You're starting to sound much like a politically correct postmodernist now. Does watching that video make you feel more violent towards women, or towards Hillary for that matter? Probably not, I certainly didn't see such an effect on myself.
That's such a specious argument. You only have to go one level of moron below laughing at it to believing it a legitimate way to act. Congratulations on being half-way there. The fact that I'm not biting doesn't mean no-one will.
No, it's not funny; it's in bad taste especially because it's male on female violence and also because it encourages violence against Clinton individually and political opponents in general. The fact that it's coming from the Presidumb is SAD but sadly not surprising.
It was in bad taste because the President should be above childish humor. Of course, had I put the video together, it would be funny because mods are held to lower standards generally than leaders of the free world.
It was funny though, and not because I at all like to see elderly men slam elderly women with golf balls, but its humor lies in the fact that Donald Trump was playing golf on a course dangerously close to a runway where Hillary Clinton was deplaning. I mean who the hell planned that whole thing? They should have at least put up a screen near the runway so that golf balls wouldn't hit presidential candidates.
When I awoke at the dentist's office, I awoke face down in the chair. How did he work on my mouth when I was face down? I'm starting to feel cold. Would someone hold me?
Robert LockhartSeptember 19, 2017 at 18:42#1061860 likes
Could it make any sense to say that the greatest moment of your life is on the point of your death?...Just a thought!
That's such a specious argument. You only have to go one level of moron below laughing at it to believing it a legitimate way to act. Congratulations on being half-way there. The fact that I'm not biting doesn't mean no-one will.
I just think you're taking the video too seriously. I don't see how it would legitimise violence against Clinton. It's more like a symbolic video showing that Trump won the election over Clinton, and in that sense "knocked her down".
What do you think, for example, about the many times when they make cartoons of politicians boxing in a ring? Does that encourage violence towards them too, because some dumb people will take it so literarily? :s
What Shkreli did for example, by offering money for a piece of Clinton's hair is by far more likely to be an encouragement to violence towards Clinton than Trump's clip. There's no incentive in the Trump clip to do violence to Clinton. But in Shkreli's post there was (namely the financial compensation).
What Shkreli did for example, by offering money for a piece of Clinton's hair is by far more likely to be an encouragement to violence towards Clinton than Trump's clip. There's no incentive in the Trump clip to do violence to Clinton. But in Shkreli's post there was (namely the financial compensation).
That guy has a serious sociopathic attitude towards society, for which he will hopefully pay for with time in jail or be financially ruined. Trump at least is more rational.
I just don't get why its funny to see an old lady get hit by a golf ball and fall over. Sorry, I guess I'm weird.
If the video was of Trump hitting any old lady with a golf ball that would have been disgusting and not funny.
However, the video is funny because Clinton was Trump's opponent, she laughed at him, mocked him, and tried to ignore him during the election, trying to portray herself as aloof and superior to him. And yet, she still lost. It's much like they would have shown a boxing cartoon animation of Hillary and Trump fighting, with Trump winning. Such political cartoons are common. Do you think they too encourage violence?
I don't expect you to find the video funny, but there's a long way from "this is not funny" to "this is an endorsement of male violence towards women". I think there's a long way even to the statement that "this is an endorsement of violence towards Clinton". It's in no way like Shkreli's post since there is no incentive for such actions provided.
PS: Not to mention that we know that Trump never actually hit Clinton with the golf ball, it's just something that is put together like that. The ball hitting Clinton was a separate incident.
Robert LockhartSeptember 19, 2017 at 19:04#1061960 likes
Cheers, Baden! Glad to have had the effect of leaving the Wise One - May Allah make him fecund and his tribe increase - in such joyous spirits! I will send him my handsomest dromedary with the advice that through communing with it he may thus guarantee the enhancment of his venerable line! :)
That guy has a serious sociopathic attitude towards society, for which he will hopefully pay for with time in jail or be financially ruined. Trump at least is more rational.
I doubt it's that easy for him to be financially ruined. How could that happen? He has upward of $50 million, it's not easy to lose that much money, unless you do something stupid with them.
I would agree that he has a serious problem in how he relates with other people. But at the same time, he's not a dumb guy. His problems are more emotional and behaviour wise.
I didn't say it was an "endorsement" of violence because that would suggest something deliberate on Trump's part. And I think it's much more likely he thinks like you, that it's just a harmless joke. That doesn't mean it is though or that it doesn't have the effect of chipping away at civilized norms. I could probably write a book about why I think that's the case but it would have no effect on you if you can't feel at least a twinge of discomfort watching the vid.
I'm glad you're feeling jolly Robert, but after five readings of that post I still have little to no clue what it means (and I am the resident RL interpreter so that's saying something :) ). I can only hope you are not so lost as to be referring to @Hanover as the "Wise one". :-O
it would have no effect on you if you can't feel at least a twinge of discomfort watching it.
Are you an emotivist when it comes to morality? The reason I'm asking is that it seems to me that your point is that you can't rationally convince anyone who doesn't have a certain emotion associated with watching that video that it is wrong.
That logic does not compute. Why would I have to be an emotivist to think that you being unable to feel any discomfort at watching that video would cause you not to be convinced by my arguments concerning its offensiveness?
Why would I have to be an emotivist to think that you being unable to feel any discomfort at watching that video would cause you not to be convinced by my arguments concerning its offensiveness?
Because it seems that you presuppose that me becoming convinced of the wrongness of X entails that I already have a (negative) emotional reaction to it. Without that emotional reaction, I cannot become convinced.
No, you've got your wires crossed. I can make statements concerning a given subject's (in this case you) psychological openness to rational argument on a given matter without saying anything whatsoever about my meta-ethical position.
I can make statements concerning a given subject's (in this case you) psychological openness to rational argument on a given matter without saying anything whatsoever about meta-ethics.
Why would I in particular not be psychologically open to rational argument? Is it because according to you I lack a certain emotional response? If that is so, then you obviously do associate the capacity to perceive morality with the presence of a certain emotional response.
I think you, and others like you, tend to generalize from their emotional response or lack thereof outwards and consider arguments against your position to be based on faulty notions of PC (or etc). that will result in you discounting them in advance. The emotivist stuff is a red herring. (Not an uninteresting subject. Just not germane enough here to pursue.)
I'm glad you're feeling jolly Robert, but after five readings of that post I still have little to no clue what it means (and I am the resident RL interpreter so that's saying something :) ). I can only hope you are not so lost as to be referring to Hanover as the "Wise one". :-O
His post made no sense, so I wrote one making less sense, which made my post a genius response. If you were even genuiser, you'd write an even less sensical response and then you'd be like Einstein or something.
No, you've got your wires crossed. I can make statements concerning a given subject's (in this case you) psychological openness to rational argument on a given matter without saying anything whatsoever about my meta-ethical position.
You're a Humean emotivist of the lowest sort. You've been discovered.
I could probably write a book about why I think that's the case but it would have no effect on you if you can't feel at least a twinge of discomfort watching the vid.
In your book, would you put me in the acknowledgements section?
If you were even genuiser, you'd write an even less sensical response and then you'd be like Einstein or something.
Like this?
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
See how I brought two disconnected discussions together? I guess that does make me like Einstein or something.
Reply to Baden I don't understand this joke so I'll respond literally. No, a bus isn't a phallic symbol. It's a large vehicle designed for transporting numerous people to a common destination. On the other hand, a phallic symbol is a type of ice cream cone where you suck the melting dripping juices from the small hole on the underside.
It's late and the weight of the cat on my leg keeps me up, and by cat, I mean vaj. Why is her vaj so damn heavy and why must she sleep it on my leg? No, wait, it's literally a cat. I'll just move her.
VagabondSpectreSeptember 20, 2017 at 07:33#1063760 likes
I just don't get why its funny to see an old lady get hit by a golf ball and fall over. Sorry, I guess I'm weird.
This is actually a very interesting question...
In high school one of my english teachers snagged her foot on a power chord and - almost - face planted on the hard linoleum floor. The classroom erupted in laughter.
"You're all sick! Do you think it's funny that I almost seriously injured myself!? Is that what you all wanted to see?". She really laid into us and pointed out how very unfunny she felt her near accident actually was. The whole class went instantly and shamefully silent...
"Why did everyone laugh?", I wondered... Perhaps it was that she didn't actually fall over which constituted the humor; near/failed tragedy. But perhaps some students did laugh not because she didn't fall, and instead laughed because she cut a clumsy and pathetic figure. If she had fallen, would some students laugh even harder?
For some peculiar reason random and arbitrary harm done upon unsuspecting persons evokes laughter in the modern voyeur. Certainly there is a threshold where comedic slaps become discomforting or even painful to witness, but for different people this threshold can be located at different distances down the road to abhorrence.
Perhaps this form of comedy is learned? As a child seeing a hungry coyote be impossibly flattened by a boulder was supposed to be the punch line, but then again it always managed to survive. So perhaps what's funny is the idea of Hillary being comedically knocked down, knowing she is in reality unharmed, rather than the actual idea of an old woman (even Hillary) being legitimately injured.
Violence definitely occupies a singular and peculiar role amongst the idols of western culture...
It's partly about how civilized we are; as a species, we're never far off lynching parties, executing kids or chasing down and butchering "the other". That's a far cry from laughing at an old woman getting knocked down on a silly video, but it still appeals to a streak of cruelty that runs deep and we should be wary of in my view. As I was saying earlier though, if the video doesn't bother someone at all, it's hard to abstract it into a social threat no matter what the argument: "If it doesn't bother me then why should it bother anyone?" type of thing. It also seems to be that the fact we laugh at stuff like that is built in to a degree:
In the example you gave, the teacher was the only party involved and the laughter seems to be mostly explicable by the confusion effect mentioned in the New Statesman article above - we just laugh automatically in the moment and then, depending on circumstances, feel differently about it. Imagine, by contrast, if a student stood up and threw something at the teacher causing her to almost fall, the likely reaction then would be shock rather than laughter among most of the students. Because now there's a threat involved. If the video just involved Hillary Clinton clumsily falling over, less people would find it distasteful. What it comes down to then is how you perceive the golf ball situation - as absolute harmless slapstick, or something a bit more sinister. For me, it veers towards the latter - especially because it's the head of state putting it out there - and represents a further undermining of what's publically acceptable. And what's publically acceptable is what essentially defines how civilized we are. I don't want to overstate things because I don't think we're in real danger of going very far backwards, at least in the short term, but I think it's worth highlighting this kind of stuff anyway.
Here's an interesting vid that touches on the same broad topic by the magician/mentalist Derren Browne:
"Why did everyone laugh?", I wondered... Perhaps it was that she didn't actually fall over which constituted the humor; near/failed tragedy.
There were a couple of kids here recently that threw heavy and large rocks over a bridge where below were cars driving past, hitting the front screen of a truck that almost lost control. They are unaware of violence, ignorant to the experience capped with being really stupid because of the lack of guidance. The students in the class probably stopped laughing because they are afraid of getting into trouble and probably laughed because others were; feeling remorse is entirely something else.
especially because it's the head of state putting it out there - and represents a further undermining of what's publically acceptable. And what's publically acceptable is what essentially defines how civilized we are.
Here's our fundamental difference, and why I like Trump while you hate Trump. You believe that something being publically acceptable defines how civilized we are. I think that something being publically acceptable has become the worst and most repugnant form of hypocrisy, which masks society's true face.
No, we - the majority of us - are the farthest from civilized. Most of us like to pretend to civility, but are in truth uncivilized. Think about the locker-room talk incident with Trump. Quite certainly many of the people in the media who critiqued Trump behave no differently than him in private.
What Trump said was indeed disgusting, but that wasn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that what Trump said is what most people (specifically men in this case) would say - let's be real now. That's the problem. It's not that "uhh the President said it, OMG so terrible". No, the President is just a symptom of society at large.
So of course I like Trump - he unmasks pretensions of morality in ourselves. He shows us who we really are as a society, not who we want to pretend to be. And it's about time we look at ourselves as we are. Otherwise, Western civilization will never save itself. We need to address these problems at the lowest levels, not the highest.
The public "illusion" of civilization is civilization, Agustino. The mask is reality. There's nothing else. No other "true face". This is your fundamental confusion. So, Trump's showing us "who we really are", peeling back the so-called mask, does represent a degradation of civilization as without the "mask" we would find it legitimate to publically act out our private vulgarities and barbarities and that is the definition of social chaos.
I mean, take your idea to its logical conclusion and imagine all public leaders "being themselves"; international diplomacy would quickly collapse. How would that help to save western civilization? And all this is very strange coming from you, someone who claims to want a more decent, Christian, and conservative society. Conservatism is the ultimate mask, the ultimate hypocrisy. It just can't be otherwise. Human nature is going to do cartwheels to please your fantasies of a non-hypocritical world.
I mean, take your idea to its logical conclusion and imagine all public leaders "being themselves"; international diplomacy would quickly collapse.
Yes indeed. That's because "international diplomacy" is in truth nothing but a power game. In fact, it doesn't need the mask anyway - this is what you don't get. The players already know that this "international diplomacy" is a game. Obama already knows that "international diplomacy" is a game - an illusion. He just acts - for the eyes of the people - as if it was real. International diplomacy is not at all needed to avoid escalation of conflicts - such is already in the interests of power structures. And when it's not, then conflict is unavoidable anyway, regardless of "international diplomacy".
And all this is very strange coming from you, someone who claims to want a more decent, Christian, and conservative society.
No, it is not strange at all. Because life is already like living in the maskless society. The effects of it are still there. The effects of Trump's behaviour already exist and influence our lives, whether we try to cover them up or not. The cover - which you call civilisation - cannot protect us from the reality. People already behave like Trump in truth - in private. In public, they merely pretend they don't. What good does that do to anyone?
I want an authentic conservative society, built from the lowest levels. In my society it's not cool to - for example - have sex with as many women as possible. That is not a source of self-esteem. But in this society, that is a source of self-esteem. But we like to pretend it isn't - we throw stones at people like Trump who do it publicly. Their error isn't that they behave like that - it's only that they do it in public. If only they could keep it behind closed doors, like the rest of us, wouldn't it be wonderful? Then we would have no disputations with their behaviour!
And that's precisely my point - this wouldn't help anyone. Because the effects of it would still exist in society, even though we pretend not to see them - even though we repress them. And because we repress them, we cannot address them.
Reply to Baden My society makes Trump impossible precisely by changing our values. A philanderer cannot be a cool guy who is admired by his society (even if secretly) when philandering isn't a value of the said society. In my society, a Trump would have to change his behaviour if he wants to rise to fame and power. And in truth, the only reason why Trump behaves the way he does, is because that's what we have taught him brings power and prestige! If we just switched what brings power and prestige, Trump's behaviour would change. He, like most people, is opportunistic in that sense.
You seem to be saying we need to destroy the village to save it. Well, I live here so I'd rather not be "saved". But the fundamental disagreement seems to me to be that I say civilization is a mask and a necessary one. You say no, there is some "real" version of civilization that can go all the way down so to speak. All I can do is reiterate that this isn't the way things work in civilized societies - good old garden variety hypocrisy will always be present to a huge degree unless there is extreme repression / brainwashing of the North Korea type and even then there'll be hypocrisy only in a different form.
My society makes Trump impossible precisely by changing our values. A philanderer cannot be a cool guy who is admired by his society (even if secretly) when philandering isn't a value of the said society.
And yet the biological urges towards the repressed behavior will remain leading to an even larger gap between the personal and the social and therefore a more extreme form of hypocrisy. If philandering is admired by society, to express a desire not to engage in it while privately doing it is less socially hypocritical than if it's considered taboo, right? So, I'm not sure that hypocrisy is your problem but more that excessive social freedom is. In which case, ironically, you agree with me that public vulgarity of the Trump sort should be vilified not encouraged. The difference being that you seem to think more of it will somehow lead to less of it because hypocrisy will be exposed and we'll all learn our lesson - or something along those lines. I disagree, I think that more of it will lead to more of it.
As I was saying earlier though, if the video doesn't bother someone at all, it's hard to abstract it into a social threat no matter what the argument: "If it doesn't bother me then why should it bother anyone?" type of thing. It also seems to be that the fact we laugh at stuff like that is built in to a degree:
It didn't bother me and it's not because you're more civilized than me or more evolved. It didn't bother me because she really wasn't hit with a golf ball. It was fabricated. When the Three Stooges poke each other's eyes, one thing that can make it funny (if you laugh at such things) is that their eyes aren't actually gouged out.
If they create a video of Trump being gang tackled by the House of Representatives, that might be funny, might not be, but in no event would I be offended that it actually meant the House was really pouncing on him.
But have at it, keep on believing that the right is just one good lecture away to seeing things your way. It's been soooo effective so far.
It didn't bother me because she really wasn't hit with a golf ball. It was fabricated.
Sorry. That doesn't work. Everyone has a limit. Presumably a video of Trump kicking Clinton in the face while she was lying on the ground would bother you, even if fabricated, right?
All I can do is reiterate that this isn't the way things work in civilized societies - good old garden variety hypocrisy will always be present to a huge degree unless there is extreme repression / brainwashing of the North Korea type and even then it'll still be there only in a different form.
I disagree. It largely has to do with the era in question. The ages have different governing spiritual principles that dictate the mindset of most people and the cultures which flourish. We live in a time of global spiritual darkness - the end of an era.
The birth and golden age of civilisation is usually marked by much stronger moral values within society, greater asceticism & discipline, and so on so forth. The West has however, it seems, largely run its course. Along similar lines, you can read this paper.
If philandering is admired by society, to express a desire not to engage in it while privately doing it is less socially hypocritical than if it's considered taboo, right?
So, I'm not sure that hypocrisy is your problem but more that excessive social freedom is it
No, it's not freedom, it's awareness of what our social values actually are. We can't change them until we become aware of what they actually are. Not what we pretend they are.
The difference being that you seem to think more of it will somehow lead to less of it because hypocrisy will be exposed and we'll all learn our lesson or something along those lines.
Yes, because we won't be able to hide from our vileness anymore.
Reply to Baden I could pretend to be offended at a fabricated golf ball video, but I'm not. I wish I had the sensitivity of a Baden, but, alas, I'm a Hanover. I truly doubt I'd be offended at the kicking video you described, although I would be surprised by it because I know there are people like you who would object and that would create a stir.
And before you suggest that I want these things to happen to Clinton, you're wrong. It's just slapstick theater to me, not at all rooted in reality, much like when I watch Freddy Krueger slash people up. No one really gets hurt. It just appeals to something within us, but nothing dangerous or in need of repression.
Just name one you think is close and then I'll comment. (I'm not going to read a 20 page paper to get the answer to a simple question when you could just provide it).
You wouldn't be in the least bit disturbed by a video showing Trump repeatedly kicking Clinton in the face? OK, well that's odd even for you. Not that I believe you or anything.
Reply to Baden It would be shocking for sure, and it'd be even more shocking if Trump retweeted it, and it would be cause for alarm if someone of significance created the video, but if you and your friends got drunk and made the video and limited its viewing to just me and a few friends, I'd think it was nuts, but I wouldn't be offended. So, what I'm saying is that if you do get drunk and you do make that award winning video, I'd love to see it.
All this reminded me of the old Celebrity Deathmatch that used to air. They'd make Claymation characters of celebrities and have them fight in gory wrestling death matches. That is to say, the Trump vs. Clinton idea isn't all that original.
The birth and golden age of civilisation is usually marked by much stronger moral values within society, greater asceticism & discipline, and so on so forth. The West has however, it seems, largely run its course. Along similar lines, you can read this paper.
I see these are the thoughts of Glubb Pasha, a military man (and brilliant in that field) of a certain old imperial school, meditating on the Decline of the West. He was an Arabist who thought the shape of the Jewish nose was important, and that the Jews had been foolish enough to invent the concept of the master race themselves. 'An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline,' I see, as evidenced by tenth-century Baghdad, where pop music, the rise of women and other forms of general licentiousness destroyed an empire from within. I don't know how the rest of us can have overlooked Glubb Pasha's insights till now.
Reply to mcdoodle Right, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the subject matter of the essay. It's just like me telling you don't listen to Wagner because he was an antisemite. Or don't read Schopenhauer because he was a misogynist. These people's failures in certain regards don't say anything about their success or ideas with regards to other matters.
Right, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the subject matter of the essay. It's just like me telling you don't listen to Wagner because he was an antisemite. Or don't read Schopenhauer because he was a misogynist. These people's failures in certain regards don't say anything about their success or ideas with regards to other matters.
Well, (a) I thought other people who couldn't be arsed to read the essay you referenced might like to know what sort of fellow you were recommending - and when we're talking about an essayist I think their other opinions in other essays count, I certainly think Schopenhauer's misogyny counts against his worth in general for instance; and (b) 'An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline,' is a quote from the essay you were recommending, not some extraneous material.
Just name one you think is close and then I'll comment. (I'm not going to read a 20 page paper to get the answer to a simple question when you could just provide it).
Still waiting on an answer to this. You said there were "quite a few" so it should be easy.
Still waiting on an answer to this. You said there were "quite a few" so it should be easy.
Yes, I've been running, cooking dinner and eating earlier. Hence why I haven't answered you yet. Don't be in such a hurry. Even now I have to finish some marketing work.
Most great civilisations before they reach their peak would fit the bill. I'm speaking to the period immediately when they reach greatness. You can take the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance period as periods of great flourishing for culture, and a renewal of all of life. Even Baghdad during the golden age of Islam, when it was the capital of learning of the whole world.
I certainly think Schopenhauer's misogyny counts against his worth in general for instance
Then you'd be wrong. There's immense value in Schopenhauer's thought, and I say that as someone who ultimately disagrees with Schopenhauer on many points.
'An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline,'
Okay, he said this, amongst the many other things he has said in this essay. Why is it so relevant that you feel the need to bring it up in particular? Why don't you focus on the general point, namely that civilisations have a life-cycle, which starts with a burst of energy and high morality which builds the civilisation, and as material conditions improve over the lifetime of generations, people start slowly dropping the discipline, they start accepting barbarians, they forget about religious values, immorality increases etc. etc. and this leads to collapse. That's what you should be focusing on. That's what you should be doing if you really want - as you claim - to teach people about the essay and its author. Otherwise, you're just being a propagandist and spreading red herrings around, just to avoid the main topic.
And by the way, what do you say about Eastern Orthodox Christianity (or Catholic for that matter) who don't allow women priests? Indeed, these institutions would consider it a "decline" to allow women priests in public life. Are you opposed to these religious traditions? Even many Protestants are opposed to the idea of having women ministers. Are you opposed to them too? What about Mount Athos, where women aren't allowed to even step foot? Is it wrong to have such places? What about monasteries that are just for nuns, and men aren't allowed inside? Is that wrong too? We should tear them down? What about toilets?! Shall we have a common public toilet for both men and women?
It's a shoutbox. I shouted, in response to your shout. If you want to make a case for something, start a thread. If you want to make a casual rhetorical point, then expect others to be casually rhetorical in return. None of my points were red herrings: Glubb Pasha was a fine man in many ways, but also an anti-Semite and a bit of a misogynist, though probably no more than his contemporaries. His views about empires seem like tosh to me, but the tosh of someone who has experienced some of what he's talking about, so someone to be reckoned with.
I have my own foci, thanks. Tonight I was re-reading Habermas on Heidegger's Nazism, to remind myself about this very question: whether one can indeed admire some of the philosophy of someone who behaves badly (n Heidegger's case, appallingly).
StreetlightSeptember 21, 2017 at 01:35#1066610 likes
Reply to mcdoodle If you're interested, there was a recently published collection - Reading Heidegger's Black Notebooks 1931–1941 - prompted by the recent publication of Heidi's rather awful 'black notebooks' in 2014. I've only read Zizek's contribution to it which I quite like, but yeah, that's a thing.
civilisations have a life-cycle, which starts with a burst of energy and high morality which builds the civilisation,
On a smaller scale than great civilizations, organizations (like non-profits) often begin with a very bright flash of innovation, energy, and accomplishment. This fine period reaches a peak in... maybe 10 years, maybe 15 and then enters a long period where it performs its mission in a sustainable, but not perhaps particularly distinguished manner. The transition years from vigorous innovation to plodding performance can be quite stormy.
The Renaissance didn't happen everywhere simultaneously; I think we have look at that as a series of renaissance periods for different countries.
What about the United States? We had a period of effervescent political philosophy and institution building brought on by frustration with our colonial relationship to GB. That was probably our peak for that field lasting maybe 50 years. Industrially, we didn't peak until... WWII and the 20 years following. Intellectually we peaked in the 1950s-1960s, or earlier by a decade or two -- depending. Maybe we are at a technical peak now, don't know, but if we are still peaking, we are also rotting at the same time. Let's blame the barbarians. DEPORT THE BARBARIANS!
What about Britain? The German-speaking people (Germans, Austrians...)? Russia? Bulgaria--have they had a renaissance?
Yes, I've been running, cooking dinner and eating earlier. Hence why I haven't answered you yet. Don't be in such a hurry. Even now I have to finish some marketing work.
Sorry, the paranoiac in me thought you might try to avoid that one. Hope all that running, cooking and marketing hasn't given you indigestion. :)
Such cozy material; I remember this book, I never spared the time for much 'reading' fiction, but I think I'll get this on my iPod when I get new labtop.
I had the BEST dream last night. It was hailing giant M&M's but I was inside and when it stopped, I went outside and picked one up, which was about the size of my hand, and ate it.
Someone should have told the Presibum that taking on Kim Jong Un and the NFL simultaneously is not a good idea. We can only hope he doesn't get confused and nuke the Super Bowl.
Yeah, and only then I will have some closure, about being fat...
Cheep up, you. If it is any consolation, I have been told that I am pretty attractive and I find big guys good looking. So, right now, you are the hottest guy in the forum. :-*
The other fact is that you are whinging. You are fat because you eat a lot and probably don't exercise. So, stop eating a lot and exercise. Otherwise, don't whinge.
On an unrelated note, what ever happened to mayor of simpleton?
I tossed a message in a bottle so stay tuned.
On a related note, if I remember around the time he drifted, there were choppy waters in here and maybe something was correlated that really wasn't accurate. Maybe?
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 24, 2017 at 13:46#1078500 likes
I remember Mayor complaining about the current immigration policies in Austria being implemented. I don't follow the politics but I know that swstephe logged off around Trump's inauguration. Politics, messy stuff.
Mayor is probably running for office or something, he's a real go getter. Only one to have ever gotten two important trophies in his baseball league he was telling me, plus all that other shit he does.
Swstephe was worried about never being able to see his family in the states again... or at least for some time...
Happy B'day Cavacava! You are, by far, the best man that I know online and I am working hard to find that balance between reason and passion as you exemplify everyday. Enjoy your holidays, but try to cut back on the fresh orange juice at night. Too much sugar. :P
So Trump tweeted today that NFL players locking arms during the national anthem is good. Given that they were locking arms in protest of his asinine remarks of the day before, does this mean that he agrees that he’s an asshole?
Thank you TL, I've been walking my butt off, everything is up and down like a roller coaster here, the views are fantastic. Eating a lot of splendidly prepared cod, sardines, and salmon. The wine is cheap and good. Drinking fresh squeezed OJ instead of eating rich desserts. I think I am starting to get the hang of the little espresso shots, savoring coffee instead of chugging it in multi mug portions.
As a school of philosophy, which I like to think of this Forum as, I believe the truest form of truth can be created by debate and idea sharing. The goal of the debate is not to prove the other person wrong, although at times it may be necessary to stress a point. The goal of the debate is to contribute your own ideas to it. Be brave and put them out there, while also defending them, conceding the flaws in them (of which there will be plenty), and questioning the ideas of other's contributions.
To chase after one person's idea, as if they are a god, not contributing your own unique ideas, only seeking to bail them up and prove them wrong, while ignoring the contributions of others, is the worst type of Philosophical Discourse there can be.
Nothing wrong with thinking of an online forum as a school or whatever. You may be setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect others to share your fantasy.
It's fine where it is. I doubt there'll be much disagreement except with this being a school. Doesn't mean you can't learn things here but we're talking different animals.
That's a far cry from laughing at an old woman getting knocked down on a silly video, but it still appeals to a streak of cruelty that runs deep and we should be wary of in my view.
I do wonder about the nature of this deep running streak of cruelty. I wonder if there's an evolutionary cause for it or if it's just a psychological-evolutionary spandrel (an unintentional by-product of some other psychological aspect of humans).
I've heard stories of people expressing sorrow and lament through smiles and laughter as a cultural norm. Apparently in some South American countries when people share news of loss (the death of a family member for instance) a smile or even a chuckle might be the immediate response (this is essentially an equivalent of expressing lament as far as I understand). This does seem to indicate that some part or form of our emotional responses are learned rather than fixed or hardwired. In a world where gory murder is acceptable for daytime television but a single nipple is deemed immoral (a hypocrisy in my view), the learnability of "normal" emotional responses makes sense...
I don't want to overstate things because I don't think we're in real danger of going very far backwards, at least in the short term, but I think it's worth highlighting this kind of stuff anyway.
Trump is perhaps the most socially crude president ever, and that's really saying something given America's long and colorful history. When he offered to pay the legal fees of supporters who punch protesters, it wasn't too long after that a new wave of militant seeming "anti-fascists" began picking up clubs and shields...
I hope in the end Trump proves so unstable that even the simplest Americans begin to crave something more sophisticated; sort of like being turned off cigarettes by being forced to smoke a whole pack in a single sitting. I predicted over a year ago that if Trump won he wouldn't make it 4 years because neither he nor the world can endure a circus of that duration and severity. But before impeachment happens things need to get really weird, and all the clowns-at-heart must come out of the woodwork.
It's of course against unwritten rules to make the following comparison, but the current political climate must be something similar to what pre-hitler Germany went through. Fed up in general, the average citizen isn't in a normal mental state. Riled to the point of confusion, many are willing to run heart-first toward any promise of change. A lot of Trump's rhetoric is extreme and extremely naive, but in seemingly drastic times it takes drastic promises to satiate the jeering masses. Nationalism based on American uber-kultur rises while the Donald itself rallys for a pogrom of the bourgeois and corrupt fourth estate (free news media). We were promised a drained swamp but it turns out growling at Hillary et al was only for show, and that the lobby groups and corporate finance in politics was never his valid concern.
Trump is the champion of big business/industry; in other words: the actual corrupt elite. The same elite that compromise politicians, and the same elite that compromise the freedom of news media. Even though the only industry Trump has ever truly led was reality entertainment, his tax cuts and dis-concern for the environment have caused the stock market to do very well. Is he just playing the Regan card because he knows that it will at least please SOME people or is that his genuine idea of a strong America? (It may just be that his own business interests benefit directly from such policies...).
In any case, we're either in the middle of a markedly confused North American political era, or maybe at the beginning of an intensely chaotic one...
Here's an interesting vid that touches on the same broad topic by the magician/mentalist Derren Brown:
I'm a huge fan of Derren's (I've consumed everything he has produced!). I got pretty deep into "mentalism" and the peripheral (pseudo)sciences it encompasses (such as neuro-linguistic programming and "pick-up-artistry") because it fascinated me how easily what we think are free and un-coerced decisions can be significantly comprimised by unnoticed cues from our environment. Individually we normally wouldn't torment a stranger for nothing more than a sadistic laugh (in fact we think it repulsive) and we generally hold our ability to abstain from that as a morally virtuous aspect of human will. Put us in an anonymous crowd though, and that so called morally praiseworthy nugget of free will, virtue, and even self-awareness can go flying out the cognitive window...
Something fascinating happened this night. I had a belief that I do not accept in reality happen to be accepted while dreaming. The fascinating thing was that this belief was accepted while dreaming because it already happened once before this night when I was dreaming. So, this implies some dream memory, that is not accessible or dismissed upon examination when not dreaming.
Put us in an anonymous crowd though, and that so called morally praiseworthy nugget of free will, virtue, and even self-awareness can go flying out the cognitive window...
I've had experience of that. The only time I was ever arrested was after joining a crowd celebrating a win for the local football team (ironically I had never even watched them play, just got caught up in the fun of it). I ended up jettisoning my accumulated knowledge of how to deal with members of the law enforcement community. Hence a trip to the police station. I was pretty drunk too and it was a long time ago. But, yes, I don't entirely trust myself in situations like that.
I just remembered that I have to go to a wedding on Friday. A wedding. I just want to be warm and cosy, where I can sit outside in my undies and spend hours eating fruit and reading. But, no. A wedding.
I hope something is wrong with the hummus they serve and everyone spends the entire weekend non-stop pooping awkward colours. Except for the bride, because I love her.
Robert LockhartSeptember 26, 2017 at 15:31#1085670 likes
Some time ago, happening to find myself sitting alone one day in a busy bar and I dare say looking a bit like ‘Johnny-no mates’, I decided, as a means of distracting myself and also to solve my embarrassing social predicament, to try an Internet chess app on my phone. Anyway, whether because of maybe an insufficiently strong signal or perhaps ‘cause the chess app itself was poor, I couldn’t manage to establish a connection to a game and had to give up. The nearest I got in my endeavours was to receive what struck me at the time as a plaintive sounding little voice, issuing forth over the ether and inviting me to, ‘Play’. Maybe naff, but I still today remember this, my only experience of attempting internet gaming, as feeling at that moment slightly haunting - how nowadays we can for an instant make contact with an anonymous individual (the owner of that little gaming voice could after all have been anyone anywhere in the world) and then after that never encounter them again... Wonder who that tentative seeker of a chess game ever was, even though I’d probably have got beaten anyway? It might have been Gary Kasparov for all I know! – There are indeed mysteries we will never devine!
Reply to MikeL Debate will get you no where. What will give you new insights into the nature of nature is your own hard work in various disciplines.
Robert LockhartSeptember 26, 2017 at 17:20#1085790 likes
Hell is hell. - A tautology, I suppose. But then the gratification of inordinate desire might perversely lead to a sort of heavenly hell, entailing then the singular paradox whereby damnation could be characterised plausibly both as a tautology and an oxymoron....Hmmm
VagabondSpectreSeptember 26, 2017 at 17:44#1085820 likes
I've had experience of that. The only time I was ever arrested was after joining a crowd celebrating a win for the local football team (ironically I had never even watched them play, just got caught up in the fun of it). I ended up jettisoning my accumulated knowledge of how to deal with members of the law enforcement community. Hence a trip to the police station. I was pretty drunk too and it was a long time ago. But, yes, I don't entirely trust myself in situations like that.
Differing levels of awareness (conscious focus) seems to be one of the main aspects of the mind that mentalists like Derren are able to hijack so impressively.
Derren might reach to shake your hand, and when he does you will instinctively offer him your own hand with almost no conscious attention paid to the action. He takes advantage of this by interrupting the autopilot of the handshake and performs a "snap induction" which can very quickly put you into some sort of suggestible state. Interrupting and exploiting these moments of autopilot is called a "pause break" (You can see Derren nodding a lot during all of his performances and most of his conversations, which isn't a physical tick but rather his continuous and instinctive desire to push you toward a subconsciously confused and suggestible state; it's like at the end of every statement he nods subtly, telling your subconscious to agree.). What seems to be the important mechanism here is that there are moments when we're far less consciously aware and focused on what's going on around us and in this state we're mentally vulnerable.
The defense to mentalist and hypnotist hacking of the conscious mind is to simply be aware of what it is, and to recognize it when it happens to you. Derren often uses cold reading and wordplay to guide people into choosing particular responses for a prediction demonstration, but if you give him no information on your own and take pains to give unique and unpredictable answers then his predictions will fail most of the time. Mindfulness is the key.
When it comes to your experience of losing better judgment while in a crowd, I would wager that the next time you find yourself in a similar situation you will recognize what's happening, and the risks, in real time. That awareness is the same antidote that can protect you from mentalist style persuasion: if audience members of that anonymous crowd knew before hand that Derren was essentially going to shame them by showing how frail their moral convictions are, then they would have actually stopped to consider the ramifications of their choices beyond "does this entertain me?" and the overall performance would have failed. If you mentally resist hypnosis, it won't work on you; as with a two-bit con-man you will see the trick coming before it arrives...
Derren is no one trick pony though, and the tricks he can pull off are nothing short of astounding. Here's one of my favorites:
He starts by distracting and confusing them, and generally bombarding them with inquiry. The taking of money is one of those auto-pilot actions he exploits, and he does so by giving veiled verbal suggestion to their subconscious mind at the right moment. It's actually somewhat difficult to accept that this is even real, but if Derren was ever found to have really faked anything or used stooges, his career would pretty much be over...
There's a lot of interesting information up this alley that has some bearing on general persuasion... Here on a philosophy forum I doubt any of it could be used to great effect given we've all come here to pay explicit attention to what's being said (a shield of awareness so to speak). The closest serious philosophers seem to come to attempting this brand of persuasion (which could fairly be thought of as a kind of sophistry) would be to follow Rappaport's rules of argumentation:
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
The first rule is mostly based in reason (personally I try to employ it often), but the rest seems merely about breaking down instinctive emotional resistance caused by perceived opposition. We might speculate that breaking down these barriers leaves us at a more rational disposition (removing negative emotional bias), but we could also speculate that it appeals (irrationally) to a positive emotional bias instead of a negative one.
Sorry to ramble but I do find these subjects endlessly fascinating. The more we learn about these sorts of mental vulnerabilities that come standard in the human psyche the better we're able to make rational and un-coerced decisions of our own, which is definitely a worthwhile end.
Robert LockhartSeptember 26, 2017 at 20:19#1086030 likes
“The good is not the source of being but is its’ goal.” Speusippus, disciple of Plato, c. 349BC. - They say some statements contain a Universe. I’d say that’s one. (No rambling there.)
I wonder if Trump's base is even suspicious that the NFL conflict is a populist tactic.
VagabondSpectreSeptember 26, 2017 at 22:29#1086150 likes
Reply to praxis Same goes for the transgender military ban tweets. In Trump's world these are lighthearted controversies that appeal to some while distracting from his more serious problems...
Reply to VagabondSpectre Went to a Svengali show a few years ago. He's great. I don't think I've seen the latest three (definitely not Secret), so I'll have to have look this weekend.
Have you read his book Tricks of the Mind? Worth the read. I love the chapter(s) on mnemonics.
Dude gave me his number today, said we should do something sometime. Damn extroverts, and not thinking that's weird as fuck. People should realize that I only seem nice, but am actually a horrible fucking monster. Treat me more like a leper, and everything stays good.
My plan is to never mention it, and be sketchy for awhile, and hope it blows over without him thinking that I don't like him, or don't think he's cool or whatever... fucking awkward life, why can't I just die already, and suffer eternally for my sins, like I fucking deserve.
?VagabondSpectre
Went to a Svengali show a few years ago. He's great. I don't think I've seen the latest three (definitely not Secret), so I'll have to have look this weekend.
Have you read his book Tricks of the Mind? Worth the read. I love the chapter(s) on mnemonics.
You lucky dog!
I would love to attend a live show but Derren isn't exactly well known in Canada...
I've not read read Tricks of the Mind yet but I've already acquired it and read the preface so it shan't be long!
If you do go looking for some D.B. media, I recommend his "Derren Brown Investigates" series, In which he colorfully confronts, debunks, - and then upstages - every form of trickster and charlatan he can find...
What would the world be like if it wasn't filled to the brim with superstitious nonsense?
Thank God in heaven. I only have like five, ten minutes of small talk, tops, and then I just begin reciting facts, and song lyrics like a crazy person.
Reply to Wosret Small talk comes naturally to some, but is a learnable skill if not. Once you master it, it's really entertaining. You can get people talking about nothing for hours. I could have you blabbing on and on and you'd think, "wow, what an engaging guy." It's one of my super powers.
I recommend his "Derren Brown Investigates" series, In which he colorfully confronts, debunks, - and then upstages - every form of trickster and charlatan he can find...
Other than himself? I wouldn't be surprised if they were in on it and merely acting for the camera. Why people are sucked in by this bullshit is beyond me.
All of it. What you see on television or on a stage. The only trick of the mind going on here is when a gullible audience fails to realise that what they're seeing is set up with actors.
All of it. What you see on television or on a stage. The only trick of the mind going on here is when a gullible audience fails to realise that what they're seeing is set up with actors.
Never been to or seen a live show? There's no way he could use actors.
Reply to Sapientia Because he picks them by throwing frisbees or balls with his eyes closed and stuff like that. Unless he has some supernatural aim and can have it land on a particular person in a room full of hundreds, there's no way they're stooges.
Because he picks them by throwing frisbees or balls and stuff with his eyes closed and stuff like that. Unless he has some supernatural aim and can have it land on a particular person in a room full of thousands.
