backtop


Print 190 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Apr 26 at 12:41 PM


  (Source: dipity)
Terrorist claims two more Christian ultraconservative cells are ready to strike in Norway

Anders Behring Breivik shocked Norway, committing the most heinous crime and terrorist attack in the nation's modern history.  Last year the 33-year-old killed eight by bombing government buildings in Norway's capital city, Oslo.  He then went on a shooting spree, targeting a youth retreat of the liberal Labour Party.  He fatally wounded 69 people, mostly teens.  The killings were inspired by Mr. Breivik's self-described radical ultra-conservative Christian views, and his dream of driving Muslims out of Norway.

I. Activision Blizzard's Terrorist Fantasy Inspired Real-Life Terrorist

In court, Mr. Breivik has drawn outrage for smiling when the killings were discussed.  Showing little remorse he stirred up more controversy this week, suggesting that video games helped condition him for his shooting spree.

A devout “World of Warcraft” fan, Mr. Breivik logged up to 16 hours in some marathon sessions.  But the gaming that proved most crucial to his dastardly plan was "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2", a wildly popular title published by Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI).

Published in Nov. 2009, COD:MW2 is the second best-selling game of all time in the U.S. and UK.  While putting the character in the role of a soldier following orders with deadly accuracy no longer draws much shock in the first-person shooter genre, COD:MW2 did manage to stir up controversy by putting the player in the shoes of a terrorist attacking civilians at a Russian airport.  The game allowed the player to gun down realistically animated terrified civilians in cold blood.

Call of Duty: MW 2 terrorist mission
Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik trained to kill civilians by playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  The game puts the player in the role of a terrorist and encourages them to murder terrified civilians in one level. [Image Source: PS3-Sense]

That depicition was enough to see temporary or permanent bans on the game in some regions.

(Warning video contains graphics depiction of violence.)

II. Video Games and Society -- Murder? "Ok." Consensual Sex?  "Bad!"

America and much of the world today practice a rather curious standard.  While putting the player in the role of a terrorist murdering citizens only earns a "Mature" rating, soft-core depictions of consensual sex between adults is a ticket to an instant "Mature" in most cases.  And if you depict hard-core sex, well, you are virtually guaranteed an "Adults Only" rating.
 
Mass Effect 2
Softcore depictions of consensual, "vanilla" intercourse between adults helped earn Mass Effect 2 a "mature" rating, the same rating given for games where the player role-plays a fantasy of being a terrorist murderer. [Image Source: Bioware]

The debate over sex and violence in video games has raged in America.  Some individuals like Jack Thompson have sought unsuccessfully to ban seemingly "immoral" titles depicting violent criminal fantasies, such as Grand Theft Auto.  Sexual depictions have been especially criticized, with some members of the media allegedly resorting to outright lies to villainize games with sexuality like Mass Effect.

Some claim that video games have destructive psychological effects, but other studies contradict this premise.  Some studies even show that gaming benefits reflexes and problem solving skills.

Over 97 percent of U.S. children play video games.  Studies found males to gravitate towards more violent video games.  Coincidentally males murder people in the U.S. at a rate nine times higher than females according to recent studies.

Many adults game as well, though the population of gaming adults -- particularly console gamers is thought to be smaller.  A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control claimed that the average 35-year-old gamer is overweight and depressed, suggesting long-term gaming may contribute to these health problems.

III. Anti-Islamic Terrorist Claims Inspiration From Osama bin Laden

The debate that will inevitably rage will be which influence was responsible for Mr. Breivik's dastardly deeds -- his racist, fundamentalist Christian views or the video games he so beloved.

Ironically while Mr. Breivik openly hates people of the Islamic faith and preaches "racial purity" in a 1,500 page manifesto, he claims inspiration from the internationally reviled late Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden.  In court he testified, "We've taken a bit from al Qaeda and militant Islamists, including the glorification of martyrdom."

He claims to be part of a fundamentalist Christian terrorist organization dubbed "Knights Templar", a name that pays homage to a group of Christian crusaders who in the 1100s tried to conquer the Middle East in order to install Catholic Chrisitianity in the region.

Anders Breivik
Anders Breivik smiles when his killings are discussed in court.  The self-proclaimed anti-Islamic Christian terrorist says two more Christian ultraconservative ultranationalists who share his views remain at large, ready to attack and murder more Norwegian liberals.

He says his group was inspired by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's one-man cells.  He claims that two other Christian terrorists remain at large in Norway and are plotting attacks, though he did not reveal their names or locations.

There's significant controversy over Mr. Breivik's mental health status.  An initial expert panel of psychologists/psychiatrists claimed he was either schizophrenic or psychotic (separate medical conditions) during the shootings.  However, a second expert panel rejected this conclusion, instead finding he was merely a narcissist and that he did not suffer from any sort of clear psychotic/schizophrenic episode.  His mental status is under examination by an expert panel.

Source: CNN



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 11:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
These people are always religious extremists and they kill in the name of their religion. Just one of the horrible effects of having religion in the world. So what else is new?




RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Kepler on 4/19/2012 11:16:34 AM , Rating: 5
Doing something in the name of religion is not religion's fault. These extremists are nothing more than nutjobs, nothing to do with religion other than using it as a cover.

Hitler and Stalin didn't kill in the name of religion, does that mean that not having religion is even worse? It does by your logic.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By TSS on 4/19/2012 6:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
Hitler and Stalin where the religions. They where leaders of cults, all though they where really, really large ones. There's little difference between a cult and a religion, usually just the final step (religion = pope hears god, cult = pope is god).

The problem with religion lies in the fact that it's nothing more then a power structure. People are taught to belive and not question whatever people higher up in that structure tell them. The christian believes the priest, the priest believes the bishop, the bishop belives the vatican.

If the pope says "it is the will of god not to use condoms" a LOT of people don't use condoms. We all know where that has lead to.

It's this why i want to ban religion. But! that does NOT mean i want to ban faith. We all need faith, even i have faith, even though i'm a athiest. Whenever i leave the house i have faith i've locked up every window and door, only that faith is in myself and my rememberance to lock everything, rather then in a deity's power to influence the minds of thieves. But it's still faith.

It is also faith, not religion, that drives people like brevik to their deeds. He doesn't even have to be crazy by definition, indeed being a narcissist is enough, having faith that his own actions are just.

So really the OP is wrong that it's religion which is the cause of this. If he didn't call himself religious we'd be calling him racist. But not having religion while embracing faith would be better for the world. For example nobody ever got killed in ancesteral worship. Atleast on the scale we know today, as soon as somebody would insult the ancestors of brevik he'd still go on a killing spree.


By boobo on 4/19/2012 8:04:21 PM , Rating: 5
Well, if we can redefine terms like that, then yes. Every drug addict that shoots a passerby is a religious killing because the drugs are the religion, etc.

As long as we can give words new definitions to suit our conclusions, we can reach any conclusion we want!

If we can say that Stalin, who outlawed all religions and proclaimed that all religions were nefarious opium for the people, is a religion, then we can claim that any and every evil person and regime is a religion and you win the argument by default. However, that would make it impossible to ban religion, since anything evil that anyone cared about would be a religion.

By your definition of religion what you really want to ban is "evil." Or, at least, ban that people can follow or obey anyone who is evil. Good luck with that!

BTW, as a sidenote, the pope did not say "it is the will of god not to use condoms" and everyone followed blindly. That pope wrote an entire small book explaining why he thought that the use of condoms would make it more likely for men to see women as sex objects, and tons of priests openly objected to his conclusions and many resigned, but that's besides the point.


By ihateu3 on 4/19/2012 9:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
I am not defending religion, but I am pointing out a serious flaw in your logic. You explained Catholicism which beliefs of power structure in are by themselves against the majority of other Christian denominations. Most Christian denominations do not even consider Catholicism a real Christian religion as it creates more of its own rules than it follows teachings of the bible, kinda like the Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses, they make up their own rules (society, cult, what have you), but yet even they don't carry the pope and saint beliefs of the Catholic structure. You comparing Catholicism as Christianity in whole is very flawed.

Some may say all believers of Islam are terrorists... Obviously there are more variables to the equation that you have easily seemed to sum up.


By Kurz on 4/21/2012 10:53:27 AM , Rating: 5
You lost me at you want to ban Religion.

-An Athiest-


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By chripuck on 4/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By masamasa on 4/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2012 12:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the history of tyrants, sociopaths and serial killers, and you'll see how many they've killed over time. It's a simple fact.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By masamasa on 4/19/2012 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Enough said. Religion is a cult.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 2:06:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure there are some pretty old Christians, but not old enough to have been involved with the crusades.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By wordsworm on 4/19/2012 8:18:15 PM , Rating: 3
Though we don't call them crusades today, garbage by any other name smells just as nasty. We're still fighting with Muslims tooth and nail.

But I agree with the premise that atheists can be as intolerant and violent as theists.


By The Raven on 4/24/2012 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wait. If Christians are fighting against Muslims... don't these anti-religion types want them to... I mean it is only one religion, but wouldn't you be happy if the Christians checked that one off the list? I mean it would be their equivalent of giving arms to bin Laden to fight agains the Ruskis. You don't have to fight and they kill themselves off. Win-win, right? /satire.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 5:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
The Crusades was a political war for religious reasons. It was people fighting for control, not people fighting for converts.

By definition religion is not a cult, but a cult is a religion.
Religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion):
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
Cult (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cult?s=t):
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

That being said, what is the point of bringing up cults? Is it because in the past some religions have been cults to a psychotic individual who caused their followers to commit crimes? Not all cults are bad, look at the zealous followers of the latest pop star, political candidate, or movie star. Sure they are weird, but so are nerds, geeks, and tech buffs.


By ati666 on 4/22/2012 8:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
you also forgot the Apple cult..


By boobo on 4/19/2012 7:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Enough said? The Crusades were not religiously motivated; they were pillage-motivated. The bulk of the armies was Scandinavian, who had barely stopped doing viking raids for a living. There were some religious motivations being claimed, but St. Francis got the Saracens to peacefully agree to satisfy all those religious motivations and the crusaders did not bother to so much as invent an excuse to reject it. They rejected it "just because." Just because... they would have to stop pillaging. They also pillaged Constantinople, which was on the same side from a religious perspective. Why? Because they didn't care about religion at all in the Crusades.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 12:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hm, quite a few (lots and lots) of hospitals and charities have been established by religious groups. The problem is, ironically for you, that when atrocities do happen it is at the hands of intolerant people.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 12:56:26 PM , Rating: 4
As stated, religion does no necessarily stop good people from doing good things, nor bad people from doing bad things, but it is its potential to make good people do bad things.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 1:56:13 PM , Rating: 4
So does any set of beliefs, religious or otherwise. Raging against religion just makes me WTF every time. Militant Atheists will post garbage like "ban all religion!", not understanding the irony of their sentiment. Fighting a perceived intolerance with a truly deep seated intolerance is contrary to logic.


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 5:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Amen!

-An atheist-


By Kurz on 4/21/2012 10:51:52 AM , Rating: 2
WOOT!

-also an Athiest-


By ati666 on 4/22/2012 8:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
thats true


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 5:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, religion is suppose to help you become a better person.

Being religious does not mean that you are good, only that you are trying to be.

Claiming you are religious does not mean you are trying to be good, only that you want people to think you are.

Of course in this case the terrorist was probably not trying to associate his beliefs with a religion (Christianity is very much against killing). He was probably trying to indicate his terrorist allegiance. Similar to the more traditional Muslim terrorists who target non-Muslims, he is claiming to be a terrorist targeting non-Christians.


By MZperX on 4/19/2012 2:35:57 PM , Rating: 3
No single group of people of any background, ethnicity, social status, race, or persuasion has a monopoly on violence. It can be found everywhere. Pick any era, pick any place, or any other criteria, and you can find examples of atrocities committed by humans. Violent tendencies are (unfortunately) part of the human condition.

Having said that, your assertion that religion resulted in the murder of far more people than anything else is simply not true. If you want to quantify evil by the number of victims (which is a questionable approach to begin with), nothing even holds a candle to the secular totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. [Note the word "secular" as in non-religious and in most cases decidedly anti-religious.] The communists and national socialists murdered far more people than at any point before in history, even if you look at cumulative numbers. Not only did they murder millions upon millions but did so with utmost cruelty and viciousness. Nazi Germany, Japan (the Empire), the Soviet Union and its satellite states, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. Not exactly bastions of religion are they?

The point is, most people would agree with you if you directed your ire towards fanatics/zealots of any persuasion. Violent extremism can take many forms and none of it is good. You know that there are environmental terrorists right? Is that a religion? I guess that's debatable but one thing is for certain: the problem is that there are people or groups of people who are hell bent on forcing their will on others and are so full of self-righteous hate that they are willing to do anything up to and including mass murder. Most religious people do not fit this description. Most secular people do not fit it either. The ones we have to look out for are the ones seething with hatred and foaming at the mouth... Introspection time?


By retrospooty on 4/19/2012 11:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly... Religion isnt to blame any more than violent video games. The fact is some people are unstable and are going to blow regardless.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 11:32:27 AM , Rating: 1
No, banning religion goes against the basic fundamental human right of freedom. I am completely against banning religion.

Instead, we should promote education, reason, and logic so that being religious should eventually become something to be ashamed of like being racist.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 12:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead, we should promote education, reason, and logic so that being religious should eventually become something to be ashamed of like being racist.


Does reason and logic promote moral absolutes?


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they provide much better moral guidelines than any religious book can ever hope to accomplish.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By rcc on 4/19/2012 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but logic would also indicate that if we eradicate all human life on earth there would be no more murders.

Education, reason, and logic are great, when termpered with compassion and a host of other human attributes.

None of which necessarily has much to do with religion.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
That is called faulty logic, properly applied science and reason does not lead you down that path.


By rcc on 4/19/2012 6:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, and that said (understanding that I have little respect for organized religion), properly applied religion does not lead you down that path either. It depends on the religion and the era.

However, I do find that the larger and more powerful the organized religion is, the more like a political or corporate entity it seems.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say moral guidelines, I said moral absolutes. So, do you believe there are moral absolutes that are promoted by reason and logic?


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Do moral absolutes exist?


By vortmax2 on 4/20/2012 9:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's the question I was asking corduroygt.


By rcc on 4/20/2012 1:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
But of course they exist. I think morals should absolutely be A & B. You may absolutely think they should be X & Y.

: )

It's a bit like the "natural rights" that people tout. As far as know the only natural right we have is to die, some day.

Legal, constitutional, etc. rights are a different animal, but there is nothing natural about them.


By Asetha on 4/22/2012 12:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
Is there a right version of rape?


By Cerin218 on 4/22/2012 12:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
You ask a simple question that isn't easy to answer simply. For whatever people feel about Ayn Rand, she was one of the people I studied while doing political research, and she approached the philosophy and epistemology of WHY people believe what they do. She started something called Objectivism. Which has it's basis morality. So she needed to explain morality.

Morality or ethics, observed Rand, “is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” And the first step toward understanding a code of values, she reasoned, is to understand the nature of values. Thus, Rand’s approach to morality began not with the question: Which of the existing codes should I accept?—but rather with the questions: “What are values? Why does man need them?”

Rand observed that a “value” is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep.” We can see the truth of this all around us: People act to gain and keep money; they value money. Students act to gain and keep good grades; they value good grades. Churchgoers act to gain or keep a relationship with “God”; they value that relationship. People act to develop fulfilling careers, to establish and maintain romantic relationships, to gain and keep freedom, and so on. The things one acts to gain or keep are one’s values. And the key word here is: acts. Values are objects of actions. All living things take self-generated, goal-directed action.

So yes, there are moral absolutes. The tougher question is what are those absolutes, are they right for you, and if so why?


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:04:17 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder, do you see the irony of your statement?

Most religions preach and promote education, reason, and logic. Religions might not phrase things the same, but all tenets of faith that I have ever found are logically sound and reasonable.

In fact, most of the education enjoyed by the "Western World" is the result of the Christian religion, the Catholic church storing up large tombs of knowledge during the black plague so the information could be shared (which created the Renascence). The Catholic church's investment in inventors and thinkers. The Bible, which for a long time was the only book an American houses.

I am surprised that you want us to be ashamed or religion when it is the major motivator, facilitator, and promoter of education, reason, and logic. Maybe you are confusing the actions of a few with the intent of the whole, which does not seem to be a reasonable or logical action.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/20/2012 12:51:40 AM , Rating: 1
Religion and reason do not go together simply due to the fact that all religions rely on dogma, and dogma is the opposite of reason and logic.


By Galcobar on 4/20/2012 5:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dogma is one approach to religion, but not the only one.

It is unreasonable to claim that all such belief systems use the same approach to communicate those beliefs.

I invite you to read the writings of the 13th-century philosophers known as the rationalists, whose most prominent member is probably St. Thomas of Aquino, generally regarded as the pre-eminent theologian of the Catholic Church, though a number of contemporaries disliked his willingness to question tenets of the faith.

He is a perfect example of how one may be able to adhere to a set of beliefs while giving them rational consideration -- indeed, for St. Thomas and his ilk, their faith is strengthened through the application of reason.

Whether you agree with his conclusions, or the explicit assumptions he makes does not invalidate the logic of the arguments St. Thomas makes.

Institutions, on the other hand, do tend to prefer dogma because it allows them to justify their own existence. However, such behaviour is common to all types of social institutions, not just religious ones.


By Trisped on 4/24/2012 3:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion and reason do not go together simply due to the fact that all religions rely on dogma, and dogma is the opposite of reason and logic.
That would be the same as saying that science and reason do not go together because science has laws like the conservation of energy.

Dogma makes sense, the reason you do not argue about it is because it is the established belief or doctrine held by the religion. If you do not believe the dogma then you do not believe the religion so their is no point in arguing it. If you boss tells you that you need to show up to work on time or you will be fired is it reasonable to argue with your boss that you will not be? Is it reasonable to assume that you can show up to work and not be fired? Just as your job has rules you must follow to be maintain employment and your country has laws, religion has dogma. The labels are different, but the concepts are the same.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Cerin218 on 4/22/2012 1:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
How is believing in something simply because you are told to reason? How is faith reason? How is self sacrifice reason? Is it reason that the Church forbids priests to marry because the heirs of the female non clergy would inherit upon the priests death, thus removing resources from the Church?
Logic invalidates religion. Science invalidates religion. Especially Catholicism. Religion exists because people need to believe in something greater than themselves, that there is a giant benevolent being that controls the good in the world warring against another attempting to control the evil. And that your existence is to be good and sacrifice yourself for others in order to receive some ethereal "reward" in the after life. Where is the reason in that?
I was raised Catholic and while I believe in teachings of Christ and the Church I have found that I have little need for religion. You don't need religion to teach you to be a good person. Religion does nothing for me that logic and reason cannot do.


By Trisped on 4/24/2012 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Do you believe in the theory of relativity? Do you believe in the law of conservation of energy? Do you believe in calculus? Do you believe your coworker if they say they finished the presentation? Every day you believe in things because people tell you to.
As for Catholicism and priests, this is one religion, not all. I happen to know a number of religions where the leaders commit to never marry and I know most Christian religions encourage their leaders to marry.

quote:
Logic invalidates religion. Science invalidates religion.
Neither logic nor science have the ability to invalidate religion as neither can prove that religion is a false and useless concept. That they can provide evidence that a religious teaching in a specific religion does not appear logical (like the priests marrying), they cannot disprove that religion as a concept is not valid, nor can they disprove the existence of a supreme being.
quote:
Religion exists because people need to believe in something greater than themselves...
This is your belief. Since you did not create religion I can safely say that you are not a perfect expert on the concept. As such to believe you would be the same as "...believing in something simply because you are told to..." While I might accept additional evidence should you provide it, the fact is that I have already performed many arbitrary and neutral experiments on the teachings of my religion. The results were not always what I expected, but they do reinforce the doctrines taught.

quote:
You don't need religion to teach you to be a good person.
Correct, though if your religion is not teaching you and your parents do not teach you then it becomes very hard to know how to be a good person. Most people tend towards selfishness. While I do not agree with many teachings of the Catholic church, I do agree that Matt 5 has good advice about how to be a positive contributor to society and how to avoid unwanted consequences. To learn those simple principles on my own would have taken many years of experimentation and investigation. Sure, once the fact is discovered I could write it down and share it with everyone I know, but this would be exactly the same as what religion already does.

But I digress. The point of the thread was not to say everyone needed to be part of a religion or my religion, it was to point out that the person the article is about is not like the rest of the Christians and as such Christianity is not the reason he killed all those people.

After reading this thread (and even my posts on the thread) I do not expect anyone to join or leave a religion. Most people who read this are probably so set in there ways that leaving their Christian religion, or their religion of power, or their religion of money, or their religion of pleasure is not going to happen because a bunch of people argued that there was a better way. The only reason people will change is if they feel they are not getting enough from their religion.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By yomamafor1 on 4/19/2012 11:41:16 AM , Rating: 3
Where's the bigotry?

quote:
These people are always religious extremists and they kill in the name of their religion .


He's not saying religion prompted them to kill. He's saying these extremists misinterpreted the text of the religion, and kill innocent people in the name of religion.


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 5:59:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think more people are killed for love or money that in the name of a god. So how does this comment make sense?
quote:
These people are always religious extremists and they kill in the name of their religion .

Yes we have pinned down the problem people! It is religion! Now the methodist MS13 will give up their arms agains the mormon crips and the hindu bloods!


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By masamasa on 4/19/12, Rating: 0
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 11:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
Fixed:

"PEOPLE have killed tens and probably hundreds of thousands over the centuries..."


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2012 12:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
And Stalin and Mao killed tens of MILLIONS. What is your point? The only truth is that evil people will do evil things.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 12:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Oh man this entire thread is a list of weak assed christian arguments begging for some payback, lucky you are number one.

There is a direct link between killing people and religion, be it allowances for murder in religious texts or the fact that faith erodes our ability to critically think so that we become more easily persuaded to do acts we would not otherwise have done.

There is no such link from atheism (which has no texts) to murder.


By ShaolinSoccer on 4/19/2012 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 3
Because we all know that since an Atheist doesn't believe in Hell, he/she can do whatever they want without any major repurcussions, right? ... It's almost as if you think all Athiests are automatically saints...


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
Oh hell? That old chestnut eh? Perhaps the fact that we view this life as the only one we get, so that if we go on a murdering rampage we will either face life imprisonment or death, so thats it, we no longer exist, that's pretty bad.

However the christian view says that all this guy has to do is accept christ's love and forgiveness, whether he gets sent to prison or not and he gets an eternity of paradise, where as a doctor who saves countless lives does not believe and burns for all eternity.

It's the most amoral system I have ever come across.


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the most amoral system I have ever come across.
That is because your analogy is incorrect.

If a Christian murders then he has not accepted Christ's Atonement and as such will not be accepted to heaven. If a non-Christian murders then he too has not accepted Christ's Atonement and will not be accepted to heaven.

Of course things get more complicated, like what if killing one person prevents the one person from killing hundreds of people? What if killing hundreds of people will result in a society which never kills? I say let God be the judge of who is right or wrong (or if you do not believe in God then judge the consequences of their actions yourself, but I guaranty you will miss many of the longer term consequences).


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By NobleKain on 4/19/2012 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no such link from atheism (which has no texts) to murder.

There's also no such link from atheism to acts of compassion and selfless sacrifice.

Religion can be used as excuses for both good and bad, it's that simple.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 3:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
No, there the link is human decency within all of us. Atheism does not claim to be a centre of morals, that's our evolution as a social species.


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
You must believe to a different sect of atheism than me because I completely disagree. You make atheism look bad douche.


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is not the text in question, but the followers of the religion.

The fact is that it is all public perception. If a Christian kills hundreds it is perceived as the Christian's fault. If an Atheist kills hundreds it is perceived as no ones fault.

The important thing to note is the Christian was part of a group which taught to love everyone (aka your neighbor).


By geddarkstorm on 4/20/2012 1:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone lacks critical thinking, it's what you display in this post.

Is every murderer in prison a religions fellow? Why don't you look at the religious breakdown of actual felons and their crimes. There's a reason churches try to send in people to reform prisoners.

What about dictators in Africa? Were the crimes against humanity perpetrated by DRUG LORDS in somalia having anything to do with religion (and it was predominantly religious groups sending in aid to try to save the starving populous; same again has happened in Darfur in recent times)? What about the slaughtering going on in Mexico by drug cartels? What's religion got to do with that?

There are evil people out there and they will do evil things, using any convenient excuse they can that'll rile people up. There's no direct link to religion except in your mind. If you look at the hard numbers of what drives people to kill others or commit crimes in general, number 1 is drugs or low socioeconomic status. The higher the "religiousness" of an area, the less crime in general and the less murders. Of course, it depends on the "religion". Satanists or cult leaders (just dictators by another name) certainly aim specifically to lead people to destruction.

Religions are not good by definition. That depends on what they teach. Just as governments are not good by definition. That depends on what laws they enact and how they treat/oppress/represent/engage the people.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By masamasa on 4/19/2012 2:06:21 PM , Rating: 1
That is true, but would this have happened if religion did not exist? And how many died as a result of religion? While many die due to non-religious actions, history has proved religion certainly isn't helping isn't helping save any lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 2:35:32 PM , Rating: 3
Hospitals, shelters, charities, suicide hotlines, Alcoholics Anonymous etc all disagree with you.


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 6:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the red cross. I agree with you, but it should be noted that those organizations are made of people. Regardless of religion.

But that brings us back to the point that it is a whackadoo that mows down a bunch of people. Not a reigion or Marilyn Manson.


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
The crusades were a political war for religious reasons. At the end of the day it was still people fight for political control.


By Cerin218 on 4/22/2012 1:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Muslim itself is a religion of war.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
What was Hitler and Stalin's excuse? Like nationalism, religion has been used as an instrument of evil to further a person or group of people's agenda.

Blaming this killing on religion is like blaming the gun for the shootings. Take away religion and evil people will find another useful instrument to control people and kill in the name of.


By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 11:33:48 AM , Rating: 1
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By icemansims on 4/19/2012 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 4
Hitler was a firm believer in Catholicism.


By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 11:50:24 AM , Rating: 1
He was and the Catholic Church had his blessing, but he didn't murder Jews in the name of Catholicism, he killed them in the name of the Third Reich (Nationalism).


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 6:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
He also wore pants


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By martin5000 on 4/19/2012 11:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
The gun is the tool, religion can change the mind, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 11:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, the gun is no different than a hammer or a knife, all of which can also be used for killing, except a gun is powerful so that idiots like this can become mass murderers. That's why they should not be available for people with mental problems like this guy.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ZorkZork on 4/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By LSUJester on 4/19/2012 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 1
Some law enforcement officers are nutjobs, too. I don't think people need guns, period.


By The Raven on 4/19/2012 8:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah knives and bombs are good enough.

(To the FBI: I was just making a point, not stating intentions. I condemn murder of any sort.)


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why they should only be available for law enforcement officers.


As a semi-avid shooter myself I, obviously, disagree for a variety of reasons. You cannot take away my Constitutional right on the grounds of some criminals activity. The statistics of legal gun-owners being productive law-abiding members of society are overwhelming. Something like 98% of all conceal and carry permit holders retain their licenses from year to year. Meaning they AREN'T going around shooting people or even committing non-gun related crimes.

quote:
It is pretty hard to know in advance who has mental problems serious enough to do something like this. My understanding is that this guy didn't show any serious issues before.


But "law enforcement" officers should only have guns, because you know, they're apparently immune to mental problems and never EVER shoot anyone.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 2:09:33 PM , Rating: 4
The Atheist Progressive will take your Religion and Guns, so you can have more freedom.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 8:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of nonsense is this?


By Kurz on 4/21/2012 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Its truth... a Progressive Liberal Athiest wants to take away your Religion and Guns.

I am a Libertarian Athiest that say keep all of it as long as you don't force it on me.


By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 8:01:52 PM , Rating: 1
And we are back to the old discussion: why are intentional homicide rates 4 to 10 times higher in the US compared to other western countries. It is a high price to pay.

Oh and why do law enforcement officers need guns? Because they need them. They are entrusted to protect the rest. Besides there are relatively few of them so even if they had double the rate of mental problems (which is pretty unlikely) the overall illegal usage of firearms would still be reduced very significantly.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By rcc on 4/19/2012 1:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to have opinions.

Mine is that yours would lead to police states and dictatorships.

Obviously mental instability is an issue, particularly now that we are not supposed to profile, or actually mention that someone might be unstable. After all, it's not politically correct.

These days telling law enforcement that your neighbor might have mental "issues" is more likely to cause you problems that have any actual problems resolved.

IMNSHO, of course.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 9:02:58 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for appreciating that I have an opinion.

Why would taking guns away from the people lead to a police state? Isn't the police under the control of the people? Isn't the police the people?

And if you believe that the police will turn against the people, then what about the military? Surely they are even more dangerous as they have bigger guns and trained to disregard civil law in combat? Would you want the people to arm themselves for a fight against the military? Then everyone should have their own nuke I suppose?


By rcc on 4/20/2012 7:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think everyone should have an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

Bottom line? Don't put your self totally in the power of anyone, or more importantly perhaps, any organization you don't completely trust. Some day, some way, they will take advantage of it. So the US forefathers believed, and I can't say I disagree.

Law Enforcement and militaries aside, they can't be everywhere at once. How can I expect them to protect me, particularly if I'm not willing to help? I really have no desire at all to be avenged.

Appropriate force? Not if you are entering my house at night with a knife. No one comes out unmarked in a knife fight and I like my skin as unmarked as it is. I want my guns. I'll even respect your right not to have them even though I think it's risky.

I have no desire to ever shoot someone. Neither do I wish to be a victim.


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
If there are guns, criminals will have them weather it is legal or not (they are criminals after all).

Another option would be to give everyone guns, then a nut job would not be able to commit a massacre because everyone could shoot him. Of course this has the problem that someone could just get mad and off someone in the heat of the moment.

A better solution would be to teach the people morals, temperance, and encourage everyone to be a productive and integral part of society. Of course that would require everyone to believe that these things were necessary and worth it.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 1
Any type of teaching can change the mind for better or for worse. Blaming "religion" as a whole is a cop-out that willfully ignores the existence of evil individuals.

Blaming religion because some random religious fanatic kills people is like blaming science because it was used to build the atomic bombs that killed thousands of Japanese.

The only reason a person would blame science for this is the only reason they blame religion: They hate it with a passion.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, science does not change the mind for worse. It's the erosion of skepticism that makes radicals, and religion is just about the opposite of skepticism.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By bah12 on 4/19/2012 12:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Really.. so take this hypothetically.

One believes in science. Therefore by extension pure logic. Logic dictates that genetically weak people (mentally ill, history of heart problems...) weaken the gene pool. Said "scientist" kills all "weak" people, and the human race is empirically better off. From a purely logical point of view this is absolutely acceptable.

So don't say.
quote:
Nope, science does not change the mind for worse.
The very sentence is a contradiction. "Worse" is a moral view not a scientific one. Worse/Better is about morality, it would be scientifically better if we did not dilute the gene pool with X disorder. From a moral perspective that would be worse...aka science changed a mind to "worse" as the very act of not caring is "worse" based on those of us that act morally.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, you don't have to "believe" in science. It works because no one believes in it until they can see it themselves. That's why it works.

