Gun toting red neck

[liberty]

I have gotten to the point that I miss a lot news, but today I heard in passing that some gun toting red neck in North Carolina killed three young Moslems for no good reason. What is the story does anyone know anything about it?

[Gob]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=car+park+muslim+shooting

[liberty]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=car+park+muslim+shooting

I know gob, I googled it after I posted the string; I was trying make the point to my liberal friends that the mainstream media is bias. The story almost had wings until it was learned the shooter is a liberal.

Since the guy is a liberal, it can’t be a hate crime.

[Gob]

What? I cannot find a single news item which identifies the shooters political views.

And seeing as it's been reported all around the world, where is your "almost had wings" idea coming from?

[Sue U]

That's our liberty, always willing to play the fool. Wait, he's not playing?

People Are Horrible: An Ongoing Series
Idiot Atheist Murders Three Muslim Students In NC; Conservatives Are Greatest Victims

by Doktor Zoom
Feb 11 12:00 pm 2015


Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, and her sister Razan Abu-Salha

Congratulations, America, we have a whole new terrible murder to turn into a debating point in the Culture Wars! And just to mix things up a bit, the victims were three Muslim students (all of them apparently smart over-achievers who should have had beautiful lives ahead of them), and the accused killer is described variously as an “atheist,” a “radical atheist,” or a “crazed progressive atheist.”

Police in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have issued a statement saying their “preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking,” but that’s pretty boring, so get ready for the murders of Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife, Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19 to become the focal point for some confused combination of atheist-bashing, Islamophobia, and of course attacks on the Liberal Media, which the Daily Caller is accusing of “ignoring” the killer’s liberal politics.

What’s known so far is that Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, shot the three at the condominium complex where they all rented, then almost immediately turned himself into police and is cooperating with them. Because the victims were Muslims, the police are also investigating the killings as a possible hate crime.

The story spread quickly on social media, with many Muslims claiming that the story was being under-reported because of the victims’ faith. The Independent, on the other hand, highlighted Hicks’ online posts mocking all religions and describing himself as an “anti-theist.” His Facebook page is being scrutinized for evidence of why he killed three people. The Daily Caller and rightwing blog the PJ Tatler are making much of the fact that while major media sources have noted Hicks’s atheism, virtually none have called attention to his politics, which proves something terrible about the liberal media. The Tatler observes:

"A review of the Facebook page of the man charged in these murders, Craig Hicks, shows a consistent theme of anti-religion and progressive causes. Included in his many Facebook “likes” are the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” Neil deGrasse Tyson, gay marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/Tea Party pages.

"Remarkably, one of the four Facebook groups he had joined was 'Religious Tolerance.'”

Yep, he was very definitely an atheist. Better start rounding them up. And maybe fans of Gibson guitars, which Hicks also liked. Honestly, we’re inclined to think the shootings’ more probable motive may have something to do with Hicks being an asshole with a gun.

The Independent notes that Richard Dawkins (also “liked” by Hicks) condemned the murders on Twitter: “How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?”

The three victims all sound like they were pretty terrific young people. Deah Barakat was a dental student at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of dentistry; he and Yusor Abu-Salha had just gotten married a month ago. She would have graduated from North Carolina State this coming December. Her sister Razan was also a student at NCSU. Both Abu-Salha sisters had graduated from high school in Raleigh. Barakat had been planning to travel this summer to Turkey with 10 other dentists for a project to provide free dental care to Syrian refugees. Since his murder, an online fundraiser that he had set up for the effort has already more than doubled its goal.

So get ready for a nice big culture war over how atheists, with no moral absolutes, are prone to violence, and progressives, who preach tolerance, murder Muslims. The one thing we definitely won’t be talking about is how easy it is for a deranged person of any political persuasion to get his hands on a firearm. Also, will the Arkansas gun range lady start banning atheists?

[NYT / Daily Caller / Jerusalem Post / Charlotte News & Observer / Independent]

With fun links:
http://wonkette.com/575862/idiot-atheis ... 6iYSzYX.99

[Econoline]

The Independent notes that Richard Dawkins (also “liked” by Hicks) condemned the murders on Twitter: “How could any decent person NOT condemn the vile murder of three young US Muslims in Chapel Hill?”