I don't know how they do it, but [i]that's[/I] the trick. It's a profession. Their job is to make it look as believable as possible.
It's more plausible that it's a set up for the cameras than that he can actually trick someone into thinking that they're invisible or whatnot.
He was just being nice. He doesn't really want to hang out with you. That's what extroverts do.
Wrong. Guys don't give each other numbers, they would just say see you around sometime. He gave his number because he likely wanted to commit some libertarian debauchery. And another wrong is that Wosret liked it. Sure, he can pretend to this whole self-loathing display as a way to covertly hide his egotistical narcissism, but clearly with his...
you've never encountered anyone quite like me before
... he has an unrelenting pathology that over-invests in this portraiture of himself while nurturing the artificial view that he is insecure and suck people into sympathising. Very manipulative. Like that woman I met who had no relationship to a person who passed away but exaggerated her emotions not because she was sad at the death but because she wanted all the attention.
[Quote]Part of [the] misdirection he uses is to make us think that old Victorian conjuring tricks are manifestations of mind control.
The guy is a genius, but his modus operandi is to sell old wine in new bottles.[/quote]
[Quote]Derren Brown almost certainly often uses false explanations. He does a standard magic trick but gives a psychological explanation (i.e. subliminal messaging, NLP or hypnosis).[/quote]
That's pretty much what I think. That's his USP, and it has brought him fame, a shitload of money, and a massive cult following.
[Quote]If he says he doesn't [use actors] then I believe him.[/quote]
[Quote]I think what Derren Brown does is 97% real.[/quote]
My issue is that I don't get why people buy into it, unless they've fallen for the trick. I wouldn't want to spend my money or waste my time on that kind of thing, for a similar reason to why I wouldn't want to do the same with WWE.
Reply to Sapientia Buy into what? He doesn't claim to have any sort of supernatural power. It's sold as misdirection and sleight of hand and cold reading and the like, so short of him actually using actors who play along, you're getting exactly what you're expecting.
Buy into what? He doesn't claim to have any sort of supernatural power. It's sold as misdirection and sleight of hand and cold reading and the like, so short of him actually using actors who play along, you're getting exactly what you're expecting.
I'd much rather see a magician perform an impressive slight of hand trick and pass it off as magic (which we know isn't real), than two actors pretending that one has hypnotised the other, and it being passed off as a genuine mind trick.
I'd much rather see a magician perform an impressive slight of hand trick and pass it off as magic (which we know isn't real), than two actors pretending that one has hypnotised the other, and it being passed off as a genuine mind trick.
That's not an apt comparison. I said short of using actors. So given a choice between a magician performing an impressive sleight of hand trick and a mentalist using whatever tricks he uses to manipulate someone else, I'd rather see the latter.
That's not an apt comparison. I said short of using actors.
That's not an apt exclusion. I don't believe that the guy on stage or on television who appears to believe that he's invisible or a chicken or has committed murder or whatnot genuinely believes that and is not merely playing the part, i.e. acting.
And Derren Brown is also acting when he pretends to have tricked the guy into believing such-and-such through a trick of the mind.
It's just acting. A collaboration. There's no genuine trick of the mind, except that of fooling a large number of the audience.
he has an unrelenting pathology that over-invests in this portraiture of himself while nurturing the artificial view that he is insecure and suck people into sympathising.
I don't agree. His comical exaggeration of his abilities is consistent with low self esteem, and his desire for sympathy (which isn't manipulative, but is obvious) is based upon some amount of actual unhappiness. The cynical view versus the generous view I guess, but I don't think generous must mean naive.
I've watched a lot of Derren Brown, probably seen most of his online stuff. I was going to put forward a mild version of what Sap said as in there's a lot of psychobabble that's just there to mystify what is often fairly routine magic. However Michael's right, he doesn't use stooges (if he did he'd be utterly discredited very quickly as he makes it clear before every show that he doesn't) and there are some genuinely strange things going on at times, so I mostly agree with his characterisation. In other words, Brown does seem to take advantage of at least some odd psychological effects such as suggestive anaesthesia and so on and not all his subjects are acting even in a play-along way. Above all though, he's a great showman and entertainer and takes a very creative approach to his magicianship.
I think @Hanover's right and the other guy was probably just being polite too. See how tragic this can become though. Suppose you actually went and met the guy who probably regretted asking for your contact details immediately afterwards. Then you've got two people neither of whom want to be there - each only present out of a misplaced consideration for the other - gradually realizing over the course of coffee and small talk how much they hate each other and even worse the true circumstances that brought them together, and still not being able to stand up and leave for fear of insulting the other. That's where middle-class morality gets us no matter how much we pretend to despise it. I think Zizek would say something like, we might not believe in the chicken but the chicken believes in us.
We should have a wager. Was it just politeness, did he actually want to meet up again, or was he hitting on him?
Wosret will of course have to phone the guy and find out for us.
My money's on the last one. Wosret neglected to mention that he was in a gay club at the time. He wants to meet up with the guy for sex and maybe more, but his upbringing has instilled within him a rejection of his sexuality and a deep seated insecurity.
Fair, but all of this is self observation, including your personal detest of self-pity and your hostile and unforgiving response to it, so much so that you refuse to consider the basis of the self-pity. So, physician, what says this about thyself?
Fair, but all of this is self observation, including your personal detest of self-pity and your hostile and unforgiving response to it, so much so that you refuse to consider the basis of the self-pity. So, physician, what says this about thyself?
If a woman is wailing and crying at a death of someone she does not know, would it be unforgiving to think that she is seeking attention? To you it would be yes, because socially we are expected to pity such a response as crying. Sociopaths cry. Calling my response hostile and unforgiving perhaps exemplifies Camus' existential point made in The Stranger.
Yeah, I did, none of it implies the wrong, and mean stuff you said. Go talk about what shits everyone else is, and how pure and great you are somewhere else, and don't mention me.
Reply to Wosret I am unmoved by crocodile tears. You can appeal to emotion all you like, but the fact is that if you don't want to be mentioned, don't make such exhibitions.
That thing really happen, and I really feel bad about it. I'm a horrible monster, because I don't fucking care to spend time with that guy outside of work. I'm just polite and talk to him because he talks to me, just engaging in shallow banter for like five or so minutes once in awhile. I'm actually fully capable of spending time with people, they just aren't interesting. People always want to be my friend, but we just don't share interests, values, and views, which is actually important for close relationships, even friends.
I feel bad about always doing that, and anxious about any awkwardness or hurt feelings. I'm not pitiful or attention seeking. You'd think I'd post more, and to more places if that were the case. It isn't difficult to get attention.
Reply to Wosret I guess some people who can ensure the continuity of an agenda by intentionally changing an argument to manifest sympathy from an audience is a skill that deserv'd praise, though I am somewhat confused as to why you would find it justifiable to purport that I am superior and yet call me mean?
Anyway. Why waste my superiority on such a pointless endeavour.
You can't perceive my dispositions or emotional states through the internet you know. Whichever you're imagining are unlikely to be correlating to the real maccoy.
I don't know, but I hope so. I wouldn't mind a Prime Minister Thornberry, either. I don't think it will be Theresa May, and if it's going to be Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg, please kill me now.
And will he leave the EU or rather want to stay in it?
We'd leave the EU under Corbyn, regardless of which side his sympathies lie. Of that I'm confident. As for his personal views, well, he argued for remain, of course, but his long track record of being critical of the EU is public knowledge.
Oi, wait until they accept the bait first and then ask for their credit card number. Haven't you learnt?
Yes my greed sometimes gets ahead of me :-# - first they need to sign up for a free webinar as an introduction to Agulogic, then they get the real deal at the end of it when the excitement has built up for as low as $5000 O:)
Sappy you've not been sapping people much lately...
I've been working a lot lately and I'm in a phase where I'd rather not participate in philosophical discussion. But I'll still be around these parts on a regular basis to read, chat and moderate.
If a woman is wailing and crying at a death of someone she does not know, would it be unforgiving to think that she is seeking attention? To you it would be yes, because socially we are expected to pity such a response as crying. Sociopaths cry. Calling my response hostile and unforgiving perhaps exemplifies Camus' existential point made in The Stranger.
Well, the self-exploratory question that you evaded was what your response to this says about you, and you should at least wonder why others aren't as irritated by this behavior as you.
I have very limited information, and all I know is that some woman with little knowledge of the deceased was upset beyond what would be expected given their relationship. Her behavior could be explained as a reaction to this death reminding her of a personal loss or perhaps she was just having a very emotional reaction to death generally. Or, it could be that she likes good theater and wanted to put herself in the spotlight. I don't know the answer, but any of these reasons would evoke something other than a hostile reaction from me. Even if she were just putting on, I'd think her more broken than malicious because, let's face it, pretending to be sad during a truly sad event just to increase your popularity is fucked up. So, why does TimeLine get pissed beyond pissed when Hanover doesn't? Maybe it's because I'm a softee and you're a realist, but I doubt it.
I think Hanover's right and the other guy was probably just being polite too. See how tragic this can become though. Suppose you actually went and met the guy who probably regretted asking for your contact details immediately afterwards. Then you've got two people neither of whom want to be there - each only present out of a misplaced consideration for the other - gradually realizing over the course of coffee and small talk how much they hate each other and even worse the true circumstances that brought them together, and still not being able to stand up and leave for fear of insulting the other. That's where middle-class morality gets us no matter how much we pretend to despise it. I think Zizek would say something like, we might not believe in the chicken but the chicken believes in us.
I will say that that isn't actually a likely scenario. I was going to give more context, but then decided not to. The funny thing is that I mentioned to my sister like a week or so ago that he was the only person that I saw in the building, that I knew worked there, that like one in a hundred with their head on straight. That's values are properly oriented towards those that are strong, and betray "selfish values", as in do things that render themselves healthy and strong, rather than weak, and miserable. Thus influencing those around them towards health and happiness, and away from vice. He's like in his fifties, but good looking, thick hair, and decent musculature betraying high testosterone, and a good self-image. Clean shaven everyday, well dressed, and facial features betray the expressions and emotions one most exhibits, particularly as they age, and his betrays reactivity, and positivity. He clearly is extroverted, and has a strong social life, one of the first things he mentioned to me was the damage night shift must do to the social life.
My experiences, and reactions to and with people are almost certainly vastly different than most of you imagine. He also, no doubt imagines that I'm vastly different than I am, based on my appearance, mannerisms and how I present myself. As, spending a lot of time interested, and around people, he would have a superior sense for values, and dispositional, and health related casual factors.
Reply to Wosret Call him back. Arrange a date. Go out for dinner. Take him back to your place. Make love to him. Regret making love to him. Murder him. Hide the body. Find your next victim. Repeat.
I highly doubt that he was coming on to me, nor is pointing out the positive, and respectable attributes of someone of the same sex homosexual. Though I of course anticipated that perception... low brow bro.
I highly doubt that he was coming on to me, nor is pointing out the positive, and respectable attributes of someone of the same sex homosexual. Though I of course anticipated that perception... low brow bro.
But you met him in a gay club. At least, you did in the story I made up.
When I was first leaving home, and full of mainstream warped values, I so wanted a gay friend. How cool would that be? I wanted a friend of every "kind", but making my way around, I discovered that every gay guy I ever met was absolutely disgusting. They were all like obsessed with profanity, and shocking sexuality. They were all impossible to be around for the constant sexual innuendo.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the half a dozen or so I've ever met that were "out" were all like that.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the half a dozen or so I've ever met that were "out" were all like that.
I know some of those exceptions. For example, I have a lesbian friend who says she hates lesbians, meaning those who fit the stereotype.
By the way, I find it funny that you actually thought it necessary to explain to me that pointing out the positive and respectable attributes of someone of the same sex is not homosexual.
I didn't, I said that it was highly obvious, and low brow. It does need to be pointed out that it isn't gay, because it is so obviously perceived as such, because of lower reactionary values, which you acted on, whether tongue in cheek or not. Jokes are always at least partially believed.
Reply to Wosret Whatever you say, Wosret. What's my next lesson? Are you going to explain to me that you had no intention of murdering him, and that murder is wrong?
Those lower reactionary values float around in all of our unconsciouses, and influence our thoughts and behaviors, that's how I knew to anticipate the reaction. They clearly influence you, deny it all you like. React negatively to anything besides flattery all you like, I see what causes that as well.
Those lower reactionary values float around in all of our unconsciousness, and influence our thoughts and behaviors, that's how I knew to anticipate the reaction. They clearly influence you, deny it all you like. React negatively to anything besides flattery all you like, I see what causes that as well.
You anticipated that reaction, but you think that I did not? You underestimate me and insult my intelligence. You can't see half as much as you think you do.
Obviously you anticipated it, as you allowed it to influence, and determine your reactions. Hopefully when you type a message you aren't entirely surprised at the content upon completion...
Maybe I can't see half as much as I think I do, but that's still plenty.
I discovered that every gay guy I ever met was absolutely disgusting. They were all like obsessed with profanity, and shocking sexuality. They were all impossible to be around for the constant sexual innuendo.
Reply to Wosret Anyway, why haven't you called me back yet? I've been sitting by the phone for hours awaiting your call. I travelled all the way to Canada, disguised myself as a fifty year-old man, put on my best suit, stalked you for days to learn your routine in order to fabricate our chance encounter earlier on, turned on the charm, we seemed to have a good rapport going, and this is how you repay me?
I wanted a friend of every "kind", but making my way around, I discovered that every gay guy I ever met was absolutely disgusting. They were all like obsessed with profanity, and shocking sexuality. They were all impossible to be around for the constant sexual innuendo.
I know just what you mean. I had a roommate that I had thought was gay for some time and then I actually walked into the room when he and another guy were having sex. That so explained why his dick always tasted like shit.
VIP of the group that is formed against me? You're so clever. Got me with that masterful, totally sense making reply. Now put your helmet back on, and receive your sticker.
He's the Lord of Destruction, and he has big strong arms. Sometimes I dream that he is holding me in those big strong arms of his whilst I rest my head on his shoulder. But I'm not gay.
VIP of the group that is formed against me? You're so clever. Got me with that masterful, totally sense making reply. Not put your helmet back on, and receive your sticker.
Yes of course! Didn't Peterson teach you that before someone is sacrificed, they are first made into a god? Or you still didn't receive that lesson yet?
You're just like trying to turn it around, and say I'm the gay one, but it doesn't naturally, or sensibly flow from the conversation. You're pretty dumb you know, full disclosure. Also fat.
No man, I didn't mean gay stuff by that, but obvious stuff. Like the most obvious thing that everyone would think of. Like giving a group a creativity test, then it would be the types of answers everyone has. Basic bro and bitch stuff.
No man, I didn't mean gay stuff by that, but obvious stuff. Like the most obvious thing that everyone would think of. Like giving a group a creativity test, then it would be the types of answers everyone has. Basic bro and bitch stuff.
So... you meant gay stuff? Have I understood your meaning correctly? You intended for what you said to be secret code for gay stuff that only you and I know about? So, like, "group creativity test" is code for "gay orgy"?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff He bites my feet and attacks his mother, so he's a good dog. I told him he's fat, so he told me I'm stupid. Sometimes I wish he'd be more respectful.
Oh, missed the second round. Where's the part where @Hanover said something profound, @Posty McPostface? Was it the bit about the mutt? I'm not feeling extreme enlightenment here.
Well, the self-exploratory question that you evaded was what your response to this says about you, and you should at least wonder why others aren't as irritated by this behavior as you.
The problem here is the assumption that I am irritated. I'm not, on the contrary I made clear statements based on what I read. Comparatively, it is like you and I are sitting outside on lovely spring day having a picnic and I say, "The sky is blue," before you grow pale with confusion and tell me to stop screaming as you tear your clothes off and run off naked into the wilderness, and me, blinking in dismay, slowly drink the rest of my tea in the awkwardness of the situation. I wasn't evading your self-explanatory question, I was making it clear that there is no self-explanatory question and that was just you trying to shift the burden over to make it about me, an avoidance tactic that I am sure you are well aware of doing.
No matter, for as I sit and drink my tea, I will be entertained by Baden who will attempt to indirectly defend your honour by wearing a psychedelic smock dress and bastardise Žižek in some deranged eulogy to the heavens.
So, why does TimeLine get pissed beyond pissed when Hanover doesn't? Maybe it's because I'm a softee and you're a realist, but I doubt it.
I find pity to be insulting and I work with young girls who have come from war-torn countries that have seen incredible horrors and yet still smile and work hard to educate and improve themselves, so the whinges of the privileged holds little priority for me. That doesn't mean that I am pissed. Expressing emotions is fundamental for those who have experienced hardship as a way to articulate their pain and ultimately heal, but when someone forms a habit of consistently seeking sympathy and attention without making an effort to improve, their dependency becomes detrimental to their welfare and thus you partake in prolonging this 'broken' by being a softee. Morality is not black and white.
Now, I am about to start getting dressed to attend a massive wedding and if I end up sitting next to a muscular guy who has trouble appreciating personal space while complimenting me with highly intelligent statements like 'I fink you are hot' then I would need to be entertained by passing time on my phone occasionally. So, entertain me.
Oh, missed the second round. Where's the part where Hanover said something profound, @Posty McPostface? Was it the bit about the mutt? I'm not feeling extreme enlightenment here.
if I end up sitting next to a muscular guy who has trouble appreciating personal space while complimenting me with highly intelligent statements like 'I fink you are hot' then I would need to be entertained by passing time on my phone occasionally.
No matter, for as I sit and drink my tea, I will be entertained by Baden who will attempt to indirectly defend your honour by wearing a psychedelic smock dress and bastardise Žižek in some deranged eulogy to the heavens.
Done with that for now. Since we're all so interested in each other's personalities though:
You Are Low in Openness to Experience
You Are Low in Conscientiousness
You Are Low in Extraversion
You Are Moderate in Agreeableness
You Are Low in Neuroticism
Certainly changed a lot in the last few years. Would have been high in openness to experience and high in extraversion. I've become a boring in my time since returning from Asia.
I don't vote, so I don't have a mind to make up. ;)
Although seeing as how one of the MPs won the vote by just 2 votes earlier this year, I've decided to vote next time, as 1 vote really can make a difference (in fact, in my constituency someone once won by 1 vote). It's just a shame my first choice won't win, so I'll have to vote tactically.
High conscientious, low to medium openness, low neuroticism, medium to high extraversion, medium to high agreableness.
Haha! I scored:
Moderately Open
Moderately Conscientious (I'm not that conscientious, otherwise I wouldn't spend time on PF while working lol)
Low in Extraversion
Moderate in Neuroticism
Low in Agreeableness :’( lol
"People who are low in Extraversion tend to be fairly independent, and do not need a lot of admiration or recognition from others in order to feel satisfied. They tend not to be interested in money or status, and would rather lead a life that is personally pleasing than one that gains them the attention of others."
Sounds like me. Neuroticism fits too.
"Your score indicates that you are fairly typical in your tendency to experience negative emotions. You probably feel sadness, worry, anger, and guilt about as much as the average person. You are neither overly reactive, nor especially resistant to the stresses of life."
"Your score for Conscientious is in the moderate range, indicating that you are fairly average in your tendency to respond to impulses. You probably have some long-term goals and are fairly successful in pursuing them, but can be sidetracked sometimes when a particularly attractive diversion presents itself."
Sounds true as well.
I'm not very happy with these agreeableness comments: "Your low score in Agreeableness indicates that you put your own needs first most of the time. You may see other people as a threat to your ability to get what you want, and you often suspect ulterior motives in others. You are mostly unwilling to sacrifice your own needs in the service of other people."
But it is true that I don't make friends easily or have a lot of friends generally. Nor am I very interested to make friends. Nor do I generally like social gatherings. But with the few friends that I do have, I tend to be very loyal regardless of what happens. I always help a friend if they ask for help.
Oh, but the thing that I generally start by suspecting ulterior motives in others when I first meet them is true lol.
First the election result, now this... :( Actually I scored "low" in agreableness too, but not very low (45%). It's more of a sign of being a cynic than uncaring I think.
Reply to Baden I think the low conscientiousness score is a little misleading. I said I don't stick to my plans, but then my plans involve quitting my job and becoming self-employed, developing some great software that I can sell. It's more that I'm high in realism than low in conscientiousness.
Comparatively, it is like you and I are sitting outside on lovely spring day having a picnic and I say, "The sky is blue," before you grow pale with confusion and tell me to stop screaming as you tear your clothes off and run off naked into the wilderness, and me, blinking in dismay, slowly drink the rest of my tea in the awkwardness of the situation.
As if you could remain undistracted while my impressive manhood made flowing, circling movements like a ribbon as I ran among the trees. Quoting TimeLine
I find pity to be insulting and I work with young girls who have come from war-torn countries that have seen incredible horrors and yet still smile and work hard to educate and improve themselves, so the whinges of the privileged holds little priority for me. That doesn't mean that I am pissed.
I'm not sure telling someone to stop fucking being pathetic is a textbook cure for being pitiful, although I can see it as satisfying.Quoting TimeLine
So, entertain me.
Can you send me a pic of your feet? I like wedding feet.
While everything I say isn't profound, everything what you say is stupid.
Hanover being modest? Is it possible? I'm only referring to the first compound sentence, to avoid ambiguity that could look like I was agreeing with the second statement.
Your score for openness was high, at 95%.
Your score for conscientiousness was low, at 45%.
Your score for Extraversion was low, at 40%.
Your score for Agreeableness was high, at 78%.
Your score for Neuroticism was moderate, at 38%.
She has sent pics of her feet already, you could probably find them, to do with as you will. I remember what she looks like as well, she posted a picture of herself in a hospital after her car accident. Vivid like it was yesterday.
I'm looking at her and judging her in my mind right now.
I'll be careful around your feelings then. I'm also definitely the most grounded, because it isn't an empty expression, but has physical correlates, in how evenly and completely your weight flows through both legs, and sides of your body.
I'll be careful around your feelings then. I'm also definitely the most grounded, because it isn't an empty expression, but has physical correlates, in how evenly and completely your weight flows both legs, and sides of your body.
That is very true actually. Pretty much 80% of my mood is due to exercise or lack. And I'm either walking 20ks in and out to the city or doing absolutely jack. Not much middle ground.
I do a lot of sitting and laying around as well, but you gotta keep a balanced posture, you'll get stiffer faster doing so, and require moving around more often though, but it keeps you strong and sexy. Shifting and contorting all about is what it takes to be able to stay stationary for hours without turning into a statue.
No, it's stuff I've figured out. A balanced posture is just hips shoulders knees ankles elbows and wrists all even, in the same position. sitting up straight, chin tucked, long not curled up back of the neck, not holding tension or weight anywhere, so relaxed.
It's difficult to point out the imbalances to people. Like losing one side of your brain renders that entire side of the whole world invisible. It's kinda like that.
The Order and Chaos thread makes the difference between the "old guard" who are mainly materialists and cannot even see how anything else would make sense, and the "newcomers" who seem to be very open-minded and unsure about what to believe even while they advocate some things. Intelligent design being discussed openly at the previous site was unimaginable.
Alas, poor @Banno. He cannot understand what has happened. He still remembers the time when his assertion would have been end of discussion.
Well, they weren't your grizzly bear feet, but you totes did. Blue, canvas like shoes, holding a bag or something outside, if I recall. It wasn't even all that long ago.
I don't get their scales of "low" and "high", it says "low" for agreeableness at 58%, you'd think that would be moderate at least.
I think the scores are determined based on how you answer the questions. Some answers give you points others take them away. So that's how you get the percentage.
Then the low/high, etc. is determined based on standard deviations from the mean compared to the average percentage obtained by the people who took the test for that category. Say people on average get 30% in neuroticism so then that being the mean, two (or maybe one) standard deviations away would be low and two (or one) standard dev above would be high.
So presumably the mean is lower in neuroticism (most people aren't that neurotic) but higher in agreeableness & extroversion since most people lean towards the social side. So if that's the case, 35% in neuroticism like me counts as moderate and 45% in extraversion counts as low.
unenlightenedSeptember 29, 2017 at 20:38#1096250 likes
I only posted a picture of myself in the old forum' thread about photo's of ourselves, but not what you mention and I have no qualms showing people what I look like. I remember 180proof, though his childhood picture was his avatar, the pic with Baden' head on a muscular body, the artist formerly known as Yahedreas and a few others, but not what you say.
As for feet, just this once. For Hansolo. I was in a terrible situation - loud music, lots of people - so I needed to be preoccupied. I now have a blinding headache from lack of sleep because my routine is in shock. :-d
Middle of a 9 hour layover at Dallas. How better to while away the hours but argue about the meaning of life, or lack thereof, on the philosophy forum?
I only posted a picture of myself in the old forum' thread about photo's of ourselves, but not what you mention and I have no qualms showing people what I look like. I remember 180proof, though his childhood picture was his avatar, the pic with Baden' head on a muscular body, the artist formerly known as Yahedreas and a few others, but not what you say.
:-O I don't remember this photos thread either lol!
Openness was high, at 95%.
Conscientiousness was high, at 78%.
Extraversion was low, at 35%
Agreeableness was high, at 83%
Neuroticism was low, at 15%.
Ruth Garrett Millikan presents a highly original account of cognition - of how we get to grips with the world in thought. The question at the heart of her book is Kant's 'How is knowledge possible?', but answered from a contemporary naturalist standpoint. The starting assumption is that we are evolved creatures that use cognition as a guide in dealing with the natural world, and that the natural world is roughly as natural science has tried to describe it. Very unlike Kant, then, we must begin with ontology, with a rough understanding of what the world is like prior to cognition, only later developing theories about the nature of cognition within that world and how it manages to reflect the rest of nature. And in trying to get from ontology to cognition we must traverse another non-Kantian domain: questions about the transmission of information both through natural signs and through purposeful signs including, especially, language.
Millikan makes a number of innovations. Central to the book is her introduction of the ideas of unitrackers and unicepts, whose job is to recognize the same again as manifested through the jargon of experience. She offers a direct reference theory for common nouns and other extensional terms; a naturalist sketch of conceptual development; a theory of natural information and of language function that shows how properly functioning language carries natural information; a novel description of the semantics/pragmatics distinction; a discussion of perception as translation from natural informational signs; new descriptions of indexicals, demonstratives and intensional contexts; and a new analysis of the reference of incomplete descriptions.
Intelligent design being discussed openly at the previous site was unimaginable.
We should distinguish between "intelligent design" and other more sensible challenges to evolutionary theory. I hadn't seen the discussion but "intelligent design" is religious pseudoscience, so if it's that we're not going to allow it to masquerade as philosophy or science. Thanks for the unintended heads up.
From Wiki:
"Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience. Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses."
Reply to BadenI'd argue that a more serious challenge to our intellectual tradition than is a particular anti-evolution theory is allowing Wiki to authoritatively end debate regarding the legitimacy of that particular anti-evolution theory.
At best, this Wiki article poses a serious opening challenge to the ID supporter, but it doesn't create a final unrebuttable conclusion.
I say this with full belief that ID is utter BS. I also believe it utter BS that either Solomon or Wiki had or has divine wisdom.
We should distinguish between "intelligent design" and other more sensible challenges to evolutionary theory. I hadn't seen the discussion but "intelligent design" is religious pseudoscience, so if it's that we're not going to allow it to masquerade as philosophy or science. Thanks for the unintended heads up.
The problem is that your attitude is precisely anti-scientific and dogmatic. This was one of the major problems with the previous forum and one of the reasons why it failed to attract anyone but arch-materialists for the most part.
Science does not advance by protecting its currently unfalsified hypotheses, but on the contrary by attacking them. Paul Feyerabend establishes the genealogy of scientific progress in more detail in his work Against Method. You are essentially being the equivalent of the Catholic Church in the trial against Galileo and protecting the established position - blindly. The Church too had all the reasons in the world to condemn Galileo - the telescope was a newly invented instrument, it was not well understood, and some of the measurements it gave were actually wrong. So that was certainly the "reasonable" position to take. However, Galileo ended up being right and the Church wrong. Science advances just as much by folly as it does by reason, and it does take a certain degree of folly to see things differently.
Intelligent design is a respectable theory given this as its definition: Quoting Baden
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
This is absolutely correct and very likely to be true in fact. For example, here's one Nobel prize winner:
Many people on this forum itself actually believe in some form of intelligent design, whether this is guided evolution, or another process entirely.
Now of course there are some positions that are most likely wrong - such as flat Earth theories or geocentrism. However, even in those cases, I wouldn't say the view needs to be outright removed from the forum, it would largely depend on the supporter of it and how well (and undogmatically) it is advocated. In most cases though, it probably should be removed. But that's an extreme case, intelligent design is much more plausible.
I didn't take my view from Wiki so that's a twisted way of looking at my post. Get your information on the scientific consensus from whetever you like. It's not going to change.
I'm not going to do anything to that particular discussion either. I am of the view though that we keep things in their proper place and pseudoscience/religion should either be posted in the correct categories or moved/deleted.
You don't need to lecture me on science or the nature of scientific progress. Pointing out that ID is a religious and not a scientific theory is not anti-science, it's the opposite. A scientific theory that replaces it and is a better fit for the evidence would be embraced by all including me. I have no special attachment to evolutionary theory.
Science does not advance by protecting its currently unfalsified hypotheses, but on the contrary by attacking them. Paul Feyerabend establishes the genealogy of scientific progress in more detail in his work Against Method. You are essentially being the equivalent of the Catholic Church in the trial against Galileo and protecting the established position - blindly. The Church too had all the reasons in the world to condemn Galileo - the telescope was a newly invented instrument, it was not well understood, and some of the measurements it gave were actually wrong. So that was certainly the "reasonable" position to take. However, Galileo ended up being right and the Church wrong. Science advances just as much by folly as it does by reason, and it does take a certain degree of folly to see things differently.
First of all - I enjoyed the video. Well produced. Good interviewer. Good questions. Josephson didn't really present any justification for his beliefs. Also, I'm not sure the God he's talking about is one you would be comfortable with.
Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite science writers - any type of writer - wrote an essay on what it takes to overthrow scientific orthodoxy. "The Validation of Continental Drift" - here's a link
https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/creager/ess202/continental_drift.htm
Continental drift is the poster child for a theory that fundamentally changed our understanding of the world after being scoffed at by the scientific establishment. Gould quotes Karl Ernst von Baer - "every triumphant theory passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth." Gould makes the point that it is new theories that overthrow old theories, not new facts. Scientific evidence supported moving continents long before the theory was accepted. A new theory was needed to explain the mechanism for movement.
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what has happened with Intelligent Design. There, we have a new theory waiting for its chance to knock evolution by natural selection on its ass. What we don't have are the facts.
Pointing out that ID is a religious and not a scientific theory is not anti-science, it's the opposite.
In-so-far as ID addresses the evolution (or creation) of physical things it is absolutely a scientific theory. All scientific theories have metaphysical presuppositions, one metaphysical presupposition of ID is that there is a creative intelligence at work. The supposition of the commonly accepted Darwinian view is that there is no teleology or purpose at work. Both are equally "unscientific" by that criteria.
I have no special attachment to any scientific theory.
No, I didn't mean to claim that you do. But you may have an attachment to the scientific establishment and whatever they decree to be "true", even when it is non-scientific and metaphysical.
I'd argue that a more serious challenge to our intellectual tradition than is a particular anti-evolution theory is allowing Wiki to authoritatively end debate regarding the legitimacy of that particular anti-evolution theory.
At best, this Wiki article poses a serious opening challenge to the ID supporter, but it doesn't create a final unrebuttable conclusion.
But according to this Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields ... were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard."
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what has happened with Intelligent Design. There, we have a new theory waiting for its chance to knock evolution by natural selection on its ass. What we don't have are the facts.
Much like the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics vs the Copenhagen interpretation. They make virtually the same predictions, and therefore it's impossible to test which is true.
But the underlying issue here is that some metaphysics are more coherent than others. ID, in its sensible forms, cannot disagree with facts, but it can disagree with the metaphysical interpretation allotted to those facts.
But you may have an attachment to the scientific establishment
Yes, I do. As opposed to bringing us witch-burning, it brought us the technology I am now using to converse with you. A pleasure I would hate to forgo. Having said that, I'm not against discussing what should and shouldn't be regarded as pseudoscience. It's entirely fair to debate that.
Yes, I do. As opposed to bringing us witch-burning, it brought us the technology I am now using to converse with you.
Just as it has brought us atomic bombs, chemical weapons, neutron bombs, high levels of pollution, a society built on consumerism and stress, global warming, higher rates of cancer etc. There's both positives and negatives there. It's hard for us to imagine how life would be and feel without technology - maybe we would be happier, who knows? :s
Some criteria to judge science: Peer reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, taught at top universities, promoted by respected scientists, studies on it resulting in scientific honours etc.
But the underlying issue here is that some metaphysics are more coherent than others. ID, in its sensible forms, cannot disagree with facts, but it can disagree with the metaphysical interpretation allotted to those facts.
I think that undermines your whole argument. Legitimate science doesn't deal with metaphysics. It deals with things acting in the world. I think the example of competing interpretations of quantum mechanics is a good one. It is my understanding, although I guess not all agree, that there is no scientific way to differentiate between the interpretations. If that's true, then the argument is not science. If it claims to be, it is pseudoscience.
Universities, schools, etc. can pretty much only teach the accepted scientific paradigm of their age, they cannot teach, except in underhanded ways, what is not the mainstream view.
I'm not so sure. The scientist I've posted before does seem to endorse some version of intelligent design, and he's a Nobel prize winner in physics. So... :s even this "respected scientists" criterion is not all that strong.
The scientific academy, in fact, has shown that it will "lynch" (meaning that it will push them to the periphery) scientists who disagree with the accepted paradigm. So if you are a scientist and love your career, you must be careful what you say.
Then Darwinian evolution is not legitimate science because it cannot scientifically prove that there is no guiding intelligence at work, but it does want to claim that no teleology exists.
Then Darwinian evolution is not legitimate science because it cannot scientifically prove that there is no guiding intelligence at work, but it does want to claim that no teleology exists.
You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm shocked, it seems so out of character.
Just as it has brought us atomic bombs, chemical weapons, neutron bombs, high levels of pollution, a society built on consumerism and stress, global warming, higher rates of cancer etc. There's both positives and negatives there. It's hard for us to imagine how life would be and feel without technology - maybe we would be happier, who knows? :s
Fair point. I was being somewhat facetious. I'm not an anti-theist of the Dawkins/Harris mode. But I do think we need a dividing line between science and religion, and ID is an attempt to blur that line.
So, if scientists at universities, on prize committees, and on journal editing boards who have spent their whole lives mastering their discipline don't know what it is and shouldn't be the ones to decide what it is? Who should?
But according to this Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields ... were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard.
But according to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/109766 Wiki should not be considered authoritative.
You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm shocked, it seems so out of character.
I am not obtuse, I'm just pointing out to the obvious failing in your previous point. ANY scientific theory whatsoever will have metaphysical presuppositions - even those commonly accepted by science today. So we cannot critique ID because it has metaphysical presuppositions while ignoring the fact that Darwinian blind evolution also has metaphysical presuppositions. To do so, would be to mask the reality and create a difference that isn't there.
It's not academically authoritative. It's just a convenient and quick means of reference for general facts. In this case, @Agustino is not convinced by the scientific community's view anyway so there's little point in dragging up a further reference about what they think.
But I do think we need a dividing line between science and religion, and ID is an attempt to blur that line.
This is quite a modern phenomenon which goes hand in hand with the specialization that industrialism has introduced for economic reasons, and doesn't have much to do with the quest for truth. Placing "dividing lines" between the state and religion, religion and science, science and philosophy and so on so forth is ultimately creating artificial barriers that have to be broken by anyone who wants to search for unifying truths. These barriers are only pragmatically, not theoretically useful - they're useful at getting us to produce more and faster, to be more cooperative with regards to production, not to kill each other, etc. This specialization and technicalization of man leads inevitably to the dissolution and relativization of truth, which becomes merely a tool to achieve what is useful, and becomes torn from its rightful place in the puzzle of the larger reality. It leads to the philosopher being blind of physics, and the physicist being blind of philosophy because it is not his field and he hasn't worked sufficiently in it. And that's all good if we want to use these fields merely as tools, but not if we want to build a comprehensive picture of reality.
In addition, religion may be at the very foundation of science - afterall, it is religion which arose first - man was religious to begin with, and only then did he become a scientist.
So, if scientists at universities, on prize committees, and on journal editing boards who have spent their whole lives mastering their discipline don't know what it is and shouldn't be the ones to decide what it is? Who should?
Nobody can decide what it is, that's exactly the point. We are all limited, and as I've shown you, even Nobel Prize winning scientists can believe in diverse phenomena, ranging from ID, to ESP, and so forth. The mistake is in thinking that some people necessarily know more than others and are therefore in a better position to decide because they've worked more in that field. But this is an illusion, similar to the illusion we often have of older people knowing more and being wiser about life, just because they've lived more and have more experiences. This, of course, isn't always the case.
Ultimately, there is no method to decide on these matters objectively - in a way that can be verified by others and 'force' agreement or assent. Inquiry has to be allowed to follow its course freely.
The fundamental problem with your position is that Darwinian evolution is correct and intelligent design isn't.
That depends on what you understand by Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. To claim that intelligent design is wrong - if by that we understand to claim that there is no creative intelligence at work in the Universe - is nothing short of claiming that something can come from nothing.
"Human sexuality will be even more conflictual than animal sexuality and makes sexuality itself incapable of being a factor of stability in human relations or even between sexual partners" - René Girard.
It is true though. Human sexuality is more conflictual than animal sexuality, and quite the opposite from what most people think, it's most often not a factor of stability but the opposite.
Maybe on television, and as a teenager. The actual numbers of the prevalence of sexual non-conformity hasn't risen at all, besides lesbians, but women don't actually have a sexuality. Studies show when they asked teen girls what being turned on felt like, it felt like being attractive, and desired.
It is most evident as a teenager because teenagers don't have the pressures of surviving and earning a bread that adults do, so they're most free to focus on other things. But it would be just as evident in adults if the other pressures were removed.
Studies show when they asked teen girls what being turned on felt like, it felt like being attractive, and desired.
I would doubt the complete truthfulness of this, because women also fall in love for example, just as much as men do.
The point Girard is driving at is more fundamental. Human sexuality excites our imitative behavior almost more than anything else, which means that it very easily leads to conflict and spirals out of control. If you look around you, you'll see that most conflicts between grown-ups, couples, etc. involve at least a sexual element. Conflicts over money, holidays and the like also exist, but they're not as damaging and explosive as those over sex. Conflicts over sex frequently lead to violent breakups, conflict and the like, and they have the trait of spiraling out of control.
It is, I think, Schopenhauer, who stated that between the affairs of the state, there always lurks sex, which is true. Sex is one of the objects that polarises our mimetic behavior most frequently, and that transforms conflict itself into a positive feedback loop.
I'm referring to actual checkable numbers. Look it up.
The reason that it is observable in young people is because their heads are full of ideas, and their bodies' are lacking in real world experience. Without actual experience you don't know what's true and what isn't, and anything that is coherent, and isn't contradictory, or literal nonsense could very well be true. Young people are naive, and gullible. If you've never been out to sea, I can tell you there are sea monsters and mermaids, and you wouldn't fucking know any better.
Gotta get out and about, get some life experience, and then it becomes a whole lot harder to be confused about what's what. There of course the whole other problem of cherishing nonsense, and active ignoring, and numbing of senses because it disrupts fantasies, or implicates those you love or yourself, so it isn't just experience, also takes openness, detachment, humility, and all that jazz the cool old people tell you about, that don't just believe what's being said, but what's being seen. Old guys just caught up in hot topics.
Not only the thing I said, but "straight women" show an arousal response to all forms of sexuality, gay straight, animals. They're the only group that do, even lesbians don't (prolly 'cause they hate men). I know that it offends precious sensibilities... but believe or not, not everyone is exactly analogous to ourselves.
The reason that it is observable in young people is because their heads are full of ideas, and their bodies' are lacking in real world experience. Without actual experience you don't know what's true and what isn't, and anything that is coherent, and isn't contradictory, or literal nonsense could very well be true. Young people are naive, and gullible
That is possible but I'm not sure. When I was a teenager, everyone thought me way more naive than I actually was. I actually wondered how people can think that teenagers are so stupid?
If you've never been out to sea, I can tell you there are sea monsters and mermaids, and you wouldn't fucking know any better.
Well it's more about being informed about a subject. You don't need actual experience of it, supposing I'd never been out at sea, you wouldn't scare me with sea monsters, mermaids and the like because I've read about the subject, I've seen it in movies, etc.
