![]() |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by London Mike
(Post 10434380)
just vastly different from Canada (yes!)
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by PeterF
(Post 10434852)
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Mexico would be very high, even though they do ban guns there. The drug barrons tends to run the areas they live in so I believe.
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by London Mike
(Post 10434380)
I don't normally listen to Dawkins because he's frankly as fundamentalist as any fundamental Christian
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by DaveLovesDee
(Post 10434918)
It states at the bottom that it excludes Mexico. Any reason why, other than to avoid relegating the US to 2nd place!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list the most amazing number is in the right hand column though which states total number of civilian held firearms......USA 270 million ..... and probably the reason why any change in legislation is completely doomed if you took any notice of this list though, a holiday somewhere in the Caribbean would not be high on your priorities. |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by jimmydean
(Post 10435019)
I noticed that but still agree that the US is ridiculously high on the list.....there are a few other countries not mentioned which are a lot higher than US as well such as South Africa and Brazil. The Grauniad did a comprehensive list earlier in the year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list the most amazing number is in the right hand column though which states total number of civilian held firearms......USA 270 million ..... and probably the reason why any change in legislation is completely doomed if you took any notice of this list though, a holiday somewhere in the Caribbean would not be high on your priorities. |
Re: Another US school shooting
Maybe this helps illustrate the differences between an attack by someone with a knife and someone with a gun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8684301.stm |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 10435167)
Maybe this helps illustrate the differences between an attack by someone with a knife and someone with a gun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8684301.stm On Wednesday, seven children thought to be under the age of six and two adults were hacked to death at a kindergarten near Hanzhong city in Shaanxi province. The attacker later killed himself, Xinhua reported. Point being? |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 10435167)
Maybe this helps illustrate the differences between an attack by someone with a knife and someone with a gun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8684301.stm
Originally Posted by magnumpi
(Post 10435241)
Further down the page it says
On Wednesday, seven children thought to be under the age of six and two adults were hacked to death at a kindergarten near Hanzhong city in Shaanxi province. The attacker later killed himself, Xinhua reported. Point being? |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 10434946)
He is not fundamentalist. He is militant. There is a big difference.
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by London Mike
(Post 10435499)
I think he could be construed as either. And there's only really a big difference if you attach fundamentalism to theological beliefs (as some think, but not all). Anyway, he's bloody irritating (and I say so as an atheist).
I certainly wouldn't use the word fundamentalist to describe any atheist, no matter how radical and annoying they are, simply because it's a rhetorical device used by religionists to control the narrative about what atheism is. It allows them to bring the debate back to their level using false equivalence (i.e. atheism is 'just another belief system' when it's no such thing). |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 10435547)
He is irritating - but he irritates people that are even more irritating so that makes him ok by me.
|
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 10435547)
He is irritating - but he irritates people that are even more irritating so that makes him ok by me.
I certainly wouldn't use the word fundamentalist to describe any atheist, no matter how radical and annoying they are, simply because it's a rhetorical device used by religionists to control the narrative about what atheism is. It allows them to bring the debate back to their level using false equivalence (i.e. atheism is 'just another belief system' when it's no such thing). Atheism is about belief just as much religion. It all depends on what you believe in. |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by London Mike
(Post 10436234)
Eh? It's a device used to describe extreme religious belief not atheism on the whole. I think many are turning it back around on to people like Dawkins, especially when he goes into primary schools preaching as to the non-existence of god. Even many atheists are doing so.
Atheism is about belief just as much religion. It all depends on what you believe in. You see, you are doing it again (it's almost like you are now taking the piss). Equating atheism with religion by suggesting that it contains the same amount of belief and using words like preaching. Same amount of belief? Not at all. "Belief" in science, logic, rational thinking, and evidence is really not the same as "belief" in miracles, angels, heaven and hell. This is the problem with using words like this (look at how some of them have twisted the meaning of the word "theory") |
Re: Another US school shooting
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 10436407)
It's still the wrong term to use.
You see, you are doing it again (it's almost like you are now taking the piss). Equating atheism with religion by suggesting that it contains the same amount of belief and using words like preaching. Same amount of belief? Not at all. "Belief" in science, logic, rational thinking, and evidence is really not the same as "belief" in miracles, angels, heaven and hell. This is the problem with using words like this (look at how some of them have twisted the meaning of the word "theory") I quite understand that science and religion have different belief systems, that's not what I was saying. But yes, you're right that 'belief' totally means different things to theists and atheists. I agree with you. Anyway, I guess this thread was never about Dawkins so I apologize for taking us down there! |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:17 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.