Consumers stand up for market choice!! It’s good to see.

Nintendo’s new gun-like zapper.

It’s pretty cool-looking:

and, if you believe some of the comments in and to the article, dangerous to our children’s minds. No, the remote is not just dangerous, it’s going to get someone killed:

The gun like remote will get someone killed…. unless it’s pink with a flag in the muzzel. Toys guns of yesteryear were red, blue and whatever… no ligitimate reason to risk anyones life. The idiot that made the remote should have his/her brain checked….if they have one — thebeav136

Well, apparently it won’t get anyone killed if it is pink with a flag in the “muzzel”. Does it matter which flag? An American flag? An Israeli flag? An Iranian flag? Where the hell was this person living that toy guns of yesteryear were red or blue? Hell I’m not even 40 years old and toy guns when I was a little kid didn’t even have that stupid orange plastic cap on them.  A little paint job and the original Nintendo Zapper would look more realistic.

Another gem:

Great, this is what we need. Children with guns learning how to aim and shoot. Then we can sit back and wonder what is happening to our country with kids killing kids……what’s next? Could we make it squirt blood, too — unattributed

But wait, is that a glimmer of hope I see on the horizon?

Besides, a video game gun won’t help them aim correctly in real life anyway.

“Recoil? What’s that? My Wii Zapper doesn’t do that. Damnit!” — hobokendan

What about parents who want no part of it? Won’t Nintendo force all children to have them? I think I read that Nintendo will hold you at the business end of the new Zapper until you give up your right to . . . not have it in your home:

I think this a really dumb thing to do.. however, as a parent.. i make the choice what comes in my home.. This will not…. Just because it is available doesn’t mean we have to buy it. — lis1063

Someone . . . employing . . . actual . . . thinking . . . skills!

Ah, but what would the debate be without someone fresh from Jack Thompson’s talking points?

The problem with todays video games is that they are too realistic. The games of the 70s-80s were so unrealistic that it wasn’t a problem. Look at all the school shooting since the mid 90’s when video games became life like. Why are we allowing young people to become proficient with guns on these simulators that are marketed to kids these days? It is a real problem that should be controlled by lawmakers. — gcom

Or, instead of preying on weak-willed politicians willing to sell loud, vocal minorities their vote (and whatever is left of their dignity), you could use your brain:

I’ve played the Half-Life series, the Serious Sam series, No One Lives Forever 2, and System Shock 2 – all first person shooters. What did they teach me about shooting in real life? Nothing.

None of those indicated to me that I’d be left handed. Aiming obviously requires more skill than moving the cursor around until it changes color. Would a gun-like controller have made a difference? I doubt it. I might have caught on to the handedness sooner, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t have experienced recoil, reloading, using a safety, etc. With the exception of System Shock, maintaining a gun never gets covered either. — slythersci

I encourage people who click through to the article to read the variety of comments following gcom’s, which make me somewhat optimistic that my generation has not forgotten completely what freedom means, although it’s kind of a sad thought that possibly what makes us motivated to speak out is a video game.

In related news, I am planning at some point to buy a Wii. The interactivity really appeals to me, and I have young kids so most Nintendo fare will be age-appropriate for them. However, having gotten very used to (well-done) mature themes and content on PC games, I am hoping Nintendo comes through for me and I can buy some games targeted at my demographic segment.

Atheism and Hate (NY Times article)

Brawl over Islam on Facebook.

I don’t delve into the religious very often, but I confess I have a fervent sympathy for atheists. I don’t consider myself an atheist . . . an agnostic would probably be more accurate. But it pisses me off when I see atheists attacked as “hating” when they are engaging in activities such as:

1. Pointing out the plainly obvious.
2. Encouraging scientific pursuits and discouraging religious quackery.
3. Engaging powers of logic against fear-mongering and cultism.

I unfortunately say this without having been able to locate the Facebook group in question–if anyone can identify the group so I can view it, I would greatly appreciate it. The worst the NYT article can point to is the introduction to the Facebook group that says “The Quran contains many lies and threats. Islam is false, no god exists, and someone should say that loud and clear.” I am at a loss to determine how that is “hate”, and more than it would be “hate” if “Quaran” was replaced with “Bible” and “Islam” was replaced with “Christianity”. Are fundamentalist atheists engaged in suicide attacks? Do fundamentalist atheists blame natural disasters on God’s vengeance for homosexuality and advise people to send their homosexual minor children to re-education camps? These atheists are merely stating, if not the obvious, at least what they believe can be demonstrated by fact and evidence, and not engaged in hate. Maybe there is further hate in the group not rooted out by the NYT investigative reporter, but allow me to be skeptical if that is the ace of their hand that they play in the article.

But of the broad trend of accusing atheists of “hate” and “persecution”, there are plenty of examples. Take a perusal of a few weeks of PZ Myers’ Pharyngula, or The Panda’s Thumb, for a couple of weeks. Now, I have no political reason to defend, for example, Myers–he is clearly a liberal and Democrat–but the way he deconstructs such religious gobbledygook as Intelligent Design is just flat out solid, yet he is accused of “hate”.

It similarly burns me up to see Christians in America refer to themselves as discriminated against and persecuted by secular forces (see, e.g., the “War on Christmas”, David Limbaugh’s book on “persecution” of Christians, etc.). It also never ceases to amaze me how Christians confuse making something illegal for everyone with prohibiting government propping up or advocating (intentionally or by implication) a single religious ideology. Has such a majority ever whined and complained so much about being discriminated against by the minority? Christians are usually quick to point out the percentage of Americans that believe in God, most of which are Christians of some designation, yet any victory for reason and loss for fundamentalism brings cries of persecution, as if modern American Christians have something even remotely in common with their early-A.D. brethren.

I’m not an unreasonable guy. I understand that fundamentalist Christians tend to give moderate Christians a bad name, but by the nature of all of them having the same label I think all too often moderates will defend their more fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I have a feeling is Fundamentalist Christians were part of some other religious cult that moderate Christians would have a much lower tolerance for what they spout.

I applaud guys like Richard Dawkins who actively stand up to those who still push myth as fact, who sabotage the education of children, and who actively seek to brainwash children to prevent them from seeing logic and reason.

I tie this in to my political beliefs by pointing out that libertarianism is a framework solidly grounded in logic and reason. It isn’t pushed around by emotion, and it acknowledges that there is no magic bullet to economics and society that is going to allow us against all rationality to take care of everyone, and to fix all of society’s problems. I find similar appeal in how both ideologies are constructed and framed, and it would not surprise me to find as a percentage that libertarians are more apt to be agnostics or atheists than of other political ideologies. Just a guess. Both ideologies lay the burden of responsibility presumptively on the actor, rather than a supernatural being or societal influence.

So that’s my religious rant, for whatever it’s worth.  If you’ve made it this far, I reward you with the wonderful experience of the Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan himself.  Enjoy.