I am not obtuse, I'm just pointing out to the obvious failing in your previous point. ANY scientific theory whatsoever will have metaphysical presuppositions - even those commonly accepted by science today. So we cannot critique ID because it has metaphysical presuppositions while ignoring the fact that Darwinian blind evolution also has metaphysical presuppositions. To do so, would be to mask the reality and create a difference that isn't there.
Of course all scientific theories have metaphysical presuppositions. The scientific method in all it's many configurations is not scientific, it is pure unalloyed metaphysics. ID makes one factual claim that more materialistic theories do not - the presence of an intelligent agent directing the evolution of living organisms. If that factual claim cannot in principle be confirmed, then this is metaphysics, not science. If so, and if you claim it is science, then you are practicing pseudoscience.
On the other hand, I'm not certain the unique factual claims of ID cannot be confirmed or denied.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 30, 2017 at 16:53#1098530 likes
science is self-critical, model-disproof-seeking, bias-minimizing model ? evidence convergence, where tentative hypotheses can be derived from the models;evidence, observation and experimental results accumulate, models converge thereupon;methodological;per se the most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history
Does Intelligent Design fall into that category...?
Creationism » 12. Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In all honesty, with theologians having been at it for centuries on end, it does seem like creationists just want to hitch a ride with the success of science ("if you can't beat them, join them").
Ruth Garrett Millikan presents a highly original account of cognition - of how we get to grips with the world in thought. The question at the heart of her book is Kant's 'How is knowledge possible?', but answered from a contemporary naturalist standpoint. The starting assumption is that we are evolved creatures that use cognition as a guide in dealing with the natural world, and that the natural world is roughly as natural science has tried to describe it. Very unlike Kant, then, we must begin with ontology, with a rough understanding of what the world is like prior to cognition, only later developing theories about the nature of cognition within that world and how it manages to reflect the rest of nature. And in trying to get from ontology to cognition we must traverse another non-Kantian domain: questions about the transmission of information both through natural signs and through purposeful signs including, especially, language.
Millikan makes a number of innovations. Central to the book is her introduction of the ideas of unitrackers and unicepts, whose job is to recognize the same again as manifested through the jargon of experience. She offers a direct reference theory for common nouns and other extensional terms; a naturalist sketch of conceptual development; a theory of natural information and of language function that shows how properly functioning language carries natural information; a novel description of the semantics/pragmatics distinction; a discussion of perception as translation from natural informational signs; new descriptions of indexicals, demonstratives and intensional contexts; and a new analysis of the reference of incomplete descriptions.
Creationism is ignorant of what they're arguing against, and don't accept it because they think they're arguing against something that they're not -- but so does this. To the extent that anyone concludes that knowledge is possible, as in, the real deal, which is actually truth, and not just useful, not just anthropocentric, not just human, not just for human goals, they are giving everything up, and if they conclude that it's anthropological, for getting some job done, or figure things out in some human, not actually true way, they themselves have either magically transcended that limitation, or cannot be trusted by their own admission.
That's a really weak maneuver... to act like if something isn't always, one hundred percent true of everyone, then it isn't in any sense, or predictive. You can't operate like that, you're full of general notions too.
it doesn't have to be claimed to be 100% true to be incredible. Do you really think let's say significantly more than 50% (or pick a number that would gel with your claim) of lesbians "hate" men. I haven't known many lesbians but those that I have haven't seemed particularly bothered by men one way or the other. Why would most lesbians hate most men?
I'm trying to tread carefully around your feelings. I think only the top 10% can really be considered attractive in any group, otherwise it kind of loses its meaning.
It relates back to the other post I made to Jorndoe... people seem to suppose that the truth aligns with your preferences. That if someone believes something, they have selfish, or psychological motivations for doing so. It says something about them. This, unfortunately is not how the truth works, and to suppose it does, either imagines oneself to hold the sole immunity, or disposes of the truth altogether.
"Human sexuality will be even more conflictual than animal sexuality and makes sexuality itself incapable of being a factor of stability in human relations or even between sexual partners" - René Girard.
I think the quote isn't true, although I have not thought that claim through. I'll think about it.
Maybe on television, and as a teenager. The actual numbers of the prevalence of sexual non-conformity hasn't risen at all, besides lesbians, but women don't actually have a sexuality. Studies show when they asked teen girls what being turned on felt like, it felt like being attractive, and desired.
When her daughter was 16, a friend of mine remembered when she was that age. She told me she was naïve, unaware about sex. When she first got involved with boys in a romantic way, she felt a strong desire to be close to the person she was interested in, but she never thought of it in a sexual way. It wasn't until she got more involved in relationships that that developed. She told me she was taken completely by surprise. If you knew her, you would never think that my friend doesn't "actually have a sexuality." She is one of the most sexually aware and wise people I have ever met.
You likely misunderstood my claim. "Sexuality" more as in orientation, than anything. I didn't interpret the claim as to mean gender, but that could be. I just read an article that claimed that now 7% of mellenials claim to be gender-nonconforming... so perhaps I was wrong.
I do believe that about 0.2% about of the population is biologically different in that regard, but they overwhelming tend to be complete gender realists, and essentialists, this is something else. I didn't mean that women lack a sexuality, in that nothing turns them on, they aren't attracted to anyone, or something (I actually expressed the precise opposite of that).
I see this move as something cultural though, and entirely something else. See, what are motivated, what are selfish, what tell you things about people, are lies.
No, I genuinely don't care about them, and don't even read their posts generally, unless addressed to me. I scan what's going on, and definitely see pictures and stuff, but I rarely read long posts, particularly (even when addressed to me). The rather verbose members tend to get under my radar.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 30, 2017 at 17:36#1098870 likes
When her daughter was 16, a friend of mine remembered when she was that age. She told me she was naïve, unaware about sex. When she first got involved with boys in a romantic way, she felt a strong desire to be close to the person she was interested in, but she never thought of it in a sexual way. It wasn't until she got more involved in relationships that that developed. She told me she was taken completely by surprise
I think this is a fair representation for many women who are my age and older. Sex was not something that was discussed so to explore the idea of bisexuality and/or having lesbian tendencies was almost taboo until later in life when we are old enough to freely entertain the ideas.
I think this is a fair representation for many women who are my age and older. Sex was not something that was discussed so to explore the idea of bisexuality and/or having lesbian tendencies was almost taboo until later in life when we are old enough to freely entertain the ideas.
Admittedly, my friend was 16 in the 1960s and our conversation took place about 10 years ago, but, as I said, she is very wise and knows her daughter well. She indicated her memories are still relevant.
It's miraculous! I was totally looking up "genius women" and things like that for awhile, and looking up the female philosophers that I see, and not being super stoked or impressed. I was actually losing some faith... but then I look up criticism of women's studies just now, and see some power houses echoing the things I just said nearly verbatim.
As mean and horrible as it is, beauty and truth really are totes related. I'ma watch all that last one's videos. Hopefully she talks about diverse subjects though.
I don't think Wosret fits in any particular box. I was referring to the idea only.
It isn't particularly right wing, but there seems to be a group of men in the West into these ideas like MGTOW and the like, which can get quite anti-women. It's much a reaction to feminazis to be honest.
I'm not like a men's rights person, or anything by any stretch of the imagination. I just said that I thought that the increase in lesbianism (and maybe some other rebellions against normativity) may be because feminism, as being produced by women's studies, may be causing women to hate men, and turn gay... No judgement, no suggestions towards any actions, or reactions... just said that I think that might be true.
You might think that's a clunky expression, and implies more than it does... but at the very least female sexuality baffles science. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-02-26/news/0702260136_1_sexual-desire-sexual-health-dysfunction
Reply to Wosret I can't begin to tell you specifically what lurks in the mind of a woman, but I can attest to observing behavioral responses (some subtle, some very not subtle) consistent with sexual excitement and arousal. That the arousal differs from men's is obvious, but not as obvious as that it actually exists.
This conversation feels like 15 year old boys' locker room talk. Either that or a troll. It feels beneath you actually.
Holy shit, I didn't say that they don't experience sexual arousal, I said that they experience in more contexts than any other sexuality does. The opposite of that. I'm saying more that it breaks all of the boxes, and can't be classified, not that they're all frigid or something.
I'm also a big believer in quality over quantity, and I had an extremely attractive girl friend, that wanted me, and was even nice enough to lie about me not sucking, but I do have experience, and much better ones than most guys ever will.
Reply to Wosret Oh good Lord. What's your angle now? You self deprecate about your sexual prowess, you brag about your last gf being hot, and then you point out you've had quite the variety of experience. I'm sure you're all that and none of that, but really likely somewhere where we all are. But who cares?
No angle, I'm just saying the things I think. I'm just proud of myself for having made it through those horrible amazing experiences, and saying something that I'm pretty sure is a statistical fact, which is something to be proud of in my view. I'm an open book.
I prefer at least a little terror mixed in. What made it tops for me, is that she told me that she felt like she'd really hit the jackpot, and there were no greener pastures. I felt the same way. It was an amazing couple of months, unfortunately our respective insecurities made it not last. I feel like most don't go for the most terrifying human being they've ever encountered. I think that my experiences were pretty tops, although didn't last long enough to get more comfortable. Not dead yet though, still working on myself.
You know why you cry when you're really happy? Because emotional excess in either direction tends to be responded to by a polarizing emotion, in order to better restore balance. Not really that different from the oppositions I mentioned.
Impossible. I'm a woman. I don't have a sexuality. My entire existence is predicated on the imperative to be attractive. Do you find my feet attractive?
Vat? You mean I have competition? Oh, the shame! The impending doom! What am I if I am not attractive? I must go and get some plastic surgery, wear an extra-thick layer of feet make-up to cover those unsightly blemishes.
Joke of the day - I posted my magnum opus of philosophy jokes a few weeks ago and nobody noticed. I was disappointed because they were, well..., brilliant. I hope no one objects, but I am going to post one joke a day till I've posted them all.
Q: Can God count to infinity?
A: We don’t know yet.
Reply to Hanover Show off.
Just had to show us your mirrored closet doors next to the bed didn't you. And the sky light to look at the stars in a romantic interlude. Bah.
Mimesis ain't so bad. It's more people's inclination to aversion foremost, and immediately. Science blames this on the amygdala, particularly the right hemisphere one. Responsible for aversion. They say that it isn't as big a deal to miss out on something pleasant or rewarding as it is to miss a threat, so we're simply far more prone to processing the negative first, and seeing it foremost, and more clearly. Criticism is easy, as they say. Getting past aversion, to look on the bright side, is difficult.
Reply to Wosret Mimesis can be bad because it leads to conflict. Mimesis especially in acquisitive behavior, because two cannot possess the same object.
Reply to Agustino The ideal can't be complete lack of conflict, as that's just tyranny. Only ideologues want to silence conflict, and see nothing but nodding heads. This is because they misunderstand, or can't see the bright side of it, for mutual growth. This is why when there is conflict, ideologues immediately resort to abuse and intimidating. That's all conflict is to them.
The ideal can't be complete lack of conflict, as that's just tyranny. Only ideologues want to silence conflict, and see nothing but nodding heads. This is because they misunderstand, or can't see the bright side of it, for mutual growth. This is why when there is conflict, ideologues immediately resort to abuse and intimidating. That's all conflict is to them.
Yeah this is exactly the mythological justification and covering up of violence that René Girard critiques. You can find this same thing in Hegel, and a lot of other philosophers too - the justification of violence and conflict as sacred or normal or justified or necessary.
It is only the Bible which denounces violence and conflict as totally unnecessary, thus making the Bible an anti-myth.
It is only the Bible which denounces violence and conflict as totally unnecessary,
QED.
I wasn't promoting violence, or abuse in any sense. Obviously it isn't true that the bible doesn't promote conflict, to the extent that you set out to be moral, in an immoral world. To be the lotus suspended in water, without getting the pedals wet. To be in the world but not of the world, there is conflict. If anything, religions are its strongest proponents.
That said, what do we do about conflict? Aren't you generating it by not just immediately agreeing with everyone, and doing what you're told? Or is it 100% all their fault, and you're an innocent victim in it all?
I'm a guy. I find everything female attractive. Stop insinuating I'm gay.
Typical. Straight from shoes to bare feet with no consideration as to how I am feeling. As I ready myself for work, this is my photo The Tree Pose to reflect my uprightness to remain modest during these public exhibitions. As for the latter part of the above-mentioned, perhaps a subtle consultation with Michael is in order.
To get, like all technical about it. Neurologically antidepressants which regulate serotonin increase assertiveness, or aggression, but also improve the communication between the amygdala, and pre-frontal cortex, so that emotions are easier to regulate.
This isn't the same thing as anger, studies show that when serotonin is low, and assertiveness low, withdrawal high, communication breaks down between the amygdala and pre-frontal cortex, and emotions become more difficult to consciously regulate, and this is when people are angriest. When they're unhappy, and not fighting for themselves and their positions, but in a depressive low seratonin state, and are under lower conscious awareness and control of their emotions.
Tyrannical uniformity which drives conflict underground is what's dangerous.
You mean that her foot isn't clearly on the knee, extending past it to the calve? Am I the only sane person around? Are your emotions so out of control that they must fabricate ways to avenge yourself against me, and show that I'm shit to yourself? Holy...
I'm confident that you're the only one confused. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't notice that awesome people are intimidating, seeing as you don't know where knees are.
You know... yoga pants actually weaken the supporting muscles and joints too, much like a corset did in the old timey days... so they kind of act at cross purposes. Ought to all be in hammer pants, really.
I am confused regarding the issue of horrific sex. I mean, does it involve body parts, small burrowing animals... but then some things I don’t want clarity on, because some things can’t be unclarified.
Really attractive, skilled, and looked up to people. Really high caliber human beings make us insecure, uncomfortable, intimidate us. Am I from mars? It isn't only me, someone that is of extremely high quality is capable of exhibiting massive influence over us. We deeply care how they think of us. We don't just think and feel equally about everyone, nor treat everyone equally.
I can only speculate about why. I suppose that we want them to like us a lot, they make us feel vulnerable, inadequate, we viscerally know how powerful they are, could be a lot of reasons.
I feel like people aren't all that in touch with their own emotions, or know themselves very well. Instead they just have way off the mark, intellectual constructions or something.
This is what I mean, there simply is no real talking to someone that thinks that there is no such thing as better or worse, healthy or sick, skilled or unskilled, moral or immoral, ugly or attractive. They certainly don't operate, and cannot operate like that. They live in a fantasy land of denial, while their soul screams for mercy.
That you can't speak for the Buddha. Particularly because he certainly did hold that it was possible to escape suffering, and possible to know your true nature. That was kind of his whole shtick.
Officially and legally advocate for you? I wouldn't dream of it.
I dream of it all the time. You always turn up to court seemingly under the influence of some kind of illegal substance and start spouting some nonsense which results in you being held in contempt of court. As you're being lead away, your porn collection - consisting entirely of various photos of feet - falls out of your pocket, and you scramble to the floor to desperately pick them back up again. You'll need them for later.
Reply to Wosret Killjoy. On another note, those strategically placed weights made for physiotherapeutic use to help teenage girls recover from broken arms, are they yours?
They're not strategically placed, and I haven't even used them a single time, and I don't know anything about weights. I got them because they're incorporated a lot in hitt routines. I usually use boots, or jugs, but I decided to pick those up.
All I did today was yoga for after disaster, to release anxiety, and open the chest up.
Obviously it isn't true that the bible doesn't promote conflict, to the extent that you set out to be moral, in an immoral world.
I don't think that being moral requires conflict, but quite the contrary, it is the resolution of conflict through forgiveness and love instead of through violence.
Tyrannical uniformity which drives conflict underground is what's dangerous.
Tyrannical uniformity doesn't drive conflict underground, but quite the contrary, uniformity is achieved by uniting the community around the murder or lynching of an innocent victim who becomes responsible both for the conflict within the community and for its resolution.
Reply to Agustino It does make me chuckle to see you promote forgiveness and love, Agu. It brings back memories of your discussion in which you argued in favour of the use of torture.
Reply to Sapientia Even in that case I said the death penalty may be warranted for extreme cases of things like serial killers, pedophiles, mass murderers, torturers etc.
And in either case, this discussion I'm having with Wosret isn't about psychopathic people it's more about the conflicts that arise between normal human beings generally, and that can lead to violence - like for example Hitler's rise to power and scapegoating of Jewish people. Hitler effectively saw no other solution to the Jewish problem than to exterminate them. My point is that the idea of exterminating them is a lie - it will not solve the problem because the Jews were never the cause of it in the first place. It is just scapegoating and must be condemned as such.
It's a case of psychological transference of the problem unto a minority group for ideological reasons.
Reply to Agustino I went back and edited my post, because although I remember you mentioning the death penalty in that discussion, it was actually a discussion you created to argue in favour of the use of torture.
It's pretty funny that you just included "torturer" in your list of examples. State sanctioned torturers would presumably be excluded under that model?
Reply to Sapientia Yes for extreme cases torture may be justified. If a terrorist for example knows the location of a bomb that is about to explode and kill thousands of people, then torture would of course be a measure that could be used to interrogate them.
However, if you do read that discussion you'll also see that I changed my position by the end of it with regards to torture that is.
Now, @Sapientia, it seems to me that you cannot distinguish from cases of dangerous terrorists, mass murderers, psychopathic serial killers, and the like and normal, sane people. I'm not talking with Wosret about how to deal with that former group of people, and I don't think Jesus would say to "turn the other cheek" to a mass murderer who killed your whole family for example.
You're just derailing the discussion at this point.
Yeah, but in a way, the damage had already been done, and it gave us an insight into the kind of options you'd consider supporting.
Wouldn't youconsider (even if you end up not opting for) torture in the case of a dangerous terrorist that held knowledge of the location of a bomb that is about to explode and kill thousands? :s
Blame the immigrants. Don't pretend you haven't noticed Trump and Republicans doing that, wall or no.
Yes, and I largely disagree with that. But I don't disagree with the fact that illegal immigration shouldn't be permitted, first and foremost because illegal immigrants cannot be protected within the borders of the US, and would end up in criminal activity or abused very frequently. Permitting illegal immigration is an underhanded way of permitting continued slavery and pretending you don't know about it, since the illegal immigrant cannot be protected by law.
Reply to Sapientia How could we discuss real cases? Are any of us military generals or law enforcement agents dealing with terrorists, mass murderers, serial killers and the like in their day to day jobs? :s
Reply to Agustino That's not quite what I meant. I meant that the hypothetical should reflect the problems we know arise when torture has been used for that purpose. If it doesn't, then it's unreflective of reality, and pointless in my view, as a pragmatist.
Your hypothetical leaves too much out of the picture. It assumes an idealism.
should reflect the problems we know arise when torture has been used for that purpose
Right, so that's why I was persuaded that torture shouldn't be used as punishment against unrepentant mass murderers and psychopathic serial killers, and instead the punishment should be the death penalty.
The fact of the matter is that the victims and their families need to be assured by society that they will be protected from such people in the future. When we were discussing that issue, I had just read an article about a serial killer who had brutally raped and killed a young girl, and was only found out after 25 years after the incident, being totally unrepentant for what he had done. Arresting them for 20 years in jail and letting them free afterwards often leads to more victims, especially in the case of unrepentant criminals of this degree. Society needs to take a strong attitude against such people for the immense suffering they've caused to their victims and their families.
Reply to Agustino Whatever the finer details, I think you made a mistake that can be generalised. It's the same kind of mistake made when arguing in favour of absolute nonviolence by assuming an ideal world without all of the associated problems that that would entail.
You've heard of life without the possibility of parole, right?
Yes, but this wasn't the punishment in that case that I had read.
But anyway, I think the death penalty should be considered for such grave offenses such as brutal rapes, mass murders, torture of innocents, etc., especially in the case of unrepentant criminals who mock the justice system itself. It would be horrible to have your own family be the victims of such a criminal and then not have the justice system deal with them adequately - you'd certainly feel betrayed by your society.
Yes for extreme cases torture may be justified. If a terrorist for example knows the location of a bomb that is about to explode and kill thousands of people, then torture would of course be a measure that could be used to interrogate them.
Torture isn't very effective. People will say anything to stop the pain.
The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation says torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
But I don't disagree with the fact that illegal immigration shouldn't be permitted, first and foremost because illegal immigrants cannot be protected within the borders of the US, and would end up in criminal activity or abused very frequently.
As for being abused, I don't know, but presumably they're still better off in American than they would have been in Mexico, hence why they decided to cross the border.
I didn't say that none were coming over through illegal entry points. I said that most came over through legal entry points.
Besides, how good is a wall when they're using tunnels to go under and ramps to go over the current fences anyway?
And from your article: "Agents said they have also found that the more expensive illegal drugs — cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine — are usually in small packages hidden deeply within passenger cars and trucks and are smuggled through the official U.S. Ports of Entry at Nogales, Douglas and other border towns. "
Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Watch in 2014 documents that 50 percent of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico.
Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40 percent or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas.
The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases.
The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.
The U.S. Department of Justice documents that in 2014, 19 percent or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors were for violent crimes; and over 22 percent or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.
That same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences.
The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S.
According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders.
To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding
As for being abused, I don't know, but presumably they're still better off in American than they would have been in Mexico, hence why they decided to cross the border.
They think they will be better off because standards of living can be higher in the US than otherwise. However, many of them are not aware that they don't have the protection of the law, and if anything happens to them, there's basically no one who can defend them. If an illegal immigrant gets raped, what can they do? Go to the police station and report it? Of course not. So illegal immigration is really a form of getting slave labour, which is precisely why it has been allowed for so long. Under their "human" face, the leftist administration of Obama has allowed these people to remain and be exploited under US borders.
I didn't say that none were coming over through illegal entry points. I said that most came over through legal entry points.
Oh, so closing off those illegal entry points isn't important in order to be able to focus border security on the legal entry points, instead of having them all spread out?! :-}
Besides, how good is a wall when they're using tunnels to go under and ramps to go over the current fences anyway?
A wall makes the border more easy to supervise through, for example, installed cameras and the like. Also depending on the type of foundation used for the wall and how deep it goes, it may stop tunnels too. If pile foundations are used in addition to the regular strip foundation that is common for walls, it will pretty much block all tunnels.
Reply to Baden Yeah, trying to look for the 2014 report that says that 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S are by illegal immigrants. Would have been nice if the author linked to it.
A Google search for "2014 13 percent illegal immigrant" gives that Hill article as the second link (the first being unrelated).
So at worst it's probably fake news. My guess is that even if the figure is accurate a large proportion of those crimes are just being illegal immigrants, which makes for a very disingenuous figure.
This is a self described conservative website / organization not a non-partisan overseer of the government. Have you even looked at their "about" page. How gullible are you?
Reply to Baden Also: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Judicial Watch is a conservative educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Unfortunately, Judicial Watch is not always accountable and publishes false information according to Politifact and Snopes. (7/19/2016) Updated (2/25/2017)
Of course, but @Agustino doesn't care, he's too busy psychologically transferring the problem of crime unto a minority group for his own ideological reasons. (I mean go ahead and do that if you want but not ten minutes after saying how terrible a thing it is.)
"Supporters of the Trump theory have been pointing to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that found undocumented immigrants account for disturbingly high levels of violent crime. While they represent just 3.5% of the U.S. population, undocumented immigrants represented 7% of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 9% of murders, 12% of assaults and 30% of kidnappings in 2013.
Case closed, right? Far from it.
Only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are handled by the federal court system. Yes, undocumented immigrants accounted for 9.2% of federal murder convictions in 2013, but that represents a grand total of eight murder cases. When you consider that the FBI estimates there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. in 2013, those few cases handled by the federal court system don’t quite register as a reliable sample set."
To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding
This is the bit quoted by @Agustino I most object to. An absolute flaming pile of horseshit "extrapolated" by a right wing blogger linking to a dodgy conservative propaganda outlet, aimed to impress a bunch of scared stupid people and then regurgitated on a philosophy forum to try to peddle the lie that illegal immigrants are violent predators. I mean if you believe an illegal immigrant is up to ten times more likely to murder you than an average American then of course you're going to want extreme measures taken against them. Textbook propaganda.
When will the US come to its senses and repeal the second amendment?
When the US citizens can blindly trust it's government.
The timing of your post suggests that taking away a persons right to bear arms is going to have ANY kind of impact on the tragedy in Las Vegas.
Please explain your reasoning
This is a self described conservative website / organization not a non-partisan overseer of the government. Have you even looked at their "about" page. How gullible are you?
There are no non-partisan organizations, only some which pretend to be non-partisan. So let me turn that question back at you. But besides that point, let's look at some data from here.
Go to page 10. Let's look at 2009, just after Obama took over (and this got worse over his term). What does it say there? 295,959 incarcerations for illegal aliens.
Now go to page 15. What does it say? Does it say that most of those incarcerated aliens are Mexican, namely 70%?
Now back to page 1. What's the total population of illegal aliens? 10.8 million. 25.3 million if you include aliens with immigration status.
So take your pick. We have upper bound of 67% more incarcerations for aliens or 291% higher. This means that illegal immigrants are somewhere between 67% to 291% more likely to be incarcerated than your regular population. These are all based on official documents, as official as it gets.
And keep in mind that we don't have many statistics on illegal aliens - there's a reason why they're illegal. That's why all the organizations involved in producing these stats will be mostly biased anyways.
I mean if you believe an illegal immigrant is up to ten times more likely to murder you than an average American then of course you're going to want extreme measures taken against them.
No, I don't think that would make me want "extreme" measures taken against them at all. I'd just want to stop illegal immigration for the two reasons I gave in a previous post - namely illegal immigrants have no protection and will thus be very likely to get abused inside US borders, and they will be more likely to be forced to engage in crime.
Yes, I object to you quoting lies that claim illegal immigrants murder people at up to more than 1,000% a higher rate than the general population based on information you got from a fake news blog.
To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation. This is astounding
This is the bit quoted by Agustino I most object to.
So, no you can't turn it around on me until you acknowledge my objection and your error. Then we can discuss other sets of statistics.
Yes, I object to you quoting lies that claim illegal immigrants murder people at up to more than 1,000% a higher rate than the general population based on information you got from a fake news blog.
I'm interested in whether this is an empirical debate or whether it's purely an ideological one, with one side certain that the illegal immigrant problem is linked to increased crime and the other trying to end the demonization of immigrants.
At this point, you guys are arguing data, with you saying that exaggerated and inapplicable federal crime data are being offered and I suppose Agu arguing otherwise.
My question is: If state crime data were examined that showed that disproportionate crime were being committed by illegal immigrants, would you agree that immigration enforcement should be strengthened, or would you arrive at another reason why the data ought be ignored (e.g., it's poverty, poor education, or some other risk factor outside of national origin causing the increased crime)? I ask this before embarking upon the mission of gathered state data.
If you were able to arrive at another reason than national origin being the reason for increased immigrant related crime, couldn't those reasons alone (like lesser education, poverty, etc.) be sufficient to exclude the immigrants? I ask this because I'm not certain that anything less than an open borders policy is fully acceptable to you.
Most advocates of gun control only want to remove certain types of arms from certain types of people. That works in just about every other developed country.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 02, 2017 at 17:54#1103910 likes
Most advocates of gun control only want to remove certain types of arms from certain types of people. That works in just about every other developed country.
My argument with Agu right now is over his use of clearly fake statistics, which are put out there to demonize illegal immigrants. We haven't got to a debate over the real statistics yet.
Yes, I'm sure. I don't subscribe to the theory of retrocausality.
It seems like a random thing to say on a Monday morning.
It wasn't random. It was inspired by the events in Las Vegas. I'm lamenting the fact that the free availability of guns in the U.S. leads to more situations like this than would otherwise happen were strict gun control in place.
Reply to Baden Uh, removing the right to bear arms at all is not the same as "removing certain types of arms from certain types of people." Not sure how you can miss that.
It wasn't random. It was inspired by the events in Las Vegas. I'm lamenting the fact that the free availability of guns in the U.S. leads to more situations like this than would otherwise happen were strict gun control in place.
Which is what I thought you were implying but we have gun control in place on automatic weapons, they are VERY difficult to obtain legally.
Yes, I object to you quoting lies that claim illegal immigrants murder people at up to more than 1,000% a higher rate than the general population based on information you got from a fake news blog.
The crime rates are higher overall for illegal immigrants than for your average citizen, and that's almost beyond doubt.
Regarding the murder rates, yes, 1000% more seems to be an upper bound answer and probably the reality is less than that. I don't believe that number, I just posted that article to show Michael that the statistics he claims aren't so clear at all, and answers are actually quite divergent. How much less it's difficult to say. But no, 1000% more isn't propaganda, it's just one estimate.
I find it quite strange that you jump to call one entire organization propaganda based on the fact that you don't like one statistic that one of their writers puts up, based on a series of evidence that they describe.
My argument with Agu right now is over his use of clearly fake statistics, which are put out there to demonize immigrants.
Do you have any proof that those statistics are put out there to demonize illegal immigrants? Do you have proof that they are fake? Offering another set of calculations isn't proof that they are fake, you have to tell me which numbers are wrong and why.
There are no non-partisan organizations, only some which pretend to be non-partisan. So let me turn that question back at you. But besides that point, let's look at some data from here.
Go to page 10. Let's look at 2009, just after Obama took over (and this got worse over his term). What does it say there? 295,959 incarcerations for illegal aliens.
Now go to page 15. What does it say? Does it say that most of those incarcerated aliens are Mexican, namely 70%?
Now back to page 1. What's the total population of illegal aliens? 10.8 million. 25.3 million if you include aliens with immigration status.
What's the population of US in 2009? 306.8 million.
Total population in prison in 2009? 2,284,900
Right, now time to do some math.
2,284,900/306,770,000 = 0.7% of total population is incarcerated in 2009.
295,959/10,800,000 = 2.74% OR 295,959/25,300,000 = 1.17%
So take your pick. We have upper bound of 67% more incarcerations for aliens or 291% higher. This means that illegal immigrants are somewhere between 67% to 291% more likely to be incarcerated than your regular population. These are all based on official documents, as official as it gets.
And keep in mind that we don't have many statistics on illegal aliens - there's a reason why they're illegal. That's why all the organizations involved in producing these stats will be mostly biased anyways.
Any objections now?
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 02, 2017 at 18:05#1104020 likes
Just to be clear: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country apart from some exceptions (daca etc.) Illegal immigrants should also not be subject to lies about their propensity towards crime. There's no contradiction there.
Regarding the murder rates, yes, 1000% more seems to be an upper bound answer and probably the reality is less than that. I don't believe that number, I just posted that article to show Michael that the statistics he claims aren't so clear at all, and answers are actually quite divergent. How much less it's difficult to say. But no, 1000% more isn't propaganda, it's just one estimate.
The estimate is completely hopelessly wrong and your inability to admit it is so weak a cheese sandwich could see through you.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 02, 2017 at 18:07#1104090 likes
The estimate is completely hopelessly wrong and your inability to admit it is so weak a cheese sandwich could see through it.
I did say I don't personally believe that number, but I can't admit that it is propaganda because there's just no evidence that it is propaganda. You have yet to show that the author has the intent that you claim he does, or that the numbers he uses are fake. They're not fake, they're just numbers that you don't believe reflect reality. But that's your personal belief.
Repealing the second amendment wouldn't make it illegal to buy guns. All the current laws and regulations would stay in place.
Yes and be amenable to change in the future >:) (you've learned the lesson well that radical change must come bit by bit... by the time we're over the haul, it will be too late to move back. That's what the left always claims. Look at Roe v. Wade).
I gave you an article linking to five separate studies already. Besides which, if you are going to suggest immigrants are ten times more likely to murder than regular citizens, an outrageous claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support it. You've provided none and you never will because there is none.
What's so distasteful about this is that you continue to refuse to back down from a claim that is clearly aimed at demonizing this minority, something you just recently claimed to be absolutely against. It's like if I said that your countrymen including you were ten times more likely to be rapists than Americans, provided no evidence for that, and then claimed your objection to such nonsense was just a "personal opinion". Really, you need to understand what you are doing and stop doing it.
Reply to Michael Or not. Absent the right, they can be changed. It would make little sense to remove the right unless one wished to ban most if not all people from owning most if not all weapons, so why don't you just say what you mean.
Or not. Absent the right, they can be changed. It would make little sense to remove the right unless one wished to ban most if not all people from owning most if not all weapons, so why don't you just say what you mean.
Or not. Absent the right, they can be changed. It would make little sense to remove the right unless one wished to ban most if not all people from owning most if not all weapons
Or maybe I'm a devout Republican and just a firm believer in State rights. ;)
1) The sample must be representative
2) The sample must be large enough
3) The error must be calculated
4) Any error above a specific threshold renders the sample ungeneralizable
For example: I know two Japanese people. They are both male. I extrapolate from that that all Japanese people are male. Wonder how they reproduce? Clever buggers. There's a bit of reasoning that doesn't work. It's not just my "personal belief" that it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.
Besides which, if you are going to suggest immigrants are ten times more likely to murder than regular citizens, an outrageous claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support it.
What's so distasteful about this is that you continue to refuse to back down from a claim that is clearly aimed at demonizing this minority, something you just recently claimed to be absolutely against
Which part of that statement do you not get? I've said it twice by now. My disagreement with you is over the fact that you say it's propaganda. I don't think it's propaganda, I just think it's a higher estimate compared to the reality.
if I said that your countrymen including you were ten times more likely to be rapists than Americans, provided no evidence for that
They did provide numbers (evidence)! Maybe you disagree with those numbers, and it is quite likely a higher estimate than the reality, but this doesn't mean the numbers are fake. There may be some errors in the way the data was gathered, etc. But you have yet to show that there is a malicious intent behind it and that the statistics provided are fake. Citing different studies isn't to show they're fake - they're obviously going to use different numbers.
If you said that my countrymen including me are 20 times more likely to be rapists than Americans, I wouldn't be upset. I probably wouldn't much care. Why? Well because I know myself and I know that's not true about me, and there's no reason to be upset. You have some statistics which seem to show that, I might question whether that reflects the reality of the entire situation, but I wouldn't be upset. I might be upset if you wanted to discriminate against me and my countrymen based on that, but now that's a different issue.
It's not about being upset. Who cares if you're upset? It's about reality. Learn some basic math and it will help you to spot the kind of basic statistical manipulations done by people who want you to believe their propaganda.
When the US citizens can blindly trust it's government.
This is the part of the pro-gun/2nd amendment lobby argument that just doesn't make sense to me.
In what moment of time did the Federal Government become the boogyman for gun owners? What event(s) precipitated the shift from viewing the Federal Government as a normal sort of social institution which has operated within more or less clearly defined boundaries, to a hostile KGB-type operation aimed at taking away Americans' guns?
Look at gun production statistics! Does it look like there are any restrictions on guns? According to a George Washington University report, "The number of guns manufactured each year in the U.S. grew from 2.9 million in 2001 to nearly 5.5 million in 2010, which was one of the highest-volume years in history. Another 2.84 million foreign-made guns were imported in 2010.
The government estimated there were 310 million firearms in civilian hands in 2009 - nearly as many weapons as American citizens."
Does it really look like the Feds are after your guns? What would it take to change your mind? Do you need the government to start a "gun of the month club" where they send you a nifty gun every month just to reassure you? Would mandatory gun ownership (as many as you could afford, according to your tax returns) make you feel better?
The tightness with which millions of people have fastened their teeth on to this issue, and the total absence of any evidence that the feds are trying to get at your guns, suggests a mass delusion.
1) The sample must be representative
2) The sample must be large enough
3) The error must be calculated
4) Any error above a specific threshold renders the sample ungeneralizable
So, you agree that any extrapolations from the rate of crimes investigated by federal authorities, which would disproportionately lean toward drug crimes carried out along the border and so disproportionately involve illegal immigrants, would be unrepresentative samples, and no conclusions concerning overall levels of illegal immigrant crime could be drawn from them?
Go to page 10. Let's look at 2009, just after Obama took over (and this got worse over his term). What does it say there? 295,959 incarcerations for illegal aliens.
Actually, that's the number of criminal aliens, which the document defines as "noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally."
Also, it states that "sixty-five percent of the 249,000 criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either a civil or criminal immigration violation" which makes it a bad comparison as obviously immigrants are more likely to commit immigration offensives. Ideally these should be excluded, but as far as I can see this report doesn't provide the information to do that.
There's a more up-to-date report here (from a libertarian, Koch-founded think tank) that provides data (supplied by the Census Bureau) to show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.
Actually, that's the number of criminal aliens, which the document defines as "noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally."
No worries. I calculated with the total number of immigrants as well. Still gives a higher rate by 67% and that's not taking into account that illegal immigrants will commit more crimes than legal immigrants.
"sixty-five percent of the 249,000 criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either a civil or criminal immigration violation"
Yes, and a large degree were arrested more than once.
There's a more up-to-date report here (from a libertarian, Kock-founded think tank) that provides data (supplied by the Census Bureau) to show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.
Also, it states that "sixty-five percent of the 249,000 criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either a civil or criminal immigration violation"
To be more exact, average number of arrests was 7 arrests per criminal alien.
Do we have evidence they lean towards drug crimes carried along the border?
Drug trafficking is more often investigated by the feds presumably because it tends to involve several states. And the source is the border so naturally there is a concentration of resources there. Of course, some murders and other violent crimes may involve federal investigations but that's relatively rare. Because of the latter point, the sampling size tends to be unreliably low causing another statistical fail. See the USA today article I quoted.
Maybe @Hanover can offer more information on this.
That's in a completely different ballpark to 1000% and wouldn't particularly surprise me if true (though I'm not conceding it is as other statistics paint a different picture). The crime rate tends to rise as poverty and social deprivation rise.
In what moment of time did the Federal Government become the boogyman for gun owners? What event(s) precipitated the shift from viewing the Federal Government as a normal sort of social institution which has operated within more or less clearly defined boundaries, to a hostile KGB-type operation aimed at taking away Americans' guns?
Excusing your inflammatory hyperbole here, there was no such shift. Something happened called the American War for Independence. It might do you well to look up why Americans chose to fight it and who the two sides were.
My question is: If state crime data were examined that showed that disproportionate crime were being committed by illegal immigrants, would you agree that immigration enforcement should be strengthened, or would you arrive at another reason why the data ought be ignored (e.g., it's poverty, poor education, or some other risk factor outside of national origin causing the increased crime)? I ask this before embarking upon the mission of gathered state data.
Immigration enforcement should be strengthened regardless. As I said, there should be some sensible exceptions like Daca but the point of borders is that they're borders.
You're a sovereign democracy. You get to vote for your government. You are no longer colonized by a foreign power. Why the paranoia? (I think that's BC's basic point).
You're a sovereign democracy. You get to vote for your government. You are no longer colonized by a foreign power. Why the paranoia? (I think that's BC's basic point).
That's in a completely different ballpark to 1000% and wouldn't particularly surprise me if true (though I'm not conceding it is as other statistics paint a different picture). The crime rate tends to rise as poverty and social deprivation rise.
Sure but keep in mind that's lower bound, assuming crime rate is same among illegal as among legal immigrants. But we actually know that crime rate is about double in illegal immigrants compared to legal immigrants. So that figure is likely 100-200%.
And of course poverty and social deprivation increase crime. That's the point. Illegal immigrants will be both abused (and so poor and social deprived) and likely to engage in crime.
Again, the studies you haven't read yet paint a different picture. I'll await @Hanover's research. My major problem as I've said several times are gross exaggerations obviously intended to further a political agenda. I'm in favor of immigration enforcement in the US anyway just as I would be in favor of it in my own country. (As in who am I to tell Americans they should allow people to illegally stay in their country?).
The wall is about more things than just immigration, it's also about stopping or slowing down the drug trade that goes on between Mexico and US.
The wall is stupid. Why build a wall when they could simply take over control of the market? It's entirely within their power. By trying to stamp out the drug trade, they drive it underground.
Excusing your inflammatory hyperbole here, there was no such shift. Something happened called the American War for Independence. It might do you well to look up why Americans chose to fight it and who the two sides were.
The revolution of 1776 isn't the relevant frame. It's the Constitution, which was adopted 13 years later. And for most of our history, the Second Amendment wasn't the basis for an ever-enlarging gun-supply, and people didn't think the Feds were on their way to take their guns out of their cold, dead hands.
When I was growing up in the late 1950s and early 1960s I had at my disposal plenty of conservative viewpoints, and they were not focussed on gun ownership. They were focussed on communists, homosexuals, integration (and other Warren court decisions). Gun rights wasn't a big issue in the late 1960s, either, or early 1970s.
