Four Shot Outside Teddy Haggard's Church

articulett said:
Strawman inference. He was referring to the ghastliness of a woman thanking god publicly for sparing her in front of equally fervent believers whose loved one's god didn't spare.
Click to expand...
So what do you think Joe meant by "they need a dose of reality"? Seeing people gunned down before their very eyes isn't "a dose of reality"? I ask you because he gets very quiet whenever I ask him what he meant when he said some people should be "banned" and he gets very quiet whenever I ask him if he really thinks some people shouldn't be allowed to speak and he doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to reply to me here either.
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
So what do you think Joe meant by "they need a dose of reality"? Seeing people gunned down before their very eyes isn't "a dose of reality"? I ask you because he gets very quiet whenever I ask him what he meant when he said some people should be "banned" and he gets very quiet whenever I ask him if he really thinks some people shouldn't be allowed to speak and he doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to reply to me here either.
Click to expand...

I think he was responding to skeptics talking in a manner like this. We should be free to do so without having our own pretend to have moral superiority and treating us as if we were the ones saying inane things about god sparing us in front of those whose loved ones weren't spared. You infer all kinds of nastiness and ill intent to what we're saying on a skeptics forum.

We are not the ones shooting people, saying they deserved it, thanking god for sparing us while letting others die. We are not the ones looking away as if faith has nothing to do with the nuttiness before nor are we the ones spinning the tragedy confabulating stories that always make god and faith and the faithful look good and humble and everything a secularists says or does or laughs at or comments on evil in comparison.

We are not the ones coming to threads inferring that we have more taste than others--and that we are more righteous and dignified-- You infer an integrity that others supposedly lack but exhibit no evidence of that integrity. We wouldn't seek your opinion on integrity.

We weren't the ones making people feel judged... that would be you. We weren't making straw men and casting inferences about the ill intent of forum members-- that would be you. We were noting, with irony, the way these things always turn out. I just forgot to predict the self appointed JREF vigilantes who would appear on this forum to keep those durn atheists in line so that they don't offend the blessed faithful who might happen upon their words.

You imagine we would care about your opinion of us more than you care about our opinion of you. You are the one making stawmen and inferences to accuse Joe of having motives he doesn't have while revealing the hypocritical ugly motives behind your holier than thou pretend "high road".

The fact that you can infer such things or conclude such things over the words actually uttered is grotesque, frankly. Nobody said anything about any one deserving to be shot. Your inference was way more offensive to me and others I imagine than anything any of us said about the members of Ted Haggards church. Plus, you said it where it could knowingly hurt people. Our words are unlikely to be read by shooting survivors and the theists praising god. Joe was just saying that they would deserve their hurt feelings if they did read these words. It might make them wake up and see how they sound. A lot liike you, actually. Totally unaware of how their confirmation bias creepily shades everything they say.

God=good (completely ignore anything that isn't deferential to the notion that faith is good and everything good is part of god)

Atheists=bad (multiply deed by 1000 and add the word strident, militant and exclamation points)

And don't let those durn atheist feel any sense of camaraderie without tsk tsking them.

Yes-- you can avoid believing but it's hard to get rid of the meme infection once you've nursed your self righteousness in it for some time.

ETA-- Joe WAS commenting on the quote in my post. Your words are biased conclusions are much more shameful than what he said. You're the one who needs to show some integrity and apologize.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
You infer all kinds of nastiness and ill intent to what we're saying on a skeptics forum.
Click to expand...
You keep saying "infer" here when you mean "imply," and "inference" when you mean "implication."

We are not the ones looking away as if faith has nothing to do with the nuttiness
Click to expand...
Huh? This guy went out and shot people because of his faith?

before nor are we the ones spinning the tragedy confabulating stories that always make god and faith and the faithful look good and humble and everything a secularists says or does or laughs at or comments on evil in comparison.
Click to expand...
:confused:

We are not the ones coming to threads inferring that we have more taste than others
Click to expand...
You mean "implying."

--and that we are more righteous and dignified-- You infer an integrity that others supposedly lack but exhibit no evidence of that integrity. We wouldn't seek your opinion on integrity.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I offered it.

We weren't the ones making people feel judged... that would be you.
Click to expand...
*shrug* I never feel judged unless I think I've done something wrong. Do you think you've done something wrong?

We weren't making straw men and casting inferences about the ill intent of forum members-- that would be you. We were noting, with irony, the way these things always turn out.
Click to expand...
The way they always turn out? What do you mean? That it's always a disaffected churchgoer who takes up his gun and slays? Or that it's always people in church that get slaughtered?

I just forgot to predict the self appointed JREF vigilantes who would appear on this forum to keep those durn atheists in line so that they don't offend the blessed faithful who might happen upon their words.
Click to expand...
:confused:

You imagine we would care about your opinion of us more than you care about our opinion of you.
Click to expand...
As someone on this forum once said, "What other people think of me is absolutely none of my business."

You are the one making strawmen
Click to expand...
You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
and inferences to accuse Joe of having motives he doesn't have
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what Joe thinks from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

while revealing the hypocritical ugly motives behind your holier than thou pretend "high road".
Click to expand...
And what might those hypocritical ugly motives be?

The fact that you can infer such things or conclude such things over the words actually uttered is grotesque, frankly. Nobody said anything about any one deserving to be shot.
Click to expand...
Not in so many words. But a reasonable person could certainly infer (note proper use of the word) that from what he wrote, which is why I asked him for clarification - which does not seem to be forthcoming.

Your inference was way more offensive to me and others I imagine than anything any of us said about the members of Ted Haggards church. Plus, you said it where it could knowingly hurt people. Our words are unlikely to be read by shooting survivors and the theists praising god. Joe was just saying that they would deserve their hurt feelings if they did read these words.
Click to expand...
Is that what he was saying? How do you know this? Has he PM'd you?

