Six Wounded, Two Dead, in Separate Colorado Shootings

[1069]

There are many people who have unprotected sex and never get pregnant nor contract an STD. Yet, enlightened men recognize that unprotected sex is PRECISELY how pregnancies and STD's occur.

And ye who stands as the arbiter might bite on a new reality show I'm interested in producing, called, INTELLIGENCE CHECK.

Probably not; an "INTELLIGENCE CHECK" from a man who thinks there's an apostrophe in STDs (plural) doesn't sound too tasty.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am surprised that nobody has said a prayer for the victims.

** A moment of silence please **




Thank you.

Dana's right.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Your ban is the equivalent of book burning. Video games don't cause murder. Why try a drastic measure with no supporting evidence? Why not just ban underwear for 5 years? Killers wear underwear. How do you justify this ban and support the second amendment at the same time? What, "guns don't kill people, video games do."?

It's hypocrisy, i_t. These are the examples of hypocrisy I have been pointing out all over the forum.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's hypocrisy, i_t. These are the examples of hypocrisy I have been pointing out all over the forum.

I know. I've seen. But TOT likes him.:lol:

 

[1069]

Dana's right.

Not really.
The religious among us have no doubt already said their "prayer"... without the need to make a big spectacle of their faith by posting that they are now having "a moment of silence" in order to say a prayer.
Obviously, if you're typing "a moment of silence, please", you are not praying, you are typing.

It is my perhaps naive assumption that believers instinctively and instantaneously "say a prayer", whether silently or not, when they learn of something so tragic, the way I still reflexively cross myself, when I do (but without having to pompously post "A moment of silence, please, whilst I cross myself: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.")

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Not really.
The religious among us have no doubt already said their "prayer"... without the need to make a big spectacle of their faith by posting that they are now having "a moment of silence" in order to say a prayer.
Obviously, if you're typing "a moment of silence, please", you are not praying, you are typing.

It is my perhaps naive assumption that believers instinctively and instantaneously "say a prayer", whether silently or not, when they learn of something so tragic, the way I still reflexively cross myself, when I do (but without having to pompously post "A moment of silence, please, whilst I cross myself: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.")

The spirit of dana's post is something I have done in the past, and I agree with it. Instead of commenting on this tragedy, at all, the insipid sillyness has started. Perhaps the believers amongst us have already said a prayer, but what dana's post does is point out the tragedy of this situation, if even for a moment, while some of us then move on to the debate at hand.

 

[Thorgasm]

Not really.
The religious among us have no doubt already said their "prayer"... without the need to make a big spectacle of their faith by posting that they are now having "a moment of silence" in order to say a prayer.
Obviously, if you're typing "a moment of silence, please", you are not praying, you are typing.

It is my perhaps naive assumption that believers instinctively and instantaneously "say a prayer", whether silently or not, when they learn of something so tragic, the way I still reflexively cross myself, when I do (but without having to pompously post "A moment of silence, please, whilst I cross myself: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.")

I think a moment of silence as a gesture of respect for the deceased is ok. That's what this atheist does.

 

[1069]

The spirit of dana's post is something I have done in the past, and I agree with it. Instead of commenting on this tragedy, at all, the insipid sillyness has started. Perhaps the believers amongst us have already said a prayer, but what dana's post does is point out the tragedy of this situation, if even for a moment, while some of us then move on to the debate at hand.

I'm not persuaded.
The OP was posted nearly five hours ago.
It's not as if we're debating and conversing in real time.
I think Dana's just being a hypocri-pious twit.
Anyway, there. We've had our "moment of silence".
Let the debate commence.

 

[danarhea]

Not really.
The religious among us have no doubt already said their "prayer"... without the need to make a big spectacle of their faith by posting that they are now having "a moment of silence" in order to say a prayer.
Obviously, if you're typing "a moment of silence, please", you are not praying, you are typing.

It is my perhaps naive assumption that believers instinctively and instantaneously "say a prayer", whether silently or not, when they learn of something so tragic, the way I still reflexively cross myself, when I do (but without having to pompously post "A moment of silence, please, whilst I cross myself: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.")

1) Actually, when I posted my moment of silence, I did bow my head and say a prayer. What was wrong with that?

2) I did not expect everyone else to bow their heads and pray, because I know that not everyone here considers themselves to be a Christian. That is why I said a moment of silence, so as not to offend atheists, and those of other religions.

3) There was nothing pompous about it. It was out respect for those who died today. You don't know me, but you make one hell of an offensive assumption about me, and yes, I am offended.

4) Once again, you don't know me, so either accept what I said, or don't accept it. Frankly, I don't give a damn, one way or the other. I said my piece on the matter, and am not ashamed.

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm not persuaded.
The OP was posted nearly five hours ago.
It's not as if we're debating and conversing in real time.
I think Dana's just being a hypocri-pious twit.
Anyway, there. We've had our "moment of silence".
Let the debate commence.