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
So the turn began in the late 1970s and went merrily on from there. It's part of the conservatism of the Republican Party which became more conservative after the liberal Rockefeller Republicans were washed out of the party.
Something happened called the American War for Independence. It might do you well to look up why Americans chose to fight it and who the two sides were.
The two sides were Great Britain (and allies) and the Thirteen Colonies, later known as the United States of America (and allies). Boston Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, No Taxation Without Representation, and so on.
You need to be more specific and properly explain the link you're making. That is, if you want to be understood. Or you could remain vague and aloof.
Mentally stable non-criminal adult citizens of the US should have the right to own a hand gun or a regular rifle. But no-one except the military should be allowed posession of automatic weapons, machine guns or other highly destructive assault weapons. Does anyone disagree with that?
Emotional intelligence is a little more complex, difficult to measure, and not unrelated to IQ. It is more a skill than an innate trait, and is mainly learned. It is about reading people's expressions and emotional states, as well as properly predicting their behaviors and reactions based on them, and understanding expectations, responsibilities, and how to properly operate in a social environment.
So to the extent that they're trained in it, I imagine that it may very well be higher than average.
Reply to Baden
Yeah, and the FBI requires a little high IQ than the general pop (at least a Masters or PhD along with 2 foreign languages under your belt).
You don't go into the police because you're sensitive, you go into the police because you want power and you like guns. In the US anyway where police tend to be aggressive and very low in EQ compared to other countries considering how often they resort to lethal force.
I'm not anti-police as such but European/Asian police are significantly less intimidating. I mean I had some German police accost me on their horses for sleeping in a park once (they may have thought I was an illegal immigrant or something) but I found it more entertaining than anything else.
I don't like hefty imbalances of power in situations, it's intimidating. They could be saints, but as long as they reserve the sole right to violence, as well as could lock me up, or really make my life difficult for awhile, I don't much like them.
This is the part of the pro-gun/2nd amendment lobby argument that just doesn't make sense to me.
In what moment of time did the Federal Government become the boogyman for gun owners? What event(s) precipitated the shift from viewing the Federal Government as a normal sort of social institution which has operated within more or less clearly defined boundaries, to a hostile KGB-type operation aimed at taking away Americans' guns?"
"In July of 2017, Arpaio was convicted of unconstitutionally racially profiling Latinos. When he was sentenced, people celebrated that his years of running a system of torture essentially designed to punish people for being brown was coming to an end — that the justice Arpaio’s inmates deserved, real justice, had finally been served. And for a few weeks it seemed that the rest of America had realized that, too. But on the August night Trump pardoned this “patriot,” our country was once again reminded that we are governed by a man who believes Arpaio was not torturing people, but vigorously supporting his country by defending it against, by saving it from, our enemies"
Look at gun production statistics! Does it look like there are any restrictions on guns? According to a George Washington University report, "The number of guns manufactured each year in the U.S. grew from 2.9 million in 2001 to nearly 5.5 million in 2010, which was one of the highest-volume years in history. Another 2.84 million foreign-made guns were imported in 2010.
And how have the gun sales performed since Trump took office?
The government estimated there were 310 million firearms in civilian hands in 2009 - nearly as many weapons as American citizens." Does it really look like the Feds are after your guns? What would it take to change your mind?
Not only are they after my current guns but as it stands today, the Federal government can and did take away my right to purchase and own a firearm.
Do you need the government to start a "gun of the month club" where they send you a nifty gun every month just to reassure you? Would mandatory gun ownership (as many as you could afford, according to your tax returns) make you feel better?
The tightness with which millions of people have fastened their teeth on to this issue, and the total absence of any evidence that the feds are trying to get at your guns, suggests a mass delusion.
There is no delusion, they took away my 2nd amendment right as a citizen, as soon as I was honest about being a State sanctioned Medical Cannabis patient. Never once was I asked or denied the right to possess a firearm when I was addicted to OxyContin because Oxy is a Federally approved drug and the Doctor writing my prescription holds a State License to practice medicine.
In all seriousness, if you have ever encountered someone on OxyContin 6 hours after their last dose was due and someone who is consuming cannabis containing CBD's, you would see that I am clearly not delusional, nor is my evidence.
You seem to be an exceptional case then Tiff. The more pressing problem is loony tunes having guns and using them to murder people not sensible people not being allowed them.
StreetlightOctober 03, 2017 at 06:20#1105710 likes
I've always liked the refrain - the source of which I can't remember now - that if it takes a year or more of being on a learner's permit in order to drive, while all the while having to be clearly marked by a brightly coloured 'L', and only with the supervision of another qualified driver - without anyone complaining that this somehow contravenes one's freedom of movement - another US constitutional guarantee - then that kind of regulation shouldn't be understood to be a restriction on the freedom to own guns either. At the very least it ought to make one wonder why there's no National Driver's Association who fight tooth and nail for the constitutional 'freedom' of drivers.
Reply to StreetlightX I'm going stand outside Vicroads tomorrow morning with a sign that says NDA Fights The Road to Tyranny... Death by Regulation!
StreetlightOctober 03, 2017 at 12:32#1106150 likes
Oh good. We've been driven to the ground (ey? ey?) by life saving road rules and regulation for far too long. The Revolution starts... tomorrow morning, I guess.
So what? The average IQ for people in general is 100. Isn't about 100 for police officers what we should expect?
I didn't actually notice this, the 100 IQ is average for the whole population, but occupations have different IQ ranges. Like the average IQ for astronauts is 136.
Here is a list of break downs for college majors. http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
I know. My point was cops are not especially intelligent or stupid. I would expect them to be around the 100 mark, wouldn't you? Obviously, rocket scientists etc. would come in significantly higher. (Although super high IQ Christopher Lanagan was a bouncer for a long time).
Again, though, they give you an IQ test, and if you score too high, you're reject on that basis alone. Though, my point was that their "expert opinion" on the subject, despite experience, may not be super reliable.
Am I? Or am I the beginning of a control creep? Today it is those who have been convicted of a crime, declared mentally unstable and the cannabis patients. Not a lot of folks right? But if you look at this being a law in 29 states and D.C.? My being the "exceptional case" is not so exceptional but rather will become the norm. Time will tell, it always does.
The more pressing problem is loony tunes having guns and using them to murder people not sensible people not being allowed them.
I am sorry Baden but evil will always find a way to be carried out. If not with a gun, then a rental truck plowing into crowds. If that doesn't work than take hostages at a café and make the world watch you and wait to see how the heinous act will end. Or you could just leave a bucket on a train with explosives you can make with supplies from a beauty store...
It's not the guns Baden, it is people determined to carry out evil and evil is not something that any law can rid out of human nature.
StreetlightOctober 03, 2017 at 17:32#1106990 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 03, 2017 at 17:39#1107000 likes
Reply to StreetlightX The first picture that showed it was from the Onion satire news magazine, I thought to say it is too soon. But to then remove the credit to the Onion and suggest that it is a legit headline is a little misleading and that stings StreetlightX.
StreetlightOctober 03, 2017 at 17:44#1107030 likes
I removed it because I didn't want to use a picture of the Vagas shooting. Didn't feel right. Figured the obviousness of the satire spoke for itself, Onion label or not.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 03, 2017 at 17:50#1107050 likes
Reply to StreetlightX Thank you for your grace and I agree that the picture didn't feel right but can you see how fake news happens? :s
StreetlightOctober 03, 2017 at 17:52#1107070 likes
Irrelevant. And if anyone thinks that headline is a legitimate one, there's no hope for them to begin with.
To say nothing of the fact that it's closer to the truth than most, in any case.
Mentally stable non-criminal adult citizens of the US should have the right to own a hand gun or a regular rifle. But no-one except the military should be allowed posession of automatic weapons, machine guns or other highly destructive assault weapons. Does anyone disagree with that?
No, nobody disagrees. But the more horrifying thing is that such a person finds it easy to set up in a hotel room and carry so many guns around. I mean has nobody in the hotel, including cleaning people, saw how many guns he has there?! Why would anyone bring so many guns to Las Vegas out of all places?
The revolution of 1776 isn't the relevant frame. It's the Constitution, which was adopted 13 years later. And for most of our history, the Second Amendment wasn't the basis for an ever-enlarging gun-supply, and people didn't think the Feds were on their way to take their guns out of their cold, dead hands.
My point was that Americans' distrust of and resistance to centralized power is nothing new, for it precipitated the war for independence. Afterward, a significant contingent of the delegates at the constitutional convention had to be persuaded to even create the federal government, while those who did the persuading were themselves concerned about not giving it too much power. The founders had these reservations because they witnessed first hand the abuse of centralized power. The second amendment in particular was included because it was yet another check on the federal government. In fact, the rights of the bill of rights were specially chosen for their relevance in serving as such checks (this is why the ninth amendment was also included). The founders deemed these rights to be what a potentially tyrannical government would likely try to take away first, which, again, was based on their own recently lived experience.
Thus, your anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, Americans have always been wary about the federal government infringing on the amendments contained in the bill of rights, and this is precisely what the founders encouraged and would have wanted.
Mentally stable non-criminal adult citizens of the US should have the right to own a hand gun or a regular rifle. But no-one except the military should be allowed posession of automatic weapons, machine guns or other highly destructive assault weapons. Does anyone disagree with that?
I don't, although I wouldn't mind the former being made to look like the latter, provided it's only cosmetic.
Alternatively: "The 90 US mass shootings are nearly one-third of the 292 such attacks globally for that period. While the United States has 5% of the world's population, it had 31% of all public mass shootings."
This isn't a good defence. Should we not bother making it illegal to buy, sell, and possess drugs? After all, people do so regardless.
Are you suggesting that we make it legal to buy, sell and possess drugs?
If you are then I question if you have been reading or following me at all.
You are aware that we do have laws making it legal to buy, sell and possess drugs, correct?
Reply to StreetlightX `I'd like to give you a precise reference, but I don't remember where I got it... but in the 19th century, someone of apparently sound mind blew up an elementary school (most of the students were inside) to protest a tax levy. Quite a few of the students were killed. There was also student-performed school violence in the 19th century. Not good, but at least it's not entirely a new thing.
You are aware that we do have laws making it legal to buy, sell and possess drugs, correct?
Yes, certain drugs to certain people, with strict regulations because many drugs are dangerous. And so too should the same be done with guns.
The point is that simply saying that "people will find a way" isn't an excuse to not have bans and regulations. People will find a way even with a gun ban just as people find ways even with a heroin ban, but just as it is in the best interest to have a heroin ban in place it will be in the best interest to have a gun ban in place.
Most guns are banned here in the UK, and there is of course a black market. But the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 is so much lower than in the U.S. (I can't find figures for the same year, but in 2011 in the UK it was 0.23 and in 2014 in the U.S. it was 10.54). That is unequivocally a better thing, and so I really fail to see how anyone can justify the system you have.
Reply to Michael Michael I have checked your statistics with regards to immigration (those from the CATO Institute) and my issue with them is mainly in the way they've gathered data about who is an illegal immigrant, based mainly on excluding unlikely candidates from the population of incarcerated immigrants. They seem to have based this on the following criteria:
Those characteristics are that the immigrant must have entered the country after 1982 (the cut-off date for the 1986 Reagan amnesty), cannot have been in the military, cannot be receiving Social Security or Railroad Retirement Income, cannot have been covered by Veteran Affairs or Indian Health Services, was not a citizen of the United States, is not living in a household where somebody received Food Stamps (unless the individual has a child living with them as the child may be eligible if they are a U.S. citizen), and was not of Puerto Rican or Cuban origin if classified as a Hispanic.
They did seem to have tested how altering the criteria may impact their results. Nevertheless, their calculation isn't direct and involves more assumptions than the more direct government numbers I've provided in my previous post, so until further evidence I'll tend to side with those.
In addition, the critical error in their study is that they take the population of illegal immigrants to be 14.5 million (they never state this, but it results from back-calculating the incarceration rate of 0.85% given 123,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated). This is by all means an over-estimation by most counts which give the number to be somewhere between 9-11 million.
Also, they use a total native population of 137 million (also back-calculated from their data) which is way off. It's more like 318 million. So the incarceration rate for natives is inflated.
My point was that Americans' distrust of and resistance to centralized power is nothing new, for it precipitated the war for independence. Afterward, a significant contingent of the delegates at the constitutional convention had to be persuaded to even create the federal government, while those who did the persuading were themselves concerned about not giving it too much power. The founders had these reservations because they witnessed first hand the abuse of centralized power. The second amendment in particular was included because it was yet another check on the federal government. In fact, the rights of the bill of rights were specially chosen for their relevance in serving as such checks (this is why the ninth amendment was also included). The founders deemed these rights to be what a potentially tyrannical government would likely try to take away first, which, again, was based on their own recently lived experience.
Thus, your anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, Americans have always been wary about the federal government infringing on the amendments contained in the bill of rights, and this is precisely what the founders encouraged and would have wanted.
Well, sure, it's nothing new. But the salient point is that things were a lot different back then, much has changed, and the yanks ought to get with the times. It's called progress.
Don't fight it. Embrace it. It might just save lives.
Mentally stable non-criminal adult citizens of the US should have the right to own a hand gun or a regular rifle. But no-one except the military should be allowed posession of automatic weapons, machine guns or other highly destructive assault weapons. Does anyone disagree with that?
Yes, I do, with the first part. The very notion diminishes the concept of rights.
Not only are they after my current guns, but as it stands today, the Federal government can and did take away my right to purchase and own a firearm.
Good. They did so based on drug laws which make little sense, comparatively. We're on the same page in that respect. But, nevertheless, it's for the best. Better to nip it in the bud before someone gets hurt. If it's not you, it's someone else, and no one thinks it'll happen to them until it does, with devastating consequences.
Should we not bother making it illegal to buy, sell, and possess drugs? After all, people do so regardless.
Not the best example. Why should we? Because drugs are bad, m'kay? They're really not that bad, you know. I mean, I've never done heroin, and I've heard a lot of very bad things about it, so there might be exceptions, but then, I've also heard a lot of bad things about other drugs that has turned out to be overblown. They're more like confectionery than weapons or dangerous machinery which requires a licence to operate.
StreetlightOctober 04, 2017 at 01:13#1107760 likes
Reply to Thorongil I figure 'only' qualifies the adverb 'regularly', and given that the US stands in a class of it's own with respect to the frequency of it's mass shootings, it's about right.
It's a pity the American "can do" attitude disappears when it comes to gun deaths and healthcare. Every other major industrialized country in the world has found ways to deal with these issues. They are solvable problems. But too many Americans just throw their hands up in the air and say "evil" or "too expensive". No, instead of hiding in the corner with your hands covering your eyes just look at how other countries solve these problems and then do that. It's not rocket science. You'll have to start ignoring the politicians and special interest groups who will continually lie to you about these issues because there's money and power at stake but that's not rocket science either.
BuxtebuddhaOctober 04, 2017 at 01:55#1107790 likes
with respect to the frequency of it's mass shootings
And let me guess, you also figure that it's and its qualify as being the same, too? Perhaps no means yes, and hello means goodbye, and (Y) means (N) >:O
Anyhoo, *leaves again.*
StreetlightOctober 04, 2017 at 02:00#1107800 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha Yes, the US stands exclusively as a nation in which the frequency of mass murder by gun is dizzyingly out of proportion with its population size in comparision to other nations. But it's nice that you dropped in by for some drive-by sophistry.
And I freely admit my total and utter dyslexia when it comes to posessive apostrophes.
See, if Americans can't even admit they have a problem and would rather play semantics then more gun deaths, more chaos with healthcare, and so on. Admit you have a problem (compared to other countries). Solve it like they have. Move on.
Responding to Tiff's attitude and headlines in the US of politicians saying nothing can be done. Oh, and Buxtebuddha too with nothing constructive to add.
Policy would be much more detailed. I didn't specifically mention semi-automatics, for example (I guess automatics are already banned). I didn't mention compulsory training or strict penalties including jail time for non-compliance. But, if most people could agree on the basic principle and pressure politicians to enact it, it would be a step forward.
Here's an example of the Australian policy on handguns:
"Category H
Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014, however only in Victoria so far. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds."
Americans have always been wary about the federal government infringing on the amendments contained in the bill of rights, and this is precisely what the founders encouraged and would have wanted.
Sure, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and all that. However, there is a significant regional difference in the attitude of people toward the federal government, and this difference has been present since the 1700s. For several reasons people in the south preferred to keep government at several arm lengths. This preference applied to local and state government as well as the Federal level. The southern states (before the Confederacy) didn't want to cooperate with each other on roads, railroads and canals. They preferred to keep civil issues local - down on the farm, so to speak. They followed an honor code, the defense of which was mandatory for the upper levels of society, and important to lower levels.
The New England states had a more "corporate" view of society, and recognized the important work of government, public efforts, inter-agency cooperation, a state-run justice system (as opposed to a private one), centralized government, and so on. This view--derived from the Puritans, went west with the northeast / New England, economic expansion, trade, language accent, and so on across the Great Lakes region, the northern tier of states, and the NW states.
As for guns, and gun-related deaths, most of the states under the influence of the Puritan views, have European levels of violent gun deaths (excepting Illinois). The Southern third, and the deep south in particular, is where the very high rates of violence occur. Steven Pinker attributes the high rates of violence in the south to the influence of English Cavaliers who became the principle slave owners of estates. They tended to prefer a DIY justice approach, were honor-code bound, and tended to use violence to settle scores.
In the map below, the greener the state, the less violence; the redder the state, the more violence.
People will find a way even with a gun ban just as people find ways even with a heroin ban, but just as it is in the best interest to have a heroin ban in place it will be in the best interest to have a gun ban in place.
If it's a cost benefit analysis you're looking at, then you can't make generalizations, but you have to look at the specific item being banned and ask what the costs of the ban will be compared to the benefits. That means that it might offer a greater societal benefit to reduce the debilitating effects of heroin criminalization even if that means greater overall usage. With guns, the opposite might be true. With marijuana, complete legalization might be best. Each thing gets it's own analysis.
Unless you proclaim drugs immoral, you have to allow for the possibility that they ought to be legal if the overall positives of their legalization outweigh the negatives, in which case the question is an empirical one.
Reply to Baden No, no -- requiring a hand would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adaptive technology will save the day. A wheelchair mounted semi-automatic can be operated with a toe, if need be.
I think the Paddock case is unique though. There were absolutely no visible or documented warning signs, such that I doubt any law or regulation would have prevented him from carrying out an attack. For some people, where there's a will to evil, there's a way. And if one shifts from "mass shooting" to "mass casualty attack," then the Europeans aren't really justified in smearing America for having these incidents.
I doubt any law or regulation would have prevented him from carrying out an attack. For some people, where there's a will to evil, there's a way.
So, now you're back to pretending the problem can't be solved and therefore not solving it. "Evil" did it. Shrug. When this happened in Australia, they didn't just say, "Oh well. Evil". No, they said "We better stop this happening again". And they did. Why can't you follow their example?
And if one shifts from "mass shooting" to "mass causality attack," then the Europeans aren't really justified in smearing America for having these incidents.
We're smearing you because we would like to see you stop killing each other at rates far higher than occur in Europe because of your overly permissive gun laws? Because we are suggesting you solve the problem instead of burying your head in the sand? Because we keep suggesting this every time you have a new mass killing and you keep ignoring us and having more of them? Sorry, but we're not the bad guys here.
When this happened in Australia, they didn't just say, "Oh well. Evil". No, they said "We better stop this happening again". And they did. Why can't you follow their example?
Same with the UK. The Dunblane massacre is what prompted stronger gun control.
The only thing worse than waiting for something terrible to happen before taking preventative measures is to let it happen over and over and over and not do anything about it. I'm sticking by my last prediction that it will take about another ten massacres before Americans finally force their politicians to enact effective gun control measures. Provided Democrats are in power. Republicans are bought and paid for by the NRA and will never do anything.
Into the hole of trying to present a philosophy of the spirit that doesn't presume anything much other than brute experience, in the simplest manner. A place no one around here is much interested in.
Reply to Baden Hey Baden,
Can you explain the purpose of the poll? I tried to use it before to get information on the opinions of people toward certain topics and both polls were deleted (still no explanation by the way). If the poll is not for that purpose, then for what purpose is it?
Sure, that's it's purpose but it's still part of an OP and is subject to OP guidelines. I don't remember your particular polls though. What poll do you want to put up?
Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.
Interesting. All that was required of me to purchase an air pistol over here was to walk into a shop and buy one, with my I.D. and entry on the gun register.
I wouldn't argue against that law being implemented here though, and wouldn't care if I had to give up my air pistol, which I used once, and which I think was a waste of money.
Reply to Baden It's not important at this point. They were more of an experiment and I have moved on. There was one on the future of science and one on the existence of an undiscovered force in nature. I used two Star Wars themes as the segway. I was hoping to give shape to thoughts about a topic and then springboard off the findings to create a good OP. The whole thing was just the poll. Is this not the way to do it?
We're smearing you because we would like to see you stop killing each other at rates far higher than occur in Europe because of your overly permissive gun laws? Because we are suggesting you solve the problem instead of burying your head in the sand? Because we keep suggesting this every time you have a new mass killing and you keep ignoring us and having more of them? Sorry, but we're not the bad guys here.
Reply to MikeL I never got to see them, but using a Star Wars theme might lead to you not being taken seriously, and posts in the philosophy section should contain more than just a poll. But feel free to post that kind of thing in the Lounge.
It is as I said before. I think I remember the Star Wars one now. So, your polls were deleted not for being polls but for other reasons. Not being philosophical enough if I remember correctly. See Sapientia's response above
Responding to Tiff's attitude and headlines in the US of politicians saying nothing can be done.
Baden, you fell for exactly what I suggested StreetlightXs' post WITHOUT documenting that the headline was from The Onion, satire magazine would do. I NEVER once said that "US politicians" are saying that nothing CAN be done. (N)
? I didn't say you said that. But they are and nothing will be done (by Republicans at least) because they are owned by people who sell and promote guns.
I am sorry Baden but evil will always find a way to be carried out. If not with a gun, then a rental truck plowing into crowds. If that doesn't work than take hostages at a café and make the world watch you and wait to see how the heinous act will end. Or you could just leave a bucket on a train with explosives you can make with supplies from a beauty store...
Which is like saying to the families of victims of drunk drivers: "There's nothing we can do about this; there's no point having strict laws against drinking and driving because people will just take drugs and drive. Evil will always find a way". It's an unimaginably weak argument against positive action.
No, you close off every opportunity for "evil" that you can close off and make it as difficult as possible for people to do these things. Then you save lives. Your attitude is not only self-defeating, it's actively dangerous. If Australians had listened to people like you and not tightened up gun laws after the 1996 massacre, it's very likely there would have been another one by now and therefore more death and misery. Ditto for Dunblane in the UK. Again, instead of throwing your hands up in the air and opining about "evil", actually solve the problem like other countries have done. Or accept partial responsibility when it keeps happening.
No, you close off every opportunity for "evil" that you can close off and make it as difficult as possible for people to do these things
How do you "close off" evil within the human race? Again, if not a gun, then a knife. If not a knife than a bucket full of beauty supplies with a fuse, if not a bucket then a passenger jet. How do you take evil out of a human?
Or accept partial responsibility when it keeps happening.
Okay, tell me exactly what personal responsibility I have in "it" and please define "it" are we talking about evil or the way in which evil is expressed.
Did you read my post? Nobody's asking you (Americans) to solve the general problem of "evil". That's the whole point. That's unsolvable. I asked you to stop going on about evil in general and address the specific problem of gun massacres like the one that occurred in Las Vegas.
We're talking about the continuing massacres. Those who refuse to push for solutions, even partial ones, are partially responsible for the continuation of the problem. And the solutions are there as other countries have shown.
Did you read my post? Nobody's asking you (Americans) to solve the general problem of "evil". That's the whole point. That's unsolvable. I asked you to stop going on about evil in general and address the specific problem of gun massacres like the one that occurred in Las Vegas.
Yes, I read your post and I am glad we are on the same page as far as solving "evil" in humans. The gun massacre in Las Vegas is what evil looks like when in action, regardless of the weapon of choice. In this case he chose firearms that were retro fitted to be illegal to buy, possess or use, so in this case, any further tightening of any of the USA's gun laws would have solved nothing. To outlaw bump stops might stop the intrigued but it will not stop the determined because it doesn't take much to make a bump stop.
While we are on the issue of firearm control, you do realize that Las Vegas, Nevada is an open carry state. Nevada has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country short of Arizona where you need no permit to carry a concealed weapon. Nevada is an open carry state, meaning your firearm has to be visible but neither state requires firearms owners to have licenses or register their weapons and Nevada does not limit the number of firearms an individual can possess.
The flaw in tightening gun control plays out here; there were likely hundreds of legal firearms in that immediate area and the perimeter of the concert being carried by everyday citizens yet the only person that killed anyone was that one shooter. How could that be? <>
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 04, 2017 at 15:32#1109710 likes
You know what the most common thread is in the life of mass shooters? It isn't always true, but a hell of a lot of them had no fathers. We should ban that.
I was enforcing the point that "evil" resides within the human not the weapon of choice.
By that logic, evil resides in the drunk driver not the drink. We might has well let him drink and drive because otherwise he'll just take drugs and drive. Right? Or to put it more simply, why not let people carry bazookas? Are you in favour of that? After all evil resides in the person not the bazooka. Right?
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 04, 2017 at 15:47#1109770 likes
Wrong. It works. They did exactly that in Australia and the UK. The evidence shows it works. You haven't addressed that. Please do.
As far as I know neither the UK nor Australia have a Constitutional right to bear arms and until you can not just read the words but embrace the idea that ours does, you will never understand why your suggestion will not work. You keep trying to pound a round peg into a square hole over and over and still look up with confusion.
As far as I know neither the UK nor Australia have a Constitutional right to bear arms and until you can not just read the words but embrace the idea that ours does, you will never understand why your suggestion will not work. You keep trying to pound a round peg into a square hole over and over and still look up with confusion.
We're saying that the second amendment should be repealed so that better gun control laws can be put in place. So this response makes no sense in context.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 04, 2017 at 15:53#1109800 likes
We're saying that the second amendment should be repealed so that better gun control laws can be put in place.
And this suggestion is EXACTLY why people fight and die for the second amendment to remain as is. As I said before we will reserve our right to bear arms until we have a government in which we can place our blind trust in.
Do you believe that the US government is something we as citizens should place our blind trust in?
Fine Tiff, keep refusing to support anything that would actually solve the problem, but the relatives of future massacre victims won't be thanking you for your irrational paranoia. The NRA, arms manufacturers and your corrupt politicians will love it though.
So, now you're back to pretending the problem can't be solved and therefore not solving it. "Evil" did it. Shrug. When this happened in Australia, they didn't just say, "Oh well. Evil". No, they said "We better stop this happening again". And they did. Why can't you follow their example?
Yes, my position is that mass murder cannot ever be "solved," so long as human beings exist. I have already agreed with you that there are certain measures that may help alleviate and reduce the frequency of certain kinds of mass murder, but to believe in its complete abolition is delusional. That you shrug at the mention of "evil" says a lot, too. Do you think everyone who murders a bunch of people is just a psycho? The evidence doesn't reflect that. Thus, if no religious, political, or ideological motive can be adduced, then evil, the intentional desire to inflict harm, seems a perfectly reasonable explanation of the primary motive in the present case.
There is a point that that isn't the cause, it is the instrument. The cause is deeper, and people can run over a bunch of people with cars, or make bombs, and presumably there will be more restrictions, more calls for checks and measures, more obstructions, restrictions of freedoms, and the cause will go unaddressed.
It was more of an interview, I thought. He didn't say a whole lot, and what he did say I've heard before, lol. I just liked her saying all of those things I think, but don't get to hear other people say very often. Something that makes me feel like part of a tradition I didn't know quite about. I think it's just a tradition of the smart and informed though... Toot, toot.
Sometimes I feel I'm talking to chatbots in here, so I'll repeat:
The problem of mass shootings (not evil, not mass murder, not dodgy cheeseburgers) has largely been solved in Australia and the UK and that shows that there are solutions to the problem (not necessarily complete abolition but certainly major reduction).
Apparently, Australia is a veritable Garden of Eden. But look at this chart and filter for the most recent date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
It was a matter of sheer chance that some of those incidents didn't involve more deaths than they did. True, no guns were used, but is murder by guns somehow more wrong than murder by other means? The fact is that if someone intent on mass murder doesn't have access to guns, they will find other means of carrying out an attack. And if you disagree, then I suspect you disbelieve that human beings can ever be truly evil, which would launch a different discussion.
There is still more than one mass murder per year in Australia, and while like one per month in America the population difference doesn't add up to making the rates all that different.
Okay, now I'm curious. For what reason do you want to solely talk about mass shootings? I want to give you the chance to explain why, because your reaction here is highly suspect.
The fact is that if someone intent on mass murder doesn't have access to guns, they will find other means of carrying out an attack.
The fact is that drunk drivers are intent on driving under the influence of some drug. If it's not alcohol, they'll find something else therefore we should let them drive under the influence of alcohol. Eventually, you'll figure out how trivially bad an argument you're making.
That's a very strange comment. We're debating gun control after a mass shooting. So I'm talking about gun control as a means to reduce mass shootings. Understand?
Have you people ever solved a problem before? First you identify the specific problem. You look at ways to solve it including evidence from third parties. Then you apply an evidence-based solution and monitor the results. You don't obfuscate the problem by going on about other problems which are so general as to be effectively unsolvable.
The fact is that drunk drivers are intent on driving under the influence of some drug. If it's not alcohol, they'll find something else therefore we should let them drive under the influence of alcohol. Eventually, you'll figure out how trivially bad an argument you're making.
This is rich. You accuse people of creating straw men and yet proceed to do just that in the quote above. Most drunk drivers don't intent to murder people and therefore aren't charged with first degree murder. I explicitly said I was talking about people who intend to commit mass murder.
That's a very strange comment. We're debating gun control after a mass shooting. So I'm talking about gun control as a means to reduce mass shootings. Understand?
I understand that you have failed to adequately explain why you have chosen to focus on mass shootings. The train of this conversation began when I said that, in this particular instance, more laws and regulations would likely not have had any effect. Your position seems to be, "without access to guns, he wouldn't have committed mass murder." That's nuts.
Most drunk drivers don't intent to murder people and therefore aren't charged with first degree murder
What are you talking about? You completely missed the point. It's an analogy. It has to do with whether you deal with one problem (drunk driving / mass shootings) even though it's possible another might replace it (driving under the influence of drugs / other mass murders). That obviously directly pertains to your point. It doesn't matter what the specific crime is. And you still haven't dealt with it.
Your position seems to be, "without access to guns, he wouldn't have committed mass murder."
No that's not my position. That's another in a long list of strawmen. My position is that without access to guns we don't know what he would have done. But having access to the guns he did we are sure allowed him to kill 59 people. So, if I could go back and remove those dangerous guns from him, I would. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying you would let him keep them because he might murder some folks another way. That's worse than nuts. It's dangerous.
Child molesters will likely find a way to molest children even if we ban them from working in schools. Therefore, there's no point in banning them from working in schools? Bollocks.
So in Tiff and Thorongiland when a child molester openly working in a school molests a bunch of kids, those campaigning to ban them from schools will be asked why they are concentrating on the school issue when there will always be evil. The specific problem will never be dealt with and the child molesters will continue to molest children in schools.
I'm not all that invested, nor do I want too much ire, but isn't it more like, you might molest children, so we shouldn't allow you to attend schools? Or you might drink and drive, so you should take alcohol or vehicles away? I mean... no one is suggesting that you should let mass murderers have guns, or shouldn't take their guns away. It's about restricting everyone, just in case though.
I don't even really care about this, don't own or even like guns. I think they lack skill. I much prefer bows and arrows, or spears. Way cooler.
The specific argument now is about whether one problem (mass shootings) should not be dealt with because another might take its place (other mass murders). That's what @Michael's analogy hits at.
That it restricts freedoms that some people value, even if it makes things over all "safer for everyone" isn't an obviously desirable trade. It also isn't even well supported that it would change much. America is high in gun deaths, but not murders in general compared to other countries, and although they have higher murder rates than some other developed countries they also have more income inequality, which has been demonstrated to increase homicide rates. If you look at suicide rates, they are much higher from gun deaths in American, but completely analogous in number to other developed nations...
I'm not sure that it would help, it doesn't seem super supported, just what some find intuitive, and even if it did, I'm not super sure that I'm a fan of trading freedoms for safety.
My position is that without access to guns we don't know what he would have done.
Paddock clearly intended to murder people. If he had no access to guns, then as a person intending to commit mass murder, he would likely find other means of carrying out an attack. If there's a will to commit evil, there's often a way. If he rigged the venue with explosives and planned to blow it up or planned to detonate himself in a suicide attack or planned a gas attack or planned to drive a truck into the crowd and managed to kill 59 people, would that be any less bad? If "solving" mass shootings doesn't solve mass murder, which it doesn't, then you haven't solved what matters. And as I said earlier, I don't think you can solve mass murder, which of course doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it or take steps to reduce its frequency.
But having access to the guns he did we are sure allowed him to kill 59 people. So, if I could go back and remove those dangerous guns from him, I would.
You couldn't have. He had no criminal history or history of psychological illness. He obtained his weapons legally and passed the relevant checks.
Child molesters will likely find a way to molest children even if we ban them from working in schools. Therefore, there's no point in banning them from working in schools? Bollocks.
Nope. If you're trying to conclude that we should ban guns, this analogy doesn't work either. "We should ban people who intend to molest children" would be equivalent to "we should ban people who intend to commit mass murder." Obviously we should. But we can't ban people about whom we lack evidence that they intend to do such things. You would be no different than Paddock in this respect. Though it may cause you to hyperventilate, guns do not kill people, people do.
If you respond by saying that owning guns at all is evidence that one might commit such a crime, I suspect you just have a pathological fear and/or hatred of firearms in particular. There are millions of gun owners who manage not to commit murder. In fact, as gun sales and the number of guns have steadily risen, gun crime has steadily gone down.
Not being sure something would help is not a good reason not to do it especially when lives are at stake. Like, I'm not sure if I should throw you this lifeline as you might drown anyway. No, just throw the damn thing.
You're talking about restricting freedoms for everyone, though, just one's you personally don't care much about, but others do...
That's not very reasonable without good evidence... I mean, what if you were restricted from attending school because people thought you had "molester face", but it wasn't them, so who cares, amirite?
I'm not all that invested, nor do I want too much ire, but isn't it more like, you might molest children, so we shouldn't allow you to attention schools. Or you might drink and drive, so you should take alcohol or vehicles away? I mean... no one is suggesting that you should let mass murders have guns, or shouldn't take their guns away. It's about restricting everyone, just in case though.
I agree with this sentiment. Banning guns is not the solution necessarily. America has a cultural problem with this sort of violence. Even if you ban guns, you will still get the same number of mass murder incidents, because it's just a cultural issue that cannot be addressed by banning guns.
Well, yes, if a third party can clearly understand a post I've written, that suggests it's understandable at least to someone of a reasonable level of intelligence.
I don't know that it wouldn't change anything at all, I'm more saying that I don't see a lot of real support that it would, and also that I could entirely understand anyone that thought that even if it did, that freedom for safety is not a desirable trade.
If one really wanted a gun ban, I think that it would be more effective to lessen people's interest in them, rather than offer such a dilemma, anyway.
Well, yes, if a third party can clearly understand a post I've written, that suggests its understandable at least to someone of a reasonable level of intelligence.
if a third party can clearly understand a post I've written, that suggests its understandable at least to someone of a reasonable level of intelligence.
Nope. If you're trying to conclude that we should ban guns, this analogy doesn't work either. "We should ban people who intend to molest children" would be equivalent to "we should ban people who intend to commit mass murder." Obviously we should. But we can't ban people about whom we lack evidence that they intend to do such things. You would be no different to Paddock in this respect. Though it may cause you to hyperventilate, guns do not kill people, people do.
If you respond by saying that owning guns at all is evidence that one might commit such a crime, I suspect you just have a pathological fear of and/or hatred of firearms in particular. There are millions of gun owners who manage not to commit murder. In fact, as gun sales and the number of guns have steadily risen, gun crime has steadily gone down.
What I was trying to explain is that "people will find other ways" isn't a good defence against a ban.
You know what the most common thread is in the life of mass shooters? It isn't always true, but a hell of a lot of them had no fathers. We should ban that.
By that logic, evil resides in the drunk driver not the drink. We might has well let him drink and drive because otherwise he'll just take drugs and drive. Right? Or to put it more simply, why not let people carry bazookas? Are you in favour of that? After all evil resides in the person not the bazooka. Right?
You just blew her logic right out of the water. Easy target? :D
You basically said that people that disagree hold some personal responsibility for murder, and I'm apologizing for them, and I imagine felt the appropriate emotions that go along with that if you actually thought it, which would be a mixture of disgust and indignation.
I don't really consider that an argument, rather than a poor judgment.
Your first link claims that murder rates have risen in the states since the 60s, and pretty much all violent crime has, which is ridiculous.
The other claims that suicide rates rise with gun availability, but then, since guns are less available in other countries, how do they beat the US in number of suicides? It can't be directly, and solely attributable. I don't know the exact relations, or causes, but you can't argue with the numbers.
You basically said that people that disagree hold some personal responsibility for murder, and I'm apologizing for them, and I imagine felt the appropriate emotions that go along with that if you actually thought it, which would be a mixture of disgust and indignation.
I don't really consider that an argument, rather than a poor judgment.
I said that those who care more about guns than people, like those who recently lost their lives, are selfish, a hindrance to societal progress, and to some degree have blood on their hands.
It was a claim, not an argument. But I could present one. Although, if the claim in itself doesn't ring true for you, it's you who has poor judgement.
Let's be clear, this isn't simply about freedom. It's about freedom to satisfy gun lust, despite the heavy cost.
Yes, in a nutshell, that's what it boils down to. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's either one or the other. A decision must be made about what matters more to you. You were clearly putting forward the case for the other side, mentioning freedom, yet leaving it down to me to spell out what that entails.
You were suggesting freedom [i]good[/I], restrictions [i]bad[/I]. But that's such an ill-considered - and frankly distasteful - thing to suggest in this context, given the bigger picture.
It entails about 12,000 shooting murders per year. You know that cell phones are responsible for 1 in 4 car accidents? Being 1.6 million per year? Do you support cell phones, you fucking monster?
It entails about 12,000 shooting murders per year. You know that cell phones are responsible for 1 in 4 car accidents? Being 1.6 million per year? Do you support cell phones, you fucking monster?
I don't support using a handheld phone whilst driving, which is illegal over here, and rightly so. That's a restriction, which is what I'm arguing in favour of in relation to guns.
People usually support using their death machines responsibly too, and don't tend to support mass murder, or homicide in general, but we all know that people aren't going to do it, and cause way more mayhem, but you like those... more than people I guess.
People usually support using their death machines responsibly too, and don't tend to support mass murder, or homicide in general, but we all know that people aren't going to do it, and cause way more hay-ham, but you like those... more than people I guess.
That's a silly response. It isn't all or nothing. I'm in favour of sensible restrictions, and when it comes down to a sensible restriction vs. a little personal freedom, I'll willingly sacrifice the latter for the sake of the former - especially given that in this case, it's literally a matter of life or death for some.
Pokemon go doesn't work if you're going faster than a certain speed, I know that much. I bet that it would be easy to make cell phones in general not work if moving past a certain speed. I bet it would be super simple to pull off, but no one actually gives a fuck about that. They care about arguing politically charged issues, and moral superiority.
Pokemon go doesn't work if you're going faster than a certain speed, I know that much. I bet that it would be easy to make cell phone in general not work if moving past a certain speed. I bet it would be super simple to pull of, but no one actually gives a fuck about that. They care about arguing politically charged issues, and moral superiority.
You know what else is easy and super simple? Making sweeping judgements about everyone at the drop of a hat and pretending to be Sigmund Freud. (You do it a lot, I've noticed).
I was insinuating no such thing. There's this thing called a rhetorical question...
Asking such questions in an apparently rhetorical manner is itself the insinuation.
StreetlightOctober 05, 2017 at 01:20#1112020 likes
To be fair, banning guns may not be a solution. Perhaps something half-way, like making gun owners wear brightly colored flashing LED hats that say I AM CARRYING A GUN, or making them wear hi-vis vests that say PACKING HEAT (MORE LIKELY TO MURDER YOU). I personally prefer the hats.
Does anyone have any evidence that gun control would have actually stopped any of the recent killings?
I find it hard to believe that someone like the Vegas killer would have had any trouble acquiring his arsenal even if it was illegal to buy or sell guns of any type in the US. If someone plans to do something they will find a way to do it.
Exactly, there's no point regulating weapons or drugs or anything really. If someone plans to do something bad they'll always find a way. Why bother trying to stop them?
Never said we should not try to stop them, I just asked for an explanation maybe of how any present or future gun laws could have stopped this guy from doing it.
He had high power weapons + a legal bump stock. He effectively had a machine gun and fired 90 rounds in ten seconds and he acquired everything legally. You can't kill 59 people and injure 500 in nine minutes with a basic rifle or hand gun.
"Senator Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control, introduced the bill, which she had first brought forward after 20 children and six adults were killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. The earlier bill, which would have reinstated a federal assault weapons ban, failed by a wide margin in the Senate."
So, @Sapientia is right, those who oppose measures like this (and why would you except for money?) are highly irresponsible. And those on this forum arguing for doing nothing because "evil will always find a way" will also bear partial responsibility for the next massacre.
Like a 20 year old in America can't buy a beer because that would be too dangerous! Just give the young folk military grade assault weapons instead. That'll work out well. And in Montana, you can own a gun when you're 14. Whoopee!
"Senator Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control, introduced the bill, which she had first brought forward after 20 children and six adults were killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. The earlier bill, which would have reinstated a federal assault weapons ban, failed by a wide margin in the Senate."
I honestly thought that would be the tipping point for gun control measures. It either seems that we have grown accustomed to these events. [s]Either that or the sphere of interest for the average American stops pretty short of what would be required for public outcry.[/s] Sorry, I forgot I live in America for a second there.
I can just see the gun advocates now scratching their heads trying to invent a scenario where he kills 59 people and injures 500 without having access to assault weapons and a bump stock. Because he was evil! And evil must always find a way...
He had high power weapons + a legal bump stock. He effectively had a machine gun and fired 90 rounds in ten seconds and he acquired everything legally. You can't kill 59 people and injure 500 in nine minutes with a basic rifle or hand gun.
He was also a freakin millionaire and would have bought them illegally if there had been stricter laws. The laws would not have stopped him at all.
So, @Sapientia is right, those who oppose measures like this (and why would you except for money?) are highly irresponsible. And those on this forum arguing for doing nothing because "evil will always find a way" will also bear partial responsibility for the next massacre.
I have no responsibility any more than you do for anything that is beyond my control, and to state that I do is both silly and irrational.
How many drunk driver deaths are you responsible for because you are not shouting and screaming for a total ban on alcohol?
How many cancer deaths are you carrying around in your conscience because you have failed to demand more money from the government for research and allowing them to keep on spending so much money on their high salaries and armies?
Do some research on the effectiveness of gun control and you will probably find that the number of deaths has not changed drastically in any of the places where they have enforced stricter laws.
I can just see the gun advocates now scratching their heads trying to invent a scenario where he kills 59 people and injures 500 without having access to assault weapons and a bump stock because he was evil and evil must always find a way...
He was also a freakin millionaire and would have bought them illegally if there had been stricter laws. The laws would not have stopped him at all.
Sure, as I said, why bother with laws trying to stop people massacring others? Some of them might be rich and might be able to do it illegally anyway. Let's just make it as easy as possible for them. Logic failure. Here's a hint: The likelihood of something happening reduces in proportion to how difficult you make it for that thing to happen. Hence. laws and stuff, which are not perfect but help.
He was also a freakin millionaire and would have bought them illegally if there had been stricter laws. The laws would not have stopped him at all.
That seems like red herring to me. The concern with introducing stricter gun laws would be to curb violence in general from guns, the less impulsive types as the Las Vegas shooter, who must have fantasized about what he did for a while will, unfortunately, find a way to give their life more meaning (in their minds).
What sickens me the most is that anyone could effectively be saying to those families' victims, "He probably would have found a way to slaughter your loved ones anyway because EVIL! So, obviously we were right to not to do everything in our power to prevent this."
It doesn't matter because I didn't mention "assault rifles", I mentioned "assault weapons" as defined by the Feinstein attempt at helping to solve this issue.
I mentioned "assault weapons" as defined by the Feinstein attempt at helping to solve this issue.
Ok, so you don't really know much about them.
Any rifle can be made into an automatic weapon fairly easily with the tools found in almost any handy mans possession. As it says in the article you referred to the lady is pushing for restrictions on these adapters to stop people from doing it. But it also says that they are doing it because the actual automatic weapons are already heavily regulated.
Wednesday’s more narrowly tailored legislation would ban the import, sale, manufacturing, transfer or possession of “a trigger crank, a bump-fire” or similar devices that can retrofit semi-automatic weapons to fire at nearly the same rate as automatic ones, which are heavily regulated.
What sickens me the most is that anyone could effectively be saying to those families' victims, "He probably would have found a way to slaughter your loved ones anyway because EVIL! So, obviously we were right to not to do everything in our power to prevent this."
Arguing from emotion does not get reasonable answer or solutions to problems. That was pathetic.
As far as I can see no one has even come near to suggesting anything a sad as that. (N)
Reply to Baden Hey Baden and other moderators. Does the forum advertise anywhere like on university websites? If not, is it something we could look into? I would be great to get a whole bunch of scientists in.
No what's pathetic is having gun massacre after gun massacre and refusing to solve the problem. Not only that but actively obfuscating the problem. What's also pathetic is that you clearly haven't read the previous discussion and don't know what I'm referring to.
It's not nearly strong enough but that's an argument for doing that and more, not doing less. What I object to is people saying "let's do nothing". That's been my bone of contention from the start. So, what is your solution? How do we stop these mass shootings? Enlighten me.
No what's pathetic is having gun massacre after gun massacre and refusing to solve the problem.
I could not agree with you more. It is just that I don't understand why people keep on insisting that the only way to solve the problem is by gun control when it has been proven that it does not work.
What's also pathetic is that you clearly haven't read the previous discussion and don't know what I'm referring to.
Hey, you answered my post in case you forgot. And I did read the rest of the discussion, I really like the comment about people being monster because the drive killing machines. By the way due to the high incidence of motor vehicles being used in terrorist attacks they are talking about the prohibition of the manufacturing of any vehicle that can be used or adapted to be used as a weapon.
Reply to Baden I am about to make inquiries with the Australian National University media department. Do I have permission to use the website name, or would you prefer to handle it yourself?
Hi there,
I am writing on behalf of a philosophy website of which I am a member. It has many great debates all the time on a range of topics including many scientific topics. It would be great to get some students, especially science students or lecturers in to contribute their ideas and have discussions.
The site is free to use.
Is there some way we can put the word out at the ANU that the site is there?
Politicians, for example, when they say nothing can be done are effectively if not literally saying that to the victims. I feel some others who have commented here are doing something similar. And I'm fairly harsh on this because it is a matter of life and death. Of course, it is just a debate here and I'm pretty sure no-one involved is deliberately obfuscating the issue and that they genuinely believe what they are saying. In the end, we all shake hands and go home, basically.
Reply to jamalrob
Hi Jamalrob, Baden has asked me to confirm this with you.
?Baden I am about to make inquiries with the Australian National University media department. Do I have permission to use the website name, or would you prefer to handle it yourself?
Hi there,
I am writing on behalf of a philosophy website of which I am a member. It has many great debates all the time on a range of topics including many scientific topics. It would be great to get some students, especially science students or lecturers in to contribute their ideas and have discussions.
The site is free to use.
Is there some way we can put the word out at the ANU that the site is there?
I can just see the gun advocates now scratching their heads trying to invent a scenario where he kills 59 people and injures 500 without having access to assault weapons and a bump stock. Because he was evil! And evil must always find a way...
A freak accident in a laboratory could result in super speed, like what happened to The Flash.
I have no responsibility any more than you do for anything that is beyond my control, and to state that I do is both silly and irrational.
Do you support or encourage the current lax gun controls in the U.S.A., whether explicitly or implicitly through your action or inaction? If yes, then you do have some responsibility. If no, then this isn't about you, so why are you making it about you? That would be both silly and irrational.
Of course, if it is the former, then you might not want to accept that to be the case, so if you were someone like Tiff - who lives in the U.S.A., has owned guns, would get her guns back if she had the opportunity, and clearly supports the cause - then I wouldn't take a "no" from you seriously.
How many drunk driver deaths are you responsible for because you are not shouting and screaming for a total ban on alcohol?
Straw man. Honestly, how can anyone confuse regulations for a total ban? It's the former, not the latter. In a world a lot closer to the ideal world, I wouldn't object to a total ban on guns for civilians, because I don't have a stake in the gun game, and because it would nip the problem in the bud, but we're not close enough to the ideal, and in reality, I'm sure they'd be a huge backlash involving large scale violence. Sufficient progress would first have to be made before attempting something like that.
How many cancer deaths are you carrying around in your conscience because you have failed to demand more money from the government for research and allowing them to keep on spending so much money on their high salaries and armies?
I don't know, but unlike you (presumably), I wouldn't deny my responsibility. That kind of change could come about through collective action, and some of us - myself included - could do more.
Hey, you answered my post in case you forgot. And I did read the rest of the discussion, I really like the comment about people being monster because the drive killing machines.[sic]
Wosret's comment? That's a bad influence, and he should be ashamed. He was saying it ironically, but sadly there's some truth to it. People tend to treat a forklift quite differently to a car, but they're not all that different. We're talking about dangerous machinery which can indeed kill or seriously injure, and that's why it's so important to regulate, promote safety awareness, and concentrate on operating them in accordance with health and safety practice, which in some cases is the law.
I don't know whether I'd go as far as calling someone a monster for killing someone in a car accident caused by the driver being distracted by his phone whilst driving, but the family of the victim might not be so hesitant in doing so. It would certainly be reckless and condemnable, and not something which should be taken lightly.
By the way[,] due to the high incidence of motor vehicles being used in terrorist attacks[,] they are talking about the prohibition of the manufacturing of any vehicle that can be used or adapted to be used as a weapon.
The term I used earlier was [I]sensible restrictions[/I]. That sounds like a difficult task if the intention is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if they can somehow make them less able to be misused in that way, without rendering them useless, then I'd be in favour. If it meant that "boy racer" types couldn't indulge themselves as much, then tough shit. This is about getting priorities in order.
And we shouldn't stop there. I'm in favour of looking at what more can be done to prevent or reduce incidents like this from occurring.
And those on this forum arguing for doing nothing because "evil will always find a way" will also bear partial responsibility for the next massacre.
Your arguing for stricter gun control, like those opposing it, will have no effect on gun control laws. We make no difference here and therefore bear no responsibility for what we don't control.
However, I could imagine a level of advocacy where we might make a difference, and not only do I urge you to put all other business aside to try to stop this gun violence, but I hold you morally and criminally responsible for every gun death while you idly complain here when you could be forming meaningful political solutions to this problem. We are talking about human life and death after all.
Yes, hyperbole, because what you said was exaggerated. But if you take away just enough of the exaggeration, and perhaps make a few tweaks here and there, you'll be left with a truth.
I'm saying I don't vote because my vote wouldn't make a difference. What are you saying?
I'm saying this:
We make no difference here and therefore bear no responsibility for what we don't control.
Plus this:
That's why I don't vote.
Equals this:
That we make no difference here, and therefore bear no responsibility for what we don't control, is why I don't vote.
If enough of you voted, that would make a difference. Make it happen! In the last recent general election, which was only in June of this year, Labour took Kensington from the Tories. Kensington is one of the wealthiest constituencies in London and has never been in Labour hands before.
Reply to Sapientia You seem to have missed the point. Hanover is saying that the members of this forum bear no responsibility (for gun deaths) because our advocacy is insufficient to make a difference. I'm continuing this by saying that I bear no responsibility (for who controls the government) because my vote is insufficient to make a difference.
You seem to have missed the point. Hanover is saying that the members of this forum bear no responsibility (for gun deaths) because our advocacy is insufficient to make a difference. I'm continuing this by saying that I bear no responsibility (for who controls the government) because my vote is insufficient to make a difference.
No, [i]you[/I] seem to have missed the point. You're going from a comment about a group to a comment about an individual. I'm saying that those of you in Exeter can make a difference, like those in Kensington made a difference in June of this year by electing a Labour MP for the very first time.
No, you seem to have missed the point. You're going from a comment about a group to a comment about an individual. I'm saying that those of you in Exeter can make a difference, like those in Kensington made a difference in June of this year by electing a Labour MP for the very first time.
This makes no sense. You might as well respond to Hanover's comment with "but if those of you in America fight for gun control than you can make a difference". That goes without saying. But Hanover is saying that the few people on this forum can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility. And so I'm saying that I can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
But if this issue of singular vs plural is such an issue for you, I can always respond by saying that the few people in my household can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
But Hanover is saying that the few people on this forum can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility. And so I'm saying that I can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
That's using isolation to support defeatism. Think of the bigger picture.
But if this issue of singular vs plural is such an issue for you, I can always respond by saying that the few people in my household can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
Well, as long as you acknowledge the disconnection between what Hanover said and what you're saying...
Notice how this kind of thinking gets more and more isolated and individualistic? What of collective action and cooperation? You and your household are merely shirking your responsibility, but perhaps I shouldn't be too harsh, given that I used to be in your shoes, and not so long ago. (I blame Russell Brand :D ).
Well, as long as you acknowledge the disconnection between what Hanover said and what you're saying...
There is no disconnect. We're both saying that if a particular set (a set that may include just one member) is too small to make a difference then the members of that set bear no responsibility for a failure to act.
You might disagree with our reasoning, but the reasoning is the same regardless.
There is no disconnect. We're both saying that if a particular set (a set that may include just one member) is too small to make a difference then the members of that set bear no responsibility for a failure to act.
I've given it. In Hanover's case the set is The Philosophy Forum and in my case the set is Michael. The former set isn't numerous enough to make a difference on gun deaths and the latter set isn't numerous enough to make a difference on a party's share of Parliament. Therefore, neither set is responsible for their respective issues.
Edit: Sorry, misread. Thought you wrote "expand on the set", as in "explain it".
I've given it. In Hanover's case the set is The Philosophy Forum and in my case the set is Michael. The former set aren't numerous enough to make a difference on gun deaths and the latter set isn't numerous enough to make a difference on a party's share of government. Therefore, neither set is responsible for their respective issues.
That's a load of baloney. It's quite simple. One set can join another which can make a difference. You group together. If those included in a set are not responsible for that, then who is?
That's a load of baloney. It's quite simple. One set can join another which can make a difference. You group together. If those included in a set are not responsible for that, then who is?
I wasn't actually arguing that this reasoning is correct. I'm only arguing that my reasoning is the same as Hanover's.
My ulterior motive is to have Hanover question his initial claim, given that I believe he would think that individuals do bear responsibility for a failure to vote, despite the fact that (almost always) an individual vote doesn't make a difference.
I wasn't actually arguing that this reasoning is correct. I'm only arguing that my reasoning is the same as Hanover's.
I'm happy to concede that your reasoning is the same as Hanover's, as that's a secondary issue, as I see it. That would mean that you're both wrong, if taken at face value. But of course, Hanover suggested that he was exaggerating to make a point, and you're now telling us that you had an ulterior motive, so this may have all been pointless.
Comments (61561)
You don't get it. It doesn't matter what she's done. It's not funny for the reasons I gave.
Quoting Agustino
That's such a specious argument. You only have to go one level of moron below laughing at it to believing it a legitimate way to act. Congratulations on being half-way there. The fact that I'm not biting doesn't mean no-one will.
It was in bad taste because the President should be above childish humor. Of course, had I put the video together, it would be funny because mods are held to lower standards generally than leaders of the free world.
It was funny though, and not because I at all like to see elderly men slam elderly women with golf balls, but its humor lies in the fact that Donald Trump was playing golf on a course dangerously close to a runway where Hillary Clinton was deplaning. I mean who the hell planned that whole thing? They should have at least put up a screen near the runway so that golf balls wouldn't hit presidential candidates.
Here, have a chicken wing.
I just think you're taking the video too seriously. I don't see how it would legitimise violence against Clinton. It's more like a symbolic video showing that Trump won the election over Clinton, and in that sense "knocked her down".
What do you think, for example, about the many times when they make cartoons of politicians boxing in a ring? Does that encourage violence towards them too, because some dumb people will take it so literarily? :s
What Shkreli did for example, by offering money for a piece of Clinton's hair is by far more likely to be an encouragement to violence towards Clinton than Trump's clip. There's no incentive in the Trump clip to do violence to Clinton. But in Shkreli's post there was (namely the financial compensation).
Speaking of greatest moments, @Hanover's having his right now by the sounds of it.
I just don't get why its funny to see an old lady get hit by a golf ball and fall over. Sorry, I guess I'm weird.
That guy has a serious sociopathic attitude towards society, for which he will hopefully pay for with time in jail or be financially ruined. Trump at least is more rational.
If the video was of Trump hitting any old lady with a golf ball that would have been disgusting and not funny.
However, the video is funny because Clinton was Trump's opponent, she laughed at him, mocked him, and tried to ignore him during the election, trying to portray herself as aloof and superior to him. And yet, she still lost. It's much like they would have shown a boxing cartoon animation of Hillary and Trump fighting, with Trump winning. Such political cartoons are common. Do you think they too encourage violence?
I don't expect you to find the video funny, but there's a long way from "this is not funny" to "this is an endorsement of male violence towards women". I think there's a long way even to the statement that "this is an endorsement of violence towards Clinton". It's in no way like Shkreli's post since there is no incentive for such actions provided.
PS: Not to mention that we know that Trump never actually hit Clinton with the golf ball, it's just something that is put together like that. The ball hitting Clinton was a separate incident.
I doubt it's that easy for him to be financially ruined. How could that happen? He has upward of $50 million, it's not easy to lose that much money, unless you do something stupid with them.
I would agree that he has a serious problem in how he relates with other people. But at the same time, he's not a dumb guy. His problems are more emotional and behaviour wise.
Yeah, that's true. But, he's pretty much never going to return to his old way of making money, so he better get creative whilst living the high life.
At the very least he should invest in some index fund while in jail, and then see his money burn away. I think the stock market needs a correction.
I didn't say it was an "endorsement" of violence because that would suggest something deliberate on Trump's part. And I think it's much more likely he thinks like you, that it's just a harmless joke. That doesn't mean it is though or that it doesn't have the effect of chipping away at civilized norms. I could probably write a book about why I think that's the case but it would have no effect on you if you can't feel at least a twinge of discomfort watching the vid.
I'm glad you're feeling jolly Robert, but after five readings of that post I still have little to no clue what it means (and I am the resident RL interpreter so that's saying something :) ). I can only hope you are not so lost as to be referring to @Hanover as the "Wise one". :-O
Are you an emotivist when it comes to morality? The reason I'm asking is that it seems to me that your point is that you can't rationally convince anyone who doesn't have a certain emotion associated with watching that video that it is wrong.
That logic does not compute. Why would I have to be an emotivist to think that you being unable to feel any discomfort at watching that video would cause you not to be convinced by my arguments concerning its offensiveness?
Because it seems that you presuppose that me becoming convinced of the wrongness of X entails that I already have a (negative) emotional reaction to it. Without that emotional reaction, I cannot become convinced.
No, you've got your wires crossed. I can make statements concerning a given subject's (in this case you) psychological openness to rational argument on a given matter without saying anything whatsoever about my meta-ethical position.
Why would I in particular not be psychologically open to rational argument? Is it because according to you I lack a certain emotional response? If that is so, then you obviously do associate the capacity to perceive morality with the presence of a certain emotional response.
I think you, and others like you, tend to generalize from their emotional response or lack thereof outwards and consider arguments against your position to be based on faulty notions of PC (or etc). that will result in you discounting them in advance. The emotivist stuff is a red herring. (Not an uninteresting subject. Just not germane enough here to pursue.)
His post made no sense, so I wrote one making less sense, which made my post a genius response. If you were even genuiser, you'd write an even less sensical response and then you'd be like Einstein or something.
You're a Humean emotivist of the lowest sort. You've been discovered.
In your book, would you put me in the acknowledgements section?
Like this?
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
See how I brought two disconnected discussions together? I guess that does make me like Einstein or something.
Mathematicians Measure Infinities and Find They’re Equal
Yay.
Depends. Is a bus a phallic symbol?
This is actually a very interesting question...
In high school one of my english teachers snagged her foot on a power chord and - almost - face planted on the hard linoleum floor. The classroom erupted in laughter.
"You're all sick! Do you think it's funny that I almost seriously injured myself!? Is that what you all wanted to see?". She really laid into us and pointed out how very unfunny she felt her near accident actually was. The whole class went instantly and shamefully silent...
"Why did everyone laugh?", I wondered... Perhaps it was that she didn't actually fall over which constituted the humor; near/failed tragedy. But perhaps some students did laugh not because she didn't fall, and instead laughed because she cut a clumsy and pathetic figure. If she had fallen, would some students laugh even harder?
For some peculiar reason random and arbitrary harm done upon unsuspecting persons evokes laughter in the modern voyeur. Certainly there is a threshold where comedic slaps become discomforting or even painful to witness, but for different people this threshold can be located at different distances down the road to abhorrence.
Perhaps this form of comedy is learned? As a child seeing a hungry coyote be impossibly flattened by a boulder was supposed to be the punch line, but then again it always managed to survive. So perhaps what's funny is the idea of Hillary being comedically knocked down, knowing she is in reality unharmed, rather than the actual idea of an old woman (even Hillary) being legitimately injured.
Violence definitely occupies a singular and peculiar role amongst the idols of western culture...
It's partly about how civilized we are; as a species, we're never far off lynching parties, executing kids or chasing down and butchering "the other". That's a far cry from laughing at an old woman getting knocked down on a silly video, but it still appeals to a streak of cruelty that runs deep and we should be wary of in my view. As I was saying earlier though, if the video doesn't bother someone at all, it's hard to abstract it into a social threat no matter what the argument: "If it doesn't bother me then why should it bother anyone?" type of thing. It also seems to be that the fact we laugh at stuff like that is built in to a degree:
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/08/study-finds-brain-confusion-causes-us-laugh-misfortune-others
https://steemit.com/sirwinchester/@sirwinchester/why-we-laugh-at-the-misfortune-of-others-the-science-of-schadenfreude
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-reveals-people-physically-take-pleasure-in-others-pain/
In the example you gave, the teacher was the only party involved and the laughter seems to be mostly explicable by the confusion effect mentioned in the New Statesman article above - we just laugh automatically in the moment and then, depending on circumstances, feel differently about it. Imagine, by contrast, if a student stood up and threw something at the teacher causing her to almost fall, the likely reaction then would be shock rather than laughter among most of the students. Because now there's a threat involved. If the video just involved Hillary Clinton clumsily falling over, less people would find it distasteful. What it comes down to then is how you perceive the golf ball situation - as absolute harmless slapstick, or something a bit more sinister. For me, it veers towards the latter - especially because it's the head of state putting it out there - and represents a further undermining of what's publically acceptable. And what's publically acceptable is what essentially defines how civilized we are. I don't want to overstate things because I don't think we're in real danger of going very far backwards, at least in the short term, but I think it's worth highlighting this kind of stuff anyway.
Here's an interesting vid that touches on the same broad topic by the magician/mentalist Derren Browne:
There were a couple of kids here recently that threw heavy and large rocks over a bridge where below were cars driving past, hitting the front screen of a truck that almost lost control. They are unaware of violence, ignorant to the experience capped with being really stupid because of the lack of guidance. The students in the class probably stopped laughing because they are afraid of getting into trouble and probably laughed because others were; feeling remorse is entirely something else.
Here's our fundamental difference, and why I like Trump while you hate Trump. You believe that something being publically acceptable defines how civilized we are. I think that something being publically acceptable has become the worst and most repugnant form of hypocrisy, which masks society's true face.
No, we - the majority of us - are the farthest from civilized. Most of us like to pretend to civility, but are in truth uncivilized. Think about the locker-room talk incident with Trump. Quite certainly many of the people in the media who critiqued Trump behave no differently than him in private.
What Trump said was indeed disgusting, but that wasn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that what Trump said is what most people (specifically men in this case) would say - let's be real now. That's the problem. It's not that "uhh the President said it, OMG so terrible". No, the President is just a symptom of society at large.
So of course I like Trump - he unmasks pretensions of morality in ourselves. He shows us who we really are as a society, not who we want to pretend to be. And it's about time we look at ourselves as we are. Otherwise, Western civilization will never save itself. We need to address these problems at the lowest levels, not the highest.
The public "illusion" of civilization is civilization, Agustino. The mask is reality. There's nothing else. No other "true face". This is your fundamental confusion. So, Trump's showing us "who we really are", peeling back the so-called mask, does represent a degradation of civilization as without the "mask" we would find it legitimate to publically act out our private vulgarities and barbarities and that is the definition of social chaos.
I mean, take your idea to its logical conclusion and imagine all public leaders "being themselves"; international diplomacy would quickly collapse. How would that help to save western civilization? And all this is very strange coming from you, someone who claims to want a more decent, Christian, and conservative society. Conservatism is the ultimate mask, the ultimate hypocrisy. It just can't be otherwise. Human nature is going to do cartwheels to please your fantasies of a non-hypocritical world.
Yes indeed. That's because "international diplomacy" is in truth nothing but a power game. In fact, it doesn't need the mask anyway - this is what you don't get. The players already know that this "international diplomacy" is a game. Obama already knows that "international diplomacy" is a game - an illusion. He just acts - for the eyes of the people - as if it was real. International diplomacy is not at all needed to avoid escalation of conflicts - such is already in the interests of power structures. And when it's not, then conflict is unavoidable anyway, regardless of "international diplomacy".
Quoting Baden
By making us realise that we indeed have a problem, from the lowest levels of society.
Quoting Baden
No, it is not strange at all. Because life is already like living in the maskless society. The effects of it are still there. The effects of Trump's behaviour already exist and influence our lives, whether we try to cover them up or not. The cover - which you call civilisation - cannot protect us from the reality. People already behave like Trump in truth - in private. In public, they merely pretend they don't. What good does that do to anyone?
I want an authentic conservative society, built from the lowest levels. In my society it's not cool to - for example - have sex with as many women as possible. That is not a source of self-esteem. But in this society, that is a source of self-esteem. But we like to pretend it isn't - we throw stones at people like Trump who do it publicly. Their error isn't that they behave like that - it's only that they do it in public. If only they could keep it behind closed doors, like the rest of us, wouldn't it be wonderful? Then we would have no disputations with their behaviour!
And that's precisely my point - this wouldn't help anyone. Because the effects of it would still exist in society, even though we pretend not to see them - even though we repress them. And because we repress them, we cannot address them.
Quoting Baden
I think human nature is shaped to a large degree by culture.
Quoting Baden
As I have shown, the "illusion" of civilisation isn't civilisation. We already live in barbarism but are unaware of it.
You seem to be saying we need to destroy the village to save it. Well, I live here so I'd rather not be "saved". But the fundamental disagreement seems to me to be that I say civilization is a mask and a necessary one. You say no, there is some "real" version of civilization that can go all the way down so to speak. All I can do is reiterate that this isn't the way things work in civilized societies - good old garden variety hypocrisy will always be present to a huge degree unless there is extreme repression / brainwashing of the North Korea type and even then there'll be hypocrisy only in a different form.
Quoting Agustino
And yet the biological urges towards the repressed behavior will remain leading to an even larger gap between the personal and the social and therefore a more extreme form of hypocrisy. If philandering is admired by society, to express a desire not to engage in it while privately doing it is less socially hypocritical than if it's considered taboo, right? So, I'm not sure that hypocrisy is your problem but more that excessive social freedom is. In which case, ironically, you agree with me that public vulgarity of the Trump sort should be vilified not encouraged. The difference being that you seem to think more of it will somehow lead to less of it because hypocrisy will be exposed and we'll all learn our lesson - or something along those lines. I disagree, I think that more of it will lead to more of it.
It didn't bother me and it's not because you're more civilized than me or more evolved. It didn't bother me because she really wasn't hit with a golf ball. It was fabricated. When the Three Stooges poke each other's eyes, one thing that can make it funny (if you laugh at such things) is that their eyes aren't actually gouged out.
If they create a video of Trump being gang tackled by the House of Representatives, that might be funny, might not be, but in no event would I be offended that it actually meant the House was really pouncing on him.
But have at it, keep on believing that the right is just one good lecture away to seeing things your way. It's been soooo effective so far.
You've just demonstrated exactly my point. Where's the part where you attempt to refute me. :s
Sorry. That doesn't work. Everyone has a limit. Presumably a video of Trump kicking Clinton in the face while she was lying on the ground would bother you, even if fabricated, right?
I disagree. It largely has to do with the era in question. The ages have different governing spiritual principles that dictate the mindset of most people and the cultures which flourish. We live in a time of global spiritual darkness - the end of an era.
The birth and golden age of civilisation is usually marked by much stronger moral values within society, greater asceticism & discipline, and so on so forth. The West has however, it seems, largely run its course. Along similar lines, you can read this paper.
Quoting Baden
Yes, but that would be the wrong social value.
Quoting Baden
No, it's not freedom, it's awareness of what our social values actually are. We can't change them until we become aware of what they actually are. Not what we pretend they are.
Quoting Baden
Yes, because we won't be able to hide from our vileness anymore.
Yes, there have been quite a few. Have a look at the paper I mentioned.
'cause conservatives won't let us improve.
And before you suggest that I want these things to happen to Clinton, you're wrong. It's just slapstick theater to me, not at all rooted in reality, much like when I watch Freddy Krueger slash people up. No one really gets hurt. It just appeals to something within us, but nothing dangerous or in need of repression.
Just name one you think is close and then I'll comment. (I'm not going to read a 20 page paper to get the answer to a simple question when you could just provide it).
You wouldn't be in the least bit disturbed by a video showing Trump repeatedly kicking Clinton in the face? OK, well that's odd even for you. Not that I believe you or anything.
In other words, I'm right, you're wrong, time for a weird joke. Ha!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Deathmatch
Trump vs. Obama
And here it is: Trump vs. Clinton.
Much like your erections then.
Nothing against that.
Nah, it's super dangerous. Looks something like this:
:) If I'm ever in need of an anime retort, I know who to ask.
I see these are the thoughts of Glubb Pasha, a military man (and brilliant in that field) of a certain old imperial school, meditating on the Decline of the West. He was an Arabist who thought the shape of the Jewish nose was important, and that the Jews had been foolish enough to invent the concept of the master race themselves. 'An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline,' I see, as evidenced by tenth-century Baghdad, where pop music, the rise of women and other forms of general licentiousness destroyed an empire from within. I don't know how the rest of us can have overlooked Glubb Pasha's insights till now.
Well, (a) I thought other people who couldn't be arsed to read the essay you referenced might like to know what sort of fellow you were recommending - and when we're talking about an essayist I think their other opinions in other essays count, I certainly think Schopenhauer's misogyny counts against his worth in general for instance; and (b) 'An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline,' is a quote from the essay you were recommending, not some extraneous material.
Still waiting on an answer to this. You said there were "quite a few" so it should be easy.
Yes, I've been running, cooking dinner and eating earlier. Hence why I haven't answered you yet. Don't be in such a hurry. Even now I have to finish some marketing work.
Most great civilisations before they reach their peak would fit the bill. I'm speaking to the period immediately when they reach greatness. You can take the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance period as periods of great flourishing for culture, and a renewal of all of life. Even Baghdad during the golden age of Islam, when it was the capital of learning of the whole world.
Quoting mcdoodle
:s :-}
Quoting mcdoodle
Then you'd be wrong. There's immense value in Schopenhauer's thought, and I say that as someone who ultimately disagrees with Schopenhauer on many points.
Quoting mcdoodle
Okay, he said this, amongst the many other things he has said in this essay. Why is it so relevant that you feel the need to bring it up in particular? Why don't you focus on the general point, namely that civilisations have a life-cycle, which starts with a burst of energy and high morality which builds the civilisation, and as material conditions improve over the lifetime of generations, people start slowly dropping the discipline, they start accepting barbarians, they forget about religious values, immorality increases etc. etc. and this leads to collapse. That's what you should be focusing on. That's what you should be doing if you really want - as you claim - to teach people about the essay and its author. Otherwise, you're just being a propagandist and spreading red herrings around, just to avoid the main topic.
And by the way, what do you say about Eastern Orthodox Christianity (or Catholic for that matter) who don't allow women priests? Indeed, these institutions would consider it a "decline" to allow women priests in public life. Are you opposed to these religious traditions? Even many Protestants are opposed to the idea of having women ministers. Are you opposed to them too? What about Mount Athos, where women aren't allowed to even step foot? Is it wrong to have such places? What about monasteries that are just for nuns, and men aren't allowed inside? Is that wrong too? We should tear them down? What about toilets?! Shall we have a common public toilet for both men and women?
It's a shoutbox. I shouted, in response to your shout. If you want to make a case for something, start a thread. If you want to make a casual rhetorical point, then expect others to be casually rhetorical in return. None of my points were red herrings: Glubb Pasha was a fine man in many ways, but also an anti-Semite and a bit of a misogynist, though probably no more than his contemporaries. His views about empires seem like tosh to me, but the tosh of someone who has experienced some of what he's talking about, so someone to be reckoned with.
I have my own foci, thanks. Tonight I was re-reading Habermas on Heidegger's Nazism, to remind myself about this very question: whether one can indeed admire some of the philosophy of someone who behaves badly (n Heidegger's case, appallingly).
Edit: oops, Zizek's essay appears in a different collection - also maybe of interest: Heidegger's Black Notebooks: Responses to Anti-Semitism.
On a smaller scale than great civilizations, organizations (like non-profits) often begin with a very bright flash of innovation, energy, and accomplishment. This fine period reaches a peak in... maybe 10 years, maybe 15 and then enters a long period where it performs its mission in a sustainable, but not perhaps particularly distinguished manner. The transition years from vigorous innovation to plodding performance can be quite stormy.
The Renaissance didn't happen everywhere simultaneously; I think we have look at that as a series of renaissance periods for different countries.
What about the United States? We had a period of effervescent political philosophy and institution building brought on by frustration with our colonial relationship to GB. That was probably our peak for that field lasting maybe 50 years. Industrially, we didn't peak until... WWII and the 20 years following. Intellectually we peaked in the 1950s-1960s, or earlier by a decade or two -- depending. Maybe we are at a technical peak now, don't know, but if we are still peaking, we are also rotting at the same time. Let's blame the barbarians. DEPORT THE BARBARIANS!
What about Britain? The German-speaking people (Germans, Austrians...)? Russia? Bulgaria--have they had a renaissance?
Sorry, the paranoiac in me thought you might try to avoid that one. Hope all that running, cooking and marketing hasn't given you indigestion. :)
Don't do that bourgeois nonsense. Had me a walk though. (Y)
Lol :D
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm still alive >:O
Ohhhh, I see what Posty is doing there.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw76XDQPWpXHV1VJUEZjNFZsaG8
Menya koshka Meishu, she loves me very much.
You know you can make an awful lot of money with videos involving beautiful women and cute animals. >:O
Ja nie poneymaju, szto Ty gaworzysz. Ja Polak.
Mi?y kot, :_)
Koszka Tweja jest fajna.
I can understand a small bit of Polish.
Gaworzysz?
I want to someday read Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov in classic Russian. One can dream.
Such cozy material; I remember this book, I never spared the time for much 'reading' fiction, but I think I'll get this on my iPod when I get new labtop.
Never even finished The Hobbit...
I had the WORST dream last night. I hailed a giant M&M and got inside when it stopped. Then after it had picked me up, it ate me.
Sung to a well known tune: 'In M and M land, an Uber a-ate me..'
You have no idea how fit and cut the male 'thinkers' on this forum are. 8-)
I got pretty fat, so not me. :(
You ruin everything.
Hey, I'm not the villian here. Eating M&Ms is murder (but when they eat you, it's simply revenge).
Are we allowed to respond to that?
Yeah, and only then I will have some closure, about being fat...
Cheep up, you. If it is any consolation, I have been told that I am pretty attractive and I find big guys good looking. So, right now, you are the hottest guy in the forum. :-*
But, I'm fat. You can't argue with facts like that. :(
Ok, I am satisfied now and can go to bed at ease.
Same.
What happened?
The mod who deleted them will be in touch.
I tossed a message in a bottle so stay tuned.
On a related note, if I remember around the time he drifted, there were choppy waters in here and maybe something was correlated that really wasn't accurate. Maybe?
Ditto
I remember Mayor complaining about the current immigration policies in Austria being implemented. I don't follow the politics but I know that swstephe logged off around Trump's inauguration. Politics, messy stuff.
Swstephe was worried about never being able to see his family in the states again... or at least for some time...
And Mariner hasn't been very active either, although he has been here now and then.
Happy B'day Cavacava! You are, by far, the best man that I know online and I am working hard to find that balance between reason and passion as you exemplify everyday. Enjoy your holidays, but try to cut back on the fresh orange juice at night. Too much sugar. :P
You click the @ icon in the toolbar then start typing the name. Or type @ "a name" with no space after the @.
Thank you TL, I've been walking my butt off, everything is up and down like a roller coaster here, the views are fantastic. Eating a lot of splendidly prepared cod, sardines, and salmon. The wine is cheap and good. Drinking fresh squeezed OJ instead of eating rich desserts. I think I am starting to get the hang of the little espresso shots, savoring coffee instead of chugging it in multi mug portions.
Philosophical Discourse
As a school of philosophy, which I like to think of this Forum as, I believe the truest form of truth can be created by debate and idea sharing. The goal of the debate is not to prove the other person wrong, although at times it may be necessary to stress a point. The goal of the debate is to contribute your own ideas to it. Be brave and put them out there, while also defending them, conceding the flaws in them (of which there will be plenty), and questioning the ideas of other's contributions.
To chase after one person's idea, as if they are a god, not contributing your own unique ideas, only seeking to bail them up and prove them wrong, while ignoring the contributions of others, is the worst type of Philosophical Discourse there can be.
Thanks.
It's fine where it is. I doubt there'll be much disagreement except with this being a school. Doesn't mean you can't learn things here but we're talking different animals.
Wut?
I do wonder about the nature of this deep running streak of cruelty. I wonder if there's an evolutionary cause for it or if it's just a psychological-evolutionary spandrel (an unintentional by-product of some other psychological aspect of humans).
I've heard stories of people expressing sorrow and lament through smiles and laughter as a cultural norm. Apparently in some South American countries when people share news of loss (the death of a family member for instance) a smile or even a chuckle might be the immediate response (this is essentially an equivalent of expressing lament as far as I understand). This does seem to indicate that some part or form of our emotional responses are learned rather than fixed or hardwired. In a world where gory murder is acceptable for daytime television but a single nipple is deemed immoral (a hypocrisy in my view), the learnability of "normal" emotional responses makes sense...
Quoting Baden
Trump is perhaps the most socially crude president ever, and that's really saying something given America's long and colorful history. When he offered to pay the legal fees of supporters who punch protesters, it wasn't too long after that a new wave of militant seeming "anti-fascists" began picking up clubs and shields...
I hope in the end Trump proves so unstable that even the simplest Americans begin to crave something more sophisticated; sort of like being turned off cigarettes by being forced to smoke a whole pack in a single sitting. I predicted over a year ago that if Trump won he wouldn't make it 4 years because neither he nor the world can endure a circus of that duration and severity. But before impeachment happens things need to get really weird, and all the clowns-at-heart must come out of the woodwork.
It's of course against unwritten rules to make the following comparison, but the current political climate must be something similar to what pre-hitler Germany went through. Fed up in general, the average citizen isn't in a normal mental state. Riled to the point of confusion, many are willing to run heart-first toward any promise of change. A lot of Trump's rhetoric is extreme and extremely naive, but in seemingly drastic times it takes drastic promises to satiate the jeering masses. Nationalism based on American uber-kultur rises while the Donald itself rallys for a pogrom of the bourgeois and corrupt fourth estate (free news media). We were promised a drained swamp but it turns out growling at Hillary et al was only for show, and that the lobby groups and corporate finance in politics was never his valid concern.
Trump is the champion of big business/industry; in other words: the actual corrupt elite. The same elite that compromise politicians, and the same elite that compromise the freedom of news media. Even though the only industry Trump has ever truly led was reality entertainment, his tax cuts and dis-concern for the environment have caused the stock market to do very well. Is he just playing the Regan card because he knows that it will at least please SOME people or is that his genuine idea of a strong America? (It may just be that his own business interests benefit directly from such policies...).
In any case, we're either in the middle of a markedly confused North American political era, or maybe at the beginning of an intensely chaotic one...
Quoting Baden
I'm a huge fan of Derren's (I've consumed everything he has produced!). I got pretty deep into "mentalism" and the peripheral (pseudo)sciences it encompasses (such as neuro-linguistic programming and "pick-up-artistry") because it fascinated me how easily what we think are free and un-coerced decisions can be significantly comprimised by unnoticed cues from our environment. Individually we normally wouldn't torment a stranger for nothing more than a sadistic laugh (in fact we think it repulsive) and we generally hold our ability to abstain from that as a morally virtuous aspect of human will. Put us in an anonymous crowd though, and that so called morally praiseworthy nugget of free will, virtue, and even self-awareness can go flying out the cognitive window...
How is that possible?
I've had experience of that. The only time I was ever arrested was after joining a crowd celebrating a win for the local football team (ironically I had never even watched them play, just got caught up in the fun of it). I ended up jettisoning my accumulated knowledge of how to deal with members of the law enforcement community. Hence a trip to the police station. I was pretty drunk too and it was a long time ago. But, yes, I don't entirely trust myself in situations like that.
I hope something is wrong with the hummus they serve and everyone spends the entire weekend non-stop pooping awkward colours. Except for the bride, because I love her.
I hate you all.
You hate us because you have to go to a wedding? Or was this remark unrelated to the preceding rant?
More like as jovial as a dead parrot.
Differing levels of awareness (conscious focus) seems to be one of the main aspects of the mind that mentalists like Derren are able to hijack so impressively.
Derren might reach to shake your hand, and when he does you will instinctively offer him your own hand with almost no conscious attention paid to the action. He takes advantage of this by interrupting the autopilot of the handshake and performs a "snap induction" which can very quickly put you into some sort of suggestible state. Interrupting and exploiting these moments of autopilot is called a "pause break" (You can see Derren nodding a lot during all of his performances and most of his conversations, which isn't a physical tick but rather his continuous and instinctive desire to push you toward a subconsciously confused and suggestible state; it's like at the end of every statement he nods subtly, telling your subconscious to agree.). What seems to be the important mechanism here is that there are moments when we're far less consciously aware and focused on what's going on around us and in this state we're mentally vulnerable.
The defense to mentalist and hypnotist hacking of the conscious mind is to simply be aware of what it is, and to recognize it when it happens to you. Derren often uses cold reading and wordplay to guide people into choosing particular responses for a prediction demonstration, but if you give him no information on your own and take pains to give unique and unpredictable answers then his predictions will fail most of the time. Mindfulness is the key.
When it comes to your experience of losing better judgment while in a crowd, I would wager that the next time you find yourself in a similar situation you will recognize what's happening, and the risks, in real time. That awareness is the same antidote that can protect you from mentalist style persuasion: if audience members of that anonymous crowd knew before hand that Derren was essentially going to shame them by showing how frail their moral convictions are, then they would have actually stopped to consider the ramifications of their choices beyond "does this entertain me?" and the overall performance would have failed. If you mentally resist hypnosis, it won't work on you; as with a two-bit con-man you will see the trick coming before it arrives...
Derren is no one trick pony though, and the tricks he can pull off are nothing short of astounding. Here's one of my favorites:
He starts by distracting and confusing them, and generally bombarding them with inquiry. The taking of money is one of those auto-pilot actions he exploits, and he does so by giving veiled verbal suggestion to their subconscious mind at the right moment. It's actually somewhat difficult to accept that this is even real, but if Derren was ever found to have really faked anything or used stooges, his career would pretty much be over...
There's a lot of interesting information up this alley that has some bearing on general persuasion... Here on a philosophy forum I doubt any of it could be used to great effect given we've all come here to pay explicit attention to what's being said (a shield of awareness so to speak). The closest serious philosophers seem to come to attempting this brand of persuasion (which could fairly be thought of as a kind of sophistry) would be to follow Rappaport's rules of argumentation:
The first rule is mostly based in reason (personally I try to employ it often), but the rest seems merely about breaking down instinctive emotional resistance caused by perceived opposition. We might speculate that breaking down these barriers leaves us at a more rational disposition (removing negative emotional bias), but we could also speculate that it appeals (irrationally) to a positive emotional bias instead of a negative one.
Sorry to ramble but I do find these subjects endlessly fascinating. The more we learn about these sorts of mental vulnerabilities that come standard in the human psyche the better we're able to make rational and un-coerced decisions of our own, which is definitely a worthwhile end.
Have you read his book Tricks of the Mind? Worth the read. I love the chapter(s) on mnemonics.
Explains why I like it.
My plan is to never mention it, and be sketchy for awhile, and hope it blows over without him thinking that I don't like him, or don't think he's cool or whatever... fucking awkward life, why can't I just die already, and suffer eternally for my sins, like I fucking deserve.
I'm vice signaling. I'm practically always vice signaling.
You lucky dog!
I would love to attend a live show but Derren isn't exactly well known in Canada...
I've not read read Tricks of the Mind yet but I've already acquired it and read the preface so it shan't be long!
If you do go looking for some D.B. media, I recommend his "Derren Brown Investigates" series, In which he colorfully confronts, debunks, - and then upstages - every form of trickster and charlatan he can find...
What would the world be like if it wasn't filled to the brim with superstitious nonsense?
Thank God in heaven. I only have like five, ten minutes of small talk, tops, and then I just begin reciting facts, and song lyrics like a crazy person.
Yeah, but you've never encountered anyone quite like me before. You couldn't conceal your intentions from me.
Other than himself? I wouldn't be surprised if they were in on it and merely acting for the camera. Why people are sucked in by this bullshit is beyond me.
With a time machine?
Fucking people, disgusting shit.
What bullshit?
All of it. What you see on television or on a stage. The only trick of the mind going on here is when a gullible audience fails to realise that what they're seeing is set up with actors.
Never been to or seen a live show? There's no way he could use actors.
Lol, why not? Because they make it look like they're picked randomly?
I don't know how they do it, but [i]that's[/I] the trick. It's a profession. Their job is to make it look as believable as possible.
It's more plausible that it's a set up for the cameras than that he can actually trick someone into thinking that they're invisible or whatnot.
Wrong. Guys don't give each other numbers, they would just say see you around sometime. He gave his number because he likely wanted to commit some libertarian debauchery. And another wrong is that Wosret liked it. Sure, he can pretend to this whole self-loathing display as a way to covertly hide his egotistical narcissism, but clearly with his...
Quoting Wosret
... he has an unrelenting pathology that over-invests in this portraiture of himself while nurturing the artificial view that he is insecure and suck people into sympathising. Very manipulative. Like that woman I met who had no relationship to a person who passed away but exaggerated her emotions not because she was sad at the death but because she wanted all the attention.
He has you wrapped around his finger.
Looks like it worked.
[Quote]Part of [the] misdirection he uses is to make us think that old Victorian conjuring tricks are manifestations of mind control.
The guy is a genius, but his modus operandi is to sell old wine in new bottles.[/quote]
[Quote]Derren Brown almost certainly often uses false explanations. He does a standard magic trick but gives a psychological explanation (i.e. subliminal messaging, NLP or hypnosis).[/quote]
That's pretty much what I think. That's his USP, and it has brought him fame, a shitload of money, and a massive cult following.
[Quote]If he says he doesn't [use actors] then I believe him.[/quote]
[Quote]I think what Derren Brown does is 97% real.[/quote]
Credulous.
My issue is that I don't get why people buy into it, unless they've fallen for the trick. I wouldn't want to spend my money or waste my time on that kind of thing, for a similar reason to why I wouldn't want to do the same with WWE.
I'd much rather see a magician perform an impressive slight of hand trick and pass it off as magic (which we know isn't real), than two actors pretending that one has hypnotised the other, and it being passed off as a genuine mind trick.
That's not an apt comparison. I said short of using actors. So given a choice between a magician performing an impressive sleight of hand trick and a mentalist using whatever tricks he uses to manipulate someone else, I'd rather see the latter.
That's not an apt exclusion. I don't believe that the guy on stage or on television who appears to believe that he's invisible or a chicken or has committed murder or whatnot genuinely believes that and is not merely playing the part, i.e. acting.
And Derren Brown is also acting when he pretends to have tricked the guy into believing such-and-such through a trick of the mind.
It's just acting. A collaboration. There's no genuine trick of the mind, except that of fooling a large number of the audience.
I don't agree. His comical exaggeration of his abilities is consistent with low self esteem, and his desire for sympathy (which isn't manipulative, but is obvious) is based upon some amount of actual unhappiness. The cynical view versus the generous view I guess, but I don't think generous must mean naive.
Is this an observation of yourself, considering:
Quoting Hanover
If one was aware of their naivety, they wouldn't be naive.
I've watched a lot of Derren Brown, probably seen most of his online stuff. I was going to put forward a mild version of what Sap said as in there's a lot of psychobabble that's just there to mystify what is often fairly routine magic. However Michael's right, he doesn't use stooges (if he did he'd be utterly discredited very quickly as he makes it clear before every show that he doesn't) and there are some genuinely strange things going on at times, so I mostly agree with his characterisation. In other words, Brown does seem to take advantage of at least some odd psychological effects such as suggestive anaesthesia and so on and not all his subjects are acting even in a play-along way. Above all though, he's a great showman and entertainer and takes a very creative approach to his magicianship.
I think @Hanover's right and the other guy was probably just being polite too. See how tragic this can become though. Suppose you actually went and met the guy who probably regretted asking for your contact details immediately afterwards. Then you've got two people neither of whom want to be there - each only present out of a misplaced consideration for the other - gradually realizing over the course of coffee and small talk how much they hate each other and even worse the true circumstances that brought them together, and still not being able to stand up and leave for fear of insulting the other. That's where middle-class morality gets us no matter how much we pretend to despise it. I think Zizek would say something like, we might not believe in the chicken but the chicken believes in us.
We should have a wager. Was it just politeness, did he actually want to meet up again, or was he hitting on him?
Wosret will of course have to phone the guy and find out for us.
Edit
Or option 4; Wosret lied.
Hey, it's a horror story. What do you want, research evidence? :p
He does sound like a cool guy though. Can you PM me his number @Wosret?
I'm just setting up the experiment for you. You can come and watch. (Y)
My money's on the last one. Wosret neglected to mention that he was in a gay club at the time. He wants to meet up with the guy for sex and maybe more, but his upbringing has instilled within him a rejection of his sexuality and a deep seated insecurity.
Fair, but all of this is self observation, including your personal detest of self-pity and your hostile and unforgiving response to it, so much so that you refuse to consider the basis of the self-pity. So, physician, what says this about thyself?
Lie down on the couch.
If a woman is wailing and crying at a death of someone she does not know, would it be unforgiving to think that she is seeking attention? To you it would be yes, because socially we are expected to pity such a response as crying. Sociopaths cry. Calling my response hostile and unforgiving perhaps exemplifies Camus' existential point made in The Stranger.
Wait 'til see you see the book I'm writing...
Everyone's such a piece of shit aren't they? Fuck you're so goddamn great, you giant narcissist. Judge, judge, judge. All are found wanting.
Wasn't it you that said:
Quoting Wosret
Yeah, I did, none of it implies the wrong, and mean stuff you said. Go talk about what shits everyone else is, and how pure and great you are somewhere else, and don't mention me.
That thing really happen, and I really feel bad about it. I'm a horrible monster, because I don't fucking care to spend time with that guy outside of work. I'm just polite and talk to him because he talks to me, just engaging in shallow banter for like five or so minutes once in awhile. I'm actually fully capable of spending time with people, they just aren't interesting. People always want to be my friend, but we just don't share interests, values, and views, which is actually important for close relationships, even friends.
I feel bad about always doing that, and anxious about any awkwardness or hurt feelings. I'm not pitiful or attention seeking. You'd think I'd post more, and to more places if that were the case. It isn't difficult to get attention.
You're so so mistaken in your perceptions and apprehensions of others. You just must render them as weak and pathetic in comparison to yourself...
Well, I just woke up from like a 14 hour sleep... I was doing a lot of dancing before that...
Don't you have Asperger's or something?
Where's the love (not like I have any to share)?
>:O
Yes. I found out on this very forum, after being diagnosed by doctors Terrapin and Agustino.
Love is knowledge, bonding, familiarity. If someone says that they love everyone, it means that they love no one.
Nah, it means they're high on some shit. Jesus was high all the time. How couldn't you be high being the Son of God?
If you're suggesting that I'm using drugs, then no, I am not. I smoke cigarettes, and drink copious amounts of coffee, and that is all.
Anyway. Why waste my superiority on such a pointless endeavour.
I get on the phone for five minutes and this happens...
Hm, I think I'll call the book:
"First a tragedy, then ass farts"
(Little bit of toilet humour there to cheer everyone up. Don't say I never do anything for y'all ;) )
Are you bipolar? I don't mean this in any negative sense since I'm a schizo. So, no axes being ground here.
Narcissist that think's they're superior. Thing is, that you keep yourself dumb and immoral when all of your interlocutors are such weaklings.
Yeah, a cherished mental disorder encouraged by capitalism.
Is Corbyn gonna be the next PM? And will he leave the EU or rather want to stay in it?
You can't perceive my dispositions or emotional states through the internet you know. Whichever you're imagining are unlikely to be correlating to the real maccoy.
I have tiger blood.
Toilet humour? Ah, great. That's my day completely ruined.
Ok, it would seem an end to this conversation then.
I hate you.
The next great conspiracy theory ruined.
In a constant state of flux then? See what I did there, constant... state... of... flux....
Sometimes I amaze myself.
Now you sound like that moses guy that was here a while ago. He probably still is.
Just waiting to kill two birds with one stone. >:)
Michael is Mosesquine? Now that's a good one. Let's run with it.
Be careful, you might miss and the stone may land on your own head >:)
The nuttiness of that guy was quite high. I don't even compare.
I'm trying to visualize how I could be that bad a shot and failing...Personal experience?
I don't know, but I hope so. I wouldn't mind a Prime Minister Thornberry, either. I don't think it will be Theresa May, and if it's going to be Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg, please kill me now.
Quoting Posty McPostface
We'd leave the EU under Corbyn, regardless of which side his sympathies lie. Of that I'm confident. As for his personal views, well, he argued for remain, of course, but his long track record of being critical of the EU is public knowledge.
Yes, that always happens. I once kicked a soccer ball up in the air and it fell on my head...
It's called a football.
Yes, but there's many Americans around here ;) - so just to be clear lol.
Flux you.
Yeah, it is :-O
Lol :D That's why I hate you. High five!
Another fine exercise in Agulogic. (Y) :)
Oooh, plot twist. *Grabs popcorn*
Now I know what's it like being a Hanover. You say one brilliant thing and they eat at you like a pack of piranhas.
Sometimes I think I'm too good for you folks here. See, I keep on doing that Hanover thing.
Not sure about Sap but I can attest that I have never eaten a pack of piranhas.
You just can't stand the brilliance of Hanover.
Yes my greed sometimes gets ahead of me :-# - first they need to sign up for a free webinar as an introduction to Agulogic, then they get the real deal at the end of it when the excitement has built up for as low as $5000 O:)
I'll wait on TL's testimonial... ;)
(see, she's almost covered the cost of the Agulogic course ;) )
Me neither. @Posty McPostface, fetch us some, and make it snappy.
What mere mortal could?
(And you can add @Sapientia to my list of comic heroes after that last one. X-) )
*waits until Hanover comes in to say something profoundly profound*.
Yeahhh, but everyone knows that I'm cute already :-O you need to tell us new things :P
8-)
Which is it?
How does one address God? You can't.
Well, @Hanover must be the turd. I was talking of Agu and TL though. Got out speed-posted again. :(
Sap's on my side, fella. Have you been paying a whit of attention? :p
I have no wit to spare. How else am I to compete with Hanover and Sap?
Why not join the axis of evil? O:) That seems like a sensible thing to do.
I wouldn't be so sure. Have you noticed that I didn't return your high five? >:O
Maybe the fact that @Hanover isn't here right now gives you at least a fighting chance on that front. You're not going to beat snappy piranhas though.
Think Hitler / Stalin and we're good to go. >:O
No one beats sappy's snappy chappies.
Send me your Talleyrand and make sure his pockets are full. (Y)
Full of what? >:)
I've been working a lot lately and I'm in a phase where I'd rather not participate in philosophical discussion. But I'll still be around these parts on a regular basis to read, chat and moderate.
Quoting Agustino
She's okay.
Brilliant! Have you adopted my advice then? :D
Quoting Sapientia
Ahh good!
Quoting Sapientia
Excellent!
Yeah, I've bitten off more than I can chew here.
:D
Well, the self-exploratory question that you evaded was what your response to this says about you, and you should at least wonder why others aren't as irritated by this behavior as you.
I have very limited information, and all I know is that some woman with little knowledge of the deceased was upset beyond what would be expected given their relationship. Her behavior could be explained as a reaction to this death reminding her of a personal loss or perhaps she was just having a very emotional reaction to death generally. Or, it could be that she likes good theater and wanted to put herself in the spotlight. I don't know the answer, but any of these reasons would evoke something other than a hostile reaction from me. Even if she were just putting on, I'd think her more broken than malicious because, let's face it, pretending to be sad during a truly sad event just to increase your popularity is fucked up. So, why does TimeLine get pissed beyond pissed when Hanover doesn't? Maybe it's because I'm a softee and you're a realist, but I doubt it.
My new puppy Fred Barkowitz sideways.
I will say that that isn't actually a likely scenario. I was going to give more context, but then decided not to. The funny thing is that I mentioned to my sister like a week or so ago that he was the only person that I saw in the building, that I knew worked there, that like one in a hundred with their head on straight. That's values are properly oriented towards those that are strong, and betray "selfish values", as in do things that render themselves healthy and strong, rather than weak, and miserable. Thus influencing those around them towards health and happiness, and away from vice. He's like in his fifties, but good looking, thick hair, and decent musculature betraying high testosterone, and a good self-image. Clean shaven everyday, well dressed, and facial features betray the expressions and emotions one most exhibits, particularly as they age, and his betrays reactivity, and positivity. He clearly is extroverted, and has a strong social life, one of the first things he mentioned to me was the damage night shift must do to the social life.
My experiences, and reactions to and with people are almost certainly vastly different than most of you imagine. He also, no doubt imagines that I'm vastly different than I am, based on my appearance, mannerisms and how I present myself. As, spending a lot of time interested, and around people, he would have a superior sense for values, and dispositional, and health related casual factors.
I highly doubt that he was coming on to me, nor is pointing out the positive, and respectable attributes of someone of the same sex homosexual. Though I of course anticipated that perception... low brow bro.
But you met him in a gay club. At least, you did in the story I made up.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the half a dozen or so I've ever met that were "out" were all like that.
I know some of those exceptions. For example, I have a lesbian friend who says she hates lesbians, meaning those who fit the stereotype.
By the way, I find it funny that you actually thought it necessary to explain to me that pointing out the positive and respectable attributes of someone of the same sex is not homosexual.
Don't act like an idiot if you don't want to be treated as such. Can't have both.
Don't mistake something said in jest for the real deal.
I didn't, I said that it was highly obvious, and low brow. It does need to be pointed out that it isn't gay, because it is so obviously perceived as such, because of lower reactionary values, which you acted on, whether tongue in cheek or not. Jokes are always at least partially believed.
Those lower reactionary values float around in all of our unconsciouses, and influence our thoughts and behaviors, that's how I knew to anticipate the reaction. They clearly influence you, deny it all you like. React negatively to anything besides flattery all you like, I see what causes that as well.
You anticipated that reaction, but you think that I did not? You underestimate me and insult my intelligence. You can't see half as much as you think you do.
Obviously you anticipated it, as you allowed it to influence, and determine your reactions. Hopefully when you type a message you aren't entirely surprised at the content upon completion...
Maybe I can't see half as much as I think I do, but that's still plenty.
The guy at your work isn't like that.
Oh, I see what you did there. Clever girl.
Michael, he can talk about the positive features of the guy he's got the hots for without being gay. What are you? Some kind of idiot?
Sapientia, I said that Wosret's soon-to-be boyfriend is gay, not Wosret. What are you? Some kind of idiot?
Are you suggesting I'm on drugs? How dare you.
Why do you hate me, Baden? That's not very nice.
Quoting Baden
What?! Why would you do that?! Cruelty to animals is wrong, Baden.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Oh my god! Hanover has been eaten by a pack of piranhas?! That's terrible news. Has someone informed his family?
Quoting Agustino
Don't fall for it, Baden! He's trying to rip you off. Agustino, ripping people off is wrong.
[I](Just trying to apply what my wise mentor has taught me).[/I]
Uh, humor?
You're getting warmer, keep looking.
Passive aggressive indirect insults are wrong, Sapientia. Why won't you think of the children?
>:O
Look how funny I am! I'm not just a mixture of a little scared, insecure, and curious at all. I laugh!
I know just what you mean. I had a roommate that I had thought was gay for some time and then I actually walked into the room when he and another guy were having sex. That so explained why his dick always tasted like shit.
Who is your wise mentor? >:)
Skeletor.
Is he powerful? :-O
One that's gay as fuck, clearly.
VIP of the group that is formed against me? You're so clever. Got me with that masterful, totally sense making reply. Now put your helmet back on, and receive your sticker.
He's the Lord of Destruction, and he has big strong arms. Sometimes I dream that he is holding me in those big strong arms of his whilst I rest my head on his shoulder. But I'm not gay.
Quoting Agustino
Justin Bieber's penis?
Yes of course! Didn't Peterson teach you that before someone is sacrificed, they are first made into a god? Or you still didn't receive that lesson yet?
Yeah, he's cool shit, and I learned everything I know from him. He's my guru. Taught me everything I know. You got me.
You're just like trying to turn it around, and say I'm the gay one, but it doesn't naturally, or sensibly flow from the conversation. You're pretty dumb you know, full disclosure. Also fat.
Gay humor?
Fractured sentence much?
I don't mind, it's actually pretty fun.
No man, I didn't mean gay stuff by that, but obvious stuff. Like the most obvious thing that everyone would think of. Like giving a group a creativity test, then it would be the types of answers everyone has. Basic bro and bitch stuff.
I'll take your word for it.
So... you meant gay stuff? Have I understood your meaning correctly? You intended for what you said to be secret code for gay stuff that only you and I know about? So, like, "group creativity test" is code for "gay orgy"?
Yes, you've cracked the code.
You didn't stay long, maybe I was too mean. I was just having fun, may have taken it overboard. Hopefully I didn't actually insult you.
Hangs low and always to the right... very clever, Wosret!
I know. I'm pretty proud of myself you know.
Oh my he is adorable! Is he well behaved or mischievous?
Is the name a reference to the Son of Sam?
Quoting Hanover
The problem here is the assumption that I am irritated. I'm not, on the contrary I made clear statements based on what I read. Comparatively, it is like you and I are sitting outside on lovely spring day having a picnic and I say, "The sky is blue," before you grow pale with confusion and tell me to stop screaming as you tear your clothes off and run off naked into the wilderness, and me, blinking in dismay, slowly drink the rest of my tea in the awkwardness of the situation. I wasn't evading your self-explanatory question, I was making it clear that there is no self-explanatory question and that was just you trying to shift the burden over to make it about me, an avoidance tactic that I am sure you are well aware of doing.
No matter, for as I sit and drink my tea, I will be entertained by Baden who will attempt to indirectly defend your honour by wearing a psychedelic smock dress and bastardise Žižek in some deranged eulogy to the heavens.
Quoting Hanover
I find pity to be insulting and I work with young girls who have come from war-torn countries that have seen incredible horrors and yet still smile and work hard to educate and improve themselves, so the whinges of the privileged holds little priority for me. That doesn't mean that I am pissed. Expressing emotions is fundamental for those who have experienced hardship as a way to articulate their pain and ultimately heal, but when someone forms a habit of consistently seeking sympathy and attention without making an effort to improve, their dependency becomes detrimental to their welfare and thus you partake in prolonging this 'broken' by being a softee. Morality is not black and white.
Now, I am about to start getting dressed to attend a massive wedding and if I end up sitting next to a muscular guy who has trouble appreciating personal space while complimenting me with highly intelligent statements like 'I fink you are hot' then I would need to be entertained by passing time on my phone occasionally. So, entertain me.
Then we're both @unenlightened.
I can relate.
Done with that for now. Since we're all so interested in each other's personalities though:
https://www.truity.com/view/tests/big-five-personality
I'm super high on openness, low on conscientiousness and most of the rest fall around the middle. No major surprises.
High conscientiousness, low to medium openness, low neuroticism, medium to high extraversion, medium to high agreableness.
You Are Low in Openness to Experience
You Are Low in Conscientiousness
You Are Low in Extraversion
You Are Moderate in Agreeableness
You Are Low in Neuroticism
Certainly changed a lot in the last few years. Would have been high in openness to experience and high in extraversion. I've become a boring in my time since returning from Asia.
Low in openness and low in conscientiousness is kind of weird to me. Bet you have trouble making up your mind at election time.
I don't vote, so I don't have a mind to make up. ;)
Although seeing as how one of the MPs won the vote by just 2 votes earlier this year, I've decided to vote next time, as 1 vote really can make a difference (in fact, in my constituency someone once won by 1 vote). It's just a shame my first choice won't win, so I'll have to vote tactically.
Haha! I scored:
Moderately Open
Moderately Conscientious (I'm not that conscientious, otherwise I wouldn't spend time on PF while working lol)
Low in Extraversion
Moderate in Neuroticism
Low in Agreeableness :’( lol
"People who are low in Extraversion tend to be fairly independent, and do not need a lot of admiration or recognition from others in order to feel satisfied. They tend not to be interested in money or status, and would rather lead a life that is personally pleasing than one that gains them the attention of others."
Sounds like me. Neuroticism fits too.
"Your score indicates that you are fairly typical in your tendency to experience negative emotions. You probably feel sadness, worry, anger, and guilt about as much as the average person. You are neither overly reactive, nor especially resistant to the stresses of life."
"Your score for Conscientious is in the moderate range, indicating that you are fairly average in your tendency to respond to impulses. You probably have some long-term goals and are fairly successful in pursuing them, but can be sidetracked sometimes when a particularly attractive diversion presents itself."
Sounds true as well.
I'm not very happy with these agreeableness comments:
"Your low score in Agreeableness indicates that you put your own needs first most of the time. You may see other people as a threat to your ability to get what you want, and you often suspect ulterior motives in others. You are mostly unwilling to sacrifice your own needs in the service of other people."
But it is true that I don't make friends easily or have a lot of friends generally. Nor am I very interested to make friends. Nor do I generally like social gatherings. But with the few friends that I do have, I tend to be very loyal regardless of what happens. I always help a friend if they ask for help.
Oh, but the thing that I generally start by suspecting ulterior motives in others when I first meet them is true lol.
First the election result, now this... :( Actually I scored "low" in agreableness too, but not very low (45%). It's more of a sign of being a cynic than uncaring I think.
I was thinking that too. I feel I'm conscientious about work that I am into but cynical and lazy about certain types of work and chores etc.
Case in point: I'm at work right now.
Which election you mean lol?
Quoting Baden
Yeah, same, I was at 40% for it.
Can you get me a job there? I'm willing to tell extreme lies about my experience.
Quoting Agustino
The one I'd rather forget. ;)
Oh >:)
Everything that you say is stupid.
As if you could remain undistracted while my impressive manhood made flowing, circling movements like a ribbon as I ran among the trees. Quoting TimeLine
I'm not sure telling someone to stop fucking being pathetic is a textbook cure for being pitiful, although I can see it as satisfying.Quoting TimeLine
Can you send me a pic of your feet? I like wedding feet.
Hanover being modest? Is it possible? I'm only referring to the first compound sentence, to avoid ambiguity that could look like I was agreeing with the second statement.
That's only 90% true...Lately.
Your score for openness was high, at 85%.
You Are Moderately Conscientious
Your score for conscientiousness was 63%, which is in the moderate range.
You Are Low in Extraversion
Your score for Extraversion was low, at 33%.
You Are Low in Agreeableness
Your score for Agreeableness was low, at 58%.
You Are Low in Neuroticism
Your score for neuroticism was low, at 25%.
Lowest in neuroticism now? How the fuck did that happen? It was probably Jesus. Thanks Jesus,
It's called overflow.
You mean it's so high that it rolled over 100% back to 25?
Dang...
Your score for conscientiousness was low, at 45%.
Your score for Extraversion was low, at 40%.
Your score for Agreeableness was high, at 78%.
Your score for Neuroticism was moderate, at 38%.
She has sent pics of her feet already, you could probably find them, to do with as you will. I remember what she looks like as well, she posted a picture of herself in a hospital after her car accident. Vivid like it was yesterday.
I'm looking at her and judging her in my mind right now.
So, I'm apparently more neurotic than you and Wos combined. Ok.
I'll be careful around your feelings then. I'm also definitely the most grounded, because it isn't an empty expression, but has physical correlates, in how evenly and completely your weight flows through both legs, and sides of your body.
You're probably more conscientious than I am, so...
Lol. (Y)
"Stress" is physical, and uneven balance, extra weight, and stiffness all create stress. Gotta exercise them demons, yo.
That is very true actually. Pretty much 80% of my mood is due to exercise or lack. And I'm either walking 20ks in and out to the city or doing absolutely jack. Not much middle ground.
I do a lot of sitting and laying around as well, but you gotta keep a balanced posture, you'll get stiffer faster doing so, and require moving around more often though, but it keeps you strong and sexy. Shifting and contorting all about is what it takes to be able to stay stationary for hours without turning into a statue.
Got a link? (I need some visual aids).
Thanks, that's much better. Now I can clearly see how unfunny you are. :p
No, it's stuff I've figured out. A balanced posture is just hips shoulders knees ankles elbows and wrists all even, in the same position. sitting up straight, chin tucked, long not curled up back of the neck, not holding tension or weight anywhere, so relaxed.
It's difficult to point out the imbalances to people. Like losing one side of your brain renders that entire side of the whole world invisible. It's kinda like that.
There's that damn overflow again.
Imagine the look of the lady beside me when I was cropping the photo for you. Worth it.
I would never stoop so low as to send a picture of my feet.
Alas, poor @Banno. He cannot understand what has happened. He still remembers the time when his assertion would have been end of discussion.
Hmm, strangely I don't remember that at all :-O . I remember her talking about going on a holiday in Italy and her liking Nietzsche.
Quoting Posty McPostface
LOL!
Quoting Wosret
You're not low, you're just borderline ;) . I got 35% neuroticism and I was moderate.
I was just as surprised with that measure too. Boggles the mind.
Well, they weren't your grizzly bear feet, but you totes did. Blue, canvas like shoes, holding a bag or something outside, if I recall. It wasn't even all that long ago.
I don't get their scales of "low" and "high", it says "low" for agreeableness at 58%, you'd think that would be moderate at least.
I think the scores are determined based on how you answer the questions. Some answers give you points others take them away. So that's how you get the percentage.
Then the low/high, etc. is determined based on standard deviations from the mean compared to the average percentage obtained by the people who took the test for that category. Say people on average get 30% in neuroticism so then that being the mean, two (or maybe one) standard deviations away would be low and two (or one) standard dev above would be high.
So presumably the mean is lower in neuroticism (most people aren't that neurotic) but higher in agreeableness & extroversion since most people lean towards the social side. So if that's the case, 35% in neuroticism like me counts as moderate and 45% in extraversion counts as low.
Makes sense.
I only posted a picture of myself in the old forum' thread about photo's of ourselves, but not what you mention and I have no qualms showing people what I look like. I remember 180proof, though his childhood picture was his avatar, the pic with Baden' head on a muscular body, the artist formerly known as Yahedreas and a few others, but not what you say.
As for feet, just this once. For Hansolo. I was in a terrible situation - loud music, lots of people - so I needed to be preoccupied. I now have a blinding headache from lack of sleep because my routine is in shock. :-d
:-O I don't remember this photos thread either lol!
Why not below all that, below is better :P
Yeah Im fairly certain of what I said. That also was not a childhood pic of 180 proof as his avatar lol.
That guy was awesome.
Openness was high, at 95%.
Conscientiousness was high, at 78%.
Extraversion was low, at 35%
Agreeableness was high, at 83%
Neuroticism was low, at 15%.
I hear he's still around, just under a different name.
Edit: Wait, hang on...
You're attempts at gaslighting are endearing.
Or maybe it's Wosret and his work colleague?
You definitely don't "need" to, so you should stop.
Beyond Concepts
Unicepts, Language, and Natural Information
by Ruth Garrett Millikan
Sep 2017
@TimeLine was Superadmin. I have a feeling your days are numbered Baldrickadreas.
We should distinguish between "intelligent design" and other more sensible challenges to evolutionary theory. I hadn't seen the discussion but "intelligent design" is religious pseudoscience, so if it's that we're not going to allow it to masquerade as philosophy or science. Thanks for the unintended heads up.
From Wiki:
"Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God. Presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", it has been found to be pseudoscience. Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses."
At best, this Wiki article poses a serious opening challenge to the ID supporter, but it doesn't create a final unrebuttable conclusion.
I say this with full belief that ID is utter BS. I also believe it utter BS that either Solomon or Wiki had or has divine wisdom.
The problem is that your attitude is precisely anti-scientific and dogmatic. This was one of the major problems with the previous forum and one of the reasons why it failed to attract anyone but arch-materialists for the most part.
Science does not advance by protecting its currently unfalsified hypotheses, but on the contrary by attacking them. Paul Feyerabend establishes the genealogy of scientific progress in more detail in his work Against Method. You are essentially being the equivalent of the Catholic Church in the trial against Galileo and protecting the established position - blindly. The Church too had all the reasons in the world to condemn Galileo - the telescope was a newly invented instrument, it was not well understood, and some of the measurements it gave were actually wrong. So that was certainly the "reasonable" position to take. However, Galileo ended up being right and the Church wrong. Science advances just as much by folly as it does by reason, and it does take a certain degree of folly to see things differently.
Intelligent design is a respectable theory given this as its definition:
Quoting Baden
This is absolutely correct and very likely to be true in fact. For example, here's one Nobel prize winner:
Many people on this forum itself actually believe in some form of intelligent design, whether this is guided evolution, or another process entirely.
Now of course there are some positions that are most likely wrong - such as flat Earth theories or geocentrism. However, even in those cases, I wouldn't say the view needs to be outright removed from the forum, it would largely depend on the supporter of it and how well (and undogmatically) it is advocated. In most cases though, it probably should be removed. But that's an extreme case, intelligent design is much more plausible.
I didn't take my view from Wiki so that's a twisted way of looking at my post. Get your information on the scientific consensus from whetever you like. It's not going to change.
I'm not going to do anything to that particular discussion either. I am of the view though that we keep things in their proper place and pseudoscience/religion should either be posted in the correct categories or moved/deleted.
You don't need to lecture me on science or the nature of scientific progress. Pointing out that ID is a religious and not a scientific theory is not anti-science, it's the opposite. A scientific theory that replaces it and is a better fit for the evidence would be embraced by all including me. I have no special attachment to evolutionary theory.
First of all - I enjoyed the video. Well produced. Good interviewer. Good questions. Josephson didn't really present any justification for his beliefs. Also, I'm not sure the God he's talking about is one you would be comfortable with.
Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite science writers - any type of writer - wrote an essay on what it takes to overthrow scientific orthodoxy. "The Validation of Continental Drift" - here's a link
https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/creager/ess202/continental_drift.htm
Continental drift is the poster child for a theory that fundamentally changed our understanding of the world after being scoffed at by the scientific establishment. Gould quotes Karl Ernst von Baer - "every triumphant theory passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth." Gould makes the point that it is new theories that overthrow old theories, not new facts. Scientific evidence supported moving continents long before the theory was accepted. A new theory was needed to explain the mechanism for movement.
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what has happened with Intelligent Design. There, we have a new theory waiting for its chance to knock evolution by natural selection on its ass. What we don't have are the facts.
In-so-far as ID addresses the evolution (or creation) of physical things it is absolutely a scientific theory. All scientific theories have metaphysical presuppositions, one metaphysical presupposition of ID is that there is a creative intelligence at work. The supposition of the commonly accepted Darwinian view is that there is no teleology or purpose at work. Both are equally "unscientific" by that criteria.
Quoting Baden
What counts as pseudoscience? Anything that is not in accordance with the dominant paradigm? :s
Quoting Baden
No, I didn't mean to claim that you do. But you may have an attachment to the scientific establishment and whatever they decree to be "true", even when it is non-scientific and metaphysical.
But according to this Wikipedia article, "Wikipedia articles on medical and scientific fields ... were compared to professional and peer reviewed sources and it was found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard."
That's not under discussion, the only factor under discussion is whether there is an intelligence along the evolutionary process.
Quoting T Clark
Much like the pilot-wave theory of quantum mechanics vs the Copenhagen interpretation. They make virtually the same predictions, and therefore it's impossible to test which is true.
But the underlying issue here is that some metaphysics are more coherent than others. ID, in its sensible forms, cannot disagree with facts, but it can disagree with the metaphysical interpretation allotted to those facts.
Yes, I do. As opposed to bringing us witch-burning, it brought us the technology I am now using to converse with you. A pleasure I would hate to forgo. Having said that, I'm not against discussing what should and shouldn't be regarded as pseudoscience. It's entirely fair to debate that.
Just as it has brought us atomic bombs, chemical weapons, neutron bombs, high levels of pollution, a society built on consumerism and stress, global warming, higher rates of cancer etc. There's both positives and negatives there. It's hard for us to imagine how life would be and feel without technology - maybe we would be happier, who knows? :s
Quoting Baden
So what do you think should be regarded as pseudoscience then?
Some criteria to judge science: Peer reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, taught at top universities, promoted by respected scientists, studies on it resulting in scientific honours etc.
ID meets none of the above.
(On mobile-will pick this up again later).
I think that undermines your whole argument. Legitimate science doesn't deal with metaphysics. It deals with things acting in the world. I think the example of competing interpretations of quantum mechanics is a good one. It is my understanding, although I guess not all agree, that there is no scientific way to differentiate between the interpretations. If that's true, then the argument is not science. If it claims to be, it is pseudoscience.
It depends how you set the criteria for judging this. What impact factors will you take to be "respected"?
Quoting Baden
Universities, schools, etc. can pretty much only teach the accepted scientific paradigm of their age, they cannot teach, except in underhanded ways, what is not the mainstream view.
Quoting Baden
Okay.
Quoting Baden
This is again doubtful - anything that goes against the current paradigm will likely not receive scientific honours.
Quoting Baden
I'm not so sure. The scientist I've posted before does seem to endorse some version of intelligent design, and he's a Nobel prize winner in physics. So... :s even this "respected scientists" criterion is not all that strong.
The scientific academy, in fact, has shown that it will "lynch" (meaning that it will push them to the periphery) scientists who disagree with the accepted paradigm. So if you are a scientist and love your career, you must be careful what you say.
Quoting T Clark
Then Darwinian evolution is not legitimate science because it cannot scientifically prove that there is no guiding intelligence at work, but it does want to claim that no teleology exists.
You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm shocked, it seems so out of character.
Fair point. I was being somewhat facetious. I'm not an anti-theist of the Dawkins/Harris mode. But I do think we need a dividing line between science and religion, and ID is an attempt to blur that line.
So, if scientists at universities, on prize committees, and on journal editing boards who have spent their whole lives mastering their discipline don't know what it is and shouldn't be the ones to decide what it is? Who should?
I am not obtuse, I'm just pointing out to the obvious failing in your previous point. ANY scientific theory whatsoever will have metaphysical presuppositions - even those commonly accepted by science today. So we cannot critique ID because it has metaphysical presuppositions while ignoring the fact that Darwinian blind evolution also has metaphysical presuppositions. To do so, would be to mask the reality and create a difference that isn't there.
It's not academically authoritative. It's just a convenient and quick means of reference for general facts. In this case, @Agustino is not convinced by the scientific community's view anyway so there's little point in dragging up a further reference about what they think.
This is quite a modern phenomenon which goes hand in hand with the specialization that industrialism has introduced for economic reasons, and doesn't have much to do with the quest for truth. Placing "dividing lines" between the state and religion, religion and science, science and philosophy and so on so forth is ultimately creating artificial barriers that have to be broken by anyone who wants to search for unifying truths. These barriers are only pragmatically, not theoretically useful - they're useful at getting us to produce more and faster, to be more cooperative with regards to production, not to kill each other, etc. This specialization and technicalization of man leads inevitably to the dissolution and relativization of truth, which becomes merely a tool to achieve what is useful, and becomes torn from its rightful place in the puzzle of the larger reality. It leads to the philosopher being blind of physics, and the physicist being blind of philosophy because it is not his field and he hasn't worked sufficiently in it. And that's all good if we want to use these fields merely as tools, but not if we want to build a comprehensive picture of reality.