Yes.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well his defense writes itself tho'. Since all things, including mental opinions, are just cosmic accidents without meaning, there's nothing 'wrong' with any action. Of course, that also means he can be found guilty and banged up forever just by accident so that's OK then.

[BoSoxGal]

It's very disappointing to see you stoop to that tired BS, Meade.

Atheists are NOT amoral; in fact, most studies show atheists follow a very sound moral code - the golden rule, which preexists your particular religious fantasy belief system of choice by thousands of years.

Human beings don't require religion to know right from wrong.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I would never say that "atheists are immoral" and I've never (AFAIK) said that humans require religion to know right from wrong. I believe neither of those things and my post neither says nor implies that I do. The philosophical point is that atheism offers no ground for any such words as "moral", "right" and "wrong".

Every atheist I have known assumes, whether they admit it or not, that "right" and "wrong" do not depend upon their opinion (or mine). If "right" merely consists of whatever people happen to think at the time, then that is not "moral" - it is merely convenience.

The logical conclusion of "there is no God" is that all things are accidental (ALL things) including morality. That's something Dawkins has no difficulty with. Right and wrong are merely human constructs and as such are without any external universal meaning.

That being so, a good defense for an atheist might be that no act is, in fact, more wrong than any other act, so there is no crime here. Hence my remark that trial and jail for a non-crime are equally as valid! It is irony.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry for a second post... I was wondering about the golden rule. Is there some place where an atheist came up with it (thousands of years ago) or has it always been in the context of some religion? I don't think Confucius counts because he believed in ancestor worship which seems to me to involve religious concepts. I don't know.

[Sue U]

I was wondering about the golden rule. Is there some place where an atheist came up with it (thousands of years ago) or has it always been in the context of some religion? I don't think Confucius counts because he believed in ancestor worship which seems to me to involve religious concepts. I don't know.

Pretty sure it originated with the first mom of two or more children.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I thought that was, "Why can't you be more like your sister?"

[BoSoxGal]

That being so, a good defense for an atheist might be that no act is, in fact, more wrong than any other act, so there is no crime here. Hence my remark that trial and jail for a non-crime are equally as valid! It is irony.

Said no defense attorney on behalf of an atheist defendant, ever.

Why? Because existence or non-existence of God doesn't come into it - we live by a set of civil and criminal laws that apply to all of us by virtue of our participation in this democracy, regardless of faith in anything or nothing.

I don't see how this is at all confusing.

[Lord Jim]

I was going to start a thread about this with a completely different angle...

The fact that throughout the day yesterday, the cable news channels all seemed to be desperate to try and portray this as a "hate crime" when the facts that were coming to light absolutely didn't support that conclusion...

This wasn't a "hate crime" it was an asshole crime...

What was apparent from the interviews with the neighbors, (who had been planning a meeting to discuss what to do about this guy) the police investigation, even the guy's unfortunate wife, is that this guy was the neighborhood hothead/asshole, who was constantly threatening the other residents in the condo complex without regard to race creed or color...

His political and/or religious beliefs didn't enter into it; this guy hated everybody...

But for some reason, the cable news folks just love "hate crimes" they seem to have an absolute fetish for them...

Every story; every single one, has referred to "The Murder Of Three MUSLIMS", even though the religion of the victims had absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened. Identifying them as Muslims has absolutely no relevance to the story whatsoever, given the facts.

The mainstream press bends over backwards not to identify people as "Muslim" when they are the perps, (sometimes they'll even withold the suspect's name fo a long time, if it's an obviously Muslim or Arab name) even when the perps themselves openly say they acted because of their religious beliefs...

But apparently if they are the victims, they're going to trumpet their religious affiliation even if it's proven to be completely irrelevant....

My strong suspicion is, if these had been three white Christians, first of all there would have been considerably less coverage, and the stories would have been headlined with something like, "The Murder Of Three North Carolina College Students"...

