Multiple victims in Michigan church shooting; church on fire

[Servus]

Ah yes, it's we who are steadfastly denying things and not you and your side who can provide absolutely zero evidence to support your point aside from your own, completely subjective, feelings. It's we, with our piles of data, who are living in a fantasy world and not you, with your entire perspective based solely on what the screen in front of you tells you.

Your nostalgia is nothing but a pat answer to a problem that your camp doesn't understand and for which it has developed no real answer.

That always brings us back to Orwell's 1984 - The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

One side goes by the increasing lawlessness and immortality they see and experience taking place. And the other side goes by charts they see on websites.

 

[JosephZ]

That always brings us back to Orwell's 1984 - The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

One side goes by the increasing lawlessness and immortality they see and experience taking place. And the other side goes by charts they see on websites.

The charts, like the ones below, are based on real world data. Your perception isn't based in reality.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Your perception isn't based in reality.

I wouldn't say that, precisely. Perceptions have a basis in reality, but they can easily be distorted by viewing only a very narrow slice of reality - looking at one neighborhood, or exclusively consuming media with a focused agenda, for example. It's like looking into a room through a crack in the door - you don't see the whole picture.

 

[durangodawood]

No. He supposed that religious instruction produced a more moral society.

More than what? Sure, it would produce a more moral society that no moral instruction.

He made no comparison to other eras. He may well have drawn from personal experience: he noted in his autobiography how he noted failings in himself and others after becoming, in his words, "a thorough deist." I don't think he brought that up with Paine, but while Franklin remained a deist, he urged religious instruction. All of which is considered anathema in our secular society.

Religious instruction is only anathema when the state provides it.

The Bill of Rights addressed only the Federal government, and ended with the 10th which stated anything left up in the air was left to the states. It wasn't until the Reconstruction period and the 14th or 15th Amendments (caffeine hasn't kicked in) , and then the 20th Century when these two amendments were used to extend Congress to state and local governments.

I think its unlikely that the non-establishment rationale behind the first amendment would have been abandoned when it came time to consider state constitutions. If the reasoning was solid, it should apply there too - as it does now.

The point of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was to prevent an official Church of the United States of America, like there was an official Church of England. This didn't prevent congress from granting relief on bibles imported by a US bible society, must likely because the bibles could be used by any Christian denomination and didn't promote one at the expense of others. It also didn't prevent church services in US Federal buildings. Jefferson attended one service the Sunday after penning his "wall of separation" letter to Danbury Baptists. All this wouldn't become verboten until ruled as such in the 20th Century.

Yes, back then the scope of legitimate religious differences seemed to be limited to squabbles within the family of Christian denominations. Thats clearly not a sufficient understanding for the protection of human liberty, as we now recognize..

 

[Servus]

The charts, like the ones below, are based on real world data.

View attachment 370833

Reality is limited to squiggly lines you find the internet. Do you apply that system to your belief in Christ as well? What do the squiggly lines tell us about God? Are they more reliable than what the writers of the Bible saw, heard and experienced?

Your perception isn't based in reality.

So the atheists tell me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Reality is limited to squiggly lines you find the internet. Do you apply that system to your belief in Christ as well? What do the squiggly lines tell us about God? Are they more reliable than what the writers of the Bible saw, heard and experienced?

So the atheists tell me.

Your reality would appear to be limited to what's fed to you by some rage baiting talking head you found on the internet.

One side goes by the increasing lawlessness and immortality they see and experience taking place.

While ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry your neighborhood got worse, but has your worldview factored in all the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of neighborhoods that have improved and gentrified over that time?

 

[durangodawood]

.....The language in and of itself is a stress. We can daily watch some prominent democrati call us all Nazis and fascists even after Charlie's death, they didn't ratchet down. The are still claiming ICE is the "gestapo" etc. It's not normal or sane in the first place, and it's not taking us to positive places no matter what way you slice it.

Why do you ignore the same and worse coming from prominent R's? The only reason I can think of is because of a need to make the "other side" out as particularly villainous. In that sense youd be part of the exact problem youre railing against.

 

[Servus]

Your reality would appear to be limited to what's fed to you by some rage baiting talking head you found on the internet.

How did you come to that conclusion when I've been saying reality is based on what one and many others see, hear and experience? How was reality determined before the squiggly lines on the internet came into existence?

While ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry your neighborhood got worse, but has your worldview factored in all the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of neighborhoods that have improved and gentrified over that time?

That just means wealthy corporations tore down ordinary people's low income homes in urban areas, and built condos for the rich - a lot of which are unoccupied. Is that really an improvement upon society? It just shifts the problem to another location and depletes affordable housing. It didn't used to be like that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How did you come to that conclusion when I've been saying reality is based on what one and many others see, hear and experience?