In addition, religion may be at the very foundation of science - afterall, it is religion which arose first - man was religious to begin with, and only then did he become a scientist.
Quoting Baden
Nobody can decide what it is, that's exactly the point. We are all limited, and as I've shown you, even Nobel Prize winning scientists can believe in diverse phenomena, ranging from ID, to ESP, and so forth. The mistake is in thinking that some people necessarily know more than others and are therefore in a better position to decide because they've worked more in that field. But this is an illusion, similar to the illusion we often have of older people knowing more and being wiser about life, just because they've lived more and have more experiences. This, of course, isn't always the case.
Ultimately, there is no method to decide on these matters objectively - in a way that can be verified by others and 'force' agreement or assent. Inquiry has to be allowed to follow its course freely.
That depends on what you understand by Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. To claim that intelligent design is wrong - if by that we understand to claim that there is no creative intelligence at work in the Universe - is nothing short of claiming that something can come from nothing.
He must be old, and lame.
It is true though. Human sexuality is more conflictual than animal sexuality, and quite the opposite from what most people think, it's most often not a factor of stability but the opposite.
Maybe on television, and as a teenager. The actual numbers of the prevalence of sexual non-conformity hasn't risen at all, besides lesbians, but women don't actually have a sexuality. Studies show when they asked teen girls what being turned on felt like, it felt like being attractive, and desired.
It is most evident as a teenager because teenagers don't have the pressures of surviving and earning a bread that adults do, so they're most free to focus on other things. But it would be just as evident in adults if the other pressures were removed.
Quoting Wosret
Hmmm, I'm not talking about sexual non-conformity now. I'm talking about what is taken as regular sexuality.
Quoting Wosret
I would doubt the complete truthfulness of this, because women also fall in love for example, just as much as men do.
The point Girard is driving at is more fundamental. Human sexuality excites our imitative behavior almost more than anything else, which means that it very easily leads to conflict and spirals out of control. If you look around you, you'll see that most conflicts between grown-ups, couples, etc. involve at least a sexual element. Conflicts over money, holidays and the like also exist, but they're not as damaging and explosive as those over sex. Conflicts over sex frequently lead to violent breakups, conflict and the like, and they have the trait of spiraling out of control.
It is, I think, Schopenhauer, who stated that between the affairs of the state, there always lurks sex, which is true. Sex is one of the objects that polarises our mimetic behavior most frequently, and that transforms conflict itself into a positive feedback loop.
Quoting Wosret
Depends on which kind of feminism you mean, there's not only one. If you're referring to feminazi's though, I would agree.
I'm referring to actual checkable numbers. Look it up.
The reason that it is observable in young people is because their heads are full of ideas, and their bodies' are lacking in real world experience. Without actual experience you don't know what's true and what isn't, and anything that is coherent, and isn't contradictory, or literal nonsense could very well be true. Young people are naive, and gullible. If you've never been out to sea, I can tell you there are sea monsters and mermaids, and you wouldn't fucking know any better.
Gotta get out and about, get some life experience, and then it becomes a whole lot harder to be confused about what's what. There of course the whole other problem of cherishing nonsense, and active ignoring, and numbing of senses because it disrupts fantasies, or implicates those you love or yourself, so it isn't just experience, also takes openness, detachment, humility, and all that jazz the cool old people tell you about, that don't just believe what's being said, but what's being seen. Old guys just caught up in hot topics.
What?
Not only the thing I said, but "straight women" show an arousal response to all forms of sexuality, gay straight, animals. They're the only group that do, even lesbians don't (prolly 'cause they hate men). I know that it offends precious sensibilities... but believe or not, not everyone is exactly analogous to ourselves.
What?
Well, I just suspect, and find that one plausible, I think that the other is fairly well established.
I would if I knew more clearly what to look up. You can cite them if you have them at hand.
The problem of course is that I don't know what you mean by "sexual non-conformity"?
Quoting Wosret
That is possible but I'm not sure. When I was a teenager, everyone thought me way more naive than I actually was. I actually wondered how people can think that teenagers are so stupid?
Quoting Wosret
Well it's more about being informed about a subject. You don't need actual experience of it, supposing I'd never been out at sea, you wouldn't scare me with sea monsters, mermaids and the like because I've read about the subject, I've seen it in movies, etc.
On what basis do you find that plausible? Sounds like your basic right-wing trope to me.
Wosret is right wing? >:O >:O
That's a new one :P
I don't think Wosret fits in any particular box. I was referring to the idea only.
Of course all scientific theories have metaphysical presuppositions. The scientific method in all it's many configurations is not scientific, it is pure unalloyed metaphysics. ID makes one factual claim that more materialistic theories do not - the presence of an intelligent agent directing the evolution of living organisms. If that factual claim cannot in principle be confirmed, then this is metaphysics, not science. If so, and if you claim it is science, then you are practicing pseudoscience.
On the other hand, I'm not certain the unique factual claims of ID cannot be confirmed or denied.
Yes, yes and NO. :s
I only have mean reasons, that I'm too classy to express. Why wouldn't it be true? For the opposite reason?
It's not like, my opinion. Blame the electrodes.
Does Intelligent Design fall into that category...?
Creationism » 12. Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In all honesty, with theologians having been at it for centuries on end, it does seem like creationists just want to hitch a ride with the success of science ("if you can't beat them, join them").
Because gross generalizations about large groups of people are almost never true.
Hey no testing on animals. Leave my Chinchilla alone! :-O
Creationism is ignorant of what they're arguing against, and don't accept it because they think they're arguing against something that they're not -- but so does this. To the extent that anyone concludes that knowledge is possible, as in, the real deal, which is actually truth, and not just useful, not just anthropocentric, not just human, not just for human goals, they are giving everything up, and if they conclude that it's anthropological, for getting some job done, or figure things out in some human, not actually true way, they themselves have either magically transcended that limitation, or cannot be trusted by their own admission.
That's a really weak maneuver... to act like if something isn't always, one hundred percent true of everyone, then it isn't in any sense, or predictive. You can't operate like that, you're full of general notions too.
it doesn't have to be claimed to be 100% true to be incredible. Do you really think let's say significantly more than 50% (or pick a number that would gel with your claim) of lesbians "hate" men. I haven't known many lesbians but those that I have haven't seemed particularly bothered by men one way or the other. Why would most lesbians hate most men?
That's a different thing than you said. I'll say, all the ugly ones. So like, 90%
Talk about low-brow. Fine. I'm done.
I'm trying to tread carefully around your feelings. I think only the top 10% can really be considered attractive in any group, otherwise it kind of loses its meaning.
You sound like you're PUI, Wos. You're usually at least 10% thoughtful with your posts. But this is fairly stupid stuff. No offence.
It relates back to the other post I made to Jorndoe... people seem to suppose that the truth aligns with your preferences. That if someone believes something, they have selfish, or psychological motivations for doing so. It says something about them. This, unfortunately is not how the truth works, and to suppose it does, either imagines oneself to hold the sole immunity, or disposes of the truth altogether.
I think the quote isn't true, although I have not thought that claim through. I'll think about it.
When her daughter was 16, a friend of mine remembered when she was that age. She told me she was naïve, unaware about sex. When she first got involved with boys in a romantic way, she felt a strong desire to be close to the person she was interested in, but she never thought of it in a sexual way. It wasn't until she got more involved in relationships that that developed. She told me she was taken completely by surprise. If you knew her, you would never think that my friend doesn't "actually have a sexuality." She is one of the most sexually aware and wise people I have ever met.
You're just saying this to try to provoke Timeline. Kinda creepy.
You likely misunderstood my claim. "Sexuality" more as in orientation, than anything. I didn't interpret the claim as to mean gender, but that could be. I just read an article that claimed that now 7% of mellenials claim to be gender-nonconforming... so perhaps I was wrong.
I do believe that about 0.2% about of the population is biologically different in that regard, but they overwhelming tend to be complete gender realists, and essentialists, this is something else. I didn't mean that women lack a sexuality, in that nothing turns them on, they aren't attracted to anyone, or something (I actually expressed the precise opposite of that).
I see this move as something cultural though, and entirely something else. See, what are motivated, what are selfish, what tell you things about people, are lies.
No, I genuinely don't care about them, and don't even read their posts generally, unless addressed to me. I scan what's going on, and definitely see pictures and stuff, but I rarely read long posts, particularly (even when addressed to me). The rather verbose members tend to get under my radar.
I think this is a fair representation for many women who are my age and older. Sex was not something that was discussed so to explore the idea of bisexuality and/or having lesbian tendencies was almost taboo until later in life when we are old enough to freely entertain the ideas.
Admittedly, my friend was 16 in the 1960s and our conversation took place about 10 years ago, but, as I said, she is very wise and knows her daughter well. She indicated her memories are still relevant.
As mean and horrible as it is, beauty and truth really are totes related. I'ma watch all that last one's videos. Hopefully she talks about diverse subjects though.
That's only one variant of ID.
It isn't particularly right wing, but there seems to be a group of men in the West into these ideas like MGTOW and the like, which can get quite anti-women. It's much a reaction to feminazis to be honest.
Hmm.
You might think that's a clunky expression, and implies more than it does... but at the very least female sexuality baffles science. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-02-26/news/0702260136_1_sexual-desire-sexual-health-dysfunction
This conversation feels like 15 year old boys' locker room talk. Either that or a troll. It feels beneath you actually.
Holy shit, I didn't say that they don't experience sexual arousal, I said that they experience in more contexts than any other sexuality does. The opposite of that. I'm saying more that it breaks all of the boxes, and can't be classified, not that they're all frigid or something.
No angle, I'm just saying the things I think. I'm just proud of myself for having made it through those horrible amazing experiences, and saying something that I'm pretty sure is a statistical fact, which is something to be proud of in my view. I'm an open book.
I prefer at least a little terror mixed in. What made it tops for me, is that she told me that she felt like she'd really hit the jackpot, and there were no greener pastures. I felt the same way. It was an amazing couple of months, unfortunately our respective insecurities made it not last. I feel like most don't go for the most terrifying human being they've ever encountered. I think that my experiences were pretty tops, although didn't last long enough to get more comfortable. Not dead yet though, still working on myself.
That's about autism.
Asperger's.
One way to ace a test.
No witnesses...
I always thought the guy in that scene looks like Alan Turing. Was that possibly intentional?
Definitely more so than Cumberbatch, eh? Could have been. I think that it's a pretty clever movie.
and
Yeah, it's no doubt Alan Turing being the investigator of the 'Turing Test' in the movie. You find out new sh*t every day.
Is this lawyer speak for women's arousal actually existing?
Sex + love can inspire tears, and be without any thought of greener pastures.
You know why you cry when you're really happy? Because emotional excess in either direction tends to be responded to by a polarizing emotion, in order to better restore balance. Not really that different from the oppositions I mentioned.
Though I didn't mean to start a contest.
I suppose that I only meant to suggest that there may be greener pastures.
The excess emotion theory seems to makes sense. Haven’t heard that before.
It isn't difficult to see what you were suggesting, which is why I said it isn't a contest.
Impossible. I'm a woman. I don't have a sexuality. My entire existence is predicated on the imperative to be attractive. Do you find my feet attractive?
Is it bad to be flatfoot?
Vat? You mean I have competition? Oh, the shame! The impending doom! What am I if I am not attractive? I must go and get some plastic surgery, wear an extra-thick layer of feet make-up to cover those unsightly blemishes.
The only VAT that I know of is value added tax :D >:O
Yeah I thought you were trying to do that lol >:O
Quoting TimeLine
That's common in Oriental Asia (Japan, Korea, etc.) :P
I'm a guy. I find everything female attractive. Stop insinuating I'm gay.
I call this "Morning Foot against the Backdrop of New Day Dawning." Enjoy.
Photoshopped out the extra toes I see. Nice.
I don't trust the flat footed.
Q: Can God count to infinity?
A: We don’t know yet.
Just had to show us your mirrored closet doors next to the bed didn't you. And the sky light to look at the stars in a romantic interlude. Bah.
Yeah I know it is the door. ;)
Err, hahaha I think.
Looking at news today, it's hard not to sceam:
Catalan, Puerto Rico, Marsielles!
Heh, someone else who does that. Except it's a German accent when I do it.
Mimesis ain't so bad. It's more people's inclination to aversion foremost, and immediately. Science blames this on the amygdala, particularly the right hemisphere one. Responsible for aversion. They say that it isn't as big a deal to miss out on something pleasant or rewarding as it is to miss a threat, so we're simply far more prone to processing the negative first, and seeing it foremost, and more clearly. Criticism is easy, as they say. Getting past aversion, to look on the bright side, is difficult.
If it were a competition I wouldn't let you have the last word on the subject.
Yeah this is exactly the mythological justification and covering up of violence that René Girard critiques. You can find this same thing in Hegel, and a lot of other philosophers too - the justification of violence and conflict as sacred or normal or justified or necessary.
It is only the Bible which denounces violence and conflict as totally unnecessary, thus making the Bible an anti-myth.
Quoting Agustino
QED.
I wasn't promoting violence, or abuse in any sense. Obviously it isn't true that the bible doesn't promote conflict, to the extent that you set out to be moral, in an immoral world. To be the lotus suspended in water, without getting the pedals wet. To be in the world but not of the world, there is conflict. If anything, religions are its strongest proponents.
That said, what do we do about conflict? Aren't you generating it by not just immediately agreeing with everyone, and doing what you're told? Or is it 100% all their fault, and you're an innocent victim in it all?
Typical. Straight from shoes to bare feet with no consideration as to how I am feeling. As I ready myself for work, this is my photo The Tree Pose to reflect my uprightness to remain modest during these public exhibitions. As for the latter part of the above-mentioned, perhaps a subtle consultation with Michael is in order.
This isn't the same thing as anger, studies show that when serotonin is low, and assertiveness low, withdrawal high, communication breaks down between the amygdala and pre-frontal cortex, and emotions become more difficult to consciously regulate, and this is when people are angriest. When they're unhappy, and not fighting for themselves and their positions, but in a depressive low seratonin state, and are under lower conscious awareness and control of their emotions.
Tyrannical uniformity which drives conflict underground is what's dangerous.
I bet that did wonders for your athlete's foot. :D
Actually well above the knee. Should probably not be wearing shoes to do it though.
You mean that her foot isn't clearly on the knee, extending past it to the calve? Am I the only sane person around? Are your emotions so out of control that they must fabricate ways to avenge yourself against me, and show that I'm shit to yourself? Holy...
The egocentrism is high in this one.
What else makes someone deny their eyeballs? Maybe I was a bit excessive in my shock...
I don't know.
Given your penchant for ‘horrific’ sexual intimacy with the female form, your anatomical confusion is understandable.
I'm confident that you're the only one confused. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't notice that awesome people are intimidating, seeing as you don't know where knees are.
The Bible an anti-myth? That's a good one.
Gasp!! :-*
Put those things away man.
Lol... I know...
I am confused regarding the issue of horrific sex. I mean, does it involve body parts, small burrowing animals... but then some things I don’t want clarity on, because some things can’t be unclarified.
Really attractive, skilled, and looked up to people. Really high caliber human beings make us insecure, uncomfortable, intimidate us. Am I from mars? It isn't only me, someone that is of extremely high quality is capable of exhibiting massive influence over us. We deeply care how they think of us. We don't just think and feel equally about everyone, nor treat everyone equally.
I can only speculate about why. I suppose that we want them to like us a lot, they make us feel vulnerable, inadequate, we viscerally know how powerful they are, could be a lot of reasons.
What does this even mean?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=caliber&oq=caliber&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1976j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
How do you measure that? With a ruler?
This is what I mean, there simply is no real talking to someone that thinks that there is no such thing as better or worse, healthy or sick, skilled or unskilled, moral or immoral, ugly or attractive. They certainly don't operate, and cannot operate like that. They live in a fantasy land of denial, while their soul screams for mercy.
You can now read minds or souls of people. Pass the pipe.
The cessation of suffering is still as true today as it was when Buddha was still alive. Why haven't we learned anything is, well, sad.
Speak for yourself.
Yeah, maybe he was wrong about human nature.
I guess you're incapable of speaking for yourself.
I might go back though, as I also have a mouth that needs feeding.
What about you?
That you can't speak for the Buddha. Particularly because he certainly did hold that it was possible to escape suffering, and possible to know your true nature. That was kind of his whole shtick.
Speak for yourself!
Cringes. :s
Where's your feet? Foot up! I need to finish.
Ew. That was such a Hanover.
I'm pretty sure he's only joking, most of the time.
Okay, then a "Wosret" will be when you say something gross and you're deadly serious.
Cringes some more. Can we have nice pictures of the view from your window, unless you're like me and live in your mom's basement?
I'm always serious. Don't judge me. Who's to say that there is anything wrong with that?
I live in a trailer park, I'm not fancy enough to have a basement, and saying that my mom hated me would imply that at least she cared.
Me too.
Quoting Wosret
No. Don't barrister me.
Officially and legally advocate for you? I wouldn't dream of it.
I dream of it all the time. You always turn up to court seemingly under the influence of some kind of illegal substance and start spouting some nonsense which results in you being held in contempt of court. As you're being lead away, your porn collection - consisting entirely of various photos of feet - falls out of your pocket, and you scramble to the floor to desperately pick them back up again. You'll need them for later.
Now you'll go down for the horrible horrible crimes. More of a nightmare.
Canada, if I recall correctly.
That's right, the great white north.
But I'll be gang raped, so more of a dream.
Better leave your Witty in the closet in future. ;)
It can't be helped. The man is what Jesus was to religion in philosophy.
The philosophical argument against artificial intelligence killing us all.
Michael Chorost
Slate Magazine
Apr 2016
They're not strategically placed, and I haven't even used them a single time, and I don't know anything about weights. I got them because they're incorporated a lot in hitt routines. I usually use boots, or jugs, but I decided to pick those up.
All I did today was yoga for after disaster, to release anxiety, and open the chest up.
I don't think that being moral requires conflict, but quite the contrary, it is the resolution of conflict through forgiveness and love instead of through violence.
Quoting Wosret
Forgiveness when this is possible.
Quoting Wosret
No, because "it is 100% all their fault" is a form of scapegoating.
Quoting Wosret
Tyrannical uniformity doesn't drive conflict underground, but quite the contrary, uniformity is achieved by uniting the community around the murder or lynching of an innocent victim who becomes responsible both for the conflict within the community and for its resolution.
They do look strategically placed. :D
But, more importantly, that's not the safest place for them to be, @Wosret.
And in either case, this discussion I'm having with Wosret isn't about psychopathic people it's more about the conflicts that arise between normal human beings generally, and that can lead to violence - like for example Hitler's rise to power and scapegoating of Jewish people. Hitler effectively saw no other solution to the Jewish problem than to exterminate them. My point is that the idea of exterminating them is a lie - it will not solve the problem because the Jews were never the cause of it in the first place. It is just scapegoating and must be condemned as such.
It's a case of psychological transference of the problem unto a minority group for ideological reasons.
It's pretty funny that you just included "torturer" in your list of examples. State sanctioned torturers would presumably be excluded under that model?
Like Donald "build the wall" Trump on immigration. Why support him then?
However, if you do read that discussion you'll also see that I changed my position by the end of it with regards to torture that is.
The wall is about more things than just immigration, it's also about stopping or slowing down the drug trade that goes on between Mexico and US.
Yeah, but in a way, the damage had already been done, and it gave us an insight into the kind of options you'd consider supporting.
You're just derailing the discussion at this point.
Quoting Sapientia
Wouldn't you consider (even if you end up not opting for) torture in the case of a dangerous terrorist that held knowledge of the location of a bomb that is about to explode and kill thousands? :s
Blah blah blah...Blame the immigrants. Don't pretend you haven't noticed Trump and Republicans doing that, wall or no.
Yes, and I largely disagree with that. But I don't disagree with the fact that illegal immigration shouldn't be permitted, first and foremost because illegal immigrants cannot be protected within the borders of the US, and would end up in criminal activity or abused very frequently. Permitting illegal immigration is an underhanded way of permitting continued slavery and pretending you don't know about it, since the illegal immigrant cannot be protected by law.
Ahh okay, so you would. Well, thanks for your confession. Then it's not that strange that I considered it as well for extreme hypothetical cases.
That's the important distinction. I agree you can be against illegal immigration and not anti-immigrant. The line is too often blurred though.
Your hypothetical leaves too much out of the picture. It assumes an idealism.
Right, so that's why I was persuaded that torture shouldn't be used as punishment against unrepentant mass murderers and psychopathic serial killers, and instead the punishment should be the death penalty.
The fact of the matter is that the victims and their families need to be assured by society that they will be protected from such people in the future. When we were discussing that issue, I had just read an article about a serial killer who had brutally raped and killed a young girl, and was only found out after 25 years after the incident, being totally unrepentant for what he had done. Arresting them for 20 years in jail and letting them free afterwards often leads to more victims, especially in the case of unrepentant criminals of this degree. Society needs to take a strong attitude against such people for the immense suffering they've caused to their victims and their families.
You've heard of life without the possibility of parole, right?
Yes, but this wasn't the punishment in that case that I had read.
But anyway, I think the death penalty should be considered for such grave offenses such as brutal rapes, mass murders, torture of innocents, etc., especially in the case of unrepentant criminals who mock the justice system itself. It would be horrible to have your own family be the victims of such a criminal and then not have the justice system deal with them adequately - you'd certainly feel betrayed by your society.
You can't punish someone when they're dead. Life in prison without parole is the ultimate punishment as far as I'm concerned.
Torture isn't very effective. People will say anything to stop the pain.
The US Army Field Manual on Interrogation says torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
Wouldn't work. Most drugs come in from legal ports of entry. I believe a lot come through on boats as well.
:-} What's this then?! And that was back in 2009. Now it's even worse.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33433955/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/illegal-drugs-flow-over-under-us-border/#.WdIPShOCyek
They're actually less likely to commit crimes.
As for being abused, I don't know, but presumably they're still better off in American than they would have been in Mexico, hence why they decided to cross the border.
I didn't say that none were coming over through illegal entry points. I said that most came over through legal entry points.
Besides, how good is a wall when they're using tunnels to go under and ramps to go over the current fences anyway?
And from your article: "Agents said they have also found that the more expensive illegal drugs — cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine — are usually in small packages hidden deeply within passenger cars and trucks and are smuggled through the official U.S. Ports of Entry at Nogales, Douglas and other border towns. "
:-} From here:
Quoting Michael
They think they will be better off because standards of living can be higher in the US than otherwise. However, many of them are not aware that they don't have the protection of the law, and if anything happens to them, there's basically no one who can defend them. If an illegal immigrant gets raped, what can they do? Go to the police station and report it? Of course not. So illegal immigration is really a form of getting slave labour, which is precisely why it has been allowed for so long. Under their "human" face, the leftist administration of Obama has allowed these people to remain and be exploited under US borders.
Oh, so closing off those illegal entry points isn't important in order to be able to focus border security on the legal entry points, instead of having them all spread out?! :-}
A wall makes the border more easy to supervise through, for example, installed cameras and the like. Also depending on the type of foundation used for the wall and how deep it goes, it may stop tunnels too. If pile foundations are used in addition to the regular strip foundation that is common for walls, it will pretty much block all tunnels.
A right wing blog with zero references except one link to another right wing website. :-d
You go on about fake news and this is where you get your information from. Totally partisan sources.
A Google search for "2014 13 percent illegal immigrant" gives that Hill article as the second link (the first being unrelated).
So at worst it's probably fake news. My guess is that even if the figure is accurate a large proportion of those crimes are just being illegal immigrants, which makes for a very disingenuous figure.
And then you go and do it yourself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/?utm_term=.eaf63659e086
Actual links to facts and statistics. Enlighten yourself.
This is a self described conservative website / organization not a non-partisan overseer of the government. Have you even looked at their "about" page. How gullible are you?
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Judicial Watch is a conservative educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Unfortunately, Judicial Watch is not always accountable and publishes false information according to Politifact and Snopes. (7/19/2016) Updated (2/25/2017)
Of course, but @Agustino doesn't care, he's too busy psychologically transferring the problem of crime unto a minority group for his own ideological reasons. (I mean go ahead and do that if you want but not ten minutes after saying how terrible a thing it is.)
"Supporters of the Trump theory have been pointing to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that found undocumented immigrants account for disturbingly high levels of violent crime. While they represent just 3.5% of the U.S. population, undocumented immigrants represented 7% of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 9% of murders, 12% of assaults and 30% of kidnappings in 2013.
Case closed, right? Far from it.
Only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are handled by the federal court system. Yes, undocumented immigrants accounted for 9.2% of federal murder convictions in 2013, but that represents a grand total of eight murder cases. When you consider that the FBI estimates there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. in 2013, those few cases handled by the federal court system don’t quite register as a reliable sample set."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/
Maybe you need to stop getting your information from fake news websites and then you won't feel the need to demonize minorities.
This is the bit quoted by @Agustino I most object to. An absolute flaming pile of horseshit "extrapolated" by a right wing blogger linking to a dodgy conservative propaganda outlet, aimed to impress a bunch of scared stupid people and then regurgitated on a philosophy forum to try to peddle the lie that illegal immigrants are violent predators. I mean if you believe an illegal immigrant is up to ten times more likely to murder you than an average American then of course you're going to want extreme measures taken against them. Textbook propaganda.
Making a political point like this is in incredible poor taste.
I disagree.
When the US citizens can blindly trust it's government.
The timing of your post suggests that taking away a persons right to bear arms is going to have ANY kind of impact on the tragedy in Las Vegas.
Please explain your reasoning
There are no non-partisan organizations, only some which pretend to be non-partisan. So let me turn that question back at you. But besides that point, let's look at some data from here.
Go to page 10. Let's look at 2009, just after Obama took over (and this got worse over his term). What does it say there? 295,959 incarcerations for illegal aliens.
Now go to page 15. What does it say? Does it say that most of those incarcerated aliens are Mexican, namely 70%?
Now back to page 1. What's the total population of illegal aliens? 10.8 million. 25.3 million if you include aliens with immigration status.
What's the population of US in 2009? 306.8 million.
Total population in prison in 2009? 2,284,900
Right, now time to do some math.
2,284,900/306,770,000 = 0.7% of total population is incarcerated in 2009.
295,959/10,800,000 = 2.74% OR 295,959/25,300,000 = 1.17%
1.17%/0.7% = 67% higher.
2.74%/0.7% = 291% higher.
So take your pick. We have upper bound of 67% more incarcerations for aliens or 291% higher. This means that illegal immigrants are somewhere between 67% to 291% more likely to be incarcerated than your regular population. These are all based on official documents, as official as it gets.
And keep in mind that we don't have many statistics on illegal aliens - there's a reason why they're illegal. That's why all the organizations involved in producing these stats will be mostly biased anyways.
Any objections now?
Quoting Baden
First of all, it's not a propaganda outlet, and no source called it a propaganda outlet.
Quoting Baden
No, I don't think that would make me want "extreme" measures taken against them at all. I'd just want to stop illegal immigration for the two reasons I gave in a previous post - namely illegal immigrants have no protection and will thus be very likely to get abused inside US borders, and they will be more likely to be forced to engage in crime.
Yes, I object to you quoting lies that claim illegal immigrants murder people at up to more than 1,000% a higher rate than the general population based on information you got from a fake news blog.
Quoting Baden
So, no you can't turn it around on me until you acknowledge my objection and your error. Then we can discuss other sets of statistics.
No it doesn't.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Are you suggesting that you could stand up to a tyrannical government that uses the military against the population?
I'm interested in whether this is an empirical debate or whether it's purely an ideological one, with one side certain that the illegal immigrant problem is linked to increased crime and the other trying to end the demonization of immigrants.
At this point, you guys are arguing data, with you saying that exaggerated and inapplicable federal crime data are being offered and I suppose Agu arguing otherwise.
My question is: If state crime data were examined that showed that disproportionate crime were being committed by illegal immigrants, would you agree that immigration enforcement should be strengthened, or would you arrive at another reason why the data ought be ignored (e.g., it's poverty, poor education, or some other risk factor outside of national origin causing the increased crime)? I ask this before embarking upon the mission of gathered state data.
If you were able to arrive at another reason than national origin being the reason for increased immigrant related crime, couldn't those reasons alone (like lesser education, poverty, etc.) be sufficient to exclude the immigrants? I ask this because I'm not certain that anything less than an open borders policy is fully acceptable to you.
Most advocates of gun control only want to remove certain types of arms from certain types of people. That works in just about every other developed country.
Are you sure about that? It seems like a random thing to say on a Monday morning.
When the US citizens can blindly trust it's government. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Michael
If necessary.
Agreed. But "want" is a fair distance from legally restricted.
And Michael is apparently not one of them.
My argument with Agu right now is over his use of clearly fake statistics, which are put out there to demonize illegal immigrants. We haven't got to a debate over the real statistics yet.
Quoting Hanover
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think immigration laws should be enforced.
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from what he's said but he can speak for himself.
Yes, I'm sure. I don't subscribe to the theory of retrocausality.
It wasn't random. It was inspired by the events in Las Vegas. I'm lamenting the fact that the free availability of guns in the U.S. leads to more situations like this than would otherwise happen were strict gun control in place.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
By "could" I was referring to efficacy, not willingness.
Repealing the second amendment wouldn't change current gun law(s). Taking away the constitutional right isn't the same as making it illegal.
Other countries don't have a constitutional right to bear arms but there are laws allowing citizens to do so within certain constraints.
Which is what I thought you were implying but we have gun control in place on automatic weapons, they are VERY difficult to obtain legally.
If necessary. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Michael
I am only an army of one but I do have others standing with me, many of which are Veterans of our own Military.
The crime rates are higher overall for illegal immigrants than for your average citizen, and that's almost beyond doubt.
Regarding the murder rates, yes, 1000% more seems to be an upper bound answer and probably the reality is less than that. I don't believe that number, I just posted that article to show Michael that the statistics he claims aren't so clear at all, and answers are actually quite divergent. How much less it's difficult to say. But no, 1000% more isn't propaganda, it's just one estimate.
I find it quite strange that you jump to call one entire organization propaganda based on the fact that you don't like one statistic that one of their writers puts up, based on a series of evidence that they describe.
Quoting Baden
Do you have any proof that those statistics are put out there to demonize illegal immigrants? Do you have proof that they are fake? Offering another set of calculations isn't proof that they are fake, you have to tell me which numbers are wrong and why.
Quoting Baden
Yes we are discussing real statistics, much which you haven't addressed...
Quoting Agustino
??????
Just to be clear: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country apart from some exceptions (daca etc.) Illegal immigrants should also not be subject to lies about their propensity towards crime. There's no contradiction there.
The estimate is completely hopelessly wrong and your inability to admit it is so weak a cheese sandwich could see through you.
This was not in your initial post. Just so you don't think I am confused.
I did say I don't personally believe that number, but I can't admit that it is propaganda because there's just no evidence that it is propaganda. You have yet to show that the author has the intent that you claim he does, or that the numbers he uses are fake. They're not fake, they're just numbers that you don't believe reflect reality. But that's your personal belief.
Not following you at all here.
Quoting Baden
This is a distinction without a difference.
Repealing the second amendment wouldn't make it illegal to buy guns. All the current laws and regulations would stay in place.
Yes and be amenable to change in the future >:) (you've learned the lesson well that radical change must come bit by bit... by the time we're over the haul, it will be too late to move back. That's what the left always claims. Look at Roe v. Wade).
I gave you an article linking to five separate studies already. Besides which, if you are going to suggest immigrants are ten times more likely to murder than regular citizens, an outrageous claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support it. You've provided none and you never will because there is none.
What's so distasteful about this is that you continue to refuse to back down from a claim that is clearly aimed at demonizing this minority, something you just recently claimed to be absolutely against. It's like if I said that your countrymen including you were ten times more likely to be rapists than Americans, provided no evidence for that, and then claimed your objection to such nonsense was just a "personal opinion". Really, you need to understand what you are doing and stop doing it.
Like here?
Or maybe I'm a devout Republican and just a firm believer in State rights. ;)
1) The sample must be representative
2) The sample must be large enough
3) The error must be calculated
4) Any error above a specific threshold renders the sample ungeneralizable
For example: I know two Japanese people. They are both male. I extrapolate from that that all Japanese people are male. Wonder how they reproduce? Clever buggers. There's a bit of reasoning that doesn't work. It's not just my "personal belief" that it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Period.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Baden
I haven't looked at your studies yet because I must first disable my Ad Blocker. I will look at it soon.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Agustino
Which part of that statement do you not get? I've said it twice by now. My disagreement with you is over the fact that you say it's propaganda. I don't think it's propaganda, I just think it's a higher estimate compared to the reality.
Quoting Baden
They did provide numbers (evidence)! Maybe you disagree with those numbers, and it is quite likely a higher estimate than the reality, but this doesn't mean the numbers are fake. There may be some errors in the way the data was gathered, etc. But you have yet to show that there is a malicious intent behind it and that the statistics provided are fake. Citing different studies isn't to show they're fake - they're obviously going to use different numbers.
If you said that my countrymen including me are 20 times more likely to be rapists than Americans, I wouldn't be upset. I probably wouldn't much care. Why? Well because I know myself and I know that's not true about me, and there's no reason to be upset. You have some statistics which seem to show that, I might question whether that reflects the reality of the entire situation, but I wouldn't be upset. I might be upset if you wanted to discriminate against me and my countrymen based on that, but now that's a different issue.
It's not about being upset. Who cares if you're upset? It's about reality. Learn some basic math and it will help you to spot the kind of basic statistical manipulations done by people who want you to believe their propaganda.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
This is the part of the pro-gun/2nd amendment lobby argument that just doesn't make sense to me.
In what moment of time did the Federal Government become the boogyman for gun owners? What event(s) precipitated the shift from viewing the Federal Government as a normal sort of social institution which has operated within more or less clearly defined boundaries, to a hostile KGB-type operation aimed at taking away Americans' guns?
Look at gun production statistics! Does it look like there are any restrictions on guns? According to a George Washington University report, "The number of guns manufactured each year in the U.S. grew from 2.9 million in 2001 to nearly 5.5 million in 2010, which was one of the highest-volume years in history. Another 2.84 million foreign-made guns were imported in 2010.
The government estimated there were 310 million firearms in civilian hands in 2009 - nearly as many weapons as American citizens."
Does it really look like the Feds are after your guns? What would it take to change your mind? Do you need the government to start a "gun of the month club" where they send you a nifty gun every month just to reassure you? Would mandatory gun ownership (as many as you could afford, according to your tax returns) make you feel better?
The tightness with which millions of people have fastened their teeth on to this issue, and the total absence of any evidence that the feds are trying to get at your guns, suggests a mass delusion.
I guess so. It wasn't directed to me, so I didn't see it.
Yep, I agree.
So, you agree that any extrapolations from the rate of crimes investigated by federal authorities, which would disproportionately lean toward drug crimes carried out along the border and so disproportionately involve illegal immigrants, would be unrepresentative samples, and no conclusions concerning overall levels of illegal immigrant crime could be drawn from them?
Do we have evidence they lean towards drug crimes carried along the border?
Quoting Baden
If so, yes, there would be a greater degree of error when extrapolating from this sample, giving an upper bound solution.
Actually, that's the number of criminal aliens, which the document defines as "noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally."
Also, it states that "sixty-five percent of the 249,000 criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either a civil or criminal immigration violation" which makes it a bad comparison as obviously immigrants are more likely to commit immigration offensives. Ideally these should be excluded, but as far as I can see this report doesn't provide the information to do that.
There's a more up-to-date report here (from a libertarian, Koch-founded think tank) that provides data (supplied by the Census Bureau) to show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.
No worries. I calculated with the total number of immigrants as well. Still gives a higher rate by 67% and that's not taking into account that illegal immigrants will commit more crimes than legal immigrants.
Quoting Michael
Yes, and a large degree were arrested more than once.
Quoting Michael
I will look at this billionaire funded statistic.
To be more exact, average number of arrests was 7 arrests per criminal alien.
Drug trafficking is more often investigated by the feds presumably because it tends to involve several states. And the source is the border so naturally there is a concentration of resources there. Of course, some murders and other violent crimes may involve federal investigations but that's relatively rare. Because of the latter point, the sampling size tends to be unreliably low causing another statistical fail. See the USA today article I quoted.
Maybe @Hanover can offer more information on this.
That's in a completely different ballpark to 1000% and wouldn't particularly surprise me if true (though I'm not conceding it is as other statistics paint a different picture). The crime rate tends to rise as poverty and social deprivation rise.
Excusing your inflammatory hyperbole here, there was no such shift. Something happened called the American War for Independence. It might do you well to look up why Americans chose to fight it and who the two sides were.
Immigration enforcement should be strengthened regardless. As I said, there should be some sensible exceptions like Daca but the point of borders is that they're borders.
You're a sovereign democracy. You get to vote for your government. You are no longer colonized by a foreign power. Why the paranoia? (I think that's BC's basic point).
Then you didn't get my point.
Sure but keep in mind that's lower bound, assuming crime rate is same among illegal as among legal immigrants. But we actually know that crime rate is about double in illegal immigrants compared to legal immigrants. So that figure is likely 100-200%.
And of course poverty and social deprivation increase crime. That's the point. Illegal immigrants will be both abused (and so poor and social deprived) and likely to engage in crime.
Again, the studies you haven't read yet paint a different picture. I'll await @Hanover's research. My major problem as I've said several times are gross exaggerations obviously intended to further a political agenda. I'm in favor of immigration enforcement in the US anyway just as I would be in favor of it in my own country. (As in who am I to tell Americans they should allow people to illegally stay in their country?).
The wall is stupid. Why build a wall when they could simply take over control of the market? It's entirely within their power. By trying to stamp out the drug trade, they drive it underground.
Then you should be more specific.
The revolution of 1776 isn't the relevant frame. It's the Constitution, which was adopted 13 years later. And for most of our history, the Second Amendment wasn't the basis for an ever-enlarging gun-supply, and people didn't think the Feds were on their way to take their guns out of their cold, dead hands.
When I was growing up in the late 1950s and early 1960s I had at my disposal plenty of conservative viewpoints, and they were not focussed on gun ownership. They were focussed on communists, homosexuals, integration (and other Warren court decisions). Gun rights wasn't a big issue in the late 1960s, either, or early 1970s.
Quoting Jeffrey Tobin
So the turn began in the late 1970s and went merrily on from there. It's part of the conservatism of the Republican Party which became more conservative after the liberal Rockefeller Republicans were washed out of the party.
The two sides were Great Britain (and allies) and the Thirteen Colonies, later known as the United States of America (and allies). Boston Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, No Taxation Without Representation, and so on.
You need to be more specific and properly explain the link you're making. That is, if you want to be understood. Or you could remain vague and aloof.
No matter. It appears to be probably mistaken anyway. At least according to BC above who seems to know his stuff.
Interesting. Unsurprising. But interesting.
Those that would, would only do so on ideological grounds. So, we can leave them out of the discussion. 8-)
https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
Thinking about a career change?
They score pretty high on EQ, though. (Emotional intelligence)
Emotional intelligence is a little more complex, difficult to measure, and not unrelated to IQ. It is more a skill than an innate trait, and is mainly learned. It is about reading people's expressions and emotional states, as well as properly predicting their behaviors and reactions based on them, and understanding expectations, responsibilities, and how to properly operate in a social environment.
So to the extent that they're trained in it, I imagine that it may very well be higher than average.
So what? The average IQ for people in general is 100. Isn't about 100 for police officers what we should expect?
Yeah, and the FBI requires a little high IQ than the general pop (at least a Masters or PhD along with 2 foreign languages under your belt).
You don't go into the police because you're sensitive, you go into the police because you want power and you like guns. In the US anyway where police tend to be aggressive and very low in EQ compared to other countries considering how often they resort to lethal force.
I could make that (with a little language study). I missed my calling.
I ain't a fan of the popo... I think they just think that it would be more boring to shoot the unarmed...
I'm not anti-police as such but European/Asian police are significantly less intimidating. I mean I had some German police accost me on their horses for sleeping in a park once (they may have thought I was an illegal immigrant or something) but I found it more entertaining than anything else.
I don't like hefty imbalances of power in situations, it's intimidating. They could be saints, but as long as they reserve the sole right to violence, as well as could lock me up, or really make my life difficult for awhile, I don't much like them.
I hear you, bro'.
And how have the gun sales performed since Trump took office?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not only are they after my current guns but as it stands today, the Federal government can and did take away my right to purchase and own a firearm.