You should really remove that stick from your butt. Dang girl!

 

[1069]

Actually, when I posted my moment of silence, I did bow my head an say a prayer. What was wrong with that.

Wow. Quite the little multi-tasker, aren't you?
Pretty impressive.

I said my piece on the matter, and am not ashamed.

Well, you ought to be.
True believers of any legitimate faith do not make spectacles of themselves, especially in mixed company.
It's vulgar and uncouth.

 

[bhkad]

I am surprised that nobody has said a prayer for the victims.

** A moment of silence please **

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

I pray without any need for a 'call to prayers.'



Thankyouverymuch, Imam dana.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm not persuaded.
The OP was posted nearly five hours ago.
It's not as if we're debating and conversing in real time.
I think Dana's just being a hypocri-pious twit.
Anyway, there. We've had our "moment of silence".
Let the debate commence.

If it didn't harm you in any way, then why not just let it go. Some, here have different beliefs than you. And I find no reason for your offensive comment towards Dana except to be offensive.

 

[danarhea]

Wow. Quite the little multi-tasker, aren't you?
Pretty impressive.



Well, you ought to be.
True believers of any legitimate faith do not make spectacles of themselves, especially in mixed company.
It's vulgar and uncouth.

It's not vulgar to ask that people give a little respect to the dead, that is all.

However, since you had to make an assumption that I am a twit, I will therefore make an assumption about you. You don't give a damn about anything, and the people who died today are passingly interesting to you, to the extent that you can win an argument with bhkad. I get p!ssed at people for trying to tell me how moral people should be, there is a kind of person who is worse, and that is an amoral person - In this case, you.

Now don't get mad. After all, I based what I said on an assumption of you. That's right, I don't know you either, but if you can judge me, then I sure the hell can judge you too. Court is adjourned.:mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

Thank you for that.

I pray without any need for a 'call to prayers.'



Thankyouverymuch, Imam dana.

Right on time with the jihad reference. If I pee my pants in fright will you go away?

 

[Thorgasm]

Wow. Quite the little multi-tasker, aren't you?
Pretty impressive.



Well, you ought to be.
True believers of any legitimate faith do not make spectacles of themselves, especially in mixed company.
It's vulgar and uncouth.

Criticizing someone for showing respect for the dead is vulgar and uncouth. From your posts I doubt you even know what couth is.

 

[bhkad]

So how about it bhkad, since guns were the weapons used, here, how about banning them for 5 years and seeing if this type of violence goes down, and if it does, the ban stays. Or do you have no consistency with your position?

2nd Amendment.

And before you get on your high horse and knee-jerkily respond, "1st Amendment," just keep in mind that MY idea is less radical than what is being proposed.

But go ahead and object to reasonable measures.

I'll just smile when the more drastic ones are enacted and you fellers are permanently de-gamed!

:mrgreen::2wave:

As a courtesy:

Could FCC’s Move to Regulate T.V. Violence Affect Video Games?

In a story that may have implications for the video game violence debate, the Associated Press reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) believes the government may be able to regulate televised violence in a manner that does not violate free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

While the FCC has no authority over video game content, it is forseeable that the agency’s idea for Congress to regulate T.V. violence could lead to similar legislation involving video game. From the AP story:

The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example…

Citing studies, the draft says there is evidence that violent programming can lead to “short-term aggressive behavior in children,” according to an agency source, who asked not to be identified because the commission has not yet approved the report.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (left), a Democrat, told the AP:

The pressure to do something on this is building right now. People really feel strongly about this issue all across this land. This is not a red state or a blue state issue.

GamePolitics.com » Blog Archive » Could FCC’s Move to Regulate T.V. Violence Affect Video Games?

See, the time is going to come when, in trying to keep ALL your vices you lose them all.

What you should consider is giving up on all but the most important one.

God in society?

Videogames?

Abortion?

Gay marriage?

Which one is MOST dear to you?

 

[1069]

If it didn't harm you in any way, then why not just let it go. Some, here have different beliefs than you. And I find no reason for your offensive comment towards Dana except to be offensive.

Oh, yeah?
Has bkhad already managed to pass his law "banning atheism"?
Are we now forced to pray in this forum?
I think making spectacles of one's alleged peity is the height of bad taste, especially when one is in mixed company and extols others to join one.

This is a debate forum, not a prayer circle.
I see no reason why I should have my debates interrupted by demands that I stop debating and pray.
If I choose to pray, that's my business, and I won't bother to take out an ad in the paper about it; I would think all right-thinking people would do well to follow my example.
If I'm that out of line, give me infraction points and ban me from the friggin thread.
If not, quit dog-piling and get off of me. You're too heavy.

 

[1069]

What you should consider is giving up on all but the most important one.

God in society?

Videogames?

Abortion?

Gay marriage?

Which one is MOST dear to you?

Ooh, jeez, that's a tough one.
I guess I'll give up.. ermm... God in society.
From this day forward, there will be no more God.
There will still, however, be video games.
And abortions, for them what wants them.
And Eggos, with blueberry syrup, for them what don'ts.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Oh, yeah?
Has bkhad already managed to pass his law "banning atheism"?
Are we now forced to pray in this forum?
I think making spectacles of one's alleged peity is the height of bad taste, especially when one is in mixed company and extols others to join one.

This is a debate forum, not a prayer circle.
I see no reason why I should have my debates interrupted by demands that I stop debating and pray.
If I choose to pray, that's my business, and I won't bother to take out an ad in the paper about it; I would think all right-thinking people would do well to follow my example.
If I'm that out of line, give me infraction points and ban me from the friggin thread.
If not, quit dog-piling and get off of me. You're too heavy.

Firstly, I am dealing with you as a poster, not a mod. If you want the reverse, you know the things you can do to get thread-banned or infracted. I'd hope you wouldn't, but you're smart enough to make that choice. Secondly, the debate was not interrupted. When I see a post that I do not want to read, I don't read it. I also don't address every post in a thread. Neither do you. Thirdly, in no way was a demand made to pray. I saw no 'order'. It was a request. You had no obligation to comply, and it disrupted you, only in the way that you allowed it. Lastly, I see no reason for this to continue. It's done. A request was made. You didn't like it. Others didn't like your comments. I am asking all to cease this line of discussion. This thread is going south pretty quick; I'd prefer it didn't.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

My family got really lucky with this. My brother is currently serving at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and stays with a sponsor family on the weekend that attends this church. He had left the church only minutes before the shooting occurred and had to return to the church to pick up the family who had stayed behind to work with the pastoral staff.

This thread has been quite revealing of the personal bigotry some members of this forum possess. It's really disheartening, my prayers go out to all the families affected by this terrible tragedy.

 

[1069]

It was a request. You had no obligation to comply, and it disrupted you, only in the way that you allowed it. Lastly, I see no reason for this to continue. It's done. A request was made. You didn't like it. Others didn't like your comments. I am asking all to cease this line of discussion.

Um, well, frankly, I was just going to ignore it the way I would a fart in church, until you chose to interrupt the debate yet again, to second it.
I trust I've preempted the trend at this point, and we won't have three dozen more consecutive posters piping up requesting "moments of silence" for prayer.
In fact, I keep trying to go on with the debate. So does bkhad.
The rest of you folks seem to still be spinning your wheels.
When you're ready to debate once again, you're free to catch up.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, at least you answered. Most refuse and drop off the thread like sheep in a slaughter. For that I will give you credit.

2nd Amendment.

And before you get on your high horse and knee-jerkily respond, "1st Amendment," just keep in mind that MY idea is less radical than what is being proposed.

But go ahead and object to reasonable measures.

I'll just smile when the more drastic ones are enacted and you fellers are permanently de-gamed!

Personally, I play no video games and have no interest in them. I also have, recently, treated those with a video game addiction, so I am not a fan.

However, your Second Amendment argument is irrelevant. And I wasn't going to bring up the First Amendment, but it does apply. You are talking about removing personal responsibility from the issue. 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people is the same as 'Atheism doesn't kill people, people don't kill people'. And your position on radical and reasonable is personal opinion, not fact. For some, their belief system mean a whole lot more to them than whether they can own a gun or not. And no, the gun does not protect that. Unless thought control has occurred, I can, to myself, believe whatever I want, and even if you point a gun at me, you cannot change that.

Further my gun ban makes more sense in your examples than either of yours. Who was the last person that was killed, directly from a video game? Hmmm...I don't remember any being hit with a cd of WOW, lately, do you? And how exactly do you throw, stab, or shoot atheism? Seems like an abstract concept. Now I am not saying that there isn't an indirect cause, however, there are direct causes with gun usage. Direct.

Sorry, your position remains hypocritical. Either all apply, since the parameters are the same, or none do.

See, the time is going to come when, in trying to keep ALL your vices you lose them all.

What you should consider is giving up on all but the most important one.

God in society?

Videogames?

Abortion?

Gay marriage?

Which one is MOST dear to you?

I have no idea what you are getting at, but this seems like a separate thread topic.

 

[DeeJayH]

I propose, those who choose, to take a moment of silence in rememberance of the victims of these incidents

 

[Thorgasm]

Um, well, frankly, I was just going to ignore it the way I would a fart in church, until you chose to interrupt the debate yet again, to second it.
I trust I've preempted the trend at this point, and we won't have three dozen more consecutive posters piping up requesting "moments of silence" for prayer.
In fact, I keep trying to go on with the debate. So does bkhad.
The rest of you folks seem to still be spinning your wheels.
When you're ready to debate once again, you're free to catch up.

Sorry, hon, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Who is keeping you from debating with bhkad? Tell him how ludicrous he is. I already did.