Because I don't believe for a second that your perception of crime and safety is based solely, or even primarily, on what you witness first hand. I don't believe that's true for the vast, vast majority of people.

How was reality determined before the squiggly lines on the internet came into existence?

Squiggly lines on paper.

That just means wealthy corporations tore down ordinary people's low income homes in urban areas, and built condos for the rich - a lot of which are unoccupied. Is that really an improvement upon society? It just shifts the problem to another location and depletes affordable housing.

None of that is true, but if you're intending to dress up as an basic leftist for Halloween, you're off to a good start.

 

[Servus]

Because I don't believe for a second that your perception of crime and safety is based solely, or even primarily, on what you witness first hand. I don't believe that's true for the vast, vast majority of people.

It's not just firsthand. It's based on hours of news and documentary footage and the eyewitness testimony of others I've seen, heard, and read. Like the incident that took place which is the topic of this thread. How do you know that happened? How do you determine that it is reality? Aren't we supposed to only go by what a squiggly line says about it instead?

Squiggly lines on paper.

Ah of course, that makes it tangible lol.

None of that is true

Elaborate.

but if you're intending to dress up as an basic leftist for Halloween, you're off to a good start.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not just firsthand.

No kidding, that's my point. You're believing an image of the world that's been constructed for you.

It's based on hours of news and documentary footage and the eyewitness testimony of others I've seen, heard, and read. Like the incident that took place which is the topic of this thread. How do you know that happened? How do you determine that it is reality? Aren't we supposed to only go by what a squiggly line says about it instead?

Nobody is denying that the event in the OP happened. It did. What I'm saying, and what you're failing to grasp is that it, and other events that have shaped your worldview, are not representative of reality.

To put it bluntly: You are being manipulated. Some of that is deliberate, because selling outrage is a lucrative business. Some of that is just incidental, because it's not really possible to even publish "news" in a way that gives a truly representative impression of society. By definition, things that are "newsworthy" are out of the norm.

What those "squiggly lines" are intended to do is show us the totality of what's going on, so that we can get past our own selection biases.

Elaborate.

Building more housing reduces upward pressure on housing prices. Having poor kids grow up in proximity to more affluent, more successful kids helps them do better in the future. Unless you're actually kicking people out of their homes (which often is not the case), gentrification is a good thing. The anti-gentrification propaganda I see typically comes from the low effort wings of the left who prefer to operate off vibes instead of data.

 

[Paulwat]

Awful. RIP to all the victims and condolences to all families and friends of those who died.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Why? That’s not going to be addressed either, it’s just another distraction.

A distraction from what?

 

[durangodawood]

Its just too easy to think that crime and human evil are skyrocketing because our friend the internet delivers and amplifies every single bad event for us like never before.

We need to at least attempt to get solid data if we want to discern possible trends. Our feelings about it all are not good enough for that purpose.

That said I do think there certain economic and environmental pressures building that are driving people at the growing margins to feel personally unsteady.

 

[Servus]

No kidding, that's my point. You're believing an image of the world that's been constructed for you.



Nobody is denying that the event in the OP happened. It did. What I'm saying, and what you're failing to grasp is that it, and other events that have shaped your worldview, are not representative of reality.

To put it bluntly: You are being manipulated. Some of that is deliberate, because selling outrage is a lucrative business. Some of that is just incidental, because it's not really possible to even publish "news" in a way that gives a truly representative impression of society. By definition, things that are "newsworthy" are out of the norm.

That's basically pure conspiracy theory. That it's all an elaborate manipulation hoax. I can't believe anything that I see and testimony I hear, because it's all fake news. Reality only exists within the data.

What those "squiggly lines" are intended to do is show us the totality of what's going on, so that we can get past our own selection biases.

But how was reality determined up until that technology existed? Why are you a Christian since there was only observation and perception available to testify to who Jesus is and what he did? If you're going to stick with only modern data technology is reliable in establishing reality, there's a whole lot of stuff you're going to have to give up believing in.

Building more housing reduces upward pressure on housing prices. Having poor kids grow up in proximity to more affluent, more successful kids helps them do better in the future. Unless you're actually kicking people out of their homes (which often is not the case), gentrification is a good thing. The anti-gentrification propaganda I see typically comes from the low effort wings of the left who prefer to operate off vibes instead of data.

Does gentrification cause displacement?

Yes, gentrification does cause displacement. It's a significant negative impact where rising property values and rents make neighborhoods unaffordable for long-term, lower-income residents, forcing them to move. This displacement can be direct (e.g., inability to pay increased rent) or indirect (e.g., social networks eroding, neighborhood feeling unfamiliar). Vulnerable groups, such as renters and people of color, are particularly susceptible to this process.

Does gentrification cause homelessness?

Yes, gentrification can contribute to homelessness by decreasing the supply of affordable housing, leading to evictions, raising living costs, and disproportionately displacing low-income residents, especially communities of color. While the link is complex, gentrification creates conditions where vulnerable populations are priced out of their neighborhoods, increasing their risk of housing instability and eventual homelessness.

Does gentrification harm the poor?

Yes, gentrification disproportionately harms the poor through displacement, increased living costs, loss of community and social networks, and the erosion of affordable housing and businesses that served the original residents. While there can be potential benefits like improved neighborhood safety and investment, these often do not outweigh the negative impacts for the poor, who are often forced to relocate to less desirable areas or face increasing instability.

I knew that already. But I suppose what I know is just more of the elaborate conspiracy to keep me from perceiving reality.

 

[JosephZ]

Police say no victims remain unaccounted for after shooting, fire at Michigan church

Authorities say everyone has been accounted for following a mass shooting and fire during Sunday service at a Michigan church.

Officials confirmed four people were killed and eight others were injured when a gunman drove his truck into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc, opened fire and set the building ablaze.

Police said two victims died from gunshot wounds, while two others were found inside the church.

 

[durangodawood]

That's basically pure conspiracy theory. That it's all an elaborate manipulation hoax.....

Its not manipulation at all. Its just a natural combination of corporations chasing revenue plus the way humans tend to reward shocking news with elevated clicks and attention.

Plus people tend to give alarming things more space in their own heads than good or stable things.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's basically pure conspiracy theory. That it's all an elaborate manipulation hoax. I can't believe anything that I see and testimony I hear, because it's all fake news. Reality only exists within the data.

It's not being constructed for you in the sense that it's some grand illusion a la The Truman Show. It's being constructed for you in the sense that they're just pumping you with content that keeps you engaged, i.e. "If it bleeds, it leads," and if you're not aware of the distorting effect that has, then you'll come away with faulty impressions of reality. That's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a description of how market incentives and human psychology interact.

But how was reality determined up until that technology existed?

People went off what they saw and heard, but that doesn't mean their perceptions were accurate. People thought the earth was the center of the universe until a few hundred years ago. It was a variation of those "squiggly lines" that showed them otherwise.

Why are you a Christian since there was only observation and perception available to testify to who Jesus is and what he did? If you're going to stick with only modern data technology is reliable in establishing reality, there's a whole lot of stuff you're going to have to give up believing in.

I didn't say that science could answer every question. It can't. But crime rates are a subject it can answer.

 

[Servus]

It's not being constructed for you in the sense that it's some grand illusion a la The Truman Show. It's being constructed for you in the sense that they're just pumping you with content that keeps you engaged, i.e. "If it bleeds, it leads," and if you're not aware of the distorting effect that has, then you'll come away with faulty impressions of reality. That's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a description of how market incentives and human psychology interact.

What I see being filmed all over the place, is the same as what I experience firsthand but it's all marketing. And that goes for everyone else that sees what they themselves are experiencing happening all over the the country. You can even go to google street views and see how bad it is. But that's all supposed to be bogus. It seems like it would be a lot harder to stage all that, than to put out graph based on who knows what. It's easy to skew data like that by being selective about what's entered. That's where data is factual, but not thorough enough.

People went off what they saw and heard, but that doesn't mean their perceptions were accurate. People thought the earth was the center of the universe until a few hundred years ago. It was a variation of those "squiggly lines" that showed them otherwise.

But we're talking about what people all over the nation are seeing and experiencing and filming it and talking about it. How do we know what the Civil War was like for example? Pictures, illustrations, and people who experienced it who talked about it. That's how you learn what the realities of the Civil War were. How about slavery and how black people were treated and Jim Crow laws the Civil Rights movement? What about the Jan 6th Capitol Building riot? You know all about these things the same way. Just how much off all of that is one supposed to dismiss as structured content to get people to believe in a false reality?

I didn't say that science could answer every question. It can't. But crime rates are a subject it can answer.

Again that depends on what the data is and is not based on. What's put in and what's left out. How it's filtered. It doesn't see or experience anything, it just spits out a chart based solely upon what's fed into it.

 

[RileyG]

Well, you answered your own question yourself. You can't divide the world into Christians and Bad Guys, implying that all Christians are therefore Good Guys. Sometimes the good guys are those of faith. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes the bad guys are members of your own denomination. Sometimes they're not.

The implication was that if everyone was a Christian then all our problems would be solved. You have more Christians in your country than any other country on the planet. And more inmates in your prisons than any other country. I'm not saying that Christianity is the problem. That would be nonsensical. But to suggest that it's the solution to tragedies like this isn't facing reality.

Yup. Well said, sir. I have nothing further to add, I was just rambling I guess.