Second, logic dictates that having a society where people's basic liberties such as the right to live are not guaranteed is a poorly performing society compared to one where the gene pool is stronger but the "weak" people are killed, so that kills your other argument.


By bah12 on 4/19/2012 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, logic dictates that having a society where people's basic liberties such as the right to live are not guaranteed is a poorly performing society compared to one where the gene pool is stronger but the "weak" people are killed, so that kills your other argument.
Wrong one can certainly make a perfectly logical argument for murder.

However that wasn't the point. My point was that a purely logical society can not, by very definition, have a concept of right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse. All it would be capable of was something either is or is not. True or False...aka pure logic.

So you are quite wrong when you say that society performs poorly if people don't have basic rights. As scientific method cannot quantify "poorly", society simply performs differently.

What you fail to comprehend is that pure logic cannot accept the concept of "better", as it cannot be quantified.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 12:26:32 PM , Rating: 2

Nope, science does not change the mind for worse. It's the erosion of skepticism that makes radicals, and religion is just about the opposite of skepticism.


Define "worse"? People who kill in the name of their religion don't believe they are doing something bad just like the scientists who developed technology that kills millions didn't believe they were doing anything bad.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 12:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except that technology has measurable benefits which move our society forward, nuclear bombs paved the way for nuclear energy and beyond that fusion reactors, our best chance at clean practical energy.

Religion has no such benefits, in fact it has measurable downsides on modern society. It is simply superfluous.


By ShaolinSoccer on 4/19/2012 1:04:09 PM , Rating: 1
Except, if it weren't for religion, we'd all still be barbarians...


By rcc on 4/19/2012 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
Cool. Citations please.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 1
Trying to make technology and "religion" mutually exclusive is just silly talk. Come on, can we just be adults and not have this drag down into another typical religious Internet troll fest? What are we saying here, that no religious minded people have EVER contributed to our technological level?

Some people meditate to find their "spiritual center", some people do Yoga, and some people pray and have faith. To say there is "no benefit" to this state of mind is just hogwash. If people feel that a spiritual belief helps guide them through their day, who are we to judge and say there's no "benefit" to that?

I've really never understood why being an atheist means you MUST run down those who aren't. I guess that's why I can't call myself an atheist. When someone comes up with a word for someone who doesn't believe in a God, yet also isn't an condescending judgmental asshole to those who do, I'll use that term.


By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
They did not contribute because of their religion, they contributed despite it.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Also we are so adamant about it, because every time religion has been given an inch in the past, it has moved to crush scientific progress, personal freedoms and have a direct hand in dragging down humanity.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 1:51:11 PM , Rating: 3
*yawn*

You sound like me when I was a teenager. I'm not getting into a point-by-point discussion with you on this, I don't care. Everything has already been said a million times on this.

I will continue to have my beliefs while not hating or looking down on others because they don't share mine.

I pity you for how small your mind is.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh personal insults now, ok, if you feel like you need to go down that path and can't justify your beliefs, then by all means, go sit in an old people's home and await the end because your mind is closed and empty.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 2:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
If he needs to justify his beliefs to YOU, wouldn't you be just as (or more) guilty of closed minded intolerance?

Answer = Yes. But, I have no doubt you're still young, so you can still gain Wisdom.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 2:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking to me? I'm not asking him to justify anything. And there's a serious flaw in your logical progression if you think that applies to me. I'm not the one singling out millions of people and projecting things onto them. My beliefs aren't hinged on the beliefs of others being disproved or demonized.


By ClownPuncher on 4/19/2012 2:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
I was replying to him.


By Cerin218 on 4/22/2012 1:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your mind is sadder because it is closed. You have decided that what you believe is the only valid answer and evaded that realization with the disclaimer that you won't deprive another of their beliefs even as you hold your own beliefs concretely valid. If you don't interfere with theirs, then it insulates you from yours being questioned and possibly invalidated.


By Skywalker123 on 4/20/2012 12:00:09 AM , Rating: 1
What?! A condescending judgmental asshole describes you exactly. You might as well call yourself an atheist too. As a matter of fact, your very existence proves there can be no god.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 12:03:46 PM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure the Christian "religion" covered this in that whole "Do not kill" rule clearly spelled out in the Bible? It's pretty clear cut and doesn't leave any room for misinterpretation. But yeah, clearly this is the religions fault.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 1
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Religion of peace and love, my ass


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 12:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Good try, but wrong. From a different post:

"A 'Christian' is literally defined as: A follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings (Christ - ian). In Jesus' teachings, there are no exceptions for killing anyone at all. In fact, Jesus' teaching commands his disciples to "love their enemies and bless those who persecute them"."

Jesus' teachings aren't from Leviticus...


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
Where do you find Jesus' teachings? How do you know that Levictus is NOT a part Jesus' teachings? How do you distinguish between what Jesus said and what he did not say? How can you be sure?


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 12:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
I know where you're trying to go with this, but I'll indulge some of your questions regardless:

quote:
Where do you find Jesus' teachings?

You can find Jesus' teaching in the New Testament.

quote:
How do you know that Levictus is NOT a part Jesus' teachings?

Leviticus 24:19-20:

19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-42:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

I won't indulge the other questions...sorry.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:35:53 PM , Rating: 1
Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)


By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 1
And as usual, atheists know the bible better than christians because we don't have it spoon fed to us by biased priests, way to go guys.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
The long version to show the importance of CONTEXT, enjoy:

In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount, these words of Jesus are recorded: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the Sabbath-day requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded in a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:18:04 PM , Rating: 1
We have every F***ing right to be angry at religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 3
You really believe that I'm going to watch a 48 minute long video on this subject? Like...really? It's not even that interesting in the first place.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I have my own anger issues. The last thing I need is to watch some propaganda piece which is trying to convince me that I need to be even ANGRIER than I already am.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
No it explains the anger in the clearest terms I have come across, so very well, it does not encourage in anger, just gives it form and understanding.

If you have trouble controlling anger, then that's a personal issue, we all get angry, it's just our ability to recognise it and direct it, that differentiates people.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 2:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need the anger explained. I've been there. I'm better now.

The only way to be a true atheist is to be completely indifferent to people of faith. It's a personal belief that does NOT hinge upon what others believe. It's a personal belief that does NOT make me better than someone else.

If you feel any other way, you aren't an atheist. You're an activist. I don't need to pit one person against the other so I can be at ease.

quote:
we all get angry, it's just our ability to recognise it and direct it, that differentiates people.


No offense, but I don't believe you are taking this to heart in your own beliefs. You have clearly irrational anger about religion and I hope you can work through that.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 2:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Irrational anger has no basis, I have plenty of reason for it.

You are declaring terms to be mutually exclusive when they are not.

I'll STFU as soon as religious people stop pushing their beliefs on others.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 2:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're pushing your beliefs on others right here, right now Meaker. What exactly is the difference? What makes one side "right" in this?

The mass majority of Christians are NOT evangelicals. They aren't pushing their faith on people. But from what I can tell, the vast majority of atheists are activists who vocally adamantly appose religion and all those associated with it. Usually in angry tones like yourself.

Atheists have created a religion in it's own right. They have become gods. Supreme beings. How ironic....


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 2:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, when did I say anyone can't go to church, can't pray or must sit through an atheist lecture? I don't think it's a good thing, but the only way I want to stop someone going is to debate them and make them see why.

Atheism is not a religion, try looking up the definition.

Atheists have long been silent, but you are asking for special consideration for religious beliefs above all others, if you can't debate your reasons, then they are bad reasons for believing anything.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 2:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the only way I want to stop someone going is to debate them and make them see why.


LOL I hope you have infinite patience. Good luck! If this is how you debate I don't think you're going to get many converts. Not that even the best debater on the planet could convince someone when their mind is made up.

quote:
but you are asking for special consideration for religious beliefs above all others


How is treating people like equals despite their faith a special consideration above all others? I don't even know how to respond to that.


By Skywalker123 on 4/19/2012 11:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
again, you are an idiot


By corduroygt on 4/20/2012 1:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mass majority of Christians are NOT evangelicals. They aren't pushing their faith on people. But from what I can tell, the vast majority of atheists are activists who vocally adamantly appose religion and all those associated with it. Usually in angry tones like yourself.