It might make them wake up and see how they sound. A lot liike you, actually. Totally unaware of how their confirmation bias creepily shades everything they say.
Click to expand...
:confused:

God=good (completely ignore anything that isn't deferential to the notion that faith is good and everything good is part of god)

Atheists=bad (multiply deed by 1000 and add the word strident, militant and exclamation points)
Click to expand...
I guess there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere...

And don't let those durn atheist feel any sense of camaraderie without tsk tsking them.
Click to expand...
Feel camaraderie by taking some collective grim satisfaction in the misery of others? You may have noticed I'm not the only one who's observed that. If a lot of people perceive your attitude as such, maybe you haven't expressed yourself as clearly as you might.

Yes-- you can avoid believing but it's hard to get rid of the meme infection once you've nursed your self righteousness in it for some time.
Click to expand...
:confused:
ETA-- Joe WAS commenting on the quote in my post. Your words are biased conclusions are much more shameful than what he said. You're the one who needs to show some integrity and apologize.
Click to expand...
Even if I thought an apology was due, I think he has me on ignore. Such is life. I shall have to drown my sorrows in an alcoholic malt beverage.
 
articulett said:
I think he was responding to skeptics talking in a manner like this. ...
ETA-- Joe WAS commenting on the quote in my post.
Click to expand...
And your quote was from a believer who saw it happen. I highly doubt Joe meant that this woman's "dose of reality" was people criticizing her on the internet.

Hey, I got pi$$ed when I heard the other officer on the Today show this morning talk about Christ and all. I wanted to yell at him, "So, God saved you, but not those that died?!? (Rule8) You!!!"

But you're going a little too far here...
 
Go back and read the what he was replying to... and the commentary around it. I don't see any gloating or anyone wishing anyone was dead. The woman wasn't shot and didn't suffer a "dose of reality". She had a saving grace experience! You guys invent straw men. Perhaps you are gloaters who would like to see people dead-- I don't think any of those commenting on the situation are gloating or implying anything about people deserving to die. Maybe, self importance and irony deficiency go together. You make bad guys out of the wrong people while ignoring the the words of the faithful that do cause harm.

Joe wasn't commenting on them deserving death... he was commenting on those who were commenting on how rude we were all being after I pointed out the people we were talking about weren't likely to see this. He clearly meant that it might help them to see what we were thinking--causing them to think. Those who think otherwise may be giving a clue as to their inner character regarding their motives and supposed gloating...

You guys are imagining things that are not there to pretend moral superiority you do not have. The "grim satisfaction" you posit... doesn't exist except in your heads. I think I've had my fill of CFLarsen-type tailchasing today.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Christian music makes me feel like killing people. Or at least smashing their radios.
Click to expand...
Coming from anyone else on this forum, even such stalwart atheists as Tony and TheAtheist, I'd instantly assume that was intended as a joke.
 
No-- infer... you read what skeptics are posting and infer nastiness on their part that they were not implying. You continually to make wrong inferrences and then present them as straw men implying people said something they did not say. I accept your apology.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]INFER vs. IMPLY[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow] The best way to remember the difference between these two words is to think in terms of the model used by communications theorists. Communication consists of a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]message[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow], a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]sender[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow], and a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]receiver[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]. The [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]
sender[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow] can [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]imply[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow], but the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]receiver[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow] can only [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]infer[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]. The error that usually occurs is that the word [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]infer[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow] is mistakenly used for [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]imply[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]. [/FONT]

​
 
Last edited:
Police are now reporting the gunman took his own life.

The security guard scored multiple hits, and the gunman then shot himself.
 
I shall leave the self important to confer with each other because I can't make sense of them.

It isn't you Joe. It's not you Scrut. They are seeing stuff that isn't there and calling themselves heroes after they've pummeled their straw man version of the facts. Quaint.
 
Snide said:
I wanted to yell at him, "So, God saved you, but not those that died?!? (Rule8) You!!!"
Click to expand...
Hey, he spared me too! If he's allowing Christians to be gunned down, while leaving atheists free to write and engage in conversation, must be some kinda sign.
 
Daylight said:
Police are now reporting the gunman took his own life.

The security guard scored multiple hits, and the gunman then shot himself.
Click to expand...
Seemed like they were implying that this morning, when they started raising the question about whose shot had killed him. Still, she incapacitated him, and kept him out of range of anybody but himself.
 
bokonon said:
Seemed like they were implying that this morning, when they started raising the question about whose shot had killed him. Still, she incapacitated him, and kept him out of range of anybody but himself.
Click to expand...

That's probably best... she can still feel like a hero without feeling whatever guilt one might feel in killing someone. If I was her, that knowledge would make me feel better about having shot someone.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings

"God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

Apparently this nut-job posted his intentions online. Isn't it possibly that he also mentioned something to someone? Didn't anybody clue-in as to what this guy was all about???
 
Autolite said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer
verb (used with object) to hint; imply; suggest.

Whoa guys. "Dictionary.com" agrees with articulett here. Maybe we could ease up a little on this...
Click to expand...
Dictionary.com is wrong. See Strunk and White, The Elements of Style:

Imply. Infer. Not interchangeable. Something implied is something suggested or indicated, though not expressed. Something inferred is something deduced from evidence on hand.
Farming implies early rising.
Since he was a farmer, we inferred that he got up early.​
Click to expand...
And don't you even think about disputing Strunk and White. That's E.B. White, the author of Charlotte's Web, who knew a little about correct usage. :biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom