Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#172990 Jul 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole Zimmerman case was *Zimmerman's* fault. If he hadn't followed Martin *after being told not to* and *initiated* the encounter, Martin would still be alive. And that isn't even dealing with the gun law aspect.
I agree up to the point where the kid jumped him, he should have went inside. But Zimmerman is the one that made it happen. He should have just left the kid alone.
It's a bad thing, and it seems both are to blame. But I do agree it was mostly Zimmerman's fault.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172991 Jul 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>In the interest of accuracy, I used to teach that carry stuff.
The VERY FIRST rule was "don't even touch the gun unless you're in enough danger to kill".
Brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots were right OUT.
If you need it enough to pull it, you need it enough to put two in his head - otherwise, run away screaming.
I agree with you in principle, here.

And I'm an advocate for **smart** gun laws (especially as I own several myself, including short arms, if you know what I mean)

But the SYG law is simply a horrid bit of grisly violence-encouragement.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#172992 Jul 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the SYG laws are **bullshit**.
It doesn't matter the details-- Zimmerman **persued** a kid, and killed him dead.
The situation is **exactly** the same, except that Zimmerman committed premeditated murder, and the woman did not.
No they aren't Bob, the woman was not pinned to the ground and could have simply left. She gave up the house and children for a week before returning and demanding he leave. The two cases aren't even vaguely similar. If Zimmerman had left and returned with a gun , and had not been pinned to the ground he would have been guilty.
If either of those things would have happened or not happened Zimmerman would have been guilty.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#172993 Jul 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you in principle, here.
And I'm an advocate for **smart** gun laws (especially as I own several myself, including short arms, if you know what I mean)
But the SYG law is simply a horrid bit of grisly violence-encouragement.
You seem to be mistaken here also Bob, Zimmerman did not invoke a stand your ground stance. His status in his case was simply self defense. You have to be on your own property , or very close to it to use the stand your ground defense.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172994 Jul 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you in principle, here.
And I'm an advocate for **smart** gun laws (especially as I own several myself, including short arms, if you know what I mean)
But the SYG law is simply a horrid bit of grisly violence-encouragement.
Oh, I do not necessarily disagree.

Or agree.

I fail absolutely to see why I should have to flee an agressor if I have the opportunity and the ability to say "Oh, fuck, no. You don't."

One sees the possibility for abuse, of course - but one totally deplores it. Actual "No!" responses are valid, I think.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172995 Jul 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to be mistaken here also Bob, Zimmerman did not invoke a stand your ground stance. His status in his case was simply self defense. You have to be on your own property , or very close to it to use the stand your ground defense.
SYG laws vary from state to state. Here in FL, one may legitimately use deadly force anywhere one perceives a deadly threat.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#172996 Jul 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>SYG laws vary from state to state. Here in FL, one may legitimately use deadly force anywhere one perceives a deadly threat.
That's not typically a SYG thing but simply self defense, If you look at the law it is written to cover the home or buildings and your car, but there is a grey area
I wouldn't think it was written for the street. More of in any building you might be in, but I can see how it could be twisted to mean anywhere.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172997 Jul 25, 2013
Looks like socks were changed right as I called it.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Limitation? LOL

I would explain it but I won't, not to you at least.
Thinking

UK

#172998 Jul 26, 2013
Just a bit.

He described some pendulum axe thing blocking a doorway which was almost certainly going to take HPs from everyone in the party. He refused to let us cast "sticks to snakes" on the wooden shaft.

The comedy gold of a snake with a metal arse ornament was not for his world.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Took himself a wee bit too seriously, did he?
LOL!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172999 Jul 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's not typically a SYG thing but simply self defense, If you look at the law it is written to cover the home or buildings and your car, but there is a grey area
I wouldn't think it was written for the street. More of in any building you might be in, but I can see how it could be twisted to mean anywhere.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm...
In some states, used to be prominently NJ and IL, one was obliged by law to exhaust all other options, including fleeing, before resorting to actual defence. Even in one's own home.

These were colloquially called "back-to-the-wall" states, in that force was unlawful unless one's back was literally against a wall, and no other options were available.

Then there were "castle doctrine" laws, which stated, "okay, he's in your house. You don't have to run away or hide under the bed to escape some intruder in your own home".

And then there are SYG laws. These state that if a "reasonable" person - that's the language in most cases - feels that he's under threat of felony assault, death, or severe bodily harm to himself or another, he does NOT have a duty to run away screaming. He can respond, even in the street, with an appropriate, even deadly, level of response.

Twenty-six US states have some level of either "Castle Doctrine" or SYG laws in place.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173000 Jul 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you in principle, here.
And I'm an advocate for **smart** gun laws (especially as I own several myself, including short arms, if you know what I mean)
But the SYG law is simply a horrid bit of grisly violence-encouragement.
Oh, and PLEASE do not get me wrong here.

I'm a huge fan of unassing the area, rather than getting in a gunfight. Or avoiding the area to begin with.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173001 Jul 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The situation is grossly different.
She left, returned days later demanded he leave, he would not.
She went to her car and got a gun and demanded he and her children leave. He would not so she fired the gun.
Now you please explain when her life was in danger?
She could have , and should have just left.
This is factually incorrect.

The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.

She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.

Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.

One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.

There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#173002 Jul 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is factually incorrect.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

Asides the fact garages have two exits.
I have a different story, she was estranged and had been living elsewhere. The key feature is that she in fact could have left after pushing him out the way. Instead she retrieved the gun and reentered the house. Firing the gun a further demanding he leave.
This is in contrast to how you are telling it.

Here is the story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#173003 Jul 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is factually incorrect.
The two had been fighting. He had her in the bathroom, blocking her exit. She managed to push past him into the garage, from which there was no other exit. She shot a warning shot into the air.
She did NOT leave and return days later. Her car was in the garage from which there was no other exit. He refused to leave after she showed him that she had a gun and she made a warning shot into the air.
Now, she was offered a plea deal of 3 years if she plead guilty of aggravated assault, but she believed she did nothing wrong. When she was then convicted, that meant a minimum 20 year sentence.
One of the *big* problems in both this case and the Martin-Zimmerman case is that the injustices were directly from the law being applied as it was designed. In the Zimmerman case, it is too lenient when someone is killed and in the other case, it is too harsh when nobody is killed. Contradictions like this make it clear that the law is NOT being applied fairly and is draconian in many ways.
There are discussions about whether Trayvon Martin smoked pot. Who cares? Seriously, what relevance is there to the matter at hand? if it was a white kid who was having trouble in school and had smoked pot and a black man that shot him, do you really think the results would be the same? I don't.

Out of curiosity I looked to find more of the story, or a different version. I found this...

Here is where things get messy. According to Alexander, she went to the garage to flee Gray, who was threatening her. So why did she go back into the house? Alexander has been less than consistent on this point. She has claimed that the garage door would not open, forcing her back inside, and also that she had forgotten her keys in the house. In either case, she grabbed her handgun from the glove compartment (the gun was legal, and Alexander had a concealed-carry permit) and went back inside.

Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him,“I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911.“She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher.“She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.” Alexander never called the police.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#173004 Jul 26, 2013

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#173005 Jul 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of curiosity I looked to find more of the story, or a different version. I found this...
Here is where things get messy. According to Alexander, she went to the garage to flee Gray, who was threatening her. So why did she go back into the house? Alexander has been less than consistent on this point. She has claimed that the garage door would not open, forcing her back inside, and also that she had forgotten her keys in the house. In either case, she grabbed her handgun from the glove compartment (the gun was legal, and Alexander had a concealed-carry permit) and went back inside.
Gray’s account aligns with this — and adds a bit of color. Gray says that just before heading into the garage, Alexander told him,“I got something for your ass.” When she came back in with the gun, he put his hands in the air. After the shot, he fled out the front door with his sons and called 911.“She said she’s ‘sick of this sh*t,’” he told the dispatcher.“She shot at me, inside the house, while my boys were standing right next to me. Lord have mercy.” Alexander never called the police.
And she got 20 years for that.

Do you think that's an appropriate penalty?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#173006 Jul 26, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And she got 20 years for that.
Do you think that's an appropriate penalty?
No I don't, the point is the 10-20-25 law is what was messed up.
It was supposed to target bank robbers or burglars not housewives.
Automatic 10 for using a gun in a crime
Automatic 20 for discharging a firearm during a crime.
Automatic 25 to life for shooting someone during a crime.
They need to change that law, because it does seem harsh in her case.

I think it is a double edged sword here, if you pull a gun and shoot at or shoot someone, you better be sure you're in the right. huh? To be honest even the 10 years seems harsh for just shooting a gun and not hitting anyone.

A guy in my town shot a man on his front porch, it was considered manslaughter and he only got 7 years.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173007 Jul 26, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
What about the scripture that says he was born in Mary and Joseph's house in Nazareth? Their house wasn't a manger over 100 miles away was it? No it couldn't be because they were traveling away from home... A city Nazareth that didn't exist until well into the second century... Cough... Cough...
Wrong as usual I see.:))

http://www.nazareth-israel.com/nazarteh-histo...

There was no scripture that says Jesus was born in the home of Mary and Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. You know, the one just down the road; right?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Thanks for changing sock puppets and dancing at my command as soon as I returned...
I see you still have a bad habit of making A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS and of giving yourself way too much credit for such small achievements. Oh, and I don't need any socks. I'm sitting barefoot by the hotel pool sipping on a Long Island Iced Tea. Ah the joys of wi-fi.:))
Givemeliberty wrote:
You said you were leaving for vacation about 23 hours ago. So nice to catch you in another lie.
Yes I did say I was going on vacation. I didn't say when I was leaving my house for our vacation getaway. I didn't realize I needed your permission. I didn't know you were that important. You're a legend in your own mind aren't ya?
Givemeliberty wrote:
BUSTED!:))
Said the blind Keystone Cop to the park bench after pulling it over for speeding.:))

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173008 Jul 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No they aren't Bob, the woman was not pinned to the ground and could have simply left. She gave up the house and children for a week before returning and demanding he leave. The two cases aren't even vaguely similar. If Zimmerman had left and returned with a gun , and had not been pinned to the ground he would have been guilty.
If either of those things would have happened or not happened Zimmerman would have been guilty.
The horrid way the SYG law is written?

THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

It is why SYG is an abominable law-- it FORCES the judicial system to make choices.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173009 Jul 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to be mistaken here also Bob, Zimmerman did not invoke a stand your ground stance. His status in his case was simply self defense. You have to be on your own property , or very close to it to use the stand your ground defense.
He followed an unarmed kid, then shot him dead? How on earth was that "self defense"?

If the SYG was **not** his escape clause? Then there was a gross violation of justice-- he murdered an unarmed kid in cold blood.

Premeditated murder, as he had to chase him down to do it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min truth 554,985
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Joshie0067 765,009
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 18 min Mr Wiggley 441,613
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 19 min yon 927
INSIDERJOHN.COM REVIEW : BinaryApp-810 SCAM 21 min dess71 1
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 29 min scirocco 37,655
What Is The New World Order? 31 min Ebola Kills Everyone 5
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Epiphany2 603,651
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr who 263,551

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE