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.
If yes then you do have some responsibility for the deaths of all of those fetuses. If no then you have no right to make it your business. 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.
I think that you too have missed a very important point. I have never stated that I support any laws, whether or not they are lax. I lived in the US, I owned and do own guns and I do agree that people should be allowed to own them.
Until something has actually served its purpose you very rarely appreciate its value. I am probably still alive today because I was carrying a gun on two occasions. I have never fired it at anyone, just its presence was enough.
Honestly, how can anyone confuse regulations for a total ban? It's the former, not the latter.
No one has confused them, but is there another way to stop drunk drivers?
The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes.
Did you not read the article that Baden posted a link to. There are many other sources about the gun regulations in the US.
And what is the problem? That people want to kill other people will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them have guns. they will used baseball bats, knives, rocks, even their own hands.
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.
Exactly what difference does it make to the world that you do not deny your responsibility or the fact that you could do more? Have you been out lately protesting in front of the establishments that sell cigarettes or that support the rights of people to smoke. Have you tried to stop car manufactures from selling cars and trucks that have high cancer causing emissions?
Are you going to sit around crying for the victims and families of the people that died because of drunk, drugged or telephone using drivers. I doubt it because there are so many, many more than those that have died from bullets. And by the way, most of them were actually innocent of any crime which is not the case in most gun related deaths.
Riding a high horse gives a great view on which to discourse, but it does not make you any more morally correct that Tiff and I.
And as I told Baden, the real solution to the problem of guns is education, repairing society so that there is no need for them. Educating both sides of the debate.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2017 at 13:19#1114020 likes
I am a butterfly, and I might change the weather. Who knows how many potential mass murderers have been dissuaded, or how many despairing or cynical non-voters have been inspired by my passionate yet reasoned posts?
Advertisers and politicians know that it is worth getting your message out there. If thinkers think otherwise, they are not thinking straight.
I'm in favour of looking at what more can be done to prevent or reduce incidents like this from occurring.
According to the articles I have read, it states that he was riding an illegal street bike. that must mean that there are regulations in place. They did not stop him from doing it though. what they are now saying is that they want to bring in stronger laws and punishments.
Regulations have to be enforced to be useful. How many cops would be needed to check every bike in the country for its compliance to the laws.
The same applies to gun control.
That people want to kill other people will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them have guns. they will used baseball bats, knives, rocks, even their own hands.
And that people want to molest children will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them work in schools. They'll find other places.
But it's still a good idea to not let them work in schools. The above just isn't a good defence.
Some related questions that should be considered:
1. Would would-be shooters still be willing to try to kill people if they didn't have access to guns, or would having to rely on a less effective weapon persuade them against it?
2. Would fewer people be killed and hurt if their attackers had to rely on a less effective weapon?
I'm going to try a different tack if I continue anyway. It feels like brick wall territory. But supposing we are all rational and want the same thing, i.e. less tragic deaths, there should be some room for a meeting of minds.
I am a butterfly, and I might change the weather. Who knows how many potential mass murderers have been dissuaded, or how many despairing or cynical non-voters have been inspired by my passionate yet reasoned posts?
Advertisers and politicians know that it is worth getting your message out there. If thinkers think otherwise, they are not thinking straight.
So if everyone in Texas drives around in cars with "Get rid of guns" bumper stickers, wearing t-shirts with the "Get rid of guns" slogan on it and places thousands of "Get rid of guns" signs all over the place, whilst running million dollar TV and radio campaigns they might actually eliminate guns from the state.
Don't think that will happen. Advertisers and politicians play to things that people secretly want, or think they want not what they are adverse to.
I doubt it would even be effective if Coca Cola slipped a "Get rid of guns" plug into their commercials.
And that people want to molest children will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them work in schools. They'll find other places.
But it's still a good idea to not let them work in schools. The above just isn't a good defence.
I repeat, I have never stated that I am against any form of regulations or laws. I have from the beginning only questioned their efficiency in doing what they are supposed to do.
1. Would would-be shooters still be willing to try to kill people if they didn't have access to guns? Or would having to rely on a less effective weapon persuade them against it?
What is a would be killer? Is it someone that is going to kill or someone that thinks about killing?
Why do so many people here get emotionally involved with the topics?
I look upon this forum as a place to go to practice critical thinking and to learn. Sometimes I get it right, other times I get it wrong.
If I argue for one side of a debate it does not mean that it is one of my personal beliefs. I don't take absolute sides in a competition.
If I want to discuss something properly I think I should be able to discuss both sides from an educated point of view and/or be able and willing to learn things I did not know about either side.
I have from the beginning only questioned their efficiency in doing what they are supposed to do.
Which seems to me to be a type of nirvana fallacy.
What is a would be killer? Is it someone that is going to kill or someone that thinks about killing?
Someone who would commit murder were they to have a gun. If we took their gun away, would they find another way, or would they reconsider?
Ask the Oklahoma bomber about that. He did not use guns.
He used another weapon that should be (and is) illegal. I was specifically thinking about your examples of a baseball bat, a knife, a rock, or hands. If the Las Vegas shooter had knives rather than guns, would he have killed 59 people and injured 500+?
To make the question simpler, would a ban on guns reduce the murder/violence rate? If there are good reasons to believe that it would, and if there aren't other (sufficiently) good reasons to keep them (as there is in the case of cars) then there are good reasons to ban guns.
But then to refer back to my previous example, even if banning child molesters from schools wouldn't reduce the child molestation rate, it is still a good idea to ban them from schools. The ban itself is good, irrespective of its consequences. There's a case for a deontological approach to the issue, too.
I think that you too have missed a very important point. I have never stated that I support any laws, whether or not they are lax.
No, that's not a point that I've missed. What matters more than what you have or have not stated, is whether you do or do not support, in whatever form, the current gun controls in the U.S.A., which [i]are[/I] lax, whether or not you acknowledge them as such.
Until something has actually served its purpose you very rarely appreciate its value. I am probably still alive today because I was carrying a gun on two occasions. I have never fired it at anyone, just its presence was enough.
Then you didn't need a gun, as a replica would have served that purpose. And in terms of its function as a weapon, pepper spray or a taser would likely be sufficient in most cases.
No one has confused them, but is there another way to stop drunk drivers?
You seemed to, unless you did that deliberately, in which case it's a straw man.
I think it foolish to think of this in terms of absolutes, which I suspect you're getting at with your question, in which case the answer is obviously no. Otherwise the answer is obviously yes, and comes in the form of - you guessed it - regulations. Fines or time served in prison acts as a disincentive for many of those to whom the risk of death or serious injury to themselves or others is not enough. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes.
Did you not read the article that Baden posted a link to. There are many other sources about the gun regulations in the US.
It does make a difference, but there will always be those who slip through the system. That's why systems are reviewed, or should be, after events like this.
How nice, silly but nice. In an ideal world there would be absolutely no need for guns to be banned, because there would be no guns to ban.
Again with the lack of attention. It's not silly to seek [i]a closer proximity to[/I] the ideal. You were the one to bring up a total ban, not I. I'd consider that an ideal, but an unrealistic one, albeit one which would become more realistic as we [I]progress towards it[/I].
That people want to kill other people will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them have guns. they will used baseball bats, knives, rocks, even their own hands.[sic]
@Baden, do you ever feel like you're going around in circles, and not getting through to people?
Someone who would commit murder were they to have a gun. If we took their gun away, would they find another way, or would they reconsider?
Is murder only committed with guns? If they never had a gun to take away would they still commit murder? In England there are actually very few gun murders. And what about all of the people that do have guns, would they be considered would be killers. If a mother uses her gun to protect her child does she falls into the category.
Most people that are intent on committing murder do actually go ahead and do it. THAT was the point of my question. Quoting Sir2u
What is a would be killer? Is it someone that is going to kill or someone that thinks about killing?
There is a big difference between someone that is going to kill and someone that is thinking about doing it.
Although looking at it now, the related perfect solution fallacy is the better term: "an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented."
Is murder only committed with guns? If they never had a gun to take away would they still commit murder? In England there are actually very few gun murders. And what about all of the people that do have guns, would they be considered would be killers. If a mother uses her gun to protect her child does she falls into the category.
Most people that are intent on committing murder do actually go ahead and do it. THAT was the point of my question.
That might not be true. Some people might have the desire to murder but only try to carry it out if they believe that they have a reasonable chance of success. Having a gun makes it easy, whereas having a kitchen knife makes it harder. And if we ignore the few cases where the killers plan to die during their attempt (like in Las Vegas, presumably), a lot of killers plan to survive and escape. That's easier to do from a distance with a gun than getting up close with a melee weapon. The latter is too risky.
The samsaric nature of this "debate" in a nutshell:
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!
The second person's allegation, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.
It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 05, 2017 at 14:45#1114300 likes
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 backif she had the opportunity, and clearly supports the cause - then I wouldn't take a "no" from you seriously
It would be awesome if you actually quoted me rather than stretch the facts to meet your needs.
I have NEVER, EVER said I have owned a firearm. Full stop. Logic would tell you that if I have never had them, it would make it pretty hard for me get them "back".
I would appreciate it if you make that correction in your mind and when speaking about me. This is what I DID say:
"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."
Which is something that you Sapientia and Baden keep missing: My Second Amendment Right was taken away and you can reference my words above as to why. That is why I am such a strong supporter of protecting our Second Amendment Right, regardless of my own ability to own a firearm. I would do the same if someone took away my First Amendment Right.
Nothing empowers a person more than being told that they no longer have the right to do something.
I will not be quiet about my Second Amendment Right being taken away and I don't think my position is all that unique. Maybe you have run across someone like me before in your lifetime of reading.
[i]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Sorry, I misremembered the quote and should have checked first. But that's all I'm apologising for.
Rights are meaningless unless they're worth having, and the Second Amendment is not worth having. It does more harm than good and makes a mockery of the very concept of rights.
That might not be true. Some people might have the desire to murder but only try to carry it out if they believe that they have a reasonable chance of success. Having a gun makes it easy, whereas having a kitchen knife makes it harder. And if we ignore the few cases where the killers plan to die during their attempt (like in Las Vegas), a lot of killers plan to survive and escape. That's easier to do from a distance with a gun that getting up close with a melee weapon.
Bombing the venue could have done the job. So could ramming a truck into the crowd. But as for melee weapons, a man in Japan recently stabbed 19 people and injured over 50. So if you pick your targets carefully, you can murder quite a large number of people with "just a knife."
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person A is either failing to consider the bigger picture, which covers more than the recent mass shooting, or he is deliberately setting it aside. He is merely stating unhelpful truths, rather than offering an insight or a solution. That's what my Person B would object to.
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!
The first part of Person B's claim is actually Person A's claim:
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way. Therefore, there's no point in regulating (or banning) guns.
That's the non sequitur.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2017 at 15:12#1114370 likes
So if everyone in Texas drives around in cars with "Get rid of guns" bumper stickers, wearing t-shirts with the "Get rid of guns" slogan on it and places thousands of "Get rid of guns" signs all over the place, whilst running million dollar TV and radio campaigns they might actually eliminate guns from the state.
Yes. In a democracy, politicians have to be responsive to public opinion.
Rights are meaningless unless they're worth having, and the Second Amendment is not worth having. It does more harm than good and makes a mockery of the very concept of rights.
If you're a Benthamite who denies the existence of natural rights, then I can see why you would think it would be easy to repeal the second amendment. But you must understand that the drafters of the second amendment thought that the right to bear arms is grounded in the natural rights to self-defense and the protection of property. The second amendment cannot therefore be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right, according to its proponents. You may disagree, but know that your disagreement involves wading into deeper philosophical waters.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 05, 2017 at 15:14#1114400 likes
Rights are meaningless unless they're worth having, and the Second Amendment is not worth having. It does more harm than good and makes a mockery of the very concept of rights
Then it's a good thing that they are not your rights to lose because until you have them taken away, you cannot understand how important the protection of ALL rights actually is.
MY Constitutional Rights that you are speaking of are the bedrocks of our country and I will continue to enjoy or fight for our freedoms as needed and as I do I will not go quietly.
I'm not unsympathetic to your personal situation, and I would support a solution that would still allow someone like you to have a regular gun or rifle while having generally stricter controls and banning more dangerous weapons. I don't think that using medical marijuana makes you a danger to society in a way that you should be singled out like you were.
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way. Therefore, there's no point in regulating (or banning) weapons.
Person A isn't necessarily opposed to regulating guns. He may be opposed to the kinds of regulations you favor and to banning guns, but that's not to be opposed to regulations in principle. So once again, you're the one making the non-sequitur.
What matters more than what you have or have not stated, is whether you do or do not support, in whatever form, the current gun controls in the U.S.A., which are lax, whether or not you acknowledge them as such.
Could you be more specific about which laws or controls you think are lax. I have stated several times that I am not against regulations being in place about the uses of guns. What I have also stated several times is that I don't think that they are actually making any difference. Apart from you judging my morality what difference does my support of them make to the debate?
Then you didn't need a gun, as a replica would have served that purpose. And in terms of its function as a weapon, pepper spray or a taser would likely be sufficient in most cases.
Oh the joy of those that live in paradise. You cannot shoot a bullet into the ground with a fake gun, and a drunken idiot that thinks he is immortal will not usually stop until he hears the bang. Let's be honest, do you really want to get close enough to a possible killer armed with pepper spray, not me.
I think it foolish to think of this in terms of absolutes, which I suspect you're getting at with your question, in which case the answer is obviously no. Otherwise the answer is obviously yes, and comes in the form of - you guessed it - regulations.
If the regulations in place don't work, what changes do you propose? Everyone says make the regulation stricter, but the only way to make them sufficiently strict is to make it illegal to have guns. If you disagree, I would love to hear your ides on the restrictions that you think would solve the problem.
n English, please. Didn't you used to be a teacher? What did you teach? Physical education? Not English, surely.
Tut Tut, no one gives point for you pointing out grammar, punctuation or typing mistakes. Personal attacks are the weapons of the ignorant. The sentence could easily have been understood.
"The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes."
The purpose of dialogue is supposedly to try to understand the other party, something which you obviously have no intent of trying to do.
Calling into question my professional qualifications is even more pathetic. I am fully qualified to give high school level classes in English, sociology, psychology, history, philosophy and computer technology. I have been doing so for more than 20 years.
WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS?
Again with the lack of attention. It's not silly to seek a closer proximity to the ideal. You were the one to bring up a total ban, not I. I'd consider that an ideal, but an unrealistic one, albeit one which would become more realistic as we progress towards it.
It is not silly to seek maybe, but how do you do that? You have said that stricter regulation is necessary, but have not said in what way guns can be regulated or controls. I said that a total ban was the only way that I can see to solve the problem, am I not entitled to my opinion? And why do you disagree with it?
Really? That you even have to ask that question says a lot.
I asked it because it appears sometimes that we are discussing several different problems and it is unclear what is being discussed.
Are we discussing the ownership of guns, the use of guns, what kind of restrictions can be placed on guns or what I consider to be the real problem. What is the actual cause of gun deaths because guns cannot be blamed. (And don't try putting a question mark there because it does not need one.)
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.
This does not express my opinion on gun control either. It is just my opinion on what happened and implies nothing at all about the benefits of having stricter gun control.
I don't want a weak apology, I just want it to be the LAST time that you state such bullshit about me.
Well, you've got your apology, whether you wanted one or not. One is enough.
I am only human, and I am therefore susceptible to human error, so I won't be making any promises that I can't keep, but like I said, next time I'll check first.
Then it's a good thing that they are not your rights to lose because until you have them taken away, you cannot understand how important the protection of ALL rights actually is.
MY Constitutional Rights that you are speaking of are the bedrocks of our country and I will continue to enjoy or fight for our freedoms as needed and as I do I will not go quietly.
We're coming from two different perspectives. I don't value any so-called right that I don't recognise as such. You can give me the right to bear arms and take it away again as many times as you like, but that would be a pointless exercise.
I'm not a mindless nationalist. I think for myself.
I don't value any so-called right that I don't recognise as such. You can give me the right to bear arms and take it away again as many times as you like, but that would be a pointless exercise.
At its core, this position is Hobbesian. I'm sure you can see how many Americans would view it as anathema, especially as the US was founded upon core, Lockean ideals. No one citizen can decide for others which rights are worthy or useless, it's a SOCIAL contract not a personal one.
If you're a Benthamite who denies the existence of natural rights, then I can see why you see why you think it would be easy to repeal the second amendment. But you must understand that the drafters of the second amendment thought that the right to bear arms is grounded in the natural rights to self-defense and the protection of property. The second amendment cannot therefore be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right, according to its proponents. You may disagree, but know that your disagreement involves wading into deeper philosophical waters.
I do disagree, and I do accept that that might lead to wading into deeper philosophical waters.
I find the history fascinating, but mixing history and politics doesn't always work, and there are plenty of examples to choose from. How about Medieval Europe? Tudor England? The Reign of Terror? Nazi Germany? Or we could align more closely with the topic at hand and talk about, say, the history of slavery in the United States.
Although looking at it now, the related perfect solution fallacy is the better term: "an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented."
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
The reason I said I have no idea what you meant by that is that I do not see how it applies to what I have said.
I have not stated or implied nor assumed that there IS a perfect solution to the problem. All that I have done is to point out that gun regulation has not worked so far.
I have not compared actual things to unrealistic, idealized alternatives. Unless you believe that banning guns complete is NOT the only way to solve the gun problem completely. If you are happy to accept partial solutions then this whole discussion is pointless be there are no real workable middle grounds.
I have definitely not rejected any solution because of its lack of completeness because as far as I know no one has actually even proposed a solution. Unless you think that saying RESTRICT GUNS is a solution.
That might not be true. Some people might have the desire to murder but only try to carry it out if they believe that they have a reasonable chance of success. Having a gun makes it easy, whereas having a kitchen knife makes it harder.
If the person finds it too hard to murder someone with a knife then they have no intention of killing anyone. They only think about killing. That is the difference I mentioned earlier.
And if we ignore the few cases where the killers plan to die during their attempt (like in Las Vegas, presumably), a lot of killers plan to survive and escape.
The few cases? There are plenty of them but most of them are not mass murders, the difference is the scale. How many family members have killed the rest of the family and then themselves? Yes, most killers don't actually plan to get caught. In the street where most killings happen they all think that they can get away.
That's easier to do from a distance with a gun than getting up close with a melee weapon. The latter is too risky.
So what are the statistics on this? I agree that there are drive by and sniper killings, but are there more of them than in your face shootings? Does the fact that having a gun and being able to kill someone from the other side of the street actually mean that am amateur would be motivated to trying killing? The amount of resolve needed to do something like that would need to be great. Would he even hit the target?
If the person really wants to kill someone would he not want to get close enough to be sure he actually did the job and will he would not be worried about the risks.
The samsaric nature of this conversation in a nutshell:
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!
The second person's point, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.
It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.
You can give me the right to bear arms and take it away again as many times as you like, but that would be a pointless exercise.
Duh, you can never miss what you have never had and enjoyed. Try letting them take away your right to personally attack people on a forum and see if you are happy about that.
No one every accused you of being a nationalist in any particular way, we don't even know your nationality.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2017 at 16:32#1114790 likes
Reply to Sir2u I'm not in the fortune-telling business, especially when it's your fantasy in the first place. But I do think that if the advocates of good sense are silent, then idiocy will prevail. That idiocy might well prevail anyway is no reason for not trying.
I'm not in the fortune-telling business, especially when it's your fantasy in the first place. But I do think that if the advocates of good sense are silent, then idiocy will prevail. That idiocy might well prevail anyway is no reason for not trying.
What I meant was that do you think the Texans are going to actually run around demanding that there are stricter gun laws or that they want them banning.
Could you be more specific about which laws or controls you think are lax[?]
I think that somewhere such as the U.K. or Australia should set the precedent, so anything that doesn't conform with that precedent is what I'm saying is lax. One example would be The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
I have stated several times that I am not against regulations being in place about the uses of guns. What I have also stated several times is that I don't think that they are actually making any difference.
One thing's for sure, they can't make a difference if they're not there. But are you going to tell me that the cop who shot dead Scout Schultz would have just killed him some other way?
Apart from you judging my morality what difference does my support of them make to the debate?
How do you think democracy works? It stems from us. The more of us who support proposed regulations, the stronger chance they have of being implemented. If we were in the US, even more so. Outside of it, we just have to try and hope that we can get through to them.
You are contradicting your self or changed the topic as we go along.
I was trying to emphasise her motive by relaying some background information, which it turns out I got wrong. The issue is about regulations, unless you change the subject.
Oh the joy of those that live in paradise. You cannot shoot a bullet into the ground with a fake gun, and a drunken idiot that thinks he is immortal will not usually stop until he hears the bang. Let's be honest, do you really want to get close enough to a possible killer armed with pepper spray, not me.
You said you never fired it, so it didn't need to have that function, did it? You scared them off without firing a single shot. Now who's contradicting themselves? (Hint: it's you).
And let's be honest, do you really want any Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a firearm? I work in customer service, I know how stupid and emotional people can get. I'd rather be pepper sprayed than shot.
Everyone says make the regulation stricter, but the only way to make them sufficiently strict is to make it illegal to have guns. If you disagree, I would love to hear your ides [sic] on the restrictions that you think would solve the problem.
Well, now you know, or at least are capable of finding out for yourself. You could simply look up UK gun law.
The US is not presently at the right stage to make it illegal to own a gun, because I predict that it would result in a large-scale violent backlash which I'd rather avoid. So, like you said, it's about education and attempting to change the culture. But in the meantime, let's have tighter regulation, like we have over here in the UK.
Tut Tut, no one gives point for you pointing out grammar, punctuation or typing mistakes. Personal attacks are the weapons of the ignorant. The sentence could easily have been understood.
"The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes."
The purpose of dialogue is supposedly to try to understand the other party, something which you obviously have no intent of trying to do.
Calling into question my professional qualifications is even more pathetic. I am fully qualified to give high school level classes in English, sociology, psychology, history, philosophy and computer technology. I have been doing so for more than 20 years.
WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS?
I suppose I should have expected a rant for that one. Let's just say that it's not what I'd expect, and leave it at that.
It is not silly to seek maybe, but how do you do that? You have said that stricter regulation is necessary, but have not said in what way guns can be regulated or controls. I said that a total ban was the only way that I can see to solve the problem, am I not entitled to my opinion? And why do you disagree with it?
This has now been answered. And it was answered before me by Baden. And Michael.
I asked it because it appears sometimes that we are discussing several different problems and it is unclear what is being discussed.
Are we discussing the ownership of guns, the use of guns, what kind of restrictions can be placed on guns or what I consider to be the real problem[?] What is the actual cause of gun deaths[? B]ecause guns cannot be blamed. (And don't try putting a question mark there because it does not need one.)
People using guns to kill people is the main cause of guns deaths. It's just as obvious that guns can't kill people of their own accord as it is that a gun must be used to kill someone with the use of a gun.
We're discussing regulation, which can consist in who gets to own a gun, how they can get hold of one, where and when they can use it, and so on.
the Texans are going to actually run around demanding that there are stricter gun laws or that they want them banning.
This is your fantasy.
My largely uninformed opinion is that most Texans are too fat to run around, and too stupid to advocate what is in their own best interest. But I don't write them off, I encourage anyone who is around to eat sensibly and advocate sensibly. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt their response if any.
Thank you for another of your brilliant observations, the amount that they contribute to the discussion is infinite.
Phew! For a moment there, I thought you were going to reproach me, but I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this. After all, I've been the goddess of wisdom far longer than you've been a teacher (allegedly).
Duh, you can never miss what you have never had and enjoyed.
Oh yeah, I'd love to have the right to bear arms. I think that'd be something I'd really enjoy. Then I could get all indignant at the thought of people taking it away from me. My precious! Leaves it alone, nasty hobbitses!
I think that somewhere such as the U.K. or Australia should set the precedent, so anything that doesn't conform with that precedent is what I'm saying is lax. One example would be The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
Fair enough. Now has the enactment and enforcement of these laws made any measurable difference to the death by gun statistics?
One thing's for sure, they can't make a difference if they're not there. But are you going to tell me that the cop who shot dead Scout Schultz would have just killed him some other way?
Please make up your mind, banning cops from having guns would be the equivalent of having a total ban. I have not talked anywhere about serving police officers being allowed or not to use guns.
How do you think democracy works? It stems from us. The more of us who support proposed regulations, the stronger chance they have of being implemented.
I agree, but you still have not said what you would like to see implemented.
ou said you never fired it, so it didn't need to have that function, did it? You scared them of without firing a single shot. Now who's contradicting themselves? Hint: it's you.
Again your failure to detail has led you astray.
[quote=] I have never fired it at anyone[/quote]
There is a slight but noticeable difference between firing a gun and firing at someone.
And let's be honest, do you really want any Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a firearm? I work in customer service, I know how stupid and emotional people can get. I'd rather be pepper sprayed than shot.
So now let's be honest. If your angry customer pulls his gun, which would you rather have? Hang on I'll pass the pepper spray so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
That's a big if, and a leading question that I reject. But as for what changes I propose, I answered that above.
I did not see any specific changes that you would like to see made to the laws, only general ideas. Not the same thing old chap. Or don't you have any ideas.
But in the meantime, let's have tighter regulation, like we have over here in the UK.
In what ways has having tighter actually reduced the amount of deaths by gun? The fact that it is almost impossible to buy a gun in England should also make it almost impossible to use one as a murder weapon, but they still get people killed by guns over there. The fact that England has never been a gun toting country actually makes any comparison to the US as invalid, there is just no statistics on gun crime reduction to compare to.
I suppose I should have expected a rant for that one.
So I guess that it was a pleasant surprise when you did not get one. I don't waste time with rants unless I specifically state that it is what I am doing.
My largely uninformed opinion is that most Texans are too fat to run around, and too stupid to advocate what is in their own best interest. But I don't write them off, I encourage anyone who is around to eat sensibly and advocate sensibly. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt their response if any.
And most of them do love their guns or their right to have them if they so wish to actually do anything like that.
Phew! For a moment there, I thought you were going to reproach me, but I'm glad you agree. After all, I've been the goddess of wisdom far longer than you've been a teacher.
Oh yeah, I'd love to have the right to bear arms. I think that'd be something I'd really enjoy. Then I could get all indignant at the thought of people taking it away from me. My precious! Leaves it alone, nasty hobbitses!
Yes you could, you might even need to tell them to leave it alone[s]. Would that be exciting.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2017 at 18:05#1115110 likes
And most of them do love their guns or their right to have them if they so wish to actually do anything like that.
One can fall out of love.
Here's a thing about rights. A right is always an infringement of liberty. Not many people know that. But your right to bear arms in some place is the negation of my right for that place to be arms free, just as my right to smoke in the cinema negates your right to be smoke free in the same place. My neighbour's right to party like it's 1999 in his own home negates my right to a quiet life in my home.
Now where I live in the UK, it is front page news in the local rag if a gun is seen, never mind fired in the town - even a policeman with a gun. I must say I like it that way.
Here's a thing about rights. A right is always an infringement of liberty. Not many people know that. But your right to bear arms in some place is the negation of my right for that place to be arms free, just as my right to smoke in the cinema negates your right to be smoke free in the same place. My neighbour's right to party like it's 1999 in his own home negates my right to a quiet life in my home.
I have had a couple of those problems myself with my uneducated football star neighbor. I know exactly what you mean about people not understanding the concept of rights, it is a very one sided point of view for them.
Now where I live in the UK, it is front page news in the local rag if a gun is seen, never mind fired in the town - even a policeman with a gun. I must say I like it that way.
That is one of the few things I miss about England and one of the things that put a lot of tourist off coming back here. All of the cops carry guns and it is quiet common to see fully armored officers patrolling the streets. If you have never heard about Honduras, look up the world crime statistics. San Pedro Sula, where I work is the #1, most unsafe, murder capital of the world. And I don't feel any safer seeing all the guns around.
The funny, but not amusing, thing about it all is that the government brought in a bunch of new laws, started a complete new branch of law enforcement using the military and there are still a bunch of dead people everyday.
But I do think that if the advocates of good sense are silent, then idiocy will prevail. That idiocy might well prevail anyway is no reason for not trying.
Translation: "I have good sense, and you're an idiot if you don't agree with my ideas."
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 05, 2017 at 18:39#1115160 likes
un, I read your entire post and Sir's response and I am wondering if you can expound upon the idea that "A right is always an infringement of liberty". I ask if you can because I would genuinely like to understand how that can be.
I'm not unsympathetic to your personal situation, and I would support a solution that would still allow someone like you to have a regular gun or rifle while having generally stricter controls and banning more dangerous weapons. I don't think that using medical marijuana makes you a danger to society in a way that you should be singled out like you were.
I appreciate your understanding my personal situation Baden, I really do and I think it is fair to say that you feel that way about me because you know me. I do wonder if you could extend that same understanding, to my fellow medical cannabis patients in Arizona's program which as of 2016 was 96k strong.
Gun ownership is mainly correlated with hunting, and as hunting has declined so has gun ownership in general. Gun sales have not declined, indicating that while gun ownership is generally about hunting, it isn't for everyone, and a few develop arsenals.
Interestingly though, support for gun permits and control has actually declined since the 1980s. Probably on account of the medias direct hold on the ol' amygdala, selling you shock and disgust at historic highs. It could also be that the only thing worse than arguing against a position is arguing for it poorly. PC culture got Trump elected no doubt too.
What Hanover is saying is that what Baden is saying is nonsense. None of us here bear responsibility for the Vegas' deaths. The guy with the gun bears 100% of the blame. Good luck to any murderer in defending himself in court in blaming society for having made the guns available to him.
I'm not saying, however, that there shouldn't be any gun control. I'm just disagreeing with the claim that we're all responsible for this as hyperbole.
I'm also saying if we're doling out collective blame, we must also blame those who haven't done anything to control gun usage for the murders. Bitching about it here without doing anything is equivalent to doing nothing at all.
Maybe this will clear up a few misconceptions about the Vegas killer.
Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said:
Paddock led "a secret life", building up weapons and planning the shooting for years
There is "evidence" Paddock may have intended to survive the shooting and escape
He is convinced others knew something about the attack
He is "troubled" that Paddock was able to move his huge arsenal of weapons into the hotel room on his own.
Now I ask again, what other restrictions and controls could have been put in place to stop this from happening?
Fair enough. Now has the enactment and enforcement of these laws made any measurable difference to the death by gun statistics?
Where would you get those statistics? The Office for National Statistics only seems to have available data relating to gun crime that goes back as far as the year ending March 2003, with cursory mention here and there of years from several decades back.
However, it does state that, in line with the large falls in the number of offences involving firearms recorded by the police since the year ending March 2003, there have generally been substantial decreases in all types of injury sustained resulting from these offences over this period.
There were 26 fatalities resulting from firearms offences, 7 higher than the previous year, the second lowest total since 1980; as in previous years, fatal injuries continue to constitute less than 1% of the total number of firearm offences.
Between the years ending March 2004 and March 2014, the number of offences involving firearms fell sharply from 24,094 to 7,729.
Please make up your mind, banning cops from having guns would be the equivalent of having a total ban.
No, logically, it would not. But that's beside the point, because that's not what I'm suggesting. You really need to learn the difference between regulation and banning. You should also read up on UK law enforcement. Our police don't carry firearms unless they're part of a firearm response unit. It's a rare sight to see over here, unlike in the US, where it's the norm. Whether that's regulation or practice, that should be the precedent.
I agree, but you still have not said what you would like to see implemented.
Yes, I have. I did that in my very first sentence. I didn't go into detail, but that's not the same thing. You are capable of looking it up yourself, are you not? Then do so. I'm not your teacher, sir. Please teach yourself.
So now let's be honest. If your angry customer pulls his gun, which would you rather have? Hang on I'll pass the pepper spray so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
I'd rather he wasn't armed in the first place, which is why I'm in favour of UK-style regulation as opposed to US-style. If he was armed with a firearm, he could shoot me dead from behind or at a distance or even directly in front of me before I even knew what was happening. You seem to be assuming that there'd be a pause long enough for me to react to his pulling a gun on me with a counter attack, and that I'd be capable of pulling it of successfully, which is a bit of a stretch.
If he sprayed me with pepper spray, on the other hand, I'd probably have sore eyes for a while.
Temporary sore eyes vs. dead. That's a toughie.
Besides, it isn't about what I'd rather have, it's about what is sufficient for self-defense, and what the cost would be of loosening present gun control enough for me to be carrying around a firearm.
I did not see any specific changes that you would like to see made to the laws, only general ideas. Not the same thing old chap. Or don't you have any ideas[?]
Or you want me to spoon feed you. Not gonna happen.
In what ways has having tighter [gun control] actually reduced the amount of deaths by gun?
I'm not a statistician. I don't have all of the answers. There's a limit to what I know or can look up, and I'm not the only one here capable of doing that.
The fact that it is almost impossible to buy a gun in England should also make it almost impossible to use one as a murder weapon, but they still get people killed by guns over there.
So? What's your point? Do you actually have one? Absolutes are rare, irrespective of what we happen to be talking about. That doesn't mean jack.
The fact that England has never been a gun toting country actually makes any comparison to the US as invalid, there is just no statistics on gun crime reduction to compare to.
It has, so it doesn't; and there are. Did you think it was just you yanks who used to meet for pistols at dawn? Where do you think you got that from?
So I guess that it was a pleasant surprise when you did not get one. I don't waste time with rants unless I specifically state that it is what I am doing.
Ah, I see. Rant denial. Let's just pretend it didn't happen then, shall we? You didn't even resort to all-caps. You were perfectly composed the whole time.
Gun ownership is mainly correlated with hunting, and as hunting has declined so has gun ownership in general. Gun sales have not declined, indicating that while gun ownership is generally about hunting, it isn't for everyone, and a few develop arsenals.
I myself find hunting a morally dubious activity, unless it's the primary means of one's survival, which obviously doesn't apply to most people living in the US. That said, I still support the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, and this is the justification the founders gave for the second amendment, not hunting.
You know, I had fish twice this week, and bought more, and it was the first time I had meat in about thirteen years. Thinking of going entirely predatory. It's impossible to not acquire someone's indignation, even God and Jesus get it. It isn't that valuable of a sentiment when so cheap.
The second amendmend has absolutely nothing to do with personal gun ownership. Though I'm not a fan of trying to foam pad the world because I'm afraid of everything. I think that stopping looking at the news is far more effective. Focusing on, and looking for every danger has the exact opposite effect of quelling our fears.
unenlightenedOctober 05, 2017 at 19:40#1115450 likes
I am wondering if you can expound upon the idea that "A right is always an infringement of liberty". I ask if you can because I would genuinely like to understand how that can be.
Well I gave a couple of examples. I can give some more. But in general, if there is a right to do X, then that negates the right not to have X done. If we all lived on separate planets, or even widely spaced ranches, we wouldn't be too bothered by what the neighbours do on their own ranch or planet, and it seems to me that the US is still in its imagination in the space where if you don't like what your neighbours are up to, you can head West and carve out your own space in the wilderness. The internet is still like that to an extent as this community has shown by changing from the old forum. But the more one is crowded together and cannot escape the neighbours, the more apparent it becomes that one man's freedom is another's tyranny. So if the second amendment were adopted here, it would end my right to walk about town without any concern that someone might have a gun. And as I said, I value that right quite highly.
Here's another example.
It all dates back to November 14th 1896, from just pass midnight that day, the "Locomotives on the Highway Act" came into force. Saturday 14th saw the first Run and it is now known as a red-letter day in the history of British motoring.
The Emancipation Run from London to Brighton celebrates the passing into law of the "Locomotives on the Highway Act", which raised the speed limit for 'Light Locomotives' from 4 miles per hour to 14 mph. This was reduced to 12 mph before the act come into force. The act abolished the requirement for the car to be preceded by a man on foot.
The need for the man on foot to carry a red flag had actually been abolished in 1878, but the Locomotive Act was still widely known as the 'Red Flag Act'.
Nowadays, it is taken for granted that one is entitled to propel great lumps of ironmongery containing highly flammable liquid at great speed along the public highway. The drovers have been forced off the roads with their flocks, children can no longer play safely in front of their own homes or even walk to school on their own, walking on country roads has become unpleasant and dangerous, cycling likewise. It is almost impossible to find a place anywhere in the country that is not impacted by traffic noise, the pollution is pretty bad and kills a great many people. Such is the freedom of the road.
I'm probably not going to start a campaign to reinstate the Red Flag Act, but I do find it frustrating that at every intersection, the road is continuous in both directions, but the sidewalk always ends. The freedom of the road means the restriction of the sidewalk. Shouldn't one be shocked that the right to walk unimpeded in public space is so curtailed? Isn't walking a God-given right?
Reply to Hanover On second thought, I blame only you. For everything that's wrong in the world.
Also, you owe Tiff an apology, because I fucked up and misquoted her, and now she's mad at me. (I might also have suggested that she's a mindless nationalist).
I am still not close to a place where I could eat, like something that I could imagine being cute as a baby without welling up...
Everything is just partisan identity. Politics, like the old joke about the religious polarization between Catholics and Protestants, and the atheist in the bar. A group of unknown Christians approach them and asks if they're Catholic or Protestant, so they reply "I'm an atheist", so they ask "a Catholic or Protestant atheist?".
People genuinely say "that sounds like conservative talk!" without batting an eye. If you look at the demographics of modern partisan issues in the past, they were not actually polarized along political lines, but everything seems like identity politics now, and issues are itemized along political lines. It isn't whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse (such things don't exist anymore), but whether left or right.
The Office for National Statistics only seems to have available data relating to gun crime that goes back as far as the year ending March 2003, with cursory mention here and there of years from several decades back.
Why do you think that the UK only has statistics since the year 2003. They were too lazy to work them out? Or could it be that there was not much to record before then? Or could it be that you don;t want to look for them. How long have gun restrictions been enforced in the UK? To prove that there has been any change, the reduction of gun related deaths, you would have to show the before and after numbers. Are these facts available? And please do not tell me to do the research. If you want me to believe that regulation is effective then you will have to show me the evidence. Actually they are available, but you have to look for them.
Yes, I have. I did that in my very first sentence. I didn't go into detail, but that's not the same thing. You are capable of looking it up yourself, are you not? Then do so. I'm not your teacher, sir. Please teach yourself.
Or you want me to spoon feed you. Not gonna happen.
I just finished Googling "What gun laws or restrictions would Sapientia like to see implemented"
I did not get a very sensible answer. Is that your fault or mine?
I'd rather he wasn't armed in the first place, which is why I'm in favour of UK-style regulation as opposed to US-style. If he was armed with a firearm, he could shoot me dead from behind or at a distance or even directly in front of me before I even knew what was happening.
So like I said if someone was going to kill it he would do it no matter the circumstances.
You seem to be assuming that there'd be a pause long enough for me to react to his pulling a gun on me with a counter attack, and that I'd be capable of pulling it of successfully, which is a bit of a stretch.
But if he attacked you with a knife there would be more time or that you would be more capable of counter attacking? The same thing applies no matter what the weapon, if you were attacked you would get hurt.
I'm not a statistician. I don't have all of the answers. There's a limit to what I know or can look up, and I'm not the only one here capable of doing that.
But you are the one saying that gun controls do work, so I presume that you at least know of some of the ways in which they have succeeded in changing things.
The point is, how come people are still getting killed with guns in England.
Here are some statistics from the UK.
2000/1 847 (of which 72 were caused by a gun / firearm) 764 14.4
2001/2 854 (of which 96 were caused by a gun / firearm) 793 15.2
2002/3 1041 (of which 80 were caused by a gun / firearm) 942 17.9
2003/4 852 (of which 68 were caused by a gun / firearm) 772 14.6
2004/5 834 (of which 76 were caused by a gun / firearm) 780 14.7
2005/6 764 (of which 49 were caused by a gun / firearm) 708 13.3
2006/7 749 (of which 56 were caused by a gun / firearm) 712 13.3
2007/8 772 (of which 53 were caused by a gun / firearm) 734 13.6
2008/9 668 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 640 11.8
2009/10 626 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 608 11.1
20010/11 648 (of which 58 were caused by a gun / firearm) 636 11.5
2011/12 553 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 9.8
1997 Act prohibited certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to
conceal.
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014, makes it unlawful to purchase, acquire or possess, without the authority of the
Secretary of State, any prohibited weapon or ammunition.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 goes even further in restricting gun use.
There are plenty of controls in England, and yes there has been a slight reduction in the number of gun deaths. But if it was the laws that had the effect, why did it not happen earlier? Is the law the only thing that helped to reduce the death by gun rate?
It has, it's not, and there are. Did you think it was just you yanks who used to meet for pistols at dawn? Where do you think you got that from?
" The fact that England has never been a gun toting country actually makes any comparison to the US as invalid, there is just no statistics on gun crime reduction to compare to". — Sir2u
You yourself have clearly stated that there are no guns being carried around in England, and as far back as I can remember there never has been a custom to do so. So why is England a gun toting country?
There are no gun crime reduction statistics in the US that prove that gun control works. there are statistics that show gun related deaths though they are not the same thing. I believe the same thing applies to the UK. I would be pleased to see the statistics that prove gun control works in the UK if you have a source.
Again the failure to pay attention to detail, I am not a yank, I lived(that is pasted tense) in the US. I was born in England.
Ah, I see. Rant denial. Let's just pretend it didn't happen then, shall we? You didn't even resort to all-caps. You were perfectly composed the whole time.
The all caps were an attempt to make sure you saw the question so that you would not be able to say "Oh I must have missed that" when pushed to give an answer. which you still have not done.
But it didn't need to be asked, so you wasted your time nevertheless.
Why do you think that I did not need to ask the question? The only way that I know of to get answers is by asking questions. How do you get answers? Or don't you bother to waste your time looking for answers?
And that doesn't matter, given that this is a discussion about gun control in general, as opposed to one particular case. Bigger. Picture. Look. At.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood from the beginning what we were discussing, you should have said from the get go that you thought we were talking about a specific case. Someone would have put you straight.
The only time specific cases have been mentioned is when they have been used as example to clarify a point.
But did you consider the results of that happening. Again How would that actually affect the gun deaths statistics? Would it really make any difference?
But did you consider the results of that happening. Again How would that actually affect the gun deaths statistics? Would it really make any difference?
On its own it wouldn't do anything (as I've said previously). But it would give the federal and state governments greater freedom to put in place stricter gun control laws.
I don't know if stricter gun control laws would make a difference, but common sense suggests that it would (if not also studies on countries that have introduced stricter gun control like the UK and Australia). If you can't buy a gun legally then it's going to be much harder to get a gun and shoot people. Obviously some people will find a way to get one illegally (or use other legally obtainable but probably less effective weapons), but then the same is true of fully automatics, grenades, and other weapons that are already illegal – but it's still good that they're illegal. And unlike other potentially deadly weapons like cars, knives, baseball bats, and the like, guns are specifically designed to hurt and kill people, and don't have a peaceful primary purpose (travel, cooking, sports, etc.).
I just don't think that the self-defence defence is sufficient to justify the free-availability of such dangerous tools. I feel (and believe I am) much safer in a country like the UK than I would be in any country with little to no gun control. I quite literally cannot fathom how anyone could think differently.
To prove that there has been any change, the reduction of gun related deaths, you would have to show the before and after numbers. Are these facts available? And please do not tell me to do the research. If you want me to believe that regulation is effective then you will have to show me the evidence. Actually they are available, but you have to look for them.
Yes, or, if you have that information, you could share it, like I shared my findings a little while ago.
I just finished Googling "What gun laws or restrictions would Sapientia like to see implemented"
I did not get a very sensible answer. Is that your fault or mine?
I suppose you think you're being witty, but it's obviously your fault, because you should have simply googled "UK gun law", based on what I already told you.
You might have done something different and maybe we would not be having this discussion now because you got killed. I am not going to risk that.
And I'm not going to risk the UK becoming like the US, where you can carry a gun around with far too few restrictions, and you can get yourself shot just walking down the street. I would do my utmost to fight against that if I thought that it was a serious prospect.
No Second Amendment over here, thanks. It's not welcome.
But if he attacked you with a knife there would be more time or that you would be more capable of counter attacking? The same thing applies no matter what the weapon, if you were attacked you would get hurt.
Okay, now it's my turn. What are the statistics relating to survival rates of gun shot wounds compared to those of stabbings?
But you are the one saying that gun controls do work, so I presume that you at least know of some of the ways in which they have succeeded in changing things.
They've obviously made it more difficult to obtain a firearm, which has in turn lead to less firearm related crime than there would have otherwise been. Even if you could show that this has in turn lead to a proportional sustained increase in other weapon related crime, which I doubt you can, that'd still be a net benefit on a like-for-like basis, as injuries sustained from a firearm are, on average, more severe, and have a lower survival rate.
The point is, how come people are still getting killed with guns in England[?]
That's a stupid point. Because, like I said, there are almost always exceptions, whatever it is we're talking about. The system, as with most systems, isn't foolproof. It would be unreasonable to expect it to be otherwise. All we can do is try our best.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It's an irritating distraction from sensible discussion.
Here are some statistics from the UK.
2000/1 847 (of which 72 were caused by a gun / firearm) 764 14.4
2001/2 854 (of which 96 were caused by a gun / firearm) 793 15.2
2002/3 1041 (of which 80 were caused by a gun / firearm) 942 17.9
2003/4 852 (of which 68 were caused by a gun / firearm) 772 14.6
2004/5 834 (of which 76 were caused by a gun / firearm) 780 14.7
2005/6 764 (of which 49 were caused by a gun / firearm) 708 13.3
2006/7 749 (of which 56 were caused by a gun / firearm) 712 13.3
2007/8 772 (of which 53 were caused by a gun / firearm) 734 13.6
2008/9 668 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 640 11.8
2009/10 626 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 608 11.1
20010/11 648 (of which 58 were caused by a gun / firearm) 636 11.5
2011/12 553 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 9.8
1997 Act prohibited certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to
conceal.
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014, makes it unlawful to purchase, acquire or possess, without the authority of the
Secretary of State, any prohibited weapon or ammunition.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 goes even further in restricting gun use.
You've just demonstrated that you could have answered your own questions. So why did you ask me them? I'm not here to be quizzed or tested. I'm not one of your pupils.
There are plenty of controls in England, and yes there has been a slight reduction in the number of gun deaths. But if it was the laws that had the effect, why did it not happen earlier? Is the law the only thing that helped to reduce the death by gun rate?
No, I think there were likely other factors which played into it. But that would require the right data as well as expert statistical analysis; and again, I'm not a statistician.
If you know more than I do, then kindly stop playing Socrates and cut to the chase.
You yourself have clearly stated that there are no guns being carried around in England, and as far back as I can remember there never has been a custom to do so.
Believe it or not, history extends further back in time than what you can remember from experience. Pistol dueling disappeared in England a long time before you were born. It began in the 18th century and fell out of fashion in the mid-19th century.
There are no gun crime reduction statistics in the US that prove that gun control works. There are statistics that show gun related deaths though they are not the same thing.
Those statistics are evidence that the controls in place, or rather lack thereof, do not work as well as those in other countries.
Again the failure to pay attention to detail, I am not a yank, I lived (that is pasted tense) in the US. I was born in England.
Yes, I realised that after I had made that comment, and I couldn't be bothered to go back and edit it. Plus, I figured you'd have already started to write your reply before I'd have the time.
And you have some nerve criticising me for attention to detail when you're no better.
The all caps were an attempt to make sure you saw the question so that you would not be able to say "Oh I must have missed that" when pushed to give an answer. which you still have not done.
Sure, sure. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I have no intention of answering that question.
Why do you think that I did not need to ask the question? The only way that I know of to get answers is by asking questions. How do you get answers? Or don't you bother to waste your time looking for answers?
Questions that you can answer yourself don't really need to be asked. That's common sense 101. If I wanted to know what the weather is like outside, I could ask you, or I could go and see for myself.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood from the beginning what we were discussing, you should have said from the get go that you thought we were talking about a specific case. Someone would have put you straight.
The only time specific cases have been mentioned is when they have been used as example to clarify a point.
Whatever. Let's just move on then. Would you like to rephrase your question to make clear it's general relevance to gun control, rather than the recent shooting in particular? Or, if your question was rhetorical, can you simply spell out your point, rather than do this the long way with all of the unnecessary back-and-forth?
But if he attacked you with a knife there would be more time or that you would be more capable of counter attacking?
I have training in defending against knife attacks. I don't have training in dodging bullets.
I think any sane person would rather a would-be attacker had a knife than a gun (although obviously the preference is no attacker at all, but as I've repeatedly been told, there are evil people who will try to kill regardless of what weapons are available to them).
I have training in defending against knife attacks. I don't have training in dodging bullets.
I think any sane person would rather a would-be attacker had a knife than a gun (although obviously the preference is no attacker at all, but as I've repeatedly been told, there are evil people who will try to kill regardless of what weapons are available to them).
I once accidentally walked in on my brother when he was in the bath. He's evil, so naturally he tried to kill me with a rubber duck. But what he didn't realise was that I'm evil too. His last words were, "No! Not the shampoo!".
This clever design transforms a semi-automatic into an automatic just by using the recoil of the gun bounce on your shoulder to fire away. What'll they think of next!
Damn I must be getting old, how could I have forgotten that only legislators have enough brains to come up with a decent idea.
No, I gave you a decent idea: basically, use the UK law as a template. That wasn't good enough for you, remember? You wanted me to get into laborious detail unnecessarily.
If there's something in the UK law that you object to, then I'm all ears.
Remember though that you're overwhelmingly more likely to get run down by someone being shocked and appalled by the latest mass murder headlines on their phone while driving than you are of getting killed by any mass murderer.
Yes, or, if you have that information, you could share it, like I shared my findings a little while ago.
You have shared no information to show that gun controls have reduced gun related deaths. And why should I try to find information to prove that you are right?
I suppose you think you're being witty, but it's obviously your fault, because you should have simply googled "UK gun law", based on what I already told you.
Questions that you can answer yourself don't really need to be asked.
I never asked for information about gun laws. I asked what you thought. When you told me to find out
myself I googled it.
The point is, how come people are still getting killed with guns in England[?]
Don't you just love correcting my errors. Unfortunately this one is correct.
Misusing a question mark:
Where the question asked is indirect, namely it implies a question instead of expressing it, or describes a question without actually asking it directly, there is no need for a question mark. For example:
We may expect word from you shortly.
He asked me why I was no longer skydiving.
She asked if she could leave her gift at the door.
I never asked the question, just implied the asking of it. I never expected an answer.
Would you like to rephrase your question to make clear it's general relevance to gun control, rather than the recent shooting in particular? Or, if your question was rhetorical, can you simply spell out your point, rather than do this the long way with all of the unnecessary back-and-forth?
Of course I would be glad to rephrase my question so as to make its meaning clear.
Does anyone have any evidence that gun control would have actually stopped any of the recent killings?
There, I think that should be clear enough.
While my question was not in any way rhetorical I will spell out the point that I want to make.
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.
I have training in defending against knife attacks. I don't have training in dodging bullets.
Lucky you, no sarcasm at all intend. I got the same for my daughter. But lucky you having that training when maybe 99% of the population does not. But you can and should run from both. Most attackers would not be able to do much if they had a knife and most would not be able to hit you if they had a gun.
I think any sane person would rather a would-be attacker had a knife than a gun (although obviously the preference is no attacker at all,
Have you ever seen a real live knife fight? If someone gets close enough to touch you he can kill you. And there is a lot to aim at that close in. At a short distance a knife can be thrown with a lot of damage being done. And a knife going into you guts is just as bad as a bullet but you will probably receive more wounds than with a gun because knife wounds come in unlimited numbers unlike bullets in a gun.
No, I gave you a decent idea: basically, copy what the UK has done. That wasn't good enough for you, remember? You wanted me to get into laborious detail unnecessarily.
I have asked how you think that it would help, because I don't really see how it has even had an effect in the UK.
If that is your idea of laborious detail, then I am sorry. Just forget it.
And why should I try to find information to prove that you are right?
That's not what I said though, is it? Why do you think that you can get away with subtly twisting my words and then redirecting the distorted version back at me in question form, whilst expecting me to answer as if they were my very own words?
I said that if you [I]have[/I] that information...
I never asked for information about gun laws. I asked what you thought. When you told me to find out
myself I googled it.
I find it hard to believe you could be this stupid. Rather, I think that you know exactly what you're doing, and you're just trying to teach me some kind of lesson. But the reality is that you're being illogical and needlessly obstructive.
I told you what I thought, multiple times. If I think that UK gun law should be used as a template for elsewhere, and you're after more detail, then all that you need to do is to google "UK gun law". You don't need me to do that for you then relay the information. It's called cutting out the middleman. You should try it some time.
The statistics tell us that we've likely been doing something right, otherwise the trend would go the other way, and it tells us that we're doing something right in comparison to other countries who have looser gun controls and higher numbers of gun related fatalities.
Don't you just love correcting my errors. Unfortunately this one is correct.
Misusing a question mark:
Where the question asked is indirect, namely it implies a question instead of expressing it, or describes a question without actually asking it directly, there is no need for a question mark. For example:
We may expect word from you shortly.
He asked me why I was no longer skydiving.
She asked if she could leave her gift at the door.
I never asked the question, just implied the asking of it. I never expected an answer.
That's amusing. You don't seem to understand what you're trying to teach me. Your question was unlike each of the examples that were given, which I agree do not need a question mark. Your question started with a "how", so should end with a question mark. That part at the beginning of your sentence doesn't change that. You asked me a question.
If each of the examples given were worded differently, they'd also require a question mark:
May we expect word from you shortly?
Why was I no longer skydiving?
Could she leave her gift at the door?
Your question is like the above. The point is, this is still a question, isn't it? Yes, it is.
Does anyone have any evidence that gun control would have actually stopped any of the recent killings?
Admittedly, this is from memory, but that doesn't look any different. Can you clarify what you mean by recent killings? At first I took you to be referring to the recent killings in the Las Vegas shooting, but that's just one particular case, and it is exceptional in ways compared to other shootings. If you're including other shootings, then yes, but not direct evidence, which, as unenlightened hinted at, can be difficult if not impossible to obtain, due to the nature of counterfactuals. If you don't factor that into your request for evidence, then you're being unreasonable.
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.
Okay, then where's [i]your[/I] evidence? You're in the same boat as me, old chap. That's a counterfactual. That you find it hard to believe is not evidence. And Michael expounded on why it can be a game changer. As far as I'm aware, you haven't refuted his counterargument.
I have asked how you think that it would help, because I don't really see how it has even had an effect in the UK.
If that is your idea of laborious detail, then I am sorry. Just forget it.
You weren't clear enough with your questions. You seemed to just be pressing me for more detail about what the proposal would consist in, which you could find out yourself by looking up UK gun law.
I think that it would lead to less firearm related crime, and I think that the statistics are evidence of this, but to truly test it you'd have to implement it over there and see what happens. All we can do is make predictions.
Here's an interesting finding related to gun regulation following a mass murder:
"A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun
restrictions by 75% in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no
significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature." http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-126_23dbdd9e-2135-4a5c-9979-cebc6b6492e4.pdf
What this means is that Republican legislatures take action in response to mass shootings and Democrat ones don't, thus proving that Baden and his ilk are murderers because they (1) they don't do shit in response to murders (ergo they're murderers), and (2) they know better, unlike Republicans, who are too religion crazed to know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Admittedly, this is from memory, but that doesn't look any different. Can you clarify what you mean by recent killings?
Yes it is the same, because I think that it was clear enough from the beginning. A plain and simple request for information should not be a big problem to understand.
No, because in the context of the thread it has been made perfectly obvious which killings are being discussed and why they were being discussed and I am not going to repeat myself.
I wanted to discuss whether any of gun control laws being more forcefully applied or even stricter laws would have had any effect on the gun killings.
Okay, then where's your evidence?
That you find it hard to believe is not evidence.
Since when do I have to provide evidence for my thoughts? I made a simple statement of belief that I never invited anyone to argue about. If you disagree, then the problem of providing evidence, the burden of proof, falls on. If you disagree with me then you have to prove me wrong.
Reply to Hanover Wait, what? Doesn't that mean that while Democrats do nothing, Republicans do the exact opposite of what they should be doing, thereby making matters worse? They actually [i]loosen[/I] gun controls significantly in response to a mass shooting?
You weren't clear enough with your questions. You seemed to just be pressing me for more detail about what the proposal would consist in, which you could find out yourself by looking up UK gun law.
I think that it would lead to less firearm related crime, and I think that the statistics are evidence of this, but to truly test it you'd have to implement it.
It has been tested, and the evidence is clear that the US is not part of the UK precisely because it had and continues to have superior weapons to the UK. Had the US listened to you, it would have regulated itself into continuing servitude to King George the whatever, which was likely your plan anyway. Fortunately we had people like George Washington who put a boat on the Delaware River and laid waste to your cockney gibberish talking forefathers. Now the world is our bitch. Eat that with your Sunday roast.
You weren't clear enough with your questions. You seemed to just be pressing me for more detail about what the proposal would consist in, which you could find out yourself by looking up UK gun law.
There are only 270 pages to read through so that I can get an idea of what you specifically mean, could you at least give me a page number to look at. There seems to be little difference between US gun laws and those of the UK. But I am not going to read the 240 pages of the US Federal gun laws as well.
Reply to Sapientia Well, "making matters worse" is your interpretation. The Republicans I suppose believe that their loosening restrictions offers the law abiding citizen access to self protection. While you may believe misguided, they are at least effectuating the change they believe warranted, unlike the Democrats who make no progress toward their proposed solution. Keep in mind, the study referenced Democrat controlled legislatures, meaning they had the power to make the change, but apparently they didn't want it.
It has been tested, and the evidence is clear that the US is not part of the UK precisely because it had and continues to have superior weapons to the UK. Had the US listened to you, it would have regulated itself into continuing servitude to King George the whatever, which was likely your plan anyway. Fortunately we had people like George Washington who put a boat on the Delaware River and laid waste to your cockney gibberish talking forefathers. Now the world is our bitch. Eat that with your Sunday roast.
Now that was cool.
Just one question, how do you know he is from London?
Reply to Sir2uAs far as I'm concerned, all English people speak cockney because that's how they sound in my head when I'm giving them an old fashion smack down in the forum de philosophie. Yeah, that's right, I just went French on their ass.
There are only 270 pages to read through so that I can get an idea of what you specifically mean, could you at least give me a page number to look at. There seems to be little difference between US gun laws and those of the UK. But I am not going to read the 240 pages of the US Federal gun laws as well.
That is not my problem. I'm advocating that the UK gun law, in its entirety, be used as a template for elsewhere. It might work, it might not, but based on the statistics, I reckon it works better than gun laws from elsewhere. If you want to delve into the finer details, then that's your prerogative, but stop trying to drag me into it.
As far as I'm concerned, all English people speak cockney because that's how they sound in my head when I'm giving them an old fashion smack down in the forum de philosophie. Yeah, that's right, I just went French on their ass.
I sir take offense to your highfalutin, obnoxious attitude. >:o
I am a proud Mancunian and find it distasteful in the extreme to be compared with a cockney. Oh the shame of it, you might just have well called me a scouse. ;)
I'm advocating that the UK gun law, in it's entirety, be used as a template for elsewhere. It might work, it might not, but based on the statistics, I reckon it works better than gun laws from elsewhere. I
OK, so I just did a quick search of some key points of the law that might make a difference.
Restrictions on the buying of guns is about the same between the 2 laws.
Restrictions on what can be bought are a little different but have little relevance to the topic. The buying of semi automatic weapons is the biggest difference here, but not being able to buy one has not stopped any killers before. Bans on large capacity magazines, that no longer exist in most states but do in the UK, have little effect as even an amateur can change one in seconds.
Where they can be sold, yes there is some difference about who can sell.
Reasons allowed for buying guns, basically the same.
I don't know what the difference might be that makes the UK laws better than the US laws.
Maybe the difference is not in the laws, but in the people. Maybe we need to change the people.
"In January 2016, President Obama issued a package of executive actions designed to decrease gun violence, notably a measure to require dealers selling firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and, in turn, conduct background checks of prospective buyers. Gun-control advocates hope these steps will help close existing legal loopholes that have allowed violent criminals and others to purchase weapons without FBI screening.
Additionally, he proposed new funding to hire hundreds more federal law-enforcement agents, and budgeting $500 million to expand access to mental health care. (Suicides, many by individuals with undiagnosed mental illnesses, account for about 60 percent of gun deaths.) The president said he was compelled to move on this issue under his own authority because Congress had failed to pass “common-sense gun safety reforms.”"
Ah, I missed the part where @Hanover said lots of crazy stuff about no-one being responsible for anything they support or don't support except me who started World War II and sheltered the Zodiac killer. Must be because I was doing something useful called sleeping (with Ted Cruz).
@ArguingWAristotleTiff Yes, I do support those people you mentioned. It sounds like unfair discrimination to me. And I'm sure if there was any gun control law that you truly thought would help to prevent such atrocities as the recent killing in Vegas while maintaining the rights of peaceful law abiding people like you, you would support it. So, I don't think we're all that far apart in spirit.
I'm not, but only just. I'm to the immediate northeast of London, in the wonderful land of Essex.
Just goes to show, you cannot trust those bloody yanks. Lying buggers all of them.
Er, what was that about wonderful sex. OK I see it now with my glasses on.
That was actually something I got asked a lot while living in the US, why are there so many sexes in England. There are even more now though.
Anyhoot, so, what happened was on Wednesday I stuffed up at work, did a major booboo to the dismay of my manager who, on Thursday, appeared to doubt my reputation as a highly intelligent and articulate cutie-pie. Thus, Thursday night I was stressed and agitated and took it out on everyone. I couldn't sleep and so I plotted and plotted and spent the entire evening creating a sophisticated cloud-based tool that would simplify the workload of so many people that by Friday lunchtime, the entire state congratulated and praised my new tool.
SAVED! 8-)
Yeah. Well, great chatting to you all. I just finished lunch. It was ok.
Anyhoot, so, what happened was on Wednesday I stuffed up at work, did a major booboo to the dismay of my manager who, on Thursday, appeared to doubt my reputation as a highly intelligent and articulate cutie-pie. Thus, Thursday night I was stressed and agitated and took it out on everyone. I couldn't sleep and so I plotted and plotted and spent the entire evening creating a sophisticated cloud-based tool that would simplify the workload of so many people that by Friday lunchtime, the entire state congratulated and praised my new tool.
And that is a fine example of a finely controversial posting.
It contains sexist comment, violence, conspiracy, frivolous self praise, unsolicited personal information and sexual innuendos.
Bloody marvelous.
I messed up at work too. I supported a new university rule that allowed students to carry bazookas on campus. Luckily, I don't bear any responsibility at all for the large crater that used to be the teaching building. 'Cos Hanover said so. Oh, sweet liberty!
I messed up at work too. I supported a new university rule that allowed students to carry bazookas on campus. Luckily I don't bear any responsibility at all for the large crater that used to be the teaching building. 'Cos Hanover said so. Oh, sweet liberty!
No, if you supported them you are responsible.
Why did you not just keep your mouth shut when you agreed to what they were doing, then no one could have blamed you. Better still, help pay for the bazooka on the quiet or donate it anonymously and then tell them loudly not to use it.
It would be awesome if you actually quoted me rather than stretch the facts to meet your needs.
I have NEVER, EVER said I have owned a firearm. Full stop. Logic would tell you that if I have never had them, it would make it pretty hard for me get them "back".
I would appreciate it if you make that correction in your mind and when speaking about me.
I don't want a weak apology, I just want it to be the LAST time that you state such bullshit about me.
I can't believe I've only just noticed this, but I was going back over the discussion, and it turns out that I wasn't the only one to be mistaken here.
So, here I am, actually quoting you, Tiff. You said the following:
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.
Saying that they're after your current guns implies that you currently have guns for them to take. And saying that they're yours implies that you own them. Logic would tell you that if you currently have them, then that would make it pretty hard never to have had them.
I would appreciate it if you checked what you yourself have said before reproaching me for misquoting you, and I would also appreciate it if you didn't stretch the facts to meet your needs, which is what you criticised me for doing.
And that is a fine example of a finely controversial posting.
It contains sexist comment, violence, conspiracy, frivolous self praise, unsolicited personal information and sexual innuendos. Bloody marvelous.
Your mind is but small, child, for you missed the brilliance of my masked helplessness that covers a gleaming will of iron.
Yeah that's really terrible. I remember after it fell through I was annoyed whenever I tried to look back for things, I had to search on Google, find the thread, and then use the Wayback machine... But soon after you couldn't even use Google to find the pages, cause Google had updated its cache. So then it became impossible to check for anything on the site, so I pretty much abandoned it.
Your mind is but small, child, for you missed the brilliance of my masked helplessness that covers a gleaming will of iron.
I missed it not, for my senses are so finely tuned that I sense even your inner secrets. Your helplessness is nothing more than clouds in your mind that are caused by your insecurity. Your failure to uncover the will of iron is caused by your desire to remain unnoticed, a wallflower.
It's a shame that you couldn't import all the discussions of the old PF and feed it some machine learning software with deep neural nets to have a cyber-philosopher like Mod-Bot.
The only problem would be to value some answers over others.
I think Paul does have all the content of PF backed up somewhere ;) - only if we could get our hands on it.
On a serious note, I think it's worth investing to bring back the content of that forum back online. I'm not suggesting we revive the old PF, just that there are countless threads that have answered many of the questions here by some really good people. It would be a waste to not do anything about it, no? I miss reading some posts made by Postmodern Beatnik or Gassendi1.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 06, 2017 at 15:57#1118880 likes
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.
— ArguingWAristotleTiff
You are accurate in that I used the words "my current guns" and I should have said "our current guns". I , party of one, was trying to convey how a medical cannabis patients rights have been taken away and to what degree the Federal government is carrying out that infringement of our rights.
So let me clarify for you: if you are a patient in the medical cannabis program you are by law, no longer able to possess, purchase or own a firearm, which is an infringement on our rights.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 06, 2017 at 16:01#1118900 likes
Reply to Baden I think we are closer in spirit and I appreciate your understanding.
On a serious note, I think it's worth investing to bring back the content of that forum back online. I'm not suggesting we revive the old PF, just that there are countless threads that have answered many of the questions here by some really good people. It would be a waste to not do anything about it, no? I miss reading some posts made by Postmodern Beatnik or Gassendi1.
The issue is that in the sales agreement, I think Paul sold the site with all its content as well, so technically he cannot give that content away or sell it now without the agreement of Porat.
What was special about Gassendi1? Lots of people seem to be talking about him, but I never was on the site when he was around, so I have no idea about him.
If I remember correctly, he was a professor and grad student from an ivy league school, Princeton if I'm not mistaken. Just reading his posts you knew that he knew what he was talking about. It was hard to argue with him due to his stature, and that's supposedly what got him banned.
I joined PF after he was banned. But, I read some of his posts. I can't recall any specific details as my memory extending from a dialectical method never had the chance to participate with him. He died around 2011 thereabouts I think, his obituary is online somewhere.
Reply to darthbarracuda Not come across him before. But checking his site, he certainly seems sound on epistemic principles and approaches to causal modelling. I'm liking the first couple of papers I'm reading.
Reply to apokrisis Okay, he has some books on philosophy of biology so I figured you might have run across him before.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 07, 2017 at 00:55#1120270 likes
Cheers my friends for we are fortunate to have the time to ponder and debate with passion and peace. Raising a glass to long time friendships and the sincere hope that they continue to grow stronger through the years ~ (L)
I am cat-sitting for a friend. I never really liked cats because of their natural inclination to slaughter wildlife, but he clearly wants my affection that I have been refusing to give. The midget is now sitting at the end of my bed staring at me with those damned cute cat eyes that I am feeling a little fuzzy.
Reply to Sapientia I don't know that anybody can understand the gun control debate -- Americans included -- without understanding the difference between the long history of "ordinary gun use" (hunting, mostly) and the concerted and long-term efforts of the National Rifle Association to normalize guns in all private and public settings. They embarked on this campaign in 1977, when there was a coup d'etat at the NRA by conservatives to take over the NRA organization.
It isn't clear to me why normalizing guns in all public and private settings (churches, schools, day care centers, operating rooms, hospitals, bedrooms, etc.) was even a remotely worthwhile goal. That's the hard part to understand.
British people think they know America – but the gun control debate shows how little we do
Another attempt to explain the problem and offer someone else controls as a solution before admitting that she has no idea of the solution. And it is another useless piece of journalism.
The only thing that she said that makes any sense is the title.
If the gun laws were responsible for bringing down the number of homicides, why do none gun related murders also go down drastically?
Could it be that without guns no one wants to kill anyone.
Could it be that without guns no one wants to kill anyone.
Urgh. In my world, rhetorical questions are questions, and questions need a question mark. It just doesn't look right. It's like you're trying to help the reader recognise that it's rhetorical, but I don't need your help.
I know what I'm going to use my MoivePass for these coming weeks.
Spoiler:
[hide]At the end of the movie you realize that replicants and humans are no different from each other.[/hide]
Urgh. In my world, rhetorical questions are questions, and questions need a question mark. It just doesn't look right. It's like you're trying to help the reader recognise that it's rhetorical, but I don't need your help.
In my world we don't waste our time criticizing other people grammar when the content of the writing is what is important.
It is not a question, not rhetorical not a simple question. It is a statement of what I think.
In my world we don't waste our time criticizing other people grammar when the content of the writing is what is important.
But in my world, it's an obsession, and my behaviour towards it is compulsive. It's like if you were to wear your shirt backwards or repeatedly poke me in the arm. It's hard to ignore.
Eight hours, although they always want you to stay like three hours longer, but that's dumb, so the most they usually get out of me extra is like half hour, forty five minutes.
Reply to Baden Talking about work, I just finished my first international job application. It takes a while, apparently, so may as well start from now. I want to go back to Israel :’(
Reply to Michael There are a number of factors, but indeed proxy-wars and post-colonialism impacts on the sharp increases in terrorism in those regions.
The initial expression of protest by Colin Kaepernick in response to a rash of shootings of black men by white police officers was not a personal issue. The mass incarceration of black and brown people in the US is not a personal issue.
Taking a knee during the national anthem isn't hijacking a ball game. It only lasts a few minutes and is easily ignored, if you choose to ignore it.
Notice how you frame the situation using the phrase "Millionaire entertainers." Why is their wealth significant if the issue is that they selfishly disrupted your entertainment? It's important because Trump's base is motivated by the notion that the underclass is supplanting their socioeconomic position.
StreetlightOctober 09, 2017 at 04:15#1126930 likes
Yes, the protest is extremely mild. They are kneeling silently or linking arms or sitting on the sidelines. Not burning flags, not shouting, not waving placards. The fact that even this level of protest is considered so objectionable the President feels the need to condemn it highlights something paradoxical about the idea of American individualism. I guess you have to be a black man kneeling in silent dignity rather than a white nationalist shouting anti-semitic slogans to raise the ire of the American administration these days. That's not a sign of progress.
The mass incarceration of black and brown people in the US is not a personal issue.
It's personal to him. I suppose each player could bring a poster and bring attention to his equally valid complaint, from ending domestic abuse to better caring for our children. I mean what's a more logical venue than a football game for airing grievances?
Taking a knee during the national anthem isn't hijacking a ball game. It only lasts a few minutes and is easily ignored, if you choose to ignore it.
That's your opinion only because you don't share my view regarding the significance of the national anthem. If you think the kneeling players don't realize the significance, you're terribly naive. Quoting praxis
Notice how you frame the situation using the phrase "Millionaire entertainers." Why is their wealth significant if the issue is that they selfishly disrupted your entertainment?
It's significant because there's some hypocrisy in hearing a coddled, privileged athlete talk about his limitations in American society.Quoting praxis
It's important because Trump's base is motivated by the notion that the underclass is supplanting their socioeconomic position.
The opposition to the protests has nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with an unpatriotic act. You might think patriotism is stupid, but this is not some paranoid reaction by white people to black success.
I share in the opinion of all your lectures about the horrors of racism, but disagree entirely the matter is properly or at all effectively addressed during the national anthem of a football game. The cause of those kneelings is not advanced a single yard by their actions, and in fact, it's likely losing yardage.
If it's just a song, sure. If it's not, maybe not.
To be clear, though, you're making an argument I doubt the protestors would accept. They do think what they're doing is radical, but I get that you don't get American patriotism. Like American religiosity, Europeans can't wrap their heads around it.
StreetlightOctober 09, 2017 at 12:21#1128530 likes
Yeah, American patriotism is insane. It's basically cartoon patriotism more concerned about symbols and bright colors than it is the betterment of its society. But then again America is a queer nation, a sociological eccentricity best handled with gloves and a set of industrial forceps.
They do think what they're doing is radical, but I get that you don't get American patriotism. Like American religiosity, Europeans can't wrap their heads around it.
We can agree to disagree on stuff we come at from radically different angles. But I would have thought even American patriots would find something distasteful in Trump branding these protesters "sons of bitches" while playing softball with their white nationalist counterparts.
Reply to Hanover
Your objections sound reasonable to me. Nevertheless, where was the nationalistic outrage before Trump created it? Just out of curiosity, can you see it as a populist tactic?
Reply to Baden I gave myself one hour of sleep after that debate on gun control the other day. I then worked a nine hour shift. I'm working those shifts six days a week.
But I would have thought even American patriots would find something distasteful in Trump branding these protesters "sons of bitches" while playing softball with their white nationalist counterparts.
That assumes anyone other than the left spends significant time itemizing the inconsistencies of Trump. Such are obvious. It might surprise you to know those offended by the football protests were offended prior to and without regard to Trump's comments. He's background noise on this issue, although I realize demonizing the anti-protestors as Trump zombies makes them easier to attack.
Yeah, American patriotism is insane. It's basically cartoon patriotism more concerned about symbols and bright colors than it is the betterment of its society.
Like I said, I don't expect you to wrap your mind around it.
Nevertheless, where was the nationalistic outrage before Trump created it? Just out of curiosity, can you see it as a populist tactic?
We've moved from patriotic to nationalistic pretty quickly. Next post maybe we can be fascists.
Trump created nothing. He chimed in to a pervasive preexisting sentiment. Trump doesn't lead. He identifies sentiment and brashly repeats it. If aligning yourself with your constituency is a tactic, then I guess it is.
Keep in mind that the kneelers consider themselves patriotic as well. They believe they are fighting for American values.
Perhaps we should build a monument out of nothing, consisting entirely of nothing, to honour this great achievement of his.
But of course, it isn't true. At the very least, he has created controversy. He thrives on it. You basically have the male version of Katie Hopkins as your president.
That assumes anyone other than the left spends significant time itemizing the inconsistencies of Trump. Such are obvious. It might surprise you to know those offended by the football protests were offended prior to and without regard to Trump's comments. He's background noise on this issue, although I realize demonizing the anti-protestors as Trump zombies makes them easier to attack.
Yes, let's frame it as an "inconsistency" because then it sounds harmless and normal, not like your president calling you "sons of bitches" for legitimately protesting while sucking up to Nazis. But I know, you can't talk straight about him because he's on your side. Boring.
Trump's feud with the NFL is a distraction, he is attempting to focus the public on a symbolic issue and turn it away from his own ineptitude as president, his inability to get any meaningful legislation passed, as well as the scandalous actions of his cabinet picks, his crude treatment of the Puerto Rico's crisis, his own families antics, and the special prosecutor investing the Russian connection. His own Secretary of State reportedly called Trump a "fucking moron", and then was forced to hold a press conference, where he did not deny the alleged comment but called Trump smart...rex rolled over, good boy.
Trump's feud with the NFL is a distraction, he is attempting to focus the public on a symbolic issue and turn it away from his own ineptitude as president, his inability to get any meaningful legislation passed, as well as the scandalous actions of his cabinet picks, his crude treatment of the Puerto Rico's crisis, his own families antics, and the special prosecutor investing the Russian connection
Him attempting that presumes it's a tactic. He seems to be too impulsive to let this be the result of political planning. I suspect he really is disturbed about whatever is going on in the NFL. I have no clue. Maybe someone can explain it.
I think he is disturbed to some degree. But he's a populist through and through and this strategy has been fairly consistent and successful for him since he got involved in politics. It's also very easy. Appeal to patriotism, religion, nationalism, fear etc. He could probably just continue to do that and get the right and the whites in the rust belt to reelect him again while losing the popular vote again. In fact, that's probably his basic plan. I expect the theme to continue to repeat. The detail of the administration's policies I don't think matter to him. It's all about optics: Look at me, look at me, look at me...
unenlightenedOctober 10, 2017 at 15:18#1134270 likes
What's the difference between a populist and a democrat?
not like your president calling you "sons of bitches" for legitimately protesting
Imagine the language used by the athletes to describe Trump. This only proves that they're both on about the same level with respect to being couth. Lebron James called Trump a "bum" recently, for example.
unenlightenedOctober 10, 2017 at 20:20#1134890 likes
This only proves that they're both on about the same level with respect to being couth
What's couth is relative to context. Used to be that the office of President called for higher standards of dignity than the office of random football player. I guess those days are gone. Another triumph for Trump.
Sorry, I was dreaming of living on my own island where I am king of nothing.
The picture is a painting by David Hockney called A Bigger Splash. I like it because it reminds of the time where I used to live in North Hollywood in peace and tranquility and would like to live back there again. I like the peaceful isolation you can find in the North Hollywood canyons along with the modernist houses in that area. You have an awesome view on L.A. from there and it's almost an idyllic and carefree life if you can afford to live there.
Has anyone heard of pregnenolone? It basically cancels out the negative effects of THC on cognition and psychoactivity. I don't feel dumbed down or stupefied by the THC when combined with a prior dosage of pregnenolone, but it leaves the elevation of dopamine levels intact so that I can focus on some task.
No issues with abuse or pleasure seeking from drugs like Ritalin and Adderall.
I was watching a documentary the other day about the widespread prescribing of opiate pain killers in the US and the ensuing addiction problems leading to heroin abuse. Your doctors and your pharmaceutical companies are murdering you.
Drugs, drugs, drugs,
Buy 'em, smoke 'em, snort 'em, eat 'em
Drugs, drugs, drugs
When you're down, pop a pill
When you're up, drink a spill
Drugs, drugs, drugs
Drugs, drugs, drugs
Let's get better, let's get ill
Let's get more 'til we've had our fill
Drugs, drugs, drugs,
Buy 'em, smoke 'em, snort 'em, eat 'em
Drugs, drugs, drugs
I'm not sure, is that intended is a reference to those of us who use, including PmcP and me, prescription drugs to treat psychological issues? I can tell you from personal experience, they can make a big difference in our lives.
It will be interesting when and if something suitably awful befalls him. The fact that he sent out a tweet to say he's doing fine and he's playing kiss kiss with his fellow criminals isn't exactly making my novelty circuits explode.
No, but I expect he will try to keep the spotlight on himself because he appears to be a classic narcissist (rather like Trump in this respect). I'm just not apt to believe almost anything he says about himself. People like him tend to view the world as being made up of two types, people like him and suckers/chumps i.e. everyone else, and I get the impression he enjoys constantly reminding himself of this.
People like him tend to view the world as being made up of two types, people like him and suckers/chumps i.e. everyone else, and I get the impression he enjoys constantly reminding himself of this.
Well, philosophers tend to view the world as being made of the hoi polloi and themselves too. So that's not that unheard of either.
No. Although I have no objection to the decision. @Michael deleted it. Feel free to PM him about it. I'm sure he'll be able to give you an explanation.
(I might mention we don't have a casual philosophyesque area as they did in the old PF, so there is no where else to put it if it's not actually scientific.)
It's not the topic but the specific approach that matters, but if you want to debate whether it was scientific or not, you can open a feedback discussion and we'll post the OP there. @Michael's judgement was that it wasn't and it didn't seem to be to me either.
(By the way, I'm not saying you should open a feedback discussion just that if you are unhappy about the decision, it's an option).
Narcissistic personality disorder is a recognized psychological condition, which is what I was referring to.
Yes, just because it is "recognized" doesn't mean that it's a right recognition. Narcissism isn't a psychological condition, it's just an (unconscious) strategy, which is actually not that different from me and you.
No, but if it's presented as science, it should be scientific not purely speculative. But I'm not going to debate it any further in the Shout box. All I want to say is we are not trying to shut you or new ideas down. We simply have to delineate what does and doesn't fit in a particular discipline. For more details, please address @Michael.
It'll do. Just cut it up nicely into small squares in the morning and let the awkward expressions as they crunch through it during morning tea break at the meeting tomorrow begin!
I've been curious to get my hands on that one for awhile actually, it's apparently a good business book, but very rare. And too expensive to buy. You have to be a bit crazy to pay more than $20 for a book.
One time actually, there were a lot of cheap copies on Amazon of it, for like $12. I ordered 8 of them that time with the hope of re-selling 7 of them at a more expensive price >:) . Unfortunately, :’( - none of them arrived as the order couldn't be fulfilled anymore, so Amazon refunded me...
One time actually, there were a lot of cheap copies on Amazon of it, for like $12. I ordered 8 of them that time with the hope of re-selling 7 of them at a more expensive price >:) . Unfortunately, :’( - none of them arrived as the order couldn't be fulfilled anymore, so Amazon refunded me...
But seriously, that book is quite legendary apparently.
unenlightenedOctober 12, 2017 at 20:17#1141870 likes
Seems to me we need an idiots guide to pseudoscience.
Here's an idiots guide to the methodology of science. Take a look around; measure shit, kick it, measure again. Explain.
And here's the methodology of pseudoscience. Don't bother looking, don't bother measuring, don't bother kicking and re-measuring. Instead explain why previous explanations don't work because [insert large pile of words].
The pile of words in question can also, in the last resort be designated 'philosophy' where 'philosophy' means a pile of words that obliges the world to behave according to doctrine.
About once in a hundred years or two, someone actually comes up with a better explanation than all the thousands of lookers, kickers and measurers have thought of. Usually they are shit hot mathematicians with odd names like Einstein, or Newton, or something, and they very rarely post their findings on philosophy forums, because people like us are too stupid to understand them. Accordingly, it is quite safe to say that anyone seeking to transform the understanding of basic science on a philosophy forum rather than a science forum is a complete bullshitting tosser who ought to be banned forthwith.
Reply to Hanover I went to university and became apolitical. Now I have an awesome job, travel the world, and am for the most part happy. Isn't that what an education is supposed to do?
I went to university and became apolitical. Now I have an awesome job, travel the world, and am for the most part happy. Isn't that what an education is supposed to do?
Do you have a awesome job because of your education or because you became apolitical? :)
Wait, that's a childish insult? Sounds more like an intriguing proposition. "Pacifist", though, I take issue there. I'm a pacifist myself; what; you too much of a pussy to be pac-y?
I think it's an inherent trait of mankind to want war. Anyone else would call me a Nazi due to their beliefs as a result of social conditioning.
As we speak I'm talking with a friend about whether eugenics is a moral evil. I don't think so, and that's just the natural thing to do as a rational being to ensure the best possible life for your child. Whether we like it or not, it's going to be a reality. It's just that the Nazis made the concept repugnant.
Least amount of chance to have the typical genetic predisposition towards all the biological and psychiatric issues due to genetics? Along with having a higher than average IQ.
How exactly did they go about making it repugnant?
By projecting their concerns of an inferior race occupying their territory at the time, and with that building so much hate and resentment that they got away within the same population to eliminating them ad hoc.
Least amount of chance to have the typical genetic predisposition towards all the biological and psychiatric issues due to genetics? Along with having a higher than average IQ.
So what makes those things "best possible"? Best against what? What measures best/worst? What gives best/worst their context?
By projecting their concerns of an inferior race occupying their territory at the time, and with that building so much hate and resentment that they got away within the same population to eliminating them ad hoc.
So that was morally ok/not ok? (just in context of your initial comment)
But, yeah, I'm tired of pissing contests. Can we just resolve the issue by force?
It’s late for me, I’m tired, and am bordering on seeing Fight Club again. So, do you recommend fists, knives, guns, bazookas, tanks, or hydrogen bombs? Some I'm pretty sure will outweigh advantage over others in terms of force. And, must there be rules? Oh, and if we US citizens don't have the cash for any of the just mentioned, can we get the US government to entrust us with borrowing them, given the second amendment?
So what makes those things "best possible"? Best against what? What measures best/worst? What gives best/worst their context?
I think a reduction in suffering and an increase in happiness could be a reasonable thing? As in, reducing the chances of a being having an illness or disease and increasing their chances at being successful, by increasing their IQ.
Well, we've reached a point where fighting has become a road to complete and utter annihilation for most nuclear-capable nations. Fists have turned into knives and knives have turned into guns and guns have turned into hydrogen bombs. So, I don't know how humanity is going to release the pressure valve without resorting to complete annihilation.
Can you substantiate that through use of the PSR? Or are we to rely on quantum reasoning?
There are some things that go beyond the power of reason alone, such as predispositions and traits of people in general. You can't model that in a computer it's emergent phenomena.
Obviously, genocide against an ethnic group is a moral evil, I find it odd you asking me that?
I was trying to point out that the Nazis made it morally repugnant because it was morally repugnant by nature; I guess I did a bad job of making that argument.
I was trying to point out that the Nazis made it morally repugnant because it was morally repugnant by nature; I guess I did a bad job of making that argument.
Somehow they convinced a nation to do so, though. Oh, the paradox!
So, is this an argument, now? I'd like to hear your argument for anti-Nazi eugenics.
No arguments, just facts. If they managed to convince a highly educated nation (albeit poor) on the basis of hate, prejudice, malice, and resentment, doesn't that speak about human nature at its core, no matter how educated one can be?
You would think more Jews would move out of the country and surrounding countries at the time. Sadly, they put too much faith in humanity at the time or didn't have anywhere to go to.
Can’t get anywhere these days without taking that first step. Walking is good. (As to the Fuhrer thing, there's a NIN song about that: something about getting what one deserves after bowing down to the one one serves ... Head like a Hole, I think. But we all serve something or other.)
No arguments, just facts. If they managed to convince a highly educated nation (albeit poor) on the basis of hate, prejudice, malice, and resentment, doesn't that speak about human nature at its core, no matter how educated one can be?
Right, a modernist worldview was prevalent at the time; the idea was that some sort of utopia was somehow palpably on the horizon; and what exactly lead to that misconception?
Right, a modernist worldview was prevalent at the time; the idea was that some sort of utopia was somehow palpably on the horizon; and what exactly lead to that misconception?
I don't really know. I guess national socialism is a really appealing concept if you're down in the dumps. I can't say I can put my foot in their shoes. Half of what the NSDAP said was just to appeal to the general public. As far as I remember, everyone got a car after the NSDAP got in power along with a people's radio to listen to what the Fuhrer had to say.
One thing stands out though, and it's this:
How did the NSDAP turn around Deutschland from utter poverty and destitute from the conclusion of WWI to near world domination, in the span of 10-15 years? It's really something that ought to get explored more in detail and speaks volumes about the power of belief and the will.
Me neither, but that's why I read posts from folks like Reply to Wayfarer, read the history that I have time for, and reserve judgement as best as I can when I make posts here.
How did the NSDAP turn around Deutschland from utter poverty and destitute from the conclusion of WWI to near world domination, in the span of 10-15 years? It's really something that ought to get explored more in detail ...
You may be surprised to learn that this has been quite thoroughly explored by historians.
Reply to Sir2u A real education is what made me apolitical. It also made me way too ambitious. What I have managed to do in the last two years is pretty much unheard of that I feel like:
Seems to me we need an idiots guide to pseudoscience.
— unenlightened
Have you read Feyerabend's Against Method?
Today's science is yesterday's pseudoscience ;)
So come back tomorrow. Feyerabend has some observations and a theory, which makes him non-pseudo, but his theory is not at all that it is worth reading and discussing crank-erry and bullshit. That we are not as smart and sensible as we think we are does not make an argument for being as idiotic as we can be.
So come back tomorrow. Feyerabend has some observations and a theory, which makes him non-pseudo, but his theory is not at all that it is worth reading and discussing crank-erry and bullshit. That we are not as smart and sensible as we think we are does not make an argument for being as idiotic as we can be.
No, but it does make an argument for scientific anarchy and allowing crankery even if you don't approve of it or engage in it. Novel and correct scientific discoveries may, sometimes unwittingly, emerge from crankery.
Reply to Posty McPostface There is something very peculiar in the blood of certain nations. It seems to be in their nature to be powerful for some reason. Even if they get completely obliterated, give them a few decades and they'll be back on top. Look at Germany in the EU today...
Germany economy didn't only recover very rapidly after World War I to the point that Germany almost took over the whole world, but also after World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
The same can be said about China. China was nothing when Mao took over and immediately afterwards. Now they are almost undisputed boss in Asia.
Some countries have always been powerful, and seem to have a tendency towards being powerful.
Our Eastern European countries - including your country - :’( - seem to have a tendency towards being poor regardless of how lucky they get.
Not really. I'm not suggesting some racial tendency because China and Germany for example both display this trait, and they are formed of different races (for the most part).
It can be a national trait, but it's very strange to say it is a national trait - what else is the nation if not the sum of the people who live there? The mystery is why some nations tend towards being rich and powerful, while others persist in poverty...
Yeah, reminds me of Hegel and his theory of development and stable government. Poland has had a long history of poor governance and the elite being eliminated by other powers or suppressed (think Katy? and what Stalin did to Poland when they had the Warsaw uprising and leaving the resistance to die out of lack of ammunition and support just so that he didn't have to deal with them to incorporate them into one of his satellite countries).
However, I do think there's more to Germans and Japan and China than meets the eye, meaning that I think there's a very strong ethos towards work and contributing to society and paying your fair share. But, then there are some exemptions to the rule.
One common example I ask my libertarian friend is why are Scandinavian countries so well developed if they embrace socialism to a larger extent than the US?
Too many factors to give a reasonable explanation as to why some countries just are better off than others.
In essence, some countries (speaking about the population) just don't care about positivism or growth or being technologically advanced, and that's fine by me. It would be a boring world if every country valued the same things. From my personal experience, I loved the people who valued other things than what I mentioned. Drinking vodka and enjoying the companionship of good friends around a bonfire was what made me happy back when I lived in Poland for around seven years.
By projecting their concerns of an inferior race occupying their territory at the time, and with that building so much hate and resentment that they got away within the same population to eliminating them ad hoc.
No arguments, just facts. If they managed to convince a highly educated nation (albeit poor) on the basis of hate, prejudice, malice, and resentment, doesn't that speak about human nature at its core, no matter how educated one can be?
There are plenty of facts which suggest that the German nation did not need much convincing that the Jews were inferior and a problem which needed to be dealt with. That was a widespread belief in Germany long before the Nazis came along.
If you're interested, I would recommend the book [i]Hitler's Willing Executioners[/I].
Reply to Sapientia But it should be noted that antisemitism wasn't consistently spread across German society, being found mostly in the professional middle class and most of all among "small businessmen, shopkeepers, artisans and peasant farmers" (Richard Evans). The industrial working class, organized in trade unions associated with the socialist and communist parties, was relatively immune to antisemitism. (I hope I'm not just saying that because I'm a nostalgic leftist)
StreetlightOctober 13, 2017 at 10:02#1143830 likes
Ahhh, there's something so intellectually satisfying about the fact that Niels Bohr once wrote of a kind of duality between 'light and life', insofar as attempts to view living organisms under the microscope (in his time), at a certain resolution, inevitably meant having to kill them in order to fix them in view - just like the tradeoff between momentum and position in the measurement of particles. It's just a homology, but I love the poetry of it.
The industrial working class, organized in trade unions associated with the socialist and communist parties, was relatively immune to antisemitism. (I hope I'm not just saying that because I'm a nostalgic leftist)
Oh yes, the great and virtuous communists who gave their life in opposition to everything evil... :s
National Socialism was still a form of socialism. The only major ideological difference was that the communist socialism was international (by virtue of being class based), while national socialism was, well, national, by virtue of being nation-based, which made it more likely to be racist, xenophobic, etc. But both forms of socialism were just as willing to resort to violent means to achieve their ends.
Poland has had a long history of poor governance and the elite being eliminated by other powers or suppressed (think Katy? and what Stalin did to Poland when they had the Warsaw uprising and leaving the resistance to die out of lack of ammunition and support just so that he didn't have to deal with them to incorporate them into one of his satellite countries).
Yeah, all the Eastern European states have had such a history pretty much, apart from maybe Hungary which was an Empire at one point :P (well part of an empire at least).
However, I do think there's more to Germans and Japan and China than meets the eye, meaning that I think there's a very strong ethos towards work and contributing to society and paying your fair share. But, then there are some exemptions to the rule.
I'm not sure. I think there is a certain spirit that animates their nation, and those who get in power are possessed by that same spirit, which drives them to beat their brains to find solutions.
In essence, some countries (speaking about the population) just don't care about positivism or growth or being technologically advanced, and that's fine by me. It would be a boring world if every country valued the same things. From my personal experience, I loved the people who valued other things than what I mentioned. Drinking vodka and enjoying the companionship of good friends around a bonfire was what made me happy back when I lived in Poland for around seven years.
Yes indeed. But, unfortunately, those who do not care about growth, technology, etc. end up the slaves of those who do. They may laugh together, but that doesn't mean they aren't in chains - which is the unfortunate bit. If you do not care about power and technology, power and technology will care about you.
National Socialism was still a form of socialism. The only major ideological difference was that the communist socialism was international (by virtue of being class based), while national socialism was, well, national, by virtue of being nation-based, which made it more likely to be racist, xenophobic, etc. But both forms of socialism were just as willing to resort to violent means to achieve their ends.
You are ill-informed. True, there was plenty of socialist anti-capitalism in National Socialism--I don't follow the many socialists who like to deny the link completely--but the ideological differences run much deeper than you imply. Where left-wing socialism believed in democracy, the Enlightenment, a classless society, social progress, and egalitarianism, the Nazis most definitely did not. They were radical reactionaries, not progressives. Note also that they were rabidly anti-Marxist, even the most socialist among them.
You are ill-informed. True, there was plenty of socialist anti-capitalism in National Socialism--I don't follow the many socialists who like to deny the link completely--but the ideological differences run much deeper than you imply. Where left-wing socialism believed in democracy, the Enlightenment, a classless society, social progress, and egalitarianism, the Nazis most definitely did not. They were radical reactionaries, not progressives. Note also that they were rabidly anti-Marxist, even the most socialist among them.
You say that I am ill-informed. So... what about this?
The only major ideological difference was that the communist socialism was international (by virtue of being class based), while national socialism was, well, national, by virtue of being nation-based, which made it more likely to be racist, xenophobic, etc.
The so-called "many" ideological differences can be reduced to one - the locus of national socialism being the nation (and hence the particular) instead of the class (and hence the universal). That's what makes one racist and the other anti-racist, and so on so forth. All other differences emerge from this one.
And even this difference can be eradicated once it is shown that it is artificial - communism and national socialism are warring twins, and they are identified precisely by their commonality in being willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims. That is why in practice national socialism and communism have both illustrated that they will lead only to murder. Theirs is a society founded upon the death of the undesirable - whether these undesirables are a particular social class - the capitalists - or they are a particular race. Both mythologise the expulsion of the victims as either happening peacefully or being necessary. Of course, they each think they are completely different from the other and will do anything to exterminate the other - and in precisely doing this, they show that they are in truth the same.
It is their brotherhood in violence that makes them identical because violence blurs out all other differences.
My son went off to college and swung further right, which was hard to do.
You must be a proud Papa! I am catching flack for everything that is happening in the world around us especially but not limited to the Climate change and every animal affected by it.
I in turn show him pictures of my BIG hair in the 80's and told him about the Aqua Net that we used in small bathrooms with our friends, which worked great until someone lit a lighter, to soften the black eyeliner sticks we had back then, to line our inner lids with, passing Pink Eye around better than a Bears Quarterback against Green Bay and we LIVED!!!
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 13, 2017 at 14:48#1144570 likes
National Socialism was still a form of socialism. The only major ideological difference was that the communist socialism was international (by virtue of being class based), while national socialism was, well, national, by virtue of being nation-based, which made it more likely to be racist, xenophobic, etc. But both forms of socialism were just as willing to resort to violent means to achieve their ends.
My understanding (might be mistaken) was that Hitler took over the tiny National Socialist Party in... 1922, +/-. There were some socialist elements in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" -- abbreviated to Nazi. But Hitler was a fascist (similar to, but not quite the same as his buddies in Italy). Some historians has observed that fascism is better defined by its methods than by its content. Fascism is entirely undemocratic, and based on strong-man rule. It is about blood brotherhood, soil, solidarity, and all that stuff. There is no room in fascism for worker's self-organization or self-representation.
Stalin's rule in the USSR was indistinguishable from Hitler's rule in a number of ways, but none the less, the USSR was not a fascist regime. There is more than one way of being bad.
I am catching flack for everything that is happening in the world around us especially but not limited to the Climate change and every animal affected by it
Maybe it's all getting stuck in your big hair? Less hair, less flack?
The Christmas decorations are all ready stocked for sale and it's not even Halloween.
This happens every year. It's been happening for a long time. Woolworths used to have santa trinkets out with ghoul trinkets, back in the '50s. Modern Merchandizing has overcome the liturgical seasons. We are probably lucky they don't have Easter Peeps out yet. Just remember... Everything is for sale.
Some historians has observed that fascism is better defined by its methods than by its content. Fascism is entirely undemocratic, and based on strong-man rule. It is about blood brotherhood, soil, solidarity, and all that stuff.
The underlying feature of all this (undemocratic, strong-man, blood brotherhood, soil, etc.) is founded on the locus of the nation (hence the particular - the particular leader, the particular race, the particular soil, etc.) combined with the faith in violence as a means to resolve the ills of society.
Communism is founded on the locus of the class (hence the universal - world revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, racial inclusivity, elimination of borders, universal property, reliance on a universal dialectic as opposed to individual leaders etc. etc.) combined with the faith in violence as a means to resolve the ills of society.
Both ideologies are virtually identical - both scapegoat the ills of society unto some victim - one on the international Jew and the other on the Capitalist - and both build mythologies which justify the use of violence. In the case of Communism, the use of violence is masked behind dialectical materialism and economic determinism which by necessity as it were lead to the natural disappearance of the capitalists when workers take control of the means of production. This is nothing but a masking of violence.
Both try to re-instate social order through victimage - through the expulsion of either a certain class of people, or certain races and nations, who are seen as responsible for worldly suffering.
Both are quasi-religious - indeed they are at their roots religious movements, despite claiming not to be. They are the return of the old sacrificial religions.
And both hate each other, as only two brothers can hate each other, striving as much as possible to differentiate themselves from the other, but by that very struggle succeeding to become more and more the same.
Stalin's rule in the USSR was indistinguishable from Hitler's rule in a number of ways, but none the less, the USSR was not a fascist regime. There is more than one way of being bad.
Yes, there seems to be more than one way, but in the end it's the same way - the way of violence. The mask is irrelevant.
This happens every year. It's been happening for a long time. Woolworths used to have santa trinkets out with ghoul trinkets, back in the '50s. Modern Merchandizing has overcome the liturgical seasons. We are probably lucky they don't have Easter Peeps out yet. Just remember... Everything is for sale.
What about dark? Is that funny? Like if I asked at how many feet under water does duct tape retain its resiliency to the words "save me" as her mind drifts off to a time before she ever knew me?
I think that's good humor, really witty, but some question it, thinking it's amateurish psychopathy. H8rs I hipply say. H8rs
I think that's good humor, really witty, but some question it, thinking it's amateurish psychopathy. H8rs I hipply say. H8rs
I think you may be an amateur psychopath if you think that is psychopathic. There are those that appeal to ad nauseam by making poop jokes, or grotesque jokes, or sexually explicit jokes. I myself prefer intelligent political and social humour. Each to their own.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some studies to finish for an essay due yesterday.
Tips for successful courtship 1: Look at what Hanover does and then do the exact opposite.
Don't say I never did anything for you.
This is a transparent dominance play to show off in front of TL and take me out of the game, so forgive me for telling you to take your advice and shove it.
This is a transparent dominance play to show off in front of TL and take me out of the game,
No, that was when I PMed her comparative pics of us and replaced your face with Hanover's. (Probably the most immoral thing anyone has ever done with Photoshop.)
Interesting that a discussion about glyphosate has come up here. It's a key ingredient in many of the weed killers sold at my workplace. I don't know enough about it to comment in that discussion though.
Reply to BadenReply to jamalrob There is a lot of tension going on here. Baden, just a side note, you may be somewhat insensitive to the plight of @Hanover, because that sad picture of his face you cut from a photo of him lying naked in the corner of his bathroom floor, as he was rolled into foetal position with mascara drizzling down his cheeks, well it came just before he admitted to being a lesbian. Did you pick that picture on purpose?
Ever seen someone and immediately thought that they look "shady"? Sure, we all have. Well, it could be based on cultural bias that depends on the density of the place you live. If you live in a rural area you're more likely to assume that "someone that doesn't look like [you]" is less trustworthy (take that how you may). City dwellers have less of this bias simply because they're around so many other people, which is a new thing in human history. Alexander Todorov is the author of Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions.
Typical human tendency to jump to conclusions. (Maybe even like "self-fulfilling prophecies" in some cases.) :)
Unfortunate that the chakra thread was deleted, not everything that is unintelligible is unintelligent. I was going to say: I have the most trouble with Manipura, which is the most blocked off. Probably because I have little self-esteem, and haven't quite decided on whether I want to save or destroy the world yet.
Reply to TimeLine As a newly minted lesbian, I was unaware of waterproof mascara, and I spent too many a night cleaning that dripping mess off Jamalrob's inner thighs as we both discovered our new realities, weeping throughout.
My apologies to Jamalrob for this post. Typically Baden is the object of such attacks, but Timeline changed the script a bit, so I went with it.
I see, so you're saying a hungry person wants only to end his craving for food and would not quibble over hot dogs or tacos, but would simply grab what is nearest?
If so, don't invite me to dinner if you're real hungry.
To be clear, when I say "taco," I mean vagina, and when I say "hot dog,'" I mean penis. By "hungry," I mean horny. And by "grab what is nearest," I mean you don't care whether you penetrate a man or a woman
I see, so you're saying a hungry person wants only to end his craving for food and would not quibble over hot dogs or tacos, but would simply grab what is nearest?
Oh no, I am a person of high breeding. When I say I would like a steak, that is what I want. Nothing else will do.
To be clear, when I say "taco," I mean vagina, and when I say "hot dog,'" I mean penis. By "hungry," I mean horny. And by "grab what is nearest," I mean you don't care whether you penetrate a man or a woman
Down boy. There's a good doggy. That sounds a lot like the little terrier I have. Humps any god damned thing.
Did no one ever teach you the difference between eating and sex? Do you by any chance try to shag your food bowl?
My apologies to Jamalrob for this post. Typically Baden is the object of such attacks, but Timeline changed the script a bit, so I went with it.
Don't blame me for this sharp turn of events. @Baden is a violent and malicious dog-kicker, so it is only fair that your attention would turn to @Jamalrob, who moisturises his face. Daily.
Apart from the fact that jamalrob owns the site and could destroy all of us with a touch of a button, I'm confident I won that round. (By the way, I think it's time for a sacrifice on Mount jamalrob. How about a big thick Hanover steak? I'll sharpen the knives. You tie him down (before he mounts jamalrob).)
Don't blame me for this sharp turn of events. Baden is a violent and malicious dog-kicker, so it is only fair that your attention would turn to @Jamalrob, who moisturises his face. Daily.
His silken cheeks are like a cherub's sent from heaven, in sharp contrast to the ruddy leather of Baden's jowls that have set firmly into a permanent fuck you sneer.
His silken cheeks are like a cherub's sent from heaven, in sharp contrast to the ruddy leather of Baden's jowls that have set firmly into a permanent fuck you sneer.
There are some advantages to his leather jowls, like his face becoming the latest muse that inspired the 2017 Braun Büffel designer handbag collection.
Reply to Baden Listen, you man-purse, this fear of the Man (aka Jamalrob) is far too feminine for my taste; either plot to overthrow him in a glorious coup d'état, or zip it.
Reply to HanoverReply to BadenReply to TimeLine Things have moved into strange waters in my absence. While Hanover becomes ever more disturbing, and Baden's pursuit of TL founders, I think I'll just sit back and watch.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 17, 2017 at 14:46#1159690 likes
Oh no, I am a person of high breeding. When I say I would like a steak, that is what I want. Nothing else will do.
I so appreciate a person (man or woman) who can tell me what exactly they want to eat because I cook with love and I hate to see that go unappreciated.
Since we had to do the work ourselves, we have two aged, marinated NY strips just waiting for the hot cooking tonight. One of our last nights of celebration before my Mother In law returns and all chances of love go out the window.
Cheers!
Right, someone give me the wheel. Time to turn around and go home.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 17, 2017 at 22:33#1161120 likes
Reply to Michael Here you go Michael! Be the most AWESOME you can be and SOLVE this Brexit mess. Oh and when you get done there, feel free to head to the USA for some more driving but this one involves lots of hidden cliffs. :D
It isn't physically impossible, but it isn't something that is done. You technically can divide a cigarette in half with a knife, but "technically correct" doesn't always trump "practically wrong".
(I have a reason by the way. Just ignore the cigarette cutting white noise).
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 18, 2017 at 14:01#1162510 likes
By the way, the last time I did that to an ex of mine, ooooooo he was pissed! I said I thought you were done smoking as I dumped them out the window. No? :-}
Ah, my 1,100'th post. I feel the air stretch my wings, the cool breeze blowing sweet philosophical nothings into my nostrils...in short, I'm choking on my pepsi...
Reply to Michael Well, being a goddess, my powers surpass hers, but even though I make her do the most petty and cruel things, it just doesn't come close. It would be like an owl trying to relate to a mouse. (I eat mice for breakfast).
And yes, before you ask, true wisdom does indeed lie in doing petty and cruel things. (I know, right? Who would've thought?)
Reply to Meta PM me if you wake up tomorrow and wish you hadn't made those posts, Meta. For now I'm just going to leave them, because they're quite funny.
Regarding profanity and sexual references, can you tone those down a notch? I don't think there's really any reason to let Hanover, et al. post about all those things over on this forum.
How is it possible for anyone to be drunk on Thursday? You must be rich or a student >:O Are you the type of guy who is drunk from Monday to Monday? >:O
Reply to Sapientia It's because I hate multinational companies who dominate the economy. I wish our economy was more based on individual and small-scale entrepreneurship, that's my ideal. So I'm opposed to anything that maintains the dominance of large corporations over the economic environment.
It's because I hate multinational companies who dominate the economy. I wish our economy was more based on individual and small-scale entrepreneurship, that's my ideal. So I'm opposed to anything that maintains the dominance of large corporations over the economic environment.
We're more or less on the same page there. (God, it feels weird saying that to you when I'm not being sarcastic).
Regarding profanity and sexual references, can you tone those down a notch? I don't think there's really any reason to let Hanover, et al. post about all those things over on this forum.
I don't see any reason to disallow that stuff unless it's flaming, abusive, etc. Don't be so sensitive.
Regarding profanity and sexual references, can you tone those down a notch? I don't think there's really any reason to let Hanover, et al. post about all those things over on this forum.
Reply to Posty McPostface I don't have a problem with it, so if it's encouraged, that's fine with me. This is the Shoutbox, and this is how people chat and make jokes.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 20, 2017 at 12:25#1169180 likes
Reply to jamalrob She will be here by Wednesday, we are seeing her on Saturday at a place she could easily stay at for a month, but no.
Did I tell you that my 7 month old Rottie is about to go into season and I want to breed her but not before she is 2 years old? Yeah I do and she is a sweetie, Yay! I also have two male dogs, one 2.5 yr old male Rottie and a 2.5 yr old Swiss Mountain/Rottie mix, both still in tact and do not mark, Yay!!
She is bringing her marking 6 year old beast of Black Mouth Cur who is also an intact male that marks everywhere including on MY hammock. Ummm >:o Not Yay
I can feel the Momma Bear coming out in me and I really would just rather not.
Are you willing to take her?
Either bitch would work. :-x
I deny ever having made a sexual or inappropriate comment, and I challenge everyone here to go through all my posts and itemize where you think you have evidence otherwise.
It's probably safer to let @Hanover loose here than on the goats on the side of whatever mountain he lives on. If it really bothers you though, just steer clear of the Shout box and the Last Word discussions.
Reply to BadenYou don't need to advise people how to deal with me. I can do that myself. You think you can say whatever you want because you're an admin and because you have such a pretty mouth.
To be clear, in the AC/DC classic "Shook Me All Night Long," where we are advised that she was a fast machine who kept her motor clean, is her "motor" her vagina? I've always thought so, but I've never been completely sure, but I can certainly understand the advantages of such cleanliness. While I would not necessary croon about it, I might offer some suggestions if the motor, as it were, were best described as fetid.
I offer that prefatory question really to get to the heart of my main question, which is, if my birthday fell on February 29, would I be a quarter the age I am now, considering my birthday would only occur on leap years?
unenlightenedOctober 20, 2017 at 22:19#1170300 likes
I offer that prefatory question really to get to the heart of my main question, which is, if my birthday fell on February 29, would I be a quarter the age I am now, considering my birthday would only occur on leap years?
It depends what year you were born. If it happened to be a leap year, then yes, you would be a quarter the age, but otherwise, you would not have been born at all. Swings and roundabouts.
Umm sure! What exactly is something serious? Like her moving in with you is too serious? Her cruising the US in her motor home, following you wherever you go because she can go too.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 20, 2017 at 23:07#1170460 likes
That's what @Agustino keeps saying although any psychoanalyst could tell he secretly covets it all. It's his dark rival, the King chimp of the troop he must first overthrow before making his lover. I see a career in showbiz ahead.
This is not a news section. It's explained right below the video.
"In a new book, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts asses President Donald Trump's behavior. Do his impulses explain his decisions? The book's editor Dr. Brandy Lee and Tony Schwartz, co-author of Trump's "The Art of the Deal," join Lawrence O'Donnell."
How can people say that MSNBC is unbiased? :s How can people claim this isn't fake news & propaganda?
Has anyone ever claimed that MSNBC is unbiased? Even though I'm liberal, I like Fox News better. I'd rather watch the bad guys being boneheads than the good guys.
Ah, my 1,100'th post. I feel the air stretch my wings, the cool breeze blowing sweet philosophical nothings into my nostrils...in short, I'm choking on my pepsi...
Proof. >:O It's all peer pressure... Young people are on the left without even thinking. It's just cool. What was I saying - if we change culture and make it cool to be different, then voila! Things will change. @Baden People do whatever is cool to do.
There are ways to influence people's political opinions, both from liberal to conservative and from conservative to liberal. It wouldn't surprise me if you can get the same effect just by wording questions differently.
Everyone is suggestible and susceptible to bias. That's just a fact about human psychology.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 22, 2017 at 16:53#1175040 likes
Hmmm I remember a thread at the old sand box, I might have even been the one who hosted it with a poll and the question was do you think that intellectuals are narcissistic in nature? And we came close to a unanimous conclusion that intellectuals are often narcissistic in nature among the intellectuals that were voting.
So I ask you, are you the pot or the kettle?
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 22, 2017 at 16:57#1175050 likes
Young people are on the right without even thinking, too.
Rarely, because it's not cool to be on the right. I was ostracised at University for being on the right for example (I'm talking cultural matters now, not economics). Not severely, but some people did not want to associate with me, so there was clearly something going on there. Nobody actively vilified me or anything of that sort, but some people kept a distance, especially those who were politically active leftists. Or I remember that people would remove me from Facebook, even though I never commented on their stuff. I never removed people from Facebook, even though I used to have some super leftists there, worse than anything that exists on this forum >:O . Nowadays I pretty much stopped using FB so have no idea how things are around there.
Or I remember that people would remove me from Facebook, even though I never commented on their stuff. I never removed people from Facebook, even though I used to have some super leftists there, worse than anything that exists on this forum >:O . Nowadays I pretty much stopped using FB so have no idea how things are around there.
I think you might sometimes read into things more deeply then necessary. When people use facebook and instagram with the intention of forming an image that presents themselves as "popular" then their only intention is to please an audience as part of their show. They are unconscious entertainers that desire an applaud or sympathy from an audience, and while each of them pretend to originality are nevertheless all doing the same thing over and over again in just different ways. It is pure madness.
However, there is a utility in these social networking places; I stopped using them several years ago too until I started my own small farmer's market business selling jams and cakes where I posted my recipes and that boosted my business sales at the time. I also get a chance to visit photography pages, news about astronomy, gardening tips etc. I don't actually care about what goes on in my page and instagram is just painful and probably the most narcissistic place of all of them, but I decided to use it as storage for my photos and hikes. It is how you use it and that determines the type of person that you are.
It is not about the people you have on your page. If those people who have unfriended care about their image, they are probably not good friends and so you should be happy that FB enabled you to access that knowledge.
Reply to TimeLine Yeah, sure I don't disagree, it's just that I don't have much time nowadays for Facebook, nor do I really have anything useful to do there :s - I can't find many people who comment stuff if I post something about philosophy, religion and the like, so I get bored there. There may be one or two who comments something, but not much activity. So can't be bothered to open it lol.
Basically, my Facebook is full of all sorts of people that aren't even my friends. I have many friends there lol. I had to have them since I used to hold many public positions in school and university (student council, year representative, that kinda stuff). I have some good friends too on FB, but I keep up with them on Whatsapp usually - sooo... FB is kinda useless for me at the moment.
Reply to Agustino I agree overall, but there are closed groups where you can post such things to like-minded people, like I am in a womens-only hiking group and we organise hiking trips together, but if you can do that here with like-minded people (about philosophy or religion) than the utility of FB becomes pointless and so I see where you are coming from. Only difference is that you will never meet any of us from here or get a chance to have a cup of coffee with us and FB allows for a more intimate reality in your discussions. If you are posting things that are important to you rather than conforming to what others would want you to be like, then out of that one or two people that comment you may just meet some who appreciates you and your opinions. One real friend is better than one thousand superficial ones.
I am more interested in the psychology behind it. I have hardly anyone on my FB page and it is always very interesting to me seeing people get confused about that, like I am supposed to have hundreds of friends. Same thing happens when people see my phone, a dodgy old microsoft that is broken and that I only use for texting or emergency calls. I am supposed to have the latest iPhone technology. They don't understand utility, but rather it is has become a fabric of their identity and emotions.
Only difference is that you will never meet any of us from here or get a chance to have a cup of coffee with us and FB allows for a more intimate reality in your discussions
That's not necessarily true, that would depend where you are located. I wouldn't meet any of you most likely because we live in different countries (and I'm not big on travelling either). But the same would be true on Facebook for that matter. There's nothing in principle that precludes meeting people you first get to know on forums. On an old forum I used as a teenager, two of the people who met there even ended up getting married >:O .
then out of that one or two people that comment you may just meet some who appreciates you and your opinions. One real friend is better than one thousand superficial ones.
I could just as much meet people that I get to know on a forum as on FB - in that regard the two aren't different. You live in Australia so easier to meet people either on FB or on a forum for you than it is for me. There's a lot of Aussies here for example. You could easily meet SLX, John, andrewk, wayfarer and so on in real life.
Reply to Agustino Notwithstanding the fact that I am trying to write this on my dodgy phone, I meant meeting with likeminded people I would want to meet. Those chaps, while a lovely bunch of coconuts, are not likeminded to me and while I would attend a conference with them purely out of curiosity, there is a risk that it would make this place all too real and put me off. For instance, I met with a bunch of philosophers in an online subject I did and while we got along great online, I nearly fell asleep at the lack of personality and monotone discussions that were rigid and lacked any sense of human interaction; it was all just showing off how much they know.
With people on FB, most of them are those you went to uni with and while indeed I have a small percentage of people on mine who are overseas, most are local people I know. But, again, it is likeminded people I am interested in meeting and not people.
To a degree that's true of course. What can happen with videos like this though is that the producers ask a bunch of students and pick the answers from a few to support whatever point they (the producers) wanted to make. I haven't looked at the vids yet (I'm at work) but I doubt left-wing students would support lowering taxes for the wealthy. If they do, they're not left-wing students despite what they may think about themselves.
Reply to Baden Private groups; I have learnt about astrophotography and gardening from ordinary people, get prompted about potential kp-index that forecasts solar flares, and as I said, did many hikes with ma-ladies and it helped my farmers market business. It is also good for private chats through messenger and a lot of my young girls that I work with are on there if they need me. Instagram, on the other hand, is truly a rocky-horror picture show; I feel like my neck is swelling when I see some people' half-naked selfies with their lips all pouty as they write some random rubbish about being vulnerable and everyone congratulating them on being so amazing. It makes me want to ask them all to do this:
Solar flares, mm, didn't get much of that on my FB before I dumped it. And not getting much in the way of flabulous lips on instagram either. Then again, I've only about three friends on there including you.
Reply to Agustino I really don't like that test. Take for instance this sentence:
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
I more or less agree with the above (don't like the term homemakers) but with the caveat that it is my understanding that as a dad my first duty is to my family as well. But you and I both know that if I say "strongly agree" to the above, I'm going to be labelled a social conservative by the program, which I'm most certainly not.
In saying that, another reason I think I am supportive of FB is because it was a great tool to connect with the young girls I mentored. One gorgeous girl from Africa was deathly quiet and had no confidence at all and I convinced her to create an account to connect with me when not in the office. I set up a page for her after we wrote a small book together about her childhood (to get her to learn to articulate herself in a new country) and I tutored her until she finally got into her choice studies. She is little miss Queenie now, cannot shut up at all and I love it!
Watched the first twenty seconds. Apparently someone who Trump doesn't like has bad ratings. I presume the rest continued at the same kindergarten level.
Watched the first twenty seconds. Apparently someone who Trump doesn't like has bad ratings. I presume the rest continued at the same kindergarten level.
Oh, was it the Pants on Fire claim that CNN’s ratings are "way down."?
Or was he just saying that they're not as good as some other channel? Because, yeah, that's a pretty pathetic insult, and certainly doesn't amount to "destroying" CNN. Typical ridiculous hyperbole.
Reply to Baden Ten minutes of my life for that. Worth it. Double worth it if the exhibition could divert the attention away from dreaded trump conversations...
I am in a womens-only hiking group and we organise hiking trips together,
In order to save me the embarrassment of accidentally stumbling upon you, let me know when and where your next hike will be so I can be sure to not be there.
Reply to Hanover I was so proud of you when you came out of the closet, because I thought that us ladies stick together. But, fine, if you want to do your own thing, take a stroll down a prairie while fantasizing the resplendence of Mr. Knightly as you keenly turn each page of Austin' masterpiece, go right ahead.
Reply to MichaelReply to unenlightenedReply to Baden Stop having your little egos offended by a little braggadocio from Mr. Trump. I suggest you listen to the whole of it honestly, otherwise, you're just having a biased image of the situation. I find his response overall decent and truthful, compared to the lying media. I posted a day ago the outrageous things the media was saying about Trump, and you also refused to watch that and covered your ears and started shouting. Reminds me of this:
Acts 7:54-58:When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
Then you'll wonder how did Trump get reelected in 2020? :s You'll be sitting there, next to your charts and polls and statistics, scratching your heads...
Then you'll wonder how did Trump get reelected in 2020? :s You'll be sitting there, next to your charts and polls and statistics, scratching your heads...
I won't need to wonder. Lots of people are crazy and vote for terrible people.
But I do wonder if you even understand how polls work.
That's what Agustino keeps saying although any psychoanalyst could tell he secretly covets it all.
In other discussions, you say Trump is a clear example of the corrupt liberal society you constantly rail against yet you (not-so-secretly) worship him (in a quasi-religious manner).
StreetlightOctober 24, 2017 at 05:14#1177210 likes
Random furious thought scribble: the whole idea of both memetics and most of what passes for evolutionary psycology is so absurdly unscientific and so void of explanatory power that it's just insanity that anyone takes that stuff even an iota more seriously than creationism. Also, Dawkins has probably done more to set the public image of science backwards - by an order of decades - than he has to advance it. As for Chomsky... my God how does anyone take what that man has to say about language seriously either. /random furious thought scribble.
Trump is a clear example of the corrupt liberal society you constantly rail against
Yes, in some respects, sure. But that doesn't mean to be blind to everything else, and refuse to listen to stuff, covering my ears and starting to shout like you...
Then you'll wonder how did Trump get reelected in 2020? :s You'll be sitting there, next to your charts and polls and statistics, scratching your heads...
I won't. He'll be reelected because he represents the worst of the insanity of the human race, and that is in the ascendant.
Reply to Baden I think you're really wasting your time with Trump Supporters, or Hillary Supporters. They really could care less and will go through every mental-gymnastics trick to defend their precious leaders.
The way youtube has been able to recommend songs to me that are so totally relevant to the things I just got done talking about, or concerning me is a little scary. I think that the internet may be approaching skynet levels of intelligence, it's been able to do that for a good year now.
That's funny that you mention that. A couple months back Google was acting funny with the search results it was giving me. Then a couple of days later it went back to normal. I blame self learning algorithms and too much information trying to be processed at once.
I've heard a little about how stuff is becoming more and more catered to you specifically, but how developed is this stuff? I feel like it is pretty damn impressive, and it also makes you think about how they're basically reading your content, analyzing it, and then finding more and better ways to echo it back at you.
I've heard a little about how stuff is becoming more and more catered to you specifically, but how developed is this stuff? I feel like it is pretty damn impressive, and it also makes you think about how they're basically reading your content, analyzing it, and then finding more and better ways to echo it back at you.
Well, everyone has a cache nowadays built through a laborious process of facebook likes, e-mail's, and such. I don't think there's anything to worry about unless Trump gets's really pissed off and tells the NSA to have a dossier on every internet user. Personally, I couldn't give two shits.
I don't know that it's all that sophisticated. I watched a few Jordan Peterson videos and then everything was Jordan Peterson videos. I've had my fill of the guy now.
Stop having your little egos offended by a little braggadocio from Mr. Trump. I suggest you listen to the whole of it honestly, otherwise, you're just having a biased image of the situation. I find his response overall decent and truthful, compared to the lying media. I posted a day ago the outrageous things the media was saying about Trump, and you also refused to watch that and covered your ears and started shouting. Reminds me of this:
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
— Acts 7:54-58
Then you'll wonder how did Trump get reelected in 2020? :s You'll be sitting there, next to your charts and polls and statistics, scratching your heads...
Mod edit: [insert politically correct version of very bad word here.]
You don't have that option? Shit, they have you by the nuts, dude. Ha, no, it was just my colourful way of explaining only half of the vids were Peterson. :)
Reply to Baden Apologies, I didn't want to cause any inconvenience for the mods. It's just the easiest and aptest way to respond to the poster in question.
Reply to Wosret Like a month ago I was talking about the health of my teeth while sitting next to the computer and then a moment later a couple of dental advertisements popped up on the screen. They know more then what we would expect.
Reply to Sapientia I wouldn't just waste it like that, I'm saving it for a special occasion. You know, when you're a super nervous person you have the opposite problem of finishing too early, you more like probably won't finish at all. I faked it the first few times, because I thought I was taking too long, and it was getting exhausting. It's actually pretty difficult to go for like more than a half hour, and I don't have that many moves. I remember that girl though, I had constant wood for like two weeks straight, it hurt. I looked up if that was normal, and apparently it is when they're super hot.
I'm restless, I need to join a club or something, or the gym or something, get people's attention. I don't like arrogant people, and I like to be the opposite of the things I don't like, so I pretend like I don't think that I'm better than most people, because most people think that they are, but really aren't, they're lying to themselves, and have accomplished no measurable, or indisputable virtues that set them well above the average, they're always vague, or deniable things, and then they just disrespect most people for not having the magnifying glass discernment they figure is necessary to see their excellence.
I though, am well developed, in readily apparent ways under many measures. I don't have a good family, or career though. The bank guy actually laughed when he saw were I worked at a department store, and asked me directly if I worked there, when I went to cash the first check. He is just a bank teller, he doesn't make more money, and I make a little more than minimum wage, so probably more than him, but still not very prestigious, I know that he only acted that way because he wanted to see something to feel superior to me about, because manifestly he knew that he wasn't.
Yeah... need to join a club or something, maybe join the gym tomorrow. I saw their personal trainer guys on the website, none of them look in better shape than me.
I'm gay for women, not that I'm talking about finding someone to hook up with, that is super easy to do, I could just go to the bar tonight. I was only even ever with that other girl because she said everything that it took, and didn't mean any of it.
The idea of Utena is more or less the idea of coming into adulthood being a destructive process of disillusionment. When you leave your comfortable fantasies of yourself as a hero, prince, princess, and enter the adult world where you know precisely how people actually treat each other, particularly under competitive, and stressful situations.
The ideal prince is a fantasy that needs to be abandoned, and left behind in the shattered world of children. Adults stare straight into the eyes of Abraxas, and try not to flinch.
My arrogance feels more justified for as long as I can abstain from questionable activities, and promise myself future good ones. It will just all come crashing down if I don't follow through, and delay for too long.
My arrogance feels more justified for as long as I can abstain from questionable activities, and promise myself future good ones. It will just all come crashing down if I don't follow through, and delay for too long.
I don't know, generally it's good to be psychologically ready before doing something. At least for me. So I often take a long time before doing something new. For example, I'm planning to switch my work from an individual person to a company (start an agency), but it's been taking me 2 months already and relatively little progress, partly because I don't feel psychologically ready and am "scared" by the unknown. Lots of planning, designing, preparations, etc. I should ideally start employing other people and grow. If you don't grow in the business world, you wither away. But alas, it takes time. One day it shall happen. At least I've successfully expanded to some foreign clients so far, though some of the work is a lot more challenging. Learning marketing has been very helpful.
Meh, I don't think too much about career advancement. I'm currently working planning to get the hours I need for unemployment so that I can get school paid for and learn some trade or something. I much prefer doing hands on stuff anyway, but really don't have a lot of concern for it at all, I haven't looked into, or planned for it more than vaguely like that.
I don't care about having more money, because there genuinely isn't anything that money can get that I can't currently already get that I care to have. I like prestige, and people's respect, but really, as Dostoevsky said only unimpressive people worship success of any kind, and since that isn't a kind of success that gains very much if any of my respect, it isn't a source of it that I can respect very strongly.
I'm currently working planning to get the hours I need for unemployment so that I can get school paid for a learn some trade or something. I much prefer doing hands on stuff anyway, but really don't have a lot of concern for it at all, I haven't looked into, or planned for it more than vaguely like that.
If you want, you could also consider learning by yourself a trade or skill - you can get the books from a local library probably or read the basics online. Then slowly use your savings to acquire tools, materials, etc. and learn. If I'm not mistaken, that's how John started into landscape designing, and he's been very successful in it too from what I've spoken with him.
I don't care about having more money, because their genuinely isn't anything that money can get that I can't currently already get that I care to have.
Well yeah, I don't care about having more money for what it can buy me - I don't buy anything anyway, I'm a miser that way. Haven't bought new clothes for example in a very long time.
But I do care for money with regards to providing for family (for example my very old grandfather is sick atm), and also with regards to doing stuff in the world. In this world, you cannot do anything if you don't have money. You can't start a political party, you can't start a school, can't spread philosophy - can't do anything. Money - capital is the driving force for generating any sort of impact in the world. Even the communists wanted to get to communism through capitalism... Engels himself was a prolific investor in the stock market.
I don't care to make an impact in the world. I'm already an expert roofer, and if I cared to actually try I could probably be doing that, I'd just have to go door to door basically. I knew someone in Calgary that only took cash and did that, and easily found enough work to support himself, and his gambling problem.
I could conceivably be making what I make in two weeks a day doing that, I used to make what I make in two weeks in two-three days before. I was the one doing all the work already before, only thing I didn't do was estimates, and getting people to agree to give me their money for it.
If I had more ambition, I could do that. Though, approaching winter now anyway, and although it can still be done in the winter, people don't want it done as often, and it does suck a lot more doing it.
In this world, you cannot do anything if you don't have money. You can't start a political party, you can't start a school, can't spread philosophy - can't do anything.
I don't care to make an impact in the world. I'm already an expert roofer, and if I cared to actually try I could probably be doing that, I'd just have to go door to door basically. I knew someone in Calgary that only took cash and did that, and easily found enough work to support himself, and his gambling problem.
Oh yeah, I know those independent professions can earn a lot for one person and even a family. But consider that if you did that for awhile, you could save up quite a bit and then perhaps not work for quite some time, study philosophy, do some charitable activity you like, etc.
It does take a certain degree of ambition, but it's also a character-building experience in many ways. There are lots of difficulties along the way to overcome, and practical problems to solve.
I want to establish meaningful relationships, and make an impact in their individual lives, it's people's manifest failure to do that that makes them turn their attention to the world in general.
I can't do it with my family, it's too hard, but most people aren't as bad, and there are some rare high quality ones out there, I just have to find some, or at least one, but I won't until I actually try. I don't have big ambitions, just mundane fantasies.
I want to establish meaningful relationships, and make an impact in their individual lives
Okay, I see. In my experience, meaningful relationships also exist in some social context, which quite frequently is an economic context, unless you're quite wealthy already (in which case you will be able to keep your relationships independently of work. The few people I know who are wealthy seem to spend most of their time partying though :s - so that's what I think their relationships revolve around, which seems quite meaningless). I mean we all spend most of our time working - in the economy - so most meaningful relationships, even family will revolve around that. The problem is that it's hard to form meaningful relationships in that context.
Personally, I have long given up the hope of changing individual people. I just let them be however they are, the only time I do anything is if they express a desire to change themselves. But if they don't, then it's pointless. I hate pointless talk - many people talk like "X Y Z said so and so about me, it makes me so angry. Why did they say it?!" "My sister said so and so - how dare she?" etc. etc. and I really think it's all so irrelevant. Words make so little difference. If someone swears at me, good for them. It's not like them having insulted me, laughed at me, etc. makes me any richer or poorer in either material or non-material terms. It's so pointless to even be trifled with it, as if someone could harm you or benefit you by what they say :s
I'm not interested in changing anyone, I'm more of a gnostic, if you haven't noticed, I mention it a lot. People can make some character movement, but everyone can't be anything.
There are different levels of awareness, but they are in some important senses inherited, and not always something that can be learned. Freedom is based in knowledge, which comes through the senses, but not everyone is made to, or can see all things. People differ in their natures, and some are below average, some average, and some above average by no fault of their own, of no character flaw, but just by nature limited in their growth.
There are different levels of awareness, but they are in some important senses inherited, and not always something that can be learned. Freedom is based in knowledge, which comes through the senses, but not everyone is made to, or can see all things. People differ in their natures, and some are below average, some average, and some above average by no fault of their own, of no character flaw, but just by nature limited in their growth.
People differ in their natures, so they cannot be substantially genuinely changed on individual or mass scales, though perhaps they could all be mislead. What is required for gnosticism though is not that they just believe you, but actually know, in which case at best you point, but never persuade, or change anyone, you're doing it wrong if that happens.
The import is that you kept going on about making an impact in the world and I both wanted to say that I'm unconcerned with that, and don't believe that it can be ethically accomplished to any substantial degree anyway.
See, Akio in Utena, he's the one that claims that he can grant you the power to free yourself, but can't, and won't, just granting the illusion of freedom in order to control everyone that falls pray to him. The only person that can save you is you.
People differ in their natures, so they cannot be substantially genuinely changed on individual or mass scales, though perhaps they could all be mislead. What is required for gnosticism though is not that they just believe you, but actually know, in which case at best you point, but never persuade, or change anyone, you're doing it wrong if that happens.
Oh, I think I understand more clearly what you mean now. Well I've tried changing people for a long time and it's frustrating and impossible, so I gave it up :P . I used to believe that anyone can be influenced to get them to be different, but that's false. It just doesn't happen. People go on believing and acting as they do. Nowadays, I just tend to not associate myself with people I don't like.
There are actually some hidden persuasion tactics that have shown some efficacy. When I was selling old furniture, for example, a couple came to buy some stuff. And I wanted to sell them more than just what they initially came for, as all good salesmen do. I didn't say anything until they asked if I have anything else for sale. Then I said that there is a wardrobe, but it's old and nasty, and they don't really wanna have it, since it has mold on the back and it would be quite expensive for them too. So then they suddenly became very curious about it - let's have a look - and I showed it to them, and they quickly decided they can sort it out and agreed to pay me 75% of the purchase price for a new one. That was my best sale that time, most of the stuff went much cheaper.
The key with people is just to use their own ego against them. If I say that X is not for you, suddenly you wanna find out more about it. If I pack up my briefcase and walk away from a deal, suddenly you start doubting yourself. On the other hand, if I insist on making the sale, I give you confidence that you're making the right choice by not buying. It's always the one who walks away first who wins, the one who says no first.
and don't believe that it can be ethically accomplished to any substantial degree anyway.
I think it can be accomplished, but I don't think any such success is everlasting, it will be, sooner or later, overturned. History is cyclical. But anyway, I think each of us has a duty to do our best. Each generation.
he's the one that claims that he can grant you the power to free yourself, but can't, and won't, just granting the illusion of freedom in order to control everyone that falls pray to him. The only people that can save you is you.
I would disagree that you can save you. I think that's attributing more power to the self than actually exists in it.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff That Admiral is a real man, I have to say. When someone speaks of manliness, that's the image and ideal I have in my mind.
"I noticed, with some sense of amusement, that Saddam did not make his bed. The covers were always crumpled at the foot of his cot and he rarely seemed inclined to straighten them."
I notice with some sense of amusement that this is amusing, probably for the wrong reasons.
Reply to Baden Watch the last 15 seconds of it where I linked - "Vote for the one candidate who does not need this job" . Not needing what you want to get is something that gives you power and leverage in negotiations.
What's the next task you need to be doing? My next task will be to go to gym soon and be productive there, not just sit around. How's your editing business going?
"I noticed, with some sense of amusement, that Saddam did not make his bed. The covers were always crumpled at the foot of his cot and he rarely seemed inclined to straighten them."
LoloLolOlOlollllOl Baden!
I had hope that OCD ways would have had you totally understanding the point of making your bed. Now it's time to brush n stuff.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 25, 2017 at 13:37#1179990 likes
Clinton and Russia. Wow, who would have guessed the inversion of that narrative? After all, it was vigorously maintained and the cause of so much faux concern here a few months ago. And yet all I see is a tumbleweed moving along the Shoutbox plains.
Clinton and Russia. Wow, who would have guessed the inversion of that narrative? After all, it was vigorously maintained and the cause of so much faux concern here a few months ago. And yet all I see is a tumbleweed moving along the Shoutbox plains.
What do you mean? It was already known that Democrats continued to pay Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump after the initial Republican who funded it for the primaries stopped (after Trump won). That it was the DNC and Clinton's campaign doesn't somehow mean that Steele's intelligence was false.
Although I wonder if this also falls foul of the law against foreign assistance. If so, that just means the Clinton campaign ought also be investigated, not that Trump's campaign is cleared of any wrongdoing.
Edit: Or are you referring to the Uranium One stuff?
Seems kind of lightweight, nor topical. Can you name like an individual you like, just so I get a sense, doesn't really matter, I just wanted to get a better sense of your attunements.
Clinton and Russia. Wow, who would have guessed the inversion of that narrative? After all, it was vigorously maintained and the cause of so much faux concern here a few months ago. And yet all I see is a tumbleweed moving along the Shoutbox plains.
Ha got the tumbleweed alert in TPF. ;)
"Clinton and Russia. Wow, who would have guessed the inversion of that narrative?"
Me me me! It is human nature to accuse others of the misdeeds you are struggling with.
Don't know. I saw one news headline. Most of the news is about the few Republicans who are brave enough eviscerating Trump. I don't think Russia will amount to all that much for either side. It may destroy Manafort and Flynn but not Trump or Clinton.
Don't be so mean, and judgmental. Not everything exists to entertain or serve us in some way, he's still a person. He also has all kinds of people on his radio show, and although I am not like a frequent fan or whatever, my attention has been drawn to him a few times.
I have nothing mean to say about the guys you mentioned, though I don't know much about the new host of the daily show, haven't watched that, and wonder why you didn't mention Jon Oliver, he's pretty good too.
Reply to Wosret yeah, sorry. I've got a few friends who listen to his stuff and I just quietly believe them to be morons because of it. Jon Oliver is pretty good agreed
There is no one worth listening to except the little voice in your head who says there is no one worth listening to except the little voice in your head who says there is... Etc.
Imagine Trump was a surgeon. Baden might be the type of guy who would be like, "no, don't have him perform this operation. He said some means things about Mexicans once or something like that, I think."
Reply to Baden Of course. I also regard him as an oaf. A buffoon. A sneering, serial liar and anti-intellectual fathead. But for all that, he's done a lot right and not a lot wrong policy wise so far, and that matters much more than his shady character.
Or take another standard, one your side unironically flirts with all the time. When "he's not literally Hitler" is the criterion of success, then my god, Trump is the greatest president who ever lived.
But we're not arguing about policy and Flake's problem wasn't policy either. So why call him a flake for what is legitimate criticism by your own standards?
No, because you've just admitted character is important in a President and that Trump's character is poor. From that it follows that criticism of his character is legitimate.
Reply to Baden Flake's already written a book and made his views known before. He can criticize the president for his lack of civility when there isn't a budget to pass, health care to reform, taxes to reform, and foreign policy issues to be concerned about. He's just grandstanding, since he's not running again next year.
Also, what he says is obvious to all but a few die-hard Trump supporters. "Look, Trump isn't very dignified!" Yes, and water is wet. Now about those policies....
@TimeLine Let me present you a British entrepreneur. Do you think for example this guy ever read a book, let alone philosophy, in his life? And yet, he built a £22mm company. And I've met a few like him around here too...
Success regardless of field has little to do with theoretical knowledge. By the way - warning - if you don't like hearing swear words, don't watch the video >:O
I listened to a Peterson video called "Reality and the Sacred", and 75% of it was decent you know, okay, until suddenly it started going on about depression out of nowhere containing some of the stupidest advice I've ever heard.
Apparently to Pete it's a must to accept at least trying anti-depressants and pills (he seems to be little aware of the addiction effects and how hard it is to get rid of them), that it's a must to have a job :s , that it's a must to have friends, and that it's a must to be dating >:O >:O in order to overcome depression.
I never knew that not being depressed is equivalent to living the exact life described by the modern Western standards of the masses :s
Trump doesn't know anything about policy. You're kidding yourself if you think he does.
Yeah, just like that British entrepreneur, knows nothing about business, accounting, etc., but built a £22 million company. Knowledge isn't necessary for success.
*Shrug* Sure, no knowledge. Trump's a carnival barker. His schtick works well in the US.
It doesn't take knowledge to be a politician or manager it seems. I think the idea that these fields involve some sort of "scientific knowledge" that only a select few have is BS. It's nothing but a way for a bunch of "experts" to keep these fields closed, just for themselves and others like them who speak their lingo so to say.
These talking heads think everyone is like them. Do what makes me happy and then you'll be happy.
This is a good point, though I'm not exactly sure it applies with regards to all the points he made (for example I doubt he took antidepressants himself).
The point I'm making is that he (and others) seem to be under the illusion that he has special knowledge, but actually, it's just what current Western culture tells you anyway :s - I dislike this type of conservatism which justifies the present way of doing things at all costs :s
1. Do you have a job?
2. Do you have friends?
3. Do you have a romantic relationship?
Seems a fabrication that is made precisely in the image of Western society as it finds itself today. I mean if a friend came to me depressed for example, I wouldn't even bother asking them if they had a job unless they said they struggle to get something to eat, or they don't have money to take care of a child or the like :s - but otherwise, why the big deal? Similarly, if someone stays and plays video games and smokes pot whole day, and they ask for advice, then I might tell them to get a job, just so they can get away from pot and video games, and more into the "real" world, and just stop being lazy. But, say, if someone spent their whole day studying science or religion or philosophy - well then, I'd ask them if they have what to eat, and if they do, why not keep going? >:O
With regards to friends and romantic relationships, I knew this girl who had 1000s of friends and was always dating someone, and yet she was one of the most miserable and depressed people I've ever met, even tried to commit suicide :s - so I think that quite the contrary, these things have very little, if at all, to do with happiness and mental well being. Quite the contrary to what Pete says, pursuing them is often the problem, not the solution. There are some things that you only get when you get, can't be pursued.
Personally, I think it's just a matter of accepting being uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable a lot of times - I could get depressed and throw a tantrum about it, but I don't. Just bear it. Once you accept it and don't make a big deal about it, you become capable of handling the uncomfortable moments of life much more easily. Sometimes you feel like crap - no big deal. But you have to learn to accept that feeling and not despair to escape it. Despair is just that - seeking to escape your condition. If you no longer seek to escape, and you just accept, then there is no despair. There may be suffering, sure, but there can't be any despair without the will to be other than you presently are. The Stoics were right in this regard - to will what already is.
The Stoics were right in this regard - to will what already is.
This strikes me as a defense mechanism of the extremely passive, which essentially leads to acceptance of circumstances regardless of how objectively oppressive or unfair they are. I'm not suggesting that one ought to feel resentment or self-pity over one's situation, but I see no heroism in silent suffering, even if you've become so adept at it that you can actually not feel suffering where others would. The point being that there is greater happiness in reducing your misery than in simply accepting it and convincing yourself that the bed of nails you've resigned yourself really doesn't cause you pain. That the bed of feathers is elusive hardly means happiness is found in just accepting the nails as your lot in life.
I just see the suppression of passion as a resignation from life, which is far worse than dealing with the wounds suffered while living.
TimeLine Let me present you a British entrepreneur. Do you think for example this guy ever read a book, let alone philosophy, in his life? And yet, he built a £22mm company. And I've met a few like him around here too...
I am not saying that reading books or being a philosopher is necessary, I am saying having common sense and applying rational thought is and there is no specific appearance in which this must be applied. If I am a highly moral and virtuous woman, does that mean wearing a bikini makes me otherwise? There is no specific way in which a person is required to apply themselves, but logical thought and being sensible is cognitive and essential in assisting us with the decisions that we make, in how to manoeuvre our will in the right direction. An education or reading philosophy is not imperative, but it is advantageous as it assists with articulating pre-existing thoughts or opinions based on this cognitive aptitude that one could not express because they did not have the language. They can then use consciousness advantageously to transcend societal and environmental influences and formulate their own destiny.
It is not about theoretical knowledge. A woman who has escaped terrible circumstances and went on to educate herself and all the while remaining kind and compassionate is just as much a feat as someone who can build a multi-million dollar company. Success is relative. An education can empower people to escape the cycle of dependence, but it is not absolute.
This strikes me as a defense mechanism of the extremely passive, which essentially leads to acceptance of circumstances regardless of how objectively oppressive or unfair they are.
No, I don't advocate being extremely passive, just that most things aren't going to bring about the results you're looking for anyways. You have to pick your battles carefully. So, by all means, do your best - I'm a very active person myself, go to gym, love exercising, working on growing my business (albeit I've been very slow as of late) and so on so forth. But my success is largely not in my hands, despite the fact that I'm trying to do my best.
So someone like me is very active with regards to those things which interest me. I doubt you'd find someone who is as laser-focused as I am with regards to the few things that interest me, and as willing to be disciplined on the road to them.
I just see the suppression of passion as a resignation from life, which is far worse than dealing with the wounds suffered while living.
Resignation is good. One has to resign the world in order to gain it. Didn't you hear about my bits on negotiation earlier? The one who is willing to give up what he wants is generally the one who wins. You cannot win without resigning. So, by all means, my philosophy isn't about "accepting defeat" and keeping our face in the mud. It's about managing circumstances in the best way for the long run. I hate passion because it's a strategy for losers - or "medium" success. Doesn't interest me.
There is no specific way in which a person is required to apply themselves, but logical thought and being sensible is cognitive and essential in assisting us with the decisions that we make, in how to manoeuvre our will in the right direction.
Yes and no. Too much thought can paralyze action, and some people can achieve results intuitively (not that I am one of them).
A woman who has escaped terrible circumstances and went on to educate herself and all the while remaining kind and compassionate is just as much a feat as someone who can build a multi-million dollar company.
But my success is largely not in my hands, despite the fact that I'm trying to do my best.
There are plenty of uncontrollable variables, sure, but the idea that people just sort of wake up one morning and happen to find great success isn't true. If you earned your success (i.e. didn't just have it handed to you, and we can define "success" however you want, not just financially), then you probably worked really hard for it.Quoting Agustino
The one who is willing to give up what he wants is generally the one who wins.
Well, considering I negotiate for a living, I find this advice useless.
If you earned your success (i.e. didn't just have it handed to you, and we can define "success" however you want, not just financially), then you probably worked really hard for it.
Yeah - AND I was really lucky. Work only takes you so far - which is not that far.
And this BS that if you are - for now - financially rich you worked for it is nonsense. I personally know - because I've worked for them - a few businessmen who are the farthest thing from "working for it", but they are rich.
at depends why you are wearing a bikini, in what circumstance you are wearing a bikini, and so on so forth, I can't judge all situations
Im on a tram now so apologies in advance for any grammar related errors, but there is no "depends" here, that is the point. It is that we cannot create an image of what is virtuous and moral, a person should not be placed into a category, otherwise we feed the opportunity for applied Thrasymachian behaviour. I have met many people who lack moral values but pretend that they do by appearing kind and modest. It is what you think, how you feel, and how this applies to decisions like not being sexually promiscuous or choosing to dedicate yourself to charity. How you appear on the outside is irrelevant.
Yes and no. Too much thought can paralyze action, and some people can achieve results intuitively (not that I am one of them).
Again, this boils down to cognitive capacity, the determined aspect. Some have this naturally -like athletes have the physical power- while others need to learn. I had a poor education growing up but I have an IQ of 143. That may be determined just as my environment was, but experience is a type of education too and the mind is a tool to access our capacity to exercise free will. Our duty should only be to strengthen reason and objectivity so that, as mentioned, we can transcend our socially determined position and provoke the will in the right direction.
Yeah - AND I was really lucky. Work only takes you so far - which is not that far.
Luck plays a role, but if tomorrow we redistributed the wealth equally, the same folks would end up with it in the end. I'd also question what you mean by "work," and agree the busy bee on the assembly line won't get rich, but the idea that an entrepreneur works a few hours a day is nonsense. Quoting Agustino
Obviously what you call "negotiation" is nothing like what an entrepreneur considers negotiation.
I will teach you all how to make a turd sandwich taste just like ambrosia, and realize how much more virtuous it is to not accept responsibility for anything, and see that the only virtuous justifiable spiritual life subsists on turd sandwiches.
Your young, you don't know what wisdom or virtue looks like, I maybe even attempt the far more difficult, and convoluted slight of hand with beauty as well. We are victims of cruel fate, and a malign system all.
Apparently to Pete it's a must to accept at least trying anti-depressants and pills (he seems to be little aware of the addiction effects and how hard it is to get rid of them), that it's a must to have a job :s , that it's a must to have friends, and that it's a must to be dating >:O >:O in order to overcome depression.
My own thoughts are that you're being silly. For your typical person, i.e. his audience, that is good advice, which is backed up by plenty of studies I'm sure. Most people, though not all, overcome depression by a combination of medication, work, and cultivating relationships. Exercise is good for it too. I don't see what you would propose other than some absurd equivalent to "just pull on your own hair to stop drowning."
I think it's good advice, as my discernment is unparalleled and the latter two things appear to be what are missing in my life. The first one, a job is relevant for living and actually being self-sufficient, but also becomes so for the second two as well, as the quality of the job reflects the quality of the people you have access to.
More importantly, one shouldn't question the advice no matter how absurd it sounds coming from someone successful, and healthy, but rather question all things from the mouths of decaying losers, regardless of how persuasive it sounds.
It doesn't take knowledge to be a politician or manager it seems. I think the idea that these fields involve some sort of "scientific knowledge" that only a select few have is BS. It's nothing but a way for a bunch of "experts" to keep these fields closed, just for themselves and others like them who speak their lingo so to say.
We were talking about policy knowledge. If you're a leading politician you should know your stuff. Obviously, right? as you're required to make important policy decisions. But in capitalist democracies where a lot of money is involved, it can become a popularity contest (or unpopularity contest as was the case in the last US election). Then you can end up with poorly thought out policies being implemented by unqualified politicians and policy decisions being sold by corrupt ones.
Stayed home from work, guts are in rough shape, might puke, my nerves hurt too, feels weird. Hope I can sleep some, normally up all night, cause I work at night.
Stayed home from work, guts are in rough shape, might puke, my nerves hurt too, feels weird. Hope I can sleep some, normally up all night, cause I work at night.
I hope you don't die otherwise this facetious response is going to look very inappropriate.
but if tomorrow we redistributed the wealth equally, the same folks would end up with it in the end.
I think one has to be quite naïve to believe this. Yes, I do expect people who end up getting rich again if we redistribute the wealth to come from the same pool of people - which will be much smaller than the overall population. Those with wealth will (1) want to have wealth, (2) have the discipline required - that at minimum is a requirement for most of those who will be rich. But out of this pool of people - luck will determine who exactly actually ends up with the money.
idea that an entrepreneur works a few hours a day is nonsense.
There are many entrepreneurs who work just a few hours a day, so it's not nonsense at all. Either you don't know about them, or for some reason, you don't want to know about them, maybe because it makes you feel bad. But regardless, yes, most entrepreneurs do work very hard when first starting out their companies. But there are exceptions - those who have the right connections and work with the government, for example, don't work hard at all - money just rains on them. All they work hard at is having dinner with the right people, and talking on the phone.
:s - I'm surprised you say this, but oh well. The fact of the matter is that it's not. Lawyers negotiate within certain fixed frameworks generally - for example when an entrepreneur sells their company you have transaction lawyers on both sides negotiating the nitty gritty of the deal (stock v. asset sale, etc.) to ensure that the buyer isn't exposed to additional liability and the seller gets the best terms possible. That's not the kind of negotiation I'm talking about. An entrepreneur very frequently has no clue about this nitty gritty, and doesn't much care to know it if he can get someone else to take care of it (CPAs, lawyers, etc.)
Entrepreneurs negotiate within larger frameworks, with less fixed conditions than lawyers. And I'm not the only one to say this, I can give you examples of millionaires and billionaires who affirm the same thing (including who say similar things to my advice). Being an entrepreneur also generally takes a completely different mindset than being a lawyer - for example, you'll be hard-pressed finding an entrepreneur who says go to school, get good grades, get a job yada yada the way you do. That, in fact, is typical of a lawyer mindset, that's what lawyers do.
My own thoughts are that you're being silly. For your typical person, i.e. his audience, that is good advice, which is backed up by plenty of studies I'm sure. Most people, though not all, overcome depression by a combination of medication, work, and cultivating relationships. Exercise is good for it too. I don't see what you would propose other than some absurd equivalent to "just pull on your own hair to stop drowning."
I am not a psychologist, so I wouldn't recommend anything in particular to them. However, it depends on the particular case of the person. I wouldn't give any general rules in fact. Getting a relationship can make you even more depressed if you're not ready for it. Getting a job if you're really depressed but have enough money to take care of yourself may also be bad - if you can't keep up you'll feel even more depressed, and it will get reinforced since it will look like failure is following you around. The secret is not to fail. Not to act. Act only when you will win. That builds self-esteem and confidence and combats depression.
More importantly, one shouldn't question the advice no matter how absurd it sounds coming from someone successful, and healthy, but rather question all things from the mouths of decaying losers, regardless of how persuasive it sounds.
>:O If you mean to suggest I'm the "decaying loser", I think you're far off the target with that. I think I've been fairly successful for the past 6-7 years or so, including recovering from OCD, depression and anxiety (including getting off the meds Pete recommends), starting to work as self-employed, reading and learning advanced philosophy, graduating from university with first honours, build a strong body at the gym, started to learn to play piano etc. etc. - so I really have no clue what you're on about with "decaying loser". I think I've done quite well.
And if that someone successful and healthy is Pete... give me a break. >:O Just look at his "healthy" teeth for a second, and you'll think twice. He's just a psychologist/therapist like all others, he only recently gained fame with his anti-PC things in Canada and videos appealing to angsty teenagers on YouTube. He's just found a way to con many thousands and make 70K/month while doing pretty much nothing. The only person who is improving significantly from his videos is him. His wallet is growing, yours isn't. He'll soon be a millionaire if his numbers continue (https://graphtreon.com/creator/jordanbpeterson). Of course with all that wealth for himself and his family he'll do great.
There are many more psychologists and therapists who are a lot more successful than Pete, who actually have serious success stories in their repertoire, including sports teams that they've revived, great sportsmen that they've worked with, big-name business leaders and politicians, and so on so forth. These are the real guys in the field, who are healthy and successful.
For example - this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Peters_(psychiatrist) .
And all this is really besides the point. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean you should listen to them. For example, Wittgenstein was an extremely succesful philosopher - he beat children at the kindergarten. Should you follow in his footsteps? Schopenhauer pushed a woman down the stairs - should you do that too, just cause he was successful? Ghandi slept next to naked young girls - should you do that too, just cause Gandhi was successful?
Success doesn't make something right. You have to think with your own brain. Not questioning advice because it comes from someone successful is the same as being an idiot, who cannot think for himself. A successful person thinks for themselves - they don't need any advice.
So you hope I do die, not but really? If you makes you feel any better, I am definitely dying, just as slowly as possible, physically, and as frequently as possible psychologically.
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, it was a general principle, and desires and needs are not the same. If you think you can be happy (let alone sane...) without strong human relationships, you're mistaken.
If you think you can be happy (let alone sane...) without strong human relationships, you're mistaken.
I'm not doing bad at all, and I haven't had an intimate relationship (girlfriend) in many years. I don't see how I'm mistaken at all. You are aware that there are people who lived in real isolation - as war prisoners, etc. etc. - for many years and remained sane. That's what real isolation is like - not "oh I don't have friends" or "oh I don't have bf/gf"... real isolation is no kind of social contact whatsoever - no forums, seeing no people, speaking to no people, etc. Not even having contact with an animal! That's what real isolation is, and it can indeed be a problem (though again, there are people who managed even in those conditions - it's not impossible).
That's clearly not true. Being alone is not being known, that's how you know yourself, by being known. Your reflection becomes distorted without a reliable mirror, and when you wish to manipulate your reflection.
Well, I am not alone just because I don't have a girlfriend :s - I work for people, so I'm always in touch with others to earn money. I have a few friends that I keep in touch with and sometimes those who are in the same country with me, I can also meet. I also talk to peeps like you here. So I am "known" in that sense.
Being alone is not being known, that's how you know yourself, by being known. Your reflection becomes distorted without a reliable mirror, and when you wish to manipulate your reflection.
Yeah, I would probably agree with you if that "alone" referred to this kind of isolation: Quoting Agustino
You are aware that there are people who lived in real isolation - as war prisoners, etc. etc. - for many years and remained sane. That's what real isolation is like - not "oh I don't have friends" or "oh I don't have bf/gf"... real isolation is no kind of social contact whatsoever - no forums, seeing no people, speaking to no people, etc. Not even having contact with an animal! That's what real isolation is, and it can indeed be a problem (though again, there are people who managed even in those conditions - it's not impossible).
Real isolation is indeed a problem, but that's different from the situations of people like me and you. We're not war prisoners locked up in a dark cell for years on end, not even seeing daylight...
The problem with the popularization of psychology/psychiatry is that real conditions like isolation, loneliness, etc. are given a trivial understanding. What we experience is not real loneliness or isolation.
That's clearly not true
Being alone is not being known,
that's how you know yourself, by being known.
Your reflection becomes distorted without a reliable mirror,
and when you wish to manipulate your reflection
There'll be an annexation of discretion without some human affection.
You could use improvement, and stronger relationships.
Well, I certainly could (I think all of us have room for improvement), but at this point in time, it would come in terms of sacrifices in terms of the time I can allocate to my business, to reading, to gym etc. I'm not sure I'd want that to be honest right now... This is what I meant earlier - I wouldn't be happy if I had to live like a "normal" person. There are certain sacrifices you have to make to have these things in greater abundance.
About not mattering how you get a result so long as you get it >:O - it was used to argue about implementing capitalistic policies in a communist country.
I would probably pick monarchy (practically) and anarchy (ideally).
Now that's more interesting; I would pick some form of liberal libertarianism (see Portugal) (practically), and anarchy (ideally). So, we agree philosophically..
This strikes me as a defense mechanism of the extremely passive, which essentially leads to acceptance of circumstances regardless of how objectively oppressive or unfair they are. I'm not suggesting that one ought to feel resentment or self-pity over one's situation, but I see no heroism in silent suffering, even if you've become so adept at it that you can actually not feel suffering where others would. The point being that there is greater happiness in reducing your misery than in simply accepting it and convincing yourself that the bed of nails you've resigned yourself really doesn't cause you pain. That the bed of feathers is elusive hardly means happiness is found in just accepting the nails as your lot in life.
I just see the suppression of passion as a resignation from life, which is far worse than dealing with the wounds suffered while living.
That doesn't contradict stoicism, and thus would not count as an argument against it, since stoicism is about that which is not within our power to change. I can't unspill the milk, so why cry about it? Thinking about what is not within our power to change and the effect that excessive or redundant negative emotions have on us can be productive and therapeutic.
Reply to Sapientia What's in your control and what isn't isn't obvious. Not many people worry about things entirely and obviously beyond their control, stoicism this then how one errs when it isn't clear.
Oh, are you on there? I should learn how to play a pop song, I've heard it can be done in a week, and then use my super intelligence to write and super humanly execute the greatest song ever composed and performed.
I am. BMI is only slightly more abominable than ASCAP, in the USA at least. So same difference. Join up, and you'll be adding your meaningless copyrights to some nonsensical database in no time!
Sounds like fun. I gotta figure out how I'm going to gtfo of where I am first, and dissolve more attachments in order to clear up my time, and spaces in order to work some magic. Need to take some risks.
That sounds like bullshit, which is right up our alley here in the music biz. Just post your email here publicly and I'll send you a 1/2 page legal doc outlining exactly just how we're fucking you in the ass. every angle.
Seems I'm in the wrong biz. If these creative sparks could just turn into dollars... *harp sound suggesting scene change that just leads to nothingness*
Oh, don't presume I'm daisy-eyed here. I've been through this debate a thousand times. I agree, except for the fact that many people (although small-proportioned to the general population) do make a living off of creativity.
Not many people worry about things entirely and obviously beyond their control...
Yes they do, and this can range from minor incidents, such as spilling milk or stubbing your toe, to major incidents, like being involved in a car crash. People very often stress or despair over the past.
We don't cry over spilled milk because it can be tonight's sacrifice...
Yes, we do, metaphorically. That's how the idiom came about. And I don't know what you mean by that. Is that not basically saying, "It doesn't matter, move on", which is more or less the point? There are various ways to rationalise or cope with such situations, but they most commonly consist of just that, which is stoicism in a nutshell, as I understand it.
William Irvine the Stoic author I don't like actually goes over this in quite some depth and in a good way too.
Things within your control (like spilt milk)
Things somewhat/partially within your control (like a tennis match)
Things out of your control (like an asteroid falling on your house, or someone shooting you in the middle of the street)
The only vague category is the middle one. But even there, something is fully in your control - the attitude you have, and how focused you are on trying your best. If you try your best, you maximise your chances of winning, but it's not a guarantee of victory. So your real goal shouldn't be to win, but to do your best, since that is fully within your control.
What's in your control and what isn't isn't obvious.
That's why they advocated the sharpening of judgement, to be able to differentiate between what is and what isn't in your control (cf. Hadot's Inner Citadel).
My personal ethics is actually quite close to Stoicism.
My BMI is apparently 19.6. How does this compare to my other BMI number? Versus y'all's other BMI numba?? How many albums and EP's have y'all made, ya'heard??
That's why they advocated the sharpening of judgement, to be able to differentiate between what is and what isn't in your control (cf. Hadot's Inner Citadel).
William Irvine the Stoic author I don't like actually goes over this in quite some depth and in a good way too.
Things within your control (like spilt milk)
Things somewhat/partially within your control (like a tennis match)
Things out of your control (like an asteroid falling on your house, or someone shooting you in the middle of the street)
The only vague category is the middle one. But even there, something is fully in your control - the attitude you have, and how focused you are on trying your best. If you try your best, you maximise your chances of winning, but it's not a guarantee of victory. So your real goal shouldn't be to win, but to do your best, since that is fully within your control.
There's more vagueness than you realise, it seems to me. I get why he'd categorise incidents like spilt milk as fully within our control, but that only makes sense with reference to the future. Obviously, there's nothing we can do to stop that from having taken place, unless we have a time machine. But we do of course have (some) power over what we do afterwards.
Oh, I've got nothing, it was just a high school band. Did a bit in uni too. Just one gig. I got through it without bodily injury which is the main thing.
That's one of Wosret's special powers, along with the power to unspill milk, and the power to talk about himself at such length, with such frequency, and with such vigour, that it far surpasses that of mere mortals such as you and I.
That's one of Wosret's special powers, along with the power to unspill milk, and the power to talk about himself at such length, with such frequency, and with such vigour, that it far surpasses that of mere mortals such as you and I.
Yes, I noticed - one time he said I'm the biggest liar on the forum I think >:O
Comments (61561)
Do you support or encourage the current abortion laws in the U.S.A., whether explicitly or implicitly through your action or inaction?
Quoting Sapientia
If yes then you do have some responsibility for the deaths of all of those fetuses. If no then you have no right to make it your business. That would be both silly and irrational.
Quoting Sapientia
I think that you too have missed a very important point. I have never stated that I support any laws, whether or not they are lax. I lived in the US, I owned and do own guns and I do agree that people should be allowed to own them.
Until something has actually served its purpose you very rarely appreciate its value. I am probably still alive today because I was carrying a gun on two occasions. I have never fired it at anyone, just its presence was enough.
Quoting Sapientia
I think not, maybe you would like to explain why.
Quoting Sapientia
No one has confused them, but is there another way to stop drunk drivers?
The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes.
Did you not read the article that Baden posted a link to. There are many other sources about the gun regulations in the US.
Quoting Sapientia
How nice, silly but nice. In an ideal world there would be absolutely no need for guns to be banned, because there would be no guns to ban.
Quoting Sapientia
And what is the problem? That people want to kill other people will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them have guns. they will used baseball bats, knives, rocks, even their own hands.
Quoting Sapientia
In what areas do we need to make progress?
Quoting Sapientia
Exactly what difference does it make to the world that you do not deny your responsibility or the fact that you could do more? Have you been out lately protesting in front of the establishments that sell cigarettes or that support the rights of people to smoke. Have you tried to stop car manufactures from selling cars and trucks that have high cancer causing emissions?
Are you going to sit around crying for the victims and families of the people that died because of drunk, drugged or telephone using drivers. I doubt it because there are so many, many more than those that have died from bullets. And by the way, most of them were actually innocent of any crime which is not the case in most gun related deaths.
Riding a high horse gives a great view on which to discourse, but it does not make you any more morally correct that Tiff and I.
And as I told Baden, the real solution to the problem of guns is education, repairing society so that there is no need for them. Educating both sides of the debate.
I am a butterfly, and I might change the weather. Who knows how many potential mass murderers have been dissuaded, or how many despairing or cynical non-voters have been inspired by my passionate yet reasoned posts?
Advertisers and politicians know that it is worth getting your message out there. If thinkers think otherwise, they are not thinking straight.
According to the articles I have read, it states that he was riding an illegal street bike. that must mean that there are regulations in place. They did not stop him from doing it though. what they are now saying is that they want to bring in stronger laws and punishments.
Regulations have to be enforced to be useful. How many cops would be needed to check every bike in the country for its compliance to the laws.
The same applies to gun control.
And that people want to molest children will not be nipped in the bud by not letting them work in schools. They'll find other places.
But it's still a good idea to not let them work in schools. The above just isn't a good defence.
Some related questions that should be considered:
1. Would would-be shooters still be willing to try to kill people if they didn't have access to guns, or would having to rely on a less effective weapon persuade them against it?
2. Would fewer people be killed and hurt if their attackers had to rely on a less effective weapon?
Mm, kind of. I'm more with @unenlightened on this.
Which one, so many to choose from. :D
I'm going to try a different tack if I continue anyway. It feels like brick wall territory. But supposing we are all rational and want the same thing, i.e. less tragic deaths, there should be some room for a meeting of minds.
Quoting Michael
:D
So if everyone in Texas drives around in cars with "Get rid of guns" bumper stickers, wearing t-shirts with the "Get rid of guns" slogan on it and places thousands of "Get rid of guns" signs all over the place, whilst running million dollar TV and radio campaigns they might actually eliminate guns from the state.
Don't think that will happen. Advertisers and politicians play to things that people secretly want, or think they want not what they are adverse to.
I doubt it would even be effective if Coca Cola slipped a "Get rid of guns" plug into their commercials.
I repeat, I have never stated that I am against any form of regulations or laws. I have from the beginning only questioned their efficiency in doing what they are supposed to do.
Quoting Michael
What is a would be killer? Is it someone that is going to kill or someone that thinks about killing?
Quoting Michael
Ask the Oklahoma bomber about that. He did not use guns.
This is how problems get solved by rational thought.
I look upon this forum as a place to go to practice critical thinking and to learn. Sometimes I get it right, other times I get it wrong.
If I argue for one side of a debate it does not mean that it is one of my personal beliefs. I don't take absolute sides in a competition.
If I want to discuss something properly I think I should be able to discuss both sides from an educated point of view and/or be able and willing to learn things I did not know about either side.
Which seems to me to be a type of nirvana fallacy.
Someone who would commit murder were they to have a gun. If we took their gun away, would they find another way, or would they reconsider?
He used another weapon that should be (and is) illegal. I was specifically thinking about your examples of a baseball bat, a knife, a rock, or hands. If the Las Vegas shooter had knives rather than guns, would he have killed 59 people and injured 500+?
To make the question simpler, would a ban on guns reduce the murder/violence rate? If there are good reasons to believe that it would, and if there aren't other (sufficiently) good reasons to keep them (as there is in the case of cars) then there are good reasons to ban guns.
But then to refer back to my previous example, even if banning child molesters from schools wouldn't reduce the child molestation rate, it is still a good idea to ban them from schools. The ban itself is good, irrespective of its consequences. There's a case for a deontological approach to the issue, too.
I don't know them well enough, but I support the current abortion laws in the UK.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, I do.
Quoting Sir2u
No, that's not a point that I've missed. What matters more than what you have or have not stated, is whether you do or do not support, in whatever form, the current gun controls in the U.S.A., which [i]are[/I] lax, whether or not you acknowledge them as such.
Quoting Sir2u
Again, the issue is regulation, not ownership. Please pay closer attention.
Quoting Sir2u
Then you didn't need a gun, as a replica would have served that purpose. And in terms of its function as a weapon, pepper spray or a taser would likely be sufficient in most cases.
Quoting Sir2u
No, I would not, because I've already done so.
Quoting Sir2u
You seemed to, unless you did that deliberately, in which case it's a straw man.
I think it foolish to think of this in terms of absolutes, which I suspect you're getting at with your question, in which case the answer is obviously no. Otherwise the answer is obviously yes, and comes in the form of - you guessed it - regulations. Fines or time served in prison acts as a disincentive for many of those to whom the risk of death or serious injury to themselves or others is not enough. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
Quoting Sir2u
In English, please. Didn't you used to be a teacher? What did you teach? Physical education? Not English, surely.
Quoting Sir2u
It does make a difference, but there will always be those who slip through the system. That's why systems are reviewed, or should be, after events like this.
Quoting Sir2u
Again with the lack of attention. It's not silly to seek [i]a closer proximity to[/I] the ideal. You were the one to bring up a total ban, not I. I'd consider that an ideal, but an unrealistic one, albeit one which would become more realistic as we [I]progress towards it[/I].
Quoting Sir2u
Really? That you even have to ask that question says a lot.
Quoting Sir2u
@Baden, do you ever feel like you're going around in circles, and not getting through to people?
No idea what you mean by that.
Quoting Michael
Is murder only committed with guns? If they never had a gun to take away would they still commit murder? In England there are actually very few gun murders. And what about all of the people that do have guns, would they be considered would be killers. If a mother uses her gun to protect her child does she falls into the category.
Most people that are intent on committing murder do actually go ahead and do it. THAT was the point of my question.
Quoting Sir2u
There is a big difference between someone that is going to kill and someone that is thinking about doing it.
Nirvana fallacy
Although looking at it now, the related perfect solution fallacy is the better term: "an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented."
That might not be true. Some people might have the desire to murder but only try to carry it out if they believe that they have a reasonable chance of success. Having a gun makes it easy, whereas having a kitchen knife makes it harder. And if we ignore the few cases where the killers plan to die during their attempt (like in Las Vegas, presumably), a lot of killers plan to survive and escape. That's easier to do from a distance with a gun than getting up close with a melee weapon. The latter is too risky.
Then look it up. Again, didn't you used to be a teacher? I mean, if you can't even teach [i]yourself[/I]...
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.
Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!
The second person's allegation, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.
It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.
It would be awesome if you actually quoted me rather than stretch the facts to meet your needs.
I have NEVER, EVER said I have owned a firearm. Full stop. Logic would tell you that if I have never had them, it would make it pretty hard for me get them "back".
I would appreciate it if you make that correction in your mind and when speaking about me. This is what I DID say:
"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."
Which is something that you Sapientia and Baden keep missing: My Second Amendment Right was taken away and you can reference my words above as to why. That is why I am such a strong supporter of protecting our Second Amendment Right, regardless of my own ability to own a firearm. I would do the same if someone took away my First Amendment Right.
Nothing empowers a person more than being told that they no longer have the right to do something.
I will not be quiet about my Second Amendment Right being taken away and I don't think my position is all that unique. Maybe you have run across someone like me before in your lifetime of reading.
[i]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller's[/i]
Rights are meaningless unless they're worth having, and the Second Amendment is not worth having. It does more harm than good and makes a mockery of the very concept of rights.
Bombing the venue could have done the job. So could ramming a truck into the crowd. But as for melee weapons, a man in Japan recently stabbed 19 people and injured over 50. So if you pick your targets carefully, you can murder quite a large number of people with "just a knife."
Person A is either failing to consider the bigger picture, which covers more than the recent mass shooting, or he is deliberately setting it aside. He is merely stating unhelpful truths, rather than offering an insight or a solution. That's what my Person B would object to.
The first part of Person B's claim is actually Person A's claim:
Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way. Therefore, there's no point in regulating (or banning) guns.
That's the non sequitur.
Yes. In a democracy, politicians have to be responsive to public opinion.
Yes, it's either that or there isn't even a conclusion. I'm not sure which is worse.
If you're a Benthamite who denies the existence of natural rights, then I can see why you would think it would be easy to repeal the second amendment. But you must understand that the drafters of the second amendment thought that the right to bear arms is grounded in the natural rights to self-defense and the protection of property. The second amendment cannot therefore be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right, according to its proponents. You may disagree, but know that your disagreement involves wading into deeper philosophical waters.
I don't want a weak apology, I just want it to be the LAST time that you state such bullshit about me.
Quoting Sapientia
Then it's a good thing that they are not your rights to lose because until you have them taken away, you cannot understand how important the protection of ALL rights actually is.
MY Constitutional Rights that you are speaking of are the bedrocks of our country and I will continue to enjoy or fight for our freedoms as needed and as I do I will not go quietly.
I'm not unsympathetic to your personal situation, and I would support a solution that would still allow someone like you to have a regular gun or rifle while having generally stricter controls and banning more dangerous weapons. I don't think that using medical marijuana makes you a danger to society in a way that you should be singled out like you were.
No it's not. That's why Person A doesn't say it.
Quoting Michael
Person A isn't necessarily opposed to regulating guns. He may be opposed to the kinds of regulations you favor and to banning guns, but that's not to be opposed to regulations in principle. So once again, you're the one making the non-sequitur.
Quoting Sapientia
Could you be more specific about which laws or controls you think are lax. I have stated several times that I am not against regulations being in place about the uses of guns. What I have also stated several times is that I don't think that they are actually making any difference. Apart from you judging my morality what difference does my support of them make to the debate?
Quoting Sapientia
You are contradicting your self or changed the topic as we go along.
Quoting Sapientia
Oh the joy of those that live in paradise. You cannot shoot a bullet into the ground with a fake gun, and a drunken idiot that thinks he is immortal will not usually stop until he hears the bang. Let's be honest, do you really want to get close enough to a possible killer armed with pepper spray, not me.
Quoting Sapientia
If the regulations in place don't work, what changes do you propose? Everyone says make the regulation stricter, but the only way to make them sufficiently strict is to make it illegal to have guns. If you disagree, I would love to hear your ides on the restrictions that you think would solve the problem.
Quoting Sapientia
Tut Tut, no one gives point for you pointing out grammar, punctuation or typing mistakes. Personal attacks are the weapons of the ignorant. The sentence could easily have been understood.
"The type guns of that we are talking about guns are already highly regulated just as the use of alcohol is, and it does not seem to make much difference to the amount of deaths it causes."
The purpose of dialogue is supposedly to try to understand the other party, something which you obviously have no intent of trying to do.
Calling into question my professional qualifications is even more pathetic. I am fully qualified to give high school level classes in English, sociology, psychology, history, philosophy and computer technology. I have been doing so for more than 20 years.
WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS?
Quoting Sapientia
It is not silly to seek maybe, but how do you do that? You have said that stricter regulation is necessary, but have not said in what way guns can be regulated or controls. I said that a total ban was the only way that I can see to solve the problem, am I not entitled to my opinion? And why do you disagree with it?
Quoting Sapientia
I asked it because it appears sometimes that we are discussing several different problems and it is unclear what is being discussed.
Are we discussing the ownership of guns, the use of guns, what kind of restrictions can be placed on guns or what I consider to be the real problem. What is the actual cause of gun deaths because guns cannot be blamed. (And don't try putting a question mark there because it does not need one.)
Quoting Sapientia
Yes I do, it is happening at this moment.
I asked at the beginning a simple question.
Quoting Sir2u
Does that question in anyway imply anything about my opinion. on gun control.
Quoting Sir2u
This does not express my opinion on gun control either. It is just my opinion on what happened and implies nothing at all about the benefits of having stricter gun control.
Well, you've got your apology, whether you wanted one or not. One is enough.
I am only human, and I am therefore susceptible to human error, so I won't be making any promises that I can't keep, but like I said, next time I'll check first.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
We're coming from two different perspectives. I don't value any so-called right that I don't recognise as such. You can give me the right to bear arms and take it away again as many times as you like, but that would be a pointless exercise.
I'm not a mindless nationalist. I think for myself.
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sapientia
At its core, this position is Hobbesian. I'm sure you can see how many Americans would view it as anathema, especially as the US was founded upon core, Lockean ideals. No one citizen can decide for others which rights are worthy or useless, it's a SOCIAL contract not a personal one.
I do disagree, and I do accept that that might lead to wading into deeper philosophical waters.
I find the history fascinating, but mixing history and politics doesn't always work, and there are plenty of examples to choose from. How about Medieval Europe? Tudor England? The Reign of Terror? Nazi Germany? Or we could align more closely with the topic at hand and talk about, say, the history of slavery in the United States.
The reason I said I have no idea what you meant by that is that I do not see how it applies to what I have said.
I have not stated or implied nor assumed that there IS a perfect solution to the problem. All that I have done is to point out that gun regulation has not worked so far.
I have not compared actual things to unrealistic, idealized alternatives. Unless you believe that banning guns complete is NOT the only way to solve the gun problem completely. If you are happy to accept partial solutions then this whole discussion is pointless be there are no real workable middle grounds.
I have definitely not rejected any solution because of its lack of completeness because as far as I know no one has actually even proposed a solution. Unless you think that saying RESTRICT GUNS is a solution.
Quoting Michael
If the person finds it too hard to murder someone with a knife then they have no intention of killing anyone. They only think about killing. That is the difference I mentioned earlier.
Quoting Michael
The few cases? There are plenty of them but most of them are not mass murders, the difference is the scale. How many family members have killed the rest of the family and then themselves? Yes, most killers don't actually plan to get caught. In the street where most killings happen they all think that they can get away.
Quoting Michael
So what are the statistics on this? I agree that there are drive by and sniper killings, but are there more of them than in your face shootings? Does the fact that having a gun and being able to kill someone from the other side of the street actually mean that am amateur would be motivated to trying killing? The amount of resolve needed to do something like that would need to be great. Would he even hit the target?
If the person really wants to kill someone would he not want to get close enough to be sure he actually did the job and will he would not be worried about the risks.
Thank you for another of your brilliant observations, the amount that they contribute to the discussion is infinite.
Beautifully written. (Y)
Yeah, I know.
So do you really think it is going to happen?
Oh dear, and the rest of us are not accord the same rights?
But I don't even know your profession so I can't call you out about it anyway.
Quoting Sapientia
Duh, you can never miss what you have never had and enjoyed. Try letting them take away your right to personally attack people on a forum and see if you are happy about that.
No one every accused you of being a nationalist in any particular way, we don't even know your nationality.
What I meant was that do you think the Texans are going to actually run around demanding that there are stricter gun laws or that they want them banning.
I think that somewhere such as the U.K. or Australia should set the precedent, so anything that doesn't conform with that precedent is what I'm saying is lax. One example would be The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
Quoting Sir2u
One thing's for sure, they can't make a difference if they're not there. But are you going to tell me that the cop who shot dead Scout Schultz would have just killed him some other way?
Quoting Sir2u
How do you think democracy works? It stems from us. The more of us who support proposed regulations, the stronger chance they have of being implemented. If we were in the US, even more so. Outside of it, we just have to try and hope that we can get through to them.
Quoting Sir2u
I was trying to emphasise her motive by relaying some background information, which it turns out I got wrong. The issue is about regulations, unless you change the subject.
Quoting Sir2u
You said you never fired it, so it didn't need to have that function, did it? You scared them off without firing a single shot. Now who's contradicting themselves? (Hint: it's you).
And let's be honest, do you really want any Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a firearm? I work in customer service, I know how stupid and emotional people can get. I'd rather be pepper sprayed than shot.
Quoting Sir2u
That's a big if, and a leading question that I reject. But as for what changes I propose, I answered that above.
Quoting Sir2u
Well, now you know, or at least are capable of finding out for yourself. You could simply look up UK gun law.
The US is not presently at the right stage to make it illegal to own a gun, because I predict that it would result in a large-scale violent backlash which I'd rather avoid. So, like you said, it's about education and attempting to change the culture. But in the meantime, let's have tighter regulation, like we have over here in the UK.
Quoting Sir2u
I suppose I should have expected a rant for that one. Let's just say that it's not what I'd expect, and leave it at that.
Quoting Sir2u
This has now been answered. And it was answered before me by Baden. And Michael.
Quoting Sir2u
People using guns to kill people is the main cause of guns deaths. It's just as obvious that guns can't kill people of their own accord as it is that a gun must be used to kill someone with the use of a gun.
We're discussing regulation, which can consist in who gets to own a gun, how they can get hold of one, where and when they can use it, and so on.
Quoting Sir2u
A question which you could have answered yourself in the affirmative. Baden provided evidence, as did StreetlightX, if I recall rightly.
This is your fantasy.
My largely uninformed opinion is that most Texans are too fat to run around, and too stupid to advocate what is in their own best interest. But I don't write them off, I encourage anyone who is around to eat sensibly and advocate sensibly. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt their response if any.
Phew! For a moment there, I thought you were going to reproach me, but I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this. After all, I've been the goddess of wisdom far longer than you've been a teacher (allegedly).
British, of course. I don't hide the fact.
Oh yeah, I'd love to have the right to bear arms. I think that'd be something I'd really enjoy. Then I could get all indignant at the thought of people taking it away from me. My precious! Leaves it alone, nasty hobbitses!
Fair enough. Now has the enactment and enforcement of these laws made any measurable difference to the death by gun statistics?
Quoting Sapientia
Please make up your mind, banning cops from having guns would be the equivalent of having a total ban. I have not talked anywhere about serving police officers being allowed or not to use guns.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree, but you still have not said what you would like to see implemented.
Quoting Sapientia
Again your failure to detail has led you astray.
[quote=] I have never fired it at anyone[/quote]
There is a slight but noticeable difference between firing a gun and firing at someone.
Quoting Sapientia
So now let's be honest. If your angry customer pulls his gun, which would you rather have? Hang on I'll pass the pepper spray so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Quoting Sapientia
I did not see any specific changes that you would like to see made to the laws, only general ideas. Not the same thing old chap. Or don't you have any ideas.
Quoting Sapientia
In what ways has having tighter actually reduced the amount of deaths by gun? The fact that it is almost impossible to buy a gun in England should also make it almost impossible to use one as a murder weapon, but they still get people killed by guns over there. The fact that England has never been a gun toting country actually makes any comparison to the US as invalid, there is just no statistics on gun crime reduction to compare to.
Quoting Sapientia
So I guess that it was a pleasant surprise when you did not get one. I don't waste time with rants unless I specifically state that it is what I am doing.
Quoting Sapientia
HaHaHa.
Quoting Sapientia
So exactly what are your thoughts on these. What would you personally propose? That is what I would like to know.
Quoting Sapientia
If I had wanted my own answer, I would not have wasted the time posting the question.
I have not seen any evidence that it either would have or would not have made any difference.
And most of them do love their guns or their right to have them if they so wish to actually do anything like that.
And you too apparently know how to write sarcasm.
How about that, me too. Born in Manchester.
And when you get tired of correcting my "mistakes I might stop making them.
Yes you could, you might even need to tell them to leave it alone[s]. Would that be exciting.
Nor will you see any evidence of counterfactual hypotheticals. An argument is the best you can hope for.
Quoting Sir2u
One can fall out of love.
Here's a thing about rights. A right is always an infringement of liberty. Not many people know that. But your right to bear arms in some place is the negation of my right for that place to be arms free, just as my right to smoke in the cinema negates your right to be smoke free in the same place. My neighbour's right to party like it's 1999 in his own home negates my right to a quiet life in my home.
Now where I live in the UK, it is front page news in the local rag if a gun is seen, never mind fired in the town - even a policeman with a gun. I must say I like it that way.
I have had a couple of those problems myself with my uneducated football star neighbor. I know exactly what you mean about people not understanding the concept of rights, it is a very one sided point of view for them.
Quoting unenlightened
That is one of the few things I miss about England and one of the things that put a lot of tourist off coming back here. All of the cops carry guns and it is quiet common to see fully armored officers patrolling the streets. If you have never heard about Honduras, look up the world crime statistics. San Pedro Sula, where I work is the #1, most unsafe, murder capital of the world. And I don't feel any safer seeing all the guns around.
The funny, but not amusing, thing about it all is that the government brought in a bunch of new laws, started a complete new branch of law enforcement using the military and there are still a bunch of dead people everyday.
Translation: "I have good sense, and you're an idiot if you don't agree with my ideas."
un, I read your entire post and Sir's response and I am wondering if you can expound upon the idea that "A right is always an infringement of liberty". I ask if you can because I would genuinely like to understand how that can be.
I don't think he meant it exactly like that.
I appreciate your understanding my personal situation Baden, I really do and I think it is fair to say that you feel that way about me because you know me. I do wonder if you could extend that same understanding, to my fellow medical cannabis patients in Arizona's program which as of 2016 was 96k strong.
Interestingly though, support for gun permits and control has actually declined since the 1980s. Probably on account of the medias direct hold on the ol' amygdala, selling you shock and disgust at historic highs. It could also be that the only thing worse than arguing against a position is arguing for it poorly. PC culture got Trump elected no doubt too.
I'm not saying, however, that there shouldn't be any gun control. I'm just disagreeing with the claim that we're all responsible for this as hyperbole.
I'm also saying if we're doling out collective blame, we must also blame those who haven't done anything to control gun usage for the murders. Bitching about it here without doing anything is equivalent to doing nothing at all.
Maybe this will clear up a few misconceptions about the Vegas killer.
Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said:
Paddock led "a secret life", building up weapons and planning the shooting for years
There is "evidence" Paddock may have intended to survive the shooting and escape
He is convinced others knew something about the attack
He is "troubled" that Paddock was able to move his huge arsenal of weapons into the hotel room on his own.
Now I ask again, what other restrictions and controls could have been put in place to stop this from happening?
Right on the spot. They could at least try to come up with some proposals.
Where would you get those statistics? The Office for National Statistics only seems to have available data relating to gun crime that goes back as far as the year ending March 2003, with cursory mention here and there of years from several decades back.
However, it does state that, in line with the large falls in the number of offences involving firearms recorded by the police since the year ending March 2003, there have generally been substantial decreases in all types of injury sustained resulting from these offences over this period.
There were 26 fatalities resulting from firearms offences, 7 higher than the previous year, the second lowest total since 1980; as in previous years, fatal injuries continue to constitute less than 1% of the total number of firearm offences.
Between the years ending March 2004 and March 2014, the number of offences involving firearms fell sharply from 24,094 to 7,729.
Quoting Sir2u
No, logically, it would not. But that's beside the point, because that's not what I'm suggesting. You really need to learn the difference between regulation and banning. You should also read up on UK law enforcement. Our police don't carry firearms unless they're part of a firearm response unit. It's a rare sight to see over here, unlike in the US, where it's the norm. Whether that's regulation or practice, that should be the precedent.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, I have. I did that in my very first sentence. I didn't go into detail, but that's not the same thing. You are capable of looking it up yourself, are you not? Then do so. I'm not your teacher, sir. Please teach yourself.
Quoting Sir2u
Okay, I'll give you that one. But I still don't accept that it was necessary and could not have been dealt with adequately using alternative means.
Quoting Sir2u
I'd rather he wasn't armed in the first place, which is why I'm in favour of UK-style regulation as opposed to US-style. If he was armed with a firearm, he could shoot me dead from behind or at a distance or even directly in front of me before I even knew what was happening. You seem to be assuming that there'd be a pause long enough for me to react to his pulling a gun on me with a counter attack, and that I'd be capable of pulling it of successfully, which is a bit of a stretch.
If he sprayed me with pepper spray, on the other hand, I'd probably have sore eyes for a while.
Temporary sore eyes vs. dead. That's a toughie.
Besides, it isn't about what I'd rather have, it's about what is sufficient for self-defense, and what the cost would be of loosening present gun control enough for me to be carrying around a firearm.
Quoting Sir2u
Or you want me to spoon feed you. Not gonna happen.
Quoting Sir2u
I'm not a statistician. I don't have all of the answers. There's a limit to what I know or can look up, and I'm not the only one here capable of doing that.
Quoting Sir2u
So? What's your point? Do you actually have one? Absolutes are rare, irrespective of what we happen to be talking about. That doesn't mean jack.
Quoting Sir2u
It has, so it doesn't; and there are. Did you think it was just you yanks who used to meet for pistols at dawn? Where do you think you got that from?
Quoting Sir2u
Ah, I see. Rant denial. Let's just pretend it didn't happen then, shall we? You didn't even resort to all-caps. You were perfectly composed the whole time.
Quoting Sir2u
Well, I could see that I had touched a nerve, and I didn't want to aggravate the situation.
Quoting Sir2u
First sentence, remember?
Quoting Sir2u
But it didn't need to be asked, so you wasted your time nevertheless.
Quoting Sir2u
And that doesn't matter, given that this is a discussion about gun control in general, as opposed to one particular case. Bigger. Picture. Look. At.
I myself find hunting a morally dubious activity, unless it's the primary means of one's survival, which obviously doesn't apply to most people living in the US. That said, I still support the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, and this is the justification the founders gave for the second amendment, not hunting.
Good point.
You know, I had fish twice this week, and bought more, and it was the first time I had meat in about thirteen years. Thinking of going entirely predatory. It's impossible to not acquire someone's indignation, even God and Jesus get it. It isn't that valuable of a sentiment when so cheap.
The second amendmend has absolutely nothing to do with personal gun ownership. Though I'm not a fan of trying to foam pad the world because I'm afraid of everything. I think that stopping looking at the news is far more effective. Focusing on, and looking for every danger has the exact opposite effect of quelling our fears.
Well I gave a couple of examples. I can give some more. But in general, if there is a right to do X, then that negates the right not to have X done. If we all lived on separate planets, or even widely spaced ranches, we wouldn't be too bothered by what the neighbours do on their own ranch or planet, and it seems to me that the US is still in its imagination in the space where if you don't like what your neighbours are up to, you can head West and carve out your own space in the wilderness. The internet is still like that to an extent as this community has shown by changing from the old forum. But the more one is crowded together and cannot escape the neighbours, the more apparent it becomes that one man's freedom is another's tyranny. So if the second amendment were adopted here, it would end my right to walk about town without any concern that someone might have a gun. And as I said, I value that right quite highly.
Here's another example.
The Old Crocks Race.
Nowadays, it is taken for granted that one is entitled to propel great lumps of ironmongery containing highly flammable liquid at great speed along the public highway. The drovers have been forced off the roads with their flocks, children can no longer play safely in front of their own homes or even walk to school on their own, walking on country roads has become unpleasant and dangerous, cycling likewise. It is almost impossible to find a place anywhere in the country that is not impacted by traffic noise, the pollution is pretty bad and kills a great many people. Such is the freedom of the road.
I'm probably not going to start a campaign to reinstate the Red Flag Act, but I do find it frustrating that at every intersection, the road is continuous in both directions, but the sidewalk always ends. The freedom of the road means the restriction of the sidewalk. Shouldn't one be shocked that the right to walk unimpeded in public space is so curtailed? Isn't walking a God-given right?
Also, you owe Tiff an apology, because I fucked up and misquoted her, and now she's mad at me. (I might also have suggested that she's a mindless nationalist).
So, not only do you expect us to be statisticians, you expect us to be legislators too.
I wouldn't put it past him, given many previous interactions with him.
I agree that it's better to mind not the times but the eternities, but not to the extent that we're wholly ignorant of the former.
It's not a necessary truth, but in your case you are quite right. :P
I am still not close to a place where I could eat, like something that I could imagine being cute as a baby without welling up...
Everything is just partisan identity. Politics, like the old joke about the religious polarization between Catholics and Protestants, and the atheist in the bar. A group of unknown Christians approach them and asks if they're Catholic or Protestant, so they reply "I'm an atheist", so they ask "a Catholic or Protestant atheist?".
People genuinely say "that sounds like conservative talk!" without batting an eye. If you look at the demographics of modern partisan issues in the past, they were not actually polarized along political lines, but everything seems like identity politics now, and issues are itemized along political lines. It isn't whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse (such things don't exist anymore), but whether left or right.
Left [I]is[/I] right.
Why do you think that the UK only has statistics since the year 2003. They were too lazy to work them out? Or could it be that there was not much to record before then? Or could it be that you don;t want to look for them. How long have gun restrictions been enforced in the UK? To prove that there has been any change, the reduction of gun related deaths, you would have to show the before and after numbers. Are these facts available? And please do not tell me to do the research. If you want me to believe that regulation is effective then you will have to show me the evidence. Actually they are available, but you have to look for them.
Quoting Sapientia
I just finished Googling "What gun laws or restrictions would Sapientia like to see implemented"
I did not get a very sensible answer. Is that your fault or mine?
Quoting Sapientia
You might have done something different and maybe we would not be having this discussion now because you got killed. I am not going to risk that.
Quoting Sapientia
So like I said if someone was going to kill it he would do it no matter the circumstances.
Quoting Sapientia
But if he attacked you with a knife there would be more time or that you would be more capable of counter attacking? The same thing applies no matter what the weapon, if you were attacked you would get hurt.
Quoting Sapientia
But you are the one saying that gun controls do work, so I presume that you at least know of some of the ways in which they have succeeded in changing things.
Quoting Sapientia
The point is, how come people are still getting killed with guns in England.
Here are some statistics from the UK.
2000/1 847 (of which 72 were caused by a gun / firearm) 764 14.4
2001/2 854 (of which 96 were caused by a gun / firearm) 793 15.2
2002/3 1041 (of which 80 were caused by a gun / firearm) 942 17.9
2003/4 852 (of which 68 were caused by a gun / firearm) 772 14.6
2004/5 834 (of which 76 were caused by a gun / firearm) 780 14.7
2005/6 764 (of which 49 were caused by a gun / firearm) 708 13.3
2006/7 749 (of which 56 were caused by a gun / firearm) 712 13.3
2007/8 772 (of which 53 were caused by a gun / firearm) 734 13.6
2008/9 668 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 640 11.8
2009/10 626 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 608 11.1
20010/11 648 (of which 58 were caused by a gun / firearm) 636 11.5
2011/12 553 (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm) 9.8
1997 Act prohibited certain particularly dangerous firearms which were easy to
conceal.
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014, makes it unlawful to purchase, acquire or possess, without the authority of the
Secretary of State, any prohibited weapon or ammunition.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 goes even further in restricting gun use.
There are plenty of controls in England, and yes there has been a slight reduction in the number of gun deaths. But if it was the laws that had the effect, why did it not happen earlier? Is the law the only thing that helped to reduce the death by gun rate?
Quoting Sapientia
" The fact that England has never been a gun toting country actually makes any comparison to the US as invalid, there is just no statistics on gun crime reduction to compare to". — Sir2u
You yourself have clearly stated that there are no guns being carried around in England, and as far back as I can remember there never has been a custom to do so. So why is England a gun toting country?
There are no gun crime reduction statistics in the US that prove that gun control works. there are statistics that show gun related deaths though they are not the same thing. I believe the same thing applies to the UK. I would be pleased to see the statistics that prove gun control works in the UK if you have a source.
Again the failure to pay attention to detail, I am not a yank, I lived(that is pasted tense) in the US. I was born in England.
Quoting Sapientia
The all caps were an attempt to make sure you saw the question so that you would not be able to say "Oh I must have missed that" when pushed to give an answer. which you still have not done.
Quoting Sapientia
Have your eyes checked, or your imagination. See things that don't exist can be dangerous to ones sanity.
Quoting Sapientia
Why do you think that I did not need to ask the question? The only way that I know of to get answers is by asking questions. How do you get answers? Or don't you bother to waste your time looking for answers?
Quoting Sapientia
I'm sorry, I thought you understood from the beginning what we were discussing, you should have said from the get go that you thought we were talking about a specific case. Someone would have put you straight.
The only time specific cases have been mentioned is when they have been used as example to clarify a point.
Damn I must be getting old, how could I have forgotten that only legislators have enough brains to come up with a decent idea.
Quoting Sir2u
I proposed an idea: repeal the second amendment.
But did you consider the results of that happening. Again How would that actually affect the gun deaths statistics? Would it really make any difference?
On its own it wouldn't do anything (as I've said previously). But it would give the federal and state governments greater freedom to put in place stricter gun control laws.
I don't know if stricter gun control laws would make a difference, but common sense suggests that it would (if not also studies on countries that have introduced stricter gun control like the UK and Australia). If you can't buy a gun legally then it's going to be much harder to get a gun and shoot people. Obviously some people will find a way to get one illegally (or use other legally obtainable but probably less effective weapons), but then the same is true of fully automatics, grenades, and other weapons that are already illegal – but it's still good that they're illegal. And unlike other potentially deadly weapons like cars, knives, baseball bats, and the like, guns are specifically designed to hurt and kill people, and don't have a peaceful primary purpose (travel, cooking, sports, etc.).
I just don't think that the self-defence defence is sufficient to justify the free-availability of such dangerous tools. I feel (and believe I am) much safer in a country like the UK than I would be in any country with little to no gun control. I quite literally cannot fathom how anyone could think differently.
I don't. If you were paying closer attention to what I said, then presumably you would not have made such an assumption.
Quoting Sir2u
What is this? A quiz?
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, or, if you have that information, you could share it, like I shared my findings a little while ago.
Quoting Sir2u
I suppose you think you're being witty, but it's obviously your fault, because you should have simply googled "UK gun law", based on what I already told you.
Quoting Sir2u
And I'm not going to risk the UK becoming like the US, where you can carry a gun around with far too few restrictions, and you can get yourself shot just walking down the street. I would do my utmost to fight against that if I thought that it was a serious prospect.
No Second Amendment over here, thanks. It's not welcome.
Quoting Sir2u
Am I an "it" now?
Anyway, that's an unwarranted assertion. I agree with Michael's earlier point, and also with unenlightened's point about hypothetical counterfactuals.
Quoting Sir2u
Okay, now it's my turn. What are the statistics relating to survival rates of gun shot wounds compared to those of stabbings?
There's being hurt and there's being dead.
Quoting Sir2u
They've obviously made it more difficult to obtain a firearm, which has in turn lead to less firearm related crime than there would have otherwise been. Even if you could show that this has in turn lead to a proportional sustained increase in other weapon related crime, which I doubt you can, that'd still be a net benefit on a like-for-like basis, as injuries sustained from a firearm are, on average, more severe, and have a lower survival rate.
Quoting Sir2u
That's a stupid point. Because, like I said, there are almost always exceptions, whatever it is we're talking about. The system, as with most systems, isn't foolproof. It would be unreasonable to expect it to be otherwise. All we can do is try our best.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. It's an irritating distraction from sensible discussion.
Quoting Sir2u
1. What's your source?
2. Note the downward trend.
Quoting Sir2u
You've just demonstrated that you could have answered your own questions. So why did you ask me them? I'm not here to be quizzed or tested. I'm not one of your pupils.
Quoting Sir2u
No, I think there were likely other factors which played into it. But that would require the right data as well as expert statistical analysis; and again, I'm not a statistician.
If you know more than I do, then kindly stop playing Socrates and cut to the chase.
Quoting Sir2u
Believe it or not, history extends further back in time than what you can remember from experience. Pistol dueling disappeared in England a long time before you were born. It began in the 18th century and fell out of fashion in the mid-19th century.
Quoting Sir2u
I didn't claim that it is. I disputed your claim that it never has been.
Quoting Sir2u
Those statistics are evidence that the controls in place, or rather lack thereof, do not work as well as those in other countries.
Quoting Sir2u
Your own statistics show that to be the case, as do mine from the Office for National Statistics, although you didn't provide your source.
Quoting Sir2u
Yes, I realised that after I had made that comment, and I couldn't be bothered to go back and edit it. Plus, I figured you'd have already started to write your reply before I'd have the time.
And you have some nerve criticising me for attention to detail when you're no better.
Quoting Sir2u
Sure, sure. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I have no intention of answering that question.
Quoting Sir2u
Questions that you can answer yourself don't really need to be asked. That's common sense 101. If I wanted to know what the weather is like outside, I could ask you, or I could go and see for myself.
Quoting Sir2u
Whatever. Let's just move on then. Would you like to rephrase your question to make clear it's general relevance to gun control, rather than the recent shooting in particular? Or, if your question was rhetorical, can you simply spell out your point, rather than do this the long way with all of the unnecessary back-and-forth?
I have training in defending against knife attacks. I don't have training in dodging bullets.
I think any sane person would rather a would-be attacker had a knife than a gun (although obviously the preference is no attacker at all, but as I've repeatedly been told, there are evil people who will try to kill regardless of what weapons are available to them).
Lol... super legit.
I once accidentally walked in on my brother when he was in the bath. He's evil, so naturally he tried to kill me with a rubber duck. But what he didn't realise was that I'm evil too. His last words were, "No! Not the shampoo!".
That's right. Shampooed to death. True story.
Who needs guns?
https://youtu.be/TOI9DKsWMx4
No, I gave you a decent idea: basically, use the UK law as a template. That wasn't good enough for you, remember? You wanted me to get into laborious detail unnecessarily.
If there's something in the UK law that you object to, then I'm all ears.
You have shared no information to show that gun controls have reduced gun related deaths. And why should I try to find information to prove that you are right?
Quoting Sapientia
I never asked for information about gun laws. I asked what you thought. When you told me to find out
myself I googled it.
Quoting Sapientia
As you did not want to try to prove your own opinion I will provide the information I asked you for.
Judging from the chart I supplied,
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
murder by gun does not seem to be the preferred method of the English.
2000/1 847 murders of which 72 were caused by a gun / firearm 8.5%
2011/12 553 murders of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm 7.0%
Some are lower , most are higher but this shows the difference over 10 years.
Murder rates dropped by a colossal 45%, but gun deaths only dropped by 1.5 %.
What does that tell us?
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think so. With or without guns people are still killing each other.
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Don't you just love correcting my errors. Unfortunately this one is correct.
Misusing a question mark:
Where the question asked is indirect, namely it implies a question instead of expressing it, or describes a question without actually asking it directly, there is no need for a question mark. For example:
We may expect word from you shortly.
He asked me why I was no longer skydiving.
She asked if she could leave her gift at the door.
I never asked the question, just implied the asking of it. I never expected an answer.
Quoting Sapientia
Of course I would be glad to rephrase my question so as to make its meaning clear.
Does anyone have any evidence that gun control would have actually stopped any of the recent killings?
There, I think that should be clear enough.
While my question was not in any way rhetorical I will spell out the point that I want to make.
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.
I do have an objection, but I don't want to turn you into all ears.
Lucky you, no sarcasm at all intend. I got the same for my daughter. But lucky you having that training when maybe 99% of the population does not. But you can and should run from both. Most attackers would not be able to do much if they had a knife and most would not be able to hit you if they had a gun.
Quoting Michael
Have you ever seen a real live knife fight? If someone gets close enough to touch you he can kill you. And there is a lot to aim at that close in. At a short distance a knife can be thrown with a lot of damage being done. And a knife going into you guts is just as bad as a bullet but you will probably receive more wounds than with a gun because knife wounds come in unlimited numbers unlike bullets in a gun.
Quoting Michael
We agree on this, I'll bet it wasn't a bum on the street that gave you that advice.
What in particular would you like to discuss.
Its uses.
Its quality.
Its appearance.
The morality of killing a cow so that you could acquire it.
Its effect on world economy.
The amount of manure that was produced before the demise of the poor beast.
I have asked how you think that it would help, because I don't really see how it has even had an effect in the UK.
If that is your idea of laborious detail, then I am sorry. Just forget it.
I want to discuss why Sap is in danger of being all ears.
Magical convergence, evolutionary morphing, spontaneous physical deformation, optical distortion, personalized modification.
Who the hell knows.
Boring, let's move on.
We both have, actually.
Quoting Sir2u
That's not what I said though, is it? Why do you think that you can get away with subtly twisting my words and then redirecting the distorted version back at me in question form, whilst expecting me to answer as if they were my very own words?
I said that if you [I]have[/I] that information...
Quoting Sir2u
I find it hard to believe you could be this stupid. Rather, I think that you know exactly what you're doing, and you're just trying to teach me some kind of lesson. But the reality is that you're being illogical and needlessly obstructive.
I told you what I thought, multiple times. If I think that UK gun law should be used as a template for elsewhere, and you're after more detail, then all that you need to do is to google "UK gun law". You don't need me to do that for you then relay the information. It's called cutting out the middleman. You should try it some time.
Quoting Sir2u
The statistics tell us that we've likely been doing something right, otherwise the trend would go the other way, and it tells us that we're doing something right in comparison to other countries who have looser gun controls and higher numbers of gun related fatalities.
Quoting Sir2u
Beside the point. The sooner you realise that the better.
Quoting Sir2u
That's amusing. You don't seem to understand what you're trying to teach me. Your question was unlike each of the examples that were given, which I agree do not need a question mark. Your question started with a "how", so should end with a question mark. That part at the beginning of your sentence doesn't change that. You asked me a question.
If each of the examples given were worded differently, they'd also require a question mark:
May we expect word from you shortly?
Why was I no longer skydiving?
Could she leave her gift at the door?
Your question is like the above. The point is, this is still a question, isn't it? Yes, it is.
Quoting Sir2u
Admittedly, this is from memory, but that doesn't look any different. Can you clarify what you mean by recent killings? At first I took you to be referring to the recent killings in the Las Vegas shooting, but that's just one particular case, and it is exceptional in ways compared to other shootings. If you're including other shootings, then yes, but not direct evidence, which, as unenlightened hinted at, can be difficult if not impossible to obtain, due to the nature of counterfactuals. If you don't factor that into your request for evidence, then you're being unreasonable.
Quoting Sir2u
Okay, then where's [i]your[/I] evidence? You're in the same boat as me, old chap. That's a counterfactual. That you find it hard to believe is not evidence. And Michael expounded on why it can be a game changer. As far as I'm aware, you haven't refuted his counterargument.
Go for it, break a leg. (Preferably not mine).
You weren't clear enough with your questions. You seemed to just be pressing me for more detail about what the proposal would consist in, which you could find out yourself by looking up UK gun law.
I think that it would lead to less firearm related crime, and I think that the statistics are evidence of this, but to truly test it you'd have to implement it over there and see what happens. All we can do is make predictions.
"A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun
restrictions by 75% in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no
significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature." http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-126_23dbdd9e-2135-4a5c-9979-cebc6b6492e4.pdf
What this means is that Republican legislatures take action in response to mass shootings and Democrat ones don't, thus proving that Baden and his ilk are murderers because they (1) they don't do shit in response to murders (ergo they're murderers), and (2) they know better, unlike Republicans, who are too religion crazed to know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
Yes it is the same, because I think that it was clear enough from the beginning. A plain and simple request for information should not be a big problem to understand.
No, because in the context of the thread it has been made perfectly obvious which killings are being discussed and why they were being discussed and I am not going to repeat myself.
I wanted to discuss whether any of gun control laws being more forcefully applied or even stricter laws would have had any effect on the gun killings.
Quoting Sapientia
Since when do I have to provide evidence for my thoughts? I made a simple statement of belief that I never invited anyone to argue about. If you disagree, then the problem of providing evidence, the burden of proof, falls on. If you disagree with me then you have to prove me wrong.
It has been tested, and the evidence is clear that the US is not part of the UK precisely because it had and continues to have superior weapons to the UK. Had the US listened to you, it would have regulated itself into continuing servitude to King George the whatever, which was likely your plan anyway. Fortunately we had people like George Washington who put a boat on the Delaware River and laid waste to your cockney gibberish talking forefathers. Now the world is our bitch. Eat that with your Sunday roast.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf
There are only 270 pages to read through so that I can get an idea of what you specifically mean, could you at least give me a page number to look at. There seems to be little difference between US gun laws and those of the UK. But I am not going to read the 240 pages of the US Federal gun laws as well.
Quoting Sapientia
I thought you said "I think" was not good enough as evidence.
Now that was cool.
Just one question, how do you know he is from London?
My goodness, that was in reply to you asking me what I think.
Another reason why I'm cutting this short.
Which is exactly what I did and you insisted that I provide evidence. :s
That is not my problem. I'm advocating that the UK gun law, in its entirety, be used as a template for elsewhere. It might work, it might not, but based on the statistics, I reckon it works better than gun laws from elsewhere. If you want to delve into the finer details, then that's your prerogative, but stop trying to drag me into it.
I sir take offense to your highfalutin, obnoxious attitude. >:o
I am a proud Mancunian and find it distasteful in the extreme to be compared with a cockney. Oh the shame of it, you might just have well called me a scouse. ;)
OK, so I just did a quick search of some key points of the law that might make a difference.
Restrictions on the buying of guns is about the same between the 2 laws.
Restrictions on what can be bought are a little different but have little relevance to the topic. The buying of semi automatic weapons is the biggest difference here, but not being able to buy one has not stopped any killers before. Bans on large capacity magazines, that no longer exist in most states but do in the UK, have little effect as even an amateur can change one in seconds.
Where they can be sold, yes there is some difference about who can sell.
Reasons allowed for buying guns, basically the same.
I don't know what the difference might be that makes the UK laws better than the US laws.
Maybe the difference is not in the laws, but in the people. Maybe we need to change the people.
"In January 2016, President Obama issued a package of executive actions designed to decrease gun violence, notably a measure to require dealers selling firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and, in turn, conduct background checks of prospective buyers. Gun-control advocates hope these steps will help close existing legal loopholes that have allowed violent criminals and others to purchase weapons without FBI screening.
Additionally, he proposed new funding to hire hundreds more federal law-enforcement agents, and budgeting $500 million to expand access to mental health care. (Suicides, many by individuals with undiagnosed mental illnesses, account for about 60 percent of gun deaths.) The president said he was compelled to move on this issue under his own authority because Congress had failed to pass “common-sense gun safety reforms.”"
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/
Thank you, that would be interesting.
I'm not, but only just. I'm to the immediate northeast of London, in the wonderful land of Essex.
Just goes to show, you cannot trust those bloody yanks. Lying buggers all of them.
Er, what was that about wonderful sex. OK I see it now with my glasses on.
That was actually something I got asked a lot while living in the US, why are there so many sexes in England. There are even more now though.
Anyhoot, so, what happened was on Wednesday I stuffed up at work, did a major booboo to the dismay of my manager who, on Thursday, appeared to doubt my reputation as a highly intelligent and articulate cutie-pie. Thus, Thursday night I was stressed and agitated and took it out on everyone. I couldn't sleep and so I plotted and plotted and spent the entire evening creating a sophisticated cloud-based tool that would simplify the workload of so many people that by Friday lunchtime, the entire state congratulated and praised my new tool.
SAVED! 8-)
Yeah. Well, great chatting to you all. I just finished lunch. It was ok.
Didn't miss much, take my word for it. Not that I think anyone even understood it.
Lol
It's The Gunbox now. Talk about guns or gtfo.
And that is a fine example of a finely controversial posting.
It contains sexist comment, violence, conspiracy, frivolous self praise, unsolicited personal information and sexual innuendos.
Bloody marvelous.
I messed up at work too. I supported a new university rule that allowed students to carry bazookas on campus. Luckily, I don't bear any responsibility at all for the large crater that used to be the teaching building. 'Cos Hanover said so. Oh, sweet liberty!
No, if you supported them you are responsible.
Why did you not just keep your mouth shut when you agreed to what they were doing, then no one could have blamed you. Better still, help pay for the bazooka on the quiet or donate it anonymously and then tell them loudly not to use it.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/stephen-paddock-secret-life-apos-084113389.html
How could anything have prevented this from happening?
Sometime's it's brain cysts, it really sometimes is. The brother of that dude said that he hopes they find a tumor. It'd be interesting if they do.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I can't believe I've only just noticed this, but I was going back over the discussion, and it turns out that I wasn't the only one to be mistaken here.
So, here I am, actually quoting you, Tiff. You said the following:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Saying that they're after your current guns implies that you currently have guns for them to take. And saying that they're yours implies that you own them. Logic would tell you that if you currently have them, then that would make it pretty hard never to have had them.
I would appreciate it if you checked what you yourself have said before reproaching me for misquoting you, and I would also appreciate it if you didn't stretch the facts to meet your needs, which is what you criticised me for doing.
In short, cut the crap.
Your mind is but small, child, for you missed the brilliance of my masked helplessness that covers a gleaming will of iron.
O, the pointlessness of having a conversation about the pointlessness of having the conversation about the pointlessness... ad infinitum.
No one ever mistook you for anything but a person with a will of iron.
This is my 7297th, beat that.
Alright, I'll add the 12,382 from the old site, giving me 16,566.
You had 3,236 at the old site, giving you 10,533.
Tiff has the most with 17,682 + 997, giving her 18,679.
Edit: I haven't tried accessing it for a very long time actually...
Actually, you can search for posts too. You just can't click through to read the whole discussion.
Searching for my posts that way, the top result is me saying "moses88 is a crazy person." The last thing I ever said on there.
Yeah that's really terrible. I remember after it fell through I was annoyed whenever I tried to look back for things, I had to search on Google, find the thread, and then use the Wayback machine... But soon after you couldn't even use Google to find the pages, cause Google had updated its cache. So then it became impossible to check for anything on the site, so I pretty much abandoned it.
You must be referring to Bazooka Joe and his delicious chew.
Topps, cool. We had a Topps factory near where I lived when I was young. I used to collect Garbage Pail Kids cards. Oh, the joy...
Don't like Goosebling all that much. Not convinced.
Good 'ol Ford is in it. But, it really is propaganda. Just entertaining propaganda. ;)
Let us know how it goes anyhow. (Y)
I missed it not, for my senses are so finely tuned that I sense even your inner secrets. Your helplessness is nothing more than clouds in your mind that are caused by your insecurity. Your failure to uncover the will of iron is caused by your desire to remain unnoticed, a wallflower.
I posted that for three reasons:
Let's say that a perfect score is 10 and that every one of your posts is perfect. Your quantity × quality score is 5,000.
My posts would only need to average a score of 1.19217930377 to beat you.
I reject your claim!
Although, Agustino has 7,000 * 0, so you've definitely beaten him.
Well, I've read some of your posts .....
Or did you want a serious answer?
It's alright. I have at least 500 with a score of 10, so the other 3,500 don't need to be good.
The only problem would be to value some answers over others.
My traits would simply dominate, in accordance with power law.
>:O >:O >:O That is a great achievement you know, not that easy...
I once bowled 0 for 10 frames when I was a kid.
[hide="Reveal"]
On a serious note, I think it's worth investing to bring back the content of that forum back online. I'm not suggesting we revive the old PF, just that there are countless threads that have answered many of the questions here by some really good people. It would be a waste to not do anything about it, no? I miss reading some posts made by Postmodern Beatnik or Gassendi1.
— ArguingWAristotleTiff
You are accurate in that I used the words "my current guns" and I should have said "our current guns". I , party of one, was trying to convey how a medical cannabis patients rights have been taken away and to what degree the Federal government is carrying out that infringement of our rights.
So let me clarify for you: if you are a patient in the medical cannabis program you are by law, no longer able to possess, purchase or own a firearm, which is an infringement on our rights.
What? I'm coining it.
Thanks, will see what I can do or organize.
The issue is that in the sales agreement, I think Paul sold the site with all its content as well, so technically he cannot give that content away or sell it now without the agreement of Porat.
Yeah, *grits teeth*, will see what @Benkei says.
What was special about Gassendi1? Lots of people seem to be talking about him, but I never was on the site when he was around, so I have no idea about him.
If I remember correctly, he was a professor and grad student from an ivy league school, Princeton if I'm not mistaken. Just reading his posts you knew that he knew what he was talking about. It was hard to argue with him due to his stature, and that's supposedly what got him banned.
Oh? He was banned? That's interesting...
What were his positions on the "big" issues? :P Anything that stood out?
I joined PF after he was banned. But, I read some of his posts. I can't recall any specific details as my memory extending from a dialectical method never had the chance to participate with him. He died around 2011 thereabouts I think, his obituary is online somewhere.
Is Elliot Sober worth reading, do you think?
Cat's are philosophers; they play by their own rules. A natural ally.
It isn't clear to me why normalizing guns in all public and private settings (churches, schools, day care centers, operating rooms, hospitals, bedrooms, etc.) was even a remotely worthwhile goal. That's the hard part to understand.
Another attempt to explain the problem and offer someone else controls as a solution before admitting that she has no idea of the solution. And it is another useless piece of journalism.
The only thing that she said that makes any sense is the title.
2015: 265
2014: 235
2013: 227
2012: 285
2011: 243
2010: 258
2009: 272
2008: 251
2007: 216
2006: 256
2005: 199
2004: 164
2003: 278
2002: 291
2001: 300
2000: 340
1999: 341
1998: 312
1997: 319
1996 358:
1995: 342
1994: 342
1993: 360
1992: 331
1991: 351
1990: 331
In Australia, the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm is reported to be
2012: 16%
2011: 12%
2010: 12%
2009: 13%
2008: 12%
2007: 9%
2006: 14%
2005: 15%
2004: 17%
2003: 15%
2002: 14%
2001: 21%
2000: 20%
1999: 18%
1998: 21%
1997: 22%
1996: 22%
1995: 25%
1994: 19%
1993: 25%
1992: 20%
1991: 21%
1990: 25%
If the gun laws were responsible for bringing down the number of homicides, why do none gun related murders also go down drastically?
Could it be that without guns no one wants to kill anyone.
Urgh. In my world, rhetorical questions are questions, and questions need a question mark. It just doesn't look right. It's like you're trying to help the reader recognise that it's rhetorical, but I don't need your help.
I know what I'm going to use my MoivePass for these coming weeks.
Spoiler:
[hide]At the end of the movie you realize that replicants and humans are no different from each other.[/hide]
In my world we don't waste our time criticizing other people grammar when the content of the writing is what is important.
It is not a question, not rhetorical not a simple question. It is a statement of what I think.
But in my world, it's an obsession, and my behaviour towards it is compulsive. It's like if you were to wear your shirt backwards or repeatedly poke me in the arm. It's hard to ignore.
Quoting Sir2u
If it's not a question, then it's worded wrong. You've worded it like you would a question.
So sue me for being a grammar fuck up.
Or better still, Put a question mark on the end and answer the question.
"Americans are just like us but with bigger portions."
"...other people's grammar..."
Yes, you should always give me a break :D
I'm breaking down your door as we speak. :D
Hopefully not to put toothpaste on my face while I sleep...
What happened in the Middle East to explain such huge increases in terrorism? Was it the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And what about Nigeria?
It's interesting that the "Western Countries" can only be seen in 2001.
+UVF, UDA, UFF, INLA etc.
But I would prefer a Kit-Kat X-)
I just got up a couple hours ago, and have to go to work in ten hours... I'm definitely pushing through.
How long's your shift?
That's always the message nowadays.
Eight hours, although they always want you to stay like three hours longer, but that's dumb, so the most they usually get out of me extra is like half hour, forty five minutes.
Still a fair old whack o' work. I'm only on for four hours teaching. I reckon I'll give myself two or three hours sleep and I'll be fine.
Yeah, give them a somewhat functional brain at least.
For a change. Lol.
And the lapdog obeyed its command.
I imagine that Trump's base has no idea that he stole a meaningful protest and turned it into a populist tactic.
I imagine that Trump opponents have no idea that millionaire entertainers hijacked a sporting event for personal reasons.
Taking a knee during the national anthem isn't hijacking a ball game. It only lasts a few minutes and is easily ignored, if you choose to ignore it.
Notice how you frame the situation using the phrase "Millionaire entertainers." Why is their wealth significant if the issue is that they selfishly disrupted your entertainment? It's important because Trump's base is motivated by the notion that the underclass is supplanting their socioeconomic position.
Don't waste it. You should... Oh, too late...
Dammit. I got sucked into inane debates about psuedo-Christian bullshit, knowing full-well I'll change nobody's mind. Same thing every time.
Lol. Well I did try to help there by making it all about you. :)
More attention, please!
Ha, deficient sleep + excessive Internet usage >> random finger movements across shiny little digital keyboard.
The very stuff of a philosophy forum member/admin...
That's how most bannings get done to be honest. Random as a 2am Trump Tweet.
[Insert disclaimer here]
So are you now at risk of being banned? :-O
Good point. Have to stop doing that. We all owe you a debt of gratitude, good sir! You have saved us from myself!
What can I say, I have a savior complex. (Wait, what?)
:D
It's personal to him. I suppose each player could bring a poster and bring attention to his equally valid complaint, from ending domestic abuse to better caring for our children. I mean what's a more logical venue than a football game for airing grievances?
Quoting praxis
That's your opinion only because you don't share my view regarding the significance of the national anthem. If you think the kneeling players don't realize the significance, you're terribly naive.
Quoting praxis
It's significant because there's some hypocrisy in hearing a coddled, privileged athlete talk about his limitations in American society.Quoting praxis
The opposition to the protests has nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with an unpatriotic act. You might think patriotism is stupid, but this is not some paranoid reaction by white people to black success.
I share in the opinion of all your lectures about the horrors of racism, but disagree entirely the matter is properly or at all effectively addressed during the national anthem of a football game. The cause of those kneelings is not advanced a single yard by their actions, and in fact, it's likely losing yardage.
If it's just a song, sure. If it's not, maybe not.
To be clear, though, you're making an argument I doubt the protestors would accept. They do think what they're doing is radical, but I get that you don't get American patriotism. Like American religiosity, Europeans can't wrap their heads around it.
And a bulletproof vest.
We can agree to disagree on stuff we come at from radically different angles. But I would have thought even American patriots would find something distasteful in Trump branding these protesters "sons of bitches" while playing softball with their white nationalist counterparts.
Your objections sound reasonable to me. Nevertheless, where was the nationalistic outrage before Trump created it? Just out of curiosity, can you see it as a populist tactic?
That assumes anyone other than the left spends significant time itemizing the inconsistencies of Trump. Such are obvious. It might surprise you to know those offended by the football protests were offended prior to and without regard to Trump's comments. He's background noise on this issue, although I realize demonizing the anti-protestors as Trump zombies makes them easier to attack.
Like I said, I don't expect you to wrap your mind around it.
We've moved from patriotic to nationalistic pretty quickly. Next post maybe we can be fascists.
Trump created nothing. He chimed in to a pervasive preexisting sentiment. Trump doesn't lead. He identifies sentiment and brashly repeats it. If aligning yourself with your constituency is a tactic, then I guess it is.
Keep in mind that the kneelers consider themselves patriotic as well. They believe they are fighting for American values.
I got a bit carried away. :-#
Quoting Hanover
He was reported as saying how "It's Really Caught On."
Quoting Hanover
Indeed. He's the Divider-In-Chief.
Perhaps we should build a monument out of nothing, consisting entirely of nothing, to honour this great achievement of his.
But of course, it isn't true. At the very least, he has created controversy. He thrives on it. You basically have the male version of Katie Hopkins as your president.
What has the world come to?
Yes, let's frame it as an "inconsistency" because then it sounds harmless and normal, not like your president calling you "sons of bitches" for legitimately protesting while sucking up to Nazis. But I know, you can't talk straight about him because he's on your side. Boring.
Fun, fun.
Him attempting that presumes it's a tactic. He seems to be too impulsive to let this be the result of political planning. I suspect he really is disturbed about whatever is going on in the NFL. I have no clue. Maybe someone can explain it.
I think he is disturbed to some degree. But he's a populist through and through and this strategy has been fairly consistent and successful for him since he got involved in politics. It's also very easy. Appeal to patriotism, religion, nationalism, fear etc. He could probably just continue to do that and get the right and the whites in the rust belt to reelect him again while losing the popular vote again. In fact, that's probably his basic plan. I expect the theme to continue to repeat. The detail of the administration's policies I don't think matter to him. It's all about optics: Look at me, look at me, look at me...
A populist peoples the pits with putzes. A democrat pushes the pits on peoples.
I prize alliteration over metaphorical accuracy. Sue me.
Gene that 'switches on' ability to speak found by scientists (Richard Alleyne; via Telegraph; Nov 2009)
Design and Construction of a Brain-Like Computer: A New Class of Frequency-Fractal Computing Using Wireless Communication in a Supramolecular Organic, Inorganic System (Ghosh, Aswani, Singh, Sahu, Fujita, Bandyopadhyay; via MDPI; Jan 2014) - there's something odd about this, maybe it's just me, maybe I just have to do a close read
The Universe Began With a Big Melt, Not a Big Bang (Thanu Padmanabhan; via Nautilus; Oct 2017)
Imagine the language used by the athletes to describe Trump. This only proves that they're both on about the same level with respect to being couth. Lebron James called Trump a "bum" recently, for example.
What's couth is relative to context. Used to be that the office of President called for higher standards of dignity than the office of random football player. I guess those days are gone. Another triumph for Trump.
You missed the kick of by a few days.
And what is that picture about?
Sorry, I was dreaming of living on my own island where I am king of nothing.
The picture is a painting by David Hockney called A Bigger Splash. I like it because it reminds of the time where I used to live in North Hollywood in peace and tranquility and would like to live back there again. I like the peaceful isolation you can find in the North Hollywood canyons along with the modernist houses in that area. You have an awesome view on L.A. from there and it's almost an idyllic and carefree life if you can afford to live there.
Trump does piss me off, but I'll try not to piss over him, like those Russian prostitues. Ah, wait...
But character still matters.
I would have said that but Russian prostitutes.
The comedy gods have intervened.
O:) :D
Has anyone heard of pregnenolone? It basically cancels out the negative effects of THC on cognition and psychoactivity. I don't feel dumbed down or stupefied by the THC when combined with a prior dosage of pregnenolone, but it leaves the elevation of dopamine levels intact so that I can focus on some task.
No issues with abuse or pleasure seeking from drugs like Ritalin and Adderall.
Buy 'em, smoke 'em, snort 'em, eat 'em
Drugs, drugs, drugs
When you're down, pop a pill
When you're up, drink a spill
Drugs, drugs, drugs
Drugs, drugs, drugs
Let's get better, let's get ill
Let's get more 'til we've had our fill
Drugs, drugs, drugs,
Buy 'em, smoke 'em, snort 'em, eat 'em
Drugs, drugs, drugs
:-|
Depends how many zeroes on the cheque, my man.
$000,000.00
Deal!!!
Been there done that. Not going back. And to think that's this is all for the sake of college. Talk about insanity.
I was watching a documentary the other day about the widespread prescribing of opiate pain killers in the US and the ensuing addiction problems leading to heroin abuse. Your doctors and your pharmaceutical companies are murdering you.
The splendors of capitalism. If companies could they'd put heroin in soft drinks along with cocaine and methamphetamine. Oh the margins!
Agreed. But I have a feeling we will soon be accused of making them the victim of leftist tactics and the actual victims will be again obscured.
No arguments with that.
Mhmm.
Donald Duck > Donald Trump.
I'm not sure, is that intended is a reference to those of us who use, including PmcP and me, prescription drugs to treat psychological issues? I can tell you from personal experience, they can make a big difference in our lives.
No, it's not meant to refer to every situation. And I agree they can.
Interesting news from Pharma Bro.
It will be interesting when and if something suitably awful befalls him. The fact that he sent out a tweet to say he's doing fine and he's playing kiss kiss with his fellow criminals isn't exactly making my novelty circuits explode.
Do you think anything of this sort will happen?
Actually he wrote a letter to a pen pal of his who published it. He asked them to buy him Roman philosophy, presumably the Stoics.
No, but I expect he will try to keep the spotlight on himself because he appears to be a classic narcissist (rather like Trump in this respect). I'm just not apt to believe almost anything he says about himself. People like him tend to view the world as being made up of two types, people like him and suckers/chumps i.e. everyone else, and I get the impression he enjoys constantly reminding himself of this.
Well, philosophers tend to view the world as being made of the hoi polloi and themselves too. So that's not that unheard of either.
Quoting Baden
This may be true, but I think it's a very superficial analysis of his and Trump's psychology.
Well, I'm not sure what more you expect from Shout box chat but I will try to up my game, sir, scout's honour. :)
No. Although I have no objection to the decision. @Michael deleted it. Feel free to PM him about it. I'm sure he'll be able to give you an explanation.
No, I mean that narcissism is a strategy, not a psychological category. That's why it's a superficial analysis.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a recognized psychological condition, which is what I was referring to.
It's not the topic but the specific approach that matters, but if you want to debate whether it was scientific or not, you can open a feedback discussion and we'll post the OP there. @Michael's judgement was that it wasn't and it didn't seem to be to me either.
(By the way, I'm not saying you should open a feedback discussion just that if you are unhappy about the decision, it's an option).
Yes, just because it is "recognized" doesn't mean that it's a right recognition. Narcissism isn't a psychological condition, it's just an (unconscious) strategy, which is actually not that different from me and you.
No, but if it's presented as science, it should be scientific not purely speculative. But I'm not going to debate it any further in the Shout box. All I want to say is we are not trying to shut you or new ideas down. We simply have to delineate what does and doesn't fit in a particular discipline. For more details, please address @Michael.
Would you say the same of psychopathy?
What counts as a psychological condition?
Last time I did. Then again the book was "How to make $251 with zero effort". Worth every penny.
The Robert Lockhart approach? No, I wouldn't advise that approach.
What book costs that much?
A second-hand out of print one D:
[hide="Reveal"]
No.
Quoting Michael
The detachment (and intensification) of desire from the natural object and its reattachment to the model/rival counts as psychopathology.
Yep, that's what real books cost. Like this one.
I've been curious to get my hands on that one for awhile actually, it's apparently a good business book, but very rare. And too expensive to buy. You have to be a bit crazy to pay more than $20 for a book.
[i]Now half price![/I]
(See, I'm a pro).
Will reading that help me grow my business by 50,000%? >:)
(Terms and conditions apply).
>:O
Quoting Agustino
But seriously, that book is quite legendary apparently.
It did to mine.
Any ideas?
Congratulate him on having such good sense.
Popcorn?
Here's an idiots guide to the methodology of science. Take a look around; measure shit, kick it, measure again. Explain.
And here's the methodology of pseudoscience. Don't bother looking, don't bother measuring, don't bother kicking and re-measuring. Instead explain why previous explanations don't work because [insert large pile of words].
The pile of words in question can also, in the last resort be designated 'philosophy' where 'philosophy' means a pile of words that obliges the world to behave according to doctrine.
About once in a hundred years or two, someone actually comes up with a better explanation than all the thousands of lookers, kickers and measurers have thought of. Usually they are shit hot mathematicians with odd names like Einstein, or Newton, or something, and they very rarely post their findings on philosophy forums, because people like us are too stupid to understand them. Accordingly, it is quite safe to say that anyone seeking to transform the understanding of basic science on a philosophy forum rather than a science forum is a complete bullshitting tosser who ought to be banned forthwith.
Have you read Feyerabend's Against Method?
Today's science is yesterday's pseudoscience ;)
50,000% of 0 = ?
Do you have a awesome job because of your education or because you became apolitical? :)
Wadaya wanna fight about?
Does there have to be a reason?
Quantum mechanics makes the Principle of Sufficient Reason redundant.
Not around here!
But, yeah, I'm tired of pissing contests. Can we just resolve the issue by force?
What about childish insults, though? Maybe we can start an "I know you are, but what am I?" Fight Club?
Here's a start, we've all been made into pacifist pussies by social conditioning?
How's that?
Wait, that's a childish insult? Sounds more like an intriguing proposition. "Pacifist", though, I take issue there. I'm a pacifist myself; what; you too much of a pussy to be pac-y?
I think it's an inherent trait of mankind to want war. Anyone else would call me a Nazi due to their beliefs as a result of social conditioning.
As we speak I'm talking with a friend about whether eugenics is a moral evil. I don't think so, and that's just the natural thing to do as a rational being to ensure the best possible life for your child. Whether we like it or not, it's going to be a reality. It's just that the Nazis made the concept repugnant.
God, we can't go a few posts in the shoutbox without actual philosophical debate. I was 100% still on the sarcasm train there. >:O
Quoting Posty McPostface
"Best possible" in what way?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Not much of a philosophical argument, though.
Quoting Posty McPostface
How exactly did they go about making it repugnant?
Least amount of chance to have the typical genetic predisposition towards all the biological and psychiatric issues due to genetics? Along with having a higher than average IQ.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yeah, philosophy and reality are two different things nowadays.
Quoting Noble Dust
By projecting their concerns of an inferior race occupying their territory at the time, and with that building so much hate and resentment that they got away within the same population to eliminating them ad hoc.
So what makes those things "best possible"? Best against what? What measures best/worst? What gives best/worst their context?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Ah, point taken; yes, I'm with you.
Quoting Posty McPostface
So that was morally ok/not ok? (just in context of your initial comment)
It’s late for me, I’m tired, and am bordering on seeing Fight Club again. So, do you recommend fists, knives, guns, bazookas, tanks, or hydrogen bombs? Some I'm pretty sure will outweigh advantage over others in terms of force. And, must there be rules? Oh, and if we US citizens don't have the cash for any of the just mentioned, can we get the US government to entrust us with borrowing them, given the second amendment?
I think a reduction in suffering and an increase in happiness could be a reasonable thing? As in, reducing the chances of a being having an illness or disease and increasing their chances at being successful, by increasing their IQ.
Quoting Noble Dust
Obviously, genocide against an ethnic group is a moral evil, I find it odd you asking me that?
Well, we've reached a point where fighting has become a road to complete and utter annihilation for most nuclear-capable nations. Fists have turned into knives and knives have turned into guns and guns have turned into hydrogen bombs. So, I don't know how humanity is going to release the pressure valve without resorting to complete annihilation.
Can you substantiate that through use of the PSR? Or are we to rely on quantum reasoning?
Yeah, but there's only so far you can go without eliminating both parties in a nuclear exchange.
Quoting javra
There are some things that go beyond the power of reason alone, such as predispositions and traits of people in general. You can't model that in a computer it's emergent phenomena.
How would eugenics achieve that? Specifics?
Quoting Posty McPostface
When did increased IQ equal happiness? >:O Take a look around the forum...
Quoting Posty McPostface
I was trying to point out that the Nazis made it morally repugnant because it was morally repugnant by nature; I guess I did a bad job of making that argument.
Haven't seen Dr. Strange Love in a while either. Touche.
... let me know when you get the Fight Club goin', though. I'm sorta interested.
Quoting Noble Dust
Take a look at this highly acclaimed and influential book.
Quoting Noble Dust
Somehow they convinced a nation to do so, though. Oh, the paradox!
Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!
Heard of it; I'm an artist, not a philosopher; I only read things that get me excited. I'm already falling asleep...
Quoting Posty McPostface
So, is this an argument, now? I'd like to hear your argument for anti-Nazi eugenics.
No arguments, just facts. If they managed to convince a highly educated nation (albeit poor) on the basis of hate, prejudice, malice, and resentment, doesn't that speak about human nature at its core, no matter how educated one can be?
You would think more Jews would move out of the country and surrounding countries at the time. Sadly, they put too much faith in humanity at the time or didn't have anywhere to go to.
Can’t get anywhere these days without taking that first step. Walking is good. (As to the Fuhrer thing, there's a NIN song about that: something about getting what one deserves after bowing down to the one one serves ... Head like a Hole, I think. But we all serve something or other.)
Right, a modernist worldview was prevalent at the time; the idea was that some sort of utopia was somehow palpably on the horizon; and what exactly lead to that misconception?
I don't really know. I guess national socialism is a really appealing concept if you're down in the dumps. I can't say I can put my foot in their shoes. Half of what the NSDAP said was just to appeal to the general public. As far as I remember, everyone got a car after the NSDAP got in power along with a people's radio to listen to what the Fuhrer had to say.
One thing stands out though, and it's this:
How did the NSDAP turn around Deutschland from utter poverty and destitute from the conclusion of WWI to near world domination, in the span of 10-15 years? It's really something that ought to get explored more in detail and speaks volumes about the power of belief and the will.
Me neither, but that's why I read posts from folks like , read the history that I have time for, and reserve judgement as best as I can when I make posts here.
Wille zur Macht?
You may be surprised to learn that this has been quite thoroughly explored by historians.
[hide="Reveal"]
[hide="Reveal"](joking lol!)[/hide]
So come back tomorrow. Feyerabend has some observations and a theory, which makes him non-pseudo, but his theory is not at all that it is worth reading and discussing crank-erry and bullshit. That we are not as smart and sensible as we think we are does not make an argument for being as idiotic as we can be.
No, but it does make an argument for scientific anarchy and allowing crankery even if you don't approve of it or engage in it. Novel and correct scientific discoveries may, sometimes unwittingly, emerge from crankery.
What, in order to be trendy?
Send me a book to read to educate myself. Thanks, boss.
Germany economy didn't only recover very rapidly after World War I to the point that Germany almost took over the whole world, but also after World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
The same can be said about China. China was nothing when Mao took over and immediately afterwards. Now they are almost undisputed boss in Asia.
Some countries have always been powerful, and seem to have a tendency towards being powerful.
Our Eastern European countries - including your country - :’( - seem to have a tendency towards being poor regardless of how lucky they get.
So you're suggesting a racial or nationalist tendency, right?
What do you mean?
Do you have no conception of what I mean?
Not really. I'm not suggesting some racial tendency because China and Germany for example both display this trait, and they are formed of different races (for the most part).
It can be a national trait, but it's very strange to say it is a national trait - what else is the nation if not the sum of the people who live there? The mystery is why some nations tend towards being rich and powerful, while others persist in poverty...
Yeah, reminds me of Hegel and his theory of development and stable government. Poland has had a long history of poor governance and the elite being eliminated by other powers or suppressed (think Katy? and what Stalin did to Poland when they had the Warsaw uprising and leaving the resistance to die out of lack of ammunition and support just so that he didn't have to deal with them to incorporate them into one of his satellite countries).
However, I do think there's more to Germans and Japan and China than meets the eye, meaning that I think there's a very strong ethos towards work and contributing to society and paying your fair share. But, then there are some exemptions to the rule.
One common example I ask my libertarian friend is why are Scandinavian countries so well developed if they embrace socialism to a larger extent than the US?
Too many factors to give a reasonable explanation as to why some countries just are better off than others.
In essence, some countries (speaking about the population) just don't care about positivism or growth or being technologically advanced, and that's fine by me. It would be a boring world if every country valued the same things. From my personal experience, I loved the people who valued other things than what I mentioned. Drinking vodka and enjoying the companionship of good friends around a bonfire was what made me happy back when I lived in Poland for around seven years.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Quoting Posty McPostface
There are plenty of facts which suggest that the German nation did not need much convincing that the Jews were inferior and a problem which needed to be dealt with. That was a widespread belief in Germany long before the Nazis came along.
If you're interested, I would recommend the book [i]Hitler's Willing Executioners[/I].
Yes, whatever you do should for the most part make you happy. He's happy and you're happy, and for that, I couldn't be happier.
Whatever happened to ignoranace is bliss?
I forgot it.
@Baden: come on, this has got to be as good as @Sapientia's piranha snack joke?
Oh yes, the great and virtuous communists who gave their life in opposition to everything evil... :s
National Socialism was still a form of socialism. The only major ideological difference was that the communist socialism was international (by virtue of being class based), while national socialism was, well, national, by virtue of being nation-based, which made it more likely to be racist, xenophobic, etc. But both forms of socialism were just as willing to resort to violent means to achieve their ends.
Yeah, all the Eastern European states have had such a history pretty much, apart from maybe Hungary which was an Empire at one point :P (well part of an empire at least).
Quoting Posty McPostface
I'm not sure. I think there is a certain spirit that animates their nation, and those who get in power are possessed by that same spirit, which drives them to beat their brains to find solutions.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes indeed. But, unfortunately, those who do not care about growth, technology, etc. end up the slaves of those who do. They may laugh together, but that doesn't mean they aren't in chains - which is the unfortunate bit. If you do not care about power and technology, power and technology will care about you.
You are ill-informed. True, there was plenty of socialist anti-capitalism in National Socialism--I don't follow the many socialists who like to deny the link completely--but the ideological differences run much deeper than you imply. Where left-wing socialism believed in democracy, the Enlightenment, a classless society, social progress, and egalitarianism, the Nazis most definitely did not. They were radical reactionaries, not progressives. Note also that they were rabidly anti-Marxist, even the most socialist among them.
Nope. No-one beats Sappy's snappy chappies. 8-)
You say that I am ill-informed. So... what about this?
Quoting Agustino
The so-called "many" ideological differences can be reduced to one - the locus of national socialism being the nation (and hence the particular) instead of the class (and hence the universal). That's what makes one racist and the other anti-racist, and so on so forth. All other differences emerge from this one.
And even this difference can be eradicated once it is shown that it is artificial - communism and national socialism are warring twins, and they are identified precisely by their commonality in being willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims. That is why in practice national socialism and communism have both illustrated that they will lead only to murder. Theirs is a society founded upon the death of the undesirable - whether these undesirables are a particular social class - the capitalists - or they are a particular race. Both mythologise the expulsion of the victims as either happening peacefully or being necessary. Of course, they each think they are completely different from the other and will do anything to exterminate the other - and in precisely doing this, they show that they are in truth the same.
It is their brotherhood in violence that makes them identical because violence blurs out all other differences.
You must be a proud Papa! I am catching flack for everything that is happening in the world around us especially but not limited to the Climate change and every animal affected by it.
I in turn show him pictures of my BIG hair in the 80's and told him about the Aqua Net that we used in small bathrooms with our friends, which worked great until someone lit a lighter, to soften the black eyeliner sticks we had back then, to line our inner lids with, passing Pink Eye around better than a Bears Quarterback against Green Bay and we LIVED!!!
ApathyKills used to say that some of the best Philosophical debates happen in the shoutbox. 8-)
Obviously a snide comment about the absence of philosophical content in the rest of the forum.
My understanding (might be mistaken) was that Hitler took over the tiny National Socialist Party in... 1922, +/-. There were some socialist elements in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" -- abbreviated to Nazi. But Hitler was a fascist (similar to, but not quite the same as his buddies in Italy). Some historians has observed that fascism is better defined by its methods than by its content. Fascism is entirely undemocratic, and based on strong-man rule. It is about blood brotherhood, soil, solidarity, and all that stuff. There is no room in fascism for worker's self-organization or self-representation.
Stalin's rule in the USSR was indistinguishable from Hitler's rule in a number of ways, but none the less, the USSR was not a fascist regime. There is more than one way of being bad.
Maybe it's all getting stuck in your big hair? Less hair, less flack?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
This happens every year. It's been happening for a long time. Woolworths used to have santa trinkets out with ghoul trinkets, back in the '50s. Modern Merchandizing has overcome the liturgical seasons. We are probably lucky they don't have Easter Peeps out yet. Just remember... Everything is for sale.
Yes.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The underlying feature of all this (undemocratic, strong-man, blood brotherhood, soil, etc.) is founded on the locus of the nation (hence the particular - the particular leader, the particular race, the particular soil, etc.) combined with the faith in violence as a means to resolve the ills of society.
Communism is founded on the locus of the class (hence the universal - world revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, racial inclusivity, elimination of borders, universal property, reliance on a universal dialectic as opposed to individual leaders etc. etc.) combined with the faith in violence as a means to resolve the ills of society.
Both ideologies are virtually identical - both scapegoat the ills of society unto some victim - one on the international Jew and the other on the Capitalist - and both build mythologies which justify the use of violence. In the case of Communism, the use of violence is masked behind dialectical materialism and economic determinism which by necessity as it were lead to the natural disappearance of the capitalists when workers take control of the means of production. This is nothing but a masking of violence.
Both try to re-instate social order through victimage - through the expulsion of either a certain class of people, or certain races and nations, who are seen as responsible for worldly suffering.
Both are quasi-religious - indeed they are at their roots religious movements, despite claiming not to be. They are the return of the old sacrificial religions.
And both hate each other, as only two brothers can hate each other, striving as much as possible to differentiate themselves from the other, but by that very struggle succeeding to become more and more the same.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, there seems to be more than one way, but in the end it's the same way - the way of violence. The mask is irrelevant.
I once tried to make a joke about Sapientia but it got deleted :’(
And a brilliant observation at that. I have always felt that the shoutbox is the engine of any forum. 8-)
How is your princess?
More hair on his back >:O It's about to sound like I should quack, but spare you I will, for it is work that I have to get back (Y)
Hard work is called hard for a reason, right?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Everything? :-O
Yes, yes, we're all happy.
That joke was so not funny. You are like a bunch of old men sitting on a park bench giggling at a pigeon.
It's a circle-jerk, what can one expect?
Let me really kill the joke... What goes around comes around.
It's karma! I meant karma!
;) (Y) (Y) (Y)
What about dark? Is that funny? Like if I asked at how many feet under water does duct tape retain its resiliency to the words "save me" as her mind drifts off to a time before she ever knew me?
I think that's good humor, really witty, but some question it, thinking it's amateurish psychopathy. H8rs I hipply say. H8rs
I think you may be an amateur psychopath if you think that is psychopathic. There are those that appeal to ad nauseam by making poop jokes, or grotesque jokes, or sexually explicit jokes. I myself prefer intelligent political and social humour. Each to their own.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some studies to finish for an essay due yesterday.
Who's there?
Poll tax.
Oh, look! A pigeon! >:O
:D Now that's funny.
So not funny. You are like an old couple sitting on a park bench giggling at a bunch of old men sitting on a park bench giggling at a pigeon.
Tips for successful courtship 1: Look at what @Hanover does and then do the exact opposite.
Don't say I never did anything for you. (Y)
:D Now [I]that's[/I] funny. (But not as funny as the pigeon).
Zing. Right on cue. :D (Y)
Trump walked into a bar. "I invented bars, you know. Mine are the best." he said, before getting his bribe from Putin and leaving.
Better?
This is a transparent dominance play to show off in front of TL and take me out of the game, so forgive me for telling you to take your advice and shove it.
But I agree it's pretty good advice.
No, that was when I PMed her comparative pics of us and replaced your face with Hanover's. (Probably the most immoral thing anyone has ever done with Photoshop.)
That actually made me laugh out loud. Don't take that as a barometer though.
This is pretty good. Notice his commentary on the usage of "decimated" Bittercrack, hmm? Hmm?
My take from all this is that @jamalrob and @Hanover are lesbian lovers and I am a rather treacherous individual. So, lunch or dinner?
I would prefer a big thick beef steak, medium rare.
Thank you.
Will you trade a steak done your way for some help bundling tree clippings and branches? I will even throw in two cold ones to boot. Game?
? The discussion should still be there afaik.
Alexander Todorov (Princeton University)
Big Think
9m:20s
Typical human tendency to jump to conclusions. (Maybe even like "self-fulfilling prophecies" in some cases.) :)
Love to help but I have a full day on my agenda.
1 Trim dog's hair
2 Finish welding shed door
3 Finish cutting grass only 300 m2
4 Get into trouble on the forum
5 get some rest
Dang. Oh well it was worth trying 8-)
It was very fluid and it changed.
My apologies to Jamalrob for this post. Typically Baden is the object of such attacks, but Timeline changed the script a bit, so I went with it.
Is that a euphemism?
Yes, for jamalrob's inner thighs, you goddamn cannibal.
No, it was a suggestion. I was hungry and someone started talking about fish.
But just where is your mind going?
Hunger does not recognize the difference.
Quoting Hanover
He is busy right now, if your problem is urgent you could always look in the yellow pages.
I see, so you're saying a hungry person wants only to end his craving for food and would not quibble over hot dogs or tacos, but would simply grab what is nearest?
If so, don't invite me to dinner if you're real hungry.
To be clear, when I say "taco," I mean vagina, and when I say "hot dog,'" I mean penis. By "hungry," I mean horny. And by "grab what is nearest," I mean you don't care whether you penetrate a man or a woman
Oh no, I am a person of high breeding. When I say I would like a steak, that is what I want. Nothing else will do.
Quoting Hanover
I would probably not invite you even if I was not hungry. Just look at what you come out with.
Quoting Hanover
Down boy. There's a good doggy. That sounds a lot like the little terrier I have. Humps any god damned thing.
Did no one ever teach you the difference between eating and sex? Do you by any chance try to shag your food bowl?
Don't blame me for this sharp turn of events. @Baden is a violent and malicious dog-kicker, so it is only fair that your attention would turn to @Jamalrob, who moisturises his face. Daily.
Apart from the fact that jamalrob owns the site and could destroy all of us with a touch of a button, I'm confident I won that round. (By the way, I think it's time for a sacrifice on Mount jamalrob. How about a big thick Hanover steak? I'll sharpen the knives. You tie him down (before he mounts jamalrob).)
His silken cheeks are like a cherub's sent from heaven, in sharp contrast to the ruddy leather of Baden's jowls that have set firmly into a permanent fuck you sneer.
Sex is what you do on the dinner table and eating is what you do in the bed, right?
There are some advantages to his leather jowls, like his face becoming the latest muse that inspired the 2017 Braun Büffel designer handbag collection.
Listen, you man-purse, this fear of the Man (aka Jamalrob) is far too feminine for my taste; either plot to overthrow him in a glorious coup d'état, or zip it.
[hide="Reveal"]
I so appreciate a person (man or woman) who can tell me what exactly they want to eat because I cook with love and I hate to see that go unappreciated.
Since we had to do the work ourselves, we have two aged, marinated NY strips just waiting for the hot cooking tonight. One of our last nights of celebration before my Mother In law returns and all chances of love go out the window.
Cheers!
Say hi from me
Oie! Time for you to go out on that date!
Right, someone give me the wheel. Time to turn around and go home.
You replace yours with Lemons and I will replace ours with Limes and we can meet in the middle for some of the best Margaritas you have ever had. 8-)
What brand are the cigarettes?
Sterling. Though you can't give someone half of 17.
It isn't physically impossible, but it isn't something that is done. You technically can divide a cigarette in half with a knife, but "technically correct" doesn't always trump "practically wrong".
I've done it.
Well, you're fucking weird then.
Pall Mall.
Lol, I really have to quit...
?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102005/?ref_=nv_sr_6
the moon!
I didn't just guess, Sterling actually have 17 cigarettes in their 20 pacts.
Me either. There's 1/18 of the cigarettes left and Pall Mall are 118 years old. (Ok, ok. Going to bed. I'll get it tomorrow).
17
cigarettes
half
oldest son
third
middle son
ninth
youngest son.
brand
nope. no idea.
It's a reference to a maths problem where a Sheikh leaves 17 camels to his sons in those ratios.
Why not?
What good is half a camel? Presumably they aren't for eating...
Oof, I presumed they were. No good? Or you're a vegetarian?
They're too fancy for eating, only shitty one's are eaten, not good ones. Who'd eat a fancy one? https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-942b646a916932e275df80811c50d373-c
I'm a meatitarian - if you're not veggie, you eat any and all meat. There's no moral argument other than "don't eat meat", or "eat all the meats".
Okay?
Yes? Okay? No? What?
Just in general?
oh nvm
See above. ;)
And above. ;) (whoops, feel free to DLT)
Wise man adds an 18th camel. Eldest son gets 18/2 = 9, middle son gets 18/3 = 6, youngest son gets 18/9 = 2.
Between them they have 17 camels. Wise man takes his camel back.
Yes, it was just funnier to screw with the maths. Which son does he take the camel back from though?
He doesn't take it back from any of them. He takes the one that's left over.
Sure, sorry, never post while walking with phone and simultaneously holding another conversation.
China is awakening...
YES!
Donkey, lettuce, and tomato? My second favourite sandwich filling, after CLT.
Cinnamon, liquorice, and tofu?
Camelsauce is the answer.
How do you divide 3 apples among 8 people? Make applesauce.
Same thing, just with camels.
Did you know that in American/normal English "maths" isn't a word? It's just "math." No s.
Cats, lesbians, and Tiff.
It's an unwieldy sammich to be sure, with all sorts of wiggling and such between the bread, but oh so satisfying when the lunch bell rings.
Quoting Hanover
No. I was of course simply referring to chicken, lettuce, and tocodynamometer.
Speaking of lesbians, episode 2 of Life is Strange: Before the Storm is out today. Gotta love those coming-of-age love story games.
Haven't played any video games at all in quite some time. Been work, work, work, sleep, sleep, sleep, eat, drink, philosophy forum, repeat.
I've only really been playing the episodic story games recently. Life is Strange, the Wolf Among Us, Tales from the Borderlands, the Walking Dead...
Although also Rick and Morty: Pocket Mortys. That's hilarious.
And yes, before you ask, true wisdom does indeed lie in doing petty and cruel things. (I know, right? Who would've thought?)
How do you divide your mice up among your owlets, oh wise one? (I almost wrote "omlettes". Maybe later).
This is the first I've heard of it. Will definitely have to check that out.
Micesauce.
Mobile game, FYI.
Ingenious.
Quoting Michael
Fish, yam, and ichthyoallyeinotoxism?
Fuck you, idiot.
Feeling your insult. :(
Cukes Hanover, Cukes. How many years is it going to take you to remember such a simple tla? 8-)
Don't Lick That!
Now:
10 months ago:
Where do you go for that again?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Add .png at the end of the image link when you try to link it on TPF, otherwise it won't work.
Hmmm, i don't consider myself that far left. Edit: actually it's not that far.
Boo, yay, in that order.
Agustino a leftie! (It still inspires in me a mixture of surprise and amusement that you're apparently a leftie).
>:O - what you didn't know that? I was even more left 10 months ago! >:O
We're more or less on the same page there. (God, it feels weird saying that to you when I'm not being sarcastic).
You're not that far left lol - you're about as far as I was before ;) . But you're very libertarian lol.
>:O
Don't tell me what to do and I'm good!
Now:
Apparently, I've become [i]even more[/I] of a leftie liberal, but not by much.
These results don't reflect how authoritarian my views are, economically.
Save it for the locker room, Donald.
Can't watch it all now, just the first few minutes, gotta go to work, but will when I get home!
I don't see any reason to disallow that stuff unless it's flaming, abusive, etc. Don't be so sensitive.
Yes, how dare he be sensitive? :s
Big floppy donkey dick.
Well, let's at least not encourage it?
Did I tell you that my 7 month old Rottie is about to go into season and I want to breed her but not before she is 2 years old? Yeah I do and she is a sweetie, Yay! I also have two male dogs, one 2.5 yr old male Rottie and a 2.5 yr old Swiss Mountain/Rottie mix, both still in tact and do not mark, Yay!!
She is bringing her marking 6 year old beast of Black Mouth Cur who is also an intact male that marks everywhere including on MY hammock. Ummm >:o Not Yay
I can feel the Momma Bear coming out in me and I really would just rather not.
Are you willing to take her?
Either bitch would work. :-x
It's probably safer to let @Hanover loose here than on the goats on the side of whatever mountain he lives on. If it really bothers you though, just steer clear of the Shout box and the Last Word discussions.
Here.
Fixed leathery bulldog snarl, remember? @jamalrob's the one with the pretty mouth. (You may wish to leave the room a this point @Posty McPostface).
Sure, but nothing serious ok?
I offer that prefatory question really to get to the heart of my main question, which is, if my birthday fell on February 29, would I be a quarter the age I am now, considering my birthday would only occur on leap years?
It depends what year you were born. If it happened to be a leap year, then yes, you would be a quarter the age, but otherwise, you would not have been born at all. Swings and roundabouts.
Umm sure! What exactly is something serious? Like her moving in with you is too serious? Her cruising the US in her motor home, following you wherever you go because she can go too.
Didn't he shake her tree to get to her Peaches?
Some portions of the cover were censored to avoid frightening the horses.
So much fun for only 50¢. Ah, the good old days. I suppose Harvey read this as fact?
That's what @Agustino keeps saying although any psychoanalyst could tell he secretly covets it all. It's his dark rival, the King chimp of the troop he must first overthrow before making his lover. I see a career in showbiz ahead.
They hear, but do not understand.
...curiously, Muddy did a cover version forty years before AC/DC released it.
Upsidasium (Rocky & Bullwinkle)
Hushaboom – mumble, mumble, mumble, and a pinch of salt (R&B)
Kryptonite – all colors (Superman)
Ice 9 (Cat’s Cradle?)
Dialithium (Star Trek)
Iocane (Princess Bride)
Flubber (The Absentminded Professor)
There are actually people out there who believe this...
It's a conversation about a book presenting the opinions in the book. They are not reading the book as if it's the news.
Yes they are. They are presenting it as truth. Listen closely to it.
This is not a news section. It's explained right below the video.
"In a new book, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts asses President Donald Trump's behavior. Do his impulses explain his decisions? The book's editor Dr. Brandy Lee and Tony Schwartz, co-author of Trump's "The Art of the Deal," join Lawrence O'Donnell."
Is it truth? I haven't watched it.
Has anyone ever claimed that MSNBC is unbiased? Even though I'm liberal, I like Fox News better. I'd rather watch the bad guys being boneheads than the good guys.
Yes, I'm not saying it isn't either. Who knows how messed up Trump is? He's at the very least a narcissist.
I admit to watching only the first minute or so. Can't stomach American newsotainment.
You don't know that then...
I'm not Noble Dust, but I have one - don't make it >:)
[hide="MORE SECRETS - YOU ARE TEMPTED TO CLICK HERE"]Sorry it was too tempting LOL!! :D But just joking lol :P >:O [/hide]
Oh dear... >:O
Wrong.
Quoting Noble Dust
Pepsi nose.
Sorry, but you'll never beat that.
[hide="Reveal"]
They put Harvey Weinstein on their logo? Someone's going to get fired...
Don't I?
My word is law.
You want to be a lawyer? Hanover's apprentice? >:O
I must be just like Hitler then. I'ma have to grow the stash, to cement it.
Sure, he can be my senpai. Everyone needs a senpai I hear.
Young people are on the right without even thinking, too. And then young people are on both sides with thinking.
Everyone is suggestible and susceptible to bias. That's just a fact about human psychology.
Hmmm I remember a thread at the old sand box, I might have even been the one who hosted it with a poll and the question was do you think that intellectuals are narcissistic in nature? And we came close to a unanimous conclusion that intellectuals are often narcissistic in nature among the intellectuals that were voting.
So I ask you, are you the pot or the kettle?
This is why I walk in your linguistic shadow 8-)
Rarely, because it's not cool to be on the right. I was ostracised at University for being on the right for example (I'm talking cultural matters now, not economics). Not severely, but some people did not want to associate with me, so there was clearly something going on there. Nobody actively vilified me or anything of that sort, but some people kept a distance, especially those who were politically active leftists. Or I remember that people would remove me from Facebook, even though I never commented on their stuff. I never removed people from Facebook, even though I used to have some super leftists there, worse than anything that exists on this forum >:O . Nowadays I pretty much stopped using FB so have no idea how things are around there.
Step 1: post something witty in the shoutbox
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
I think you might sometimes read into things more deeply then necessary. When people use facebook and instagram with the intention of forming an image that presents themselves as "popular" then their only intention is to please an audience as part of their show. They are unconscious entertainers that desire an applaud or sympathy from an audience, and while each of them pretend to originality are nevertheless all doing the same thing over and over again in just different ways. It is pure madness.
However, there is a utility in these social networking places; I stopped using them several years ago too until I started my own small farmer's market business selling jams and cakes where I posted my recipes and that boosted my business sales at the time. I also get a chance to visit photography pages, news about astronomy, gardening tips etc. I don't actually care about what goes on in my page and instagram is just painful and probably the most narcissistic place of all of them, but I decided to use it as storage for my photos and hikes. It is how you use it and that determines the type of person that you are.
It is not about the people you have on your page. If those people who have unfriended care about their image, they are probably not good friends and so you should be happy that FB enabled you to access that knowledge.
Talking about human psychology, what makes a person watch Buffy and enjoy it?
Basically, my Facebook is full of all sorts of people that aren't even my friends. I have many friends there lol. I had to have them since I used to hold many public positions in school and university (student council, year representative, that kinda stuff). I have some good friends too on FB, but I keep up with them on Whatsapp usually - sooo... FB is kinda useless for me at the moment.
Good taste.
I am more interested in the psychology behind it. I have hardly anyone on my FB page and it is always very interesting to me seeing people get confused about that, like I am supposed to have hundreds of friends. Same thing happens when people see my phone, a dodgy old microsoft that is broken and that I only use for texting or emergency calls. I am supposed to have the latest iPhone technology. They don't understand utility, but rather it is has become a fabric of their identity and emotions.
That's not necessarily true, that would depend where you are located. I wouldn't meet any of you most likely because we live in different countries (and I'm not big on travelling either). But the same would be true on Facebook for that matter. There's nothing in principle that precludes meeting people you first get to know on forums. On an old forum I used as a teenager, two of the people who met there even ended up getting married >:O .
Quoting TimeLine
I could just as much meet people that I get to know on a forum as on FB - in that regard the two aren't different. You live in Australia so easier to meet people either on FB or on a forum for you than it is for me. There's a lot of Aussies here for example. You could easily meet SLX, John, andrewk, wayfarer and so on in real life.
With people on FB, most of them are those you went to uni with and while indeed I have a small percentage of people on mine who are overseas, most are local people I know. But, again, it is likeminded people I am interested in meeting and not people.
It doesn't follow Tiff that because most of us voted that intellectuals are often narcissists that I am a narcissist.
To a degree that's true of course. What can happen with videos like this though is that the producers ask a bunch of students and pick the answers from a few to support whatever point they (the producers) wanted to make. I haven't looked at the vids yet (I'm at work) but I doubt left-wing students would support lowering taxes for the wealthy. If they do, they're not left-wing students despite what they may think about themselves.
FB has a utility?? :s :)
Worked for me!
Solar flares, mm, didn't get much of that on my FB before I dumped it. And not getting much in the way of flabulous lips on instagram either. Then again, I've only about three friends on there including you.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
I more or less agree with the above (don't like the term homemakers) but with the caveat that it is my understanding that as a dad my first duty is to my family as well. But you and I both know that if I say "strongly agree" to the above, I'm going to be labelled a social conservative by the program, which I'm most certainly not.
That said, I'm a lot like Gandhi apparently.
In saying that, another reason I think I am supportive of FB is because it was a great tool to connect with the young girls I mentored. One gorgeous girl from Africa was deathly quiet and had no confidence at all and I convinced her to create an account to connect with me when not in the office. I set up a page for her after we wrote a small book together about her childhood (to get her to learn to articulate herself in a new country) and I tutored her until she finally got into her choice studies. She is little miss Queenie now, cannot shut up at all and I love it!
I'd like to see him banned for the troll he is, but in the meantime he's on my ignore list too.
Watched the first twenty seconds. Apparently someone who Trump doesn't like has bad ratings. I presume the rest continued at the same kindergarten level.
Oh, was it the Pants on Fire claim that CNN’s ratings are "way down."?
Or was he just saying that they're not as good as some other channel? Because, yeah, that's a pretty pathetic insult, and certainly doesn't amount to "destroying" CNN. Typical ridiculous hyperbole.
The second then he insists he has the biggest lolly ever made ever and refuses to share it with anyone until they write only nice things about him.
8-) :D
You mean they'll only get a second scoop of ice cream if they're nice.
I can only hope for Agu's sake that he is trolling us with these vids and doesn't worship the overgrown Oompah Loompah as much as he makes out.
The military grade binoculars are on the way. (Y)
:D I'll stop now, don't want to take the chill out of TL's chiliagonaversary.
Whereas I [i]exceed[/I] Gandhi.
It's supposed to start at 6:30, but isn't for some reason... I tried...
'Twas an old meme, which apparently came from South Park; didn't realize that.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit
You make pissing contests seem like a sport.
Then you'll wonder how did Trump get reelected in 2020? :s You'll be sitting there, next to your charts and polls and statistics, scratching your heads...
You 3 remind me of these guys:
Probably all true.
I won't need to wonder. Lots of people are crazy and vote for terrible people.
But I do wonder if you even understand how polls work.
Thanks, I could hardly ask for a better demonstration of my earlier point in response to Posty.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Quoting Baden
In other discussions, you say Trump is a clear example of the corrupt liberal society you constantly rail against yet you (not-so-secretly) worship him (in a quasi-religious manner).
Yeah, I keep a picture of him above my bed :-}
Quoting Baden
Yes, in some respects, sure. But that doesn't mean to be blind to everything else, and refuse to listen to stuff, covering my ears and starting to shout like you...
Haha, I was being a little facetious. Serves you right for spamming us with Trumpaganda. ;)
I won't. He'll be reelected because he represents the worst of the insanity of the human race, and that is in the ascendant.
Pray, do tell. I want to hear more of this.
Maybe I could just cut to the chase and send my Mother in law directly to your house? O:)
Cool, I'll PM you the details.
That's funny that you mention that. A couple months back Google was acting funny with the search results it was giving me. Then a couple of days later it went back to normal. I blame self learning algorithms and too much information trying to be processed at once.
I've heard a little about how stuff is becoming more and more catered to you specifically, but how developed is this stuff? I feel like it is pretty damn impressive, and it also makes you think about how they're basically reading your content, analyzing it, and then finding more and better ways to echo it back at you.
Well, everyone has a cache nowadays built through a laborious process of facebook likes, e-mail's, and such. I don't think there's anything to worry about unless Trump gets's really pissed off and tells the NSA to have a dossier on every internet user. Personally, I couldn't give two shits.
I don't know that it's all that sophisticated. I watched a few Jordan Peterson videos and then everything was Jordan Peterson videos. I've had my fill of the guy now.
Sure, who am I to interefere in the turd polishing polympics...
It continues to shock the shit out of me pretty routinely. Grand conspiracy? Likely...
I just checked. The Peterson index is down to 50% and the second vid is titled "The End of Trump". I guess they've been reading my posts here. :P
You can see what they're indexing, where do you see that?
Mod edit: [insert politically correct version of very bad word here.]
You don't have that option? Shit, they have you by the nuts, dude. Ha, no, it was just my colourful way of explaining only half of the vids were Peterson. :)
There's also some good stuff going on at the mo; for example, the discovery of the forging of cosmic gold after the collision of two neutron stars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b098bt42
Uh, you referring to Trump or Agu? The latter flame isn't going to pass my admin censor button.
Quoting Baden
Perhaps edit it to the politically correct term "Pussy".
Oh, lol.
Proving yet again why we need you back. :)
That's a good question because it's 50-50 odds
Ok, well the possibility that you were censored is 1/1. Let's keep things if not civil at least not grossly inflammatory.
Ok, I'm not going do a love-thy-neighbor speech. We've had enough biblical references for one day.
No, Ghandi dreamt of boasting about his travels and being sassy on the internet.
Lol, the V chip... CIA mind control... the lizard aliens from the forth dimension watching freely, but invisible to us. One of them.
Using telepathy? The CIA, or his lizard people connections? That's the question.
They can attempt to mind control me if they like, but I bite.
Hear that, guys? We have his permission. It worked.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, but we'll fix that in a jiffy.
I'm full of energy. I might explode.
Too much information. I hope you clean the keyboard afterwards.
Don't make it weird.
I'm restless, I need to join a club or something, or the gym or something, get people's attention. I don't like arrogant people, and I like to be the opposite of the things I don't like, so I pretend like I don't think that I'm better than most people, because most people think that they are, but really aren't, they're lying to themselves, and have accomplished no measurable, or indisputable virtues that set them well above the average, they're always vague, or deniable things, and then they just disrespect most people for not having the magnifying glass discernment they figure is necessary to see their excellence.
I though, am well developed, in readily apparent ways under many measures. I don't have a good family, or career though. The bank guy actually laughed when he saw were I worked at a department store, and asked me directly if I worked there, when I went to cash the first check. He is just a bank teller, he doesn't make more money, and I make a little more than minimum wage, so probably more than him, but still not very prestigious, I know that he only acted that way because he wanted to see something to feel superior to me about, because manifestly he knew that he wasn't.
Yeah... need to join a club or something, maybe join the gym tomorrow. I saw their personal trainer guys on the website, none of them look in better shape than me.
That guy from 13 mins. Right into the ground.
The angel of darkness was there. Or I was too drunk.
>:) >:O
Like, a gay club?
Quoting Wosret
Yes. You're the ideal Prince.
I'm gay for women, not that I'm talking about finding someone to hook up with, that is super easy to do, I could just go to the bar tonight. I was only even ever with that other girl because she said everything that it took, and didn't mean any of it.
The idea of Utena is more or less the idea of coming into adulthood being a destructive process of disillusionment. When you leave your comfortable fantasies of yourself as a hero, prince, princess, and enter the adult world where you know precisely how people actually treat each other, particularly under competitive, and stressful situations.
The ideal prince is a fantasy that needs to be abandoned, and left behind in the shattered world of children. Adults stare straight into the eyes of Abraxas, and try not to flinch.
My arrogance feels more justified for as long as I can abstain from questionable activities, and promise myself future good ones. It will just all come crashing down if I don't follow through, and delay for too long.
Oh. I thought you were straight for men.
I don't know, generally it's good to be psychologically ready before doing something. At least for me. So I often take a long time before doing something new. For example, I'm planning to switch my work from an individual person to a company (start an agency), but it's been taking me 2 months already and relatively little progress, partly because I don't feel psychologically ready and am "scared" by the unknown. Lots of planning, designing, preparations, etc. I should ideally start employing other people and grow. If you don't grow in the business world, you wither away. But alas, it takes time. One day it shall happen. At least I've successfully expanded to some foreign clients so far, though some of the work is a lot more challenging. Learning marketing has been very helpful.
Meh, I don't think too much about career advancement. I'm currently working planning to get the hours I need for unemployment so that I can get school paid for and learn some trade or something. I much prefer doing hands on stuff anyway, but really don't have a lot of concern for it at all, I haven't looked into, or planned for it more than vaguely like that.
I don't care about having more money, because there genuinely isn't anything that money can get that I can't currently already get that I care to have. I like prestige, and people's respect, but really, as Dostoevsky said only unimpressive people worship success of any kind, and since that isn't a kind of success that gains very much if any of my respect, it isn't a source of it that I can respect very strongly.
If you want, you could also consider learning by yourself a trade or skill - you can get the books from a local library probably or read the basics online. Then slowly use your savings to acquire tools, materials, etc. and learn. If I'm not mistaken, that's how John started into landscape designing, and he's been very successful in it too from what I've spoken with him.
Quoting Wosret
Well yeah, I don't care about having more money for what it can buy me - I don't buy anything anyway, I'm a miser that way. Haven't bought new clothes for example in a very long time.
But I do care for money with regards to providing for family (for example my very old grandfather is sick atm), and also with regards to doing stuff in the world. In this world, you cannot do anything if you don't have money. You can't start a political party, you can't start a school, can't spread philosophy - can't do anything. Money - capital is the driving force for generating any sort of impact in the world. Even the communists wanted to get to communism through capitalism... Engels himself was a prolific investor in the stock market.
I could conceivably be making what I make in two weeks a day doing that, I used to make what I make in two weeks in two-three days before. I was the one doing all the work already before, only thing I didn't do was estimates, and getting people to agree to give me their money for it.
If I had more ambition, I could do that. Though, approaching winter now anyway, and although it can still be done in the winter, people don't want it done as often, and it does suck a lot more doing it.
You have to wait until it gets hot to take off all your cloths, so just some for now.
Oh yeah, I know those independent professions can earn a lot for one person and even a family. But consider that if you did that for awhile, you could save up quite a bit and then perhaps not work for quite some time, study philosophy, do some charitable activity you like, etc.
Quoting Wosret
It does take a certain degree of ambition, but it's also a character-building experience in many ways. There are lots of difficulties along the way to overcome, and practical problems to solve.
Quoting Wosret
Why not? I think if we're around here, we might as well try to do something.
Da fuck is wrong with you people?
I want to establish meaningful relationships, and make an impact in their individual lives, it's people's manifest failure to do that that makes them turn their attention to the world in general.
I can't do it with my family, it's too hard, but most people aren't as bad, and there are some rare high quality ones out there, I just have to find some, or at least one, but I won't until I actually try. I don't have big ambitions, just mundane fantasies.
Okay, I see. In my experience, meaningful relationships also exist in some social context, which quite frequently is an economic context, unless you're quite wealthy already (in which case you will be able to keep your relationships independently of work. The few people I know who are wealthy seem to spend most of their time partying though :s - so that's what I think their relationships revolve around, which seems quite meaningless). I mean we all spend most of our time working - in the economy - so most meaningful relationships, even family will revolve around that. The problem is that it's hard to form meaningful relationships in that context.
Quoting Wosret
Personally, I have long given up the hope of changing individual people. I just let them be however they are, the only time I do anything is if they express a desire to change themselves. But if they don't, then it's pointless. I hate pointless talk - many people talk like "X Y Z said so and so about me, it makes me so angry. Why did they say it?!" "My sister said so and so - how dare she?" etc. etc. and I really think it's all so irrelevant. Words make so little difference. If someone swears at me, good for them. It's not like them having insulted me, laughed at me, etc. makes me any richer or poorer in either material or non-material terms. It's so pointless to even be trifled with it, as if someone could harm you or benefit you by what they say :s
What does that mean you're more of a gnostic?
There are different levels of awareness, but they are in some important senses inherited, and not always something that can be learned. Freedom is based in knowledge, which comes through the senses, but not everyone is made to, or can see all things. People differ in their natures, and some are below average, some average, and some above average by no fault of their own, of no character flaw, but just by nature limited in their growth.
Okay I see - so what's the import of all this?
There is nothing of importance or interest in anything either of you are going on about.
The Philosophy Forum
[I]It's all pointless[/I]
People differ in their natures, so they cannot be substantially genuinely changed on individual or mass scales, though perhaps they could all be mislead. What is required for gnosticism though is not that they just believe you, but actually know, in which case at best you point, but never persuade, or change anyone, you're doing it wrong if that happens.
The import is that you kept going on about making an impact in the world and I both wanted to say that I'm unconcerned with that, and don't believe that it can be ethically accomplished to any substantial degree anyway.
See, Akio in Utena, he's the one that claims that he can grant you the power to free yourself, but can't, and won't, just granting the illusion of freedom in order to control everyone that falls pray to him. The only person that can save you is you.
Then we should all quit it, but I don't think that's the case.
One can't build a shelter out of gay innuendos either.
In your endo.
Lol, it took me a second to get that.
Oh, I think I understand more clearly what you mean now. Well I've tried changing people for a long time and it's frustrating and impossible, so I gave it up :P . I used to believe that anyone can be influenced to get them to be different, but that's false. It just doesn't happen. People go on believing and acting as they do. Nowadays, I just tend to not associate myself with people I don't like.
There are actually some hidden persuasion tactics that have shown some efficacy. When I was selling old furniture, for example, a couple came to buy some stuff. And I wanted to sell them more than just what they initially came for, as all good salesmen do. I didn't say anything until they asked if I have anything else for sale. Then I said that there is a wardrobe, but it's old and nasty, and they don't really wanna have it, since it has mold on the back and it would be quite expensive for them too. So then they suddenly became very curious about it - let's have a look - and I showed it to them, and they quickly decided they can sort it out and agreed to pay me 75% of the purchase price for a new one. That was my best sale that time, most of the stuff went much cheaper.
The key with people is just to use their own ego against them. If I say that X is not for you, suddenly you wanna find out more about it. If I pack up my briefcase and walk away from a deal, suddenly you start doubting yourself. On the other hand, if I insist on making the sale, I give you confidence that you're making the right choice by not buying. It's always the one who walks away first who wins, the one who says no first.
Quoting Wosret
I think it can be accomplished, but I don't think any such success is everlasting, it will be, sooner or later, overturned. History is cyclical. But anyway, I think each of us has a duty to do our best. Each generation.
Quoting Wosret
I don't know Utena.
Quoting Wosret
I would disagree that you can save you. I think that's attributing more power to the self than actually exists in it.
It was a half-joke. I'd rather read about history, politics, or science, but that's just me.
It's actually:
The Philosophy Forum
- this may all be pointless
Sad...
Admiral and MOM (L)
You should try that with Trump. Next election, knock on doors and tell people "Trump's not for you, please don't vote for him." (Y)
Who's this bloody Admiral??
Your boss - at least he would be if you ever met him >:O
Bollocks!
?
It's true, it works:
Boring vid, nothing to do with my comment. Anyway, I made the stupid bed. Now what?
"I noticed, with some sense of amusement, that Saddam did not make his bed. The covers were always crumpled at the foot of his cot and he rarely seemed inclined to straighten them."
I notice with some sense of amusement that this is amusing, probably for the wrong reasons.
What's the next task you need to be doing? My next task will be to go to gym soon and be productive there, not just sit around. How's your editing business going?
You wanted me to watch 8 minutes of crap just for that? Thank goodness I didn't fall for it and only watched about 15 seconds. :)
>:O
Quoting Baden
Well yeah, I didn't link you to the last 15 seconds for you to watch the whole video, you know... ;)
What are you going to produce at the gym? Curious...
Muscles :D (and willpower)
Ok, I thought maybe a hard on. Then again I've been listening to too much Hanover lately. :(
No, because unfortunately, that is the opposite of being productive in building muscle and willpower :P
Probably. Ok, so, make bed. Don't get hard on at gym. Two important lessons learned today.
Oh my, so totally~ Swoons to a man in uniform (L)
LoloLolOlOlollllOl Baden!
I had hope that OCD ways would have had you totally understanding the point of making your bed. Now it's time to brush n stuff.
Lmao! You are my daily dose of Bloom County.
Lol, glad to oblige M'am. *Tips hat*
But, I don't wanna change the world, but I do want a made bed... life is full of little dilemmas.
And I would bet one of this lot would have been you if you were 'murican and weren't still living with your mum somewhere in Essex
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pud_ql9xJAg&t=230s[/youtube]
What's wrong with Joe Rogan? He is far from a rocket scientist, but he ain't too bad.
What do you mean? It was already known that Democrats continued to pay Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump after the initial Republican who funded it for the primaries stopped (after Trump won). That it was the DNC and Clinton's campaign doesn't somehow mean that Steele's intelligence was false.
Although I wonder if this also falls foul of the law against foreign assistance. If so, that just means the Clinton campaign ought also be investigated, not that Trump's campaign is cleared of any wrongdoing.
Edit: Or are you referring to the Uranium One stuff?
start with in our time mate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl
Seems kind of lightweight, nor topical. Can you name like an individual you like, just so I get a sense, doesn't really matter, I just wanted to get a better sense of your attunements.
I wonder if you will be able to disturb @Wosret's inner peace. But, even more than that, I wonder why you would like to.
Ha got the tumbleweed alert in TPF. ;)
"Clinton and Russia. Wow, who would have guessed the inversion of that narrative?"
Me me me! It is human nature to accuse others of the misdeeds you are struggling with.
Don't know. I saw one news headline. Most of the news is about the few Republicans who are brave enough eviscerating Trump. I don't think Russia will amount to all that much for either side. It may destroy Manafort and Flynn but not Trump or Clinton.
I have no inner peace you can disturb. I will just bite your nose off.
I can agree with that. Explains Trump's constant "Fake News!" complaints. He seems incapable of telling the truth.
He's an expert at some things...
Don't be so mean, and judgmental. Not everything exists to entertain or serve us in some way, he's still a person. He also has all kinds of people on his radio show, and although I am not like a frequent fan or whatever, my attention has been drawn to him a few times.
I have nothing mean to say about the guys you mentioned, though I don't know much about the new host of the daily show, haven't watched that, and wonder why you didn't mention Jon Oliver, he's pretty good too.
You sound like one of the good ones.
No, he and Corker are talking about a thing called "dignity of office" which Trump, and apparently you too, don't understand.
So what?
Lol. No one's going to fall for that. Is dignity of office of any importance in your opinion or not?
So you support the criticisms of Trump's lack of dignity of office then?
Or take another standard, one your side unironically flirts with all the time. When "he's not literally Hitler" is the criterion of success, then my god, Trump is the greatest president who ever lived.
First of all I don't live in Essex, and in fact I've never lived in Essex :s - so I have little clue what you're on about.
Quoting JJJJS
I will watch that when you learn to link a video >:O
But we're not arguing about policy and Flake's problem wasn't policy either. So why call him a flake for what is legitimate criticism by your own standards?
That's precisely the problem!
No, because you've just admitted character is important in a President and that Trump's character is poor. From that it follows that criticism of his character is legitimate.
Also, what he says is obvious to all but a few die-hard Trump supporters. "Look, Trump isn't very dignified!" Yes, and water is wet. Now about those policies....
Success regardless of field has little to do with theoretical knowledge. By the way - warning - if you don't like hearing swear words, don't watch the video >:O
Apparently to Pete it's a must to accept at least trying anti-depressants and pills (he seems to be little aware of the addiction effects and how hard it is to get rid of them), that it's a must to have a job :s , that it's a must to have friends, and that it's a must to be dating >:O >:O in order to overcome depression.
I never knew that not being depressed is equivalent to living the exact life described by the modern Western standards of the masses :s
Trump doesn't know anything about policy. You're kidding yourself if you think he does.
Yeah, just like that British entrepreneur, knows nothing about business, accounting, etc., but built a £22 million company. Knowledge isn't necessary for success.
These talking heads think everyone is like them. Do what makes me happy and then you'll be happy.
*Shrug* Sure, no knowledge. Trump's a carnival barker. His schtick works well in the US.
quand l'argent ça va, ça vient. Et quand ça vient, ça va.
It doesn't take knowledge to be a politician or manager it seems. I think the idea that these fields involve some sort of "scientific knowledge" that only a select few have is BS. It's nothing but a way for a bunch of "experts" to keep these fields closed, just for themselves and others like them who speak their lingo so to say.
This is a good point, though I'm not exactly sure it applies with regards to all the points he made (for example I doubt he took antidepressants himself).
The point I'm making is that he (and others) seem to be under the illusion that he has special knowledge, but actually, it's just what current Western culture tells you anyway :s - I dislike this type of conservatism which justifies the present way of doing things at all costs :s
1. Do you have a job?
2. Do you have friends?
3. Do you have a romantic relationship?
Seems a fabrication that is made precisely in the image of Western society as it finds itself today. I mean if a friend came to me depressed for example, I wouldn't even bother asking them if they had a job unless they said they struggle to get something to eat, or they don't have money to take care of a child or the like :s - but otherwise, why the big deal? Similarly, if someone stays and plays video games and smokes pot whole day, and they ask for advice, then I might tell them to get a job, just so they can get away from pot and video games, and more into the "real" world, and just stop being lazy. But, say, if someone spent their whole day studying science or religion or philosophy - well then, I'd ask them if they have what to eat, and if they do, why not keep going? >:O
With regards to friends and romantic relationships, I knew this girl who had 1000s of friends and was always dating someone, and yet she was one of the most miserable and depressed people I've ever met, even tried to commit suicide :s - so I think that quite the contrary, these things have very little, if at all, to do with happiness and mental well being. Quite the contrary to what Pete says, pursuing them is often the problem, not the solution. There are some things that you only get when you get, can't be pursued.
Personally, I think it's just a matter of accepting being uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable a lot of times - I could get depressed and throw a tantrum about it, but I don't. Just bear it. Once you accept it and don't make a big deal about it, you become capable of handling the uncomfortable moments of life much more easily. Sometimes you feel like crap - no big deal. But you have to learn to accept that feeling and not despair to escape it. Despair is just that - seeking to escape your condition. If you no longer seek to escape, and you just accept, then there is no despair. There may be suffering, sure, but there can't be any despair without the will to be other than you presently are. The Stoics were right in this regard - to will what already is.
This strikes me as a defense mechanism of the extremely passive, which essentially leads to acceptance of circumstances regardless of how objectively oppressive or unfair they are. I'm not suggesting that one ought to feel resentment or self-pity over one's situation, but I see no heroism in silent suffering, even if you've become so adept at it that you can actually not feel suffering where others would. The point being that there is greater happiness in reducing your misery than in simply accepting it and convincing yourself that the bed of nails you've resigned yourself really doesn't cause you pain. That the bed of feathers is elusive hardly means happiness is found in just accepting the nails as your lot in life.
I just see the suppression of passion as a resignation from life, which is far worse than dealing with the wounds suffered while living.
I am not saying that reading books or being a philosopher is necessary, I am saying having common sense and applying rational thought is and there is no specific appearance in which this must be applied. If I am a highly moral and virtuous woman, does that mean wearing a bikini makes me otherwise? There is no specific way in which a person is required to apply themselves, but logical thought and being sensible is cognitive and essential in assisting us with the decisions that we make, in how to manoeuvre our will in the right direction. An education or reading philosophy is not imperative, but it is advantageous as it assists with articulating pre-existing thoughts or opinions based on this cognitive aptitude that one could not express because they did not have the language. They can then use consciousness advantageously to transcend societal and environmental influences and formulate their own destiny.
It is not about theoretical knowledge. A woman who has escaped terrible circumstances and went on to educate herself and all the while remaining kind and compassionate is just as much a feat as someone who can build a multi-million dollar company. Success is relative. An education can empower people to escape the cycle of dependence, but it is not absolute.
No, I don't advocate being extremely passive, just that most things aren't going to bring about the results you're looking for anyways. You have to pick your battles carefully. So, by all means, do your best - I'm a very active person myself, go to gym, love exercising, working on growing my business (albeit I've been very slow as of late) and so on so forth. But my success is largely not in my hands, despite the fact that I'm trying to do my best.
So someone like me is very active with regards to those things which interest me. I doubt you'd find someone who is as laser-focused as I am with regards to the few things that interest me, and as willing to be disciplined on the road to them.
Quoting Hanover
Resignation is good. One has to resign the world in order to gain it. Didn't you hear about my bits on negotiation earlier? The one who is willing to give up what he wants is generally the one who wins. You cannot win without resigning. So, by all means, my philosophy isn't about "accepting defeat" and keeping our face in the mud. It's about managing circumstances in the best way for the long run. I hate passion because it's a strategy for losers - or "medium" success. Doesn't interest me.
That depends why you are wearing a bikini, in what circumstance you are wearing a bikini, and so on so forth, I can't judge all situations :s
Quoting TimeLine
Yes and no. Too much thought can paralyze action, and some people can achieve results intuitively (not that I am one of them).
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, of course.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes and no - in some cases it can, in others it can't.
There are plenty of uncontrollable variables, sure, but the idea that people just sort of wake up one morning and happen to find great success isn't true. If you earned your success (i.e. didn't just have it handed to you, and we can define "success" however you want, not just financially), then you probably worked really hard for it.Quoting Agustino
Well, considering I negotiate for a living, I find this advice useless.
Yeah - AND I was really lucky. Work only takes you so far - which is not that far.
And this BS that if you are - for now - financially rich you worked for it is nonsense. I personally know - because I've worked for them - a few businessmen who are the farthest thing from "working for it", but they are rich.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, you're a lawyer, not a businessman. Obviously what you call "negotiation" is nothing like what an entrepreneur considers negotiation.
Im on a tram now so apologies in advance for any grammar related errors, but there is no "depends" here, that is the point. It is that we cannot create an image of what is virtuous and moral, a person should not be placed into a category, otherwise we feed the opportunity for applied Thrasymachian behaviour. I have met many people who lack moral values but pretend that they do by appearing kind and modest. It is what you think, how you feel, and how this applies to decisions like not being sexually promiscuous or choosing to dedicate yourself to charity. How you appear on the outside is irrelevant.
Quoting Agustino
Again, this boils down to cognitive capacity, the determined aspect. Some have this naturally -like athletes have the physical power- while others need to learn. I had a poor education growing up but I have an IQ of 143. That may be determined just as my environment was, but experience is a type of education too and the mind is a tool to access our capacity to exercise free will. Our duty should only be to strengthen reason and objectivity so that, as mentioned, we can transcend our socially determined position and provoke the will in the right direction.
Luck plays a role, but if tomorrow we redistributed the wealth equally, the same folks would end up with it in the end. I'd also question what you mean by "work," and agree the busy bee on the assembly line won't get rich, but the idea that an entrepreneur works a few hours a day is nonsense. Quoting Agustino
It's exactly like it.
Hallelujah, brother! X-)
Your young, you don't know what wisdom or virtue looks like, I maybe even attempt the far more difficult, and convoluted slight of hand with beauty as well. We are victims of cruel fate, and a malign system all.
I'm afraid I'm much older than you, but Amen anyway!
My condolences.
your wisdom is only equaled by your kindness.
I need to claim my place among the upper echelons. You can come if you want, just let me do the talking.
Them's fighting words. Paging @Buxtebuddha.
My own thoughts are that you're being silly. For your typical person, i.e. his audience, that is good advice, which is backed up by plenty of studies I'm sure. Most people, though not all, overcome depression by a combination of medication, work, and cultivating relationships. Exercise is good for it too. I don't see what you would propose other than some absurd equivalent to "just pull on your own hair to stop drowning."
More importantly, one shouldn't question the advice no matter how absurd it sounds coming from someone successful, and healthy, but rather question all things from the mouths of decaying losers, regardless of how persuasive it sounds.
It's not a matter of learning, it's a matter of sponsoring
We were talking about policy knowledge. If you're a leading politician you should know your stuff. Obviously, right? as you're required to make important policy decisions. But in capitalist democracies where a lot of money is involved, it can become a popularity contest (or unpopularity contest as was the case in the last US election). Then you can end up with poorly thought out policies being implemented by unqualified politicians and policy decisions being sold by corrupt ones.
Ah, so you finally give me philosophical leeway indirectly, through conversation with someone else? >:O
I hope you don't die otherwise this facetious response is going to look very inappropriate.
I think one has to be quite naïve to believe this. Yes, I do expect people who end up getting rich again if we redistribute the wealth to come from the same pool of people - which will be much smaller than the overall population. Those with wealth will (1) want to have wealth, (2) have the discipline required - that at minimum is a requirement for most of those who will be rich. But out of this pool of people - luck will determine who exactly actually ends up with the money.
Quoting Hanover
There are many entrepreneurs who work just a few hours a day, so it's not nonsense at all. Either you don't know about them, or for some reason, you don't want to know about them, maybe because it makes you feel bad. But regardless, yes, most entrepreneurs do work very hard when first starting out their companies. But there are exceptions - those who have the right connections and work with the government, for example, don't work hard at all - money just rains on them. All they work hard at is having dinner with the right people, and talking on the phone.
Quoting Hanover
:s - I'm surprised you say this, but oh well. The fact of the matter is that it's not. Lawyers negotiate within certain fixed frameworks generally - for example when an entrepreneur sells their company you have transaction lawyers on both sides negotiating the nitty gritty of the deal (stock v. asset sale, etc.) to ensure that the buyer isn't exposed to additional liability and the seller gets the best terms possible. That's not the kind of negotiation I'm talking about. An entrepreneur very frequently has no clue about this nitty gritty, and doesn't much care to know it if he can get someone else to take care of it (CPAs, lawyers, etc.)
Entrepreneurs negotiate within larger frameworks, with less fixed conditions than lawyers. And I'm not the only one to say this, I can give you examples of millionaires and billionaires who affirm the same thing (including who say similar things to my advice). Being an entrepreneur also generally takes a completely different mindset than being a lawyer - for example, you'll be hard-pressed finding an entrepreneur who says go to school, get good grades, get a job yada yada the way you do. That, in fact, is typical of a lawyer mindset, that's what lawyers do.
Actually, all of my arguments sound way better.
I am not a psychologist, so I wouldn't recommend anything in particular to them. However, it depends on the particular case of the person. I wouldn't give any general rules in fact. Getting a relationship can make you even more depressed if you're not ready for it. Getting a job if you're really depressed but have enough money to take care of yourself may also be bad - if you can't keep up you'll feel even more depressed, and it will get reinforced since it will look like failure is following you around. The secret is not to fail. Not to act. Act only when you will win. That builds self-esteem and confidence and combats depression.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, but you won't necessarily be happy once you have them. You just think you will - that's how desire works. We know this from psychoanalysis.
Quoting Wosret
>:O If you mean to suggest I'm the "decaying loser", I think you're far off the target with that. I think I've been fairly successful for the past 6-7 years or so, including recovering from OCD, depression and anxiety (including getting off the meds Pete recommends), starting to work as self-employed, reading and learning advanced philosophy, graduating from university with first honours, build a strong body at the gym, started to learn to play piano etc. etc. - so I really have no clue what you're on about with "decaying loser". I think I've done quite well.
Quoting Wosret
And if that someone successful and healthy is Pete... give me a break. >:O Just look at his "healthy" teeth for a second, and you'll think twice. He's just a psychologist/therapist like all others, he only recently gained fame with his anti-PC things in Canada and videos appealing to angsty teenagers on YouTube. He's just found a way to con many thousands and make 70K/month while doing pretty much nothing. The only person who is improving significantly from his videos is him. His wallet is growing, yours isn't. He'll soon be a millionaire if his numbers continue (https://graphtreon.com/creator/jordanbpeterson). Of course with all that wealth for himself and his family he'll do great.
There are many more psychologists and therapists who are a lot more successful than Pete, who actually have serious success stories in their repertoire, including sports teams that they've revived, great sportsmen that they've worked with, big-name business leaders and politicians, and so on so forth. These are the real guys in the field, who are healthy and successful.
For example - this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Peters_(psychiatrist) .
And all this is really besides the point. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean you should listen to them. For example, Wittgenstein was an extremely succesful philosopher - he beat children at the kindergarten. Should you follow in his footsteps? Schopenhauer pushed a woman down the stairs - should you do that too, just cause he was successful? Ghandi slept next to naked young girls - should you do that too, just cause Gandhi was successful?
Success doesn't make something right. You have to think with your own brain. Not questioning advice because it comes from someone successful is the same as being an idiot, who cannot think for himself. A successful person thinks for themselves - they don't need any advice.
So you hope I do die, not but really? If you makes you feel any better, I am definitely dying, just as slowly as possible, physically, and as frequently as possible psychologically.
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, it was a general principle, and desires and needs are not the same. If you think you can be happy (let alone sane...) without strong human relationships, you're mistaken.
I'm not doing bad at all, and I haven't had an intimate relationship (girlfriend) in many years. I don't see how I'm mistaken at all. You are aware that there are people who lived in real isolation - as war prisoners, etc. etc. - for many years and remained sane. That's what real isolation is like - not "oh I don't have friends" or "oh I don't have bf/gf"... real isolation is no kind of social contact whatsoever - no forums, seeing no people, speaking to no people, etc. Not even having contact with an animal! That's what real isolation is, and it can indeed be a problem (though again, there are people who managed even in those conditions - it's not impossible).
That's clearly not true. Being alone is not being known, that's how you know yourself, by being known. Your reflection becomes distorted without a reliable mirror, and when you wish to manipulate your reflection.
I read that as a rap and it was perfect; you just need to complete the last sentence.
Well, I am not alone just because I don't have a girlfriend :s - I work for people, so I'm always in touch with others to earn money. I have a few friends that I keep in touch with and sometimes those who are in the same country with me, I can also meet. I also talk to peeps like you here. So I am "known" in that sense.
Quoting Wosret
Yeah, I would probably agree with you if that "alone" referred to this kind of isolation:
Quoting Agustino
Real isolation is indeed a problem, but that's different from the situations of people like me and you. We're not war prisoners locked up in a dark cell for years on end, not even seeing daylight...
The problem with the popularization of psychology/psychiatry is that real conditions like isolation, loneliness, etc. are given a trivial understanding. What we experience is not real loneliness or isolation.
There'll be an annexation of discretion without some human affection.
You could use improvement, and stronger relationships. I don't remember why, and what we're disagreeing about. I wasn't calling you names.
- muthafuckin Wosret
Well, I certainly could (I think all of us have room for improvement), but at this point in time, it would come in terms of sacrifices in terms of the time I can allocate to my business, to reading, to gym etc. I'm not sure I'd want that to be honest right now... This is what I meant earlier - I wouldn't be happy if I had to live like a "normal" person. There are certain sacrifices you have to make to have these things in greater abundance.
Quoting Wosret
Okay, my bad then, sorry.
>:O Will you make it into a song now? >:)
(line breaks mine)
I made it into a rap for to perform. All I ask for is royalties; I'll PM my BMI info along...
I'm clearly the DJ here...
Well - as they say, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.
Who says that? About what? :-O
Deng Xiaoping.
Who 'dat
About not mattering how you get a result so long as you get it >:O - it was used to argue about implementing capitalistic policies in a communist country.
Yikes. Doesn't sound applicable to me. I detest both.
If you had to choose one which would you?
Neither; anarchism.
No, if you had to choose between just the two.
I would probably pick monarchy (practically) and anarchy (ideally) if I had the choice.
Who says I have to, other than you?
Quoting Agustino
Now that's more interesting; I would pick some form of liberal libertarianism (see Portugal) (practically), and anarchy (ideally). So, we agree philosophically..
:-} me! lol
Quoting Noble Dust
Yeah, that's not super surprising.
Once I gain all of my millions somehow, the check will be in the mail.
Pretty boring..
Oh don't worry, BMI does that. I'll just make sure you register. >:)
That doesn't contradict stoicism, and thus would not count as an argument against it, since stoicism is about that which is not within our power to change. I can't unspill the milk, so why cry about it? Thinking about what is not within our power to change and the effect that excessive or redundant negative emotions have on us can be productive and therapeutic.
BMI is basically the devil.
But one of several.
Body Mass Index? 22...
See above...
Oh yeah >:) - they're basically the guys who pull the strings, I see...
Yup, the motherfuckers who turn God's good creative urge into a motherfucking laundering money-making scheme. All hail capitalism. And also Jesus.
Lol - same. 21.98
Oh, are you on there? I should learn how to play a pop song, I've heard it can be done in a week, and then use my super intelligence to write and super humanly execute the greatest song ever composed and performed.
Pics or it didn't happen. I don't believe you, I'm the type of person you can fool none of the time, even through the internet.
I am. BMI is only slightly more abominable than ASCAP, in the USA at least. So same difference. Join up, and you'll be adding your meaningless copyrights to some nonsensical database in no time!
>:O You can see my weight in pics? Height let's say you can, but weight, not really.
Sounds like fun. I gotta figure out how I'm going to gtfo of where I am first, and dissolve more attachments in order to clear up my time, and spaces in order to work some magic. Need to take some risks.
That sounds like bullshit, which is right up our alley here in the music biz. Just post your email here publicly and I'll send you a 1/2 page legal doc outlining exactly just how we're fucking you in the ass. every angle.
Lol, yeah damn middle men, eh? They don't seem to do a lot other than collect all the money.
My BMI = 4 albums and 2 EPs. Not sure how that compares...?
ROFL, predicted my bullshit >:O
Seems I'm in the wrong biz. If these creative sparks could just turn into dollars... *harp sound suggesting scene change that just leads to nothingness*
It's virtually impossible to monetize creativity. That's one thing Jordan Peterson is right about. Everything's free.
It can be, actually, as in my example. Can you unspill milk?
BMI doesn't actually mean much anyway, as it doesn't take fitness or bone density into the equation at all, not even measurements.
I don't not believe him because that particular figure doesn't seem right. The spirits don't lie.
Haha, I love the way you question him but not me. But yeah, probably his decimal point is in the wrong place, lol.
Oh, don't presume I'm daisy-eyed here. I've been through this debate a thousand times. I agree, except for the fact that many people (although small-proportioned to the general population) do make a living off of creativity.
Up to you, I don't really care if you believe me or not :P
Quoting Baden
That means I'm either a stick with BMI 2. something or a humongous ship with BMI 200 :’(
Cool. I know @TimeLine's by the way but it's a secret.
Yes they do, and this can range from minor incidents, such as spilling milk or stubbing your toe, to major incidents, like being involved in a car crash. People very often stress or despair over the past.
We don't cry over spilled milk because it can be tonight's sacrifice, not because we're all just super stoic about it.
I need some scene changing.
This came up when I google-imaged "scene change"
I saw pics of you, and I did question you.
Yes, we do, metaphorically. That's how the idiom came about. And I don't know what you mean by that. Is that not basically saying, "It doesn't matter, move on", which is more or less the point? There are various ways to rationalise or cope with such situations, but they most commonly consist of just that, which is stoicism in a nutshell, as I understand it.
William Irvine the Stoic author I don't like actually goes over this in quite some depth and in a good way too.
Things within your control (like spilt milk)
Things somewhat/partially within your control (like a tennis match)
Things out of your control (like an asteroid falling on your house, or someone shooting you in the middle of the street)
The only vague category is the middle one. But even there, something is fully in your control - the attitude you have, and how focused you are on trying your best. If you try your best, you maximise your chances of winning, but it's not a guarantee of victory. So your real goal shouldn't be to win, but to do your best, since that is fully within your control.
The Ancient Stoics though were aware that:
Quoting Wosret
That's why they advocated the sharpening of judgement, to be able to differentiate between what is and what isn't in your control (cf. Hadot's Inner Citadel).
My personal ethics is actually quite close to Stoicism.
I was laughing pretty hard from Aug comment, and then came to that, and it just kept it going.
So you're 5'6''?
>:O
My BMI is apparently 19.6. How does this compare to my other BMI number? Versus y'all's other BMI numba?? How many albums and EP's have y'all made, ya'heard??
She told me she was 47 kg like a few days ago...
I was once in a band called "Lacerations". We had some songs about zombies. Ah, that's about as far as it went.
I need more info. Nope, you can't stop there. Pics, vids, etc...
Yeah, I went and looked, seems on the level. I misunderstood it at the time, because I remember not believing you then. I know you're there.
We were crap. And I was even worse.
(Y)
Quoting Agustino
There's more vagueness than you realise, it seems to me. I get why he'd categorise incidents like spilt milk as fully within our control, but that only makes sense with reference to the future. Obviously, there's nothing we can do to stop that from having taken place, unless we have a time machine. But we do of course have (some) power over what we do afterwards.
Bloody lucky we have you here to check stuff like that out.
I need the demo tape. I know people...people who release obscure albums from obscure bands (I wish that was a joke)....
I know, your unending appreciation is nearly enough.
If your subscriber status didn't change, nothing should have changed re attachments. Noble just attached a pic.
Oh, I've got nothing, it was just a high school band. Did a bit in uni too. Just one gig. I got through it without bodily injury which is the main thing.
Re: pics, I've had varying degrees of success. I assume it has to do with the link you're trying to share from.
>:O there's an endless stomach waiting for new music to consume...
Just "nearly". Oh... :(
As in a photo?
Yes, like something from your computer.
Hint, hint. Nudge nudge.
Got it.
Note to @jamalrob: Agustino is costing us money. Let's ban him.
@Agustino, don't read this.
That's one of Wosret's special powers, along with the power to unspill milk, and the power to talk about himself at such length, with such frequency, and with such vigour, that it far surpasses that of mere mortals such as you and I.
Yes, but first you have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if I don't bring more money in than cost you overall ;)
(Y)
(Y) (Y) (Y)
(sorry, for some reason this specific post felt very appropriately Twin Peaks)
...
...
And done.
More of these! (Y) (Y) Just because I don't like to take sides.
Yes, I noticed - one time he said I'm the biggest liar on the forum I think >:O
Make me.
I didn't say you were the biggest liar, I just said that you lie about yourself. We both know that you do.
Cut your grass, unspill your milk, be appropriately obscure and unpredictable.
I can't quite contain, or explain my evil ways, or explain why I'm not sane.
Sane is overrated.
Yo I'm waitin' to make more raps for you bro
:D
You did refer to him as the Titanic, alluding to his weight. So unless there's someone heavier than that, you did say that he's the biggest liar.
??? I was making a statement.
Well, I didn't say both things at the same time, they were separate and distinct clauses.
I know you are but what am I?
Cool; but you called me a creep.
That sucks bro, I gots food at least, though McDonalds doesn't count. I have kale, and some fixin' for a good smoothy.
You have two options: theft or prostitution. Take your pick.
:’( I know that place.
The cut would be deep, if that was a biological attribute.
Ahh, now I see. I don't do well with sarcasm; I deal with the specificity of words, not their dregs.