people, and escapes. Nobody knows what the hell happened. Think the same thing would have happened if a gun went off? Have you even heard a gun go off dondrei? (TV doesn't count)

So you're saying knives are far more deadly for killing people while they're asleep? Think about what you're saying.

So the amount of people killed doesn't matter? Funny you mention that last part. I recall a certain principal who overcame an attacker armed with a gun and saved many lives, at the cost of his own. I thought knife-sprees couldn't happen?

Of course it can happen if you're facing children. The point is that as soon as he was confronted by more than one adult (ie when the spree actually started, attacking one adult doesn't count as a spree) he was overpowered. With a gun that is still possible but much more difficult.

Article four was supplementary to article three. Once again, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's irrelevant. One in three murders are committed with a knife. Thus, we should restrict the types of knives that can be sold (gotta start somewhere, right?). Oh yeah, sorry, that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It sure is. The point is not how many murders are committed with it, but rather how lethal it is. By your logic we should make bazookas legal because no murders occur with them.

Get the point? If a guy runs through a big crowd of people (ADULTS, I now have to stress to you because you insist on playing dumb) with a knife, he will probably be overpowered and disarmed. Maybe he can knife a few with the element of surprise or before people work out that they should work together to disarm him rather than running, but that's it. On the other hand if he runs through a crowd with a semi-automatic he can fend off superior numbers of unarmed people. Not to mention the psychological aspect of attacking someone with a gun while unarmed; people are much less likely to risk it.

Really? So... what was:

?

Hmm, I dunno, maybe you should go back and read it or something. I know you have terrible trouble understanding plain English.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Get the point? If a guy runs through a big crowd of people (ADULTS, I now have to stress to you because you insist on playing dumb) with a knife, he will probably be overpowered and disarmed. Maybe he can knife a few with the element of surprise or before people work out that they should work together to disarm him rather than running, but that's it.

9/11? I don't really know just what happened on those planes, but they did it with boxcutters.

 

[Dondrei]

9/11? I don't really know just what happened on those planes, but they did it with boxcutters.

Yeah, ON A PLANE.

 

[Module88]

So you're saying knives are far more deadly for killing people while they're asleep? Think about what you're saying.

I hope you're not trying to argue guns are stealthier than knives. Are you?

Of course it can happen if you're facing children. The point is that as soon as he was confronted by more than one adult (ie when the spree actually started, attacking one adult doesn't count as a spree) he was overpowered. With a gun that is still possible but much more difficult.

So it's only a killing spree if the targets are adults? What kind of logic is that?

It sure is. The point is not how many murders are committed with it, but rather how lethal it is. By your logic we should make bazookas legal because no murders occur with them.

What was that... a strawman? This doesn't have anything to do with legality. Clearly knives are lethal enough to be the primary weapon for quite a few murders. And for the record, murders are committed with bazookas.

Get the point? If a guy runs through a big crowd of people (ADULTS, I now have to stress to you because you insist on playing dumb) with a knife, he will probably be overpowered and disarmed.

Because clearly, it doesn't matter if children are the ones that get killed. Last time I gave you an example where a TEENAGER ran through what, over two dozen people. He wasn't overpowered and disarmed- he was arrested later.

Maybe he can knife a few with the element of surprise or before people work out that they should work together to disarm him rather than running, but that's it.

Didn't work out so well, did it?

On the other hand if he runs through a crowd with a semi-automatic he can fend off superior numbers of unarmed people. Not to mention the psychological aspect of attacking someone with a gun while unarmed; people are much less likely to risk it.

Hmm. I wouldn't be very inclined to rush a guy wielding knives. You do know knives are designed for up close and personal use, right? And that they don't have recoil. Unless the guy has beer goggles on, it's probably not going to miss.

Hmm, I dunno, maybe you should go back and read it or something. I know you have terrible trouble understanding plain English.

Oh I see, it was this part that messed me up. "You'll kindly notice I didn't mention religion in any of the stuff that was responding to you either." Yeah, I shouldn't worded that sentence so poorly. Oh wait...

Yeah, ON A PLANE.

... With dozens, if not at least a hundred, adults on board, in very close proximity. Weren't you complaining about that earlier? Which is it, don?

 

[PlagueBearer]

PlagueBearer, I have to say, although I recognize your name from around the forums, I simply don't remember you having been quite this offensive, before. Maybe I haven't been paying attention.

I suppose I really shouldn't be saying what I'm saying; we're designed to not recognise our leaders as different from ourselves, when in reality our leaders are cast into their roles from birth. We (you) recognise them without realising it. The idea that you were born to be a follower is offensive to you because the illusion of free will is very important.

So far, you have asserted that we (I) Should go back to being a completely religious society...

You must have missed the part where I said that too much religion is as bad as too little.

...[We] Are more are less unable to help our actions, or at the very least should not be held responsible for them ("It is not the "bully's" fault, nor his parents. We're all operating under a set of instincts that learned behavio can only do so much to alter.")

There are winners and losers in life. "Bullying" is a winning tactic at all ages, though the subtleties begin to develop as we become adults. If bullying is somehow unfair, I wonder what is a fair way to determine who is dominant over whom?

...Would all be bullies if we were capable of it...

We would.

Will go insane without religion

No, some do. Most do not. The "rogue state" is a natural state which developed to help us while operation while tribeless. For most people, this just turns into crankyness and irritability.

Are born into our place in life ("put in place to make us (you) easyer to control by those born to be leaders.")

This is correct. Leaders are born. You know who is a leader and who is not on a subconcious level.

So you're saying that I, having experienced the Christian faith from several different angles, and having turned from it to a life completely free of religion, will soon go insane as a result?

Probably not.

That it's natural for me to want to bully people and beat up on them if I percieve them as a threat, and since it's a natural instinct, that I should be excused for doing so?

I am primarily discussing children. Since they operate less on learned behavior and more on instict, bullying is an unavoidable consequence. As they grow into adults, they learn that proper bullying is a mental and social excercise, not a physical one.

Please keep in mind that you're making waves in the OTF with your offensive remarks - if it weren't for the fact that this particular "tribe" is online, then I suppose I would be perfectly excused for killing you, to stop you from being a threat to said "tribe"? I find that idea fascinating... and completely and totally wrong.

I really find it very interesting that you are as offended as you say you are. I apolagise for offending you, but ask that you ask yourself; why are you so offended by what I have said in this thread?

I have lived without religion for over two years now, since the last vestiges of my faith were left behind along with my marriage. I tried faith, and it failed me. It served no purpose in my life, it added nothing to me, I experienced no highs from it... it was two hours of every week wasted to a purposeless, mindless droning. It changed nothing about me, and I am perfectly capable of controlling myself. I feel no urge to run around killing people, regardless of their status in any way, shape, or form (Well, okay, I think murderers should be killed, instead of wasting tax money to keep them alive and comfortable in jail...), and I am actually quite a nice, friendly, compassionate man, who readily offers help to those who need it. I'm sure there are many, many others here that can say the same. So when does this insanity kick in? I'd like to know, because there's a huge portion of this forum, along with many of my friends, that'll be losing it pretty soon - and I'd like to know when to take cover.

Again, most rogues are sane. Going rogue is a totally natural state, it is simply not optimal for mental health. Without a doubt you would be in better mental health, and more importantly a better servant to society, if you had faith.

It's also possible that you are a Leader. However, based on how upset my posts have made you I doubt that.

 

[PlagueBearer]

Put in by whom? Because the way you say it it sounds planned.

My terminology was poor. Our capacity for faith evolved over time to help us function better as a society.

 

[PlagueBearer]

I can't follow him at all anymore.

*EDIT*

Plaguebearer, I mean.

The camera cannot see itself. Your brain operates in ways which would likely disturb and embarass you if you were allowed to become aware of it.

 

[Dondrei]

The camera cannot see itself. Your brain operates in ways which would likely disturb and embarass you if you were allowed to become aware of it.

LOL .

 

[Dondrei]

I hope you're not trying to argue guns are stealthier than knives. Are you?

No, and if you were familiar with the argument we're having then you wouldn't bring up that non sequitur either.

So it's only a killing spree if the targets are adults? What kind of logic is that?

Of course ANY weapon will do if all you're facing is children. Your bare hands would suffice.

What was that... a strawman? This doesn't have anything to do with legality. Clearly knives are lethal enough to be the primary weapon for quite a few murders. And for the record, murders are committed with bazookas.

Wrong, that is the entire argument. Even America already bans certain weapons such as explosives, assault rifles and fully automatics (such is my understanding anyway, I don't know all the ins and outs of your law in this respect) - there have in the past been strong calls for limits on high capacity magazines and so on. Always the question central to the debate is LETHALITY.

A weapon that's explosive can kill a lot of people real fast. So can one with a very high rate of fire or a large magazine, they make killing sprees much more deadly and make it more difficult for unarmed people to overcome their attacker. That's the whole debate, how lethal does a weapon have to be before we ban it?

Because clearly, it doesn't matter if children are the ones that get killed. Last time I gave you an example where a TEENAGER ran through what, over two dozen people. He wasn't overpowered and disarmed- he was arrested later.

That's a complete non sequitur. You fail, please try again. ^_^

Didn't work out so well, did it?

What are you talking about?

Hmm. I wouldn't be very inclined to rush a guy wielding knives. You do know knives are designed for up close and personal use, right? And that they don't have recoil. Unless the guy has beer goggles on, it's probably not going to miss.

Would you be more likely to rush a guy with a semi-automatic? If so you're lucky you only fight imaginary zombies, you have the battle instincts of Leeroy Jenkins.

If you have enough people you can easily overcome someone with a knife, he may get one or at most two of you before being disarmed but that's it.

Oh I see, it was this part that messed me up. "You'll kindly notice I didn't mention religion in any of the stuff that was responding to you either." Yeah, I shouldn't worded that sentence so poorly. Oh wait...

Yeah, that's right. I carefully word my sentences so there's no ambiguity, you might try to adopt a policy of reading them carefully, word-for-word.

... With dozens, if not at least a hundred, adults on board, in very close proximity. Weren't you complaining about that earlier? Which is it, don?

Those people were fear-conditioned, and there were four attackers per plane (I think, I forget exactly how many). They also claimed to have bombs. The most important thing though is that those people thought they were being hijacked, they thought that if they just stayed calm eventually it'd all be over so they didn't try, it's not the same as a rampage where the guy is clearly about to kill anyone he can get his hands on.

It will never happen again either, people are now aware that terrorists are planning to kill them all and will mob them. That's what happened on the fourth plane (although we'll never know exactly what the outcome was since it crashed), as soon as they realised what was going on they fought back.

There was at least one instance since then actually, wasn't there? I seem to recall something about the passengers grabbing some guy who was making threats, can't remember if he actually turned out to be armed or not though.

 

[Bortaz]

Damn it, Dondrei. You're doing it again.

 

[Module88]

No, and if you were familiar with the argument we're having then you wouldn't bring up that non sequitur either.

Knives are better when you're trying to make such kills, yes. What kind of quesiton is that?

Of course ANY weapon will do if all you're facing is children. Your bare hands would suffice.

Killing spree or not?

Wrong, that is the entire argument. Even America already bans certain weapons such as explosives, assault rifles and fully automatics (such is my understanding anyway, I don't know all the ins and outs of your law in this respect) - there have in the past been strong calls for limits on high capacity magazines and so on. Always the question central to the debate is LETHALITY.

You don't know the ins and outs of anything when it comes to guns, the military, or war. Maybe in California and Hawaii your understanding of the law holds, but that's about the extent of it.

A weapon that's explosive can kill a lot of people real fast. So can one with a very high rate of fire or a large magazine, they make killing sprees much more deadly and make it more difficult for unarmed people to overcome their attacker. That's the whole debate, how lethal does a weapon have to be before we ban it?

Under the presumption that the criminals using such weapons are reasonably skilled enough to hit a target on full automatic. Have you ever fired a gun, dondrei? Even in the Hollywood shootout, or the Waco incident, thousands of rounds were fired with relatively few casualties (considering the number of rounds fired, anyway).

That's a complete non sequitur. You fail, please try again. ^_^

It's not a non sequitur just because you say it is. "If a guy runs through a big crowd of people (ADULTS, I now have to stress to you because you insist on playing dumb) with a knife, he will probably be overpowered and disarmed." "Too bad a teenager stabbed dozens of people and wasn't overpowered and disarmed." Running through a crowded area like that and not getting overpowered? Hmm.

What are you talking about?

The above. "Maybe he can knife a few with the element of surprise or before people work out that they should work together to disarm him rather than running, but that's it." So, how did this teenager knife dozens of people and get away?

Would you be more likely to rush a guy with a semi-automatic? If so you're lucky you only fight imaginary zombies, you have the battle instincts of Leeroy Jenkins.

Once he runs out of ammunition in the magazine, hell yes. I'd rather go up against an empty firearm than a knife in close quarters any day.

If you have enough people you can easily overcome someone with a knife, he may get one or at most two of you before being disarmed but that's it.

Again, that's all theory. There's almost always enough people to overcome a gunman or knifeman. But does it happen?

Yeah, that's right. I carefully word my sentences so there's no ambiguity, you might try to adopt a policy of reading them carefully, word-for-word.

Yeah, I mean, that stuff was talking a lot of crap to Bortaz. I'm surprised Bortaz didn't rage on that stuff. Man, that stupid stuff...

Those people were fear-conditioned, and there were four attackers per plane (I think, I forget exactly how many). They also claimed to have bombs. The most important thing though is that those people thought they were being hijacked, they thought that if they just stayed calm eventually it'd all be over so they didn't try, it's not the same as a rampage where the guy is clearly about to kill anyone he can get his hands on.

As opposed to the fearing conditioning of seeing all of the blood on a guy on the floor after he gets knifed? Of course, for the first airline, that reason might hold. But for the second? The third? The fourth decided to do something about it. Of course a ton of people can disarm dangerous individuals. A ton of people can disarm gunmen. A ton of people can disarm knifemen. But does it happen? Statistics and logic as far as, "well, it's possible," doesn't matter if that's not what actually happens.

It will never happen again either, people are now aware that terrorists are planning to kill them all and will mob them. That's what happened on the fourth plane (although we'll never know exactly what the outcome was since it crashed), as soon as they realised what was going on they fought back.

So what about the other two?

There was at least one instance since then actually, wasn't there? I seem to recall something about the passengers grabbing some guy who was making threats, can't remember if he actually turned out to be armed or not though.

Uh... ok.