bastion

It's not that we had enough power to guarantee we would make an impact. It's that we had enough power that we should have tried.

Simply because it's a commons, and I like that, I'm going to use definitions from Wikipedia.

I think we differ on what a world view is. Secular Humanism is, to me, more accurately described as Wikipedia describes it - a philosophy, belief, or life stance. These have to do with what you identify with, or values and ideologies you live by. And yes, secular humanists need not be atheist.

A world view is much more broad than a philosophy, belief, or stance, or the having or not having of any particular belief.

So yes, atheism is not a world view. But one can have an atheistic world view, without atheism being a world view. The world view and the individual who holds it are not defined in total by any particular facet of that world view, any more than "a brown-haired person" or "a person who has no cats" are complete descriptors for any single individual.

So "an atheistic world view" simply references one of a large number of world views, all of which fundamentally lack a belief in gods.

Yes, lacking in a particular belief does not define you as a whole person. I would not expect that it did, even if you held atheism as a belief, as in the less broad senses of atheism as defined on Wikipedia.

If I don't believe in unicorns, it totally makes me a non-unicornist, which is clearly only relevant when discussion or actions come up that involve unicorns, like when I'm posting in a non-unicornist or unicornist context. But it doesn't necessarily make me an anti-unicornist.

Using Wikipedia's article on atheism, I concede that atheism in the broadest sense is not a world view. But atheism in any narrower sense is a world view, at least inasmuch as theism is.

However, the term "atheistic world view" is perfectly valid, as it references any one of the set of world views that have atheism as a general state or facet.

Then, in conversation regarding atheists, I shall heretofore say "atheistic world view", rather than calling atheism a world view.

Perhaps (as i mentioned before) or can be called merely a fundamental aspect of a world view, as in "an atheistic world view".

I suppose I so tend to say "an atheistic world view" or "a theistic world view" when talking about the matter. That indicates more that it's a fundamental characteristic of the world view, when compared to other world views, and not necessarily the world view itself.

By nature of the subject (gods being, in general, vast entities fundamental to the structure of the world), atheism is at least a fundamental aspect of an atheistic world view. That is, like magical unicorns, one couldn't simply drop a god into an atheistic world view and have the people who hold that world view accept it without some serious issues.

I think being non-unicornian is also a fundamental facet of most atheistic world views.

Of course, ”non-unicornian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. A somewhat better term might be "non-fantastical world views," but whatever.

I did say "or are deeply rooted on a world view."

world view: a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. "I have broadened my worldview by experiencing a whole new culture"

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief is a conception. By nature of the topic, it's a conception of the world. If someone were to say "I don't believe in black holes," that is by nature a conception of the world. One might reference it as merely an aspect of the world view, but it's still an atheistic (or theistic, or black-holist or anti blackholist) world view.

An atheistic world view doesn't mean atheism is what the world view is about, it means that by nature, the view excludes gods. Most people, for example, adhere to a non-unicornist world view.

This is why centrists exist. We vote left currently, because of insane people on the right who take advantage of the weakness of partisan mentalities.

This is literally nostupidquestions.

OK, be annoyed with me then.

What I'm saying is "if the state is going to execute people, then nitrogen asphyxiation is an excellent and humane choice, provided that the state performs the execution properly."

I am not saying anything beyond that. I'm not saying that this specific execution was performed properly. I wouldn't really trust the state to say it was done right, or a reporter to day it was done wrong.

People (and animals) can jerk and twitch when they die. They can gasp and breathe heavily even, sometimes. They are unconscious by that point if asphyxiation is done right. Look into hypoxia, there's a ton of documentation on it, video and otherwise, including direct accounts.

The only thing we can do to make it more humane is a: ensure the method is implemented correctly, and b: provide a choice of methods to the person to be executed.

Of course, that's aside from the question of whether the state is capable of correctly evaluating who should be killed in the first place.

Firstly, death causes twitching. And it's not fucking pretty. Most animals, humans included, have a very wide array of stuff that their body does even after they are fully unconscious. It's not at all surprising that bystanders were freaked out, even in ideal circumstances.

You should really look into apoxia. When done right (and I'm not arguing that the execution in the article was done right), it's a minute, maybe two. And that's probably less time than you'd spend on a firing line.

The reality is that there simply is no "perfect" way to kill someone who doesn't want to die. We could give them a choice, possibly, but will they even choose?

Nitrogen asphyxiation, done right, is humane. There is no pain. But one way or the other, the person's gonna know it's happening, no matter the method used to execute them.

Again, none of this is to condone execution as a consequence of crime. I don't think the state is qualified to make the call.

Ah. Bad title, then.