What if the shooter had been a christian republican?

[dismal]

Nope. The gun was the tool/weapon he used to kill those people. The gun itself did not make him a killer.

It is what allowed him be a killer.

He was a killer in waiting before that fateful time.

You do realize that killing isn't possible by thought for Humans.

Would have been a bit harder to hang them, or stab them to death, or attack them with sharks with laser beams.

Right, and those ISIS guys cut the heads off those 20 Egyptian Christians because they are knife nuts.

I think they may have even been shouting ginsu akbar!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Religion isn't important. It's the behavior that's important. The behavior stands regardless it's religious association or not.

Well, by their definition, hate crime laws are not applied based upon the behavior (or really upon presence of hate), but whether the behavior was motivated by particular kinds of hate attached to groups of persons, but only when those group categories are highly politicized.

Not necessarily politicized. Most hate crimes have random victims who are part of a perceived larger group by the perp.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well, by their definition, hate crime laws are not applied based upon the behavior (or really upon presence of hate), but whether the behavior was motivated by particular kinds of hate attached to groups of persons, but only when those group categories are highly politicized.

Not necessarily politicized. Most hate crimes have random victims who are part of a perceived larger group by the perp.

The more politicized the group categories, the more likely that it will be charged as a hate crime. If a person frustrated with a particular Windows app goes and shoots someone who works for Microsoft, then that is as much a case of killing someone because of the larger group they belong to as you can get. Yet, they won't get charged with a hate crime. It is reserved for the types of grouping where there are known to be many people who hate people in that group, and any group with enough widespread hate against them will be a politicized issue.
If idiosyncratic "groups" only hated or target by a rare nutjob were to qualify, then essentially every crime that wasn't completely random or directly at a specific person with whom the perp had prior dealings would qualify.

It actually makes sense that it should only be select widely hated groups who qualify, since such laws have no justification otherwise and no one would fight for them since the end result would be no different than just increasing punishment for the crime, regardless of motive.

 

[Warpoet]

I did present the reason, you just don't understanding how to reason about combined probabilities and how they imply whether the shared features of the co-occurring events had any causal impact on their co-occurrence.

In your hypothetical scenario where "a Muslim with all kinds of Facebook posts critical of Israel or Judaism shot three Jews in the head" the Muslim is directing his negative judgments specifically at the small minority group that he then shoots and kills. Had the Muslim shot a person for reasons having nothing to do with their Jewishness, the odds would be tiny that he would happen to shoot the small group he specified in his posts. In contrast, Hicks critiqued mostly people who comprise the majority of the people around him (Christians) and do not belong to the small group (Muslims) that the people he shot belonged to. Thus, had Hicks been motivated by the hate in his posts, it predicts he would have shot Christians and not Muslims, AND had he shot someone for non-religious reasons the odds are 90% that it would be a Christian, so even then the random co-occurrence odds between his posts and actions would be high and not imply co-causality.

You seriously don't read a fucking word of what you're responding to, do you? This was already addressed. You can alter the variables around until the only difference is that the perp is a Muslim. Hell, I'll even take it further and say it could be any person whose name sounds Muslim, and the tone of the reporting on this, and the general public's response, would be entirely different.

Try actually listening to what is being said instead of looking for an excuse to throw out polysyllabic words that have fuck all to do with the actual point.

 

[ronburgundy]

I did present the reason, you just don't understanding how to reason about combined probabilities and how they imply whether the shared features of the co-occurring events had any causal impact on their co-occurrence.

In your hypothetical scenario where "a Muslim with all kinds of Facebook posts critical of Israel or Judaism shot three Jews in the head" the Muslim is directing his negative judgments specifically at the small minority group that he then shoots and kills. Had the Muslim shot a person for reasons having nothing to do with their Jewishness, the odds would be tiny that he would happen to shoot the small group he specified in his posts. In contrast, Hicks critiqued mostly people who comprise the majority of the people around him (Christians) and do not belong to the small group (Muslims) that the people he shot belonged to. Thus, had Hicks been motivated by the hate in his posts, it predicts he would have shot Christians and not Muslims, AND had he shot someone for non-religious reasons the odds are 90% that it would be a Christian, so even then the random co-occurrence odds between his posts and actions would be high and not imply co-causality.

You seriously don't read a fucking word of what you're responding to, do you? This was already addressed. You can alter the variables around until the only difference is that the perp is a Muslim. Hell, I'll even take it further and say it could be any person whose name sounds Muslim, and the tone of the reporting on this, and the general public's response, would be entirely different.