Quoting Bitter Crank
There is no delusion, they took away my 2nd amendment right as a citizen, as soon as I was honest about being a State sanctioned Medical Cannabis patient. Never once was I asked or denied the right to possess a firearm when I was addicted to OxyContin because Oxy is a Federally approved drug and the Doctor writing my prescription holds a State License to practice medicine.
In all seriousness, if you have ever encountered someone on OxyContin 6 hours after their last dose was due and someone who is consuming cannabis containing CBD's, you would see that I am clearly not delusional, nor is my evidence.
You seem to be an exceptional case then Tiff. The more pressing problem is loony tunes having guns and using them to murder people not sensible people not being allowed them.
Yeah, I like sleeping.
How do you know the EQ of US cops? My guess is their attitudes are as much impacted by their preexisting emotional state as how the job impacts them.
I didn't actually notice this, the 100 IQ is average for the whole population, but occupations have different IQ ranges. Like the average IQ for astronauts is 136.
Here is a list of break downs for college majors. http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
I know. My point was cops are not especially intelligent or stupid. I would expect them to be around the 100 mark, wouldn't you? Obviously, rocket scientists etc. would come in significantly higher. (Although super high IQ Christopher Lanagan was a bouncer for a long time).
Again, though, they give you an IQ test, and if you score too high, you're reject on that basis alone. Though, my point was that their "expert opinion" on the subject, despite experience, may not be super reliable.
That is odd. Like you're too smart to be a cop. You sure about that one?
I don't really. It's just an impression based on mostly anecdotal evidence. I could be wrong.
I wasn't talking about myself... look it up though.
I know. I meant general "you". I can't really imagine you applying or being a cop.
Hey, I want my authority respected as much as the next guy...
You'd be dead in a week. Blue on blue. :D
Lol, I do inspire a lot of murderous rage. I probably shouldn't surround myself with the dumb and armed.
Nobody likes a clever dick.
Am I? Or am I the beginning of a control creep? Today it is those who have been convicted of a crime, declared mentally unstable and the cannabis patients. Not a lot of folks right? But if you look at this being a law in 29 states and D.C.? My being the "exceptional case" is not so exceptional but rather will become the norm. Time will tell, it always does.
Quoting Baden
I am sorry Baden but evil will always find a way to be carried out. If not with a gun, then a rental truck plowing into crowds. If that doesn't work than take hostages at a café and make the world watch you and wait to see how the heinous act will end. Or you could just leave a bucket on a train with explosives you can make with supplies from a beauty store...
It's not the guns Baden, it is people determined to carry out evil and evil is not something that any law can rid out of human nature.
To say nothing of the fact that it's closer to the truth than most, in any case.
Edit: there we go, one with the logo.
No, nobody disagrees. But the more horrifying thing is that such a person finds it easy to set up in a hotel room and carry so many guns around. I mean has nobody in the hotel, including cleaning people, saw how many guns he has there?! Why would anyone bring so many guns to Las Vegas out of all places?
My point was that Americans' distrust of and resistance to centralized power is nothing new, for it precipitated the war for independence. Afterward, a significant contingent of the delegates at the constitutional convention had to be persuaded to even create the federal government, while those who did the persuading were themselves concerned about not giving it too much power. The founders had these reservations because they witnessed first hand the abuse of centralized power. The second amendment in particular was included because it was yet another check on the federal government. In fact, the rights of the bill of rights were specially chosen for their relevance in serving as such checks (this is why the ninth amendment was also included). The founders deemed these rights to be what a potentially tyrannical government would likely try to take away first, which, again, was based on their own recently lived experience.
Thus, your anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, Americans have always been wary about the federal government infringing on the amendments contained in the bill of rights, and this is precisely what the founders encouraged and would have wanted.
Quoting Baden
I don't, although I wouldn't mind the former being made to look like the latter, provided it's only cosmetic.
Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
Alternatively: "The 90 US mass shootings are nearly one-third of the 292 such attacks globally for that period. While the United States has 5% of the world's population, it had 31% of all public mass shootings."
Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822013
So was the pope.
This isn't a good defence. Should we not bother making it illegal to buy, sell, and possess drugs? After all, people do so regardless.
Are you suggesting that we make it legal to buy, sell and possess drugs?
If you are then I question if you have been reading or following me at all.
You are aware that we do have laws making it legal to buy, sell and possess drugs, correct?
Google to the rescue. Praise Google.
It was 1927 in Bath, Michigan. Here's the link.
Yes, certain drugs to certain people, with strict regulations because many drugs are dangerous. And so too should the same be done with guns.
The point is that simply saying that "people will find a way" isn't an excuse to not have bans and regulations. People will find a way even with a gun ban just as people find ways even with a heroin ban, but just as it is in the best interest to have a heroin ban in place it will be in the best interest to have a gun ban in place.
Most guns are banned here in the UK, and there is of course a black market. But the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 is so much lower than in the U.S. (I can't find figures for the same year, but in 2011 in the UK it was 0.23 and in 2014 in the U.S. it was 10.54). That is unequivocally a better thing, and so I really fail to see how anyone can justify the system you have.
They did seem to have tested how altering the criteria may impact their results. Nevertheless, their calculation isn't direct and involves more assumptions than the more direct government numbers I've provided in my previous post, so until further evidence I'll tend to side with those.
In addition, the critical error in their study is that they take the population of illegal immigrants to be 14.5 million (they never state this, but it results from back-calculating the incarceration rate of 0.85% given 123,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated). This is by all means an over-estimation by most counts which give the number to be somewhere between 9-11 million.
Also, they use a total native population of 137 million (also back-calculated from their data) which is way off. It's more like 318 million. So the incarceration rate for natives is inflated.
In other words, I feel it's quite fake news.
Well, sure, it's nothing new. But the salient point is that things were a lot different back then, much has changed, and the yanks ought to get with the times. It's called progress.
Don't fight it. Embrace it. It might just save lives.
Yes, I do, with the first part. The very notion diminishes the concept of rights.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Good. They did so based on drug laws which make little sense, comparatively. We're on the same page in that respect. But, nevertheless, it's for the best. Better to nip it in the bud before someone gets hurt. If it's not you, it's someone else, and no one thinks it'll happen to them until it does, with devastating consequences.
Yes, they do, and I'm not the only one.
I agree.
Quoting Michael
Not the best example. Why should we? Because drugs are bad, m'kay? They're really not that bad, you know. I mean, I've never done heroin, and I've heard a lot of very bad things about it, so there might be exceptions, but then, I've also heard a lot of bad things about other drugs that has turned out to be overblown. They're more like confectionery than weapons or dangerous machinery which requires a licence to operate.
Yes, yes, the United States is the only country on earth that has dealt and deals with mass murder.
Quoting StreetlightX
Only = exclusively.
Regularly = frequently.
X, Y, or Z's frequent occurrence does not posit exclusivity, so I'm sorry, but your figuring is just plain wrong.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
And let me guess, you also figure that it's and its qualify as being the same, too? Perhaps no means yes, and hello means goodbye, and (Y) means (N) >:O
Anyhoo, *leaves again.*
And I freely admit my total and utter dyslexia when it comes to posessive apostrophes.
Welcome ba...Oh...
Responding to Tiff's attitude and headlines in the US of politicians saying nothing can be done. Oh, and Buxtebuddha too with nothing constructive to add.
Policy would be much more detailed. I didn't specifically mention semi-automatics, for example (I guess automatics are already banned). I didn't mention compulsory training or strict penalties including jail time for non-compliance. But, if most people could agree on the basic principle and pressure politicians to enact it, it would be a step forward.
"Category H
Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014, however only in Victoria so far. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds."
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
Sure, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and all that. However, there is a significant regional difference in the attitude of people toward the federal government, and this difference has been present since the 1700s. For several reasons people in the south preferred to keep government at several arm lengths. This preference applied to local and state government as well as the Federal level. The southern states (before the Confederacy) didn't want to cooperate with each other on roads, railroads and canals. They preferred to keep civil issues local - down on the farm, so to speak. They followed an honor code, the defense of which was mandatory for the upper levels of society, and important to lower levels.
The New England states had a more "corporate" view of society, and recognized the important work of government, public efforts, inter-agency cooperation, a state-run justice system (as opposed to a private one), centralized government, and so on. This view--derived from the Puritans, went west with the northeast / New England, economic expansion, trade, language accent, and so on across the Great Lakes region, the northern tier of states, and the NW states.
As for guns, and gun-related deaths, most of the states under the influence of the Puritan views, have European levels of violent gun deaths (excepting Illinois). The Southern third, and the deep south in particular, is where the very high rates of violence occur. Steven Pinker attributes the high rates of violence in the south to the influence of English Cavaliers who became the principle slave owners of estates. They tended to prefer a DIY justice approach, were honor-code bound, and tended to use violence to settle scores.
In the map below, the greener the state, the less violence; the redder the state, the more violence.
If it's a cost benefit analysis you're looking at, then you can't make generalizations, but you have to look at the specific item being banned and ask what the costs of the ban will be compared to the benefits. That means that it might offer a greater societal benefit to reduce the debilitating effects of heroin criminalization even if that means greater overall usage. With guns, the opposite might be true. With marijuana, complete legalization might be best. Each thing gets it's own analysis.
Unless you proclaim drugs immoral, you have to allow for the possibility that they ought to be legal if the overall positives of their legalization outweigh the negatives, in which case the question is an empirical one.
So, now you're back to pretending the problem can't be solved and therefore not solving it. "Evil" did it. Shrug. When this happened in Australia, they didn't just say, "Oh well. Evil". No, they said "We better stop this happening again". And they did. Why can't you follow their example?
We're smearing you because we would like to see you stop killing each other at rates far higher than occur in Europe because of your overly permissive gun laws? Because we are suggesting you solve the problem instead of burying your head in the sand? Because we keep suggesting this every time you have a new mass killing and you keep ignoring us and having more of them? Sorry, but we're not the bad guys here.
Same with the UK. The Dunblane massacre is what prompted stronger gun control.
The only thing worse than waiting for something terrible to happen before taking preventative measures is to let it happen over and over and over and not do anything about it. I'm sticking by my last prediction that it will take about another ten massacres before Americans finally force their politicians to enact effective gun control measures. Provided Democrats are in power. Republicans are bought and paid for by the NRA and will never do anything.
I meant in the US with consideration of their constitution. If I were running my own country, I'd go for UK style gun laws.
What, you've missed me? >:O
Quoting Agustino
Into the hole of trying to present a philosophy of the spirit that doesn't presume anything much other than brute experience, in the simplest manner. A place no one around here is much interested in.
Badenland.
I was thinking Badenia, but ok.
But of course! >:O
Quoting Noble Dust
Ah, when will it be presented? :D
Can you explain the purpose of the poll? I tried to use it before to get information on the opinions of people toward certain topics and both polls were deleted (still no explanation by the way). If the poll is not for that purpose, then for what purpose is it?
God knows when. And "god" knows what exactly that means. I trust you have a sense of what I mean. If not, please batter against those gates.
Which ones, the Pearly Gates? It will be some time (I hope) until I get to batter against them :P
What, you're trying to batter against the heavenly gates? What does that even mean? >:O
Oh, I thought you wanted me to batter against the heavenly gates - I just informed you that it may be some time until I get that chance :P
Sure, that's it's purpose but it's still part of an OP and is subject to OP guidelines. I don't remember your particular polls though. What poll do you want to put up?
Since I'm drunk, it's probably best that I resign. >:O But I guess that classifies me as a heathen?
Put that alcohol down!!! >:O
Interesting. All that was required of me to purchase an air pistol over here was to walk into a shop and buy one, with my I.D. and entry on the gun register.
I wouldn't argue against that law being implemented here though, and wouldn't care if I had to give up my air pistol, which I used once, and which I think was a waste of money.
I want to put up one titled "The Poll That Baden Doesn't Want You To See". Is that allowed?
(Y)
Who ya gonna call?
It is as I said before. I think I remember the Star Wars one now. So, your polls were deleted not for being polls but for other reasons. Not being philosophical enough if I remember correctly. See Sapientia's response above
EDIT: Ok, you got it. Cross posted.
Sure, just one minor change. Delete "Baden". Insert "Hanover". (Y)
Baden, you fell for exactly what I suggested StreetlightXs' post WITHOUT documenting that the headline was from The Onion, satire magazine would do. I NEVER once said that "US politicians" are saying that nothing CAN be done. (N)
? I didn't say you said that. But they are and nothing will be done (by Republicans at least) because they are owned by people who sell and promote guns.
What you said was:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Which is like saying to the families of victims of drunk drivers: "There's nothing we can do about this; there's no point having strict laws against drinking and driving because people will just take drugs and drive. Evil will always find a way". It's an unimaginably weak argument against positive action.
No, you close off every opportunity for "evil" that you can close off and make it as difficult as possible for people to do these things. Then you save lives. Your attitude is not only self-defeating, it's actively dangerous. If Australians had listened to people like you and not tightened up gun laws after the 1996 massacre, it's very likely there would have been another one by now and therefore more death and misery. Ditto for Dunblane in the UK. Again, instead of throwing your hands up in the air and opining about "evil", actually solve the problem like other countries have done. Or accept partial responsibility when it keeps happening.
How do you "close off" evil within the human race? Again, if not a gun, then a knife. If not a knife than a bucket full of beauty supplies with a fuse, if not a bucket then a passenger jet. How do you take evil out of a human?
Quoting Baden
Okay, tell me exactly what personal responsibility I have in "it" and please define "it" are we talking about evil or the way in which evil is expressed.
Did you read my post? Nobody's asking you (Americans) to solve the general problem of "evil". That's the whole point. That's unsolvable. I asked you to stop going on about evil in general and address the specific problem of gun massacres like the one that occurred in Las Vegas.
We're talking about the continuing massacres. Those who refuse to push for solutions, even partial ones, are partially responsible for the continuation of the problem. And the solutions are there as other countries have shown.
That is good. (Y)
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Tiff, you missed out a lot of important words there.
Yes, I read your post and I am glad we are on the same page as far as solving "evil" in humans. The gun massacre in Las Vegas is what evil looks like when in action, regardless of the weapon of choice. In this case he chose firearms that were retro fitted to be illegal to buy, possess or use, so in this case, any further tightening of any of the USA's gun laws would have solved nothing. To outlaw bump stops might stop the intrigued but it will not stop the determined because it doesn't take much to make a bump stop.
While we are on the issue of firearm control, you do realize that Las Vegas, Nevada is an open carry state. Nevada has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country short of Arizona where you need no permit to carry a concealed weapon. Nevada is an open carry state, meaning your firearm has to be visible but neither state requires firearms owners to have licenses or register their weapons and Nevada does not limit the number of firearms an individual can possess.
The flaw in tightening gun control plays out here; there were likely hundreds of legal firearms in that immediate area and the perimeter of the concert being carried by everyday citizens yet the only person that killed anyone was that one shooter.
I was enforcing the point that "evil" resides within the human not the weapon of choice.
Wrong. It works. They did exactly that in Australia and the UK. The evidence shows it works. You haven't addressed that. Please do.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
By that logic, evil resides in the drunk driver not the drink. We might has well let him drink and drive because otherwise he'll just take drugs and drive. Right? Or to put it more simply, why not let people carry bazookas? Are you in favour of that? After all evil resides in the person not the bazooka. Right?
As far as I know neither the UK nor Australia have a Constitutional right to bear arms and until you can not just read the words but embrace the idea that ours does, you will never understand why your suggestion will not work. You keep trying to pound a round peg into a square hole over and over and still look up with confusion.
Quoting Baden
Yes. The drink doesn't make the choice to get behind the wheel of a vehicle the human does.
We're saying that the second amendment should be repealed so that better gun control laws can be put in place. So this response makes no sense in context.
And this suggestion is EXACTLY why people fight and die for the second amendment to remain as is. As I said before we will reserve our right to bear arms until we have a government in which we can place our blind trust in.
Do you believe that the US government is something we as citizens should place our blind trust in?
I don't even know what you mean by blind trust, nor why such a thing is required to forgo the right to bear arms.
If you're really concerned about the government waging war against the population then you might want to elect better officials.
I'd suggest voting for Democrats.
Fine Tiff, keep refusing to support anything that would actually solve the problem, but the relatives of future massacre victims won't be thanking you for your irrational paranoia. The NRA, arms manufacturers and your corrupt politicians will love it though.
Yes, my position is that mass murder cannot ever be "solved," so long as human beings exist. I have already agreed with you that there are certain measures that may help alleviate and reduce the frequency of certain kinds of mass murder, but to believe in its complete abolition is delusional. That you shrug at the mention of "evil" says a lot, too. Do you think everyone who murders a bunch of people is just a psycho? The evidence doesn't reflect that. Thus, if no religious, political, or ideological motive can be adduced, then evil, the intentional desire to inflict harm, seems a perfectly reasonable explanation of the primary motive in the present case.
Bit to much of a love fest though. They both hate postmodernism with equal virulence.
That's a rather pathetic strawman. Try again.
Probably because it's dumb.
Don't care. I want debate not verbal love-making.
It was more of an interview, I thought. He didn't say a whole lot, and what he did say I've heard before, lol. I just liked her saying all of those things I think, but don't get to hear other people say very often. Something that makes me feel like part of a tradition I didn't know quite about. I think it's just a tradition of the smart and informed though... Toot, toot.
The problem of mass shootings (not evil, not mass murder, not dodgy cheeseburgers) has largely been solved in Australia and the UK and that shows that there are solutions to the problem (not necessarily complete abolition but certainly major reduction).
Yes, exactly! Finally you understand!
It was a matter of sheer chance that some of those incidents didn't involve more deaths than they did. True, no guns were used, but is murder by guns somehow more wrong than murder by other means? The fact is that if someone intent on mass murder doesn't have access to guns, they will find other means of carrying out an attack. And if you disagree, then I suspect you disbelieve that human beings can ever be truly evil, which would launch a different discussion.
Don't you start strawmanning me too.
If you're saying mass shootings only, then obviously less guns, less shootings, but that doesn't mean less killing. It isn't a great point.
Okay, now I'm curious. For what reason do you want to solely talk about mass shootings? I want to give you the chance to explain why, because your reaction here is highly suspect.
More strawmanning.
Quoting Thorongil
The fact is that drunk drivers are intent on driving under the influence of some drug. If it's not alcohol, they'll find something else therefore we should let them drive under the influence of alcohol. Eventually, you'll figure out how trivially bad an argument you're making.
Quoting Thorongil
That's nuts.
That's a very strange comment. We're debating gun control after a mass shooting. So I'm talking about gun control as a means to reduce mass shootings. Understand?
This is rich. You accuse people of creating straw men and yet proceed to do just that in the quote above. Most drunk drivers don't intent to murder people and therefore aren't charged with first degree murder. I explicitly said I was talking about people who intend to commit mass murder.
Quoting Baden
I understand that you have failed to adequately explain why you have chosen to focus on mass shootings. The train of this conversation began when I said that, in this particular instance, more laws and regulations would likely not have had any effect. Your position seems to be, "without access to guns, he wouldn't have committed mass murder." That's nuts.
What are you talking about? You completely missed the point. It's an analogy. It has to do with whether you deal with one problem (drunk driving / mass shootings) even though it's possible another might replace it (driving under the influence of drugs / other mass murders). That obviously directly pertains to your point. It doesn't matter what the specific crime is. And you still haven't dealt with it.
Quoting Thorongil
No that's not my position. That's another in a long list of strawmen. My position is that without access to guns we don't know what he would have done. But having access to the guns he did we are sure allowed him to kill 59 people. So, if I could go back and remove those dangerous guns from him, I would. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying you would let him keep them because he might murder some folks another way. That's worse than nuts. It's dangerous.
Child molesters will likely find a way to molest children even if we ban them from working in schools. Therefore, there's no point in banning them from working in schools? Bollocks.
Exactly.
I don't even really care about this, don't own or even like guns. I think they lack skill. I much prefer bows and arrows, or spears. Way cooler.
Quoting Wosret
We need to talk about [s]Kevin[/s] Wosret.
The specific argument now is about whether one problem (mass shootings) should not be dealt with because another might take its place (other mass murders). That's what @Michael's analogy hits at.
(Edit: Cross posted).
Oh, yes...
That it restricts freedoms that some people value, even if it makes things over all "safer for everyone" isn't an obviously desirable trade. It also isn't even well supported that it would change much. America is high in gun deaths, but not murders in general compared to other countries, and although they have higher murder rates than some other developed countries they also have more income inequality, which has been demonstrated to increase homicide rates. If you look at suicide rates, they are much higher from gun deaths in American, but completely analogous in number to other developed nations...
I'm not sure that it would help, it doesn't seem super supported, just what some find intuitive, and even if it did, I'm not super sure that I'm a fan of trading freedoms for safety.
Who's Kevin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin
I'm disappointed you've chosen to play dumb. You very clearly gave a disanalogy. If you don't see it, then I can't help you.
Quoting Baden
Paddock clearly intended to murder people. If he had no access to guns, then as a person intending to commit mass murder, he would likely find other means of carrying out an attack. If there's a will to commit evil, there's often a way. If he rigged the venue with explosives and planned to blow it up or planned to detonate himself in a suicide attack or planned a gas attack or planned to drive a truck into the crowd and managed to kill 59 people, would that be any less bad? If "solving" mass shootings doesn't solve mass murder, which it doesn't, then you haven't solved what matters. And as I said earlier, I don't think you can solve mass murder, which of course doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it or take steps to reduce its frequency.
Quoting Baden
You couldn't have. He had no criminal history or history of psychological illness. He obtained his weapons legally and passed the relevant checks.
Quoting Michael
Nope. If you're trying to conclude that we should ban guns, this analogy doesn't work either. "We should ban people who intend to molest children" would be equivalent to "we should ban people who intend to commit mass murder." Obviously we should. But we can't ban people about whom we lack evidence that they intend to do such things. You would be no different than Paddock in this respect. Though it may cause you to hyperventilate, guns do not kill people, people do.
If you respond by saying that owning guns at all is evidence that one might commit such a crime, I suspect you just have a pathological fear and/or hatred of firearms in particular. There are millions of gun owners who manage not to commit murder. In fact, as gun sales and the number of guns have steadily risen, gun crime has steadily gone down.
Sounds like someone cashing in on misery... it never fails.
Rubbish. I even PMed someone to check if I was clear. I was.
Not being sure something would help is not a good reason not to do it especially when lives are at stake. Like, I'm not sure if I should throw you this lifeline as you might drown anyway. No, just throw the damn thing.
Wow, such irrefutable proof.
You're talking about restricting freedoms for everyone, though, just one's you personally don't care much about, but others do...
That's not very reasonable without good evidence... I mean, what if you were restricted from attending school because people thought you had "molester face", but it wasn't them, so who cares, amirite?
So, bazookas for all it is. Viva, freedom.
What's more like proof is your continued inability to understand basic analogies. But, fine, maybe Michael can help you.
Well yes, you can always send me a PM :D
It wasn't whether my argument was correct, it's whether I was being clear that was the question.
Quoting Baden
(Why do you need everything explained twice to you?)
I agree with this sentiment. Banning guns is not the solution necessarily. America has a cultural problem with this sort of violence. Even if you ban guns, you will still get the same number of mass murder incidents, because it's just a cultural issue that cannot be addressed by banning guns.
That makes zero difference:
Now I know how I'm being clear: just PM someone, and if they agree that I am, I am! Who knew it was so simple?
Well, yes, if a third party can clearly understand a post I've written, that suggests it's understandable at least to someone of a reasonable level of intelligence.
I don't know that it wouldn't change anything at all, I'm more saying that I don't see a lot of real support that it would, and also that I could entirely understand anyone that thought that even if it did, that freedom for safety is not a desirable trade.
If one really wanted a gun ban, I think that it would be more effective to lessen people's interest in them, rather than offer such a dilemma, anyway.
Let's see, is this third party Hanover? :D
Lol. He wouldn't be my first choice.
If your aim here is to make everyone lose respect for your intelligence, it's working. I can't prove that of course... ;)
Quoting Baden
;)
I didn't say it proved I was. I was (in my opinion). :-d
I hope that's not how you edit my paper when I submit it to you >:)
I edited that straight away. Refresh your page. :)
I'll hold you to that by the way. Special discount for people I agree on almost nothing with. :D
Funny you mention this now. :-d
How am I supposed to entertain myself at work now? :(
Damn, people weren't actually reading that stuff were they. :-O :)
It's better than Netflix!
Also a solid hangover cure.
Lol. I better bill you. Laters, folks.
What I was trying to explain is that "people will find other ways" isn't a good defence against a ban.
And you'd prefer to enable them to have access to a greater choice, and to weapons which can do more harm? You'd prefer to make it easier for them?
You see, your point doesn't really address the point. It leaves it at the wayside.
Nice declarative statement.
Why would she prefer to enable evil people to carry out evil deeds? What a vile thing to insinuate.
Thanks. I put a lot of work into it. The focus group was very positive.
Some people are better off without them.
And you were informed via PM, I presume? I hear that's where all the truth comes from these days.
You just blew her logic right out of the water. Easy target? :D
They only said that because I had a gun to their head.
Those others are selfish, a hindrance to societal progress, and to some degree have blood on their hands. You expect sympathy?
No, it's clearly you that expects sympathy. I hope for comprehension, that's all.
No, you're after sympathy for those poor guys and gals. Good Lord! What about their freedom?!
What about those dead and injured? Where's their freedom? What's more important here? The answer is clear to me, and it should be to you too.
You're overly emotional. I only said that I could understand their position.
That's priceless coming from you of all people. >:O
You're still being overly emotional.
Calm down, dear. I was insinuating no such thing. There's this thing called a rhetorical question...
I don't really consider that an argument, rather than a poor judgment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
You have to look at suicide rates and compare them.
https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
Murder rates have lowered. You must have dug hard to find those. Anyone can search and see that not only homicide, but most crime rates are lower now.
Your first link claims that murder rates have risen in the states since the 60s, and pretty much all violent crime has, which is ridiculous.
The other claims that suicide rates rise with gun availability, but then, since guns are less available in other countries, how do they beat the US in number of suicides? It can't be directly, and solely attributable. I don't know the exact relations, or causes, but you can't argue with the numbers.
I said that those who care more about guns than people, like those who recently lost their lives, are selfish, a hindrance to societal progress, and to some degree have blood on their hands.
It was a claim, not an argument. But I could present one. Although, if the claim in itself doesn't ring true for you, it's you who has poor judgement.
Let's be clear, this isn't simply about freedom. It's about freedom to satisfy gun lust, despite the heavy cost.
People that care more about guns than people?
Yes, in a nutshell, that's what it boils down to. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's either one or the other. A decision must be made about what matters more to you. You were clearly putting forward the case for the other side, mentioning freedom, yet leaving it down to me to spell out what that entails.
You were suggesting freedom [i]good[/I], restrictions [i]bad[/I]. But that's such an ill-considered - and frankly distasteful - thing to suggest in this context, given the bigger picture.
It entails about 12,000 shooting murders per year. You know that cell phones are responsible for 1 in 4 car accidents? Being 1.6 million per year? Do you support cell phones, you fucking monster?
I don't support using a handheld phone whilst driving, which is illegal over here, and rightly so. That's a restriction, which is what I'm arguing in favour of in relation to guns.
People usually support using their death machines responsibly too, and don't tend to support mass murder, or homicide in general, but we all know that people aren't going to do it, and cause way more mayhem, but you like those... more than people I guess.
That's a silly response. It isn't all or nothing. I'm in favour of sensible restrictions, and when it comes down to a sensible restriction vs. a little personal freedom, I'll willingly sacrifice the latter for the sake of the former - especially given that in this case, it's literally a matter of life or death for some.
Pokemon go doesn't work if you're going faster than a certain speed, I know that much. I bet that it would be easy to make cell phones in general not work if moving past a certain speed. I bet it would be super simple to pull off, but no one actually gives a fuck about that. They care about arguing politically charged issues, and moral superiority.
You know what else is easy and super simple? Making sweeping judgements about everyone at the drop of a hat and pretending to be Sigmund Freud. (You do it a lot, I've noticed).
The projection in this comment is staggering.
Asking such questions in an apparently rhetorical manner is itself the insinuation.
They could just make the gun holster attach to the forehead.
Make people look like douches for having guns and that's a better deterrent than anything else I could think of.
I find it hard to believe that someone like the Vegas killer would have had any trouble acquiring his arsenal even if it was illegal to buy or sell guns of any type in the US. If someone plans to do something they will find a way to do it.
Exactly, there's no point regulating weapons or drugs or anything really. If someone plans to do something bad they'll always find a way. Why bother trying to stop them?
Never said we should not try to stop them, I just asked for an explanation maybe of how any present or future gun laws could have stopped this guy from doing it.
He had high power weapons + a legal bump stock. He effectively had a machine gun and fired 90 rounds in ten seconds and he acquired everything legally. You can't kill 59 people and injure 500 in nine minutes with a basic rifle or hand gun.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/dianne-feinstein-bump-stocks-senate-gun-control-bill
"Senator Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control, introduced the bill, which she had first brought forward after 20 children and six adults were killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. The earlier bill, which would have reinstated a federal assault weapons ban, failed by a wide margin in the Senate."
So, @Sapientia is right, those who oppose measures like this (and why would you except for money?) are highly irresponsible. And those on this forum arguing for doing nothing because "evil will always find a way" will also bear partial responsibility for the next massacre.
I honestly thought that would be the tipping point for gun control measures. It either seems that we have grown accustomed to these events. [s]Either that or the sphere of interest for the average American stops pretty short of what would be required for public outcry.[/s] Sorry, I forgot I live in America for a second there.
Yi yip hurray, individualism!
He was also a freakin millionaire and would have bought them illegally if there had been stricter laws. The laws would not have stopped him at all.
Quoting Baden
I have no responsibility any more than you do for anything that is beyond my control, and to state that I do is both silly and irrational.
How many drunk driver deaths are you responsible for because you are not shouting and screaming for a total ban on alcohol?
How many cancer deaths are you carrying around in your conscience because you have failed to demand more money from the government for research and allowing them to keep on spending so much money on their high salaries and armies?
Do some research on the effectiveness of gun control and you will probably find that the number of deaths has not changed drastically in any of the places where they have enforced stricter laws.
Good job I am not a gun advocate then isn't it.
Sure, as I said, why bother with laws trying to stop people massacring others? Some of them might be rich and might be able to do it illegally anyway. Let's just make it as easy as possible for them. Logic failure. Here's a hint: The likelihood of something happening reduces in proportion to how difficult you make it for that thing to happen. Hence. laws and stuff, which are not perfect but help.
Look it up and look up bump stocks. Or look at the pictures from his den. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
That seems like red herring to me. The concern with introducing stricter gun laws would be to curb violence in general from guns, the less impulsive types as the Las Vegas shooter, who must have fantasized about what he did for a while will, unfortunately, find a way to give their life more meaning (in their minds).
What do I uses as a search phrase? "What does Baden think an assault rifle is?"
Doubt that would work some how, unless YOUR OPINION is sort of famous.
So you think that collecting a bunch of guns and ammo, sending the missus on a trip are impulsive?
Shit I would hate to see what he would have done if he had taken the time to plan it.
What sickens me the most is that anyone could effectively be saying to those families' victims, "He probably would have found a way to slaughter your loved ones anyway because EVIL! So, obviously we were right to not to do everything in our power to prevent this."
It doesn't matter because I didn't mention "assault rifles", I mentioned "assault weapons" as defined by the Feinstein attempt at helping to solve this issue.
I don't understand, are you contradicting yourself or just implying that he could have done more violence if he only had more time to do so?
Yeah, as long as you don't burst my bubble everything is fine and will be fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Reviving this would clearly not be enough but it would be a start.
Ok, so you don't really know much about them.
Any rifle can be made into an automatic weapon fairly easily with the tools found in almost any handy mans possession. As it says in the article you referred to the lady is pushing for restrictions on these adapters to stop people from doing it. But it also says that they are doing it because the actual automatic weapons are already heavily regulated.
Wednesday’s more narrowly tailored legislation would ban the import, sale, manufacturing, transfer or possession of “a trigger crank, a bump-fire” or similar devices that can retrofit semi-automatic weapons to fire at nearly the same rate as automatic ones, which are heavily regulated.
Option 2.
Arguing from emotion does not get reasonable answer or solutions to problems. That was pathetic.
As far as I can see no one has even come near to suggesting anything a sad as that. (N)
No what's pathetic is having gun massacre after gun massacre and refusing to solve the problem. Not only that but actively obfuscating the problem. What's also pathetic is that you clearly haven't read the previous discussion and don't know what I'm referring to.
So there is your proof, the laws were useless in preventing things like this from happening. And that law appears to have expired anyway.
No, I would have thought that costs money, which we don't have. But if it's free, let us know.
It's not nearly strong enough but that's an argument for doing that and more, not doing less. What I object to is people saying "let's do nothing". That's been my bone of contention from the start. So, what is your solution? How do we stop these mass shootings? Enlighten me.
I could not agree with you more. It is just that I don't understand why people keep on insisting that the only way to solve the problem is by gun control when it has been proven that it does not work.
Quoting Baden
No one has done that at all, it is clear to everyone what the problem is. It is the solution that remains unclear.
Quoting Baden
Hey, you answered my post in case you forgot. And I did read the rest of the discussion, I really like the comment about people being monster because the drive killing machines. By the way due to the high incidence of motor vehicles being used in terrorist attacks they are talking about the prohibition of the manufacturing of any vehicle that can be used or adapted to be used as a weapon.
Spending money on social development, education, health care instead of soldiers and death machines.
Hi there,
I am writing on behalf of a philosophy website of which I am a member. It has many great debates all the time on a range of topics including many scientific topics. It would be great to get some students, especially science students or lecturers in to contribute their ideas and have discussions.
The site is free to use.
Is there some way we can put the word out at the ANU that the site is there?
Thanks,
Michael ******
(former student)
This is the email address: [email protected]
That's fine by me. Would you mind PMing this to @jamalrob before you send it though to get his OK. Cheers for the help!
Politicians, for example, when they say nothing can be done are effectively if not literally saying that to the victims. I feel some others who have commented here are doing something similar. And I'm fairly harsh on this because it is a matter of life and death. Of course, it is just a debate here and I'm pretty sure no-one involved is deliberately obfuscating the issue and that they genuinely believe what they are saying. In the end, we all shake hands and go home, basically.
(Y)
Hi Jamalrob, Baden has asked me to confirm this with you.
?Baden I am about to make inquiries with the Australian National University media department. Do I have permission to use the website name, or would you prefer to handle it yourself?
Hi there,
I am writing on behalf of a philosophy website of which I am a member. It has many great debates all the time on a range of topics including many scientific topics. It would be great to get some students, especially science students or lecturers in to contribute their ideas and have discussions.
The site is free to use.
Is there some way we can put the word out at the ANU that the site is there?
Thanks,
Michael ******
(former student)
This is the email address: [email protected]
That's certainly a partial solution that I would agree with. I'll say more later maybe. Got to eat. (Y)
You're a funny one. If you've missed the point of the rhetorical questions, I can explain it to you. You only have to ask.
A freak accident in a laboratory could result in super speed, like what happened to The Flash.
Do you support or encourage the current lax gun controls in the U.S.A., whether explicitly or implicitly through your action or inaction? If yes, then you do have some responsibility. If no, then this isn't about you, so why are you making it about you? That would be both silly and irrational.
Of course, if it is the former, then you might not want to accept that to be the case, so if you were someone like Tiff - who lives in the U.S.A., has owned guns, would get her guns back if she had the opportunity, and clearly supports the cause - then I wouldn't take a "no" from you seriously.
Quoting Sir2u
Straw man. Honestly, how can anyone confuse regulations for a total ban? It's the former, not the latter. In a world a lot closer to the ideal world, I wouldn't object to a total ban on guns for civilians, because I don't have a stake in the gun game, and because it would nip the problem in the bud, but we're not close enough to the ideal, and in reality, I'm sure they'd be a huge backlash involving large scale violence. Sufficient progress would first have to be made before attempting something like that.
Quoting Sir2u
I don't know, but unlike you (presumably), I wouldn't deny my responsibility. That kind of change could come about through collective action, and some of us - myself included - could do more.
Wosret's comment? That's a bad influence, and he should be ashamed. He was saying it ironically, but sadly there's some truth to it. People tend to treat a forklift quite differently to a car, but they're not all that different. We're talking about dangerous machinery which can indeed kill or seriously injure, and that's why it's so important to regulate, promote safety awareness, and concentrate on operating them in accordance with health and safety practice, which in some cases is the law.
I don't know whether I'd go as far as calling someone a monster for killing someone in a car accident caused by the driver being distracted by his phone whilst driving, but the family of the victim might not be so hesitant in doing so. It would certainly be reckless and condemnable, and not something which should be taken lightly.
Quoting Sir2u
The term I used earlier was [I]sensible restrictions[/I]. That sounds like a difficult task if the intention is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if they can somehow make them less able to be misused in that way, without rendering them useless, then I'd be in favour. If it meant that "boy racer" types couldn't indulge themselves as much, then tough shit. This is about getting priorities in order.
And we shouldn't stop there. I'm in favour of looking at what more can be done to prevent or reduce incidents like this from occurring.
I agree. Obviously the military and the police force's armed response units can have guns.
However, I could imagine a level of advocacy where we might make a difference, and not only do I urge you to put all other business aside to try to stop this gun violence, but I hold you morally and criminally responsible for every gun death while you idly complain here when you could be forming meaningful political solutions to this problem. We are talking about human life and death after all.
Oh, the wonders of hyperbole.
That's why I don't vote.
Yes, hyperbole, because what you said was exaggerated. But if you take away just enough of the exaggeration, and perhaps make a few tweaks here and there, you'll be left with a truth.
You don't vote based on a falsehood? A Labour government would make a difference, and we control who's in government.
My vote wouldn't make a difference (well, almost always; in 1910 the Conservatives won the Exeter constituency by 1 vote).
But whether you're right or wrong, you've changed from plural to singular, which is moving the goalposts.
I'm saying I don't vote because my vote wouldn't make a difference. What are you saying?
I'm saying this:
Plus this:
Equals this:
If enough of you voted, that would make a difference. Make it happen! In the last recent general election, which was only in June of this year, Labour took Kensington from the Tories. Kensington is one of the wealthiest constituencies in London and has never been in Labour hands before.
No, [i]you[/I] seem to have missed the point. You're going from a comment about a group to a comment about an individual. I'm saying that those of you in Exeter can make a difference, like those in Kensington made a difference in June of this year by electing a Labour MP for the very first time.
This makes no sense. You might as well respond to Hanover's comment with "but if those of you in America fight for gun control than you can make a difference". That goes without saying. But Hanover is saying that the few people on this forum can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility. And so I'm saying that I can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
But if this issue of singular vs plural is such an issue for you, I can always respond by saying that the few people in my household can't make a difference, and so bear no responsibility.
That's using isolation to support defeatism. Think of the bigger picture.
Quoting Michael
Well, as long as you acknowledge the disconnection between what Hanover said and what you're saying...
Notice how this kind of thinking gets more and more isolated and individualistic? What of collective action and cooperation? You and your household are merely shirking your responsibility, but perhaps I shouldn't be too harsh, given that I used to be in your shoes, and not so long ago. (I blame Russell Brand :D ).
There is no disconnect. We're both saying that if a particular set (a set that may include just one member) is too small to make a difference then the members of that set bear no responsibility for a failure to act.
You might disagree with our reasoning, but the reasoning is the same regardless.
Okay. So expand the set, lol.
I've given it. In Hanover's case the set is The Philosophy Forum and in my case the set is Michael. The former set isn't numerous enough to make a difference on gun deaths and the latter set isn't numerous enough to make a difference on a party's share of Parliament. Therefore, neither set is responsible for their respective issues.
Edit: Sorry, misread. Thought you wrote "expand on the set", as in "explain it".
That's a load of baloney. It's quite simple. One set can join another which can make a difference. You group together. If those included in a set are not responsible for that, then who is?
I wasn't actually arguing that this reasoning is correct. I'm only arguing that my reasoning is the same as Hanover's.
My ulterior motive is to have Hanover question his initial claim, given that I believe he would think that individuals do bear responsibility for a failure to vote, despite the fact that (almost always) an individual vote doesn't make a difference.
I'm happy to concede that your reasoning is the same as Hanover's, as that's a secondary issue, as I see it. That would mean that you're both wrong, if taken at face value. But of course, Hanover suggested that he was exaggerating to make a point, and you're now telling us that you had an ulterior motive, so this may have all been pointless.
The Philosophy Forum
- this may all be pointless
OK, that's our tag line.