| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You do realise that, if someone owns a gun, but the police don't find out about it, it isn't counted as a firearms offence.
On the other hand, if (before or after the ban) a firearm was used in the commission of a crime then it would have been counted as a firearms offence
(as well as robbery or whatever).
So, the number of firearms offences and the number of firearms crimes are pretty much the same thing.
We are, after all, talking about criminal offences and those are, when it comes down to it, crimes.
The distinction you make between firearms crimes (which are criminal offences involving firearms) and firearms offences (which are criminal offences
involving firearms) seems a bit odd. It seems the numbers are going up and down at the same time.
" Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362."
Call it 10,000 per year
And, according to this
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....
there were something like 1 million violent crimes each year in the UK ( the number is embarrassingly high but currently falling based on that data).
So firearms were about 99% irrelevant to UK violent crime.
In any event, it seems very unlikely that permitting guns would somehow reduce the number of gun crimes in the UK.
Do you somehow imagine that criminals would stop using them if they became more available?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Statistical analysis has to compare apples with apples to have meaning, and there are layers of factors which should be considered relevant to making
any rational conclusions interpreting what the raw data means. Wholesale numbers for raw data can be very misleading about what are actual
associations of cause and effect. Common sense must not be tossed out the window while doing a study of statistical data trying to identify
relationships which show a common denominator or several commonalities that factor into making reasonable conclusions as to what the data means.
For example, suppose that the statistics are broken down and categorized into brackets identified according to rural versus urban and it is seen that
population density is a factor. And suppose further search parameters are applied to the ethnicity of the perpetrators, educational and income
brackets, immigration status, or familial generational ancestry of a citizen for example are they the first generation in country or are they the
tenth generation of family in the same region for 300 years, (territorial factor). Interesting results begin to appear and a clearer picture emerges
that "gun violence" is not such a simple proposition for analysis and that the psyche and character of persons is a much more profound indicator of
"good and evil". The factors which are revealed are not widely discussed because such data analysis presented for what it is shows some stark
realities which are not consistent with "political correctness" and the entire ideology about "diversity" having validity which would be hoped for it.
The story involving what the statistics actually show will not be told because the bracketed classes of persons involved in the most crime will be
offended by the ethnic or racial prejudice which is claimed to be communicated simply by publishing the truth. So for reasons of sensitivity to
political correctness, the statistics which are a stigma for particular classes of persons will not be shown or discussed frankly as to their meaning,
but will be generalized and a misleading portrait will be applied to the entire population being indicted for what are the crimes more correctly
attributed to a "special class". Indeed sometimes it will be found that almost all the serious crime in a particular city may be generated from a
single district that is a "bad neighborhood", and yet the entire city will be stigmatized as a high crime area when that is simply not the truth. It
really does come down to people of certain identifiable groups and the police have certainly long been aware of this.
Anyway it should be a matter of caution about what conclusions are reasonable involving "statistical analysis".
Because truly there is more to the story than numbers in that exercise seeking truth, and none of it is governing for the person who is being a victim
of some crime which would not be occurring were they armed and able to defend themselves and prevent that. All the statistics in the world and all
the laws and philosophy and politics and psychology are completely irrelevant at that point for that person.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gu...
[Edited on 3-6-2013 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Fair point about the stats.
In any event, it seems very unlikely that permitting guns would somehow reduce the number of gun crimes in the UK.
Do you somehow imagine that criminals would stop using them if they became more available?
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
I think history has already shown what works and what does not. Proliferation of arms was never the problem, it is societal decadence that is the
problem, and arms control has been the wrong medicine for treating what never was the disease. I have an idea if it isn't broke don't fix it. Fix what
is broken instead.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The single minded obsession given to Gun control is a mania absent of reason.
The number of victims and crimes which involve the violent use of firearms are
the primary matter of public interest. Perversely the focus of crime taxonomy
in the UK is the weapon itself be it an air pellet gun, a shotgun or pistol, the actual
crime whether it was violent or not is not a consideration , they are all ' offenses '
to be categorized by type of weapon.
Firearm Crime Statistics
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
from page 2 above
• Number of offences
_ In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences,
• Type of offence
_ In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%)
of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11
63 % of 11,227 is 7 0 7 3 <= that's real all the rest is BS.
~ approximately 12.6 acts of gun violence per 100,000 people. ( 56,000,000 population )
The murder rate is supposedly 1.3 per 100,000
" there are as many as 55 offences involving firearms that it is possible to commit
even before a gun is pointed or its trigger pulled." ( top Page 9 ) Here _
Gun Crime A Review Of Evidence & Policy
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus713/&ei=9VatUceTMYio0AG1mYHAAg.pdf
This study is the best subjective analysis - more from the above _
" The impact of firearms legislation is contested and ‘notoriously difficult to measure’,
several mediating factors ‘underline the difficulties inherent in trying to understand
the relationship between firearms legislation and recorded firearms offences’. These
include: crime counting and recording practices; crime reporting rates; legislation;
policing [such as the establishment of dedicated firearms units]; and the availability
of intelligence data to ascertain which illegal firearms are used and how often any
particular firearm is used." ( middle page 35 )
" One of the strongest and most consistent themes to emerge from the research
that is available is the inadequacy of the existing evidence base in terms of providing
a basis for formulating policy responses to the problem of ‘gun crime’" ( end )
Observations by the police _
" officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics.
The crime figures are meaningless. Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."
" the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being
committed." " a series of tricks rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' An example,
is where a series of homes in a block of flats are burgled and were regularly recorded as
one crime." ( a one man crime spree ?)
" British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. Suppose that a woman
is killed during an argument outside a bar. Three are arrested for murder, but because of
problems with identification ( the main witness is dead ), charges are eventually dropped.
In American crime statistics, the event counts as a homicide, but in British statistics it
counts as nothing at all." ( only convictions matter as a crime )
Crime in England and Wales, year ending June 2012
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf
Crime tabulating criteria has been revised 4 times in the
last 20 years - see page 13
No sir, figures don't lie , but liars will figure. Official tabulations are contrived to obfuscate
the circumstances of what the person on the street is well aware of.
" There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
— Mark Twain ( which he attributes to — Benjamin Disraeli )
Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0111.pdf
Measuring Crime for 25 years
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf
( more useless traveloque )
Crimes detected in England and Wales 2011/12
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116435/hosb0812.pdf
from page 11
762515 violence against the person
56,000,000 population
1361 per 100,000
Crime in the U.S dropped by 50 % over the last 20 years
and other analysis , here _
www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0
An compelling idea explaining the crime drop _
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=22949#pid2707...
.
|
|
|
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Seems like a no brainer. Once predators get the idea that private citizens are less likely to have an effective means of defending themselves there
will be more incentive for them to enter the homes of these citizens and rob and/or physically assault them.
Possessing firearms helps instill a whole different attitude in general, I believe, one of self reliance and independence. This is a healthy thing I
believe. I agree with the comment above that no one will ever protect or help you as well as you can help or protect yourself. Police might
arrest someone after your murder, but what good does that do you?
The firearms owner attitude and the ability to resist if necessary are very important when dealing with concentrations of power as well. Some things
never change, keep in mind the old adage.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
[Edited on 4-6-2013 by Hennig Brand]
"A risk-free world is a very dull world, one from which we are apt to learn little of consequence." -Geerat Vermeij
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from
multiple directions.
----------
I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.
[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon]
|
|
|
Hennig Brand
International Hazard
Posts: 1284
Registered: 7-6-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It seems that a big motivation for gun control is for big government/big business to have a monopoly on violence. I don't think it is in individual
citizen's interest, in any way shape or form, for big government/big business to have a monopoly on violence.
"A risk-free world is a very dull world, one from which we are apt to learn little of consequence." -Geerat Vermeij
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon  | All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from
multiple directions.
----------
I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.
[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon] |
Indeed, but because it was in the UK we were able to ask him who talked him into this obscene act. We got that guy too.
We were able to exclude the possibility that his behaviour was caused by a treatable mental illlness, We didn't sink to his level and we remembered
the importance of "due process".
As a side benefit, we robbed their cause of a martyr.
[Edited on 5-6-13 by unionised]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
The government through sensible civil defense advisories in times past advocated the virtuousness of preparedness and situational awareness for
citizens to be able to sustain and protect themselves during any times of emergency which might arise due to natural or man made disasters. One of
the components of such preparedness would be arms, for many obvious reasons.
On that basis alone it would now seem to be entirely convenient propaganda to try to advance the opposite proposition that any foreseeable future
emergenicies shall be more benign and for being so genteel and civilized as all people have evolved to being even in times of hysteria and
desperation, that sufficient authority in any future emergency will be supplied by use of harsh language, due to the improved more socially adjusted
good nature of any anticipated future looters or other invaders who have been put on their honor and conditioned in advance to be better behaved in
desperate times. Likewise there should be no need for hunting and fishing equipment because more highly evolved survival conscious people can just
think happy thoughts about having food on the table when starving, and food shall magically appear.
Sarcasm aside, it would be impossible to reconcile the more sensible traditional and well proven views and methods of times past about what is
involved with basic preparedness of a common sense variety, with the attempted to be revised ideas about preparedness which align with the fantasies
of "political correctness".
For anyone who really critically examines the premises for such revisions made which attempt to redefine what is rational thinking to be compliant
with social or political sensibilities, the "new math" about such basics simply does not add up. Indeed there are a great many things which can be
made subject to convoluted yet "rational analysis" where the final conclusion is incorrect. One of the perils of intellect is not being able to see
the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | | Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon | All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from
multiple directions.
----------
I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.
[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon] |
Indeed, but because it was in the UK we were able to ask him who talked him into this obscene act. We got that guy too.
We were able to exclude the possibility that his behaviour was caused by a treatable mental illlness, We didn't sink to his level and we remembered
the importance of "due process".
As a side benefit, we robbed their cause of a martyr.
[Edited on 5-6-13 by unionised] |
Difference being, the soldier would still have a chance to be alive and not the terrorist. Different priorities I guess.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No doubt COBRA will now call for quick and decisive action to have
national registration of all cleavers and licensing of all butchers and
meat cutters. ( COBRA , Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms , committee
set up to coordinate the actions of bodies within the government of
the United Kingdom in response to instances of national or regional
crisis). I don't get it , what is the crisis ? Back in the early 1980's
during the heyday of ' crack ' ( freebase smokable cocaine ) related
crime , some weeks would top 50 homicides in New York and other
major urban cities , reaching into the hundreds nationwide. Certainly
a matter of concern to an otherwise peaceful public , but it hardly rose
to the threat of preemptive nuclear strike. Nowadays all one need to
do is attach the word ' Terrorist ' to a lurid violent murder and this is
national news foreshadowing The End Of The World As You Know It.
This has more the appearance of a propaganda driven pretext for
suspending civil liberties. It is and will always relentlessly continue
since such events are not even within the ability of a penal institution
to obviate within the convict population. The end of this tunnel is east
European Soviet style Marshall law - guns in civilian possession are
evil assault weapons , whereas police force defensive arms ( hugs &
kisses ) are good - for nothing , didn't defend the gored man first hit
by a car. Would the two perpetrators have been so bold if they knew
they might also have been killed by bystanders at the scene before
the arrival of police ? Who by the way shot them anyway.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4qrFFxqxg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIig9jHBQM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGdGbCX03Q
<iframe sandbox width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hftgytmgQgE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
She's a witch of trouble in electric blue.
In her own mad mind she's in love with you,
With you.
Now what you gonna do?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
She's some kind of demon messin' in the flue.
If you don't watch out it'll stick to you,
To you.
What kind of fool are you?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
On a boat in the middle of a raging sea,
She would make a scene for it all to be
Ignored.
And wouldn't you be bored?
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
Strange brew, strange brew, strange brew, strange brew.
Strange brew -- killin' what's inside of you.
.
[Edited on 7-6-2013 by franklyn]
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
The US military's trigger-happy motto of "Kill 'em All" seems to have somewhat insinuated itself into American society in general . . .
But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent | The US military's trigger-happy motto of "Kill 'em All" seems to have somewhat insinuated itself into American society in general . . .
But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies. |
What a croc. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, the list goes on. So where in today's Christian nations are the hundreds of millions of dead to prove your
point. Oh that's right, it is the secular societies responsible for mass death and history proves it. History is calling you a liar and so am I. Both
history and myself grow tired of useless propaganda and lies.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent | The US military's trigger-happy motto of "Kill 'em All" seems to have somewhat insinuated itself into American society in general . . .
But then, religious societies have always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies. |
What a croc. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, the list goes on. So where in today's Christian nations are the hundreds of millions of dead to prove your
point. Oh that's right, it is the secular societies responsible for mass death and history proves it. History is calling you a liar and so am I. Both
history and myself grow tired of useless propaganda and lies.
|
You're both wrong. Genocide has no strong correlation with either religious or secular societies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history Just see if you can pick out a distinction in these lists in which either religious or secular
societies come out looking well.
As for specifics, Hitler's Germany was quite religious. While the others were not, there's the history of genocide in the Americas (North, Central,
and South all) that can't be ignored in this context, all of which was by religiously-minded Europeans and their progeny. To be sure the most recent
large genocides were by atheist leaders, but to assert a generality from that is to use a ludicrously short historical attention span.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
While I see your point I do not think I'm wrong at all. If we go by sheer numbers killed we have over a hundred million dead between three, Mao,
Stalin, Pol Pot. In each case absolutely non religious. As to hitler he was heavy into the occult which to me means anti religious. I agree about the
population of WWII Germany, no argument with you there about religion. Yet it was hitler who called the shots and I was talking about numbers of dead
at the hands of the leaders and their standing on religious views* as it relates to "But then, religious societies have
always placed a lower value on human life than have overtly secular societies".
* consider that the government, or nation as a whole was likewise secular in these examples, regardless of the secret beliefs the people may have
held.
To me the above quote is completely fabricated bullshit. Nothing but propaganda and it is sad anyone considering themselves educated and intelligent
actually believes it. Going further it is diametrically opposite to the truth through history. Go down through history. Whenever there was terrible
wrong it was usually corrected by powers with strong connection to religion. Church people in bad times hiding and saving many. From slavery here to
the Jews in Europe, on and on through history. There is no secular great shining light of goodness for life and happiness in any society in all
recorded history. Name the great wonderful secular society in history where right and goodness prevailed at all. Not to mean all was perfect, rather
the point being it was people with moral convictions which eventually ended great wrongs through history.
If one desires to research true history minus the political lies which abound today it is the religious right which ended slavery. For over a hundred
years it was liberal progressive democrats who fought to keep black people enslaved, even into the late 50's with LBJ and others fighting in congress
to block civil rights legislation. Sadly progressives have twisted this history to make black people think democrats are their saviors. Ironic when
through social programs they still enslave black people to this day. Keep them fed but never let them get ahead. Add to this the progressive democrat
eugenic program planned parenthood which so far has a US death toll of over 54 million, mostly blacks. 42 percent of black pregnancies in NYC alone
end in death by abortion. Christians believe abortion is murder. So how is it the statement above quoted in red has any truth at all? It does not!
Just as satans greatest lie is making people believe he does not exist, republicans greatest lie is they are not identical progressives to their
progressive democrat counterparts, when in reality they are all exactly the same and equally corrupt.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Be careful IRC, you know that secular progressive ideologues let ideology color their analysis of history and everything else with confirmation bias.
Cutting through all the lies is like taking on the task of a cult deprogrammer trying to get through to the brainwashed. Good luck with that.
To hear some unvarnished politically incorrect "God and country" type of intellectually unhobbled and uncastrated "man talk" commentary try this
channel ....if you are not too easily offended by hearing some straight talk from somebody laying it on the line. If you are really an advocate of
political correctness, then you probably shouldn't listen to what this old lawman has to say, since it will be straight talk and not sugary
euphemisms.
http://www.youtube.com/user/WildBillforAmerica/videos
Here's a blog that may be of interest also
http://thegunwire.com/
When sane leadership is elusive in the real world, perhaps a virtual representation of what sanity in leadership would sound like can provide a
momentary, if fictional and simulated respite from the sad reality of the present popular madness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI
[Edited on 8-6-2013 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
Hitler not a Christian because he dabbled in trinkets? What an odd whitewash for remarks like
| Quote: |
[The Jews'] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation.
|
(Mein Kampf)
Hitler aside, the secularity of Nazi society can be judged by the books they burned:
| Quote: |
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the
healthy sentiments of the Volk.
|
(source)
Oh, and then there's this bit of "confirmation bias"
| Quote: |
BERLIN, Feb. 23 (AP)--A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf
Hitler's forces.
|
(source)
Keep your theocracy to yourself, please.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon | | Quote: Originally posted by unionised | | Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon | All I'm saying, if the attack on the British soldier had happened around here, that terrorist with the meat cleaver would have been ventilated from
multiple directions.
----------
I live in Kentucky though, I have to take that into consideration.
[Edited on 4-6-2013 by hyfalcon] |
Indeed, but because it was in the UK we were able to ask him who talked him into this obscene act. We got that guy too.
We were able to exclude the possibility that his behaviour was caused by a treatable mental illlness, We didn't sink to his level and we remembered
the importance of "due process".
As a side benefit, we robbed their cause of a martyr.