Try actually listening to what is being said instead of looking for an excuse to throw out polysyllabic words that have fuck all to do with the actual point.

I responded to the actual words you posted, not to the thoughts in your head that you incorrectly express because you don't grasp what is logically implied by your own words.

In addition, you cannot equate everything "except that he was Muslim", because what it means to be Muslim is inherently connected to other Muslims and to the ideas of the Koran, etc.. Being a Muslim is inherently tied to many things that extend beyond the person and impact the probabilities in question.

 

[Warpoet]

I responded to the actual words you posted, not to the thoughts in your head that you incorrectly express because you don't grasp what is logically implied by your own words.

No, you saw an excuse to bloviate and you ran with it, contributing nothing in the process beyond satisfying your evident need to listen to yourself speak.

In addition, you cannot equate everything "except that he was Muslim", because what it means to be Muslim is inherently connected to other Muslims and to the ideas of the Koran, etc.. Being a Muslim is inherently tied to many things that extend beyond the person and impact the probabilities in question.

Being a Muslim doesn't mean any one thing, or set of things, and in practice can mean very little. But it certainly means a lot in terms of how an incident like this is perceived. That's the actual point here, and it's quite clear to anybody approaching the subject honestly, even if it isn't clear to you.

 

[ronburgundy]

No, you saw an excuse to bloviate and you ran with it, contributing nothing in the process beyond satisfying your evident need to listen to yourself speak.

IOW, your own inability to understand logic, coherent argument, and the English language makes you angry at those more capable for having the nerve to point out (on a rational thought forum) that what you say is objectively false and irrational, and are not willing to assume that you might have a valid point if you could just manage to learn how to say it. Great, you sound like every anti-intellectual conservative and religionists that claims intellectual elitism when their wrong ideas are exposed.

In addition, you cannot equate everything "except that he was Muslim", because what it means to be Muslim is inherently connected to other Muslims and to the ideas of the Koran, etc.. Being a Muslim is inherently tied to many things that extend beyond the person and impact the probabilities in question.

Being a Muslim doesn't mean any one thing, or set of things, and in practice can mean very little. But it certainly means a lot in terms of how an incident like this is perceived. That's the actual point here, and it's quite clear to anybody approaching the subject honestly, even if it isn't clear to you.

Being a "man" doesn't mean any one thing either, but all honest and rational people infer that some things a more probable about a person and others less probable when they hear "They were male" rather than "They were female".
Every second of every day you and all other humans draw inferences about people and objects based upon what is known about them, and what is generally the case about other people and objects that share those properties. You're absurd fiction that a person calling themselves a Muslim is just a random act having no implications is a denial of what you do every moment of the day and realities of what it is the think and form and use concepts. All thought requires such generalization that goes above the level of specific individual instances. The question is not about drawing certain definitive conclusion about a specific Muslim shooter, but rather whether the tentative probabilities one assigns would be in no way impacted by the trait of being a Muslim than an Atheist. Identical probabilities would be irrational unless the words "Muslim" and "Atheist" were just nonsense words about which one has absolutely zero relevant knowledge, which perhaps you do not.

 

[Warpoet]

IOW, your own inability to understand logic, coherent argument, and the English language makes you angry at those more capable for having the nerve to point out (on a rational thought forum) that what you say is objectively false and irrational, and are not willing to assume that you might have a valid point if you could just manage to learn how to say it. Great, you sound like every anti-intellectual conservative and religionists that claims intellectual elitism when their wrong ideas are exposed.

No, no need for "in other words;" my words summarized it perfectly. My point was clear from the start. That would be why, while others may have disagreed, you seem to be the only person having this much trouble comprehending it. That is, assuming you're actually making any sort of effort, rather than simply looking for any excuse to muddy the waters and drone on and on endlessly without actually saying anything. But that's not an assumption I'm prepared to make.

Being a "man" doesn't mean any one thing either, but all honest and rational people infer that some things a more probable about a person and others less probable when they hear "They were male" rather than "They were female".
Every second of every day you and all other humans draw inferences about people and objects based upon what is known about them, and what is generally the case about other people and objects that share those properties. You're absurd fiction that a person calling themselves a Muslim is just a random act having no implications is a denial of what you do every moment of the day and realities of what it is the think and form and use concepts.

I didn't say it was a "random" act, I said it can mean very, very little, which is correct. There are plenty of Muslims who take their faith far less seriously than Craig Hicks took his anti-religious views. So no, it's hardly relevant to the question of whether someone ought or ought not to be presumed guilty or innocent of a certain crime, which is the question. Again, a very simple, easily understood point, assuming one is making a good faith effort as an interlocutor and not merely looking for excuses to drone on and on endlessly without actually saying anything.

 

[Tigers!]

Nope. The gun was the tool/weapon he used to kill those people. The gun itself did not make him a killer. He was a killer in waiting before that fateful time.

Being a gun NUT is what made him into a killer

get it yet?

Nope.
The gun was the tool/weapon he used to kill those people. The gun itself did not make him into a killer

Next you'll be telling me that that collection of knives in your kitchen makes you into a killer. (Can't go into any more restaurants. All those knives make the staff killers.)
Or the fellow who collects cars is a hit-run homicidal killer. ( I'd better steer clear of my brother-in-law then)

 

[RavenSky]

Being a gun NUT is what made him into a killer

get it yet?

Nope.
The gun was the tool/weapon he used to kill those people. The gun itself did not make him into a killer

Next you'll be telling me that that collection of knives in your kitchen makes you into a killer. (Can't go into any more restaurants. All those knives make the staff killers.)
Or the fellow who collects cars is a hit-run homicidal killer. ( I'd better steer clear of my brother-in-law then)

Since I never said anything like "The gun itself made him into a killer", your continued non-responsive responses are apparently only because you like to see your screen name frequently

Let me know when you actually have anything to say. Until then, buh bye

 

[Tigers!]

Nope.
The gun was the tool/weapon he used to kill those people. The gun itself did not make him into a killer

Next you'll be telling me that that collection of knives in your kitchen makes you into a killer. (Can't go into any more restaurants. All those knives make the staff killers.)
Or the fellow who collects cars is a hit-run homicidal killer. ( I'd better steer clear of my brother-in-law then)

Since I never said anything like "The gun itself made him into a killer", your continued non-responsive responses are apparently only because you like to see your screen name frequently

Let me know when you actually have anything to say. Until then, buh bye

Is there really any different between you saying
a. The gun itself made him into a killer
b. Being a gun NUT is what made him into a killer

with the possible exception of the word ''nut''?

You seem to suggest that owning the gun made him a killer.

 

[Sarpedon]

Guns make cowards powerful.

 

[laughing dog]

Since I never said anything like "The gun itself made him into a killer", your continued non-responsive responses are apparently only because you like to see your screen name frequently

Let me know when you actually have anything to say. Until then, buh bye

Is there really any different between you saying
a. The gun itself made him into a killer
b. Being a gun NUT is what made him into a killer

with the possible exception of the word ''nut''?

You seem to suggest that owning the gun made him a killer.

Well, when you exclude the important qualifier of "nut" which changes the entire meaning to sentence, your conclusion makes some sense.

 

[RavenSky]

Since I never said anything like "The gun itself made him into a killer", your continued non-responsive responses are apparently only because you like to see your screen name frequently

Let me know when you actually have anything to say. Until then, buh bye

Is there really any different between you saying
a. The gun itself made him into a killer
b. Being a gun NUT is what made him into a killer

with the possible exception of the word ''nut''?

You seem to suggest that owning the gun made him a killer.

You seem to suggest that owning a gun is what made him a nut. Perhaps you are correct, but that's not what I said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to suggest that owning a gun is what made him a nut. Perhaps you are correct, but that's not what I said.

Of course it's owning a gun that did. Gun oil contains a drug that causes psychotic behavior!

 

[blastula]

The killer Craig Hicks was sentenced last week.

Man sentenced to three life terms without parole for killing three Muslims

N.C. Man Pleads Guilty To Killing 3 Muslim College Students; Video Is Played In Court : NPR

North Carolina Police Apologize for Calling Triple Murder of Muslim Students a Parking Dispute – VICE News

He Murdered 3 Muslim College Students, But No One Wanted To Call It A Hate Crime

There was actually video of the murders. One of the victims, Deah Barakat, opened his door to Hicks, and was already videoing with his cellphone because he wanted to document the harassment. It was played in court. He lied about how it went down.

 

[zorq]

Those articles indicate that this Hicks guy might have been more of a racist than an anti-religionist.

"Hicks would be rude to white neighbors, but to non-white neighbors, he would threaten violence and brandish a gun to intimidate"

Articles also indicate that he was obsessed with the movie "Falling Down" starring Michael Douglass. "Falling Down" features a lot of inter-racial tensions, but religion doesn't feature very prominently.

Either way, everyone agrees he was/is an asshole.