Only those who threaten the secrecy of the Satan receive his attention. You have been targeted by the Adversary and or his minion because your videos are effective and winning people over to the side of Truth and Life. Make more. Make so many that the minion grow tired of deleting and flagging and and just can't keep up. He who in in you is stronger. I know this post is old and you have probably overcome but for those who may read it fresh . . . Fight the fight. TRUTH
Hate to see this continue to happen but, there is a certain, "we need to burn the city in order to save the city" going on here. Until YouTube works out a proper method for DMCA'ing, more & more people are going to realize they can get away with this & it will become epidemic.
It aint that fricking hard; if you want to file a copyright claim, you must ACTUALLY verify you are who you say you are by some Paypal style verification method. From there let the first lawsuit set the precedent.
@johncase7777 It might not even be VFX making the claims. "VenomFangX Christian Ministries" sounds like something someone made up in order to attack VFX, even after he had vowed to leave YT and "get help." Of course I could be wrong and he's STILL at it, but it just doesn't seem likely in this case.
@ProfetaParanoia He didn't do it ya paranoid freak. It's pretty obvious. It's probably his followers. I don't like VFX but i do think he has really changed
@TheMysteriousAtheist I used the word smarter, not smart. If you stop and think about what I said, you'd come to realize that if Shawn was caught doing this again he'd be in serious, LEGAL trouble. So tell me how stupid it would be for him to do this AND leave evidence in the form of his affiliated youtube handle all over the place?
A search in YouTube's text box for both 'VenomfangxChristianMedia' and 'Venomfangx Christian Media' (spaces or not) turned up no result for a user by that name. (shrugs shoulders)
Uhmmmmm. When did this happen? I thought things were all happy happy feelgood "I'm sorry" with VFX now. I really hope you'll post something with your thoughts on this, DPR.
This probably isn't Shawn, it's much more likely it's just someone trying to either get him into trouble or just hide behind his name. I'm fairly sure Shawn used his real name when he filed his DMCAs.
They need to have more serious consequences for false DMCAs, other people will just abuse it. I doupt Shawn did it, if he did, he will use a different name. Actually its sounds like someone is trying to get him into trouble. Who knows, but I bet those who banned her account does.
i am not saying she's doing this, but how do we know that this is not some ploy by somefundies to popularize christian channels. or to make it look like christians are under attack as well. can we find out if the dmca's were actually filed?
i wasnt the only one to my knowledge and if that were true i would not participate in a ploy like that..i lost my videos..and i think that sucks..alot
i am not suggesting that you are doing this. i am saying that this could be some fundies trying to make it look like christians get false dmca'd too. as you said, it is a troll, ad not worth generalizing to either theist or atheist. i am just trying to guess at possible motivation. you are the victim in this case.
I really thought that VenomFangX learned his lesson. I really hope this wasn't him doing this. If it was, I don't know how he can walk with balls that big.
My first thought is that someone is going after names of people as well as silencing threatening opponents here, thinking this is an easy way to do it. Maybe if the accusations were followed up for a and put to the test - or even better, made Youtube liable in the process, allowing for such actions without "doing the right thing".
this is why you don't let people like shawn get second chances.
if it is him i hope there is no third chance and this guy gets sued to the streets. really if it is him at this point just allow the horde of the internets to do its thing.
the horde consumes and has been hungry for this little fish for some time.
dpr i cannot understand why you are helping defend these christ puppets. i understand you want to take the moral high-ground, but given a reversal of circumstances, we are left to twist in the breeze by the same people you are helping. i am not trying to start any unpleasantness, i just want to understand.
I agree, these people would rather we didn't exist and would wish us off the face of the planet given the chance. And yet you persist in helping them. Why?
Oh yea, I know. Moderates are a-okay with me. Just they tend to be the quiet majority which is a pain. They should really work on distancing the funides as much as possible.
Agreed. I really do wish that more moderates would make themselves known on YT. We could then start our own campaign to distance ourselves from the fundies as you said.
the second you meaning DPR obviously and the first would shouldn't be there but for some reason I can't see half of what I'm typing, looks like youtube is updating teh commenting system and got it all ass about face again.
Here is why: "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didnt speak up because I was a Protestant. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Martin Niemöller
@kainniak1 The orignial poem was about post WW1 Germany and the Nazi rise to power. It was penned by the person he quoted, but around 1955 someone else submitted it to circulation adding christian religion to the end of it. The original author prefers the Communist, unionist, jew, me form.
In the past numerous atheist posters have been served DMCA notices. This seems like someone is now exploiting the system in reverse to stir up shit.
Can't say I approve in either situation. I might not like my opponents message, but they do have the right to voice it.
I've got little sympathy for guys like Gerrup or VFX (who in the past willfully filled false DMCAs), but for someone who as far as I know has done nothing, it is completely wrong.
We can't rule out the possibility that it's Shawn again...we haven't heard anything from his end in a while, and I don't know about anyone else, but I never believed he was sorry for his crimes.
DPRJones, can you verify if indeed Shaun is involved with this? As, if he is not involved, it would be considerably unfortunate should others accuse him of such based on the actions of some fanboys. And alternatively if he is, it is still relevant.
@kk207. Indeed. I guess it comes with the territory. Geerup was running the VFX brand for a while there, so an argument could be made that he's leader of the pack now VFX himself has left (maybe). On the other hand maybe it's some lone follower without orders from the top? Who knows?
Because "Venomfangx Christian Media" is NOT necessarily the same as "VenomFangX".
When Geerup was attacked it was by an impostor disguised as VFX. This is possibly the same group or a similar group. The choice of target lends some credence to this supposition.
I could, hypothetically, file false DMCAs under the title DPRJones Media Group. Does that make DPRJones liable? Hardly - in fact, I'd expect him to sue my ass for defamation of character. If Shaun's able, doing likewise might be prudent.
I have a feeling after this lawsuit between Viacom and Youtube everything will change. Including how we upload videos right down to being able to false DMCA.
Major props to dprjones for mirroring this. Every time I see this kind of support between a non-believer and believer (or vice versa) it gives me a twinge of hope and reminds me that the debate is more often then not civil and open.
We all feel bad when we do something we know is wrong (unless you're a psychopath) - our conscience. The religious person, feeling bad then goes to their priest (or whatever) and asks forgiveness and receives it. Guilt gone - no longer feels bad.
The Learned result: doesn't feel so bad about committing another 'crime' - can readily be forgiven.
Non religious person isn't forgiven, continues to have a guilty conscience. Result - much less likely to recommit,.