[Edited on 5-6-13 by unionised] |
Difference being, the soldier would still have a chance to be alive and not the terrorist. Different priorities I guess. |
Not really, no.
It doesn't take long to kill someone with a machete so the guy would have been dead before anyone drew a gun.
So the difference is fewer people dead- one rather than two (or more if anyone got hit by crossfire).
Different priorities I guess.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | While I see your point I do not think I'm wrong at all. If we go by sheer numbers killed we have over a hundred million dead between three, Mao,
Stalin, Pol Pot. |
If you go by numbers you're introducing a bias toward recent events, given the last few
hundred years of population rise. More proper, I think, would be to look at percentages of target populations eliminated. That's a figure that
fluctuates, but even with that measure there are no winners in this game, no evidence that one side has any superiority over the other.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Good point Rosco I don't know what I was thinking trying to bring historical reality into the discussion. Mayko proved you right by quoting the words
of a schizophrenic murdering madman and confusing that with the recorded reality of what hitler actually did. In effect not seeing the difference
between someone calling themselves Christian and those who actually are one. No decent person orders the building of ovens and gas chambers to fulfill
their order of the murder of millions of innocent people. The very least definition of true Christians is that they are decent people. I brought
abortion into it because Christians were in effect lumped into the group causing death in the name of religion in the words I quoted above. True
Christians believe abortion is murder and therefore wrong. So far in the US alone over 54 million served while even Pol Pot is only responsible for 2
million dead. This makes planned parenthood, i.e. Margaret Sanger 27 times worse than Pol Pot. Likely worse than even Stalin. In fact if you consider
her tours in Europe speaking of eugenics and abortion in the 1920's as not only getting the bandwagon going over there and add those numbers possibly
good old Sanger is even worse than all the dictators I mentioned combined. In fact her tours started a revolution among people of science on both
continents promoting eugenics which influenced hitlers final solution as much as our own Edward Bearnaise influenced Goebbels propaganda campaign. In
his own words at Nuremberg Goebbels wrote that without Bearnaise they would never have been able to build the third Reich. Clearly many still lump
together people who call themselves Christian and are not, with those who really are.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
I actually cited several actions Hitler took. And, are you familiar with the "No true scotsman" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?
PS Let's not forget prominent Christian eugenicists like William J. Tinkle, nor the "Curse of Ham" justification for slavery.
[Edited on 8-6-2013 by mayko]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mayko | I actually cited several actions Hitler took. And, are you familiar with the "No true scotsman" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?
PS Let's not forget prominent Christian eugenicists like William J. Tinkle, nor the "Curse of Ham" justification for slavery.
[Edited on 8-6-2013 by mayko] |
Hate to burst your bubble but your doing it yet again. Confusing the deeds of those calling themselves Christian with those who truly are Christian.
Regardless of any titles they claim, no murdering madmen are Christian. Nor would they support slavery. Right in the handbook is a recounting of a yet
future event. A large group stand before the Lord laying claim to their 'Christian' acts. His words were most telling: to paraphrase "get away from Me
I never knew you". He was speaking to the crowd who called themselves 'Christian' yet there was nothing 'Christian' about them. The definition is
'Christ-like'. Since He never knew them obviously even to the low information voters it should be clear they were not 'Christ-like', therefore not
'Christian'.
I fail to see the 'No true Scotsman' connection. The fallacy is your taking examples as evidence of the mindset of Christian people based upon the
actions of those who clearly were not Christian.
While we are on the topic, are you aware that the abolition movement was derided in its time as atheistic?
Derided by whom? This is my point. Derided by those who were clearly not Christian. What was the opinion of the roughly 23,191,875* other Americans
who were not saying this?
* based upon 1850 census showing a US population of 23,191,876 during those years.
Not really trying to turn the thread into a historical debate, nor a debate on religion. I was merely responding to the statement made earlier
equating religion with mass murder. I can say for myself as a Christian we all have a God given right to build rockets and blow holes in our backyard
in pursuit of chemistry. Where you get your rights is not something I can comment on we each have to justify our own belief system to ourselves.
[Edited on 6-8-2013 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Lambda-Eyde
National Hazard
Posts: 860
Registered: 20-11-2008
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cleaved
|
|
You should really act your age. This is a fucking disgrace and you know it.
This just in: 95,5 % of the world population lives outside the USA
Please drop by our IRC channel: #sciencemadness @ irc.efnet.org
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
Whoops! 'Can't argue with such 'intelligence'!
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
