Could not have said it better myself. People who try to dress up their religion with smart-sounding words are worse than the evangelicals who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, since you can at least see those people coming from a mile away. Just because scientists don't quite yet know everything about quantum mechanics is no excuse to try and smuggle in "spiritual" (whatever that even means) ridiculousness inside; it's a god of the gaps fallacy, in simple terms.

This concept is a hypothesis, at best; it's wishful thinking perpetuated by people trying to post-hoc their way into a valid argument for a god of some sort. Deepak Chopra would be proud of you.

The story feels a bit like fear mongering with its reference to "spying on stalkers", as if their privacy is somehow being infringed upon. A better phrasing would be something like "this tech is being used to protect the artist from potential harm by over zealous fans". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same "click-baity" feel.

This article popped up right as I'm watching Snowden which, of course, makes me 100x more intrigued.

Wait...do these guys want me to log in with all my credentials?? Now I'm confused...

Well now, he could have been referring to the Danish Refugee Council, Disability Rights Commission, Dutch Reform Church or even the Dogbert's Ruling Class!

More false generalizations. For having such a strong opinion as to what it is "they" want, then you should have no problem citing sources that suggest any Democrat wants to take guns away from responsible citizens who are able to pass a background check.

So, please, inform me correctly if you can.

All you're presenting to me are false generalizations and opinions blown out of proportion; they have no basis in reality. Show me where ANY Democrat, let alone HRC, has said they think no Republicans should be allowed to own guns.

I wish more people followed basic rules of logic the way you just did. So many goddamn emotions flying around with all this Clinton/Trump shit that it's clouding peoples' better judgement, I guess.

I actually agree with that. I'm a gun enthusiast with 16 years of military service and I have no interest in seeing assault rifles, nor any other type of gun, taken away "just because". But I see very little from her on specific gun types and more on making sure only responsible, mentally healthy people can have access to them. I fail to see how that's unreasonable...

Pray tell, then...exactly what is your basis for jumping on the Clinton hate wagon? Is it because she's a Democrat and you're not? She has opinions you don't agree with? I'm genuinely curious.

That's an awful lot of adjectives...you sure they mean what you think they mean? I fail to see how trying to shed some rationality on a comment that was anything but, warranted such a response...but alrighty.

No one has said anything about taking away "muh gunns"...they just want to make it harder for people to get them who shouldn't have them.

“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

Nice, thank you. Except that the next move will be to discredit Snopes in some way, citing how their neighbor's boyfriend's uncle knows a guy that works for Snopes and says they take hush-money from the DNC all the time.

Finally, a rational person...

Works for fundamentalist Christians the same way, I think...