So, youtube's dmca response allows any random psycho, stalker, or terrorist to force you to choose between unwarranted strikes against your channel, loss of videos, censure and even loss of your channel (Which seems nearly libelous), or giving them your personal info (Obviously terrifying, especially when they're clearly using a false name).
YT, meanwhile, is apparently using their time to revamp and change things in order to make the comments harder to read.
I have a video that was DMCA'd by FOXNEWS (PROOF:Darwinism caught on camera) It ended up being blocked in some countries(which ones I don't know) The video is from U.S. Dept. of Defense/U.S. Army to be specific. Unless FOX NEWS is buying Apache gun ships, they had no claim on this video. It sucks! I got this video from Youtube & asked the uploader if I could use it(they said yes) The video is up w/ no restrictions under several other tags, but I get a DMCA mark against me! FUCK YOU YOUTUBE!
I've dug around on search engines, I can't find anything about "Venomfangx Christian Media..."
Given his history, it would not surprise me if Shaun's gone on to try to find a way around YouTube's rules. He is a pathological narcissist if I've ever seen one.
Im quite shure someone is just using his name... mainly because its VenomfangX *CHRISTIAN MEDIA*!!! i dont think he would do that... and that is not a compliment to him :P
I'm sorry you got those DMCA notices. That is such a low thing for someone to do. No one should try and kill free speech like that and YouTube should fix this problem ASAP!
No doubt that Shawn can't be behind this, he wouldn't even think about doing this again especially last time with Thunderf00t and now with his father involved with his youtube activities, he wont dare look at youtube for fear of losing his cash flow to study at University...
I really don't think it's Shawn, but it's not necessarily the work of an atheist either. For all we know it could be someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica; they love pulling that kind of juvenile nonsense. The DMCA system should be reformed insofar that the person or organisation bringing the allegation should first be required to verify it's identity.
If a senator put up a bunch of videos, and someone flagged them as DMCA violations, this would get solved in about 10 minutes. I don't suggest anyone do that, but I guarantee the senator would take action. I prefer not to mess with lawyers, though.
I don't understand why this loophole in the DMCA has gone on for so long. The person who files the DMCA seems to never need to show a real ownership to the material since they have obviously been filed under false names. Why is there a need fore the defendant to provide valid docs in order to fight this? Can they not at the very least provide a P.O. Box instead of an actual living address?
Specifically, it was written by copyright holders to be extremely bias in favor of copyright holders. As per usual the people who wrote and passed the law put zero forethought into its implications.
The law is not the problem at all, the problem is Youtube's policy. INtellectual property owners have just as much right to their property as anyone else. It's not their fault that some pimply faced kids on youtube are abusing Youtube's bad policies. *Youtube* claims guilty unless proven otherwise, not the law. *Youtube* takes down content without even verifying anything, not the law. They should require a deposit to file which is refunded when the claim if verified.
YouTube's policies follow the law almost to the letter. The law itself, while well intentioned, is poorly and unfairly penned.
The law REQUIRES YouTube to remove content at teh slightest provocation. The law REQUIRES personal details to be reported to the claimant but does not require the accused to be given the claimant's details. YouTube is following the law. The law says you're guilty until proven innocent (hint: it's civil not criminal law) - YouTube is just passing the buck.
This is not true. They are NOT required to do these things. They CAN get sued if nothing is done, yes. But they are not required by law to immediately remove content without asking questions. But please feel free to show the part of the DCMA law that states this and I am more than happy to agree.
Youtube need to simply pass the claim to the accused and when subpoenaed by the accuser, to then provide the accused contact information so the 2 parties can go to court.
I should not that what's probably being referred to is that Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which helps OSPs if they simply remove content in question. Youtube Chooses to follow this route, but they are not forced to. AND more importantly, Youtube is not taking the required steps to VERIFY that the claim is legitimately filed. That's THEIR doing, not the law and in fact they could be seen as violating the law in this sense.
Not an answer to your question, but I've just sent false info when counter noticing. Was enough to scare the false DMCA'er.
One could of course try and add a paragraph at the bottom of the counter notice, saying one will disclose real identity before the trial, but the counter notice may be refused if one does.
This isn't a loophole the DMCA was WRITTEN by big intellectual property owners to be extremely easy to remove their property. It put no controls on their power to remove what ever they want. It was almost designed to be a form of censorship.
Because youtube is run by lazy idiots. You'd think a multi-billion dollar company would be able to pay some lawyers to watch the "offending" video to see if they are actually in violation...
Unfortunately to those of us who exercise the greater amount of free but controversial speech and some who even don't have controversial messages, YouTube has to cover their own asses by filing the claim and acting upon it, regardless. Now, anyone can file a counterclaim, and usually, shit like this gets overturned once that counterclaim is filed. But even so.
It's YouTube defending themselves. It's an unfortunate necessity on their part, and something WE have to work through. Sad fact of life.
I still laugh every time I hear/read the name "VenomFangX". Not only was he a complete idiot, just the name...referring to a snake...from a Christian...the irony is fuckin hilarious.
I really hope Atheists haven't done this. Christianity isn't the only religion; and I've seen some of the other religions use DMCAs against Christians before. (just throwing that out there)
@RazielKain I wanna believe its one of his cooky followers. As far as we know he's no longer interested in this debate and it being treated at home with his family.
I sure would like to know who is serving those false DMCA-notifications... I just hope atheists haven't sunk down to the level of creationists in this matter.
You're right of course. Naturally I had hoped that those on our side would be better persons than those on the other side. But I think that's rarely the case, no matter what the conflict's about.
If you believe believe atheists are going to be better behaved people simply because of their (lack of) belief then you are just as deluded as those who believe their ethnic group will be better behaved just because they believe in Allah/Jesus/Vishnu... ad nauseum.
It's a shame but it's true. The good news is though that as an atheist you are easily rid of such delusions :)
I wrote "I had hoped --" not "I had believed". And I definetely don't think that a lack of religious belief in itself results in better behaviour. Don't put words in my mouth.
Anyway, my hopes do have some basis. I bet you know of studies about how religiosity correlates with intelligence or education and crime rates. In my opinion it isn't inadmissible to think that there could be some differences in use of dirty tactics between theists and atheists.
1. Whatever the reason for indentification is, it doesn't change what the statistics say about religious groups.
2. Maybe true, but in one study I glanced through the religion of an inmate was recorded when he/she entered the prison and was never changed. So "finding Jesus" would not show up in the statistics. I don't know if this true for other statistics
3.The point was that the percentage of atheists in prison population was lower than the percentage of atheists in general population.