Since the "hate crime " narrative got run over by the facts, (though I see some American Muslim activists are still trying to claim in the media that it was a hate crime) I notice that this morning MSNBC is pushing a new media favorite:

The guy apparently did a tour of duty in Iraq eight years ago, so now some want to blame this murder (which apparently was about a parking space) on PTSD...

Here's a thought; how about we just blame it on the asshole?

[MajGenl.Meade]

That being so, a good defense for an atheist might be that no act is, in fact, more wrong than any other act, so there is no crime here. Hence my remark that trial and jail for a non-crime are equally as valid! It is irony.

Said no defense attorney on behalf of an atheist defendant, ever.

Why? Because existence or non-existence of God doesn't come into it - we live by a set of civil and criminal laws that apply to all of us by virtue of our participation in this democracy, regardless of faith in anything or nothing.

I don't see how this is at all confusing.

You don't say (image) Nicholas Cage (image)? Wait... nooooo! So you mean my "everything is just an illusion" defense won't work either?

Once again, a possible discussion of philosophy died a meaningless death in a little thread somewhere on earth.

[Lord Jim]

I thought this was a discussion about a shooting, and the way the media covered it...

[Sue U]

I would never say that "atheists are immoral" and I've never (AFAIK) said that humans require religion to know right from wrong. I believe neither of those things and my post neither says nor implies that I do. The philosophical point is that atheism offers no ground for any such words as "moral", "right" and "wrong".

Every atheist I have known assumes, whether they admit it or not, that "right" and "wrong" do not depend upon their opinion (or mine). If "right" merely consists of whatever people happen to think at the time, then that is not "moral" - it is merely convenience.

The logical conclusion of "there is no God" is that all things are accidental (ALL things) including morality. That's something Dawkins has no difficulty with. Right and wrong are merely human constructs and as such are without any external universal meaning.

That being so, a good defense for an atheist might be that no act is, in fact, more wrong than any other act, so there is no crime here. Hence my remark that trial and jail for a non-crime are equally as valid! It is irony.

I don't disagree with your premise, but I do disagree with your conclusions. I have no problem with the happy accident of human evolution both morphological and social, nor with the fact that morality or "right and wrong" are entirely human constructs. And I accept that iit may also be impossible to "know" whether any act is ultimately "good" or "bad" or of any meaning at all when viewed against longer time scales. Was suckling baby Hitler a good or bad thing? Would smothering him in his crib have been a good or bad thing? Human foresight is limited. (Hindsight is Kim Kardashian, apparently.)

But just because morality is a human construct, and may be situational or relative, does not mean it does not exist or has no guiding (non-god) principles. It is in fact a necessary development for human interactions and the operation of functioning human society at all levels, whether family, clan, tribe or nation. Concepts of right and wrong do vary from place to place and time
to time in human history. But why should that be "wrong"?

[Sue U]

This wasn't a "hate crime" it was an asshole crime...

Here's a thought; how about we just blame it on the asshole?

As to this point, I agree with you entirely. With the addendum, "asshole with a gun."

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sue, I don't see any difference in our conclusions (I do hope you're not taking the final para at all seriously!). Being situational or relative means that no thing is truly "right" or "wrong" - it is merely "what we like" or "what we don't like". It is not possible to say that laws against homosexuality are "wrong" nor that laws in favour of homosexuality are "wrong". No argument for or against such positions can be "right" or "wrong" since those are only accidental.

has no guiding (non-god) principles

Well isn't that the point? How are the guiding principles "right" in any sense at all other than "we like 'em"? They may be useful but by what principle is it established that what is useful to you must be imposed upon me? "The greater benefit of society" - how is that a good or "right" if even one person disagrees?

(PS I bet we can't answer this in anything under a million years! No one else has)

[BoSoxGal]

I don't mind a philosophical discussion of morality and religion, but raising it in that context was pretty hostile toward atheists.

Or can you only be insulted by criticisms of your belief system if you have religious faith?


Yes, this sounds like a 'mental health dysfunction + easy access to firearms = tragedy' type of crime.