Murdered for being an Atheist

I'm just thankful he didn't strap on a boom vest and walk into a mall.

Oh, wait. Wrong religion.

Or, God forbid, try to blow up an abortion clinic......

Yeah, you gotta watch out for those dangerous clinic bombers. They've managed to average taking out a clinic worker about every half decade or so.

A person has more chance of dying from choking on gum.

A person has more chance of dying from choking on gum.

Not that what you said is correct, but even if it were, what's your point? That it makes it OK?

Hmm, I wonder what the body count would be if we had the historical statistics on the number of people killed in the name of the christian god?

Referring to statistics or odds is not an advocation for or a condemnation against anything, so the questions is rhetorical.

If anyone really does require some statistics on choking deaths, they can be found here.

Deaths from choking and suffocation ranked fourth among unintentional home injury fatalities. One-third of the home fatalities due to choking or suffocation were associated with food...

Historical statistics from the last centuries or two would show those damn godless commies to be the "winners" of this rather pointless contest.

because of their godlessness or their commieness?

godlessness & comminess :-)

... they were commies because they were Godless.

and the sent millions who wouldn't abandon their religion (especially in the baltic states)to their deaths in their own version of Death Camps, killed clergy and turned churches into museums... or just burnt them down.

because of their godlessness or their commieness?

Both are to blame honestly.

I guess I'm confused. First, how it got off topic to abortion clinic bombings. Second, to how Kooze managed to act as though the bombing of said clinic isn't a big deal because it may not kill many people, and then tries to act as though he passe response on choking on gum was actually flattering to the abortion bombings.

Theres a large difference between choking (on gum) and having someone who thinks you're godless and immoral blow up your place of work.

Sorry, I was a volunteer counselor in a pregnancy clinic once. I don't take the ''joke'' lightly.

For what it's worth, indecent, his "gum" example undercuts his argument anyway. You are also likelier to choke on gum (or be hit by lightning) than be the victim of a terrorist attack involving an explosive vest if you're living in the US.

For what it's worth, the only reason Koozebane thinks there's a difference between violent Muslim extremists and violent Christian extremists is because he lives a sheltered life, and isn't interested in Christian violence-- nor does American media really cover it from the perspective of its Christian roots. But face it, if you're going to mention muslim terrorists, you open up for consideration the entire world of Christian terrorism, e.g. Northern Ireland, or God's Army (not to be confused with the Army of God), or the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda, as just a few examples. Christian nutjobs in America are catching up with Muslim extremists on the car bombing front, though. Luckily, they're still really, really bad at it.

Do I think some people make a big deal out of abortion clinic bombings? Yes.

Do they do it because it's a huge threat to the public in general? No.

Is it merely a politically charged minor social problem? Yes.

Is it right? No.

Should we dwell on one single statement in this thread and dissect it in every way imaginable in an attempt to wring every possible negative meaning out of it we can? Go ahead. It's amusing for some of us to watch.

The exact same can be said of this murder.

Can a big deal be made of it? Yes

Is it a threat to the public in general? No.

Is a "merely" a politically charged problem? Yes.

Is it right? No.

So should we simply not seed these types?

It's a shame. It's weird as hell. It's news.

Is it reason to bicker and argue over 'oo killed 'oo?

I think not.

You're right, Kooze, we should totally ignore bombings, arson, murders, death threats, acid attacks, harassment, and faux anthrax letters in order to justify your off-the-cuff knee-jerk reaction to Christian violence. Do you ever intend to add anything useful to these conversations? I'm curious.

Minor social problem? Sure, that's why the government began using RICO to prosecute violent protesters-- because the problem was so minor.

Should we dwell on one single statement in this thread and dissect it in every way imaginable in an attempt to wring every possible negative meaning out of it we can? Nope, just yours. Shall I wring more, or should I just stick with the totally obvious negative meanings?

It's amusing for some of us to watch. You're amused, you mean. Meanwhile the rest of us are edified.

What the hell is wrong with being glad it wasn't worse? Idiots shoot their friends all the time for really stupid reasons. This ended up being one of those occasions.

Religious extremists these days DO kill dozens of people at a time. Shooters go on rampages in public places. I'm glad it wasn't one of those times.

I think it's time to unpucker the sphincters a bit and dwell on something other than one single statement.

There are definitely several people in this thread looking for arguments.

There are definitely a few people in this thread cracking jokes and having fun.

I believe it's very easy to tell one attitude from the other. 'Nuff said.

There are definitely several people in this thread looking for arguments. I'll be as argumentative as you want me to be.

There are definitely a few people in this thread cracking jokes and having fun. I wonder if we'd agree on which are which?

I believe it's very easy to tell one attitude from the other. I don't find people who discount one brand of violence as unimportant because another brand is worse and then try to pass the whole thing off as an amusing aside very humorous. Especially after the "just kidding" only comes after your "joke" has been shown to be totally off-base.

But that's ok, now that we both agree your initial few posts were so much hot air, let's be friends!

I don't have to be friendly to adversarial, assuming basement dwellers with WAY too much time on their hands who want to blame everyone else for their anal obsession with imaginary minutia.

I just reported you comment as inflammatory.

From what I've seen of your comments since you've been here on the vine, this is pretty much your style. Throw out little zingers like "I'm just thankful he didn't strap on a boom vest and walk into a mall. Oh, wait. Wrong religion".... and then get offended and defensive at the backlash. Maybe you should make relevant comments instead of snide jokes?

I see I'm not the only one using the ! button.....

Zinger? You gotta be kidding.

I'm glad this religious nut didn't kill more people. If you don't appreciate that, don't look at me.

I'm not taking responsibility for the utterly ridiculous off topic crap that's been brought up in some dim attempt to make my comments into something they're not.

And the skins are pretty frickin' thin around here. We sure have a lot of gun slingers wanting to posture out in the street over the stupidest issues, but when it comes down to taking a little heat....the real nature of all the 'tough guys' really comes out.

Delete the posts. Punch your little buttons. All of my statements are accurate. It doesn't matter if they agree with the delicate sensibilities around here or not.

Zinger? You gotta be kidding.

No, I wasn't kidding. Maybe I should have said .....poor attempt at zingers...

And the skins are pretty frickin' thin around here.

No, actually, most people here got tired of of places like Digg where abrasive characters such as yourself abound and came to Newsvine because of the civility. We like civility. If it turns "thick skinned" on us, many will move on....

Delete the posts. Punch your little buttons. All of my statements are accurate. It doesn't matter if they agree with the delicate sensibilities around here or not.

The "little buttons" as you put it were put there by the Newsvine creators as tools for us to use to keep this place civil. Would you have us ignore them and and allow abrasive comments to go unchallenged when we were given the tools to prevent such comments?

All "delicate sensibilities" aside, the bottom line here is.. piss enough people off, and your comments disappear. That really is a waste of time for the commenter. And all the whining about thin skin won't change the way Newsvine works in the least.....

Whine, adapt, or move on... so many choices...

Nah, didn't answer the question again. Imagine that. Your question has been answered several times; preemptively, even. But I can lay it out for you, if you need more details. You ask the question What is wrong with being glad it wasn't wose? The answer is "nothing." Sadly, that wasn't the purpose of your post, was it? Because if it had been, you could simply have said "Gee, I sure am glad it wasn't worse!" No, instead your comments have followed this pattern:

• compare the incident to islamic terrorism, as if to discount the importance of the incident
• When someone brings up abortion clinic bombers as an example of homegrown religious zealots that engage in wholesale violence, discount the importance of that violence by claiming (incorrectly) those dangerous clinic bombers... managed to average taking out a clinic worker about every half decade or so
• follow that up by claiming that choking on gum represents a bigger danger
• defend that claim by referring to the statistics, as if that discounts clinic violence somehow
• When confronted with ample evidence of Christian terrorism, stay focused on the abortion issue, calling it a minor social problem, and then complain that too much attention is being paid to your post, and that this article is no reason to bicker over 'oo killed 'oo
• When asked why, if this article is no reason to bicker over who killed whom, respond with "I'm only glad it wasn't worse" and "I was just making a joke."

So. Again. If all you meant to say was that you were glad it wasn't worse, why didn't you simply say that? Why bring up islamic terrorism, discount christian terrorism, underplay the significance of abortion clinic violence, dismiss the statistical significance of said violence, and only after being called to task for those efforts claim innocent intent? Note that I'm not talking about what you meant to say, but about what you, in fact, did say. To use your words, justify your attitudes. Don't blame them on me.

As far as deleted posts, if vassleer deleted a post that he thought was attacking me, I thank him for the effort, but I'm in no need of "protection." I came from a forum that was far less civil than Newsvine, and I doubt that anything you could say to me would be worse than comments I've read elsewhere. I've got no problem with a little anger mixed in with the dialogue-- it indicates the speaker is passionate about what they're saying, and I tend to view passion in one's beliefs as a good thing. But I understand if vassleer's motivation was to spare everyone else who might not like that sort of thing the irritation of having to view it in what, ultimately, is meant to be a civil conversation.

You have an inordinately thin skin in that, whenever someone calls you to task for making poorly thought out statements, counterfactual claims, or just plain insulting posts, you suddenly begin talking about how "centrist" you are, how "above it all" you are, and how everyone else is simply too thin-skinned to understand your truly special brand of comments. I might point out to you that the consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships on Newsvine is you. You might want to take a few moments to consider whether the responses that you're getting are the result of the stimulus that you're providing-- not so much the viewpoint as your method of expression.

For my part, I fully expect that when you trot out your cogent little asides you should be able to defend them. If you can't, you probably shouldn't make them in the first place. Blaming everyone else for being "thin-skinned", claiming it was all a joke, and declaiming your innocence after the fact isn't a suitable substitute for knowing what the hell you're talking about.

I'd disagree with Jim Dent, your choices are adapt or move on. Those are really the only two choices you have. Because I have a feeling that the whining and the snide comments are probably going to experience a significant uptick in the number of times they're deleted or collapsed. People seem to be tired of your style of "discourse."

Let's look at it this way, Kooze -

5 different people say you offended them and they don't think your participation to the conversation was at all relevant. The author of the piece is deleting your comments for personal attacks.

And yet, you're the only one who's right. The rest of us, of course, are downright wrong and just don't have a sense of humor.

Right.

Five whole people on all of Newsvine can't handle the truth in this one little thread.

Five whole people on all of Newsvine can't handle having their cooked up issues, empty posturing and whiny analysis trashed for the bunk that it is.

Five whole people think this is a popularity contest and majority makes right.

Yeah, that's about par for the course.

As usual, your comments are rife with assumptions and inaccuracies, Kooze...

Five whole people on all of Newsvine can't handle the truth in this one little thread. 1. Wow, vassleer got all of Newsvine to visit this thread?
2. What makes you think that the five of us that point out your bull@!$%# aren't speaking for a number of people who don't feel they have to-- you know, since it's already been publicly voiced?
3. What's this "truth" that we apparently can't handle? That you throw out tendentious asides that don't add anything to the discussion? The truth of that is well-documented, and while we can "handle" it, it wears pretty thin after a while. Or are you speaking about something else?

Five whole people on all of Newsvine can't handle having their cooked up issues, empty posturing and whiny analysis trashed for the bunk that it is. I think you miscounted there, big guy. One person on this thread can't handle having his cooked up issues, empty posturing and whiny analysis dismantled and shown for garbage-- you. Or would you care to point out where you analyzed or proved anything in this thread? No? Well there you go-- exactly why you're being spanked.

Five whole people think this is a popularity contest and majority makes right. I think quite a few more people than that think it, but it doesn't necessarily make it right. On the other hand, that your "analysis" is so seriously flawed is pretty evident, and the fact that a minority (you) think it isn't doesn't make your "analysis" correct. Sort of the reverse of the appeal to popularity, isn't it? In other words, whether your assertions are popular or not has nothing to do with how wrong they are.

Yeah, that's about par for the course. As usual, you drop by, throw out some useless offensive comment, try to defend it, then wind up complaining about how misunderstood you are, and how it's obviously the fault of everyone around you rather than being endemic to your style and personality. Yeah, that IS about par for the course. We've come, through experience, to expect nothing more from you.

Allow me to reiterate-- the consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships on Newsvine is you. You might want to take a few moments to consider whether the responses that you're getting are the result of the stimulus that you're providing-- not so much the viewpoint as your method of expression.

So, unless you have something else to say...

I haven't read a word of your editorials for quite some time now. Your responses seem to make you out as a liar. But even if it were true, so what? You're just saying I have a free hand to point out your flaws unopposed. More good news for me and everyone else who might mistake you as having something cogent to say. Swim in your own little Koozebane echo chamber if you like, but unlike you I don't ignore anyone, and I plan to continue to point out bad arguments wherever I find them, including yours.

Bub.

Dear iarnuocon...

I could not agree with you more. All of your comments to Mr Koozebane reflect my impression of Mr Koozebane too...and not just from this dicussion.

Poisoning someone's column, like peeing in someone's well... is about as low as it can get.

I am sorry that this is the best that Mr Koozebane seems to be able to do. But it appears... from my experience... that sadly... it is.

Here's an idea, and it's one that works REALLY well on children... just ignore him.

That's right, ignore Koozebane and he/she will eventually go away. If no one responds to his/her clearly antagonistic comments then he/she won't get the gratification that he/she is looking for.

So in the sweet dulcet tones of Lisa Simpson... "Just don't look!!!"

Hi everybody...

I found a button that is democratic and open to everyone who want to use it. It is the "!" button by the comment. There you can say how you want to categorize the comment.

I am going back to wherever this person has plagued me. and any one else unfairly... and I am going to click it and categorize it.

Wanna help? You too.. Mr Koozebane.

I WILL defend myself as long as the personal attacks and snide remarks continue and I will NOT be very nice about it. Hmmm... It's interesting that people criticising your comments are characterised as "personally attacking you." In the meantime, rather than focus on the arguments being made in opposition to your remarks, you focused on characterizing your opponents as humorless, anally-obsessed, thin-skinned, puckered sphincter basement dwellers with too much time on their hands and delicate sensibilities, cooking up issues and posturing in the street. Somehow, instead of recognizing that these are simply ad hominem attacks, you feel this constitutes a "trashing" of your opponents' "whiny analyses" and is in no way a "ridiculous over-reaction." In defending your assertions, your only comment is "All of my statements are accurate." Sure, they are.

Yeah, you're being "personally attacked." Sure, it's everyone who disagrees with you who is thin-skinned and over-reacting. Absolutely, those of us who focused on the errors of your statements have "delicate sensibilities."

And of course, we can't handle the truth.

Now, maybe you'd like to get back to the business of justifying your attitude that Christian religious violence is incosenquential and safely ignored in the face of the terrorist threat in the Middle East?

I recommend you hens hit the gossip fence in some other thread and find another way to amuse yourselves. Nah, I'm finding your contortions and imminent implosion plenty entertaining. I think I'll stick around for the finale. What's the topper? We attacked Christmas and burned the flag?

Um...what was the OP again?