1: Is relevant because many people who claim to be X do not practise X.
2: One person isn't relevant. People do lie to help with their parole.
3: And I don't think it is relevant :)
There are 3 kinds of lie. Lies, damned lies, and statistics :)
Being religious doesn't make you more likely to commit crime. I think being poor makes you more likely to commit crime, and more likely to live in a religious neighbourhood though.
1. I don't care about practising. Christian is a christian whether he goes to church or not.
2. It was a study, not a person. Even if people lied later to get on parole I don't think it would affect studies. When on parole they wouldn't be on statistics about prison population.
3. It means atheists are less likely to end up in jail. I think it's relevant.
If you have claims about Sweden, feel free to dig up surveys.
1: You are incorrect. My friend believes he is a Muslim because his parents were. He's never read the Quran, doesn't pray, knows nothing about it. He is NOT a Muslim by birth right any more than *I* am a train driver.
2: You said "an inmate"
3: In which country? A mostly Christian one right? What about in Sweden where most people are atheists?
1. Your friend doesn't believe in Allah, but considers himself a muslim? If that's common, it would affect the statistics.
2. You really didn't understand I meant every prisoner?
3. I have seen statistics about USA. I tried searching information about Sweden. My swedish is a bit rusty, but I think they are not allowed to ask prisoners about their religion. Alas, no statistics.
Correlation doesn't imply causation and I never claimed that it did.
1: That is correct. I live close to an area mostly populated by Pakistani Muslims. I have known a lot of Muslims in my life, very few actually knew anything about their religion. Their parents tell them all their life they are a Muslim, they believe it, just like "I am a Pakistani".
2: No I didn't, because you said "an inmate" rather than "the inmates".
3: Estonia, Czech republic, Denmark, Norway, France, Netherlands.
4: So their religion is irrelevant? Then what's your point?
1. Very well. Doesn't explain why there are less atheists in prisons. A non-believing muslim would call himself muslim in and out of the prison.
2. *sigh* From actual publication: "The religious affiliation of a prisoner is recorded at reception into a prison establishment--". Not good enough for you?
3. Feel free to dig up statistics. I make no claims about those countries.
4. If there's correlation, it's not irrelevant. Religion and criminal behaviour may have a common cause, for example.
1: In a country that is mostly Christian I would expect mostly Christians in prison, which is why I suggested you compare against countries that are mostly atheist.
2: There's no need to sigh. If I had noticed "he/she" it might have been more obvious, but then if you had made it plural it would have also been more obvious. It's not a big deal, just a misunderstanding on my part.
3: So you claim this is only an American phenomenon and not a religious one?
Once again: the % of atheists in prisons is smaller than the % of atheists in general population.
2008 33.3 % of prison population in the UK was labelled as "no religion" (Prison population statistics 12.11.2009). 2007 the biggest religious group in the UK was "no religion", with 45.7 % (BSA Survey 2007). So that's another country in addition to USA, and its biggest religious group is "no religion". I also hope the percentages help you understand my point.
@jimidinh Yeah, and all my life my entire family wrote "Church of England" on forms whenever asked for our religion, and yet my entire family were atheists. My mom used to say "It's all rubbish, anyone who believes in god is an idiot".
It still only shows that religion doesn't prevent crime, if that is your objective then I am happy to agree.
That doesn't skew the statistics between general population and prison population. It only makes the percentage of atheists seem smaller in BOTH groups. So there must be some other reason why it seems atheists are less likely to end up in prison.
To prove that religion doesn't prevent crime it would be enough that the percentages were the same in general and prison population. But now, if the statistics are reliable, it seems atheism DOES prevent toime to a certain degree.
You might not be convinced, but the numbers are undeniable. The prison thing might be skewed a little due to "jailhouse converstions," but the fact that the more secular a society is the lower the overall crime rates, shows something.
Even in the USA, the states with the worst crime, highest teen pregnancy and STD rates, highest amount of poverty, etc, are all in the most religious of states.
If it was only crime we were talking about here, I would agree, because only one correlation would be suspect, but nearly all of society's ills increase in religious areas and are worse the more religious the area is... sorry, religion is the cause, especially when you can pinpoint more things... like teen pregnancy and STD rates increasing in areas that teach "abstience-only" education which is a religion based policy.
So, you think it's just coinscidence that the higher the religiosity of the area that there's an increase in all of society's ills? And it's just coinscidence that that's the trend for pretty much every society around the entire world?
"I REALLY can't see religion being the cause of crime though. If you can then you'll have to explain to me how."
There once was a boy who wanted a bike, so he prayed for one. Then he realized that God didn't work that way, so he stole the bike and prayed for forgiveness.
@TheRationalizer I understand why you don't see religion being the cause, because it isn't. Ignorance is, and religion is more readily accepted of ignorance, and nearly all of them say you can ask forgiveness from their god.
The offenders were likely to commit the crime anyways, but religion does give them a sense of innocence in those who see it as their scapegoat.
I'm an atheist, just stating a fact before people thought I was giving aan approval.
@lackin124 Indeed. Religion isn't the cause of these crimes (although I think male genital mutilation SHOULD be a crime).
I just think that people in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes, and people in poor areas are also more likely to be religious. It's the poverty and lack of opportunity in many cases (but not all).
It's certainly not religion causing it. It is however safe to say that religion clearly doesn't PREVENT people from committing crime.
@TheRationalizer Exactly, people in poor areas are more likely to surremder the chance of education for the sake of getting wealth sooner, which leaves them entirely more likely to believe in silly things. Glad we could work this out "Rationally" *insert audience groan here*
@lackin124 Me too. I don't care if I was right or wrong to start with, I just aim to be right at the end of a conversation :)
I wat thinking about people like Cavendish, Einstein, Darwin. These people didn't need to work and so had a lot of time just to think about stuff. Can you imagine how great mankind's achievements would be if we eradicated poverty to a level where people didn't need to work so hard and more people had more time just to think? :)
@TheRationalizer Indeed it would be nice if we made a work like that, but some people don't do well with spending their time thinking, like my brother who would probably spend it being drunk. Sucks, but it's true in some cases at least.
Only those who threaten the secrecy of the Satan receive his attention. You have been targeted by the Adversary and or his minion because your videos are effective and winning people over to the side of Truth and Life. Make more. Make so many that the minion grow tired of deleting and flagging and and just can't keep up. He who in in you is stronger. I know this post is old and you have probably overcome but for those who may read it fresh . . . Fight the fight. TRUTH
whadeffa 1 year ago
How do you mirror videos or otherwise capture Youtube videos? Help would be appreciated because I am quite ignorant on the subject of computers.
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago
God that hum is annoying >.>
Chalmsloff 1 year ago
I wonder if anyone has ever used a DMCA notification for legitimate reasons -_-
ZephyrEire 1 year ago
Hate to see this continue to happen but, there is a certain, "we need to burn the city in order to save the city" going on here. Until YouTube works out a proper method for DMCA'ing, more & more people are going to realize they can get away with this & it will become epidemic.
It aint that fricking hard; if you want to file a copyright claim, you must ACTUALLY verify you are who you say you are by some Paypal style verification method. From there let the first lawsuit set the precedent.
Hopeful71 1 year ago
How old is this? Is Shawn at it again?
TheElectricDreamer93 1 year ago
It's quite recent, it's not Shawn, there are a bunch of people out there using his name as a sundanim now.
ChipZilla69 1 year ago
What will it take for YouTube to finally be reformed?!
capnjonas 1 year ago
I thought this crap had stopped. Is it venom or one of his sad followers?
mrgodbehere 2 years ago
not VFX, probably geerup but impossible to know for sure
wearealltubes 1 year ago
dont fly off the handle yet ppl, it could or could not be Shawn.
adafuns 2 years ago
And now we see that we SHOULD have persecuted the cunt. An apology is not enough. Not coming from him.
SlayerOfAmista 2 years ago
Venomfangx is at it again. I say this time we just horse whip the son of a bitch.
johncase7777 2 years ago
@johncase7777 It might not even be VFX making the claims. "VenomFangX Christian Ministries" sounds like something someone made up in order to attack VFX, even after he had vowed to leave YT and "get help." Of course I could be wrong and he's STILL at it, but it just doesn't seem likely in this case.
Relyt22 2 years ago
ا
I am 100% sure this is not Shawn. x
I mean, could be an atheist, sure. x
But it could also be a Christian who has the hots for the girl and wants to stalk her with her docs. x
Simply, it doesn't matter. Whoever it is deserves a beatdown (in the legal sense! :p ). x
ا
jinitron 2 years ago 5
@johncase7777 It's not VFX
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
what? so VFX did it again??????!!!!!!!!!!!!
ProfetaParanoia 2 years ago
@ProfetaParanoia He didn't do it ya paranoid freak. It's pretty obvious. It's probably his followers. I don't like VFX but i do think he has really changed
NeCacaluXuxultic 2 years ago
lol. Here we go again.
I doubt this would have anything to do with Shawn.
DJ
djarm67 2 years ago
"VenomfangX Christian media" gee DPRJones, so much for the goody good settlement with VFX.
TheMysteriousAtheist 2 years ago
what is "venome fang x christian midea"?
i thought Shawn stoped being venomefanx
celestialsalamander 2 years ago
You mean a Christial LIED!?
Well they must have had good intentions so it's OK.
dorbie 2 years ago
If anything points to Shawn being innocent in this then it's that his internet nickname has been used. I mean come on... Shawn is smarter than this.
UGotSerbed 2 years ago
How can you use VFX and smart in the same sentence?
TheMysteriousAtheist 2 years ago 2
@TheMysteriousAtheist I used the word smarter, not smart. If you stop and think about what I said, you'd come to realize that if Shawn was caught doing this again he'd be in serious, LEGAL trouble. So tell me how stupid it would be for him to do this AND leave evidence in the form of his affiliated youtube handle all over the place?
UGotSerbed 2 years ago
lol shawn is WHAT?
grendelee 2 years ago
Ya, for realz :D
IamLav 2 years ago
A search in YouTube's text box for both 'VenomfangxChristianMedia' and 'Venomfangx Christian Media' (spaces or not) turned up no result for a user by that name. (shrugs shoulders)
M0US3P0T4TO 2 years ago
Uhmmmmm. When did this happen? I thought things were all happy happy feelgood "I'm sorry" with VFX now. I really hope you'll post something with your thoughts on this, DPR.
ArranoGris 2 years ago
This probably isn't Shawn, it's much more likely it's just someone trying to either get him into trouble or just hide behind his name. I'm fairly sure Shawn used his real name when he filed his DMCAs.
Setar 2 years ago
They need to have more serious consequences for false DMCAs, other people will just abuse it. I doupt Shawn did it, if he did, he will use a different name. Actually its sounds like someone is trying to get him into trouble. Who knows, but I bet those who banned her account does.
blade9z 2 years ago
i am not saying she's doing this, but how do we know that this is not some ploy by somefundies to popularize christian channels. or to make it look like christians are under attack as well. can we find out if the dmca's were actually filed?
brownbigb 2 years ago
i wasnt the only one to my knowledge and if that were true i would not participate in a ploy like that..i lost my videos..and i think that sucks..alot
godinventedmusic 2 years ago
i am not suggesting that you are doing this. i am saying that this could be some fundies trying to make it look like christians get false dmca'd too. as you said, it is a troll, ad not worth generalizing to either theist or atheist. i am just trying to guess at possible motivation. you are the victim in this case.
brownbigb 2 years ago
could be..we cant know for sure..
godinventedmusic 2 years ago
I don't think its Sean in all honesty.
Lanparth 2 years ago
@Lanparth No, not Sean! Just VenomFangX!
rootvalue 2 years ago
As a weird question, is it possible someone else took over Shawns site/name?
Darkstar1484 2 years ago
I really thought that VenomFangX learned his lesson. I really hope this wasn't him doing this. If it was, I don't know how he can walk with balls that big.
ErisTheFairest5 2 years ago 2
Venomfang has his balls in the vice griped by Dprjones and Thunderfoot, its probably Christian tards, former henchmen of venomfang.
Annu1tco3pt1s 2 years ago
My first thought is that someone is going after names of people as well as silencing threatening opponents here, thinking this is an easy way to do it. Maybe if the accusations were followed up for a and put to the test - or even better, made Youtube liable in the process, allowing for such actions without "doing the right thing".
Orkaney 2 years ago
DMCA crap is out of control!
dondude69 2 years ago 3
I can't say I'm surprised that the name "VenomFangX" has popped up again. Does anyone know if it's really him or not?
CleoTheSim 2 years ago
@CleoTheSim I doubt it's him. godinventedmusic is a full-blooded christian.
GuppyPal 2 years ago
I very much doubt it - dprjones *may* already have contacted him to make sure and I'm sure he would have said something on the issue if it was Shawn.
blackemerald 2 years ago
If Shawn is behind this, he's screwed. The only reason he's not already being sued is because he promised to never do this again.
TheBetterGame 2 years ago
@TheBetterGame
this is why you don't let people like shawn get second chances.
if it is him i hope there is no third chance and this guy gets sued to the streets. really if it is him at this point just allow the horde of the internets to do its thing.
the horde consumes and has been hungry for this little fish for some time.
yellowdart137 2 years ago
He's back (or so it may seem). Is there anyone who is surprised? ... Didn't think so.
thenamelessone83 2 years ago
if hes back again, dpr dont fucking choke this time and sue the bitch
ziomany 2 years ago 2
DMCAing is back. I thought we had see the worse of this. It is pathetic that they are using VFX Christian Media as their name.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
dpr i cannot understand why you are helping defend these christ puppets. i understand you want to take the moral high-ground, but given a reversal of circumstances, we are left to twist in the breeze by the same people you are helping. i am not trying to start any unpleasantness, i just want to understand.
elilichtenberg 2 years ago 2
@elilichtenberg
I agree, these people would rather we didn't exist and would wish us off the face of the planet given the chance. And yet you persist in helping them. Why?
devil238 2 years ago
We don't all want that. Just the fundies. You'd be surprised how many realistic Christians there are.
Lenin200488 2 years ago
@Lenin200488
Oh yea, I know. Moderates are a-okay with me. Just they tend to be the quiet majority which is a pain. They should really work on distancing the funides as much as possible.
And youtube still looks wrong for some reason.
devil238 2 years ago
@devil238
Agreed. I really do wish that more moderates would make themselves known on YT. We could then start our own campaign to distance ourselves from the fundies as you said.
Lenin200488 2 years ago
@elilichtenberg
the second you meaning DPR obviously and the first would shouldn't be there but for some reason I can't see half of what I'm typing, looks like youtube is updating teh commenting system and got it all ass about face again.
devil238 2 years ago
@elilichtenberg He is following King Harry's strategy in Henry V:
When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.
Platyzoan 2 years ago
AlanCFA 2 years ago 11
@AlanCFA
You just kinda quoted something, from some dude who we probably don't care about.
devil238 2 years ago
@devil238
it is fairly well-known and has been mentioned by the ACLU and other groups over the years as to why we fight for the rights of others
We also do it because it is the right thing to do.
AlanCFA 2 years ago
@AlanCFA at first i thought you where talking about german government after WW1 then i read the part about catholic's and got lost
kainniak1 1 year ago
@kainniak1 The orignial poem was about post WW1 Germany and the Nazi rise to power. It was penned by the person he quoted, but around 1955 someone else submitted it to circulation adding christian religion to the end of it. The original author prefers the Communist, unionist, jew, me form.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
IS there any connection between VenomFangX Media and VenomFangX?
RomeoCo 2 years ago
Ok so venomfag is at large agian,so much for his apologies and repentance.
Kharmazov 2 years ago
this whole dmca thing really shows how immature the society is with all of these false DMCAs. If i dont like you i'll just silence you.
lildread1 2 years ago
They say turn about is fair play.
In the past numerous atheist posters have been served DMCA notices. This seems like someone is now exploiting the system in reverse to stir up shit.
Can't say I approve in either situation. I might not like my opponents message, but they do have the right to voice it.
I've got little sympathy for guys like Gerrup or VFX (who in the past willfully filled false DMCAs), but for someone who as far as I know has done nothing, it is completely wrong.
Grospoliner 2 years ago
Get a good american lawyer with dmca experience and sue the heck out of the one filing the falce dmca.
Let the lawyer do all the work for you under a no cure no pay agreement.
You might end up with some nice cash at the end of all this.
good luck.
Smertopia 2 years ago
We can't rule out the possibility that it's Shawn again...we haven't heard anything from his end in a while, and I don't know about anyone else, but I never believed he was sorry for his crimes.
gatorboymike 2 years ago
DPRJones, can you verify if indeed Shaun is involved with this? As, if he is not involved, it would be considerably unfortunate should others accuse him of such based on the actions of some fanboys. And alternatively if he is, it is still relevant.
zanafarr 2 years ago
So Geerup and his Christian peers cried foul when Geerup was DMCA'd and are still DMCA-ing others at the same time?
ristinraccoon 2 years ago
@ristinraccoon
hypocrisy and lack of empathy seems to be a defining characteristic for a fundamentalist
kk207 2 years ago
@kk207. Indeed. I guess it comes with the territory. Geerup was running the VFX brand for a while there, so an argument could be made that he's leader of the pack now VFX himself has left (maybe). On the other hand maybe it's some lone follower without orders from the top? Who knows?
ristinraccoon 2 years ago
I thought Shawn was cleaning his act up?
VFXCM seems like a new creation, like someone else is just not going that shit die. Wasn't Shawn's 'company' called VFX Ministries?
Can DPR shed any light on that? Without compromising privacy, of course?
dienlik 2 years ago
you look like you need a shower and some cough medicine girl
geostillo78 2 years ago
Why - the fuck - you DID NOT sue the fucker!
BeyondWrittenWords 2 years ago
Because "Venomfangx Christian Media" is NOT necessarily the same as "VenomFangX".
When Geerup was attacked it was by an impostor disguised as VFX. This is possibly the same group or a similar group. The choice of target lends some credence to this supposition.
I could, hypothetically, file false DMCAs under the title DPRJones Media Group. Does that make DPRJones liable? Hardly - in fact, I'd expect him to sue my ass for defamation of character. If Shaun's able, doing likewise might be prudent.
TempestStormwind 2 years ago
I have a feeling after this lawsuit between Viacom and Youtube everything will change. Including how we upload videos right down to being able to false DMCA.
DrDDooM 2 years ago
Ahhh I love that ay ay at the end there =)
Nimatzo 2 years ago
Major props to dprjones for mirroring this. Every time I see this kind of support between a non-believer and believer (or vice versa) it gives me a twinge of hope and reminds me that the debate is more often then not civil and open.
cugamer 2 years ago
I think Geerup filed those false DMCAs.
JohnWoo 2 years ago
Why Religion causes crime:
We all feel bad when we do something we know is wrong (unless you're a psychopath) - our conscience. The religious person, feeling bad then goes to their priest (or whatever) and asks forgiveness and receives it. Guilt gone - no longer feels bad.
The Learned result: doesn't feel so bad about committing another 'crime' - can readily be forgiven.
Non religious person isn't forgiven, continues to have a guilty conscience. Result - much less likely to recommit,.
GorgeGeorg 2 years ago
So, youtube's dmca response allows any random psycho, stalker, or terrorist to force you to choose between unwarranted strikes against your channel, loss of videos, censure and even loss of your channel (Which seems nearly libelous), or giving them your personal info (Obviously terrifying, especially when they're clearly using a false name).
YT, meanwhile, is apparently using their time to revamp and change things in order to make the comments harder to read.
Do I have this right?
odwin8 2 years ago
@odwin8 Sounds about right
Kargoneth 2 years ago
I thought venomfangx stopped all that shit? We all forgave him and let him slip by.
And now he's AT IT A FUCKING-GAIN?
trvius 2 years ago
Contact VFX and ask him to retract the false DMCAs done in his name. That would put an end to this mini-drama.
JefferyMcLean 2 years ago
Yay! MORE false DMCAs!
Go DMCA law and how great it is!!!! *rolleyes*
mecher3k 2 years ago
I have a video that was DMCA'd by FOXNEWS (PROOF:Darwinism caught on camera) It ended up being blocked in some countries(which ones I don't know) The video is from U.S. Dept. of Defense/U.S. Army to be specific. Unless FOX NEWS is buying Apache gun ships, they had no claim on this video. It sucks! I got this video from Youtube & asked the uploader if I could use it(they said yes) The video is up w/ no restrictions under several other tags, but I get a DMCA mark against me! FUCK YOU YOUTUBE!
SwervMontana 2 years ago
I highly doubt it's actually venom.
Anghellik9 2 years ago
I am not convinced it is VFX, it is another complete tool bag trying to stir up trouble..
AtheistCause 2 years ago
Hard to feel sorry for these friends of the monster Jehovah.
216trixie 2 years ago
It's not letting me download. What's going on?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
If this is really VFX again, he needs to finally be pwned, justice system style.
Fakenstien 2 years ago
It would seem that some troll is prancing around posing as "VenomfangX Christian Media".
Zoobeezoo 2 years ago
I've dug around on search engines, I can't find anything about "Venomfangx Christian Media..."
Given his history, it would not surprise me if Shaun's gone on to try to find a way around YouTube's rules. He is a pathological narcissist if I've ever seen one.
zamfir1970 2 years ago
So, what is this? Is VenomfangX back and up to his old tricks?
PeytonFarquhar1 2 years ago
@PeytonFarquhar1
More than likely somebody pretending to be him.
CanadianoftheCoast 2 years ago
VFX uses "Shawn Karon" when he false dmca's... someone didn't do their research.
nodvick 2 years ago
someone prepare another enima, I am going in.
fartwimp 2 years ago
So I guess it just takes a few clicks in a sock puppet account to file a false DMCA under a fake ID?
YouTube should make it harder.
A simple telephone callback requirement to complete the filing would probably nip 95% of this in the bud.
shockferret 2 years ago 2
Im quite shure someone is just using his name... mainly because its VenomfangX *CHRISTIAN MEDIA*!!! i dont think he would do that... and that is not a compliment to him :P
Dasmaster1 2 years ago
I'm sorry you got those DMCA notices. That is such a low thing for someone to do. No one should try and kill free speech like that and YouTube should fix this problem ASAP!
MtlRedAtheist 2 years ago 2
VenomFangX is is no longer on you tube, but his spirit will haunt us for forever ;)
LoricusY4 2 years ago
No doubt that Shawn can't be behind this, he wouldn't even think about doing this again especially last time with Thunderf00t and now with his father involved with his youtube activities, he wont dare look at youtube for fear of losing his cash flow to study at University...
t94xr 2 years ago
by zeus,i hope that's not shaun at it again. if it's not can you get him to scold those actions?
farbot 2 years ago
@farbot He's off of Youtube. He won't appear for a while, so he wont be able to denounce the DMCA's. Also, why would he DMCA apologist videos?
apacolypticus 2 years ago
I really don't think it's Shawn, but it's not necessarily the work of an atheist either. For all we know it could be someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica; they love pulling that kind of juvenile nonsense. The DMCA system should be reformed insofar that the person or organisation bringing the allegation should first be required to verify it's identity.
asteroth876 2 years ago
It is far too easy to create a sock account with false information about yourself and file a DMCA on someone.
Instead of working on changing the "look" of YouTube, the developers should be working on policy changes with the 'higher ups' at Google.
Resurrected06 2 years ago
If a senator put up a bunch of videos, and someone flagged them as DMCA violations, this would get solved in about 10 minutes. I don't suggest anyone do that, but I guarantee the senator would take action. I prefer not to mess with lawyers, though.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
this dmca-shit sucks so terribly, they gotta fix it soon!
martialme84 2 years ago
Shaun may have gotten the help he needs. But VenomfangX it seems lives on :P
ThePhoenix370 2 years ago
I don't understand why this loophole in the DMCA has gone on for so long. The person who files the DMCA seems to never need to show a real ownership to the material since they have obviously been filed under false names. Why is there a need fore the defendant to provide valid docs in order to fight this? Can they not at the very least provide a P.O. Box instead of an actual living address?
Anyone?
cmbmachine 2 years ago 14
It's the way the law was written.
Specifically, it was written by copyright holders to be extremely bias in favor of copyright holders. As per usual the people who wrote and passed the law put zero forethought into its implications.
Smidge204 2 years ago
The law is not the problem at all, the problem is Youtube's policy. INtellectual property owners have just as much right to their property as anyone else. It's not their fault that some pimply faced kids on youtube are abusing Youtube's bad policies. *Youtube* claims guilty unless proven otherwise, not the law. *Youtube* takes down content without even verifying anything, not the law. They should require a deposit to file which is refunded when the claim if verified.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
YouTube's policies follow the law almost to the letter. The law itself, while well intentioned, is poorly and unfairly penned.
The law REQUIRES YouTube to remove content at teh slightest provocation. The law REQUIRES personal details to be reported to the claimant but does not require the accused to be given the claimant's details. YouTube is following the law. The law says you're guilty until proven innocent (hint: it's civil not criminal law) - YouTube is just passing the buck.
Smidge204 2 years ago
@Smidge204
This is not true. They are NOT required to do these things. They CAN get sued if nothing is done, yes. But they are not required by law to immediately remove content without asking questions. But please feel free to show the part of the DCMA law that states this and I am more than happy to agree.
Youtube need to simply pass the claim to the accused and when subpoenaed by the accuser, to then provide the accused contact information so the 2 parties can go to court.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
copyright (dot) gov / legislation / dmca.pdf
"Any material that was posted without the copyright owners authorization
must be removed or blocked promptly once the service provider
has been notified that it has been removed, blocked, or ordered to be
removed or blocked, at the originating site."
Got any more uninformed opinions?
Smidge204 2 years ago
I should not that what's probably being referred to is that Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which helps OSPs if they simply remove content in question. Youtube Chooses to follow this route, but they are not forced to. AND more importantly, Youtube is not taking the required steps to VERIFY that the claim is legitimately filed. That's THEIR doing, not the law and in fact they could be seen as violating the law in this sense.
teaboyaudio 2 years ago
@cmbmachine
Not an answer to your question, but I've just sent false info when counter noticing. Was enough to scare the false DMCA'er.
One could of course try and add a paragraph at the bottom of the counter notice, saying one will disclose real identity before the trial, but the counter notice may be refused if one does.
MirrorSockpuppet 2 years ago
This isn't a loophole the DMCA was WRITTEN by big intellectual property owners to be extremely easy to remove their property. It put no controls on their power to remove what ever they want. It was almost designed to be a form of censorship.
SwordSworn147 2 years ago
Because youtube is run by lazy idiots. You'd think a multi-billion dollar company would be able to pay some lawyers to watch the "offending" video to see if they are actually in violation...
mrgreyblake 2 years ago
Because copyright laws are there to protect companies, and we dont have money. Ack we're such plebs.
amarthishness 2 years ago
Unfortunately to those of us who exercise the greater amount of free but controversial speech and some who even don't have controversial messages, YouTube has to cover their own asses by filing the claim and acting upon it, regardless. Now, anyone can file a counterclaim, and usually, shit like this gets overturned once that counterclaim is filed. But even so.
It's YouTube defending themselves. It's an unfortunate necessity on their part, and something WE have to work through. Sad fact of life.
GriffenMorivan 2 years ago
I still laugh every time I hear/read the name "VenomFangX". Not only was he a complete idiot, just the name...referring to a snake...from a Christian...the irony is fuckin hilarious.
TheHigherVoltage 2 years ago 19
That wasn't the story behind his username.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage
"just the name...referring to a snake...from a Christian...the irony is fuckin hilarious."
Actually, the name referred to the Spiderman Villain. Not that thats much of an improvement.
Considering that the character Venom is a psychotic cannibal alien that possesses people and can be defeated with Church Bells.
LordCustos3 2 years ago
@TheHigherVoltage
Yes, the irony is frakin hilarious. Becasue his name didn't refere to a snake. Actually was a combination of 3 chracters from Marvel Comics.
Irony Fail.
GregQzag 2 years ago
I really hope Atheists haven't done this. Christianity isn't the only religion; and I've seen some of the other religions use DMCAs against Christians before. (just throwing that out there)
Aerosteon 2 years ago 10
@Aerosteon
Atheists doing this would be pretty damn hypocritical. How can you come a conclusion based on skeptical inquiry and then try to deny that to others.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 years ago
This isn't an Atheist v Theist type silliness. This is someone exploiting the past and very public actions of VFX for the purposes of ID theft.
aarlin81 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube: Open Warfare X
Now Available for Download!
Parapon3ra 2 years ago 2
So any info if those "Venomfangx Christian Media" are followers of his or is he back again?
RazielKain 2 years ago
Followers obviously. Shaun got over all this ages ago.
joshcena33 2 years ago 4
@RazielKain I wanna believe its one of his cooky followers. As far as we know he's no longer interested in this debate and it being treated at home with his family.
ChaoticShelly 2 years ago
Again this is someone who is using multiple fictional IDs for the purposes of gain user information through the counter notice loophole.
aarlin81 2 years ago
What's going on? A tit for tat thing now? Are christians DMCAing other christians now?
Symos 2 years ago
I sure would like to know who is serving those false DMCA-notifications... I just hope atheists haven't sunk down to the level of creationists in this matter.
jimidinh 2 years ago 7
@jimidinh People file false DMCA's, not atheists/theists.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago 14
@TheRationalizer
You're right of course. Naturally I had hoped that those on our side would be better persons than those on the other side. But I think that's rarely the case, no matter what the conflict's about.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh ANYONE can be an asshole.
If you believe believe atheists are going to be better behaved people simply because of their (lack of) belief then you are just as deluded as those who believe their ethnic group will be better behaved just because they believe in Allah/Jesus/Vishnu... ad nauseum.
It's a shame but it's true. The good news is though that as an atheist you are easily rid of such delusions :)
TheRationalizer 2 years ago 5
@TheRationalizer
I wrote "I had hoped --" not "I had believed". And I definetely don't think that a lack of religious belief in itself results in better behaviour. Don't put words in my mouth.
Anyway, my hopes do have some basis. I bet you know of studies about how religiosity correlates with intelligence or education and crime rates. In my opinion it isn't inadmissible to think that there could be some differences in use of dirty tactics between theists and atheists.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh It was the indefinite "you", or as we say in my neck of the woods.."ya", sorry.
I am not too convinced about those religious statistics for a number of reasons.
1: People identify with a religion through culture and not familiarisation.
2: People think "finding Jesus" helps with their parole.
3: If a majority of people in a country claim a religion then a sample of inmates should represent it.
I haven't looked, but I would expect Sweden/France to show the opposite.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
1. Whatever the reason for indentification is, it doesn't change what the statistics say about religious groups.
2. Maybe true, but in one study I glanced through the religion of an inmate was recorded when he/she entered the prison and was never changed. So "finding Jesus" would not show up in the statistics. I don't know if this true for other statistics
3.The point was that the percentage of atheists in prison population was lower than the percentage of atheists in general population.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh
1: Is relevant because many people who claim to be X do not practise X.
2: One person isn't relevant. People do lie to help with their parole.
3: And I don't think it is relevant :)
There are 3 kinds of lie. Lies, damned lies, and statistics :)
Being religious doesn't make you more likely to commit crime. I think being poor makes you more likely to commit crime, and more likely to live in a religious neighbourhood though.
Try the same survey for Sweden.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
1. I don't care about practising. Christian is a christian whether he goes to church or not.
2. It was a study, not a person. Even if people lied later to get on parole I don't think it would affect studies. When on parole they wouldn't be on statistics about prison population.
3. It means atheists are less likely to end up in jail. I think it's relevant.
If you have claims about Sweden, feel free to dig up surveys.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh
1: You are incorrect. My friend believes he is a Muslim because his parents were. He's never read the Quran, doesn't pray, knows nothing about it. He is NOT a Muslim by birth right any more than *I* am a train driver.
2: You said "an inmate"
3: In which country? A mostly Christian one right? What about in Sweden where most people are atheists?
A positive correlation does not prove a cause.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
1. Your friend doesn't believe in Allah, but considers himself a muslim? If that's common, it would affect the statistics.
2. You really didn't understand I meant every prisoner?
3. I have seen statistics about USA. I tried searching information about Sweden. My swedish is a bit rusty, but I think they are not allowed to ask prisoners about their religion. Alas, no statistics.
Correlation doesn't imply causation and I never claimed that it did.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh
1: That is correct. I live close to an area mostly populated by Pakistani Muslims. I have known a lot of Muslims in my life, very few actually knew anything about their religion. Their parents tell them all their life they are a Muslim, they believe it, just like "I am a Pakistani".
2: No I didn't, because you said "an inmate" rather than "the inmates".
3: Estonia, Czech republic, Denmark, Norway, France, Netherlands.
4: So their religion is irrelevant? Then what's your point?
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
1. Very well. Doesn't explain why there are less atheists in prisons. A non-believing muslim would call himself muslim in and out of the prison.
2. *sigh* From actual publication: "The religious affiliation of a prisoner is recorded at reception into a prison establishment--". Not good enough for you?
3. Feel free to dig up statistics. I make no claims about those countries.
4. If there's correlation, it's not irrelevant. Religion and criminal behaviour may have a common cause, for example.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh
1: In a country that is mostly Christian I would expect mostly Christians in prison, which is why I suggested you compare against countries that are mostly atheist.
2: There's no need to sigh. If I had noticed "he/she" it might have been more obvious, but then if you had made it plural it would have also been more obvious. It's not a big deal, just a misunderstanding on my part.
3: So you claim this is only an American phenomenon and not a religious one?
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
Once again: the % of atheists in prisons is smaller than the % of atheists in general population.
2008 33.3 % of prison population in the UK was labelled as "no religion" (Prison population statistics 12.11.2009). 2007 the biggest religious group in the UK was "no religion", with 45.7 % (BSA Survey 2007). So that's another country in addition to USA, and its biggest religious group is "no religion". I also hope the percentages help you understand my point.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh Yeah, and all my life my entire family wrote "Church of England" on forms whenever asked for our religion, and yet my entire family were atheists. My mom used to say "It's all rubbish, anyone who believes in god is an idiot".
It still only shows that religion doesn't prevent crime, if that is your objective then I am happy to agree.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
That doesn't skew the statistics between general population and prison population. It only makes the percentage of atheists seem smaller in BOTH groups. So there must be some other reason why it seems atheists are less likely to end up in prison.
To prove that religion doesn't prevent crime it would be enough that the percentages were the same in general and prison population. But now, if the statistics are reliable, it seems atheism DOES prevent toime to a certain degree.
jimidinh 2 years ago
@jimidinh No it doesn't, positive correlation alone is not sufficient to prove cause.
You could prove religion causes crime if it orders people to do something illegal and they are doing it whereas other people are not.
You could disprove that religion prevents crime by showing there is NO correlation.
To say that a belief (or lack thereof) prevents crime based on a positive correlation is incorrect, it's not enough evidence.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
I said "it seems"..
But lets wrap this up. Do you agree that, according to those statistics:
1. people with no religion are less likely to end up in prison.
2. people with religion are more likely to end up in prison.
jimidinh 2 years ago 2
@TheRationalizer
You might not be convinced, but the numbers are undeniable. The prison thing might be skewed a little due to "jailhouse converstions," but the fact that the more secular a society is the lower the overall crime rates, shows something.
Even in the USA, the states with the worst crime, highest teen pregnancy and STD rates, highest amount of poverty, etc, are all in the most religious of states.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
@KemaTheAtheist Sure the numbers are undeniable, but as I said a positive correlation does not prove a cause. Religion isn't causing them to offend.
I repeat, try the same survey in Sweden and I suspect you might find the highest proportion of people in prison are atheists.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
If it was only crime we were talking about here, I would agree, because only one correlation would be suspect, but nearly all of society's ills increase in religious areas and are worse the more religious the area is... sorry, religion is the cause, especially when you can pinpoint more things... like teen pregnancy and STD rates increasing in areas that teach "abstience-only" education which is a religion based policy.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
@KemaTheAtheist Religion can cause increased child pregnancy in areas where it is morally unacceptable to buy condoms, sure.
I REALLY can't see religion being the cause of crime though. If you can then you'll have to explain to me how.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
So, you think it's just coinscidence that the higher the religiosity of the area that there's an increase in all of society's ills? And it's just coinscidence that that's the trend for pretty much every society around the entire world?
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer
"I REALLY can't see religion being the cause of crime though. If you can then you'll have to explain to me how."
There once was a boy who wanted a bike, so he prayed for one. Then he realized that God didn't work that way, so he stole the bike and prayed for forgiveness.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
A boy came home and saw his mom writhing naked on the bed saying "Oh god I need a man".
The next day he saw her doing the same "Oh god I REALLY need a man"
The next day he came home early and saw her writing naked in bed with a man.
He ran into his bedroom, took off all his clothes, and started to write around saying "Oh god I need a bike!"
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer I understand why you don't see religion being the cause, because it isn't. Ignorance is, and religion is more readily accepted of ignorance, and nearly all of them say you can ask forgiveness from their god.
The offenders were likely to commit the crime anyways, but religion does give them a sense of innocence in those who see it as their scapegoat.
I'm an atheist, just stating a fact before people thought I was giving aan approval.
Forgive any errors, new comments are weird.
lackin124 2 years ago
@lackin124 Indeed. Religion isn't the cause of these crimes (although I think male genital mutilation SHOULD be a crime).
I just think that people in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes, and people in poor areas are also more likely to be religious. It's the poverty and lack of opportunity in many cases (but not all).
It's certainly not religion causing it. It is however safe to say that religion clearly doesn't PREVENT people from committing crime.
Yes, new comments are shit!
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer Exactly, people in poor areas are more likely to surremder the chance of education for the sake of getting wealth sooner, which leaves them entirely more likely to believe in silly things. Glad we could work this out "Rationally" *insert audience groan here*
lackin124 2 years ago
@lackin124 Me too. I don't care if I was right or wrong to start with, I just aim to be right at the end of a conversation :)
I wat thinking about people like Cavendish, Einstein, Darwin. These people didn't need to work and so had a lot of time just to think about stuff. Can you imagine how great mankind's achievements would be if we eradicated poverty to a level where people didn't need to work so hard and more people had more time just to think? :)
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
@TheRationalizer Indeed it would be nice if we made a work like that, but some people don't do well with spending their time thinking, like my brother who would probably spend it being drunk. Sucks, but it's true in some cases at least.
lackin124 2 years ago
@T