All the militant atheists do is exercise their right to free speech. However, this is what the Christians do:

1. Don't allow gays to marry.
2. Try and push Intelligent Design in schools
3. Try to disallow what a woman can do to her body
4. Bomb the olympics

Damn right the atheists have a right to be angry. When you stomp on minorities' freedoms, what did you expect?


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 6:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Ah, good quote. This is of course in reference to homosexuality, which science has told me does not result in offspring and is against the natural order of life.

It is also important to note that "love" as used in the Bible and by most Christians does not mean sex, but means something closer to "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

So the question changes from one of homosexuality vs Christianity to a question of homosexuality vs reality. If you encourage/allow homosexuality then you are discouraging/disallowing the continuation of your society. Logically the choice seems simple, you do what makes society strongest, which is strangely what the Israelites at the time were doing. Of course it seems to me that current societies are made up of individuals who care more for themselves (selfish) the the well being of the society they belong to.


By rcc on 4/19/2012 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps we should separate religion and organized religion.

As memory servers, one of the popes change the interpretation of "thou shalt not kill" to apply only to Christians, thereby allowing some of the crusaders to feel better about what they were doing.

Even many of the overtly "religious" wars were actually caused by population pressures. After all, you have to do something with all those 2nd through 10ths sons that were not going to inherit, and the monastaries couldn't take them all.


By ShaolinSoccer on 4/19/2012 12:58:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
These people are always religious extremists and they kill in the name of their religion. Just one of the horrible effects of having religion in the world. So what else is new?


Except Atheists mass-murder all the time, too. They are called serial killers. But you'll never see on the news "Atheist serial killer was captured" or "Atheist molester was arrested"... nope, you'll never see the news say that!


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because in that case it had nothing to do with it, where has you can see how religion can be used to justify murder.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By rcc on 4/19/2012 1:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
So, if an athiest kills someone, it has nothing to do with religion, or a lack thereof. But, if a member of a religion kills someone it's automagically because of his/her religion?

Methinks there is a logical flaw in there somewhere.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:29:24 PM , Rating: 3
No, because it's like I said, religion gives you motivations to murder (like in this case), atheism does not, therefore it is not the driving cause of murder.

It's the nature of each which leads to that.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 1:54:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
religion gives you motivations to murder


Sounds like a crummy excuse for bad behavior to me. And you're trying WAY too hard now. This is obviously Cord's alternate account I'm talking to lol.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 3
Your telling me you can't see the link between a book that tells you on one hand to follow without question its contents and on the other hand to murder certain groups on site with no trial and that by not doing so you are sinful and people like this?

Ok then, good luck there.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 2:18:45 PM , Rating: 1
If "religion" was that black and white, and everyone truly was a mindless sheep, you would have a point. Nobody EVER killed anyone because they read something from a book, or played a video game, or saw a movie.

While the religious books of many faiths contain questionable passages that we can excise for their controversial value, I believe when the whole is studied, one would come away with a more complete message of overall - for lack of better term - "goodness".

You're forcing the extremist minority to represent the whole because it fits your world view.


RE: Another religious mass-murdering terrorist
By Meaker10 on 4/19/2012 2:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh by all means lets be general about it then.

As the religiosity of a country decreases the prosperity and happiness of its inhabitants increases. Feel free to look up those statistics.

It runs right through from those small issues with individual passages right up to the large scale.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 12:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well if we're talking about absolutely oppressive religions like regions where Islamic "Sharia law" are upheld, I would absolutely agree with that statement.

But I forgot, we were being "general" :)


By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 9:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Atheism is not a belief like religion - it is a lack of belief. Thus very different.

Otherwise you could say that communism was no worse than lack of communism, because non-communists kill loads of people too.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 11:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure what an 'ultraconservative' Christian is defined as, but I'm sure the definition doesn't encompass mass murdering.




By Breathless on 4/19/2012 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ultraconservative Christianity would be the exact opposite of what the liberal media and people like "corduroygt" above would think. An ultraconservative view would take something such as "Thou shalt not murder" and take that to mean that you cannot murder at all under ANY circumstances, including self defense. Myself, I am slightly less "ultraconservative" than this, and would with a clear conscience kill someone in self defense or for the protection or defense of someone else.

Ultraconservative Christianity should be defined as "strict adherence to the bible", many times to the point of going beyond what it says. Since the New Testament teaches love and kindness and never "hurt and kill", these people who seek to apply this standard to Christianity somehow are simply ignorant and / or possibly retarded. The "ultra" of love and kindness would be an overpowering sense of love and affection for people that you would always seem like you are on ecstasy. For those sickos that try to make the New Testament seem like some breeding ground for murderers, I invite you to find any passage that directly or even indirectly encourages murder in any way, shape or form. Go ahead, try it.


By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 1
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.


By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2012 12:23:23 PM , Rating: 1
National -laws- for a nomadic tribe wandering a desert wilderness. How many stupid laws does our country have on the books?


By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 12:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
You can always tell an uneducated idiot when they quote passages from the Jewish law code and says, "See, Christians are violent!"

The Jewish law code had a death penalty just like many laws today have a death penalty. The purpose of the Messiah (which Christians believe is Jesus) was to release the Jews from the burden of this law code.

Please make sure you inform yourself before you try to argue with people who actually study the Bible.


By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 3
So Jesus did not endorse the Old Testament?

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
Here ya go, again, the long version to show the importance of CONTEXT, enjoy:

In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount, these words of Jesus are recorded: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the Sabbath-day requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded in a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 3:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
How can you say that laws written for a culture and language from 3000+ years ago are: "poorly written and overlapping that it makes no sense in the first place"? They may not make sense to *you*, but that doesn't really mean anything and certainly doesn't negate their purpose for the time.

Define 'morally correct'.


By masamasa on 4/19/2012 1:56:18 PM , Rating: 1
Gotta love these bible thumpers. None of them think clearly because they are all influenced by a book/god/deity.


By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 3:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
What are you influenced by?


By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 3:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Again, what does the Jewish law code have to do with Christianity?

Sure, Jesus validated the Hebrew Scriptures, but what does that have to do with anything? Christians don't follow the Jewish law code (hell, Jews don't even follow all of it).


By corduroygt on 4/19/2012 4:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
And Jesus was the king of the Jews and told his followers to follow the old testament. If you're following the king of the Jews, you follow the old testament, simple as that.


By vortmax2 on 4/20/2012 9:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
Context, context, context...read my post before that explains why your logic is incorrect.


By martin5000 on 4/19/2012 11:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Its possible to be a conservative christian AND a mass murderer.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, anyone can choose to become a mass murderer (or attempt it at least), but they certainly wouldn't be considered a Christian by definition. A 'Christian' is literally defined as: A follower of Jesus Christ and his teachings (Christ - ian). In Jesus' teachings, there are no exceptions for killing anyone at all. In fact, Jesus' teaching commands his disciples to "love their enemies and bless those who persecute them".


By PReiger99 on 4/19/2012 2:20:12 PM , Rating: 1
A lot of things are as pure as white snow "by definition"... But in the real world, it didn't stop christians from starting the Inquisition, burning "witches" or basically killing people for believing in something different than they do or killing people for believing in a slightly different version of their own religion.


By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Then it's quite logical to state that the people whom started those things clearly weren't following the teachings of Jesus Christ and therefore wouldn't be considered 'Christians'...regardless of what they say. Their actions clearly didn't support their words. Actions are what matter.

Anyone can stick a label on someone just to support their argument.


By drycrust3 on 4/19/2012 8:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its possible to be a conservative christian AND a mass murderer.

It isn't possible to be a Christian and a mass murderer. The two are totally contradictory. One of the fundamentals of being a Christian is to have love in your heart, but a mass murderer has an evil heart.
Jesus had a huge regard for children, and if he was alive would have condemned Breivik's actions as evil. Jesus warned about the unclean speech that comes from the mouth of a person with an evil heart.


By Arsynic on 4/19/2012 12:00:59 PM , Rating: 3
An "ultra-conservative" Christian would follow Jesus to the letter. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Turn the other cheek." "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "Love your enemies." "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

I suggest that the author of this article remove this ridiculous and highly offensive term.


By ilostmypen on 4/19/2012 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
The same way they paint all people from the Middle East as Islamic-fundamentalist, Muslim-terrorists? Also, let’s not forget that the people that cry foul about labeling this terrorist as a Christian are usually the same ones that will jump up and down about any brown skinned terrorist being 100% undeniably Muslim in the purest sense.


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 7:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is true, Mick and DT in general have soon bias on a number of items.

And you are right, look at all the posts. Each one represents at least one more page hit.


How did he practice with a video game?
By tayb on 4/19/2012 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 4
On the one hand I think it is pretty appalling and reprehensible that that particular level in CoD even exists. What kind of person enjoys mowing through civilians in an airport? Why did Activision make that scene playable instead of a cut scene? I don't think you can lump movies and video games into the same category. There is a marked difference between watching something and doing something.

On the other hand I don't understand how playing a video game could POSSIBLY prepare you for committing mass murder. The level is pretty brutal but the reactions from the civilians are not realistic. OH, and you aren't actually holding a gun or killing anyone so, uh, how exactly does it prepare you to do such a thing??

In the end this guy is clearly a psychopath and if video games didn't exist we could be having the same conversation about any number of movies or books. Psychopaths are psychopaths and let's try not to make this a war on video games or religion.




RE: How did he practice with a video game?
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 11:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
I can see your perspective to a point, but the thing that I can't understand is this: Why is committing mass murder on a video game considered entertainment? Can someone clarify?


RE: How did he practice with a video game?
By vortmax2 on 4/19/2012 3:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone?


RE: How did he practice with a video game?
By FaceMaster on 4/19/2012 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. The same can be said for Grand Theft Auto. WHY is running over pedestrians so fun? WHY does every good-intentioned drive end up as a massacre? I just don't know, but anybody I place in front of the game ends up doing it.

It's just fun and without negative consequence. Unless you're this guy.


RE: How did he practice with a video game?
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 7:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Because learning is fun. I had fun playing with water for a day. Then I understood it and it was no longer fun, but the slip and slide was because I could learn to slide farther or faster. Games are fun because they can teach you things you do not want to learn from real life experience.

Running over pedestrians is not something most people would ever want to do, but their minds would want to know what would happen if they did. The problem for me is that the video games leave out a number of the consequences. You never stand trial for killing the pedestrian, you never have to face the friends and family of the person you murdered.


By FaceMaster on 4/26/2012 12:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nghh... you see, if they did have consequences then it would make me want to try them out. Not for some sick, twisted HAHAHAH LOOK AT THE FAMILIES!!! thrill, but in the same way I replayed Deus Ex- it's more of a challenge to see what the developers thought up, and how far they let you go. I'd do it.


By tayb on 4/19/2012 7:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't feel the same playing GTA as I did playing that massacre level. I think it is just how fake the people look and act in GTA and the general feel of the game. They aren't scared, they aren't running, etc. In the end I suppose you are correct in that there really is no difference between I didn't feel "weird" running people over in GTA like I did walking through an airport mowing people down.

Does anyone else feel the same?


By tecknurd on 4/19/2012 6:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Easy, if anybody has or are working in a service job there will be times that customers just does not appreciate the extra help. Games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are some games to get that aggression or that anger out. Though these games are high detail which makes it easy to not separate fake from reality or reality from fake after playing these games.

When I work at a service job, there is one day that I had to clean of up a trail of crap from a register to the bathroom. I pretend it was a brownie to ease cleaning it up and took aggression on the carts while I am collecting them in the parking lot. Hah, service jobs they are so much fun.

TIP: It is best to exercise to get the anger out instead of playing a computer game.


RE: How did he practice with a video game?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2012 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need any "skills" to be a terrorist. You just need to have the conviction to commit atrocities that sane civilized humans wouldn't do, and aren't prepared for when encountered.

In games you fight your way through swarms of enemies that are waiting for you, meeting you with equal force. This doesn't happen in real life for a terrorist. Leaving a backpack explosive on a bus takes no "skills". Shooting unaware unarmed people as they go about their day takes no "skills".


By Trisped on 4/19/2012 7:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
The video game did not do much to develop his skill at killing. He probably could have developed more skill at a shooting range.

The video game would have desensitized him though, making the dead and dying a non-event, allowing him to more easily commit his crime without remorse. This would be true of any media, though I believe games and moves are more realistic and as such provide a stronger effect.


By Bostlabs on 4/20/2012 6:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've played that level. I had to play it several times before I completed it because I kept trying to kill the other terrorists.

The only way to complete it is to do exactly what a terrorist does.

The sad part is after doing all of that and feeling horrible about it (as someone that was trained to defend I found it very disturbing) you still got killed at the end of that level because the main terrorist guy knew you were a CIA plant and used your player as a scapegoat.


The man is clearly crazy
By amanojaku on 4/19/2012 11:03:58 AM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't pay any attention to his ramblings about video games, or anything else. The only things he's said that I can trust are "I did it" and "I'd do it again".




RE: The man is clearly crazy
By Paedric on 4/19/2012 11:35:18 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think he is crazy, at least not in the legal sense of "he doesn't know what he was/is doing".

He knows he's going to stay in prison for the rest of his life, so he has nothing to lose (thus why he smiles, show no remorse, and all the chaos he is trying to spread).


RE: The man is clearly crazy
By geddarkstorm on 4/19/2012 12:26:16 PM , Rating: 4
Video games definitely cannot teach you to fire a gun. Anyone who has fired one knows that just the kickback alone is something one has to train to deal with, let alone the different firing characteristics of different guns.

I find it sad that people have to find something to BLAME for a psychopath's rampage. Maybe, just maybe, the only reason the guy did it is because he's a psychopath.


RE: The man is clearly crazy
By masamasa on 4/19/2012 2:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. The guy is clearly delusional.


Why does it matter?
By The Raven on 4/20/2012 4:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's significant controversy over Mr. Breivik's mental health status. An initial expert panel of psychologists/psychiatrists claimed he was either schizophrenic or psychotic (separate medical conditions) during the shootings. However, a second expert panel rejected this conclusion, instead finding he was merely a narcissist and that he did not suffer from any sort of clear psychotic/schizophrenic episode. His mental status is under examination by an expert panel.
I need to go to law school to figure this out. I don't get why it matters to if he was mentally sound or not. I also don't get "trying kids as adults" or hate crimes. Can someone please explain this to me? If a guy goes and mows down a bunch of people, he is by definition insane. Why does it matter if he was in his "right mind or not"? If Mr Hyde kills someone should Dr Jekyll get off scott free? Or if a drunk driver kills someone can they blame it on alcohol? A killer is a killer. It seems that the focus should be on intent (such as if it is premeditated of not).




RE: Why does it matter?
By joos2000 on 4/20/2012 7:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
It matters, because if he isn't insane, the maximum jail time in Norway is 21 years. If he is proved to be insane, he can be put away at an asylum 'until he is deemed fit to re-enter society', ie. indefinitely.


RE: Why does it matter?
By The Raven on 4/24/2012 2:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
No that is what I mean: why is there a different sentence? Why does it matter?

If you are mentally dangerous then you are a nutball who might kill anyone at any time. If you are a person who believes in murdering people eventhough you are not crazy (the irony police just put out an APB) then you also might kill someone for whatever reason. So why would we want one on the streets over the other? It makes no difference to me. You?

This question reminds me of the movie Dear Zachary.(Highly recommended BTW and on Netflix Instant).
SPOILER ALERT: The judge determined that the murderer killed her victim and since that was out of the way there was no danger that it would happen again. Well... again, spoiler alert... it does happen again.


Why "No Russian"?
By The Raven on 4/20/2012 5:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why the focus of this article is on the "No Russian" chapter of the game. It is an instance of Russians killing Russians, none of who are identified as liberals. Not to mention it is a tiny part of the game. All other parts are individuals trying to save the world from an unyielding thermonuclear war. So I am not sure how this is relevant. Again, the Columbine kids played Doom...who hasn't? In fact, I think more people have played MW2 than Doom at this point.

Personally I blame the same ones who drive people to this time and time again...those who seek to gain power for themselves and attempt to control others. Politicians.

Look at the two biggest attacks in the US.
McVeigh attacked as revenge for the overreaching federal gov't activities at Ruby Ridge and Waco. And bin Laden attacked because of US power grabs in the affairs of the MidEast.

If the act of killing people is making people more violent then nevermind the violent video games...we should stop sending our boys over to Afghanistan, etc.




RE: Why "No Russian"?
By Bostlabs on 4/20/2012 7:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
In "No Russian" the character you were playing was a CIA mole. You had to maintain your terrorist persona to advance your goals to work you way further into the terrorist group so you could take out the top bad guy.

I kept failing this level simply because I kept shooting the terrorist. :) As a U.S. Marine I found it very disturbing killing innocents. We were trained to protect and defend so you can see why I was having issues with shooting defensive people.

I managed to get through the level only to be killed by the lead terrorist because he knew I was a CIA plant and he used my character as a scapegoat. Hated that level.

The rest of the story mode was excellent!

Back to the main story... There is no way this guy learned how to do his stuff from video games. You don't go from a video game to picking up weapons and explosives and knowing how to use them.


RE: Why "No Russian"?
By The Raven on 4/24/2012 2:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I kept failing this level simply because I kept shooting the terrorist. :) As a U.S. Marine I found it very disturbing killing innocents. We were trained to protect and defend so you can see why I was having issues with shooting defensive people.
lol. Yeah I am not a Marine and I refrained from killing innocents (except for a few crawlers, Last of the Mohicans style, to put them out of their misery).
As I'm sure you realize, it is disturbing killing criminals or innocents. Hell I have issues killing spiders with bodies larger than a centimeter. (I have to capture and gas them). Killing in general is disturbing. Anyway thank you for your service buddy.
quote:
Back to the main story... There is no way this guy learned how to do his stuff from video games. You don't go from a video game to picking up weapons and explosives and knowing how to use them.
Also I would say that you don't go instantly from hating "liberals" (I put it in quotes because they are not liberal about a great many things and I hate that term) to killing liberals. I hate "liberals" but I would NEVER murder one. Hell I wish them the right ot speak their mind as much as I would like the right to speak mine.


The real issue is...
By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 12:04:47 PM , Rating: 1
... why is pornografi restricted when violence isn't.




RE: The real issue is...
By Samus on 4/19/2012 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
There were terrorists long before videogames, so 'blaming' them is as ridiculous as it is to blame flight simulators for 9/11.

This is a human problem. Even if this guys terrorist group wiped out every person of Islam, they'd just find another group of people to hate, maybe even themselves. Civil war isn't terribly uncommon these days. People hate people, shit is going to happen. The Norweigan government is clearly lacking intelligence as to what is going on in their own country. One-man cells are easy to bust based on public records of individuals (buying habits, blogs/facebook, phone records, etc.) They don't need to invade anyones privacy for this information.


RE: The real issue is...
By ZorkZork on 4/19/2012 7:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
... while all of that may be true, the real issue is: why do we have rules in place to "protect" us from pornography while violence is much more accepted.

Clearly this is nothing but a moral question. And in that case which is worst: 1. A game showing nude chicks. 2. A first person shooter game where you have to shoot down unarmed civilians.

Lastly, you may want to read up on one man cells. You will find that the FBI and other intelligence services believe that one man cells are the hardest to find. And in this case, the only thing they had on him was a $30 purchase of legal but interesting chemicals. You don't start an investigation based on that. I don't believe that there is not a single country in the western world where the intelligence services could have prevented this guy from building a bomb, detonating it in a public place, and then shooting a lot of unarmed civilians (except perhaps for restrictions on firearms, but that is another discussion).


Video games ruined my life too
By Aloonatic on 4/19/2012 3:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I used to play The Legend of Zelda a lot on the SNES when I was younger, and it made me go into shops, houses and public buildings to hunt for pots to pick up above my head and smash on the ground.

To this day I cannot go near a garden centre of fear of the terracotta mist descending when I might go into a frenzy of pot and vase smashing.




RE: Video games ruined my life too
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 7:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever found valuables like rubes in the pots? I thought about trying it once, but realized I would have to pay for the pots I broke and I probably would not get health potions, rubes, or mana potions from it.

Of course cutting the lawn did result in a small amount of money, so there is that...

Also, how did you deal with the people in the houses you raided for pots?


so?
By kattanna on 4/19/2012 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
a true psychopath needs no external justification for his actions

though the media does, hence why we have stories like this.





What skills?
By Paedric on 4/19/2012 11:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really know what skills are needed to butcher unarmed children with guns...

While I agree on the subject of the depiction of violence and sex, this quote is quite strange, and the whole paragraph doesn't make much sense.
quote:
And if you depict hard-core sex, well, you are virtually guaranteed an "Adults Only" rating.

As far as I know, pornography is illegal for minors, so they can't put another rating on it.




By Beenthere on 4/19/2012 2:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
He acts deranged to me and enjoying the attention much like Assange...




And the rating matter because?
By Trisped on 4/19/2012 5:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America and much of the world today practice a rather curious standard. While putting the player in the role of a terrorist murdering citizens only earns a "Mature" rating, soft-core depictions of consensual sex between adults is a ticket to an instant "Mature" in most cases. And if you depict hard-core sex, well, you are virtually guaranteed an "Adults Only" rating.
First of all, Mature is Mature. Complaining that violence is "only" mature and that sexual content is "a ticket to an instant Mature" is pointless. Besides, this is the same model used for moves, excessive violence or sexual content results in a Restricted rating (in the US) which is about the same as an Mature. Why are you complaining?

Besides, what does the ratting matter? With the exception of AO (Adult Only) anyone can buy a game of any rating. Since this is the way Jason Mick wants it (as he has come out many times against preventing children from purchasing M games) why does the rating matter? Or is Jason trying to say that this should be an AO game because it allows killing of noncombatants? Is this game too explicit for people under the age of 17 http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#rati... ? You know, there was a law requiring that, but it was overruled http://www.dailytech.com/Supreme+Court+Rules+Again... http://www.dailytech.com/California+Stuck+with+2+M...

Yes, I think the game rating system could use some work. I also think that until the game rating system is enforced there is no point to a rating except as an advertising gimmick (it is M so it must be better then the other which is T).




prison
By overlandpark4me on 4/20/2012 12:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
Thankfully the prisoners around him are about to level him up in Call of the Soap grabber




Not religion driven
By R3T4rd on 4/20/2012 10:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
What is with all the religion bickering? Clearly the guy owns Apple Products. With all the Apple issues and all Apple ever say is "Your holding it wrong" sent the guy on a rampage. Heck, I'd go crazy too if I own a product from Company "A(pple)" and when I notice a blatant problem the only answer I get from Company "A(pple)" is that I am holding it wrong, or upgrade to the latest version for only $400, or its end user issues! Sheesh! Go figure he went postal. So clearly it is not Religion driven.




Religous angle
By joos2000 on 4/20/2012 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I find it peculiar that you Americans put a religious angle on Breiviks acts. Personally, I don't think his act is based from religion at all. America don't have quite as intimate a relation with political fascism as Europe has; this is the only conclusion I can draw from your rather peculiar rhetoric.

If you read this article (translated through google) rather than reading my poorly constructed arguments, you will understand why I think the religious angle is dead wrong.

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=...




Read the friggin article!!!
By MindParadox on 4/25/2012 1:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Read the original article, where he states that the played WoW as a "gift" to himself, not in any form of training.

also, read the original article, specifically the part where the states that he played COD from november 2010 to feb 2011, because it is a "targeting assist simulator"




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki